Displaying items by tag: ERC
What's required in my application?
The following information will be requested on the submission form:
- Project title
- Category (UG - PG/CPD - EDI)
- Name, job title and institution/organisation of the Primary Investigator (PI)
- Name, job title and institution/organisation of all co-applicants (no more than 5 allowed)
- Specify role of the PI and each applicant in the project including %FTE commitment
- Host organisation (which will administer any award), and Administrative Contact Information (note that this person is not usually a co-applicant)
- Start date and the expected length of the proposed project in months
- Enquiry Goals (Aims, objectives, research questions etc.)
- Research Summary:
- Has this application, or part of this application, has previously been submitted to this or another organisation? If so who? Please indicate why it was unsuccessful.
- Where a previous, related application was made to this scheme, please indicate how this research application differs from the previous application
- Justification for enquiry: (total word count 3,000 words excluding references, with no more than 2 tables or graphs)
- Background and rationale
- What is the problem being addressed and why is it important?
- Detail on design and methodology, including justification of sample size, sample selection (power calculations and exclusion criteria where applicable) and analysis
- Success criteria and barriers to proposed work
- Ethics requirements and procedures
- A Gantt chart indicating a schedule for the completion of work, including the timing of key milestones and deliverables
- Projected outputs and Dissemination
- Expected Outputs of Research/Impact
- Relevant expertise and experience – please provide details of why the group is considered well qualified to do this research.
In addition, a one page CV for each applicant should be provided* highlighting relevant educational expertise and experience, plus relevant concurrent grants and details of up to 10 publications over the last five years (*in addition to the overall total 3,000 word count)
Applicants should read the Awards FAQ page as it may help with queries about their submission
Research management arrangements
- The finance section (200 words maximum in addition to the overall total 3,000 word count) should provide a detailed budget/breakdown of costs associated with undertaking the research as described in the proposal.
- Payments will be made to the contracted organisation only and the contracted organisation will be responsible for passing on any money due to their partner organisation(s).
- Appropriate sub-contracts and/or collaboration agreements must be put in place for any element of the research which is to be paid to another organisation.
- The fund will not support more than one fifth of the total amount of the application for conference attendance.
- Any equipment costs must exclude VAT.
- A representative of the sponsoring body must sign off the application.
- Please suggest three potential peer reviewers who have the relevant expertise to provide appropriate peer review for your application
- These reviewers should be independent (i.e. not have worked with you directly in the recent past) and should have no competing/conflicting interests with your application (such as being from your own institution/university). Your suggestions will be used as only one source of peer reviewers and these individuals may not be approached to undertake a review.
Applications will be assessed against the following criteria:
- Evidence that the project links directly with GMC education priorities
- Clarity as to the aims and objectives of the work
- Coherence between the aims and objectives, and the approach or methods used to measure and/or report outcomes
- Demonstrated outcomes/outputs for medical students, doctors, education and training programmes, including identification of key drivers for success/failure. Potential trajectory to patient benefit will also be considered as an outcome criterion.
- Targets/outcomes, and if reached/achieved
- Evaluation of process as well as outcome(s) (i.e. why it worked as well as "it worked")
- Evidence as to whether or not the work has maintained momentum, or details of how successful candidates would use the prize funding to further extend the project.
ASME particularly welcomes applicants from diverse and under-represented backgrounds.
Please click here to view the assessment form used by the assessors
Congratulations to the 2021 winners:
Winner, UG Category: Cindy Chew, Director of Imaging, Hospital Subdean, University of Glasgow with their submission: Developing an Anti-Discriminatory Curriculum: The Value and Impact of Simulation in Preparing Learners to Recognise, Respond to and be Upstanders when confronted with Harassment and Incivility.
