Research Fundermentals

Notes from Rick Rylance Visit

2012-02-20T00:57:00.003-08:00

Prof Rick Rylance, CEO of the AHRC, provided some insights into his current thinking when he visited the University on Friday. He started by outlining the environment in which the Council was operating. After the flat settlement in the Comprehensive Spending Review, it was clear that:

there should be no duplicate funding. There should be no duplication between, say, the AHRC, the ESRC or the BA, but also that there shouldn't be duplication between the funding that came through QR and that that came through RCUK;
there was a need to focus on excellence. Essentially, this meant concentration. The AHRC funds 85 institutions, but 75% of its funding goes to just 30 of these, and 39% to just 10. In this climate how do you ensure that you provide broad support? By encouraging collaboration. He gave the example of Russian. There were 18 Depts of Russian in the UK, but all but 3 of them have less than 4 staff. It would make sense for these to collaborate more.
there was a need to demonstrate results. Rylance made clear that they were 'methodologically impoverished' in terms of identifying and collating information on the impact that AHRC-funded research was having. The sector needed to 'thicken out' and develop a robust methodology for collecting and demonstrating impact.
there was a need for 'efficiency gains'. In other words, RCUK were being asked to do more with less, both through the Wakeham Report, but also through demand management. Rylance himself was not keen on quotas and penalties, as he thought that this led to conservatism, but that institutions should be encouraged to proactively review and develop excellent applications, and that best practice needed to be shared.

Following on from this, Rylance outlined a series of issues that were occupying his thoughts. These included:

Interdisciplinarity. The distinctions between pure and applied, between responsive and strategic, would disappear over time, suggested Rylance. Both HEIs and funders would be collaborating more and more.
'Second Generation Problem.' He voiced some concern over the succession and sustainability of the sector. There were currently a lot of early career researchers, but he was worried about bringing on the next generation when there's less capacity in the sector as senior colleagues no longer needed to retire.
'Partnership World'. He recognised that a 'partnership world' was emerging, and that we were all feeling our way in this. There needed to be new ways of working, new structures and new provision for the way that research and education would be undertaken in the future. We all needed to think of the opportunities that this provided, rather than getting anxious about the change.

There was a full and frank question and answer session that followed, and a number of issues were raised, including open access, how collaborations should be facilitated, and the future of separate Research Councils.

Thanks both to Prof Rylance for coming over to talk to the University, and for Lynne Bennett for organising the event.

Not with a Bang but a Whimper

2012-02-16T03:12:00.005-08:00

Well, there was I, popcorn in hand, ready to watch it all kick off after the EPSRC's announcement of the latest runners and riders in the 'Shaping Capability' sweepstakes. Imagine my disappointment at the muted response from the sector. What, no angry letters to The Times? No resignations? Surely some mistake?

The response could, of course, be because the EPSRC has effectively dodged the bullet by (a) only looking at a relatively small number of areas, (b) saying that only two of these will be cut. They had learnt, I think, from their experience with the first tranche of disciplines, when there was a strong backlash against the Council's actions. This time both Research Fortnight and The Times Higher were struggling to find dissidents to rail against the EPSRC. Prof Neal Skipper from UCL suggested that one of the areas to be cut, Hydrogen Storage, was not at a mature stage of development, as the EPSRC Chief David 'Derek Smalls' Delpy seemed to suggest. But that was pretty much it.

The rest seemed to shrug and move on. Even Twitter, the medium of choice for hysterics, was relatively subdued about it. Which is all very disappointing. I'll put my popcorn away until the main feature later in the year, when a decision on the remaining 51 areas (out of a total 111) will be made. There's sure to be fireworks then.

Everything's ROS-y at NERC

2012-02-15T08:26:00.001-08:00

NERC has decided to join AHRC, BBSRC, EPSRC and ESRC and join the Research Outcomes System (ROS). This will take over from its Research Outputs Database (ROD), which they've been using for nearly a decade.

The Council make the case that this will:

Reduce the reporting burden by reducing the number of equivalent systems;
Simplify submission by moving to a more standardised questionnaire;
Improve how publications are handled;
Share information better between systems, reducing data entry and reducing transcription errors; and
Improve the quality of performance information available to support the case for public investment in the environmental sciences.

What's not to like? Well, as reported here a few months back, the new system isn't without glitches. However, NERC isn't adopting it immediately. Oh no. As in the Life of Brian, this calls for immediate...discussion. NERC will bound into action by:

Completing the current collection exercise on the existing system;
Establishing a project to manage the process of adopting ROS for future years collection with Centre participation;
Engaging with users through the project to ensure that user requirements are identified and met;
Adapting ROS where necessary to address NERC requirements, including coverage of grants and Centre programmes; and
To migrate, as necessary, historic data.

I love this, the snail-like progress of bureaucracy in motion. It is a thing of beauty. Now if you want more information as to where we are in the programme of NERC migration to ROS - and who doesn't? - it can be found here.

The End is Nigh

2012-02-14T02:02:00.004-08:00

And now, the end is near....yes, we're in to the final stretch of FP7, and we're beginning to get notification of the last of the deadlines. Dry your tears, and start preparing those applications. Here are the provisional details of the last round of Marie Curie grants:

Initial Training Networks: 22 November 2012
Researchers' Night: 10 January 2013
International Research Staff Exchange Scheme: 17 January 2013
COFUND: 5 December 2012
Career Integration Grants: 7 March 2013 and 5 September 2013
Industry-Academia Partnerships and Pathways: 15 January 2013
Intra-European Fellowships: 14 August 2013
International Incoming Fellowships: 14 August 2013
International Outgoing Fellowships: 14 August 2013

AHRC's Rick Rylance to Visit this Friday

2012-02-13T02:12:00.000-08:00

Prof Rick Rylance (Chief Executive of the AHRC and Chair of RCUK Executive Group) will be visiting the University on Friday 17 February. Rick will be speaking to staff at an open meeting in the Darwin Conference Suite at 1.30 pm about the AHRC’s Delivery Plan and strategic direction.

There will be plenty of time for questions so if you have a question about plans for longer and larger grants, the new Fellowship schemes, demand management or the influence of government policy on the Council’s strategy, please come along and ask.

Please let my colleague Lynne Bennett know if you are planning to come along so that she can get an idea of numbers.

Profoundly in Love with Pandora

2012-02-10T03:18:00.000-08:00

The Guardian reported last week on the squall that has blown up around Elsevier because of its support for the retrograde legislation that is currently making its way through the US Congress. The Research Works Act, in the words of Wikipedia, 'contains provisions to prohibit open access mandates for federally funded research [and] would also severely restrict the sharing of scientific data.'

3000 academics have already signed a petition pledging to boycott Elsevier. They are objecting not only to Elsevier's support for the legislation, but also to the business model that the company uses, which is based around charging 'exorbitantly high' subscription bundles, which include titles that many libraries don't want.

This isn't an issue confined to America. Open access has slowly been making inroads in the UK. Wellcome now expects all funded investigators to make their outputs freely accessible, and the Research Councils have a similar expectation.

This week Prof Stephen Curry of Imperial added to the storm by refusing to review an article for Elsevier. Interestingly Elsevier themselves commented on his blog post, and one can understand their point of view: 'putting an article online for free has economic consequences for the publisher because it effectively takes away returns that a publisher earns from all the value it has added and the investment it has made. So it does have the potential to make a journal unsustainable, and thus negatively impact the research community that relies on it.'

However, in this information age I'm not sure this Pandora's Box can be repacked. Maybe Pandora's Box is the wrong analogy; it suggests the release of evil, whereas Open Access is, I think, the release of good. Like the internet it offers unparalleled openness and freedom, a potential for knowledge and advances that would have been the stuff of dreams for previous generations. Of course, there will be losers as well as winners in this, victims as well as beneficiaries. But it doesn't make sense for Elsevier or the US Congress to try and stand in the way of this and - to use another analogy - act like Cnuts and hold back the tide.

ERC Inundated by Applications for Synergy Grants

2012-01-31T07:52:00.001-08:00

Interesting statistics have emerged from the European Research Council regarding the number of applications to the pilot round of the Synergy grants scheme. You will, of course, remember that this was launched in July to encourage academics to group together to be more than the sum of their parts. Like the Beatles. I mean, aside from the Frog Chorus, has Paul McCartney ever done anything that touches his work with John Lennon?

Anyway, as it was a pilot, they were only planning to fund 10 or so grants. However, they obviously touched a raw nerve of need amongst the European research community, because by close of play on 25 January they had received 710 applications. Now I'm no mathematician, but I make that to be a success rate of 1.41%. Eeek!

This brings back the heady days of the first round of the Starting Grants in 2007, when 9167 applicants applied for one of the 299 awards on offer. But even that offered a comparatively respectable 3.26% success rate - more than double the possible outcome for the Synergy Grants.

I'd love to know what's going through the mind of the ERC President Prof Helga Nowotny (whose surname, incidentally, looks a little like a mashup between the acronyms for the News of the World and Have I Got News for You). Panic? Fear? Or pleasure that, once again, the ERC has identified they type of funding that European researchers actually want: responsive mode, and generous.

I hope so. I hope that this experience does not deter the ERC from ever running the scheme again. Rather, I hope they bite the bullet and provide more funding for the scheme. There's obviously a pan-European appetite for such funding. Let's hope they're brave, recognise the demand, and provide the funding to at least push the success rate into double figures.

Final REF Criteria Published

2012-01-31T04:19:00.000-08:00

The final versions of the REF Panel Criteria and Working Methods were published yesterday, and are available here.

Highlights include:

outputs pre-published in 2007 may be submitted as long as they were not submitted to RAE2008
the number of outputs required of ECRs remains as in the draft criteria
a new tariff has been introduced for the number of outputs required of staff who work part-time, go on secondment or have career breaks
working methods are now common across the whole exercise; not distinguished by panel
a reduction of one output per period of statutory maternity or adoption leave is allowed, with no minimum qualifying period
a reduction of one output per period of ‘additional paternity or adoption leave’ lasting 4 months or more.

Thanks to my colleague Clair Thrower for looking at the criteria and picking out these points. If you have specific questions about this do drop her a line.

Horizon 2020: Slides from UKRO Talk Available

2012-01-31T03:18:00.000-08:00

Thanks to all those who were able to make it to the UKRO European Funding event on 20 January. The slides and the handout from the talk on Horizon 2020, together with the slides from the ERC workshop, are now available on the Research Services website, here (Kent login needed). If you have any questions about them, don’t hesitate to ask.

We are starting to take bookings for the next European funding event, due to take place on 9 May. This will focus on the pros and cons of European funding, led by two academics (Prof Simon Thompson (Computing) and Jenny Billings (CHSS)) who have considerable experience of both the highs and lows of engaging with the EC. Notes from last year’s event are available on the blog, here; if you’d like to take part in May do drop me a line.

NERC Introduces Demand Management

2012-01-26T06:09:00.001-08:00

NERC has become the third Research Council - after EPSRC and ESRC - to explicitly state that they want universities to 'self regulate' their applications. This announcement was triggered by worries about success rates in some of their schemes falling to 16%.

Whilst NERC already has in place some measures to 'manage demand' - eg limiting the number of applications an investigator can submit per call and restricting resubmissions - this hasn't stopped the success rates from sliding in recent years. They're hoping to reverse this by encouraging institutions to strip out applications which NERC would define as 'uncompetitive' (defined by them as scoring 6/10 or below at panel).

So what are they going to do?

firstly, ask institutions to nominate a point of contact for demand management;
secondly, in the summer, provide data on past performance to them. This will be repeated annually from autumn 2013. The data will apply to Urgency, Large and Standard Grants, but not Fellowships or outlines. It will include: success rates for all schemes; distribution of grades for funded and unfunded proposals by scheme; final moderated grades for all proposals from institution/department; relative performance of institution/department.
thirdly, from autumn 2012 NERC will (ahem) 'engage in a strategic dialogue' with institutions to provide information and advice in support of demand management, including setting targets for changes in submission behaviours. They can't meet with everyone in the first year, so those with the most applications, or with black marks in the NERC copy book, will be the first to get a visit from 'the management.'

So, at the moment, it looks to be relatively light touch: more ESRC than EPSRC. However, there will be the expectation that all research organisation will have their own internal quality control systems in place.

Who will be the next Research Council to fall in to line? Given the recent rumblings from Death Star House, my money's on the AHRC...

Big Projects: the View from Research Services

2012-01-24T05:56:00.000-08:00

Last term I took part in a Grants Factory event around developing 'big' projects. As part of this, I spoke briefly about issues that potential applicants should be aware of, gathered from the experience of Research Services in supporting bids.

Strong leader

Firstly, for a bid to be successful, it needs to have a strong leader. Not only do they need to have a single unifying vision, but they have to be persuasive and ruthless. They need to be able to attract the 'right' collaborators, but also need to be able to say no to those who aren't right for the project.

Talk to funder/Programme Manager

Secondly, you need to gather intelligence. Whilst most funders provide plenty of generic guidance, you need to try and get to the heart of what they really want. What are the politics behind the bid? Do they have in mind a particular structure, a particular project, a particular size? Talk to people at the funders and, if possible, the academics who helped to draft the call.

Preparing the bid

Thirdly, when it comes to the drafting of the bid, there are key elements to get right:

With lots of collaborators, there's a danger that different drafts of the application get confused. Use software - such as Sharepoint or Dropbox - to help wiht version control.
Face to face meetings are crucial for thrashing out the fundamentals.
Give yourself time. I've already talked about this in relation to European Funding applications, but it's true of all big bids. You need much, much more time than you think you might: time to make connections, to get the intelligence, to draft and redraft, to get feedback, to get accurate costings, and to get it signed off.
Make sure you've got the right partners. Sure, profile and research quality are important, but they have to be able to deliver the practicals. They must be trustworthy and dependable. They shouldn't be there as passengers. Your collaboration is only as strong as the weakest link. Once you've got the right people in place, make sure the management structures are appropriate and strong: it takes a lot of coordination.
Finally, make sure you have the contact details of your partners' research offices, and pass them on to us to liaise with them.

Post Award Issues

Even before you put pen to paper to draft the application, you should be aware of what you're letting yourself in for. Three issues that come up regularly with my colleagues dealing with the post-award side of things are:

Coordination: make sure you include the cost of an administrator/coordinator. This is crucial: it always takes much more effort, time and energy than you think;
Timesheets: a killer for European grants. Make sure you keep track of the amount of time you spend on the grant, and don't leave completing these until the last minute.
Equipment: some funders are unhappy if you don't purchase this as soon as the project starts.

The picture, in case you're wondering, is a picture of a Greek Orthodox priest herding cats. Now I'm not saying anything about the experience of coordinating colleagues when writing a bid, but...

Bookings Open for New Grants Factory Events

2012-01-24T03:56:00.000-08:00

Bookings are now open for two spring term Grants Factory workshops.

Playing the Game: Dr Jenny Billings and Prof Sarah Spurgeon
Weds 15 February: 12.15-1.45pm

This lunchtime workshop is led by two successful Kent researchers with extensive experience of both winning and awarding research grants. It looks at winning research grants as a ‘game’ that applicants will play better if they understand the rules, the skills and the tactics needed for success. Prof Sarah Spurgeon (EDA) is an elected member of the EPSRC Engineering College and has received grants worth over £4 million from EPSRC, the Leverhulme Trust, the European Commission and both government and industry sources. Dr Jenny Billings (CHSS) is particularly experienced in large collaborative projects and has acted as an evaluator for the European Commission as well as wining and coordinating funded research projects from sources as diverse as the European Commission, the Big Lottery, health charities, primary care trusts and government sources. The event is largely discussion-based and Sarah and Jenny are pleased to welcome Dr Heather Ferguson (Psychology)and Dr Nicola Shaughnessy (Arts) who will join them to help lead the workshop. No advance preparation is required and sandwiches will be provided.

Writing Better Bids: Prof David Shemmings
Thurs 1 March: 10am- 12pm

Prof. David Shemmings has been running popular grant-writing workshops at the University of Kent and at a range of other institutions (including an ESRC-funded researcher development programme) since 2009. This informal talk (with plenty of opportunity for discussion and questions) provides a set of techniques that you can use to structure and write grant applications that appeal to busy, non-specialist decision makers and are more likely to succeed in research funding competitions. It explains: the decision-making process; the way that grant applications are used by referees and grants’ committees, and how to make your application stand out against the competition. No advance preparation is required and refreshments will be provided.

Both events are suitable for academic staff at any career stage and from any discipline. Places are limited and we have already received some advance bookings for both, so please let my colleague Jacqueline Aldridge know asap if you would like to attend (if you haven’t done so already) or want further information.

Leverhulme Bankrolls the BA Small Grants Scheme

2012-01-24T01:30:00.001-08:00

Great news from the Mayfair Gentlemen's Club that is the BA HQ. As you will remember, the BA scrapped, and then reinstated, their Small Grants scheme. However, there was still some uncertainty hanging over the scheme: when I spoke to them at the time they said that they would make 'strong representations and arguments' to BIS to continue it.

Now Leverhulme has come riding over the horizon with a fistful of dollars. They are going to pump £1.5m into the scheme over the next three years. Adam Golberg at Nottingham has done more analysis of what this will mean in practice, and he reckons that it will be an extra 67 or so funded projects.

