What goes in a funder’s Narrative CV?: A Scoping Review

Scoping review approach

Following the guidance of Arksey and O’Malley²⁵ and Levac and colleagues,²⁶ our scoping review consisted of five distinct steps: 1) Identifying the research question, 2) Identifying NCV templates, 3) Selecting the templates, 4) Charting the data, and 5) Analyzing, summarizing, and reporting the results.

Step 1: Identifying the research question(s)

In this scoping review, we aimed to answer the following questions: 1. Which research funding agencies currently require NCVs as part of their grant application process? and 2. What are the characteristics of NCV templates provided by said funding agencies?

Step 2: Identifying NCV templates

We did not conduct a traditional electronic search (e.g., Medline) because we felt that narrative CVs from funders were unlikely to appear in the traditional published literature.

To identify relevant NCV templates, we employed grey literature searches via two approaches. First, we conducted a grey literature search using Google to identify potential documents available outside of standard peer-reviewed literature. We piloted several search terms before settling on the following as our final search terms: “Narrative CV”, “Research CV Template”, and “Research Funder CV Template”. These selected search terms were intentionally broad to maximize the likelihood of capturing all available funder NCV templates. Each search was conducted by one individual and limited to documents reported in English. The full search strategy is described in Appendix 2.

Next, to identify any additional templates we used the website healthresearchfunders.org ²⁷ to compile a list of research funders from across the globe, and then manually searched the websites of any funders for whom we did not identify an NCV template through our initial Google search. This manual search of funder websites involved using same three search terms. Acknowledging that this health researchers’ funders list has not recently been updated, we also supplemented this list based on our team’s knowledge of additional funding agencies and subsequently conducted manual searches of any additional funders’ websites using the same approach.

Step 3: Selecting the NCV templates

Inclusion and exclusion criteria: We included all NCV templates utilized by research funders published in English. We did not restrict our search by date or year. We also included NCV templates that are not in current use but have been used in the past, and NCV templates that exist but have not yet been used in practice. We excluded NCV templates published in languages other than English, as well as any documents not publicly available online. Reasons for exclusion were noted for all excluded documents and are reported below in our results. These inclusion/exclusion criteria are outlined in Table 1.

Selection/Screening: The Grey literature search was performed by two individuals (AQ & GdPD) who collated the citations using Zotero,²⁸ and subsequently added the identified documents into Covidence²⁹ for screening. The search based on the list from healthresearchfunders.org ²⁷ was performed by one individual (AQ), who followed the same steps to aggregate the documents for screening. All documents were then independently screened against our inclusion criteria in duplicate; any conflicts were resolved via discussion between reviewers, and third-party arbitration when needed.

Step 4: Charting the data

We extracted data regarding several document characteristics in duplicate from all included NCV templates using Covidence.²⁹ The initial extraction was performed by one individual, while a second individual performed a quality-control review. We deductively created a purpose-built data extraction form ( Appendix 3) after conducting a preliminary scan of a few known NCV templates. The extraction form was piloted by three individuals prior to finalization to ensure its relevance; some minor modifications to the form were made throughout this process to improve clarity and completeness. For instance, despite planning to only collect initial dates of release for the templates, after noticing that multiple templates had undergone official updates, we modified our extraction form to also capture these update dates.

Extracted data included the name of the funding organization, the country of the funder, the date of the NCV template implementation, the number of questions and pages, and the name of the organization that created the NCV template. We also mapped the content of the NCV questions to gauge what topics were being asked about, and in what format responses were being captured. For qualitative data, we conducted a content analysis of the extracted text using Microsoft Excel. Without using preconceived categories, two researchers independently identified key themes in the data using inductive coding and then discussed these until consensus was achieved. The coded elements were re-incorporated into the dataset. Key themes were summarized and presented using a narrative synthesis with illustrative quotes or as counts and percentages reflecting the codes. All percentages presented in the text and tables were calculated using 21 NCV templates as the denominator, unless otherwise stated.

Step 5: Report the results

We have reported the results of this study by summarizing the features of the NCVs using descriptive statistics. These summarized features include both the explicit categories listed in our extraction form (for each item), as well as some additional features captured in our open-text extraction items, which we identified and organized via qualitative analysis.