Winner, PG Category: Yarrow Scantling-Birch,
Health Education England (HEE) Leadership & Education Fellow in Ophthalmology, Sussex Eye Hospital, Brighton wiht their submission Anatomical Three-dimensional Orbital ModelS (ATOMS) Study
View award announcement here
Congratulations to the 2020 winners:
Winner, CPD Category: Linda Jones, Senior Lecturer, Centre for Medical Education Dundee with their submission Considerations for practice: effective use of online discussion Boards
Winner Undergraduate category: Zoe Moula, Research Fellow, Medical Education Innovation & Research Centre (MEdIC), Imperial College London, with their submission Deconstructing ‘BAME’: Protecting, embracing, and promoting authenticity in medical students from Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic groups
Winner Undergraduate category: Dominic Proctor, FY1 Doctor, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust with their submission Investigating UK Medical Student Attitudes Towards Working Abroad: A Realist Evaluation
View award announcement here
Congratulations to the 2019 winners:
- Winner UG category: Dr Kathleen (Kay) Leedham-Green, Medical Education Fellow, Imperial College London, Designing for health: Evaluating an interdisciplinary learning project in collaboration with service users .
We are pleased to be able to share with you Kay’s final report on her award winning work. To view it, please click HERE
- Winner PG category: Professor Tim Dornan, Professor of Medical and Interprofessional Education, Queen’s University Belfast (QUB) Patient Advocacy for Prescribing Safety (PAPS). Using implementation science to optimise service user involvement
We are pleased to be able to share with you Tim’s final report on their award winning work. To view it, please click HERE
- Winner of the CPD Category: Dr Daniele Carrieri, Research Fellow, University fo Exeter, ‘Thriving Lessons’: Optimising strategies to promote medical students’ wellbeing.
2018 winners will be posted here soon
Congratulations to the 2017 winners:
- Winner UG category: Dr M Bartlett, Keele University Whole simulated consultations in primary and secondary care; an exploration of their impacts on final year students’ self-efficacy
- Winner PG category: Kenneth Walker, NHS Highland Process evaluation of a “take-home” laparoscopic deliberate practice programme for core surgical trainees
- Winner CPD category: Dr C Morris, Institute for Health Sciences Education, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London Life beyond workshops: building sustainable approaches to faculty development through peer observation of teaching.
Congratulations to the 2016 winners:
- Winner UG category: Susan Law, University of Dundee. To investigate and evaluate a one year immersive community based medical educational programme in rural Scotland
- Winner PG category: Stephanie E Wells, Cardiff University. Roles Reversed: FY1s experiences of the Student Assistantship as Supervisors
- Winner CPD category: Jo Hart & Lucie Byrne-Davis, Manchester Medical School. Developing a coding framework to understand the Behaviour Change Techniques used in CPD
Congratulations to the 2015 winners:
- Winner CPD category: Mandy Moffat, Aberdeen. Educational development in context: Developing a regional community of practice (CoP) in Psychiatry
- Winner PG category: Jeremy Brown, Edge Hill University. An investigation into Specialty Trainee engagement with e-learning in Health Education North West
- Winner UG category: Janet Lefroy, Keele University. Authentic UG placements in GP: a recruiting force for generalists? A realist evaluation of how the UG learning environment influences career choices.
Read all the award guideline and read the FAQs if you have general award questions and click on the Apply Now buttons on this page.
Deadline now passed : 23rd March 2022
If the above criteria are not met, then the submission will be rejected due to the instructions not being adhered to. The Education Research Committee may ask for a more detailed proposal from those short-listed. We particularly welcome applicants from diverse and under-represented backgrounds. Applicants should refer to our FAQ page to answer most questions about ASME award submissions An example marking sheet can be downloaded here Is my application suitable for this award? We welcome your application. Please look carefully at the criteria provided to be sure your applicant team and application meet the stated criteria. Unfortunately, we cannot comment on whether specific applications or application ideas meet the criteria, since this is group decision made by a panel of reviewers, but do let us know if the criteria are unclear.
