Faculty Development Scheme (FDS) 2023/24 Exercise
- The quality of proposals varied across subjects. In general, the overall quality was similar as compared to last exercise. Most of the high-quality proposals were clearly written with the research questions logically articulated. Some proposals attempted to study interesting issues and came up with innovative research ideas. The significance of the study was well-argued. In some proposals, detailed data collection and analyses plans were provided.
- For some weaker proposals, research objectives were not articulated clearly and specific research questions were not well-defined. There was lack of strong argument for theoretical frameworks in some proposals. Some proposals did not address limitation issues and discuss how the limitation would be addressed in the study. PIs were advised to include potential ethical considerations in the proposals, where applicable.
- Some proposals were less well-developed and did not have sound research methodologies to investigate the research issues. Some proposals failed to make a niche contribution to the literature. PIs were advised to include a well-thought-out plan for dissemination of research findings.
- In some cases, PIs proposed an over-estimated project period and excessive budget. Funding for research supporting staff at junior staff level (e.g. Research Assistant) should generally be sufficient. There was also funding specifically for engaging relief teachers. In most cases, hiring senior researchers were not necessary and might deter the role of PIs in the proposed study. PIs were reminded to provide strong justifications for the amount of funding requested, particularly for proposals requesting a very large funding support and asking for funding to hire supporting staff at senior level. PIs should also provide qualification of the candidate to fill the senior position.