It remains to be seen whether the scheme will continue indefinitely, and what the success rate will be when the scheme reopens in the open. But in the meantime let's just thank Leverhulme for recognising the worth of small scale funding as an investment in the future.

ESRC Opens Secondary Data Initiative

2012-01-18T01:06:00.000-08:00

Last June I wrote about how the ESRC was going to implement its Delivery Plan. Yesterday news came through about one arm of this implementation: the Secondary Data Initiative. As you will doubtless remember, the ESRC scrapped its Small Grants scheme, with the exception of this Initiative. Backed by £10.8 million funding, it will offer grants of up to £200k to exploit major data resources that the ESRC and other agencies had already created.

These include cohort studies, the British Household Panel Survey, Understanding Society, census datasets, and the European Social Survey. In this first phase they will only be funding 20 or so projects, but if your research uses these or other sources of existing data, it's worth considering putting together an application. The deadline is 19 April; get in touch if you want any help with putting together an application.

NERC Increases Size of Peer Review College

2012-01-17T04:37:00.000-08:00

Hot on the heels of the ESRC's announcement that it is seeking new panel members, NERC is taking on additional members for its Peer Review College, raising the number from 450 to 600. This is 'to make involvement in NERC peer review activities more manageable and to allow NERC to widen the expertise-base of the College'. It is looking for members with all types of environmental sciences expertise, including those from the public and private sector user communities. The deadline for nominations is 27 January. More info here.

This, I think, is a Good Thing. One of the reasons for academics to fight shy of getting involved with the funders is the workload. If the research councils are able to increase the available pool of reviewers then, hopefully, it will lessen the load for all, as well as allowing more to see that the process of peer review is not the mysterious, loaded, unfair system that it can sometimes seem.

But Who's Right? There's Only One Way to Find Out...

2012-01-11T08:38:00.000-08:00

Well, knives are quietly being sharpened around EPSRC. The rumblings of discontent have been going on for some time, and touch on everything from the Council's 'remit shaping' exercise, to its 'national importance' criterion, to its removal of PhD students from its grants.

Now, in a letter to the Daily Telegraph, 70 eminent scientists have vented their frustration. 'Taken together, [these actions] pose a serious threat to British science. EPSRC has exceeded its remit so spectacularly that it has lost the confidence of a significant proportion of the scientific community.'

Stuff and nonsense, say EPSRC. The fabulously named Attila Emecz, the EPSRC's Director of Strategy, dismissed the accusations as 'a major and gross misrepresentation.' Not only that, but the changes are, actually, brilliant: 'we believe the new policies will protect and improve UK research.'

But who's right? Well, in the words of Harry Hill, there's only one way to find out: 'FIGHT!' Crack open the popcorn, don the 3D glasses, put your feet up and watch battle commence.

ESRC Seeks New Panel Members

2012-01-09T02:54:00.000-08:00

The ESRC’s peer review panels, which assess grant applications, are seeking new members in the following areas:

• Sociology, particularly sociology of health
• Socio-legal studies
• Science and technology studies
• Management and business studies, including accounting and finance
• Economics, particularly micro-economics

I would strongly encourage you to consider putting yourself forward, or suggest this to members of your School. The insights you will get as to the decision making process, as well as finding out about work going on at other universities, is invaluable. Deadline is 1 February 2012. More information is available here.

Looking to the Horizon: UKRO Talk - 20 Jan

2012-01-06T07:46:00.000-08:00

‘Looking to the Horizon: the end of FP7 and the future of European funding’

Jo Frost, European Advisor, UKRO

12:30-14:00, 20 January 2012

Venue TBC

Jo Frost is the University’s representative at UKRO. Based in Brussels, she is tapped into official and unofficial sources of information at the Commission, and has a comprehensive understanding of how EC funding works. She will be looking, in this talk, at the final two years of FP7, and what the EC is planning for the new framework programme, ‘Horizon 2020’. The EC published its proposals for this before Christmas, and this will be an opportunity to get an idea of what is planned. In addition, with Research Council funding becoming more and more difficult to access, and European funding increasing (and ringfenced) until the end of 2014, there are still plenty of opportunities to consider applying to FP7. Jo will talk a little about recent changes to the programme that you might not have seen.

The talk is open to all. Tea and coffee will be available. If you would like to come along, contact me.

Jo will also be taking part in a workshop for those currently working on ERC proposals. If you would like to take part in this, and I haven’t contacted you already, do let me know.

Finally, Jo will return in May to take part in a Grants Factory session with Simon Thompson and Jenny Billings on the pros and cons of European funding (see the notes from last year’s session, here). This will be aimed at those who are new to European funding. I’ll send out more detail of this in due course.

Contemplating Turkeys

2012-01-04T06:07:00.000-08:00

Dear David

Happy New Year to you. Whilst the rest of us were pulling crackers and flicking through the bumper copy of the Radio Times, it looks like you were hard at work planning the next phase of the Coalition's higher education strategy. Really David; you should have rested completely. Good policy does not come from contemplating turkeys.

I must admit that I was a little bewildered (as were many on Twitter) by the plans you announced today for privately-funded graduate institutions. Now I know I've had a long break (with the Guardian noting how befuddled the workforce is after the long Christmas 'Lull'), but am I missing something?

Run it by me again, David: you want universities to set up international collaborations, using private money, to found new research intensive 'hubs'? But the Government isn't going to contribute? Even the land for it is expected to be given, gratis, by a UK city. Would those be the same cities currently being squeezed by the Government's austerity measures?

I'm afraid it has the feeling of a magician's sleight of hand: if you twirl the handkerchief wildly enough, and blind us with magical words, will it make you seem dynamic, thrusting, forward thinking, and decisive - without really having to produce anything?

I don't think so. I'm pleased to read about your support for UK research and innovation, but if you really feel that 'high-tech, high-quality science and research...will drive economic growth as we go into the next decade', then why not invest in it? Sure, use the public funding to leverage private investment, but don't expect commercial organisations to come running to the aid of the UK's research base. If even the Government doesn't want to invest, why should anyone else?

As you suggest, 'our research community is the most productive in the world.' Let's do all we can to keep it so. Enough grand words. Time for some real commitment.

I Fought the Law, and the Law Published Proposals for Post-2014 Funding

2011-12-20T03:27:00.000-08:00

Now, as if all the excitement over the publication of the Horizon 2020 proposals wasn't enough, news is coming through that the European Commission is busily rearranging deckchairs elsewhere within its future funding provision. The Directorates General for Justice, Home Affairs and Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion have got together to simplify the smorgasbord on offer. Less, in this case, may be more.

Currently DG Justice runs six - yes, six - programmes, covering various justice, rights and equality issues. These will be simplified to just two:

Justice Programme, which aims to promote 'judicial co-operation in civil and criminal matters...where obstacles in cross-border judicial proceedings are eliminated.' The Programme will have €472m to play with, and hopes to tackle judicial cooperation, access to justice and reducing drug demand and supply.
Rights & Citizenship Programme aims 'to contribute to the development of an area of freedom, security and justice, by promoting and supporting the effective implementation of a Europe of rights.' They have slightly less than Justice (€439m), and the hope is that this should be enough to do away with discrimination, basically.

Over in DG Home Affairs they're replacing their two current programmes with two more, 'same but different' programmes.

The Asylum and Migration Fund does what it says on the tin, and deals with issues of migration. Its overall budget will be around €3.9bn.
The Internal Security Fund will support the EU approach to law enforcement co-operation, including the management of the EU's external borders. It's budget will be around €4.65bn.

Finally, in DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, they're relabelling their three current programmes as a shiny new 'Programme for Social Change and Innovation (PSCI)'. I'm sure I don't need to remind you what the three current programmes are:

The Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity (PROGRESS), which will get €574m;
The European Employment Services (EURES), which will get €143.7m, and
The European Progress Microfinance Facility, which will get €191.6m.

Thanks to UKRO for the headsup on this. Now as you were: back to the mince pies and mulled wine.

Further Changes to NERC Schemes

2011-12-14T02:57:00.000-08:00

The Natural Environment Research Council has announced several changes to its responsive mode portfolio, which will take effect from 1 January.

Consortium Grants replaced by Large Grants
The Consortium Grant Responsive Mode scheme will be replaced by a new Large Grant scheme. The Large Grant scheme will continue to support adventurous, large-scale and complex research tackling big science questions, which cannot be addressed through other NERC funding opportunities. Key changes in comparison to the previous Consortium scheme are as follows:

There will no longer be a requirement for a minimum of three eligible investigators based in separate participating organisations.
A minimum funding level of £1·2m (100% FEC) will be introduced (the maximum funding level of £3·7m remains unchanged).
There'll be an outline stage. This will be assess on 'potential excellence' and 'fit to scheme'.
Next deadlines are: Outline Proposal Closing Date: 1 March 2012; Full Proposal Closing date: 15 November 2012 (tbc).
The assessment process and documentation required for submitting Large Grant full proposals is unchanged from the Consortium scheme.

Standard Grants
A maximum funding level of £1·2m (100% FEC) will be introduced for Standard Grants. This change is to provide clear differentiation between the Standard Grant scheme and the new Large Grant scheme. The minimum funding level for Standard Grants is also amended to £65,000 (100% FEC).

New Investigator Grants
Following completion of the 2012 call (deadline 1 Feb), the New Investigator competition will cease to operate as a separate scheme and will be incorporated into the Standard Grant scheme. Eligibility will not change. New Investigator proposals will no longer be subject to any specific funding limits or restrictions. The ability to submit a New Investigator application via the Standard Grant call will be available from the December 2012 closing date onwards.

Urgency Grants
Some modifications will be made to clarify the remit of the scheme and circumstances that will be accepted as grounds for an Urgency application. The application and assessment process will also be updated.

There's no indication as to whether these changes are the result of the new moptop director,Duncan 'call me Rick' Wingham.

EPSRC & the Difficulty of 'National Importance'

2011-12-13T06:54:00.000-08:00

I wrote last month about EPSRC's plan to include 'national importance' as a criterion for judging funding applications. At their Regional Event in London yesterday they gave a little more idea what they had in mind. However, it was clear that they were still (as Catherine Coates said) in 'listening mode', and were keen to get feedback on their proposals.

Since announcing their plans, EPSRC have taken time to try and pin down 'national importance'. It is currently envisaged as research that will have an impact in 10-50 years time, and that:

is key to maintaining the health of other research disciplines;
directly contributes to addressing key UK societal challenges;
contributes to current or future UK economic success;
enables future development of key emerging industries.

Whilst it might be tempting to dismiss this as too vague and too long term to be worth engaging with, I'd urge caution. After all, 'national importance' is now the second criterion after research quality, with impact, track record and resources/management trailing behind.

However, it will still be a challenge to put meat on these bones, and also to make the case for today's research being key to developments in fifty years time. Imagine if EPSRC had introduced this in the 1980s: the issues of national importance would have been the coming ice age and the threat from the Soviet Union. As for smart phones, Star Trek Communicators were as close as we got. And you couldn't even text on them. And that was only thirty years ago.

So looking into the future to predict national importance is tough. Moreover, even though this is the Number 2 criterion, it will have to jostle for space in the 'Case for Support.' It will not have a separate attachment, unlike the Number 3 criterion, impact.

And, whilst it's going to be tough for applicants to try and make the case for national importance, it's going to be every bit as hard for the peer reviewers to sift on this basis. This was clear when EPSRC got us to have a go, using abstracts from previously successful applications. We sat there, huddled around the abstracts, trying to second guess where the research might lead.

However, Paul Thompson rounded off the session by bringing a sense of perspective. There was already an expectation that applicants should make the case for the importance of their research; all the EPSRC were doing was making this explicit. As with impact, get others to have a look at your application, and get help from Research Services in identifying and framing national importance.

Pass Notes: EPSRC Regional Event

2011-12-13T01:58:00.000-08:00

Ooo! Regional Event! Brilliant! Is that like the Radio 1 Roadshow? Um..

I love the Radio 1 Roadshow! Gary Davies, Bruno Brookes, Sinitta singing her latest hit...Hmm. I think you'll be a little disappointed with the EPSRC Regional Event, then.

What? Are there no celebrities? Not even a minor pop star? No, I'm afraid not. Although EPSRC's Liam Blackwell does bear a passing resemblance to Evan Davis off Dragons' Den.

He's not exactly the Hairy Cornflake, though, is he? Well no, but he is very knowledgeable about the changes to the EPSRC's peer review process for deciding on equipment.

Is that anything to do with 'Bits & Pieces'? In a way, yes. When EPSRC's capital budget was cut by 50% they had to decide what they were going to do about equipment costs.

50%! Blimey! Blimey indeed. It meant that EPSRC had to rethink how it was going to share out what was left.

I imagine they came up with something simple and transparent. Hmm. Well. If you are applying for less than £10,000, it goes through the normal channels. However, if it's for £10,000-£121,588 you'll only get 50% of the costs, and you'll have to share the equipment and justify the costs. More than that, and the equipment can't be limited to a single project. The application will get seen by a separate Strategic Equipment Panel, and you'll have to sign your name in blood, and get a special dispensation from the Queen.

Really? Well, the last bit was stretching the truth a little...

So did Evan – I mean Liam – say anything else? He did give some hints and tips for those wanting to apply for equipment costs. Before you do anything else, talk to EPSRC about your plans. Check whether the same or similar equipment is available at your university or elsewhere...

Slow down! I'm trying to write this down, but my Simon Bates pen has run out. Just listen and try to remember it. So talk to the EPSRC; check whether similar equipment's available close by already; work out how you're going to share access, and charge for it; and check how hard it is to actually get that bit of kit.

So basically do your homework first. You're not as stupid as you look.

It's all the Radio 1 Roadshows I used to listen to. There's nothing you can't learn from Steve Wright in front of an excitable audience on the seafront at Bridlington. Hmm.

Do say: Hello, you don't know me, but I hear you have a Large Hadron Collider going spare...

Don't say: I can pay you in Radio 1 merchandise.

Catapults Are Go!

2011-12-08T06:29:00.001-08:00

The new Innovation and Research Strategy was published today by the Dept for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS). This sets out what the Government is going to do to encourage collaboration between the private and public sector, and embed innovation in the heart of any recovery.

The marvellous Mark Leach has had an early look at this, and has summarised the doorstop document brilliantly in the WonkHE blog. As he says, 'it's long, it’s nebulous and it can sometimes read more like a laundry list than a truly coherent strategy document.' So you're in for a treat.

He's done a great job in summarising it, and I won't try to do the same. If you want to get a flavour of what BIS are planning, go to his blog. However, one of the highlights of the Strategy is the strange construction toy language that the BIS use throughout. They talk of the Research Councils developing a 'gateway to research', 'catapults', 'launchpads' and 'clusters', 'hot spots', and 'acceleration'.

You can just imagine them, in short trousers, playing with their Meccano sets, building their gateways and catapults, humming the theme tune to the Thunderbirds as they identify 'hot spots' around their 'launchpads'.

However, whilst I love this language, I'm not entirely convinced that they've chosen the right metaphors to use for developing sustainable, productive relationships. After all, weren't catapults intended ultimately for projecting inert objects great distances to maim, murder and maul? And don't hot spots exist primarily in vulcanology to describe an area of deadly, life-destroying volcanic activity? And aren't launchpads primarily associated with the costly cul de sac that was the Apollo space programme?

That's the danger of using words creatively in policy documents: you never know what it might trigger in the audience's mind. Moreover, after Iraq, you would have thought that Whitehall would be somewhat wary about sexing up dossiers to appeal to a disinterested public.

What Are the ESRC Strategic Priorities for?

2011-12-07T07:33:00.000-08:00

In the thick of the back-slapping love-in that was the ESRC Open Meeting last night, I felt a little like Banquo's ghost. I'm not saying that Paul Boyle's murdered anyone recently to be Thane of Swindon, or anything, it's just that I felt a little out of place. Don't get me wrong: I love the ESRC and admire all who sail in her, and I was made to feel very welcome, but I was taken aback by how uncritical the audience seemed to be. The questions were, generally, along the lines of, 'Paul, could I just agree with the previous questioner by saying how brilliant you are?' The toughest questions were saved for government departments (Boo! Hiss!) which, it was generally agreed, weren't pulling their weight in (a) using ESRC-sponsored research, and (b) telling the world how brilliant the ESRC was.

So, like the oik that I am, I waded in with an everso, everso slightly critical question. Feeling a little like a naughty schoolboy before the headmaster, I asked, - em – what did the panel think of Sir Paul Nurse's comments last week, when he took a side swipe at the EPSRC by attacking the concept of funders as 'sponsors'? After all, the ESRC's three 'strategic priorities' seemed to be a move in this direction.

Paul Boyle chortled like an indulgent Dumbledore, 'I certainly wouldn't want to comment on a sister research council,' he began, before explaining how the ESRC was cleverly treading the tightrope between shepherding the sector and giving them the space to do whatever they wanted via their responsive mode schemes.

Well, yes and no. You see, my problem with the ESRC priority areas is that I just don't get the point. For all its faults, the EPSRC is at least putting its money where its mouth is. You may disagree with the policy of 'shaping' its remit, but it's obviously decided what is important, and is now steaming ahead with putting into practice the changes necessary. Their priority areas do, at least, have some value – for better or worse.

The ESRC, on the other hand, has consulted widely, and has produced a 'bottom up' list that is so broad as to be almost meaningless:

economic performance and sustainable growth;
influencing behaviour and informing interventions;
a vibrant and fair society.