Applications should be made via the online submission form. Your submission should be no more than 500 words (excluding references) and clearly outline:
Previous recipients of Small Grants:
Helen Church & Dr Stevie Agius, University of Nottingham, Foundation 3 Year Jobs: Evaluating their impact on postgraduate medical training
Gillian Scanlan & Dr Cate Kennedy, The University of Dundee, Striving to be an Excellent Healthcare Professional and an Excellent Parent: Exploring the Stories of UK Doctors and Nurses
Taona Nyamapfene, Dr Joanne Butterworth & Professor Mike Eaton, University of Exeter Medical School, General Practitioners’ Perceptions of Training in Shared Decision-Making: A Qualitative Study
Zahra Jaffry, Alexander Schade, Jim Harrison, Bart's Health, Improving the Management of Open Fractures in Malawi
Michael Page& Dr Elizabeth Carty, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, QMUL, Exploring marginalisation and agency in Specialty Doctors’ experiences of appraisal and professional development – a phenomenological investigation
Hugh Alberti, Newcastle University Louise Younie (QMUL), Sophie Park (UCL), Lindey Pope (Glasgow), Lauren Hall (Newcastle)& Penny Wilson (Newcastle), Students and tutors’ experiences of student-led remote consulting
Eva K Hennel, Sören Huwendiek, University of Bern, Insitute for Medical Education, Department for Assessment and Evaluation (AAE), Supervisors in multisource feedback: what do they need to best support residents?
Robert Bain, Jack Filan, Simone Soars, James Lee & Anna Goulding, Newcastle University, Understanding Barriers to Academic Careers in Undergraduate Medical Education.
Ana Baptista, Imperial College London, What does personal tutoring contribute to professional identity development in undergraduate medical students?
Catherine Farrelly, Natasha Doran, Sarah Bradley, University of Exeter, "What are student perceptions of how frequent-look OSCEs affect student wellbeing compared with infrequent OSCEs?"
James Groves, James Cai, Dr. Amali Lokugamage, Dr. Faye Gishen, Dr. Will Coppola, University College London, "Investigating the effects of an online mindfulness intervention on medical student stress and well-being"
Anna Rosselli, Rakesh Patel, Pamela Hagan, Gillian Doody, University of Nottingham, "Well-being during transition in medical school: a realist inquiry"
Nariell Morrison and C Blackburn, University of Warwick, "Bridging the gap: Understanding the barriers to performance for Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic graduate-entry medical students in the United Kingdom"
Rachel Lee and Mrs Manju Nair, Royal Gwent Hospital, Newport, Wales, "Traditional clinical verses simulation training for basic obstetric ultrasound competency: which is more effective for trainees in obstetrics and gynaecology in Health Education and Improvement Wales (HEIW) - formerly the Wales Deanery?"
Dr Megan Brown, Dr William Laughey, Mr Alex MacLellan, Mr Tim LeBon, Prof Gabrielle Finn, Hull York Medical School, "Can Stoic training develop empathic reserves and increase resilience in medical students? A mixed-methods pilot study."
Toni Robinson, Keele University, "How do medical students' experiences inform their opinions of general practice and its potential as a future career choice? a realist synthesis"
Anne-Marie-Reid, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, "Students as research partners"
Kirsty Alexander, University of Aberdeen, "Fostering effective academic/practitioner knowledge in widening access to medicine"
Alice Moult, Keele University, "Exploring patients' perceptions of communication skills: A qualitative study"
Anna Richmond, Nottingham University Hospitals Trust, UG Medical Education Department, "In what ways do educational interventions develop analytical and non-analytical clinical reasoning ability in medical students"
Jennifer Cleland, University of Aberdeen and NHS Education for Scotland, "Gains and consequences of broad-based training: A qualitative study"
full details on all recipients to follow
Valerie Farnsworth, University of Leeds, Leeds Institute of Medical Education, "Water metaphors to help us rethink how we support student transitions into medicine" Click here for project report
Gerens Curnow, University of Exeter, "Is there a problem in PBL? The International Student Perspective"
Clare Morris, QMUL, 'Not a doctor': physician associates (PA) and professional identity formation
Ruairi Connolly, NUI Galway, Stakeholders' perceptions of a widening access to medical school outreach initiative
Evangeline Stubbing, University of Aberdeen, The intersection of early and developing professional identities in medical students
Rhiannon Hoggins, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Student experiences and staff perceptions of the primary care placement in the Physician Associate programme to a UK medical school
Sebastian Stevens, Plymouth University, The impact of clinical team networks on multi-source feedback assessments for UK General Practitioners: A social network analysis
Shaun Qureshi, University of Edinburgh, Exploring barriers to effective education and supervision of doctors-in-training
J Cleland & D Gimlin, University of Aberdeen - Learning to (Body) Labour: an Analysis of ?Body Work? in the Training of Medical Students
C Leitner, MC McNeill, AJ Allan & K Mattick, University of Exeter & Royal Devon & Exeter Hospital - Medical Aspirations and Planning Parenthood - The Experiences of Future and Foundation Doctors
H Alberti, University of Newcastle - Barriers and facilitators to teaching undergraduate medical students in primary care: The GPs perspective
If the above criteria are not met, then the submission will be rejected due to the instructions not being adhered to. The Education Research Committee may ask for a more detailed proposal from those short-listed.
