Copus Grants - How to Apply - FAQ


	Overview
	Terms and Conditions
	Frequently asked questions
	Other sources of funding

Common reasons for applications to be unsuccessful; Comments from the Panel on previous projects

In response to requests from potential applicants, we publish here for information only a list of common reasons for applications to be unsuccessful, together with some comments from the Panel to individual anonymised applications to previous Schemes. The Schemes 2003/4 differ from previous Schemes in their structure and award criteria, and we have tried to select comments that are still relevant to these Schemes.

Please note that for previous Schemes we received more suitable applications than we were able to fund, and we anticipate that the Schemes 2003/4 will be very highly competitive. An application may not be successful even when following this advice.

Common reasons for applications to be unsuccessful

For the Copus Grant Schemes 2001/2, the seven most common reasons for applications being unsuccessful were, in no particular order:

The application did not qualify for one or more of our funding priorities;
Insufficient detail about what the applicant intended to do;
Insufficient information about what the money requested from the Copus Grant Schemes would have been used for;
Insufficient information about who the target audience is, how the project would reach the proposed target audience, or why they would participate in the activity;
The award of a Copus Grant being an insignificant factor in the viability of the project;
The science content being unclear or insufficient;
The project did not have a primary aim of engaging public audiences with science - instead being focused on e.g. professional audiences.

Comments from the Panel on previous projects

We aim to provide short feedback to unsuccessful applicants seeking this information. We are unable to enter into extended correspondence regarding any decision of the Panel.

The following is a collection of the Panel's comments for applications for the Copus Grant Schemes 2002/3, which had different award criteria and funding priorities compared to the Copus Grant Schemes 2003/4. We have tried to select comments that are relevant to the Copus Grant Schemes 2003/4. These comments are provided as a guide only.

The Funding Priorities referred to have been revised for the Copus Grant Schemes 2003/4, when compared with the Copus Grant Schemes 2002/3:

The Under-represented audiences priority has been retitled "Widening Participation" and has been revised to cover projects that seek to widen participation in science in society activity to include audiences traditionally under-represented in such activity.
The Collaboration priority has been expanded to Collaboration and Networking, and specifically requires the partnership or network to aim to increase the impact of activity that meets one or more of the other funding priorites.

Comments about the Aims and Funding Priorities

"A topical and potentially interesting project. The Copus Grant Schemes have four funding priorities, and proposed projects had to match at least one of these priorities to be successful for funding. Collaboration had not been established, and mainly consisted of the provision of speakers. "

"The project as presented met well with the under-represented audiences priority, but only met weakly with the collaboration priority. Collaboration seemed to be restricted to providing venues for the activities."

"The project as presented only met weakly with the collaboration priority. Collaboration seemed to be restricted to there being similar activities available concurrently to the project."

"It was not clear if creating the website database would be a significant benefit to the applicant's research, and if so, if this was a primary aim of the project."

Comments about the target audience

"The project has been in operation for three years, and so the Panel would have liked to have seen some firm evidence for its effectiveness, for example, what effect it has had and information on who attends the project, e.g. is it a small core of repeat visitors to the events, or a varied audience? The application as presented met with the Collaboration priority only. In the main, we did not fund applications that only met with the Collaboration priority."

"The application provided no evidence that the advertising would increase the audience for the project. The evaluation mechanism was weak, and would not provide evidence that the increased audience levels were due to the activities funded by the grant rather than e.g. word-of-mouth."

"This is an interesting idea for a project, but the marketing plan shows that the audience is likely to consist mainly of those already interested in science, and so was considered a lower priority."

"The Copus Grant Schemes have four funding priorities, and proposed projects had to match at least one of these priorities to be successful for funding. The project as presented met weakly with the under-represented audiences and the collaboration priorities. The application does not make a convincing case that the project will successfully attract a new audience to the museum, and the involvement of the organisations listed as being collaborators was unclear."

"This project appears to be partially aimed at school pupils within the formal education system. Copus Grant Schemes are for projects outside the formal education system. The project as presented could meet with the Collaboration priority only, though the level of collaboration with the organisations listed is not specified. In the main, we did not fund projects that only met with the Collaboration priority."

Comments about evaluation

"The development of the evaluation strategy has been postponed, and the Panel would have preferred confirmation of the targets and methods used to assess the successes and failures of the project before committing funding."

"Evaluation was limited to an assessment of the number of times the project would be used, without any evaluation of its effectiveness or necessity. This project met with the Collaboration priority only. As a result, this project was considered a lower priority for funding than projects that met with more than one funding priority."

Comments about the application, costs and practicalities

"The public consultation part of this project is well-formulated and has clear links in to a decision context. The Panel had some concerns whether the project gave value-for-money (£40,000 for 300 people) and what the project officer would spend their time doing - would they spend all their time on the science communication aspects of the project? There were no costs in the budget for the consultation or the dissemination of the consultation."

"This is a topical subject and an interesting project, which involves some work with under-represented audiences. The Panel would have preferred greater detail of how the proposed exhibits would be made interactive, and whether the exhibition design and creation would take account of existing good practice. Copus Grants are for projects outside the formal education system that engage public audiences with science and the Panel would have preferred greater reassurance that the project is not targeted at school pupils in school time."

"An interesting concept on an important topic with: lots of linked activities at a range of venues; the involvement of audience in developing material; good links to major institutions for the science subject concerned; accessible to audiences in a rural area. Uncertain about the role of the website, and quality assurance of the exhibition content."

Copus Grant Schemes are funded by the Office of Science and Technology and The Royal Society.

The Copus Grant Schemes are funded by the Office of Science and Technology and The Royal Society.