Narrative CV

Luxembourg National Research Fund

Narrative CV

Home Narrative CV

Introduction

In 2021, the FNR introduced a narrative-style CV template for Principal Investigators (PIs) and Co-PIs requesting funding from FNR programmes, currently called the “Individual Narrative Profile”. There were two purposes for this change: a streamlining and simplification of our process, as well as a move towards aligning with the principles of DORA, CoARA and the goals of responsible research assessment.

As a signatory of DORA and CoARA, the FNR believes that research (and researchers) should be assessed on their own merits, and the value and impact of all research outputs be considered for research assessment. In addition, the goal of the narrative-style CV is to allow an applicant to be more fairly evaluated on their scientific vision, appropriate experience, and a broader set of contributions to science and society (including those related to responsible research conduct, Open Science, mentoring, and others), instead of solely metrics, journal names, and other information that does not fully represent the potential of a researcher.

The narrative-style CV is an attempt to reduce bias in evaluation through responsible research assessment, as well as a drive towards a more inclusive research culture in Luxembourg. The FNR considered this change as a controlled experiment in our evaluation process, and thus accompanied the new CV with a feedback survey, to collect data and feedback from our stakeholders.

Report on implementation & feedback results

In the third year of gathering feedback on the implementation of our narrative profile, the FNR continues to measure acceptance and usability of this narrative-style CV in both writing and evaluation but have expanded the survey to get an impression of the broader goals of the template in shifting the perception of what should be recognized and rewarded in the evaluation of research and researchers. In addition, we have further demographic data showing differences and similarities between genders, research domains, and career stages. General feedback remains positive, showing a continuing acceptance of the narrative profile among both applicants to FNR funding programmes and reviewers evaluating the proposals. Slight differences appear between genders and research domains, but the small sample size require further analysis in a broader and more organised fashion.