We particularly welcome applicants from diverse and under-represented backgrounds.
Applicants should refer to our FAQ page to answer most questions about ASME award submissions
An example marking sheet can be downloaded here
Is my application suitable for this award?
We welcome your application. Please look carefully at the criteria provided to be sure your applicant team and application meet the stated criteria. Unfortunately, we cannot comment on whether specific applications or application ideas meet the criteria, since this is group decision made by a panel of reviewers, but do let us know if the criteria are unclear.
Criteria by which the applications will be judged are:
- Novelty of subject matter or approach within the field of medical education research. (2x weighting)
- Contribution to the field of medical education research. (2x weighting)
- A clear statement of rationale with a relevant gap in literature identified.
- Clearly stated research question(s) and/or aims and objectives that are in concordance with the research design.
- Clear rationale for the methodological / theoretical approach taken.
- Findings from results clearly reported and the new knowledge generated by the study clearly stated.
- Relevant discussion and justified conclusions presented with recommendations and / or relevance to practice outlined
- The paper/submission should be unpublished at the time of application as it has to be original
If the above criteria are not met, the submission will be rejected due to the instructions not being adhered to.
Initial submissions will be reviewed by the ASME Education Research Committee (ERC) panel against the criteria for the award. The three highest submissions will be shortlisted.
Shortlisted candidates will be expected to deliver an academic presentation of their work at a specific session during ASME’s Annual Scholarship Meeting, 6th - 8th July 2022, P&J Arena, Aberdeen, UK. Applicants must, therefore, be available on those dates.
ASME particularly welcomes applicants from diverse and under-represented backgrounds.
The three shortlisted presentations will be judged by an ERC panel at the conference based on the presentation criteria. The winner will be announced on the closing day of the conference.
- Shortlisted candidates will need to fund their own attendance at the ASM Aberdeen 2022
Applicants should refer to our FAQ page to answer most questions about ASME award submissions
First prize is £250 and a certificate in recognition of the award, both of which will be given after the ASM to the winning presenter(s). Please note fees for conference attendance are not covered.
The submission should be in typescript font size 12 in Word format and up to 800 words long (excluding references). Submissions should be received by ASME by Wednesday 9th February 2022. All entries must be entered via the online submission process which can be accessed from our website www.asme.org.uk.
Is my application suitable for this award?
We welcome your application. Please look carefully at the criteria provided to be sure your applicant team and application meet the stated criteria. Unfortunately, we cannot comment on whether specific applications or application ideas meet the criteria, since this is group decision made by a panel of reviewers, but do let us know if the criteria are unclear
How to Apply
Deadline now passed
Research Paper Award (RPA) 2022 Finalists:
Daniel Darbyshire, Lancaster University: Retention work and strategies: an ethnomethodolgical lens on how emergency physicians make their career sustainable
Kajal Patel, University of Dundee: Understanding the learning environment for international Medical Graduates in a Tasmanian setting
Muirne Spooner, RCSI: The “vibe you get” and the “nurturing attitude”. Factors influencing how learners respond to feedback.
Research Paper Award (RPA) 2021 Finalists:
Megan Brown, Health Professions Education Unit, Hull York Medical School, University of York, with their submission: How do Longitudinal Integrated Clerkships work, and why should we care? : An international, qualitative analysis of identity performances within Longitudinal Integrated Clerkships.
