What are the criteria for assessing applications?

Applications to this call for proposals can be submitted in English. All proposals must be received by the deadline of September 15th,  2022 and will first be checked for eligibility. This check will include:

  • Checking that the proposal is complete, including all required annexes.

  • Checking that the proposed work will take place in one (or more) locations on the OECD DAC recipient list.

  • Checking that the proposed activities, team make-up, budget and other criteria are eligible.

  • Project leads will be contacted if there are any eligibility issues at this first check but it may not be possible for projects that do not pass these checks to be considered for funding.

All projects that pass this first eligibility check will then be reviewed by three people from the Rights for Time team, including investigators and Advisory Board members. Reviewers will declare a conflict of interest if they have a close personal or professional relationship with any of the named applicants on a project proposal and therefore, they will not be involved in reviewing that project. We have also asked that applicants identify any potential conflicts of interest with members of the Rights for Time team on the application form. For a full list of network team and Advisory Board members visit:

Projects will be evaluated by reviewers against the criteria listed below:

Fit to Rights for Time call:

  • Does the project align with Rights for Time’s aims and interests? Does the project align with Rights for Time’s principles and themes?

Creativity and originality:

  • Will the project develop new knowledge and/or practices around humanitarian protection? Does the project take reasonable risks and/or use creative and original approaches?

Project team:

  • Does the proposed team have the experience and skills required to undertake the project? Will the members of the team benefit from being involved in Rights for Time, including via the Digital Mentorship programme?

Approach and ethics:

  • Is the proposed approach appropriate for exploring the issues of interest? Have relevant ethical and safeguarding issues been considered?

Management and feasibility:

  • Is the project timeline reasonable?

  • Are the ambitions of the project achievable within the timeframe and budget planned for?

  • Have potential risks been thought through?

  • Does the project have a clear plan for achieving its aims?

Impact and Outcomes:

  • Does the project produce at least one creative output that can be shared on the Rights for Time website

  • Will the project have valuable outcomes for the people it engages with linked to Rights for Time themes and goals?

Ethical budgeting:

  • Are the project costs appropriate for the work to be undertaken?

  • Do costs appropriately reflect the contributions and time of team members and participants?

Review scores will then be consolidated and evaluated in a panel meeting. Final decisions will be based on reviewer scores with an attention to geographical and thematic spread of funded projects and equality and diversity in the profiles of the project lead.

The Application Process and Downloadable Application Forms

To apply for a Rights for Time grant, please download and complete the forms listed below and submit them by September 15th. All documents should be sent together in one email to

Application Form

Budget Form

Signed Due Diligence Letter

Due Diligence Checklist

Please check the application tick list at the end of the application form to ensure your application is complete.

The application form asks for personal information including gender, career stage, whether you are a member of racialised and/or minoritized group in your context, disability, caring responsibilities, and other characteristics that you feel might be relevant to your application. This is because Rights for Time is committed to inclusivity in research funding and hopes to fund projects led by people from different backgrounds and life experiences. This information will be held confidentially by the Rights for Time team and reviewers. It will help us to monitor the number of applications received and our funding decisions, but any exercises of this kind will be done in aggregate and data will not be linked to individuals. You can leave these questions blank if you prefer not to provide this information.

​Awardees will be asked to complete Part II of the University’s Due Diligence Form within two weeks of award notification.

Support for Completing the Application

Please view below the recorded webinar from the Rights For Time Funding call Information Session. Key investigators of the Network answer questions about developing a project and completing the application form.


AHRC Arts and Humanities Research Council: This is the funding body who have funded the Rights for Time Network Plus. You can read more about them here

Co-IA Co-Investigator (Co-I) is a member of the research team on a project but is someone who is not responsible for the overall management of the project.

DAC Development Assistance Committee. The DAC is based within the OECD. It is the DAC who defines which countries are classified as DAC countries. A full list of DAC countries can be found on the OECD website.

Due Diligence The investigation or exercise of care an individual or organization is expected to take before entering into an agreement or contract with another party.

ECR Early Career Researcher. In an academic context this is someone who is within eight years of the award of their PhD, or an individual who is within six years of their first academic appointment. In a non-academic context an ECR can include anyone who is new to conducting research: there is no requirement for such a person to be a career researcher.

Full economic cost (fEC) The full economic cost (fEC) of a project is the full cost of undertaking the activity. This can include consumables, travel costs, facility access, staff costs, estates, infrastructure costs etc.

All applications that include UK Research Organisations (RO) must budget for  the UK RO elements on the basis of the UKRI full economic costs (fEC) model i.e. 80% fEC for UK Ros costs with the UK RO involved in the project contributing 20% fEC. If a grant is awarded, the UK RO must agree to find the balance of fEC for the project from other resources.

N.B. Organizations in DAC listed countries will be paid at 100% of costs and can request up to 20% of overheads on their costs – these must be included as part of the total requested budget.

GCRF Global Challenges Research Fund. The GCRF is a £1.5 billion fund provided by the UK Government to support research that address challenges faced by developing countries.

GovernanceGovernance is a framework or infrastructure that defines and controls the outputs, outcomes and benefits from projects and/or programmes. The mechanism whereby the investing organization demonstrate financial and technical understanding and control of their project.

NGONon-Governmental Organization. An NGO is typically a not-for-profit group or institution with a social or humanitarian aim, which operates independently from the government.

ODA Official Development Assistance. ODA is government aid which is awarded to DAC countries that promote and specifically target the economic development and welfare of developing countries.

OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development

Open Access (OA) Publishing

OA is a set of principles and a range of practices through which research outputs are distributed online, free of cost or other access barriers, meaning anyone can access them.

PIA Principal Investigator (PI) is the person who will hold the money awarded with the grant and will be responsible for leading the research project.

SDGs Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). The United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2030 Agenda For Sustainable Development have developed 17 SDGs.  These SDGs are an urgent call for global collaboration to address poverty and deprivation the goals aim to improve health and education and climate change.

Research Ethics Review Board/Committee

A body within an organisation that is responsible for safeguarding the rights, safety, dignity, and well-being of all research participants. They will conduct some form of risk-benefit analysis to determine whether or not research should be carried out and then accept (or reject), monitor and review all research (especially that involving human subjects) being undertaken by the organisation.

Research question

A specific inquiry which the research seeks to provide a response to – a research question focuses on the research, determines the methodology and hypothesis, and guides all stages of inquiry, analysis, and reporting.

UKRI UK Research and Innovation.  A non-departmental public body sponsored by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS). UKRI brings together the seven disciplinary research councils, Research England, which is responsible for supporting research and knowledge exchange at higher education institutions in England, and the UK’s innovation agency, Innovate UK.

UoB University of Birmingham