Protocol amendments

We amended our initial protocol (registered on the OSF DOI:10.17605/OSF.IO/4DGBR) by changing our qualitative analysis approach from Braun and Clarke’s thematic analysis to a content analysis. This decision was made because traditional thematic analysis (as described by Braun and Clarke) involves an in-depth analysis of themes and their meanings,³⁰ which we do not believe would be appropriate for the small amount of qualitative data collected via our few open-text extraction items. Thus, we modified our approach to perform a content analysis instead.

Demographic characteristics of funders with NCV templates

In total, we extracted and analyzed data from 22 NCV templates, each from a different funding organization, originating from 13 different countries: the United Kingdom (n = 5), New Zealand (n = 2), Switzerland (n = 2), Canada (n = 2), the United States (n = 2), Ireland (n = 2), Norway (n = 1), the Netherlands (n = 1), Germany (n = 1), Belgium (n = 1), Brazil (n = 1), Finland (n = 1), and Luxembourg (n = 1). The templates belonged to three types of funders: National Granting Agencies (n = 17, 77%), Foundations/Philanthropic Bodies (n = 4, 18%), and a Hospital Research Institute (n = 1, 5%). The funders pertained to several research disciplines (some to multiple disciplines): Medicine/Biomedical Sciences (n = 10, 45%), Natural Sciences (n = 3, 14%), Social Sciences and Humanities (n = 2, 9%), Business and Economic Development (n = 1, 5%), and Arts (n = 1, 5%). Additionally, nine funders (41%) were discipline agnostic. These demographic characteristics of the funders to whom the NCV templates belong, as well as the names of the funders, are outlined in Table 2.

The templates were introduced over a wide range of years (range: 2012-2024), with the most common year of introduction being 2022 (n = 3, 14%). Some templates (n = 5, 23%) have been updated since their initial release, with the longest period between initial release and official update being from the Research Council of Finland’s template, which was updated in 2020 – eight years after its initial release. There were also 10 templates (45%) for which the year of introduction was unclear. All 22 NCV templates are currently being used by their respective organizations.

Development and structure of NCVs

We also extracted several data characteristics regarding structure and content (e.g., the number, type, and subject matter of the questions listed) of each NCVs to map what information is being requested of grant applicants by funders. NCVs varied in length with respect to the number of pages (range: 2-9 pages; median = 4 pages). Similarly, the total number of questions/items in the templates varied widely (range: 3-31 questions; median = 8.5 questions). Most NCV templates did not contain any multiple-choice questions (n = 19, 86%), but the three templates which did, contained one, one, and four multiple choice questions, respectively. Conversely, all templates included short answer questions; the distribution of which was nearly identical to the total number of questions (range: 3-31 short answer questions; median = 8 short answer questions). Regarding these short answer items, most templates did not indicate a desired response length (n = 14, 64%), but a few did indicate average expected response lengths (range: 1/5 page- 400 words/question; mode: 1/2 page per question). The length and question distribution of the NCV templates is depicted in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Bar graph depicting the distribution of NCV templates by length, and number and type of questions (N=22).

“Average Length of Short Answers” refers to the recommend average length of each short answer item within the template.

Applicant information to be included when completing the NCVs.

The NCV templates requested a range of information from prospective grant applicants, all of which is outlined in Table 3. Most templates included general questions about applicants’ journal publications (n = 18, 82%), career breaks or major life events (n = 17, 77%), relevant areas of expertise (n = 16, 73%), academic record/educational qualifications (n = 16, 73%), career stage (n = 13, 59%), and awards & prizes (n = 13, 59%). Additionally, some templates collected information regarding other grant funding received (n = 10, 45%) or conference presentations given (n = 8, 36%). Some templates also asked applicants to provide a personal statement (n = 8, 36%), or a description of how they were impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic (n = 4, 18%).