Matthew Byrne, Nuffield Department of Surgery, University of Oxford, with their submission: Examining Medical Student Volunteering During COVID-19 As A Prosocial Behaviour
George Choa, Bedfordshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, with their submission: Understanding impacts of accreditation on medical teachers and students: A systematic review and meta-ethnography
Research Paper Award (RPA) 2020 Finalists:
Eva K Hennel, University of Bern, Institute for Medical Education with their submission Multisource Feedback for Residents: A Qualitative Study on Influencing Factors and Impact.
Dawn Jackson, University of Birmingham, with their submission Expectations and Experiences: The contribution of supervision to the professional development of postgraduate General Practice Trainees.
Michael Page, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, QMUL, with their submission What does it take to get good feedback? An analysis of the conditions needed for high quality feedback in workplace-based assessment.
Research Paper Award (RPA) 2019 Finalists:
Helen Church, University of Sheffield, with her submission PERFORM: Performance Enhancing Routines for Optimising Readiness using Metacognition For the Management of Acutely Unwell Patients
Hannah Gillespie, Queen's University Belfast, with her submission How can tomorrow's doctors be more caring? A phenomenological investigation
Anel Wiese, University College Cork with her submission Supervised workplace learning in postgraduate medical training: a realist synthesis
Best Original Research Paper Award (BORPA) 2018 Finalists
Emma O’Hare, Plymouth University Peninsula Schools of Medicine & Dentistry with her submission “Integrating a novel assessment of discharge summary writing into a final-year medical student curriculum: an evaluation of process and outcome”
Marianne Mak- van der Vossen, VUmc School of Medical Sciences, The Netherlands, with her submission: “Medical students’ motivation to respond to professionalism lapses of peers and faculty”
Viktoria Joynes, School of Medicine, University of Liverpool, wither her submission: “Re-thinking professional identity: Introducing ‘inter-professional responsibility’ as a lever for effective inter-professional education”
2022: Daniel Darbyshire, Lancaster University: Retention work and strategies: an ethnomethodolgical lens on how emergency physicians make their career sustainable
2021: Megan Brown, Health Professions Education Unit, Hull York Medical School, University of York, with their submission: How do Longitudinal Integrated Clerkships work, and why should we care? : An international, qualitative analysis of identity performances within Longitudinal Integrated Clerkships.
2020: Dawn Jackson, University of Birmingham, with their submission Expectations and Experiences: The contribution of supervision to the professional development of postgraduate General Practice Trainees.
2019: Hannah Gillespie, Queen's University Belfast: "How can tomorrow's doctors be more caring? A phenomenological investigation"
2018: Emma O’Hare, Plymouth University Peninsula Schools of Medicine & Dentistry : “Integrating a novel assessment of discharge summary writing into a final-year medical student curriculum: an evaluation of process and outcome”
2017: C Leitner, MC McNeill, AJ Allan, K Mattick: "Medical Aspirations, Parenthood and Work-Life Balance: Experiences of Doctors in Training"
2016: Jenny Johnston: "The road to general practice: constructing professional identity in GP training"
The closing date for 2021 bids was 5pm, 1st November 2021 and has now passed. We require one electronic version of the application submitted via the online application form from the Principal Supervisor (or nominee) by 5pm on the closing date.
The studentship is expected to commence from January 2022 but there would be some flexibility for the right candidate.
Please note the following:
The Supervisory Team must have experience of successful supervision of doctoral students.
The PhD studentship can be undertaken full or part-time.
The Principal Supervisor must be an individual ASME member at the point of application and maintain this through the duration of the grant.
At least one other member of the supervisory team must be an individual ASME member for the duration of the grant if you are awarded the funding.
The student recruited for the project is also expected to join ASME as an individual member. If you awarded the funding this can be paid for using the post’s training budget.
The Principal Supervisor must have previous experience of supervising a PhD to successful completion.
We particularly welcome multi-site collaborative projects working across different medical schools.
