Narrative CV Example - STEM

This is a fictitious narrative CV created to demonstrate the OCAR structure in response to an equally fictitious funding call. It’s designed to help you understand how the framework works, not to provide a template to copy. Any resemblance to real research is coincidental.

Use this example for understanding the approach, then make it your own.

Click the arrows for commentary on how the OCAR framework was applied in each section.

👉 Important reminders:

• Your narrative CV should reflect your authentic experience and voice.
• Every funder has different requirements - always check current guidelines.
• There’s no single “correct” way to structure your narratives.

Note: This example uses a 2,000-word limit. Always check your funder’s specific requirements. Limits typically range from 1,000-2,000 words.

Personal Statement

Interdisciplinary researcher committed to making research more accessible, inclusive, and impactful. I develop tools and resources that democratise advanced methods, champion inclusive research environments, and translate research into societal benefits through policy influence and community partnerships.

Module 1: Generation & flow of new ideas

Throughout my career, I’ve observed how technical and resource barriers prevent many researchers from engaging with cutting-edge methods and data, limiting innovation and perpetuating inequalities in research capacity. I have developed solutions that democratise access to advanced research tools, methods, and datasets across disciplines and institutions through three interconnected initiatives: creating accessible analysis tools, developing open training resources, and establishing shared data infrastructure.

Recent advances in machine learning have transformed how we analyse large datasets, but these tools remain inaccessible to many researchers without programming expertise. I created an interface that allows non-technical researchers to apply machine learning methods to their own data. I developed and tested a browser-based tool with 50 researchers across five disciplines. Participants completed analysis tasks and provided feedback on usability. My tool enabled researchers to conduct analyses previously requiring specialist skills, thereby democratising access to advanced methods. This approach could be applied to other technical barriers in research.

Advanced statistical methods like Bayesian inference offer powerful analytical capabilities, but require specialised knowledge that many researchers lack access to through formal training. I created high-quality, discipline-agnostic training materials that researchers could use independently, without expensive courses or prerequisites. I developed and published a comprehensive open-access tutorial series with interactive examples and real datasets, hosted on an open repository [DOI]. The materials were peer-reviewed and have been adopted by three universities as supplementary teaching resources. The tutorials have been accessed over 5,000 times across 40 countries, with users reporting increased confidence in applying Bayesian methods to their own research questions.

Small research groups often lack the computational resources to process and analyse large-scale datasets, creating disparities between well-funded and under-resourced institutions. I led a consortium of five institutions to establish sustainable shared infrastructure that allows researchers from any institution to access and analyse computationally intensive datasets. We created a cloud-based data repository and analysis environment, securing institutional commitment for long-term hosting and maintenance, and piloted the platform with 15 research projects. The infrastructure now supports 30+ active projects from institutions that previously lacked computational capacity, enabling research that would have been impossible within their local resources.

These contributions have enabled hundreds of researchers to adopt methods previously beyond their reach, fostering more inclusive and collaborative research practices across multiple fields.

Module 2: Development of others

My experience with mentors who supported not just my technical skills, but also my professional confidence and career navigation, revealed a critical gap: many researchers, particularly those from non-traditional backgrounds, lack access to such comprehensive support. I developed a multi-faceted approach to create multiple pathways for supporting researchers at different career stages and with different needs: establishing structured peer mentoring, creating alternative career pathway resources, and fostering inclusive research environments through targeted support programmes that ensure development opportunities are inclusive and accessible.

Early career researchers in our department faced significant uncertainty about career options beyond academia. As a member of the departmental ECR committee, I co-organised a career development seminar series to provide authentic insights into diverse career paths and help ECRs envision concrete next steps. I invited diverse speakers from the pharmaceutical industry and university professional services to share their experiences and facilitated small-group discussions after each session. The initiative engaged ~30 ECRs per seminar, with feedback noting the sessions were “informative and inspiring”. Three participants subsequently secured positions in the sectors we featured, directly crediting the seminars for their career transitions.

PhD students in our research group often struggled in isolation with similar challenges — from experimental troubleshooting to thesis writing — without realising their peers had relevant experience to share. I designed and piloted a peer mentoring scheme pairing second-year PhD students with those in their first year, creating a supportive structure where students could learn from each other’s experiences while building both skills and community. I developed a framework of monthly structured meetings with suggested topics, trained mentors in active listening, and held quarterly reflection sessions to gather feedback and refine the approach. Over two years, 20 students participated, with mentees reporting increased confidence and reduced feelings of isolation. The scheme has now been adopted department-wide, and I created a toolkit that three other institutions have adapted.

Researchers with caring responsibilities — whether for children, elderly parents, or disabled family members — often face invisible barriers to full participation in research activities, particularly those scheduled outside standard hours or requiring travel. I established a working group to audit our departmental practices and create an environment where researchers with caring responsibilities could contribute fully without compromising their wellbeing or career progression. We developed practical accommodations: introducing core hours for mandatory meetings, providing virtual participation options for all seminars, and creating a departmental fund for emergency childcare during essential travel. I also mentored three researchers navigating parental leave, helping them plan transitions and maintain research momentum. Department feedback surveys showed a 40% increase in researchers with caring responsibilities feeling supported. Two mentees successfully published during their parental leave transitions, and one secured a fellowship immediately upon return, crediting our planning sessions with enabling this success.

These three initiatives have supported over 100 researchers in developing skills, building networks, and making informed career decisions, with particular impact on those who might otherwise have felt isolated or uncertain about their futures.

Module 3: Impact on wider research and innovation community

Throughout my career, I’ve observed how research communities function most effectively when they have robust infrastructure for knowledge exchange, quality assurance, and inclusive participation. However, these essential community functions often rely on invisible labour that goes unrecognised. I have strengthened research community infrastructure across multiple dimensions — from scholarly communication to diversity and methodological rigour — by taking on strategic roles in peer review and editorial work, championing inclusive practices through committee leadership, and helping establish community standards for emerging research methods.

