Identifying the Stand-out Ideas From our Autumn 2024 Funding Call 

Fifteen months ago, in October 2023, I reflected on the results of the first open call for Expressions of Interest (EOIs) to the Agile Initiative. Now I’m reporting back on our third call, sharing insights on the submissions and decision-making process. The speed at which we’ve concluded our third call, and moved some EOIs forward to the next stage of co-creation, is extraordinary. Thanks to the flexible funding within our NERC award, Agile can open calls, assess applications and award funding to projects in under six months. This accelerated model is making it possible to respond swiftly to pressing environmental and climate-related challenges.  

The Response to the Autumn Call  

“48 applications, researchers from 19 University departments and centres, and all four University Divisions” 

The response to the Autumn 2024 call from researchers and their partners in government, NGOs, industry and external research institutions went well beyond our expectations. We received 48 EOIs, 4 on Defined Track topics (submitted by policy partners) and 44 on Open Track topics (proposed by researchers). Submissions came from researchers at 19 University departments and centres spanning all four of the University’s four Divisions, including departments that are new to Agile, such as Anthropology, International Development, Social Policy, Tropical Medicine, Education, Politics & International Relations, History and Continuing Education. Topics spanned local, regional, national, international and global issues. 

A significant change was the stronger engagement of named partners and stakeholders in the co-creation of EOIs, offering clearer ‘policy pull’ than in earlier rounds. We counted 104 different key partners, including government departments in the UK and devolved entities, UK public bodies, regulators, financial institutions, NGOs, networks, private sector companies, international institutions, governments of other countries, and education bodies. 

The quality was high. 42 of the 48 applications scored 60% or more against our initial scoring system, and 20 scored 70% or higher. We assessed: 

• research response: purpose, focus, scope, policy pull, stakeholders, potential for impact 

• research approach: interdisciplinarity, methodology, equality & inclusion of the research 

• team leadership and structure 

• operational practicalities: timeframe, approach to co-creation.  

In line with Agile’s goals to get research moving faster, we aimed to complete assessment before the winter holidays. Our six-strong panel of academics and research professionals certainly rose to the task, providing an independent review of each application within two weeks of the call deadline. And our dedicated team in the Agile Engine Room churned through the administration, responding to queries from applicants, handling submissions, producing panel packs, organising meetings, monitoring for bias and conflicts of interest, and delivering tailored feedback to every applicant by 20^th December. 

Five applications have now been invited to co-create full proposals, and we are exploring the potential of a couple more. More information will be made public in due course.  

Our decision-making process  

With just six or seven projects fundable within our budget, we needed a robust approach to narrow the field. While the aggregated scores against the assessment criteria, as set out in the application guidance, offered a starting point, we also reviewed each top contender (scores over 75%, plus those with high variance among panellists) against additional criteria: 

• Does this Sprint idea tackle a defined time-critical policy challenge, respond to a pressing policy opportunity and respond to a defined need of end-users and policy makers? Will it produce research results fast, and effective solutions for rapid impact? And, if so, does it seem: 

• Operationally feasible in terms of scope, team, timeframe, and budget? Can it realistically be delivered within 12 months? Is it sufficiently self-contained as an Agile Sprint, especially if it relates to a portfolio of research? Is Agile funding the best option to achieve the result (as opposed to other sources of funding)? And, if so, does it:  

• Offer potential to further develop the Agile model for rapid, interdisciplinary, solutions-focused research? Will it support Agile’s goals of building an engaged community? And, if so, will it: 

• Add value to the Agile portfolio, adding new dimensions in terms of topic, scale, disciplines, and stakeholders? 

By these means, the panel identified applications that combined potential for fast, tangible impacts with strategic importance for the broader Agile Initiative. While this extended thinking goes beyond raw scores, our process reflected the core call guidance and helped us manage the reality of a limited budget versus a surplus of strong ideas. 

Key reflections  

It was a huge privilege to go through each of these applications, to gain deeper knowledge of the wealth of expertise amongst Oxford-based researchers and partners to tackle the climate and environmental challenges our world faces. Having witnessed three rounds of calls, I can also see what is changing as we share learning about what might make for a good Sprint. I use ‘might’ because we’re still assessing the impact of the Sprints on policy and practice.  

So here are some of my reflections from this latest round: 

• Focus yields strength: the highest-scoring EOIs were not necessarily the most polished, but were clearly targeted at a specific problem and solution, with tightly defined goals and routes to impact. Conversely, many EOIs were too broad, trying to cover multiple research angles or pull in too many stakeholders, diluting their focus. As someone responsible for helping Sprints achieve success, maintaining focus is crucial.  

• Policy pull is growing, but timeliness is equally important: Co-creation with policy partners was stronger in all EOIs, but proposal did not always articulate why the research was needed right now to influence an urgent policy opportunity. “Why Agile funding, and why now?” was a critical question.  

• Low response to defined track topics: Interestingly, researchers remained less inclined to adopt topics directly proposal by policy partners. These offer excellent opportunities to co-create academic solutions with stakeholders who really want them, so it is worth exploring how we can spark more interest here.  

• Interdisciplinary and co-creation skills: EOIs that received lower scores tended to be less competitive in relation to interdisciplinary approaches, the policy and solution focus, and evidence of co-creation with stakeholders. We shared all our learning to date on these aspects during the call, targeted at researchers with less experience in this type of research. We have more work to do and are launching new community building and training activities this year to help researchers develop these skills, turning promising ideas into robust Sprint propositions.  

Looking ahead: from Call to impact 

Ahead of this call we wanted to spread the word about Agile across the large number of researchers at Oxford working on critical societal challenges such as climate change, biodiversity loss and poverty. The response implies we achieved that, and that there is demand for the Agile research model. 

Agile is now entering its 4^th year, and the Sprints that emerge from this latest call are likely to be the final ones funded under the current award. I would love to take forward more ideas. Not only is the the potential for impact huge, but expanding our community of interdisciplinary, solutions-driven researchers is essential for tackling the urgent challenges we face. Over the next two years, we’ll collect and share lessons learned about delivering rapid, impactful research, guiding how environmental science (and beyond) can respond to emerging policy needs at pace. 

Whatever the future holds for the Agile Initiative at Oxford, our commitment remains clear: to build a dynamic research culture that moves quickly from idea to action and puts evidence at the heart of decisions shaping our future.