Simplifying Impact: a Review of Mark Reed's 'Research Impact Handbook'

When Prof Mark Reed came and did an impact workshop at the University recently, the transformative effect he had on the audience was wonderful to behold. I could almost see eyes lighting up and weights being lifted as he spoke. To many, ‘impact’ is an intimidating mountain they have been asked to climb, and a considerable number don’t feel that they have the necessary tools or map to do so. Reed was like an experienced guide at basecamp, handing out the crampons, the rope and the carabiners, sketching out the best route to the top, and then stepping back with arms thrown wide, inviting them to take the first steps. 

This books offers up the same approachable, practical level of support. Reed starts by recognising that it’s not the academics’ fault that they don’t immediately ‘get’ impact. ‘We have been trained how to do research, not how to generate impact,’ he begins. ‘This means many of us feel unprepared and out of our depth when we think about working with people who might be interested in our research. It is hard to know where to start.’

Real Call or Bugger All?

Some of you will have whiled away a slow afternoon playing with the Research Council Priority Generator.

Well, in this world of Facebook quizzes, it seemed foolish not to test your knowledge properly. Luckily, the wonderful Laura Shockley stepped up to the mark and together we offer you the 'Real Call or Bugger All?' quiz.

So are you a Research Support ninja, or still making your way as an apprentice or commis chef? There's only one way to find out...

The Nudge Effect

When David Cameron and Nick Clegg stumbled, blinking, into power in 2010 they issued The Coalition: Our programme for government, which tried to identify the common ground that existed between their two parties. “We are both committed to turning old thinking on its head and developing new approaches to government. For years...there has been the assumption that central government can only change people’s behaviour through rules and regulations. Our government will be a much smarter one, shunning the bureaucratic levers of the past and finding intelligent ways to encourage, support and enable people to make better choices for themselves.”

This idea came from a book written by Richard Thaler, an economist at the University of Chicago, and Cass Sunstein of the Harvard Law School. Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness was a little like Freakonomics before it: a popular, counterintuitive take on the behavioural psychology that underlies the apparently rational choices we make.

NERC Launches Competition to Rename Sir David Attenborough

Whisper McWhisperface

Following the news that NERC had ignored the popular vote and named its new research ship Sir David Attenborough (the fourth most popular entry, lagging some 113,086 behind the winner, Boaty McBoatface), the Research Council has moved to placate its critics by launching a new competition: to rename Sir David Attenborough.

Doctoral Training Wordwheel (DTW)

Now I'm sure many of you have been struggling with the nomenclature that the Research Councils use for their doctoral training awards. One week it seems to be DTCs, the next DTPs. Or is it CDTs? Or CTPs? It's all so confusing, isn't it? And that's even before you start factoring in European ITNs, including EIDs or EJDs.

Well, don't worry because Fundermentals is, as ever, on hand to help. Why not make up your own favourite three letter acronym to describe a doctoral training network using the wordwheel below? After all, as fashions change, I'm sure your favoured acronym will have it's time in the sun.

Now remember the rules: invent a three letter doctoral training acronym using the letters in the wheel below. You can only use each letter once, and you must include the letter in the centre. Enjoy!

Thanks to Carolyn Barker for highlighting the endless possibilities of the three letter doctoral training acronym. If any of you have policy-based puzzles to share, don't hesitate to get in touch. 

How to Prepare a Successful ERC Application

Last Wednesday we hosted Maribel Glogowski, our UKRO representative, who gave a thoughtful overview of the European Research Council (ERC) and offered insights into how best to target the funder. Dr Heather Ferguson, who recently won a Starting Grant, joined her to offer an invaluable viewpoint from someone who had been through the process.

Background

The ERC has been one of the great success stories of the EC's Framework Programme. The prestigious, responsive mode fellowships were clearly what the European research community wanted, and this was demonstrated in the heavy oversubscription of the first call for Starting Grants in 2007, when over 9,000 people applied for just 300 awards, giving a success rate of just 3.4%.

Since then the situation has settled down, and now the Starting Grant success rate is actually broadly in line with that of the ESRC at 12%. In Horizon 2020, the ERC is part of the 'Excellent Science' pillar, which funds responsive mode research. Of the total €24.2bn budget for the pillar, the ERC has almost half (€13.1bn). It provides five types of grants:

●     Starting Grants: up to €2m for 5 years for investigators 2-7 years from PhD

●     Consolidator Grants: up to €2.75m for 5 years for investigators 7-14 years from PhD

●     Advanced Grants: up to €3.5m for 5 years (no set career point restriction, but investigators must be well established leaders in their fields)

●     Synergy Grants: up to €15m for 2-4 investigators. The scheme is currently on hold.

●     Proof of Concept Grants: for ERC award holders: up to €150k for 18 months.