Well, that's pretty much the ESRC's remit covered, then.

But what are social scientists meant to make of – or do with – this list? It was made clear that the priorities wouldn’t play a part in responsive mode funding; indeed, at the ESRC Study Day in September Michelle Dodson said that the ESRC would ‘only exceptionally’ provide ‘new investments’ in these areas.

So they don’t want to railroad the sector with the priorities, nor do they want to provide much funding for them. What's left? What are they for, and what will they do? Dodson did say that the priorities would be fulfilled by ‘enhancing impact from existing investments’ and ‘encouraging investments to work together.’

Make of that what you will. Of course, if you don’t like them, you needn’t worry, because there might well be a new set along in due course. Whilst they don’t want to revise them each year they might be (ahem) ‘refreshed annually.’

Okay, so I may joke about these priorities, but I do think there is an important point to make here. There’s been a lot of light and heat generated by these: as Boyle suggested, there was a long consultation process, involving 'taskforces', 'frameworks', 'discussions', and 'comment', to arrive at these fairly anodyne aspirations. The ESRC should now either back the priorities by committing wholeheartedly to them [*shudder*], or, more preferably, drop the pretence at being directive and allow the sector to decide for itself – through the peer review and funding of excellent research – what its priorities are.

To Arrive Where We Started

2011-12-05T03:22:00.000-08:00

I mentioned the launch of Horizon 2020 last week. Looking through the detail I was interested to see that the proposed reimbursement rates are, to quote the League of European Research Universities (LERU), 'a true simplification for the participants, not only for the administrators handling the budget, but also, and very importantly, for the principal investigators.' Like LERU, I was pleased about this, though the European Universities Association (EUA, AKA the People's Front of Judea) is not so happy, though, seeing it as 'a clear step backwards'.

But what's not to like? The EC is proposing that it will fund 100% or direct costs, and 20% of indirect costs for all research projects. This would replace the current system which funds according to the activity, with research activities being funded at 75%, management activities at 100%, and demonstration activities at 50%. Moreover, indirect costs are calculated at 60%. As you can imagine, this all causes a large amount of stress and brain ache for both applicants and research offices, especially as the result often ends up as a figure roughly equivalent to 100% direct +20% indirect.

So top marks to the EC for taking the simple route. Interestingly, I was told that a similar algorithm had been used by them in previous iterations of the Framework Programme (though before my time). All of which brought to mind TS Eliot in Little Gidding:

We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.

Life, the Universe and Everything: STFC Publishes Its Roadmap

2011-12-02T06:56:00.001-08:00

For anyone who uses Twitter on a regular basis, you know the situation. A gnomic tweet appears on your timeline, and you find yourself having to find out more. In my case it was from the STFC feed, @STFC_matters: 'have you seen the STFC Science Roadmap?' Of course, my natural reaction was to reply with a facetious 'why, have you lost it? I'm sure I saw it in the glove compartment, under that tin of travel sweets.'

But I was intrigued, and wanted to find out more. I like the idea of roadmaps, which provide certainty and direction. I was wondering what directions I could get from the STFC, given that it deals with astronomy, particle and nuclear physics. 'Excuse me mate: could you tell me the way to Alpha Centuri?' 'Sure, no worries: head for Betlelgeuse, take a left at Andromeda and you can't miss it'.

As to certainty, that seems to be something of a moot point in particle physics at the moment, given that the embarrassing lack of the Higgs Boson threatens to undermine all physics. Maybe the Higgs Boson is in the same place as the STFC Science Roadmap? Have they not tried retracing their steps?

Anyway, I thought it would be worth having a look at the Roadmap itself. I'd encourage you all to have a look too. I love it because it conveys that childlike sense of wonder that you have about science, before it's drained out of you at secondary school through boring afternoons watching chemistry practicals going wrong. 'What you should have seen, boys, is an exothermic reaction that created a spectrum of iridescent colour, accompanied by a nuclear boom that ushered in visions of an unseen universe just beyond our reach. If you got a dull, muddy mixture and a muted pop then you have failed to follow your worksheet properly. Have a detention.'

No, the STFC has reignited the majesty of science for me. However, I am slightly surprised at the simplicity of the questions around which the Roadmap is built:

How did the universe begin and how is it evolving?
How do stars and planetary systems develop and is life unique to our planet?
What are the fundamental constituents and fabric of the universe and how do they interact?
How do we explore and understand the extremes of the universe?

Wow! Surely to get answers to questions of this magnitude it requires a mix of undergraduates, late nights and large amounts of mind altering substances? It would save STFC an awful lot of money and who knows? We may have the answers by dawn. Either that or we'll be overrun with dazed, barefoot students wandering around with guitars, not entirely sure how they got here. Which brings us right back to those key STFC questions...

Thinking in CinemaScope

2011-12-02T01:30:00.000-08:00

With the recent doom laden news about small grant funding, academics are having to Think Big when it comes to projects. Yesterday's Grants Factory workshop focused on how they could develop their ideas in 'CinemaScope'.

Liz Mansfield kicked off by sounding out the participants about their hopes and fears for the session. Common threads emerged: how should I start? What should the scale be? How do I integrate different work packages, and how should I deal with uncertainty? What costs should I include, and how can I justify them? What should my submission strategy be?

Jon Williamson took over to talk about how to develop a research funding profile, how to 'upscale' a project, and the pros and cons of large collaborations. He suggested that a 'funding profile' was a crucial element of a grant proposal, providing reassurance to the reviewers and panellists that you can lead a larger project and can deliver the goods.

Whilst not everyone will have a gilt edged funding profile already, you should demonstrate how you have already engaged with external funding, and successfully managed an award - of whatever scale. There is a natural progression, from PhD award to postdoc fellowships, conference grants and small grants. Other grants, such as networks, demonstrate how you have coordinated different partners. All these grants provide the platform, the background, the foundation for the larger projects.

If you haven't secured funding yet, don't give up hope: you could think about acting as a Co-I on a project led by a more experienced PI, or have in place a strong project management framework, including a committee whose members have been project leaders.

But how should one start planning a project? Liz Mansfield suggested that, rather starting with a research question, or even with the final outcome, you should leapfrog to the point when the project is done and dusted. For her the starting point should be the memory of it: how is it remembered? How has it been assessed? How has it been judged?

This may seem simplistic, but pause for a minute and try putting this into practice. What is your area of research? What is your ultimate goal? From that point, work backwards and work out what steps you will need to achieve that goal. By thinking of the final memory, it will force you to be realistic about both the methodology, but also about the dissemination. And, for both, it will force you to think seriously about the resources you will need to effectively fulfil them. The beauty of this is that it will give you a macro oversight of your project that will naturally trigger questions about how best to construct its framework and micro management.

We're hoping to run the session again next year and, in the meantime, are planning to run a series of 'mock panels' in the Spring Term at which applicants can sound out others about their projects. Do get in touch if you're planning a large project, and want to move it from TV to the cinema screen.

Horizon 2020 Proposal Published

2011-12-01T00:57:00.000-08:00

Get ready with the party poppers. Cue the scratchy copy of 'Ode to Joy' on the turntable. Don the cardboard hats depicted the flags of all (EU) nations. For yesterday the EC officially published the proposal for Horizon 2020. Hurray!

This marks the formal beginning of the new Framework Programme, by which the European Commission will distribute its research funding. There's been plenty of rumour and discussion as it has developed so far, but the publication yesterday gives us the starting point for the EC's negotiations with the European Parliament and Council, before the proposals are adopted at the end of 2013, and H2020 begins in January 2014.

The EC has set up a new website to mark the occasion. Here you can read about the background to the development of the proposal for Horizon 2020, and a timeline to outline key milestones in the forthcoming discussions as well as more details on each of the proposed areas and links to key documentation.

Better still, there's a page on which a new video will be added each day in the run up to the launch of Horizon 2020. That's 731 videos! I bet after the first 100 they'll be running short of ideas and taking the best viral hits from YouTube as their own. Watch out for an appearance by Benton/Fenton.

In summary, the Commission has proposed a budget of €80bn for the seven year Framework. It will be based on three specific objectives:

1. Excellent Science (EUR 24.6 billion) which will include:

European Research Council (EUR 13.2 billion; 77% increase compared to FP7 funding for ERC);
Future and Emerging Technologies (FET) (EUR 3.1 billion);
Marie Curie Actions (EUR 5.75 billion) ; and
Research Infrastructures (EUR 2.4 billion).

2. Industrial Leadership (EUR 17.9 billion)

Key industrial technologies: nanotechnologies, information communication technologies, biotechnologies and space (EUR 13.7 billion);
Access to risk finance (EUR 3.5 billion); and
Support to SMEs with high growth potential.

3.Societal Challenges (EUR 31.7 billion)

Health, demographic change and well-being;
Food security, sustainable agricultures, marine and maritime research and the bio-based economy;
Secure, clean and efficient energy;
Smart, green and integrated transport;
Climate action, resource efficiency and raw materials; and
Inclusive, innovative and secure societies.

In addition, the European Institute of Technology (EIT) will have a budget of EUR 2.8 billion to fund six new Knowledge Innovation Communities. The first KIC call will be in 2014 and will include:

innovation for healthy living and active ageing;
food4future; and
raw materials.

A second wave will be published in 2018 with proposed topics of added value manufacturing, smart secure societies and urban mobility.

So watch this space as the proposal develops, and make sure to visit the EC's own Video Vault. Thanks, as ever, to UKRO for the headsup on this.

Back to the Future with Conference Alerts

2011-11-28T07:55:00.000-08:00

Last week an academic called to ask me whether I knew of an email alert system for upcoming conferences. There's plenty of alerts out there for funding opportunities, but none that I knew of for conferences. Luckily, Twitter came to the rescue. I put out a call, and Damien Hall quickly came back, pointing me in the direction of the cunningly titled 'Conference Alerts'.

Sure, it all looks a bit 1995, but it does seem to provide info on a vast array of disciplines, including interdisciplinary areas. So, if you're wondering what's coming up in your area, pay it a visit. Alternatively, if you know of other databases or email alerts with a more 21st century interface, drop me a line.

SSC: Accentuating the Positive

2011-11-28T02:11:00.000-08:00

The Jekyll and Hyde character of the Research Councils' Shared Services Centre (SSC) was once again on show last week.You might remember that it had a somewhat - ahem - 'difficult' birth, with couriers refusing to deliver to Death Star House until the SSC bills were paid off, and SSC itself being branded a 'fantastically expensive failure' by Prof John Seddon.

But that's very much the 'Mr Hyde' end of things. Let's instead focus on the respectable, Rotary Club-belonging, upstanding-member-of-the-community, 'Dr Jekyll' side of the SSC. In August last year it was shortlisted for the National Business Awards in the 'Transformational Change' category (oh so appropriate for Dr Jekyll!). But as if that wasn't enough, last week saw it scoop another trophy for the cabinet, this time for its Payroll Team.

This is, of course, fantastic news. However, whilst I'm very pleased for both the Payroll Team and the - erm - Transformational Change Team, I am still waiting for the silverware to come tumbling in for the Customer Services Team. It's a travesty that it's missed out so far, and it can only be down to some high level conspiracy. How else can you explain that fact that it's not yet been given the 2011 Quick and Effective Response to Enquiries Award?

More Entrails Needed

2011-11-24T04:06:00.000-08:00

A quick post to publicise the excellent Research Counselling, a cartoon website the focuses on the trials and tribulations of dealing with the Research Councils. I particularly liked this recent one, about forecasting your project's 'national importance' for the EPSRC.

Oh the cynicism!

Erasmus for All

2011-11-23T08:03:00.000-08:00

As the tectonic plates of post-2014 European funding slowly shift and grind and crunch, exciting news is coming through of what the Lifelong Learning Programme is to be called. The Commission has shied away from badge engineering it as 'LifelongLearningHorizon2020', which would be the obvious choice, but have gone instead for the bracing 'Erasmus for All'.

This brings to mind images of the Dutch Renaissance humanist being divided equally between all the citizens of Europe. But who'll end up with the toe nails? Watch out Greece: default on your debt and who knows what will come through the post. Or perhaps every newborn European baby will be issued with a copy of De libero arbitrio to mull over in the cot. It would certainly make for plenty of sleep.

Yes, we at Fundermentals HQ are very excited about this rebranding. After all, what better symbol of the grand, glorious - imploding - European Project is there than the man who penned In Praise of Folly?

Weekly Social Science Funding Updates

2011-11-23T03:13:00.000-08:00

The weekly funding updates for the Social Sciences, which include news, events and funding opportunities, are now available on the Research Services Sharepoint site. So if you missed the weekly Friday email, not to worry: just go to the Update Folder, where they are being stored in monthly folders. If you have any problems accessing it, do contact me.

And, whilst you're there, have a look at the other treasures on offer, including the Successful Proposals Bank, and the Information Sheets. Both are really helpful when preparing applications: the successful proposals will give you an idea of what it takes to frame and phrase a killer application, and the information sheets will give you some general guidance on issues such as costing an application, dealing with JeS, writing your Justification of Resources and drafting your Case for Support.

Tales from Topographic Oceans

2011-11-22T06:19:00.001-08:00

I don't know, you wait ages for a senior appointment at the Research Councils, and then two come along at the same time.

After all the excitement over the AHRC's New Director of Research, news has just come in of the appointment of the new head of the NERC. It took them nearly five months to find someone: that's almost as long as Mark Llewellyn's total academic career.

So who has NERC gone for? Prof Duncan Wingham is Professor of Climate Physics at UCL. The golden-locked prof is a specialist in measuring ice sheet movements. So whereas the AHRC has gone for youth and speed, the NERC seem to have taken a 'steady as she goes' approach. Prof Wingham has been at UCL since 1986, and was already Chair of NERC's Science and Innovation Strategy Board. So very much a known quantity. Oh, and he studies glaciers.

We wish him all the best. But now down to the serious business of trying to match him up to a look-a-like musician. We've got Derek Smalls in David Delpy, Donny Osmond in Mar k Llewellyn, and even Andrew Lloyd-Webber in his predecessor, Alan Thorpe. Is there a touch of the keyboard virtuoso Rick Wakeman in Duncan Wingham?

Long Haired Lover (of Neo-Victorianism) from Liverpool

2011-11-21T00:56:00.000-08:00

After my last post on the new Director of Research for the AHRC, someone has pointed out that he has something of the young Donny Osmond about him, rather than Peter Kay's younger brother. I, of course, couldn't possibly comment.

The Past Was Yours but the Future's Mine

2011-11-16T04:28:00.000-08:00

News came through this week of the appointment of the new AHRC Director of Research. Professor Mark Llewellyn (for it is he), Professor in English Studies at the University of Strathclyde, will take over from Shearer West (Birmingham) who has moved on to be Head of Humanities at Oxford. She, in turn, had taken over from Prof Tony McEnery, who was Professor of English Language & Linguistics at Lancaster. Before them you had Chairs of the Research Committee (John Caughie, Film Studies, Glasgow and John Morrill, History, Cambridge).

So what do we know about Mark Llewellyn? And can his appointment tell us anything about current AHRC thinking? Well, a number of things strike me about his appointment:

firstly, he's incredibly young to be taking on a senior policy position in the major funder in the sector. Take a look at the fresh faced young prof in the photo above (looking a little like Peter Kay's young brother), and compare it to Morrill, Caughie, and even McEnery and Shearer. The AHRC is obviously backing youth.

secondly, his rise has been meteoric over the last five years: in 2006-07 he was still plying his trade as a postdoc researcher at Liverpool. From RA to Director of Research at the AHRC in five years: some might say his haste is unseemly. The AHRC is obviously backing ambition.

thirdly, he's keen on work which stretches out across disciplines. He works in 'neo-Victorianism', which is a fairly broad church (as I understand it), and is currently 'think[ing] about ways in which we still interact with and (re-)imagine the Victorian(s) across a range of discourses.' The AHRC is obviously backing interdisciplinarity.

finally, he has engaged with the AHRC through the Peer Review College (2007-11), and through being PI on a recent 'Connected Communities' grant. The AHRC is obviously backing engagement.

None of this, of course, is a surprise. But it does indicate that the AHRC recognises the need for energy, dynamism and fresh thinking in these difficult times. Will Llewellyn push the Council to increased interdisciplinary initiatives, and bring in more radical reform that that already suggested in their Delivery Plan? I'll watch with interest.

Hail the Kingmakers!

2011-11-16T03:14:00.001-08:00

There has been an interesting development at the National Science Foundation (NSF) in America. Following on from their radical rethink on gathering metrics, the NSF has applied its imagination to the process of assessing grant applications.

According to Science Insider, the NSF will be doing away with external peer review for a new scheme that will fund unorthodox ideas. Applications to the Creative Research Awards for Transformative Interdisciplinary Ventures (CREATIV: an acronym that is almost European in its creakiness), which will provide grants of up to $1m for up to 5 years, will be judged by NSF program managers. Cutting out the academic review will dramatically slash the turn around time: applicants can expect a decision in 2 or 3 months, which is half the time it takes at the moment.

Is this a worrying step towards cutting out peer review completely? No, says the NSF. Richard Behnke, co-chair of the internal committee that designed CREATIV, said that 'for the great majority of proposals, we will continue the traditional merit-review process. The gold standard remains in place.'