As interdisciplinary research methods become increasingly complex, journals struggle to find reviewers with sufficient breadth of expertise, leading to delays and sometimes inadequate quality assessment. I addressed this by contributing my cross-disciplinary expertise to strengthen peer review while training the next generation of reviewers. I completed 15-20 peer reviews annually for five leading journals across my field, consistently meeting deadlines and providing constructive, developmental feedback. I also served as Associate Editor for [Journal Name] for three years, handling 40+ manuscripts and mentoring four early career researchers through shadowing reviews. I developed a guidance document on writing constructive reviews that the journal now shares with all new reviewers. My editorial work reduced average decision times by 25%, and feedback from authors consistently praised the developmental quality of reviews. Three of my mentees have now become regular reviewers themselves, extending the impact of the training approach.

Despite increasing awareness of diversity issues, our department lacked specific support for neurodiverse researchers and staff, creating barriers to full participation and potential contributions. As a committed member of the department EDI committee, I proactively identified this gap, then initiated and led a dedicated working group on neurodiversity to transform our departmental culture to actively support neurodiverse colleagues rather than simply accommodating them when issues arose. I brought together stakeholders from across the department to develop practical, actionable solutions. We consulted with neurodiverse staff and students, conducted an environmental audit, and created implementation plans with clear accountability. This focused effort yielded tangible improvements to our departmental culture, including a comprehensive good practice guide for organising inclusive departmental events, specialised training for HR staff, and quiet spaces for focused work. The guide has since been adopted by two other departments and featured in our institution’s EDI best practice showcase.

As research data sharing becomes increasingly expected by funders and publishers, our field lacked clear consensus on metadata standards, making it difficult for researchers to share data in ways that others could actually use. I joined a national working group convened by [Research Council] to develop community-wide standards that balanced rigour with practicality, ensuring adoption across diverse research contexts. I brought expertise in both data management and research practice, and over 18 months contributed to drafting proposed standards, led consultation workshops with 60+ researchers to gather feedback, and co-authored the final guidelines document. I also piloted the standards in my own lab and created a template and checklist to simplify implementation. The standards were formally adopted by [Research Council] and are now required for all funded projects in our domain. My implementation template has been downloaded 500+ times, and I’ve delivered three invited workshops training researchers in applying the standards. This work has measurably improved data discoverability and reuse across our field.

These three contributions have strengthened quality and inclusivity across my research community, benefiting hundreds of researchers and improving how knowledge is evaluated, shared, and produced collaboratively.

Module 4: Impact on broader society

Throughout my research career, I’ve been driven by the principle that academic knowledge should benefit society beyond university walls. However, translating research into real-world impact requires deliberate effort to engage with diverse stakeholders and communicate effectively across professional boundaries. I have pursued impact through three complementary channels to ensure my research expertise reached and benefited the communities, policymakers, and practitioners who could apply it to improve people’s lives: directly influencing health policy, building partnerships with community organisations, and making research accessible to public audiences through strategic communication.

Patients suffering from [condition C], which affects [XX] individuals across the UK, had limited effective treatment options, often relying on suboptimal approaches. My research into [A] systematically investigated and documented the clinical effectiveness of the alternative approach [B] to inform national treatment guidelines and improve outcomes for thousands of patients. I provided critical scientific evidence through carefully designed studies that quantified both improved patient outcomes and economic advantages, then presented findings to the NICE appraisal committee and responded to technical questions during their evidence review process. This evidence was formally appraised by NICE in [date] and directly contributed to their authoritative recommendation that [B] represents a cost-saving option for treating patients who would otherwise be offered [C], fundamentally changing treatment pathways and improving care for thousands of patients nationwide.

Residents in [specific community/neighbourhood] experienced disproportionately high rates of cardiovascular disease, but had limited access to evidence-based prevention information tailored to their cultural context and practical circumstances. I partnered with [Community Organization] to co-create health promotion resources that respected community knowledge while incorporating research evidence, ensuring they would actually be used and trusted. We established a collaborative project involving community health workers and residents as co-researchers. Over 12 months, we conducted focus groups, co-designed culturally appropriate materials, and piloted interventions in community settings. I secured £15,000 from [Funder] to support the partnership and trained five community members in data collection methods. The resulting toolkit of health resources is now used by 20 community centres across the region, reaching an estimated 2,000 residents annually. The community organisation reported that residents found the materials “relevant and trustworthy” because they reflected lived experience. Two community co-researchers have since been employed as health advocates, extending the project’s reach and sustainability.

Public understanding of [complex health topic, e.g., vaccine efficacy, antibiotic resistance] was often shaped by sensationalised media coverage that amplified confusion rather than clarity, potentially leading to harmful health decisions. I developed a sustained public engagement strategy to communicate nuanced research findings to general audiences in ways that were both accurate and engaging, building public health literacy. This included: writing six evidence-based articles for [national newspaper/The Conversation] reaching 50,000+ readers; delivering public lectures at [science festivals/local venues] engaging 200+ attendees; and appearing on [local radio show] to discuss research implications in accessible language. I worked with communications professionals to refine messaging and always included practical takeaways for audiences. My articles were cited by three patient advocacy groups in their educational materials, and post-event surveys showed 85% of lecture attendees reported “better understanding” of the topic. I received invitations to contribute to two healthcare charity publications, extending reach to patient communities who could directly benefit from the evidence-based guidance.

These three initiatives have translated academic findings into tangible societal benefits — from changed treatment guidelines affecting thousands of patients, to empowered community groups, to broader public understanding of complex health issues.