The Supervisory Team should comprise of at least two individuals, covering topic and methodological expertise. They must have experience of successful supervision of doctoral students. Applications from a supervisory team spanning more than one institution, and/or discipline, are encouraged.
Assessment of applications
All applications will be processed by the ASME office initially. Those which have not fulfilled the guidance will be rejected.
The remaining applications will be reviewed internally by at least two independent reviewers who are from different institutions from the applicants and do not hold ASME director roles. Assessors will be selected on the basis of their expertise and we anticipate going outside the UK to recruit assessors. Reviews will be collated and returned to the panel for final decision making
T & Cs
Terms and conditions
Applications from outside the UK will be considered but funding is available at UK home student rates only, reflecting that the majority of ASME members are UK-based.
We have adopted the UKRI / UK Research and Innovation (formerly Research Councils UK/RCUK), terms and conditions of training grants. Please see https://www.ukri.org/files/legacy/news/training-grants-january-2018-pdf/
These terms and conditions should be read in conjunction with the RCUK Statement of Expectations In this context, ASME equates to a Research Council.
The successful applicant will be sent an offer letter and contract. Neither ASME nor the successful applicant will release details of the award outcome until the contract is agreed and signed by both parties and until ASME has given permission for the information to be made public. ASME will issue a press release at this stage.
In the event of the successful applicant’s organisation wanting to make amendments to the contract, ASME is prepared to fund the legal costs of one round of contract amendments. The legal costs associated with any further amendments to the contract will be deducted from the funding amount requested in the approved application.
Acknowledgement of Support
Acknowledgement of Support
Publications and other forms of media communication, including media appearances, press releases and conferences, must acknowledge the support received from ASME. Journal publications should acknowledge the funding source using the standard format agreed by ASME and publishers.
ASME PhD students receive a fee waiver for the ASME ASM, but must cover their travel and accommodation costs from their training budget. ASME PhD/Doctoral students will be expected to present their work-in-progress at each annual ASM. This may be in the form of posters and short communications initially, then a plenary oral presentation as the project nears finalisation.
PhDs by publication or thesis will be supported, depending on the host institution’s guidelines. Whichever format is followed, ASME expects the PhD student to submit, and ideally publish, their research to a high-quality journal during the funding period.
Appendix A: Assessment criteria (Expert reviewers)
Name of principal applicant:
Name of administering institution:
Name of award:
Reviewer name (omit this if you prefer to remain anonymous):
Criteria and Grading
Criteria and Grading
- The applicants have considered potential issues and how to address them
- The proposed work has the potential to impact on practice and/or policy locally, nationally and internationally
- The proposed activities, timelines and milestones of the project are realistic and achievable
- The proposed work is good value for money
- The ethical issues for the project have been adequately considered
- The applicants have the necessary expertise in the relevant field
- The applicants have the supervisory experience
- The research environment is supportive
- The applicants have provided sufficient details of the assessment and progression criteria, processes and milestones for PhD students
- The institution’s processes for the selection and recruitment of PhD students are clear
- The project has the potential to facilitate collaborations within and beyond ASME
Total score and any additional general comments:
What were the strengths of this proposal?
What could have been improved?
Would you recommend funding?
to be announced soon
The Association for the Study of Medical Education (ASME) has named University College London’s (UCL) Research Department of Medical Education (RDME) the winner of its second ever doctoral grant.
The supervisory team at RDME includes Professor Dame Jane Dacre, Dr Shah-Jalal Sarker and Professor Ann Griffin. Dr Magdalen Baker – a trainee gastroenterologist - is the doctoral student who will benefit from the award. The team will study the impact and outcomes of junior doctors working part-time for the NHS as they progress and complete their training to become specialists compared to those who work full-time. The award is the second in a series of three inaugural doctoral grants announced at ASME’s 60- year anniversary in 2017. More info here
The first recipient of this award was Professor Tim Dornan, Queen’s University Belfast, and his colleagues from the Universities of Southampton, UK and Western University, Canada.
They will use the funding to explore children might contribute to the education and training of doctors. Their project, “Out of the mouth of babes”, was one of many that entered for the inaugural award and, despite formidable competition, has been determined the winner.