ºù«Ӱҵ

Evaluation of Narrative CVs

Do team-based narrative CVs disadvantage new teams relative to experienced, established teams who have previously applied for grants together?

It comes down to the guidance given to the reviewers.  If reviewers and panel members are told to operate on a level playing field when it comes to newer research teams versus established teams that should help to guide decision making.

The narrative style of these CVs might make it harder for neurodivergent individuals to apply for research grants. Have research funders considered this?

Yes, some research funders, including UKRI and the Royal Society, recognise that the narrative CV format may disadvantage neurodivergent researchers. Some funders are exploring alternative formats, structured templates, and additional support, including clearer guidance and adjustment requests.

Might narrative CVs limit a reviewer’s understanding of the depth of an applicant’s experience, making it harder for reviewers to differentiate between those who share the same skills but have different depths of experience? 

UKRI and other funders are at an early stage of using narrative CV in research grant assessment.  There is currently no information available on the guidance that research grant assessment panels are given to evaluate a narrative CV. 

At the moment narrative CVs are being used for grant applications - will they also be used to apply for academic positions?

In time, universities might move towards this use of narrative CVs. UKRI have an alternative users group. This group complements the efforts of the Joint Funders Group (JFG) and explores the alternative applications of Royal Society’s Résumé for Researchers (R4R)-like CV in the assessment of people. For example, for hiring and promotion.

Evidencing the four modules

If there is an overall page limit, do all modules need to be approximately equal?

Check the guidance for each funding call you are applying for as this information will explain the page limits or word counts for your narrative CV. Don’t expect each module to be of equal length; each module should explain your specific experience, contributions and skills as evidence of your capability to deliver on a specific project.

Word counts can also differ for team-based versus individual narrative CVs. 

To what extent should evidence be directly tailored to specific funding applications?

Evidence should be tailored to align with the priorities and evaluation criteria of the specific funder and scheme. While a narrative CV should present a coherent overall story of your research contributions, selecting evidence that directly supports the aims of a given application strengthens your case. Funders look for relevance, so tailoring helps demonstrate how your experience and track record make you a strong candidate for the proposed work. 

Is there a benefit in selecting examples that relate to the same type of research as your proposal?

Yes, particularly when demonstrating subject-matter expertise and research leadership. Narrative CVs should showcase a researcher’s ability to deliver high-quality work in a given field. Choosing examples that reflect similar methodologies, themes, or disciplinary challenges helps illustrate your suitability to undertake the proposed research.

What is the best way to evidence shared, deposited or published research outputs in Module 1? 

To save space, shared or published research outputs can be evidenced by their DOIs (digital object identifiers), and can be linked to via hyperlinks where possible. Select only those outputs that demonstrate your contributions relevant to that specific application and your capabilities to deliver. Remember that citations are measures of impact and not evidence.

Is it ok to mention the same activity in different modules if you plan to emphasise different aspects of work in different modules?

Yes.

How should blue skies research be evidenced in Module 4 of a narrative CV? 

Blue skies research—where knowledge exchange and translational potential may take longer to emerge—still generates valuable research outputs over time. In Module 4, focus on the broader impacts of the research in terms of its societal benefits, and provide evidence of these where possible.

FAQs concerning team-based Narrative CVs

Does each team member need to provide evidence of their contributions in each module?

No, you don’t have to provide evidence for every team member in a team-based narrative CV. However, it is important to ensure that early career researchers’ contributions are appropriately and fairly represented on team-based narrative CVs. The goal of a team-based CV is to select the strongest examples from across the team’s track record, contributions and expertise to evidence the different modules and the team’s capability to deliver.  

For example, leadership experience and skills might be used to demonstrate that a team has an experienced PI and CoI, who have track records of being able to deliver research projects. Specialist skills among individual team members might be used to evidence that a team has the technical, public engagement and/or commercial skills that a project requires.

In UKRI R4Ri team-based narrative CVs, a table is provided at the start of a CV, where applicants can list each team member and their initials. Their different contributions can then be referred to using their initials.

FAQs for reviewers of Narrative CVs

Narrative CVs make it difficult for reviewers to extract useful information.

When reviewing a narrative CV, focus on contributions, context, and impact rather than traditional metrics. Look for clear structure, evidence of influence beyond academia, and diverse forms of success, such as mentoring, leadership, and collaboration. Assess achievements in relation to the researcher’s opportunities and read with an open mind to fully appreciate their contributions. 

As a reviewer of a narrative CV, it can be hard to identify individual contributions from a team-based CV.  

When reviewing a team-based narrative CV, focus on the collective impact rather than individual achievements. Look for clear articulation of the team’s contributions, collaboration, and leadership in advancing knowledge, mentoring others, and fostering a supportive research environment. Assess outcomes beyond traditional metrics, considering qualitative evidence of influence on research, policy, or society. Recognise diverse contributions—such as infrastructure development, interdisciplinary work, and capacity-building—and evaluate success based on team effectiveness rather than personal accolades.