Whilst it doesn't affect UK researchers directly (only US institutions can apply), I wonder whether UK funders will be looking at the experiment with interest. After all, the Research Councils are under pressure to find ways to save money, bureaucracy and time. This could be the answer to their prayers. But, to be honest, I don't think they'd dare. When I worked at the AHRC it was often very clear to us which applications were likely to rise to the top of the prioritisation lists. However, applicants need to be reassured that it is primarily on research quality that their proposals are being judged, and that reassurance can only come from peer review.

I'll be intrigued to know how the NSF scheme works. I wish them all the best, but I think that they'll be creating more problems than they'll be solving, and will be snowed under with appeals and complaints. The NSF officer-kingmakers will, I think, have only a short while in the sun.

Upcoming Grants Factory Events

2011-11-15T04:53:00.000-08:00

Two upcoming events that any right-thinking applicant would be foolish to miss.

Big Questions, Big Projects (1 Dec, 12pm-2pm). With small grant funding fast disappearing, academics need to look to larger funding and start think ambitiously. Prof Jon Williamson, a philosopher in SECL, and Prof Liz Mansfield, a mathematician in SMSAS, have both had experience of developing larger projects in areas where these aren’t the norm. They will be running this workshop on developing interesting research ideas into more substantial research projects.
Inside the Grants Committee (7 Dec, 12pm-2pm). Prof Peter Taylor-Gooby (SSPSSR) and Prof Mick Tuite (Biosciences) will give an honest insight into how peer review panels work, the characters, the processes – and the politics. Peter has sat on ESRC panels, Mick on BBSRC and Wellcome panels: between them they have a wealth of knowledge on how different funders work. This will be a chance to learn from their experience and frame your application in a way that ‘works’ for the panel.

To take part, just complete the simple on-line form with your name, School and the workshops you'd like to attend.

Globalisation: Notes from Research Fortnight Conference

2011-11-10T01:42:00.000-08:00

The Research Fortnight conference this year was held at the St Pancras Renaissance Hotel, and focused on 'Globalisation: the future of research institutions.' The title could have been framed as a question: as the world convulses with economic shocks, is now the right time to be reaching out in partnership?

They'd brought together an impressive roster of speakers to discuss this. Some faces were familiar – such as Julia Lane of the NSF who spoke at the ESRC Seminar Series on Impact a few weeks back – whilst others were new to me. But all gave thought provoking insights into issues around collaboration.

'Research belongs to no country'

Lord Bhattacharyya, Chairman of the Warwick Manufacturing Group, kicked off the day by quoting Louis Pasteur: 'Knowledge belongs to no country.' UK research had considerable strengths, said Bhattacharyya, that placed it well in the global market place: it was both high quality and covered a broad range of disciplines, as well as being relatively open and academically free. However, these were offset by areas of concern: the UK's disciplinary strengths didn't match the research interests of the emerging economic superpowers; collaboration - both with overseas partners and industry - wasn't happening fast enough, and its spending on research and development was too low.

The UK needed to think strategically about dealing with the challenges of the new global research environment. It needed to be more open to attracting new business research funding, and look to the market priorities of the BRIC countries, namely engineering, biology, and the physical and health sciences. Incentives needed to be created to overcome the potential reluctance to engage with Chinese or Brazilian colleagues, resulting from such considerations as lower citation rates from such partnerships.

'Collaborate to compete'

Throughout the day this analysis was knocked about, questioned, confirmed or refuted. Prof Anton Muscatelli, Vice-Chancellor of Glasgow, emphasised the need to 'collaborate to compete.' He agreed with Bhattacharyya that the UK faced challenges in doing so, at a time when it was facing its own, internal uncertainties. However, he was upbeat about Britain's ability to cope in this brave new world. British universities were both efficient and effective, he said, and the key to their success was the autonomy they had, coupled with the shark pool they swam in for research resources.

But why should UK institutions collaborate? Muscatelli suggested that there were three reasons: to diversify their income streams, as funding became tougher in the UK; to 'bring the best together'; and to address common, global challenges. These were all positives, but equally you could see that they had no choice: the UK was too small to go it alone. The Darwinian race for partners would see the open survive and prosper, and the insular wither and perish. The research map of the UK would be radically redrawn.

'Science is like a parachute: it only works when it's open'

Jeremy Watson, Global Research Director at Arup, outlined the view from industry. Arup had been behind such iconic buildings as the Sydney Opera House, the Pompidou Centre and the Gherkin. It had always relied on what Watson described as a 'knowledge supply chain', building on both internal and external research. For him, the case for collaboration between industry and academia was clear, and he suggested frameworks by which this might happen in the future, such as transnational 'centres of excellence' (as Rolls Royce had already developed); open innovation clubs with multinational industrial partners; and 'co-innovator' partnerships between academia and industry with 'permeable boundaries.'

Haggit Messer-Yaron, President of the Open University of Israel, concurred. Universities and industry had very different agendas, but it could be these differences that made partnerships work. There needed to be openness, however: 'science is like a parachute,' she quoted: 'it only works when it's open.' There should be a synergy, a complementarity. Governments could act as brokers for these relationships, providing early stage funding and support for 'bridging the development gap' as well as a conducive legal framework in terms of IPR laws and taxation. However, governments tended to act in the national interest, and as such may act against the principles of globalisation.

'It's the intersection of technology and liberal arts that makes our hearts sing'

After lunch we broke up into parallel sessions. I went along to the one that focused on the engineering and physical sciences, which quickly veered productively off track. Prof Graham Galbraith, DVC at the University of Hertfordshire, complained of the blinkered 'siloism' of current research policy. The difficulty with engaging with business, he said, was that most universities think within disciplinary boundaries, whereas most businesses don't. Of course, these disciplines may be useful – or indeed necessary – for running large organisations, but they were unhelpful in thinking creatively. 'Real innovation is not really rewarded or recognised,' he bemoaned. The ghost of Steve Jobs was conjured up: 'technology alone is not enough,' he had said. 'It's technology married with liberal arts, married with the humanities, that yields us the the results that make our heart sing'.

So were the funders to blame for holding apart the disciplines? A representative of EPSRC was on hand to defend them, and the sense was that it was more to do with an engrained culture within academia. The discussion swiftly moved on to developing the necessary mindset for exploiting the opportunities offered by internationalisation. Phil Clare, Associate Director of Research Services at the University of Oxford, was bracingly breezy in his acceptance of the new deal offered by BRIC nations. 'We need to stop worrying about selling our birthright,' he said. Universities exist to generate knowledge, but can also act as catalysts for collaboration, and foci for local economies.

The conference finished with a final plenary on the experience of different institutions in developing and managing cross-continental relationships. The day had crackled with ideas and questions and, whilst no conclusions were reached, it had been a valuable opportunity to develop and debate our thoughts on this critical new horizon.

BA Joins Twitter Shock!

2011-11-08T03:01:00.001-08:00

Exciting news from the Twittersphere! The 'funder least likely to' has actually got a Twitter account. Yes, the British Academy, wholesale provider of wingback leather arm chairs, steamed sponge puddings and ironed copies of The Times of London, has joined the Twitterati.

This is both exciting and - to be frank - slightly disappointing news. Exciting in that Twitter has become an important tool in the world of research funding for finding out what's going on, and getting early alerts, insights and gossip on forthcoming schemes. Disappointing in that it shatters my treasured vision of the BA as a Mayfair gentlemen's club, which I mentioned in an earlier post.

However, thankfully the BA has managed not to disappoint with its first tweet: 'Archbishop of Canterbury asking 'what should the Word of God sound like?' at the British Academy today.' You couldn't make it up. I'm hoping the next will be 'Is there honey still for tea? The need for a good dinner in a time of change.'

Oh yes. The BA: reassuringly old school. Make sure to follow them here.

The Mists Are Clearing...I See a Project of National Importance...

2011-10-31T04:14:00.000-07:00

As ever, EPSRC is blazing a trail in developing new hurdles for potential applicants. Hot on the heels of controversially 'managing' its remit and 'managing' demand via its blacklist, the Council has just announced that, as of 15th November 2011, all applicants will have to identify the national importance of their research.

Yes, it's both Scientific Excellence AND national importance that will now be the primary assessment criteria. Impact, track record, resources and management will be secondary assessment criteria.

Reviewers and panel members have been issued with new assessment criteria/forms to reflect these changes. For applicants, the national importance section must now be included in the case for support.

Is that a collective groan I can hear from the sector? Having just got used to the concept of predicting their potential impact, they're now going to have to predict its importance.

I do like the amount of faith that EPSRC has in the visionary abilities of the scientists within its remit. I'm surprised, however, that they haven't put these abilities to better use and got them to predict the numbers for the National Lottery? It would be an excellent use of the collective brain power of EPSRC scientists if they could rustle up the Euromillions necessary to meet the 10% funding cut that resulted from the CSR flat settlement.

From Me to You: ESRC Panellists Advice to Reviewers

2011-10-27T03:59:00.000-07:00

The ESRC has recently held workshops - or 'masterclasses' - for members of its peer review college. These involved some of the Grants Assessment Panel (GAP) members talking about their experience, about what they have to bear in mind when assessing applications, and on the importance of the reviewers in the process.
As you can imagine, this provided some interesting insights. The GAP members were generally grateful to the reviewers, and recognised their reliance on the reviewers' knowledge to make their decisions. Some points to highlight:

Firstly, the process itself:

Each application gets sent to at least 3 academic reviewers, and a user reviewer (if relevant)

If the average score for these is above 4/6, they get sent to GAP members who will act as 'introducers' at the panel meeting. Introducers usually get 7-10 proposals each to assess each meeting, and 4-5 weeks to write their assessments.

Each application will have 2 introducers assessing them. If the average introducers' score is above 4/10, they go to panel. Only those scoring 6 or above are likely to be funded. Thus, as I've said before, it's worth noting how important the introducers are.

However, the panel discussions allow for proposals that fall below this to be pulled up the rankings.

Most of the discussion is around marginal or controversial proposals.

What are the core assessment criteria for reviewers:

Scientific quality and intellectual contribution;

originality and potential contribution to knowledge;

timelineness;

robustness of research design and methods;

value for money;

outputs, dissemination and impact.

So what should reviewers bear in mind when assessing an application?

Give yourself enough time to properly assess the application.

Judge only what is written, not what you imagine the project to be. If the applicant hasn't made clear what they're going to do, that is their fault.

Base your judgement on the research question the applicant asks. Is it interesting/important? Are the methods appropriate for answering the question?

Evaluate, don't advocate. Not every proposal can be funded. Be frank, and indicate risk versus benefit.

Justify your arguments, and provide constructive criticism. It's important that (a) the panellists understand why you have scored as you have, and that (b) your score matches your comments. And, of course, it's useful for the applicant if they are rejected.

And what should they not do?

be personal or aggressive;

be too brief or too verbiose;

be ambiguous;

make inappropriate, irrelevant or polemic remarks.

forget that reviewing research proposals is different from reviewing papers: here, the research is speculative, so you have to evaluate the likely results;

forget to draw attention to ways in which the proposal meets specific assessment criteria particularly well, and to point to any major logical flaws, contradictions or omissions;

forget what the point of the review is, namely to weigh up the positive aspects of the proposal against the negative ones.

After the workshops the ESRC has updated its website with FAQs and a checklist (short and long). It's worth having a look at these, to get an idea of what the reviewers will be considering when they start to read your proposal.

2011-12 Grants Factory Programme Announced

2011-10-25T03:44:00.000-07:00

A new programme of Grants Factory events is now available for 2011/12. Each of the themed workshops addresses a different aspect of the research funding process and is led by a senior Kent academic with a track record in winning (and awarding) research grants.

Autumn Term

Thurs 1 December 12-2pm Big Questions, Big Projects (Prof Elizabeth Mansfield, Prof Jon Williamson)
Weds 7 December 2-2pm Inside the Grants’ Committee (Prof Peter Taylor-Gooby, Prof Mick Tuite)

Spring Term

Weds 15 February TBC Playing the Game: how to understand the rules (Dr Jenny Billings, Prof Sarah Spurgeon)
Thurs 1 March 10am-12 Writing Better Bids (Prof David Shemmings)

Summer Term

Weds 9 May TBC Eurovision: the pros & and cons of European funding (Dr Jenny Billings, Prof Simon Thompson)
Weds 30 May 10am -12 Writing Better Bids (Prof David Shemmings)
Mon 11 June TBC Winning Fellowship Funds (Prof Paul Allain, Prof Darren Griffin)

All events are suitable for researchers of any discipline and at any career stage and you can find more information here

Please get in touch if you would like more information or want to reserve a place.

Autumn Newsletter Out Now

2011-10-25T03:27:00.000-07:00

Right! Time to stop whatever you're doing, and make for the newstands: the autumn edition of our newsletter, ResearchActive, is out.

It's a bumper edition this term, and includes:

details of the shiny new Peer Review system that was launched at the beginning of October;
a snapshot of selection of recent awards;
information about the new Grants Factory programme;
all the funding gossip from Brussels and Swindon;
an overview of the research interests of the 25 new academics who have joined the University recently;
pass notes on the REF;
contact details for everyone in Research Services.

So check your pigeon holes, and drop me a line if that familiar yellow pamphlet isn't there; I'll send you a pdf of it by return.

Finally! Europe Gets What It Deserves

2011-10-21T08:00:00.000-07:00

Great news today from Europe. Our best beloved King of the Social Sciences, ESRC chief Paul Boyle, has been elected President of Science Europe.

Thank heavens for Science Europe. Some may question the worth of a European supranational quango with a complex organisational structure, a vague and aspirational mission statement and a vision statement, and no identifiable powers. But not us.

For us, we can only thank the powers that be that they have finally recognised that the continent that brought us the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, Democracy and the Industrial Revolution, Shakespeare, Einstein, Newton, Galileo, Planck, Darwin and Mozart, that discovered heliocentrism, penicillin and the circulation of blood, needs some help in developing its potential.

Yes, this is a great step forward. What European research needs is more committees, more policy statements and more plans of action. My only worry is that Boyle, who is already ESRC CEO and RCUK International Champion, will be stretched too thin. Surely something will have to give if Science Europe is to fulfil its mission statement and genuinely deliver 'a broad based forum...to inform discussions on ERA and related policy matters.'?

Automatic for the People

2011-10-20T06:21:00.000-07:00

The second set of notes from yesterday's ESRC Seminar Series on Impact looks at the efforts made by the USA's National Science Foundation (NSF) to automate the collection of science metrics.

Julia Lane, Program Director for the Science of Science and Innovation Policy, gave an overview of background and development of the 'Star Metrics' system. As in the UK, the 17 federal funding agencies were asked to justify the investment the government had made in science.

Refreshingly, rather than offloading this burden on to individual researchers (as is currently happening with the RCUK ROP system), the NSF decided that:

the information should be harvested automatically and electronically;
the system should be voluntary.

I know. What were they thinking? What we need is mandatory forms, and lots of them! Do they know nothing about research funding management?

But no, they were thinking very logically. After all, in the twenty first century, when the internet allows us to order our groceries, book our holidays and buy our road fund tax, why can't it be used to automatically gather information on impact?

Thus, they created a system that does the following:

Follows the trail of grants through individual HEI financial system. This can tell them: who is funded (via the HR system), including PI, Co-I, RA and students, where the money is being spent (via the procurement system), and who they are subcontracting to or collaborating with (via the finance system);
Follows the trail of outputs, by linking with the patent office and publication databases;
Follows the individual via various CV systems, such as Vivo, Harvard Catalyst and Eurocris;
Analyses the areas funded by the federal agencies by scanning and machine reading the applications, and doing a key word analysis.

As a result Star Metrics can be used to identify:

What expertise there is in a particular area, or at a particular site;
Where there is a shortage of expertise;
How much funding has been put into any discipline area;
Areas of overlap between funders;
What has been funded in any geographical location (such as a state);
What has been funded in any institution, or for an individual;
What local or national businesses have benefited from the funding;
The outputs and outcomes from any funded project;
The career development of anyone associated with the project.

And all, as Lane said, without the academic having to lift a pen. Now how refreshing is that?

Impact: the Wellcome View

2011-10-20T06:01:00.000-07:00

I went along to the ESRC Seminar Series on Impact at UCL yesterday. It was a very interesting event, and wasn’t what I had feared: either an evangelical sermon by the funders, or a diatribe by academics. Instead, we were presented with four different takes on impact: the first, from the Wellcome Trust, the second from the American funder the National Science Foundation (NSF), the third from the Netherlands on research assessment, and fourth from the coal face by a practising scientist. I’ll cover two of these – the Wellcome Trust and NSF – in this and the next post.

The Wellcome Trust spends £650m per year, roughly equivalent to the MRC. Liz Allen, the Senior Evaluator Adviser at the Trust, outlined the challenges faced and tools used in understanding and quantifying the effect of this funding.

Wellcome, of course, does not have to justify itself to government; however, it does have a duty to report to the Charity Commission, which gives it tax breaks, and to understand what does and doesn’t work.