Among those templates that included a section specific to journal publications, nine (41%) simply contained general requests for outputs, whereas nine (41%) others asked applicants to outline a specific number of important publications – often referred to as “main”, “important” or “relevant” publications, “key outputs”, or “publications in major national or international peer-reviewed journals”. Three templates (14%) required applicants to provide their total number of publications, while one template (5%) required applicants to provide a complete list of their publications. Additionally, some templates asked applicants to indicate the peer-review status (n = 3, 14%) or open access status (n = 2, 9%) of their publications. One also generically asked for links to their listed publications, whereas another explicitly asked for the DOIs of their listed publications.

Among templates that collected information around other sources of grant funding received by prospective applicants, four (18%) contained general requests for achievements (i.e., listing other funding sources), whereas one explicitly asked applicants to list a specific number of significant research grants, and another asked for all other research grants to be listed. In addition, some templates asked for specific information pertaining to said other sources of funding, such as the applicant’s position/role on the grant (n = 2, 9%), or the specific dollar amounts that were awarded (n = 2, 9%). Two templates asked for a detailed description of a specific number of other awarded research grants.

Many templates asked for information regarding applicants’ various contributions to the academic or research landscape, including contributions to the generation of new knowledges or ideas, teaching or mentorship, open science efforts, the general research/scientific community, or to broader society. With respect to contributions to the generation of new knowledges or ideas, roughly half of the templates had questions specific to new/innovative tools, software, and instruments (n = 12, 55%); new/innovative ideas and hypotheses (n = 11, 50%); or patents and designs owned (n = 10, 45%). Regarding teaching or mentorship contributions, many templates asked about supervision skills or mentoring experience (e.g., trainees, students, staff ) (n = 14, 64%), teaching responsibilities (n = 12, 55%), or teaching achievements and awards (n = 5, 23%). While many templates did not mention open science at all (n = 11, 50%), some specifically asked about knowledge translation or mobilization efforts (n = 8, 36%), data sharing (n = 7, 32%), preprints (n = 4, 18%), or other open science aspects (n = 6, 27%). All but five templates asked about general contributions to the scientific research community (n = 17, 77%), with the most common items being committee membership (e.g., roles on editorial boards or working groups) (n = 15, 68%), general leadership activities (n = 12, 55%), international involvement (n = 12, 55%), or editing or reviewing responsibilities (n = 12, 55%). With respect to other general societal contributions, the most frequently requested were partnerships with industry, healthcare, or business (n = 11, 50%); patient or public engagement (n = 10, 45%); engagement with the media (n = 9, 41%); and involvement with policy development or public understanding (n = 7, 32%).

Finally, some templates specifically asked for additional information that was not captured in other sections of template, these included any additional outputs or impacts (n = 4, 18%); ORCIDs³³ or other unique researcher identifiers (n = 6, 27%); indigenous impacts or considerations (n = 1, 5%), language skills (n = 1, 5%), or ‘other’ skills (n = 1, 5%). Many of the NCV templates also included a section wherein applicants could provide additional information at their own discretion (n = 14, 64%).

Guidance and instructions provided regarding completion of NCVs

In addition to investigating the structure and contents of the templates, we also explored whether any guidance or instruction was provided to grant applicants by the funders. A majority offered at least some guidance within their template regarding how to complete the NCV (n = 12, 55%), whereas a slight minority (n = 10, 45%) provided similar guidance online (i.e., on the funders’ website). Guidance was offered in several forms: a total page limit (n = 9, 41%), section headers with detailed step-by-step instructions and examples (n = 6, 27%), section headers with general instructions (n = 6, 27%), specific formatting instructions (n = 5, 23%), a total word limit (n = 1, 5%), and links to additional resources (n = 1, 5%). Additionally, two templates included comprehensive examples of how they should be completed (n = 2, 9%), one template mentioned that it was optional to use, another template denoted certain sections as optional to complete, and two templates specifically mentioned that they were adapted from another template or resource (n = 2, 9%). Finally, four (18%) of the templates were accompanied by a description of how the NCV would be appraised by reviewers. The body of guidance and instruction provided across our sample of NCV templates is outlined in Table 4.

Limitations

Our review only included templates written in English, which may have excluded NCVs from non-English-speaking countries. Additionally, our supplemental search strategy relied on healthresearchfunders.org, a health-focused resource. While this was the most comprehensive list available, it may have led to the exclusion of templates used by funders outside the health domain and of NCVs that might have been captured in a traditional search.