Recusal is the practical mechanism for managing conflicts of interest in grant assessment. When an assessor has a material relationship with an applicant, they step back from assessing that application — or in more complex cases, from the whole round.
Done well, recusal is a normal, unremarkable part of the assessment process. Done poorly, it creates awkwardness, uncertainty, and occasionally decisions that don't hold up to scrutiny. The difference is usually preparation: having a clear procedure before the situation arises, rather than working it out on the fly.
Application-level recusal: The assessor withdraws from assessing a specific application (or set of applications) where they have a declared conflict. They continue to participate in assessing all other applications in the round.
Full-round recusal: The assessor withdraws from the entire round. This is appropriate when the conflict is so pervasive that fair participation in any part of the round is difficult — for example, when the assessor has relationships with a significant portion of applicants, or when the conflict involves a funding category that dominates the round.
Application-level recusal is more common. Full-round recusal is rare and represents a significant commitment from the assessor, who will have already agreed to participate.
1. Declaration
Recusal begins with the assessor declaring their conflict of interest — either through the formal declaration process before the round begins, or immediately upon recognising a conflict during the assessment period.
The declaration should specify:
- The applicant organisation involved
- The nature of the relationship
- Whether the assessor has already reviewed the application (if the conflict was recognised late)
2. Programme manager assessment
The programme manager reviews the declared relationship and assesses whether recusal is required. Not every declared relationship triggers recusal — the test is materiality, not mere connection.
Document the assessment: "Assessor X has declared a former employment relationship with Applicant Y. Employment ended four years ago; no ongoing governance or financial relationship. Assessed as immaterial; no recusal required."
Or: "Assessor X has declared a current trustee relationship with Applicant Y. Assessed as material. Recusal required for this application."
3. Confirmation to the assessor
Communicate the decision to the assessor clearly: what they are recused from, and what they should do next. If recusal is required but the assessor has already scored the application, the score should be quarantined (not averaged with other scores) pending the recusal decision.
4. Practical separation
For application-level recusal in an individual scoring phase, practical separation is straightforward: remove the application from the assessor's review queue in your grants system, or physically set aside the paper application in a manual process.
For deliberation, the panel chair is responsible for ensuring the recused assessor leaves the room — or drops off the video call — while the affected application is discussed. This needs to be managed actively; it rarely happens smoothly without explicit management.
5. Panel deliberation management
If the recused assessor returns to deliberation after the affected application is discussed, ensure they're not present when any lingering discussion of that application continues. If the deliberation covers multiple applications and the affected one comes up in the context of comparing it to others, the recused assessor should not be present for that comparison.
Panel chairs find this easier in practice than it sounds. A clear statement at the start of the session — "Assessor X is recused from Application Y; I'll ask them to step out when we discuss that application" — normalises the process.
6. Handling the affected application
Depending on how many assessors participated in scoring and the weight of the assessment process, you may need to:
Define your minimum panel quorum before the round begins. Typically, three independent scores is a minimum for most programmes; two is sometimes accepted for less competitive rounds.
7. Documentation
Record the recusal in your process documentation:
- Who was recused
- From which application(s)
- On what basis
- How the affected application was assessed in their absence
- The outcome for the affected application
This record is essential if a decision is later challenged.
Recusal processes can create social awkwardness — assessors asked to leave the room, colleagues scoring each other's affiliated organisations, declarations that reveal relationships others didn't know about.
The panel chair's tone matters significantly here. Treating recusal as a normal, expected part of the process — "this is our standard procedure; thanks for declaring, let's continue" — removes the stigma and makes future declarations more likely.
The worst outcome is an assessor who doesn't declare because they're worried about creating an awkward situation. Culture and tone that normalise declaration are your best prevention mechanism.
Recusal in a video call format requires more active management than in-person. Practical steps:
A few panels try to manage this by having the recused assessor simply not speak during the relevant discussion. This is insufficient — the assessor is still in the room, receiving information about the application and the panel's views. Physical or virtual separation is required.
This article is part of the complete guide: Conflict of Interest in Grant Assessment: A Practical Guide.