She highlighted a number of challenges in assessing impact in the biosciences:

the time frame involved: for instance, it took Robert Edwards 18 years from first developing the technique for IVF to the first successful ‘test tube baby’
the serendipity of science: for instance, Alec Jeffreys has been quoted as saying ‘our discovery of DNA fingerprinting was of course totally accidental...but at least we had the sense to realise what we had stumbled upon.’
Attribution and contribution: there is often a long and diverse list of people and organisations involved in the evolution of a piece of research. For instance, John Todd had funding from Wellcome, MRC, JDRF and NIH. In addition, there is the ‘ripple effect’, the value of negative findings, and the ‘counter factual’ question: what would have happened if x didn’t discover y?

So pinning down impact is not easy. However, Allen, who was keen on quotes, quoted Charles Babbage: ‘errors using inadequate data are much less than those using no data at all.’ It’s better to do something with limited data than to do nothing at all. Wellcome’s attempt to ‘do something’ includes:

Understanding impact in terms of ‘progress’ rather than ‘success’;
With this in mind, the Trust looks for traditional indicators of progress, including: publications, people and training, products and interventions, software and databases, engagement with communities, policy, advocacy and influence, funding, and awards and prizes.
In addition, it has explored ‘new’ indicators, such as article-level metrics (through software such as PLoS), post-publication peer review (such as F1000), clinical guidelines (NICE has recently digitised all citations used for clinical guidelines, and the Trust can check who has been involved), and the separate contributions of all members of a research team (via the ORCID initiative).
The Trust is also making use of ‘softer’ indicators, such as case studies. However, it recognises the dangers inherent in this. Allen once again turned to another quote, this time from John Allen Clements: ‘when you ask the memory to reconstruct daily events from forty years ago, you’ve got to be appropriately cautious.’ The Trust needed to make the award winners know what it might be interested in right from the start, so that they can note and monitor it.
Wellcome Trust Career Checker. This is a recent development, and aims to track the career choices and progression of cohorts of individuals after their funding has finished. What have they gone on to do?

Allen finished by highlighting the work that others had done in trying to quantify the effect that medical research had had. The Lasker Foundation had commissioned research that suggested that it had had a 20 fold return, so that for every $1 spent there was $2.17 in health benefits. A similar report in the UK showed that ‘for every £1 of public money invested in cardiovascular disease and mental health research, a stream of benefits is produced equivalent ot earning 39p and 37p respectively each year in perpetuity.’

Which is quite compelling. Sure, assessing the effect of biomedical research is a tough call, but Allen rounded off with a quote from Mary Lasker: ‘if you think research is expensive, try disease.’

Getting Involved with Funders

2011-10-18T08:22:00.000-07:00

A number of funders are inviting people to become involved in their decision making. These include the following:

AHRC - Peer Review College
BBSRC - Council
EPSRC - Council
ESRC – Council
MRC – Council
STFC – Council
NIHR - Programme Advisory Board & Refereeing

Do consider putting yourself forward for these vacancies. Being involved with funders raises your profile, but also gives you the opportunity to influence their policy and direction.

RCUK's New System ROP-ey

2011-10-14T02:15:00.000-07:00

Following my previous post, I've heard on the grapevine about some - ahem - 'discontent' with RCUK's Research Outcomes Project (ROP), which is due to go live on 14 November.

Whilst the RCUK is still whistling in the dark about its new system, both the Russell Group and 94 Group have written to RCUK asking them to think again about implementing it in its current form. One person I spoke to said that working with the system 'will make you cry'. Whilst they had issues with MRC's e-Val system, it was user friendly in comparison to the ROP. Apparently the reason that the ESRC-based system was chosen in preference to the MRC one was that it was the cheapest to develop.

The main issue with ROP is that it does not allow 'bulk uploads'. Thus, universities will not be able to centrally load details of all the outcomes from all their RCUK-funded projects. Each academic will have to enter details of the projects separately. Worse still, the new system does not currently have the capacity to link to an institution's own repository - such as the Kent Academic Repository (KAR) - so academics will end up having to enter the data twice.

The result will be that research offices will spend a lot of time chasing academics to fill in their details - individually - and that academics will spend twice as long as they need providing their data - individually. And, if push comes to shove, the academics might decide that they will only provide the obligatory ROP data rather than (say) the requested HEI data, which may foul up institutional preparations for the REF.

There's still a possibility that RCUK will find a way to allow bulk uploads, and they may even find a way of linking to individual institutional repositories. But it's unlikely to do so by 14 November.

RCUK Research Outcomes Project Goes Live

2011-10-13T00:40:00.000-07:00

RCUK has been developing a system to collect data on outcomes from all their funded research. I highlighted it in January last year, and it's development has not been without controversy. In June last year Research Fortnight reported on disquiet within universities about the additional work that would arise from inputting data on to the system. There was also some concern about how it would fit in with or replace the MRC's existing e-Val system, which had only recently replaced the Output Data Gathering Tool (ODGT).

Anyway, it all seems to have been settled now, and we've just had word through that it is finally going to go live. Details are available here, with some FAQs here (pdf). It will be released to research offices in the week commencing 24 October 2011, to give us time to become familiar with the system, and feedback any queries or concerns to RCUK.

It will then be released to all Research Council grant holders in the week commencing 14 November 2011. The system will collect details of the following:

Publications
Other Research Outputs
Collaboration
Communication
Exploitation
Recognition
Staff Development
Further Funding
Impact

If you have any questions about this, do get in touch with me.

Horizon 2020: Reading the Runes

2011-10-10T08:34:00.000-07:00

UKRO, the UK Research Office in Brussels, have summarised where we're at with the development of Horizon 2020. If you belong to a subscribing institution, you can access this summary here.

It makes interesting reading, as much for reading between the lines as for the lines themselves. Whilst there's still plenty of gestation time for the EC's new baby, you can get a sense of how its developing. I've talked about the overall shape of Horizon 2020 elsewhere, but some recent developments that UKRO has highlighted include:

EIT: there's no separate provision for the European Institute of Technology. To me, this suggests that they want closer integration with other parts of the Framework Programme, but does it also mean that the EIT is quietly being sidelined or shelved, that it is being reabsorbed back into the body from which it emerged?
ERC: the latest proposals don't specify the different schemes as 'objectives'. This suggests that the EC wants to allow the ERC room to develop and introduce new schemes as and when necessary. Which, in turn, suggests that the EC has confidence in the Council, and is going to allow it a little more independence.
Societal Challenges: this is based around six multidisciplinary areas. These are evolving as we speak, but some interesting developments recently. These include 'Smart, Green & Integrated Transport,' for which the EC has added a new section on 'evidence-based transport policy for the long term.' So the EC is wanting to expand future transport beyond the scientific and technical to include socio-economic policy implications. 'Resource Efficiency & Climate' has changed its name to 'Climate Action & Resource Efficiency including Raw Materials', which makes clearer the overall aim and direction of the challenge, and ecosystems have been made more of a priority within this. 'Inclusive, Innovative & Secure Societies', which is closest to the current 'Socioeconomic Sciences & Humanities', has been simplified, and appears to be moving away from the FP7 theme from which it emerged. Whilst the Humanities were never a huge player in FP7, it looks like it will be even less so under Horizon 2020.
Marie Curie: the EC is obviously wanting to drum home exactly what each of the Marie Curie schemes will do. They've ditched the original headings, and gone for headings that provide more explanation of what each scheme is intended for. For example 'Research staff exchange' becomes 'stimulating innovation through cross-fertilisation of knowledge.' Got it?
Industrial Leadership & Competitiveness Frameworks: not a lot of change here, although in the most recent drafts the EC is emphasising the need for these underlying technologies to link more explicitly to the societal challenges.

I would encourage you to read the UKRO document in full, and sign up for alerts that will keep you up to date with developments.

How to Fail at FP7

2011-10-06T11:40:00.000-07:00

The workshop title was like a thrown gauntlet: 'How to Fail at FP7.' Anyone can succeed at FP7, said the workshop leader, Melvyn Askew; it takes real determination to fail. He was being facetious, but there was an undercurrent of truth. After all, the EC tells you exactly what it wants, and how: it published voluminous guidance which, if followed, should lead to success. It's when you disregard this that you come unstuck, when you assume your project can be shoehorned in to the call, or that all costs are eligible, or that you can invite all your chums along to do separate projects under a vague umbrella.

So if it's that easy, why do so many people fail? Askew suggested it was down to time. You need time to not only draft the application but, way before you set pen to paper, time to lay the foundations. So here's a quick run down of what you should be doing, now, to prepare.

Think. Askew singled out one of the hapless workshop participants and asked, 'what's your strategy for getting European funding?' Like an embarrassed schoolboy the participant mumbled and looked at his shoes. As would the rest of us if he'd picked on us. The truth is most universities have a laissez faire attitude to applying. Askew, however, suggested that we should all be thinking strategically: what are our strengths? What are our weaknesses? What are our connections? Where should our focus be? Identify those strengths, those networks, and build on them. Don't leave it to chance, or to those on the peripherary of European research, to play the tune.

Talk. Once you've established a European strategy, you need to lay the foundations for your consortium. Who are the best people working in your area? Who should you approach to be part of a consortium? Not everyone need be an equal partner, but equally there should be no 'make weights' or padding. Each partner should have a clear purpose. Once identified you need to sound them out and set ground rules about the collaboration. If you're coordinating, you will be the one held responsible, and you don't want to be left to pick up the bill should a partner renege on a collaboration agreement.
You also need to talk to the Commission. Get a sense of what's on the horizon. Now is the time to start establishing contacts with Commission officials and project officers. They are there to help. Later, as the bid develops, they can clarify the intentions of the call, so that you don't end up pushing your project down a false trail. Your relationship should continue once your project's off the ground and you need to provide progress reports. Don't be scared of picking up the phone to the commission (or, in fact, to the NCPs) to get an insight into their thinking. Better still, spend the money on a Eurostar ticket to Brussels for an informal talk.

Plan. So you've identified your strengths and you have in place your partners. Now is the time to think about the project itself. One person - preferably with English as their native language - needs to pull it together and draft the application.It must appear to be coherent and unified, not like some kind of clippings album, with pieces taken from a selection of different newspapers. Each work package should interlink and interweave with the others; it should be interdependent and integral with the whole. It should be written in plain English, with acronyms spelt out and explained where necessary, and any jargon or slang cut out. Spell out everything, and don't assume anything. Just because you think you've got a global reputation, or your university is the toast of the UK, that doesn't mean that a Latvian evaluator will have heard of you or your institution.

Write. As you draft your application, you should keep in mind the assessment criteria that the EC will use. There are three elements, each of which gets a score out of five:
- Science and Technology
- Management
- Impact
The first of these is usually well met by applicants, albeit with a little too much context. The second is often so-so, and the third is frequently dire. Recent signals from the Commission are that they are tiring of poor impact programmes, so think seriously about how you will disseminate the findings of your research, and how you will engage with stakeholders. As with Research Council applications, it is a good idea to have an 'advisory group' that includes end users who can guide you in your research, and ensure that you are meeting the needs of those who may benefit from the research.
The evaluation itself is, in the eyes of Askew, fair, balanced and objective. There is no truth in the belief that lobbying has any effect, or that the EC expects consortia to be balanced and equal, with members from north and south Europe, or from new and old member states. The consortium has to 'make sense' (see above), and that's it. In the peer review meeting there is a member of the Commission on hand to ensure fair play, and to object if they sense that the rapporteur is not heeding the views of all panellists, or being too partisan.
As well as the evaluation criteria, you should bear in mind that, if your application is successful, you will have to go through a gruelling negotiation. At this stage the Commission will meet with you to discuss the nitty gritty of your project. They might present you with questions and queries that were raised by evaluators, such as unnecessary costs, or an unbalanced consortium. They may ask you to strip these out, and this may well affect your overall project. So preempt this by checking both the eligibility and the necessity of all components of your project.

Submit. Submit early, and often. Each time you submit via the EPSS system it overwrites what has already been submitted. Don't leave it until the last moment, only to find the software crashes, leaving you out in the cold.

Think. Talk. Plan. Write. Submit. Sounds so easy, doesn't it? Of course it isn't, and you'll face plenty of frustrations, barriers, hurdles and dead ends along the way. But if you give yourself time then you have a much better chance of succeeding - and not failing - at FP7.

REF: a Few Thoughts on Drafting Impact Case Studies

2011-10-05T06:32:00.001-07:00

I took part in an interesting workshop on REF impact case studies yesterday. We were looking at some initial drafts and, whilst there were some great ideas about possible impact, there were a few key points to bear in mind when thinking about your case study.

There has to be a strong link between the impact and the research upon which it is based. It's not enough to be working generally in that area; you need to highlight the project, and the findings of the project, and make clear how these led on to the resultant impact.
The research has to have been undertaken whilst you were at the University. It's fine if it began elsewhere, but at least part of it has to have happened after you arrived at Kent;
It helps to have quantifiable indicators of impact. Whilst HEFCE define impact very broadly (note their definition in the checklist here), it will help you to objectively demonstrate your impact if you are able to show some figures to back up your claims.
The impact has to have happened already. Unlike RCUK's understanding of impact, HEFCE's is backward looking. It's past, not potential. You have to be describing impact that has already been felt.
It is better to write in the third person. This adds to the sense of an objective, impersonal analysis of the impact (as does having quantifiables, see above), which will help give your case study substance and credibility.

If you're working on your case study, do have a look at the checklist that my colleague Clair Thrower has prepared. If you would like some feedback on your draft, do get in touch with her directly.

Call for Nominations to AHRC Peer Review College

2011-10-04T07:18:00.000-07:00

The AHRC is seeking nominations for its Peer Review College. I would encourage all research staff in relevant areas to consider putting themselves forward. Assessing applications for a funder will help to raise your profile nationally, as well as being a useful way of getting an insight into how the funder works, keeping abreast of what work is being done in your discipline, and gaining an understanding of what it takes for an application to get funded. More details of the call for nominations is available here.

Applications are sought from academics at all stages of their career and, if chosen, you will serve a four year term. If you want to be nominated do get in touch with your CV. I will pass your details on to Prof John Baldock, the PVC Research, who will put forward nominations on behalf of the University.

There's a Battle Outside and It's Raging

2011-10-03T00:53:00.000-07:00

There's a fascinating storm raging at the moment around the walls of the EPSRC citadel. Some of you outside the Engineering and Physical Sciences might not be aware of it, but it has the potential to affect all of your disciplines, because what EPSRC does first, the other Research Councils tend to follow.

This time the EPSRC is 'engineering' their sector. Or, as they would have it, 'shaping our portfolio.' Basically, through their 'Shaping Capability' agenda, they've had a good look at the disciplines within their remit and have decided which should be backed, and which should be quietly shelved.
Now in some ways you can see the logic of this. In strained financial times it may be better to prioritise the important, high quality work that has the potential to make a difference to science globally, as well as nationally bolstering the UK's competitiveness.
However, as you can imagine, those who are adversely affected by this prioritisation are angry about what they see as the fairly arbitrary algorithm by which it has been decided. Have a look at the sub-GCSE graph above. This is known as the 'Bourne Graph'. It is a visual representation of how EPSRC see the relative value of subjects within its remit.
But how were these relative positions decided? What scale is being used along the X and Y axes? Hmm. It's not clear, and EPSRC's reticence on this is not helping. People are thinking the worst. As a York-based organic chemist comments on his blog, 'if one didn't know better you may be forgiven for thinking it had been thought up on the back of a fag packet over a pint in the pub after work.'
Helpfully, he provides a similarly inane graph for his relationship with fruit and vegetables, as follows:

I think the methodology's clear, don't you?
Prof Timothy Gower, another blogger, has tried to work out where they're coming from by deconstructing the newspeak pronouncements to come out of EPSRC.
More seriously, the sector's disquiet has resulted in letters from the chemists, statements from the mathematicians, and articles from the physicists, as well as a call from, well, everybody (in the shape of the Royal Society) to 'pause' the strategy. David 'Smalls' Delpy responded, specifically to the chemists, saying that he felt their pain, but ultimately it was their own fault for getting too much of the budget recently. Or words to that effect. Elsewhere he's poured oil on the troubled waters by saying that the complaints were an 'overreaction', backed up by 'relatively little' evidence.
The storm has been rumbling on since July, and there's no sign of it abating any time soon. If anything, it's growing in strength, and there's hope that, as Dylan said, 'the loser now will be later to win.' Whilst I have sympathy for EPSRC, and believe it acted in good faith, I think this kind of engineering is dangerous and ultimately fruitless.
Remember Robert Edwards, who was awarded the Nobel Prize for Medicine this time last year? He had developed in vitro fertilisation, which has led, since 1978, to millions of 'test tube babies.' Well, when he turned to his sector's funder, the MRC, in 1971 they turned him down. At the time his discipline wasn't of interest, as the politics of the day suggested the world was heading for malthusian destruction. If there hadn't been a private funder on hand his research may well have withered on the vine.
His is a cautionary tale. The allocation of research funding shouldn't be left up to politicians and apparatchiks (like me): it should be up to peers and contemporaries to decide what should be prioritised. Only then will the best, bravest and brightest have an equal chance - from whatever discipline.

Kent Peer Review Goes Live

2011-09-30T02:36:00.000-07:00

The University will be introducing an internal peer review system from 1 October.

