Full Public Engagement Projects Scoring Criteria 2024

1. Quality of Proposal

Project objectives are clear, realistic and appropriate
Project proposal can be easily understood by a non-expert audience
Project description is of a very high standard and indicates it has been well-thought out and aims to execute a high-quality piece of public engagement
Project clearly demonstrates how it meets the assessment criteria
The supervisor has demonstrated how the project is timely and links with ongoing research being undertaken in the department or research centre
Clear evidence that the project will help the student to develop communication, organisation and event/project management skills and knowledge

Project objectives are reasonably clear with a general sense of the timeliness of the project, but fuller context would have been helpful
Project proposal can be largely understood by a non-expert audience
Project description is of a fairly high standard but lacks the polish or rigour that would make it stand out as excellent
Project demonstrates how it meets most of the assessment criteria
Some evidence of how the project links with current research being undertaken by the department
Some evidence of how the project will contribute to the student’s communication, organisation and event/project management skills and knowledge

Project objectives lack clarity; evidence presented is not tailored to the specific student’s objectives
Project proposal cannot be easily understood by a non-expert audience
Project description has its merits but also has significant weaknesses in one or more of the following areas: originality of the idea; timescale; timeliness; impact; skills development opportunity.
Project meets some of the assessment criteria
Very little context to explain how the project fits within or links with the research field
Minimal evidence of how the project will contribute to the student’s communication, organisation and event/project management skills and knowledge

Very clear description of idea(s) to be communicated
Very clear identification of audience(s) to be engaged
Very clear, feasible plan for the engagement activity(ies)
Very clear articulation of role of staff and student(s) at different stages of the project
Very clear sense of how these engagement activities fit into a wider Public Engagement/ Impact project/strategy by staff member and/or Department.

Clear description of idea(s) to be communicated
Clear identification of audience(s) to be engaged
Clear, mostly feasible plan for the engagement activity(ies)
Clear articulation of role of staff and student(s) at different stages of the project
Clear sense of how these engagement activities fit into a wider Public Engagement/ Impact project/strategy by staff member and/or Department.

Fairly clear description of idea(s) to be communicated
Fairly clear identification of audience(s) to be engaged
Fairly clear, mostly feasible plan for the engagement activity(ies)
Fairly clear articulation of role of staff and student(s) at different stages of the project
Fairly clear sense of how these engagement activities fit into a wider Public Engagement/ Impact project/strategy by staff member and/or Department.

Clear evidence that the student will develop a range of public engagement transferrable skills.
Clear demonstration that the project will contribute to the student’s current study or further study/career.

Evidence that the student will develop some public engagement transferrable skills.
Demonstrates a general sense of how the project will contribute to their current study or further study/career.

Little evidence that the student will develop any public engagement transferrable skills.
The student has given little indication of how the project would contribute to their current study or further study/career.

An accurate and well researched breakdown of projected living and associated costs that relate to realistic expenditure that students will need to make in conducting their research/engagement project.
This may be succinct, e.g. if detailing 10 weeks’ accommodation at x amount.
Evidence that the URSS bursary is being used to pay for living costs, including travel, accommodation, subsistence etc.

Realistic student expenditure is included but breakdown includes project costs, which should be met by the department.
A breakdown of project costs is included.

No breakdown provided or only project costs are included
Evidence that the bursary is not being used as set out in the terms & conditions, e.g. paying a research assistant, equipment etc.

Applications that do not require funding will automatically be awarded a score of 3 under ‘Value for Money’.