Faculty Development Scheme (FDS) 2024/25 Exercise
- The quality of proposals varied across subjects. The proposals with higher quality were clearly written and the significance for the research was usually well-argued and presented. Some proposals were theoretically sound with appropriate design and methodology. Improvement in formulating the research objective section was observed. Specific research questions derived from the research objectives which guided the research design and methodology were included.
- In some less competitive proposals, the articulation on the theoretical framework as derived from literature review was weak and should be enhanced. Some proposals did not address limitation issues. It was advisable to discuss possible limitations and how these limitations would be addressed in their proposals. Ethical considerations should also be included, wherever appropriate. The Panel hoped that the comments of the external reviewers could help the PIs to improve the proposals to be submitted in future exercises
- Some proposals aimed to address interesting and timely research questions, but some proposals only included standard methodology to solve the research questions and hence the novelty was not impressive.
- The budget request for some proposals was excessive, partly due to the proposed long duration of the research study. Researchers were encouraged to be cautious when determining the duration of the proposed study.
- Some proposals requested excessive budgets for supporting staff which might deviate from the FDS’s purpose of developing the research capability of teaching staff in the local self-financing degree-awarding institutions. Some PIs asked for funding to hire supporting staff at senior level (e.g. Senior Research Assistant, Research Associate). The Panel considered that PIs should provide strong justifications for the amount of funding requested and funding support at junior supporting staff level (e.g. Research Assistant) should generally be sufficient.