Kent Peer Review (KPR) comes in response to the stated intentions of the Research Councils to introduce ‘demand management’ systems. The EPSRC has already introduced a ‘blacklisting’ system for individuals; the BBSRC has introduced a grading system that may lead in time to a ‘triage of grant proposals based on referee scores, in order to eliminate lower-scoring applications before the committee meeting’; and the AHRC is suggesting ‘introducing sanctions...if self-management proves ineffective’. The ESRC has recently consulted on different options for limiting the numbers of proposals it receives, and has stated that

‘the Research Councils, where possible, will harmonise their demand management strategies. There is general agreement that HEIs should be encouraged to self regulate with a particular emphasis on structured peer review aimed at the submission of significantly fewer but better quality applications. This self regulation will be underpinned by the regular supply of performance data to institutions alongside better applicant guidance.’

The new system has been developed in consultation with Directors of Research over the past six months. It is intended to be supportive rather than oppressive, and is targeted at three specific types of applications:

Research Council applications;
First substantial external grant applications;
Large grant applications.

If your proposal fits one of these categories, it will be seen by two reviewers: one will have a knowledge of your discipline, one a knowledge of the funder. More detail of the new system is available on the Research Services website.

If you'd like to talk about KPR do get in touch with your Faculty Funding Officer, who will be able to answer any questions, and guide you through what you need to do.

Meanwhile, on the Horizon...

2011-09-30T01:49:00.000-07:00

UKRO have had sight of the most recent proposals for Horizon 2020. There's not a lot of change in the structure of the new Framework Programme (which Keith Sequeira outlined at the UKRO conference); it will still be based around four pillars, as follows:

Tackling Societal Challenges (containing details of the six societal challenges);
Excellent Science Base (covering the European Research Council, Marie Curie, Future and Emerging Technologies, and Research Infrastructures);
Industrial Leadership and Competitive Frameworks (covering Key Enabling Technologies – ICT, nanotechnology, materials, biotechnology, advanced manufacturing, and space – as well as Access to Risk Finance and Innovation in SMEs);
The Joint Research Centre.

However, there is a substantial change in the suggested reimbursement rates. As you will remember, earlier this month UKRO was seeking feedback on the proposed rates at the time of 75% for research activities, with overheads of 75% of personnel costs. There was some disquiet over this, and the Commission is now proposing 100% of direct costs and 20% overheads on all eligible direct costs.

It will be interesting to see what difference this makes. For more detail of what's proposed have a look at the UKRO webpage, which you can access if you belong to a subscribing institution like Kent.

Bring on the Visionaries

2011-09-30T01:00:00.000-07:00

The AHRC is seeking out 'visionaries' for its revised Fellowships scheme. The scheme aims 'to develop and promote visionary individuals who set research agendas, lead research communities, provide intellectual leadership in their own disciplines and beyond, have a transformative impact on their subject area and also act as advocates for the value and benefit of arts and humanities research beyond academia.'

I think they missed 'an ability to leap tall buildings in a single bound' off that list. I'll give them a call to rectify that.

The new scheme has a whiff of the ESRC's 'Future Leaders' to it. Not only should they undertake Nobel Prize-level work themselves, but they should also undertake 'a substantial programme of activities which support the development of the Fellow’s leadership role.' These could include networking, knowledge exchange, international collaboration, public engagement and defeating Lex Luthor.

Of course, identifying these visionaries will be no easy task, and the AHRC don't want individuals or institutions to take it on lightly. Whilst not setting specific limits on the number of people who can apply, they are expecting universities to identify suitable candidates, provide an 'appropriate package' of career and leadership development for them, internally sift potential applicants, and monitor their visionary prowess during the lifetime of the award.

Applications will be for between £50,000 and £250,000 fEC and will be for periods of between 6 and 18 months (or 6-24 months for applications from early career researchers). If you think you might have the necessary background - being born on the planet Krypton and brought up by a Kansas farmer, say - then do get in touch with me or my colleague Lynne Bennett.

Keepers of the Keys

2011-09-29T01:06:00.000-07:00

I went along to 'the Athens of the South South West' (Swindon) on Tuesday for an ESRC Study Visit. Such events are always - inevitably - a bit of a curate's egg: a lot of known and/or irrelevant information, peppered with some gems which make the whole thing worth the three hour cross-country schlep.

For me, one of the most useful insights was the issue of 'introducers' rejections'. As I'm sure you know, when you submit an application to the ESRC it doesn't go straight to panel. It goes through a sifting process, including:

Office sift: roughly 10% of applications get rejected at this stage on technicalities, such as not having the right attachments, sections not being filled, format not being adhered to, etc;
Reviewers' sift: roughly 30% get rejected at this stage. If the reviewers identify substantial flaws, and grade the applications accordingly;
Introducers' sift: I think this has been in place for some time, but I hadn't realised the scale of it before now. Each application is allocated to two introducers, who will have the responsibility of introducing the application to the panel. However, they can reject applications before they get to panel if they think that, realistically, they don't stand any real chance of getting funding, and it would be wasting the panel's time to discuss them.

The ESRC said that, after these sifts, they would only expect 30% of applications to go to panel. Given this figure, it looks like the introducers are expected to strip out 30% of the applications. That's quite a substantial figure.

In practice I imagine that this is fairly straightforward. There will be obvious applications that don't have anything wrong with them, but are never going to fly. However, it does make me worry slightly that the responsibility for identifying these is bestowed on so few people. Given how 'political' sub disciplines can be, what happens if your application is sifted out be someone who disagrees with your work, rather than allowing a wider range of views to input?

Anyway, the lesson to take away from this is to look at the grants panel membership (pdf) and try and identify the two people who are likely to be the introducers. Do a bit of background research on them and their interests, and try to key your proposal in with what makes them tick. They are the keepers of the keys to the kingdom - or at least to the grants panel.

Kellogg's Neutrinos

2011-09-23T02:44:00.000-07:00

Exciting news from the world of particle physics today. Apparently Italian researchers have discovered a particle that travels faster than the speed of light. Whilst this is exciting as it has the potential to overturn Einsteinian relativity, it's far more exciting as it offers Kelloggs the chance to build a new breakfast cereal around the name of the new particle, 'neutrinos'.

'Neutrinos' combines the best elements of 'new,' 'nutrition' and 'Cheerios', with the added element of unbelievable speed. So get your sugar-fuelled brains into gear and think of a strap line for this delicious breakfast treat that will inspire a new generation of scientists. I'll start you off:

'Late for school? Want breakfast but don't have time? New, nutritious Neutrinos are faster than the speed of light, and tastier than Schrodinger's cat.'

Hmm. On second thoughts...

MRC 'Neither Up Nor Down' Shock

2011-09-22T06:17:00.000-07:00

Oh you couldn't make it up. Paul 'Shriek' Jump made it a hattrick in last week's Times Higher by bemoaning the fact that the MRC success rate had - wait for it - stayed the same.

To recap:

On 1 September Jump suggested that the fall in its success rate reflected badly on the ESRC...
whereas on 8 September Jump suggested that the rise in its success rate reflected badly on the EPSRC;

Now, with its success rate pretty much static (it actually fell by 1%), Jump was wringing his hands about how badly this reflected on the MRC.

Spookily, in a comment on this blog Adam Golberg had foreseen this scenario almost exactly: 'Next week in the Times Higher: The XRC Research Council announces unchanged success rates. Does this stagnation spell the beginning of the end for the XRC?'

Does he know something we don't? Does he have access to lines of communication which are - frankly - supernatural? Is he, in fact, Robert Johnson?

We should be told.

EPSRC Tweaks Its Blacklisting Procedures

2011-09-21T07:41:00.000-07:00

Ah, EPSRC: they are the story that keeps on giving. You can always rely on them for a headline.

No sooner have they got chemists spitting blood at their remit changes, than they're saying that only certain disciplines can apply to their fellowships, before crowing about their blacklist-fuelled success rates. You've got to love 'em.

Yesterday, having not made any pronouncements for literally days, they issued a press release on changes to their blacklisting procedure. It's only really tweaking, so put the placards down. In fact, most of the changes are for the better, as follows:

When calculating your success rate, EPSRC will no longer include applications that were thrown out because your research didn't fit within its remit;
Similarly, if you applied to a scheme that has a second/interview stage, and you manage to get to that stage but get rejected after, this will not be held against you in the calculations;
Finally, if your application was ranked against nine or fewer other applications by one of EPSRC's panels, and came in the bottom half, this will not be included in their calculations.

So generally a move in the right direction. Now all they need to do is tweak their 'Shaping Capability' remit changes, and we'll be there.

Responding to Reviewers' Comments: Notes from Grants Factory Session

2011-09-16T06:51:00.000-07:00

What turns panellists against an application? For Peter Bennett, who has had experience reviewing applications for NERC and other funders, it’s arrogance. ‘There’s no greater turn off in a grant application,’ he said at Wednesday’s Grants Factory event. Applicants should practice humility, and let the facts speak for themselves. Avoid bombast, pomposity and exaggerated claims. Successful proposals talk with assurance, clarity and confidence, and they respect the opinions of reviewers and panellists.

A good application ‘makes sense’, and doesn’t need to swagger. It will be built on a strong track record and a well-matched research environment, will acknowledge the key previous works, and will contain an unbreakable kernel of original, significant work.

Bad applications, on the other hand, are bloated beasts. Pedestrian and dull, they shout their ignorance, and betray their hasty construction with flawed methodology, speculative theory, and a lack of focus. The applicant’s limp track record drags along behind, and the whole just doesn’t hang together well.

When it comes to replying to the reviewers, then, it is the measured, thoughtful, clear attitude that will win through. Don’t flare up and respond in haste. Step back, take time, and plan your response. Extract the criticisms from the text, and work out how you will respond to them. All of them should be treated as valid, even if you feel that some are ridiculous. Remember, humility: thank the reviewers for their comments, and either:

Address their concerns head on: if their feedback is valid, say that you have taken it on board, have made the necessary changes, and that the proposal is stronger as a result;
Sweeten the pill: if their feedback is invalid, say that you consider it to be an interesting idea, but that the nature of the current project would not allow you to incorporate their suggestions, and that it might be possible to do so in a future project.

Respond to all the comments with humility, respect and honesty; it will get you much more of a hearing than if you rail and swear and curse.

Peter’s slides will be available on the Research Services website shortly.

Notes from European Funding Clinic: ERC Applications

2011-09-16T05:46:00.001-07:00

Yesterday's workshop on European Funding was a good chance for participants to 'test drive' their proposals. All those who attended were willing to both receive and give feedback on their proposed projects. Some of the general points that were raised included:

Projects need to be both exciting and feasible, offering a step change in knowledge whilst also being grounded. The EC want to fund world-changing research, but also want to be reassured that you’ve thought through your project, that it’s achievable, and that you’re using an appropriate methodology with a realistic work plan.
Therefore think about:

Presenting an exciting question: the first step of the assessment process is for the panel to decide on who to shortlist for interview. The panel is very broad, and is unlikely to have experience of your area (see the full panel list, here (pdf)). Use the 5 page ‘extended synopsis of the scientific proposal’ (which is the only part of the proposal the panel will initially see) to ‘hook’ them in. Remember, the ERC is keen on ‘high risk/high gain’ research. Sell it to them: offer them a tantalising question, and follow it up by offering them a way to find the solution.
Balancing them with a realistic work programme. Think about the structure, and break it up into achievable ‘work packages’. Think about the team: who do you need in order to complete these work packages? The ERC is offering generous funding, and it is more likely to fund a project that involves a team than one with a lone academic. However,everyone must be there for a reason: there can’t be any ‘passengers’ or‘baggage’. Their inclusion has to make sense. Don’t just include eminent or senior academics to show that you’re well connected, or to lend your project a glow of established credibility. The Starting Grants are for newer academics to become independent leaders, so don’t jump on the coat tails of others.

Language: whilst the Work Programme may be ‘endlessly hyperbolic’ and ‘frantically bold’ (as one of the participants yesterday suggested), you need to be more low key and simple. Remember, the panellists (and later, external reviewers) will be from across Europe, and English is unlikely to be their first language. Keep it simple, and don’t ‘over conceptualise.’ Whilst you should make bold claims about your track record and the potential of your research, you should always ground these claims with evidence and demonstration.
Experience: not everyone will have the perfect track record of publications and grants. However, capitalise on what you have achieved. Talk about how previous collaborations or small grants have demonstrated your ability to manage projects and lead groups, or how your previous work leads naturally on to your current proposal.

Changes to AHRC Fellowships: Blackout Ahoy!

2011-09-15T03:02:00.000-07:00

The AHRC has announced that it will be making some significant changes to its Fellowships scheme, in line with its Delivery Plan 2011-15 (pdf), during the final week of September 2011. As a part of implementing these changes they will be amending their application forms. Accordingly the last date for submitting Fellowship applications will be 17 October 2011, and they will reopen again in January.

Another application blackout! Whey-hey! The AHRC does like its blackouts. Remember the move to the Shared Services Centre? That necessitated a month long blackout. Before that, their move to Swindon required a three month blackout. A cynic might suggest that they're a bunch of work-shy fops, wilting at the first sign of disruption, the whole office flaked out on day beds.

But that's cynics for you.

Anyway, what are the gnomic 'significant changes' that the press release refers to? Looking at the Delivery Plan, there are 12 references to fellowships, the most relevant of which are:

'The AHRC will allocate the majority of its Fellowships to areas of strategic priority and national capability (e.g. languages, digital humanities, creative economy, heritage, and interdisciplinary research with science subjects) and to deliver research of exceptional scale and importance' (section 1.4, p4)

and

'The Fellowship scheme will be further developed. Fellowships will be used for particular purposes as above and to develop research leadership skills, collaboration (where appropriate) and early-career support' (section 1.7, p5)

So come the end of the blackout expect a much closer grilling on how your research ties in with their strategic priorities or (ahem) 'particular purposes'. I've also heard that the AHRC will be expecting universities to do more of the filtering of fellowship applications, as the Council moves into line with the ESRC and EPSRC demand management strategies, and that they will allow ECRs an additional year post-doctoral experience to qualify for the early career route.

Guardian Live Chat: Research Funding

2011-09-14T02:16:00.000-07:00

I took part in the Guardian’s Live Chat discussion on Friday. It was focussed on ‘Securing Research Funding’, and brought together an impressively diverse panel, including Anne Dixon (MRC), Tennie Videler (Vitae), Nathaniel Golden (ARMA), Jo o’Leary (BBSRC), and Tseen Khoo (RMIT University, Australia), as well as my blogging colleagues David Young (Lincoln) and Adam Golberg (Nottingham).

It was an interesting, but slightly unnerving, experience. Partly this was down to the technology. It took the form of a comments thread, which you needed to update regularly: by the time you’d written and posted a response to one comment, the board had updated with a number of subsequent comments, and the thread was lost.

However, it was also down to the nature of research funding: there are so many issues bubbling up at the moment that the discussion could have been twice as long and still only scratched the surface. Thus, it was slightly superficial and erratic, but interesting none the less.

It kicked off with a discussion of what makes a bad application. Plenty of ideas here, including: lack of novelty; an ill-defined hypothesis; unsuitable methodology; confused design; vague management; insufficient resources and inadequate expertise. The panel emphasised the need to stick to the funder’s guidance, and write a proposal that made clear what the research question was, why it was important, how it was going to be answered, and how the findings were going to be disseminated. Above all, applicants should take time to properly plan and draft their proposal, and try to communicate their enthusiasm for the project.

The moderator, Eliza Anyangwe, then asked what the main issues in research funding were at the moment. The panel licked its lips and piled in. In a wide ranging discussion several issues came to the fore, including: coping with cuts and the ‘Grand Challenges’ at the Research Councils; impact; the removal of many small grant schemes; the push for interdisciplinary projects and 'concentration' of funding; and demand management.

It was interesting to hear that many of the issues in the UK were shared by colleagues in Canada and Australia, and vice versa. Jo van Every from Canada spoke ‘of more strings [being] attached to the money', and ‘of increased pressures on universities to bring in more external funding’, which resulted in ‘competition for the funds available [being] much stiffer and success rates...dropping.’ Similarly, in Australia, Tseen Khoo was dealing with the ERA, which is their equivalent of the REF.

There was also some discussion of provision for early career researchers and postdocs, and the struggle to get into academia, let alone getting on the funding ladder. The panellists generally agreed that ECRs needed to remain mobile – as much as possible – and keep their options open, although they sympathised with those for whom this wasn’t an option.

So what do researchers need in order to succeed in this increasingly difficult environment? Well, a thick skin and a willingness to persevere are important, but academics also need to network and collaborate, and be open to different opportunities.

However, Jo van Every noted that ‘your goal is NOT to secure research funding. Your goal is to do go great work. Funding will help you do ever more great work. Or even greater work.’ Adam Golberg concurred: ‘applying for funding isn't always the right decision for any given individual at any given point in time, and contrary to what some university managers seem to believe (no-one here, I'm sure) it's just [not?] possible for all academics to produce outstanding fundable research ideas to order on a regular basis.’

David Young finished by raising two interesting points: firstly, the discussion had demonstrated that such a forum was useful, and suggested that ARMA consider providing a space for such issues to be shared. Secondly, and more provocatively, he questioned the ‘business-as-usual model’ which has resulted in the difficulties identified during the discussion. It is ‘making life increasingly precarious for early career researchers as well as arguably driving research towards serving the needs of industry first and foremost. Should we just accept this? Is there are mechanism or a space for us to resist?’

That’s fighting talk, but people questioned the will – or the ability to act collectively – that would enable this to happen.

