Presenting an academic CV - bullet points or narratives?

Over the past few years, the Résumé for Research and Innovation (R4RI) has emerged as an alternative to the traditional academic CV in research funding applications, and has been adopted by major funders such as UKRI and the Wellcome Trust. This format is intended to rethink how we present our careers and contributions, with the idea being that the R4RI format is more inclusive and allows us to demonstrate a wider range of contributions. I have mixed feelings around it. I certainly agree that we need to value a wider range of experience and contributions, but I have some reservations about the format’s effectiveness and accessibility.

The R4RI is basically a narrative-based CV that encourages researchers to describe their work across four key areas: contributions to the generation of knowledge, development of individuals and teams, contribution to the wider research community, and contribution to broader society.  It is designed to recognise a broader range of contributions, including teaching, mentoring, public engagement, and policy impact. It also is intended to support applicants from non-linear or interdisciplinary career paths. The narrative-driven approach encourages reflection on the motivations and impacts of research, rather than the outputs. The format also aligns with responsible research assessment principles, moving away from valuing journal name or impact factors. There are some parts of this I like. As someone who does a lot of interdisciplinary work, it is helpful to be able to articulate the importance of this work in a way that reviewers from different disciplines might appreciate. This is definitely something that is not easy to do with a traditional CV, where people tend to focus on the journal title, author position, etc - we are trained in our disciplines to 'read' what these things mean.

However, the R4RI format is not without its challenges. The structure does not include the standard CV information at all - so no comprehensive career history, grant and publication lists as bullet points. Especially for those later in their careers, it is a real challenge to decide what to include and what to leave out (the 'Applicant and team capability to deliver' for AHRC grants, where R4RI is required, has a word limit 1650, which needs to cover all named team members). As soon as you have more than 2 people, it gets really difficult to cover the whole team. Conversely, when I was an ECR, I would have struggled to say anything about public engagement, as it's not something I had an opportunity (or confidence) to do until much later in my career. 

Crafting a compelling R4RI also takes significantly more time than updating a standard CV. It requires careful tailoring for each application, which can be burdensome (a typical UKRI grant application is already 4000 words and requires so much time to cover everything that is required, from project vision and approach, to timelines and justification of the costs). There is also a degree of subjectivity involved; success may depend on how well reviewers understand and value narrative content. Speaking from my own experience as a reviewer, I’ve found the R4RI format difficult to assess. While I appreciate the intention behind it, I often struggle with the feeling of subjectivity it introduces. Unlike a traditional CV, where achievements are presented as bullet points and can be quickly scanned and compared, the R4RI requires a more interpretive reading and there is no way of really assessing the 'facts'. This makes it harder to evaluate applications consistently, especially when reviewing large numbers of them. I find it is actually quite useful to see key publications and previous grants in a bullet point list, it gives a sense of the person's previous experience managing similar projects, information that I can judge for myself.

I also worry that the format introduces a layer of unfairness. The same challenges we see in many areas of academia, where individuals from different backgrounds have unequal access to mentoring, confidence-building, and professional development, are amplified here. Some people are simply better at ‘selling themselves’, and the narrative format, with its emphasis on adjectives and storytelling, can exaggerate these disparities. It may disadvantage those who are less comfortable with self-promotion or who come from cultures or disciplines where modesty is the norm.

I find myself wishing for a more standardised format. One that still encourages applicants to highlight a broader range of achievements, but does so in a structured, bullet-pointed way that facilitates fairer and more efficient assessment. Perhaps the next step is not to abandon the R4RI, but to evolve it into a format that balances narrative with clarity and consistency for reviewers?