Are narrative CVs better?

By Dr Elizabeth Adams, Independent Coach and Research Culture Consultant at Scafell Coaching.

In early 2021, I was part of a University of Glasgow project on the use of narrative CVs in funding applications. We wanted to explore the experiences of writing in this new (at the time) format for both writers and reviewers, identify any challenges they faced, and suggest how these might be mitigated. Four years on, and with Glasgow’s narrative CV resource bank growing, and innovations like the (PEP CV)Peer Exchange platform springing up, this post reflects on the implementation of narrative CVs across the sector – how far we’ve come and the remaining challenges we face.

The ‘Résumé for Researchers’ was the first narrative format CV, designed by the Royal Society and later adopted by UKRI (as the R4RI), firstly as an individual CV for Fellowship applications and later as both a team and individual CV for grant funding calls. Narrative formats are also currently being piloted other funders, such as CRUK, Alzheimer’s Research UK, NIHR, and several European funders. Some institutions, such as Sheffield Hallam University, have piloted them as part of the recruitment process for their internal Fellowship schemes and some research funders have noted that their use as part of recruitment to a peer review panel has resulted in more diverse panel membership.

But are they better for individuals, and for decision-making?

A different format requires a different approach

Most people I speak to who have recently written an academic promotion application, tell me that the narrative format doesn’t actually feel too dissimilar, and others have reflected that the narrative format has similar elements to writing a cover letter for a job application. Some of the difficulties that I hear from researchers regarding writing a narrative CV are indeed similar to those I hear from academics putting in a promotion application. So, it’s perhaps less of a unique challenge than we might imagine.

Pulling together a retrospective narrative is never easy though, especially when your ‘narrative’ includes multiple postdoc positions, each the right choice for you at the time, but rarely chosen for their ability to document your strategic development in a given specialism. However, this format does give you scope to draw out the less obvious threads which link career experiences together, such as strength in particular methodologies or techniques, or increasing ability to negotiate complex problem solving. It also allows for you to bring in work from other sectors, or volunteered or unpaid work, that helps you to create a blended evidence-base for your professional capabilities. As this previous post by Rachel Herries pointed out, we can “think of the Narrative CV as a format that is more ‘open minded’ and so more inclusive to all the contributions you have made.”

As with the adoption of any new process, reception from CV writers is mixed. Whilst some feel that it’s another set of hoops to jump through and one that favours skilful writers using English as a first language, others believe that this format offers them a welcome opportunity to share their broader experiences and attributes. In particular I’ve heard from creative practitioners who feel the narrative format allows them to bring a blend of their ‘whole selves’ to the application, and from others for whom a significant part of their leadership experience is derived from outside academia. Some writers feel hopeful in seeing that their wider contributions to developing a positive research culture and community (things like committee representation, organising events and development initiatives, leading networks and clubs, and mentoring) now have a place to start to be recognised.

Why do we keep using the old CV format?

Although some institutions are exploring how narrative elements might be used within broader recruitment processes, I’ve not personally come across use of a full narrative CV approach. This is possibly because, (as Rachel Oliver points out), it might be difficult to map the specific criteria of the job description across to the narrative CV’s sections, as we would with a cover letter. However, I’ve certainly been on ‘standard’ (CV and cover letter) shortlisting panels where some panel members go straight to the cover letter, whilst others give it barely a glance, preferring to draw information from the CV. I think the key thing here is the need for creating detailed and matching guidance for both reviewers and writers, plus good panel chairing so nothing is overlooked, rather than just the application format itself.

What makes me feel uneasy about wholesale adoption, is that the sector does not yet have robust evidence that reviewers are actually reading and valuing all parts of the narrative CV equally. Whilst inclusivity and a broader range of positive recognition is certainly the intention from the funders who are their proponents, it would be helpful to have a clear and transparent feedback loop from those funders on how panels are being briefed, supported and challenged in their assessment of narrative CVs. Here the funders of research have a big responsibility for the ethical deployment of narrative CVs, particularly when so much hope for increased inclusivity has been attached to them, and additionally that so much university resource has been invested in their adoption.

A call to research funders

In our 2021 report, one of our key recommendations arising was that funders should review the implementation of the narrative CV, particularly in terms of assessing its impact on equality of funding success, and report back to the sector. This was echoed again recently in the 2025 report from the Research on Research Institute ‘NARRATIVES’ project; one of their top recommendations for funders on implementing narrative CVs was to ‘pick the right chair and brief them’.  Although the Joint Funders group have produced guidance for other funders in the adoption of narrative CVs, detailed guidance for reviewers for the UKRI R4RI is still to come out and findings from the NARRATIVES project suggest that ‘reviewers and panellists hold diverse views about the purpose and rationale behind narrative CVs, and use them in different ways’.

Sharing the details of how panel chairs, reviewers and panellists are being trained, supported and challenged, is crucial if we want to build trust in the narrative CV format. Open sharing is also critical to ensure a level playing field for smaller or teaching-intensive institutions who might not have institutional specialists to support researchers to become familiar, nor many colleagues who have review panel experience, to bring back that knowledge to their universities.

As CRUK suggested in their reflection on the introduction of narrative CVs, it might still be ‘early days’ in terms of being certain that narrative CVs ‘work’, particularly as funding cycles are long and only relatively small numbers of applicants have actually written a narrative CV (although that number has increased now that team-level narrative CVs are being used for grant applications). It’s interesting to read that in the course of this reflection, CRUK have found that both reviewers and writers liked the format.

Acknowledging the additional labour

Narrative formats in isolation won’t necessarily remove reviewer biases but I hope that they give greater opportunity for these biases to be surfaced and explored. Let’s not forget this represents a learning experience to reviewers too, and can be stressful to go through, when you are carrying the responsibility of judging someone else’s success. One key assurance needed is that busy reviewers and panel members are given enough time to review in this more expansive format. We know though, that chronic overwork and unpaid labour in academia is a problem that needs a full sector approach to tackle it. 

Additionally, developers often suggest the R4RI template as a tool to support individual reflection, and people are usually receptive to this as they get the chance to evaluate their career and contribution holistically. For those thinking about moving to careers beyond academia, this reflection and the realisation it brings can be empowering, but I do also notice the emotional labour required when people feel forced to create a single clear narrative around their career path – when some of the choices may have been more about surviving than thriving. My advice is always to write your CV with a partner or peer group so that you can find opportunities to tell colleagues what you appreciate about them. Some of the best moments in my own narrative CV workshops have been when individuals have asked each other great questions, helped each other to articulate their contributions and buoyed each other up. 

To the future

I’m looking forward to seeing the findings from the Thrive project at Liverpool, which is exploring and co-developing a team-based models of working, and piloting this through a live AHRC call, which includes the use of narrative CVs. I hope that the CV questions will prompt greater reflection on the different roles people might take on within a project, the culture they will create and how they will draw on each other’s skills to embed inclusivity and career development opportunities. This, if shared openly, would feel like a very positive step in the direction of a more positive research culture.

Data, from different groups, in a range of experiences, is key, and  if you are an applicant or assessor who has used R4RI before, UKRI invite you to provide feedback through this survey.

I hope that a year from now, several rounds of individual and team CVs have been through assessment, we will start to get more feedback from panellists and a better sense of the impact on our researchers.