The Guardian will summarise the key points of the Chat in due course, but do browse the comments which are still available here.

UK National Contact Points for European Funding

2011-09-12T06:44:00.000-07:00

Ever feel you're in FP7 quicksand? Feel like you're about to drown in euro-speak? The more you struggle, the more desperate your situation? Wish there was someone on hand with a rope and a plank?

Well wish no longer. Believe it or not there's a network of plank and rope handlers out there, ready, willing and - yes - able to pull you out of the mire. They're the UK's National Contact Points (NCPs), and between them have a wealth of knowledge and experience in dealing with the Framework Programme. Their details are available here, but true to the nature of the Grand European Project, this is somewhat muddled and unclear. I've taken this info and cut to the chase: below are contacts - and numbers - that count.

Cooperation Themes

Energy: Helen Fairclough (Enviros Consulting) 0161 8743636;
Environment: Chris Barker (DEFRA) 0207 238 1629, or Catherine Holt (Beta Technology) 01302 322633;
Health: Victoria Brewer (MRC) 0207 670 5418, or Graham Hughes (Beta Technology) 01302 322633;
ICT: Peter Walters (TUV/NEL) 01932 251260, or Craig Sharp (TUV/NEL) 01355 593836;
KBBE: Tim Willis (BBSRC) 01793 413247, Chris Barker (details under 'Environment'), or Jane Watkins (Beta Technology) 01302 322633;
NMP: Alastair McGibbon (TUV/NEL) 01355 593810, or Craig Sharp (details under 'ICT');
Security: Derek Gallaher 07852 556502;
SSH: Samantha McGregor (ESRC) 01793 413141;
Space: Robert Lowson (Beta Technology) 01302 322633;
Transport: Cliff Funnell (Cliff Funnell Associates) 01243 552921, or Gill Richards (GR Aero Ltd) 01908 583916;

European Research Council

Jo Frost (UKRO) 00 32 2 2896121;

Marie Curie

Emma Carey (UKRO) 00 32 2 2305275;

Capacities

SMEs: Steve Bradley (Beta Technology) 01302 322633;
Science in Society: Stephanie Remola (ESRC) 01793 413146
INCO: Kate o'Shea (UK Collaboration on Development Sciences (UKCDS)) 0207 611 8276.

There's a number of others, but I think these are the main ones you will deal with. If anyone comes across a phone number that no longer works, or a responsibility that's changed, drop me a line and I'll update this post.

EPSRC Success Rate Rises to 36%

2011-09-08T04:18:00.000-07:00

Paul 'shriek' Jump is once again questioning the Research Councils in the Times Higher. After his 'off with their heads' piece last week on the ESRC, he turns his ire on the EPSRC this week and questions its steadily rising success rate. From a low of 26% in 2008-09, the Council's success rate has risen to 36% in 2010-11.

Good news, you would think. EPSRC put it down to the success of their blacklisting policy (although they don't call it that: to them it will forever be the 'Policy for Repeatedly Unsuccessful Applicants'). This limits those who have had three or more rejections, or have been in the bottom half of the prioritisation list, in a two year period and have a personal success rate of less than 25%, to only submitting one application in the subsequent year. With me so far?

However, Jump quotes two academics who suggest that the success of the policy is debatable: Ian Walmsley suggested that applications are down across the research councils (although this seems to run counter to Jump's piece on the ESRC), and David Price claimed that the policy was deterring weak and strong applications alike.

Whilst it's clear that Jump is a glass-half-empty kind of a guy, I agree that EPSRC's news should be greeted with caution. The Council has recently been in the headlines about it's - ahem - 'consultation', which suggested cutting funding to a number of disciplines within its remit. This has been met by horror in the sector, and has left David 'Derek Smalls' Delpy crying into his beer and saying that it wasn't really a consultation anyway.

Cutting both the number of disciplines and the number of eligible individuals within the remaining disciplines will, eventually, lead to a success rate of 100% for the Council. Hurray! Their work will be complete. Or certainly will be until this plummets back to 0% as there'll be no-one eligible left to apply.

Break on through to The Other Side

2011-09-07T01:17:00.000-07:00

If you've ever tried contacting the relevant research and development office at your local NHS Trust, you'll know the frustrations of trying to get the name of someone to call. Yesterday I tried to track down the contact details of the Maidstone & Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust Research and Development Department. Their website was very welcoming and positive, proclaiming that the Trust was 'committed to ongoing research and development to seek out new ways of improving health and healthcare.'

Great. But who do I call?

They suggested the switchboard. Hmm. If you've ever tried calling the switchboard of a small organisation (not pointing any fingers, BA), let alone a sprawling behemoth like an NHS Trust, you'll know that's a non-starter.

However, help is at hand. Nicole Palmer, the Ethics & Governance Officer here at Kent, is a past master at cutting through the complexities of NHS structures, and suggested that I should start with the NHS R&D Forum. This is a network for those involved in managing and supporting R&D in health and social care, and aims to (whisper it) facilitate interaction, and share best practice. Better still they have a list of the contact details of every R&D dept of every NHS Trust in the country.

Swoon! So you no longer need to bang your head against the wall as you're put on hold by the switchboard operator. Thanks very much to Nicole for this top tip.

I Predict(ed) a Riot (Research Funding Call)

2011-09-05T08:04:00.000-07:00

Cast your mind back 26 days. Yes, I know, it seems like decades ago now. Before the holidays. Before the return to work. Even before the return to school. Well, 26 days ago I was trying to predict when the Research Councils would issue a call for proposals on the London Riots.

The piece led to a short Twitter exchange in which I discussed the possible timeframe for a call. I was thinking it would be about six months, but Catherine Baker noted that there was already a call for papers on Breivik, around 20 days after the events in Norway. In the end I have to give it to Kate Bradley who accurately suggested four weeks. I thought that was hasty, but lo and behold, the LSE today announced that it had been funded to look at 'the causes and consequences of the English riots last month.'

Fabulous! The only thing stopping me handing over a big, glittering prize to Kate for her shrewd insight that, frankly, borders on clairvoyance, is that it was the Joseph Rowntree Foundation funding the research and not the Research Councils. 'There have been no attempts to systematically speak to those involved in the riots', gushes the LSE press release. Well, it was just a month ago. Give them time.

Moreover, I don't remember seeing the call for this. Given the usually glacial timeframe for funders to issue a call and assess applications, the haste of this announcement borders on the unseamly. How was Professor Tim Newburn identified so quickly as the worthy recipient of Rowntree's largesse? Hmm, I'd love to know, so that I can be well positioned for the next big news story.

Vive la Révolution! Oh, on Second Thoughts...

2011-09-02T07:04:00.000-07:00

An interesting piece in this week's Times Higher had Paul Jump baying for the ESRC's blood as the Council announced its plunging success rates. The overall success rate fell to 16 per cent, 'a decline of one percentage point' screeched Jump, a modern day Tricoteuse, calling on Robert Dingwall to be his Robspierre and release the blade on the ESRC. Dingwall duly obliged. 'It may be time to put the ESRC out of its misery,' he intoned, sadly, suggesting that it might be just as well to distribute the money via QR funding.

Dingwall's view echoes that of Baroness Greenfield, also quoted by Jump in the THE in May. 'Her "very heretical" suggestion...is to abolish the research councils and research excellence framework and divide the research budget, along with the "vast sums saved from the bureaucracy", equally among researchers.'

Is there some kind of agenda amongst the sans-culottes of the Times Higher? Part of me is quite attracted by these radical suggestions. There is a sense in the community that going for Research Council funding is now little better than a lottery. And perhaps Baroness Greenfield has a point: she suggests that we divvy the Research Council budget (c£2.5bn) amongst all those who submitted to the RAE. This, she calculates, would result in something like £82-£100k each per year. It would certainly save us all a lot of bother.

But hold on. A more sceptical - and balanced - view comes from Adam Golberg at Nottingham. He, generously, puts a lot of the rhetoric in the article down to old fashioned journalese. 'It certainly got my attention,' he wryly notes. We still need the Research Councils, he suggests: the benefit of the current, dual support system is that whilst the Russell Group fat cats gets the lion's share of research funding, the project funding offered by the Research Councils allow the 'pockets of excellence' to still get funding for quality projects, wherever they're found. In addition, he notes the difference between a success rate based on all applications, and one based on viable applications. Apparently some 43% of ESRC applications never even made it to panel, and were withdrawn by the office or shot down by assessors. So if the denominator is effectively halved, it makes a much more healthy success rate.

So put down the pitchforks and Phrygian caps, and pause for thought. Now, more than ever, we need to make sure that all have access to Research Council funding, and that there is a champion for the social sciences. The system might not be perfect, but it's better than the alternatives. Though I have to admit, 'vive le statu quo' doesn't have quite the same ring...

Horizon 2020: What's it Worth?

2011-09-01T04:58:00.000-07:00

Plans for Horizon 2020 (which, as I don't need to remind you, is the new name for FP8) are coming on a pace, and UKRO reported today that the EC is currently grappling with the Gordian knot of what the Commission should pay successful applicants. The obvious answer would be, 'well, what they ask for,' but it's not that simple. Most European funding is given on a part funding or 'co-financing' basis, often calculated on an algorithm that makes the calculation of Easter look simple.

The current 'reimbursement rates' for FP7 are here (thanks, EUResearch, 'your Swiss guide to European research'). It all looks so simple, doesn't it? However, it's not as straightforward as the Swiss would have us believe, because these figures need to be cross referenced against an indirect cost rates matrix, which varies between institutions, and can be the 'simplified (ha!) method', 'standard flat rate', or 'special transition flat rate'.

Anyway, looking forward, UKRO has read the runes and it looks like the EC might propose Horizon 2020 reimbursement rates as follows:

up to 75% for research activities,
50% for innovation activities, and
60% for combined research and innovation activities.
Marie Curie and ERC would be up to 100%, as at present.

These would be for all participants (both academia and industry) and would apply to an entire project, so there wouldn't be the distinction for non-profit public bodies, secondary and higher education establishments, research organisations and SMEs, or for different activities within a project.

Indirect costs would be a flat rate 75% of personnel costs, again for all participants. No 'real' indirect cost system would be available. ERC would have indirect costs of 25% of personnel costs, and support actions (CSAs) 7% of personnel costs.

UKRO has already had feedback on these proposals from a handful of institutions, most of whom are worried that the rates would work out worse than those currently being offered. They weren't sure that having a single rate was all it was cracked up to be, and were particularly worried that management costs would be less than 100%, making coordination a lot less attractive. Also, the lower reimbursement rate for mixed activity projects (including research and innovation, which the EC is particularly keen to encourage) might actually discourage organisations from participating in such activities. As to indirect rates, most would prefer the current 'special transition flat rate' (of 60%) to continue.

Those institutions that have done some modelling believe that only projects that are personnel-heavy would be better under the new regime. In addition, the ERC might be badly hit, with a move from a 20% flat rate for indirect costs to 25% for personnel-only costs could be significant. There might be some savings made in the cost of managing the grants, but these, it was thought, would be outweighed by the losses.

The full UKRO analysis is available here (you have to be a subscriber to access this) and they would welcome other feedback by 9 September. So get your calculators out and get modelling!

Forthcoming European Funding Events

2011-09-01T04:50:00.000-07:00

Part of the problem with going on holiday - or rather, the coming back - is remembering what you've already publicised and what you haven't. I don't think I've mentioned these on the blog yet. If I have, well, nod politely, smile wanly, and pass on.

We’ll be running a couple of European Funding events this year:

European Funding Clinic (12-2pm, 15 September) This is intended for people who are applying to the current FP7 calls. It will be an opportunity for applicants to present and discuss their proposals with two experienced academics (Simon Thompson and Jenny Billings) who have been applicants, grant holders and reviewers for the EC.
Eurovision: Is European Funding for Me? (w/c 7 May, TBC) This will be a rerun of the well-attended event in January. It will look, honestly, at the pros and cons of European funding, and may include an overview of any draft Work Programmes we have at that point.

These event are free and open to all staff. Do let me know if you would like to come along to either or both of these.

BA Reinstates Small Grants

2011-08-30T03:37:00.000-07:00

Well, fresh back from my hols, I'm ploughing through the emails and finding out what I've missed. Firstly, good news from the British Academy: it has reinstated its Small Grants scheme. Hurrah! God bless the BA for swimming against the tide and backing a popular scheme that plugs that small grant-sized hole in national research funding provision.

I spoke to Ken Emond, Head of Research Awards at the BA, to check whether this would be a one off, or whether it would continue to fund the grants. He said that the intention was that it would be on-going, and that they would make 'strong representations and arguments' to BIS to do so. Whilst this is excellent news, it's still uncertain if it will run twice a year as it has in previous years: it might be reduced to an annual round.

So, good on the BA Fellows and Officers, who - very unfairly - I always imagine as inhabiting a private members club in Piccadilly, complete with leather wing back chairs and a grandfather clock ticking away in the distance somewhere. A few of the older members might be slumbering under their copies of the Times and dreaming of steamed sponge puddings, along the lines of Rowley Birkin QC. Please, if you work for the BA, don't shatter my dream and tell me it's all beige offices and power suits.

Changes to NERC Schemes

2011-08-11T01:40:00.000-07:00

With all the changes at ESRC, EPSRC, STFC and AHRC, it feels like NERC has been dragging its feet somewhat. Not any more. It's announced that:

It's cutting its Small Grants.
Consortium Grants are being cut from two rounds per year to one, and an outline stage will be introduced.

At this stage these kind of changes shouldn't come as a surprise. There's barely a funder left standing that hasn't stripped out its small grants: the ESRC and BA have already done so, and the Royal Society dropped its Conference Grants. Small scale funding is so last year.

NERC does say that 'it will remain possible to submit proposals for small discrete projects, proof-of-concept studies and pump-priming exercises to the Standard Grants scheme, if they exceed the minimum scheme funding level'. That's defined by NERC as '£25,000 for directly incurred costs', which has always struck me as a slightly curious way of defining a lower limit. Why not a minimum that includes directly allocated and, perhaps estates and indirect as well? Whilst £25k may sound like quite a small amount, and way below the £65k maximum for the current Small Grants, when you add in directly allocated, estates and indirect costs you would be coming very close to this figure.

So, in effect, they will not be providing any small scale funding. I tried talking to them about it this morning, but unfortunately the relevant person was away from her desk, but I imagine the reason for cutting the grants is (a) they're getting too many applications and the success rates are plummeting, (b) what they have been funding has tended to be incremental and not paradigm shifting, and (c) universities should be funding it anyway.

Well, up to a point, Lord Cooper. I would suggest, in response, that (a) if you're getting too many applications, it's a sign of popularity, of a scheme that the sector actually wants. How about putting more money towards it and away from the flashy large scale schemes? (b) okay, it's small scale by nature, but then, sometimes research does progress in small increments, and current breakthroughs build on previous knowledge, and (c) universities have the cash?? Ha!

However, something tells me that NERC aren't going to backtrack on the decision, especially when all their sister funders are doing the same. So we need to work in the changed climate. If you want to apply for funding for a small project get in touch with me and I'll help you identify other possible sources of funding, or how to frame your project in such a way that it could fit within NERC's Standard Grants scheme.

London Riots: How Long until RCUK Issues a Call for Proposals?

2011-08-10T02:09:00.000-07:00

As someone who’s spent a good deal of time on the funding block, I’ve always been impressed at how the Research Councils are able to jump on contemporary political bandwagons. Of course, they wouldn’t see at it as such. They would see it as providing research that will answer societies concerns. After 9/11 and 7/7, it was all about answering the threat from terrorism, particularly Islamic terrorism. Around the same time as Kyoto, it was all about ‘Living with Environmental Change’. In the most recent Delivery Plans all the talk was informed by the 2008 economic crisis, of ‘enabl[ing] the development of robust government and private sector strategies to ensure sustainable growth’ (ESRC Delivery Plan 2011-15). Sometimes they take this too far, and the AHRC has had its fingers burnt by appearing to not only jump on the ‘Big Society’ bandwagon, but sit beside the driver and do his bidding.

So how long do you think it will be before a call for proposals is issued around gangs, riots and criminality? My guess is six months to a year, perhaps shoehorned into the ESRC’s ‘Influencing Behaviour’ or ‘Vibrant and Fair Society’ strands. However, there’s a warning from a blog I read recently about the dangers inherent in adjusting your research funding policy in light of current affairs. Remember all the funding that went on terrorism in the mid-noughties? Has it had any real effect? Are we any closer to understanding or preventing terrorism or acts of carnage? Or has the cycle turned, naturally, to other issues? The events in Norway show that individuals or groups can still kill indiscriminately, and that ‘Global Uncertainties’ are no nearer resolution.

Whilst I accept the rationale behind the Research Council's wish to meet contemporary challenges, and of the push to integrate university research with the wider society through the impact agenda, perhaps the time has come to recognise that following the curve of current events is somewhat fruitless. Should the Research Councils now unshackle academics so that they can pursue whatever research is good rather than whatever research is political?

SSC Shortlisted for Award Shock

2011-08-02T08:30:00.000-07:00

For anyone who's every had any dealings with the RCUK Shared Services Centre, or has read about its growing pains, this news will come as something of a shock. The SSC has been shortlisted for an award! And it's not even the award for the organisation least likely to be able to organise a piss-up in a brewery. No, its the National Business Award for (the slightly tautological) Transformational Change of the Year.

