At Imperial, world-class research is made possible by the expertise, dedication and innovation of our professional services and technical staff. Research support excellence is grounded in collaboration, reliability and creativity, whether through enabling complex projects, managing facilities and data, navigating funding and contracts, or supporting researchers to succeed. It is characterised by high professional standards, inclusive practice, and a commitment to improving how we do research across the College.
This award celebrates individuals and teams whose outstanding contributions and innovative approaches have a demonstrable impact on Imperial’s research. It recognises those whose work enhances the quality, effectiveness and reach of our research, often behind the scenes, and whose conduct exemplifies Imperial’s values of respect, collaboration, excellence, integrity and innovation.
Lynne Cox President's award for Excellence in Research Support
- What we're looking for
- Who can nominate
- Who is eligible to be nominated
- How to nominate
- Nomination form questions
- How we will assess your nomination
- Tips for making a great nomination
The remit of this award should be interpreted broadly. Recognising the different nature of support provided by different categories of staff, this award is divided into separate categories for technical and professional staff, and nominators are asked to clearly state to which of these categories their nominee belongs.
The award might recognise (this is not an exhaustive list) the contributions of central College, faculty or department staff working in research grant administration; project, centre or departmental management; finance or contracts (where substantially focussed on research); research strategy and policy; Library support for research data and publications; or support for research students and postdocs. Research technical professionals may be working to support facilities and equipment, software, data or other aspects of technical support for research.
The awarding panel may also ring-fence one award each year for a junior colleague (below level 4), and nominators are asked to indicate whether they wish their nominee to be considered for this.
Please detail:
- The nominee’s role and relationship to their nominators
- What makes the nominee stand out, including any new activities, establishment of best practice, and/or new approaches that the nominee(s) has contributed
- The specific impact and benefits of the nominee’s contribution, both within their immediate team and more broadly
- The nominee’s approach to inclusivity and Imperial values and how he or she contributes to a better research culture in his or her team and / or the wider faculty or university
- Nominations can be made by staff from all areas of the College.
- Self-nomination is not permitted for this category.
- Imperial staff on professional, operational or technical staff contracts. Team nominations require clear justification and should be entered on a single nomination form.
- Previous winners may not be re-nominated for the same category of award until at least three years have passed since their previous success (i.e. winners of 2022, 2023 and 2024 cannot be re-nominated for the same award in 2025). Find the full list of previous winners on the previous award winners webpage
To make a nomination please use the new online nomination system.
Please view the User nomination guide to help you access the system and enter your nomination(s). Specific guidance for each award category can be found below.
If you have any issues please contact Mr Alex Headley.
| Nomination summary | A summary of the nominee’s role and relationship to his or her nominators |
| Support staff category | Please confirm if this nomination should be considered for the technical or professional/operational category? |
| Junior Colleague | In this case a junior colleague is defined as being below level 4. We ask as the panel may decide to ring fence one award for a junior colleague. |
| Case for award | A description of the nominee’s case for an award and what makes the nominee stand out, including any new activities or approaches that the nominee(s) has contributed |
| Impact of contribution | Evidence for the specific impact of the nominee’s contribution, both within his or her immediate team and more broadly |
| Contribution to research culture and inclusivity | How the nominee contributes to a better research culture in his or her team and / or the wider faculty or university, including his or her approach to inclusivity and Imperial values |
| Statement of support | An individual not involved in the nominee's direct line of management should provide a statement of support substantiating the claims made for the nominee. Short additional supporting statements from colleagues and / or students can also be included within the overall word limit for this section. Attachments are not allowed and will not be considered by the review panel. |
There is a 4000-character (approx 300 word) limit for each free text section
Award and Medal winners for each award category are conferred by selection panels overseen by the Vice-Provost (Research) in the summer term.
Each selection panel member is asked to score every nominee in the award category (with the exception of those with which there is a conflict of interest) and provide a score for each of the criteria presented below.
The scores are assigned only on the strength of the evidence presented in the application form in demonstrating that the nominee meets each of the award criteria. The panel are also asked to consider what makes the nominee stand out and what the impact has been of their actions/research.
| Award Criteria | Description |
| 1. Case for Award | Please score to what extent you believe the nomination has demonstrated evidence of the nominee's case for an award, and to extent the nominee stands out, including any new activities or approaches that the nominee(s) has contributed. |
| 2. Impact of contribution | Please score to what extent you believe the nomination provides evidence for the specific impact of the nominee’s contribution, both within his or her immediate team and more broadly |
| 4. Contribution to research culture and inclusivity | Please score the extent to which the nomination provides evidence of how the the nominee contributes to a better research culture in his or her team and / or the wider faculty or university, including his or her approach to inclusivity and Imperial values |
| 5. Supporting statement | Please rate the extent to which the supporting statement convinces you of the excellence of the candidate |
The scores are assigned only on the strength of the evidence presented in the application form in demonstrating that the nominee meets each of the award criteria.
- Write for a general audience: don’t assume prior knowledge of the nominee’s field and give specific examples of his or her contribution.
- Concentrate on the nominee’s contribution and not on the project(s) that he or she has supported; excellent support to a smaller or less visible project may be just as worthy of recognition as to a major one.
- Don’t use long or irregular hours as evidence of commitment or going beyond expectations; the panel is more likely to see this as evidence of an unhealthy working culture in the nominee’s department. Using long hours as evidence of commitment discriminates against colleagues with caring responsibilities or other commitments outside work, and any references to this will be disregarded by the panel
- Ensure a good case is presented for submission, as the selection panel will only draw on the evidence presented within the nomination.
- Without detailed examples of their work, the selection panel can’t review how the nominee has gone above and beyond their normal remit
- Showcase the real and tangible improvements and outcomes of the nominees’ work. What has changed as a result of their involvement/initiative?
- Detail positive attitudes and behaviours they have exhibited that is in line with our College Values