Transformational Change? What does that mean? Well, I'm glad you asked me that. 'Pioneers of transformational change...enhanc[e] the citizen and customer experience, achiev[e] more with less, and creat[e] better value for stakeholders.'

Really? Is this the same SSC we're talking about?

It goes on: 'this award has been designed to recognise the entity that has successfully refocused, restructured or strategically re-aligned to significantly reduce cost while improving efficiency; increased productivity, market share or revenue; enhanced the citizen’s/customers experience; and engaged staff, suppliers and all relevant stakeholders in the implementation of new systems and technologies to drive sustainability.'

Hmm. I guess that depends on how you measure 'success'. Or 'efficiency'. If they're measured by quick turnaround times and knowledgeable responses to queries, then SSC might struggle to secure the prize. However, let's be optimistic: the NBA panel might be assessing the potential for future growth and performance. And if that's the case, it's in the bag for the SSC because, as Yazz said, the only way is up.

Grants Factory: Responding to Reviewers' Comments

2011-08-02T02:35:00.000-07:00

We’re currently putting together the Grants Factory programme for the forthcoming year. One of the first events will look at the thorny issue of Responding to Reviewers’ Comments. Most of the Research Councils (and some other funders) allow you to respond to the comments that their reviewers give your application. Often the comments seem uninformed, and it’s easy – and tempting ! – to respond quickly and angrily to these. However, there is a knack to dealing with them effectively, and if you can master this you can turn round the negative feedback and actually get your applications funded.

The workshop will take place at 2pm on 14 September 2011 and will be led by Dr Peter Bennett from the Durrell Institute of Conservation Ecology (DICE). He has had considerable experience as both an applicant, reviewer and panel member for NERC, as well as a number of other funders. His insight and advice will be relevant to academics in all three faculties, as there are common themes that apply to funders in all disciplines.

The event is free and open to all staff. Do let me know if you would like to come along.

REF: the Plot Thickens

2011-08-01T04:23:00.000-07:00

With the publication of the panel assessment criteria last week, we now have a clearer idea of what the REF is going to look like. And it's not a level playing field for all the panels. Research Professional did a good run down of how it differs between each, and here it is, in summary:

The Thorny Issue of Citations

Remember when the REF was just a glimmer in David Sweeney's eye? When all the talk was of bibliometrics and light touch review? Hah! Well, as we've known for some time, you can forget all that. The REF looks pretty much like it's the RAE with Impact, and is peer review-centric. In fact, citations are only going to be allowed in a minority of the 36 sub-panels, as follows:

Panel A (Life Sciences): will allow citation data in all sub-panels;
Panel B (Physical Sciences): will only allow citation data in sub-panels 7 (earth and environmental sciences), 8 (chemistry), 9 (physical sciences) and 11 (computer science)
Panel C (Social Sciences): will only allow citation data in (some of) sub-panels 17 (geography, environmental studies and archaeology) and 18 (economics and econometrics). No panels will use journal impact factors.
Panel D (Humanities): no citation data allowed.

Put Out by Outputs

As well as variation on citations, there's a wide variety on what's deemed acceptable as assessable outputs. 'RePro' (as no-one but me calls Research Professional) gives the example of the physical sciences vs life sciences. Life sciences are strictly 'old skool', and you can only include 'edgy' outputs like textbooks, databases or abstracts “exceptionally”, 'where they embody original research'. The physical sciences, on the other hand, are much more 'new wave', and you can submit patents, book chapters, computer algorithms and software as evidence of research output, alongside peer-reviewed publications.

The Impact of Impact

Finally, it's our old friend Impact. Generally there's a broadbrush consensus on what impact is all about, and the definition is wide enough to allow for a fairly catholic understanding of it. However, there is a minor spat in the offing when it comes to the impact of teaching. Within Panel B, research impact can include actions that have an effect on teaching or students where they extend significantly beyond your institution. However Panel C will not accept such heresy, and you can't include examples of this in your submission to them.

So, interesting times ahead. Thanks to - ahem - 'RePro' for their overview of the HEFCE docs. You can have your say on them by responding to HEFCE's consultation before 5 October.

Virginia Tech Partnering Program - Awards Announced

2011-08-01T04:20:00.000-07:00

This year marks the second anniversary of the Virginia Tech-University of Kent Partnering Award Program. The Program is aimed at encouraging and facilitating collaboration between the two institutions, and this year three awards were made.

Ms Bilge Daldeniz (Kent Business School, University of Kent)
Dr Nancy Gard McGehee (Dept of Hospitality & Tourism Management, Virginia Tech)

Ms Daldeniz and Dr McGehee will examine the impacts of volunteer tourism on host communities. Volunteer tourism is a niche that has grown significantly in recent years, but little is known about its effects on host communities. Dr McGehee has worked on volunteer tourism for over a decade, whilst Ms Daldeniz is an emerging scholar in the area; the former’s research experience and theoretical background will complement the latter’s extensive contacts in the field. Together they will submit an application to the UK’s Economic & Social Research Council, to develop a robust, evidence-based framework for future planning, management and hosting of volunteer tourism.

Dr Todd Mei (School of European Culture & Languages, University of Kent)
Prof Nicolaus Tideman (Dept of Economics, Virginia Tech)

Dr Mei and Prof Tideman will discuss economic and philosophical concepts of land, and how related questions of rights and justice can be developed in new ways. The investigators do not share identical views on these areas, but a fertile mixture of agreement and difference exists that will lead to a healthy and critical dialogue and develop each scholar’s thought and contribution to their respective fields. Their collaboration will lead to two proposals to the UK’s Leverhulme Trust: one for a project grant, the other for a Visiting Professorship.

Dr Joao Macieira (Dept of Economics, Virginia Tech)
Dr Diogo de Souza Monteiro (Kent Business School, University of Kent)

Certification – such as that for organic farming standards – tends to be implemented and monitored by third parties (e.g., The Soil Association), and there is now a fast growing global market for the provision of these services. However, there has been little empirical research examining the performance of this market. Drs Macieria and Monteiro will undertake a pilot project to do just that, focusing initially on the organic food sector in the USA, UK and Portugal. This will lead to a joint paper, and the development of a grant proposal targeted at the National Institute of Food and Agriculture in the US, or the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the UK.

Congratulations to all those involved in these partnerships. They offer an exciting opportunity to make connections and explore shared research which will, we hope, lead to both a productive collaboration and fruitful long term ties between our two universities.

Blog Roll

2011-07-22T06:04:00.000-07:00

Since starting this blog I've come across a wealth of new and existing blogs that cover the same or complementary areas. I wanted to highlight some of these, and encourage you to have a look at what they're saying. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you, in a very random order:

Exquisite Life: the Research Professional blog. Very good, informed comment on a range of issues in higher education. Especially good at deconstructing the backroom politics that underlies HE and research in the UK.
Bournemouth University EU Blog: a hidden gem, this is very good with up to date info on developments in European funding.
Social Science Space: a wider ranging blog run by the Campaign for Social Science that looks at issues more generally in the Social Sciences.
Cash for Questions: a brilliant, deliciously honest new blog from Nottingham's Adam Golberg, highlighting and questioning research funding issues in the Social Sciences.
Athene Donald's Blog: Written by a BBSRC panellist and one of the great and good, a refreshingly open take on research, teaching and life generally as an academic.
Lincoln University Research Office Blog: Another university blog, this time from Lincoln. Good, basic institutional-level updates. How RO blogs should be done.
A University Blog: Ferdinand von Prondzynski's take on academic life. Like Athene Donald, this is an honest view of the reality of the modern university.
Mind the Gap: and, from the other end of the university food chain, a blog by a jobbing RA, Jenny Rohn. The highs, the lows, the frustrations, the triumphs: it's all there.
BishopBlog: another academic insight, this time from Deevy Bishop of Oxford, highlighting both the good and bad of life as a Prof.
LSE Impact Blog: an interesting, exhaustive look at impact (and more) in research, with a good selection of guest posters.
Science Fundermentals: a great new blog by my colleague Carolyn Barker that concentrates on science research funding. Good first post on EPSRC changes.
Research Whisperer: stepping outside of the UK/EU goldfish bowl, this is one from Australian colleagues. Interesting how many of the issues are the same...
Wonkhe: great name, great blog. Covering more of the nuts and bolts of HE policy, this is an informed and informative insight into the choppy waters on which we float.
The University Blog: in a similar vein, but aimed more at students and their perspective.
Registrarism: another blog from Nottingham (what is it with Nottingham??), which looks more at admin and management issues - the remit of the Registrar - at universities.

I'm sure there's plenty I've missed, but I hope to keep this list updated as a blog roll at the side of mine. Do have a look at these when you have a chance. You'll come away a smarter, more informed and - let's be frank - better person.

Statement on Impact: Why?

2011-07-21T08:03:00.000-07:00

HEFCE, RCUK and UUK have issued a joint statement on the joys of impact. Like Cameron's take on the UK/US relationship, things have moved from being 'special' to being 'essential.'

The statement is all a bit, well, yadda, yadda, yadda: 'committed to working together', 'embedding througout', 'engage with business', 'beneficial outcomes', 'continue to work together', 'work coherently together' etc etc

But why did the three august institutions feel the need at this time to issue a generic statement that says almost nothing? It might have something to do with the REF: the Guidance on Submissions was published on the 14th July, and it's clear (if you were at all uncertain) how important impact is going to be this time around. Still, that doesn't really explain the reason for such a statement.

To me, it has the feel of whistling in the dark, to ward off the unbelievers and dissenters, of repeating something over and over, sotto voce, to reassure yourself that what you know is right, right? and what you believe will prevail. But something like this often has an opposite effect: it makes you think, 'why are they telling me this? Do they know something I don't?'

So beyond whistling in the dark, what's the point? I'd love to know. If you work for HEFCE, RCUK or UUK do drop me a line explaining the background to the statement. Alternatively, if you don't work for any of these three wise monkeys, just guess. The more conspiratorial the better. They'll be a prize for the best of a superb non-flashing pen, crafted from pure transparent plastic with colour coded lid and end stopper detailing.

RCUK Announce Global Uncertainties Fellowships

2011-07-15T01:40:00.000-07:00

The AHRC, ESRC, MRC and STFC have announced a call for Global Uncertainties Leadership Fellows. ‘Global Uncertainties’ is a cross council scheme that focuses on global security challenges, and provides research that will help governments, businesses and societies to better predict, detect, prevent and mitigate threats to security, focussing on six core areas:

Ideologies and beliefs
Terrorism
Transnational organised crime
Cyber security
Threats to infrastructures
Countering the proliferation of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) weapons and technologies.

These grants will provide up to three years’ funding for up to 60 per cent of the Fellows’ time with an overall limit of £500,000 (fEC) per grant. 8-10 Fellows will be funded. The proposals should include:

A programme of activities to help to achieve further focus within one or more of the GU Programme core areas (for example through producing overviews or syntheses of existing research in the area, convening discussion meetings or seminars, leading possible public engagement and media outreach activities).
A programme of activities to help to build relationships and networks between researchers in the area and between researchers and potential beneficiaries and users of the research, potentially including the business community and/or the public sector and/or the third sector in the UK and internationally.
A well-defined, high-quality, innovative and ground-breaking research project relevant to one or more Global Uncertainties core areas. The capacity to make, and the possibility of achieving, a significant impact on relevant research fields must be demonstrated. Consideration should also be given to appropriate pathways through which this research might have a significant impact beyond academia.

Across the period of the grant, at least 20 per cent of the Fellow’s time should be expected to be devoted to the first two activities, with the balance of up to 40 per cent for personal research.

Deadline for Expressions of Interest:16.00 on 28 September 2011 by email to global.uncertainties@esrc.ac.uk.

Expression of Interest decisions will be announced in November 2011. Shortlisted applicants will be invited to submit a full proposal by early January 2012, with successful applicants commencing August/September 2012.

Changes to EPSRC Funding Schemes

2011-07-15T01:00:00.000-07:00

News is coming through from Polaris Towers about changes in the pipeline for EPSRC funding schemes:

The leadership, career acceleration and postdoc fellowships are to be stopped. They will be replaced by a single fellowship scheme - where you can apply anytime, at any stage of your career.
Increased number of calls in strategic areas (although responsive-mode grants will continue to get the vast majority of their funding)
Increased support for key UK-based academics - individual, long term support.
Possible changes to the way first grants will be assessed (i.e. not just against first grants). However, detail of this was not forthcoming.
No plans for a UK equipment register; it will be up to academics to find shared equipment.

Full details of these will be announced next week (around 20 July). Thanks to my colleague Carolyn Barker for this. Incidentally Carolyn's planning to start up her own, science-focused funding blog, so watch this space...

Understanding the FP7 SSH Call

2011-07-13T03:42:00.000-07:00

The 2011-12 Fp7 calls are now only days away and now is a good time for a quick overview of the Socioeconomic Sciences and Humanities theme, so that you don't feel too lost amidst the 68 page work programme.

SSH provides funding through two basic 'instruments' or funding schemes:

Large Collaborative Projects, to answer 'grand challenges'. These are behemoths, and the EC expects consortia to be at least 7 members from 7 different countries, and the EC's contribution to be at least €5.5m;
Small/Medium Collaborative Project/Support Actions, to answer specific 'topics'. Here, the scale is much less ambitious: the minimum number of partners is 3, and the EC contribution is at most €1m/€2.5m.

Both these types of funding fit within eight broad 'activities':

Growth, Employment & Competitiveness
Economic, Social & Environmental Objectives in Europe
Major Trends in Society and Their Implications
Europe and the World
The Citizens in the European Union
Socio-Economic & Scientific Indicators
Foresight Activities
Horizontal Activities

Now it may seem a little confusing as to how they all fit together, so I've done a grid (pdf) showing which challenge or topic fits under which activity. However, this is just an overview, a road map: to really understand what the EC is after for each of these you'll have to take a deep breath and jump into the Work Programme. This will give you the background, objectives and expected impact of each area. The latest version of the draft Work Programme is available via UKRO, though you need to be a subscriber (as Kent is) in order to access it.

EC Work Programme: Polish Presidency 2011

2011-07-12T04:14:00.000-07:00

I know the blog's been a bit eurocentric recently, but hell, that's the way le petit gateau sec crumbles. Anyway, UKRO are reporting what the EC's got lined up for the Polish presidency (ppt) in 2012. Hmm. Not relevant to us, surely? Au contraire. See, there's a few research-related dates you should be aware of:

27 Sept 2011: a Communication on 'Partnering in Research and Innovation'. Not sure what this will be, but perhaps it will give us a clue as to how the EC wants business and academia to collaborate in the future.
30 Nov 2011: full proposal for Horizon 2020, including necessary legislation, specific programmes, and rules of participation;
Dec 2011: a Communication on developments in the area of access to scientific information. Open Access ahoy!
5-7 Dec 2011: Innovation Convention, and report on progress towards an Innovation Union.

Looking further forward, in 2012 we've got these policy gems to look forward to:

ERA Framework, which as UKRO understands, will include a large scale public consultation (this was originally planned for late 2011 but has been put back due to the development on Horizon 2020).
Communication on enhancing and focussing international cooperation in Research and Innovation
Communication on the state of implementation of the Innovation Union and mainstreaming of innovation in EU policies
Recommendation to Member States on Structural changes in universities and research in institutions to promote gender equality
Communication on the establishment of a new Europe 2020 headline indicator to monitor progress in innovation.

Finally, it will be pushing forward on its Joint Programming Initiatives. As I'm sure I don't need to tell you, the aim of these is 'to pool national research efforts in order to make better use of Europe's precious public R&D resources and to tackle common European challenges more effectively in a few key areas.' And what are those few key areas? I'm glad you asked. UKRO's sources say that they are:

More years, better lives (already launched in July 2011)
Water challenges for a changing world
Healthy and productive seas and oceans
Climate change
Antimicrobial resistance (Planned for 3rd quarter 2011)
Urban Europe (Planned for 4th quarter 2011)

ERC Launches New 'Synergy' Scheme

2011-07-09T03:26:00.000-07:00

At the UKRO Conference yesterday the EC’s Ben Turner gave some more detail of the European Research Council’s (ERC) new scheme, ‘Synergy’, which will be launched shortly with the new Work Programme in July. The Council already runs three schemes:

Starting Grants: offering €2m over 5 years
Advanced Grants: offering €3.5m over 5 years
Proof of Concept: which provides existing award holders with funding to explore the commercial viability of the products of their research.

These – and in particular the first two – had proved to be very successful. The first round of the Starting and Advanced grants had been heavily oversubscribed, and the resulting success rate was around 4%. Since then it had risen to around 15%.However, whilst the budget had increased so had the number of applications; Starting Grants had risen by 42% for the last call. This is still a tough funder.

The Synergy Grant will be piloted in 2011-12. It will be allocated €150m so, whilst smaller than the Starting Grants (€730m) and Advanced Grants (€680m), it will be larger than FET. The intention of the new scheme is to provide funding for new collaborations. It will fund small groups of investigators (2-4) who can make the case that together they can achieve more than they can individually. They will fund 10-12 projects initially. The scheme is very open: the ERC has avoided being at all prescriptive. It’s been debating the new instrument for around two years, and intially toyed with the idea of restricting it to interdisciplinary projects, or cooperation with colleagues outside the EU. In the end it kept it simple. Almost nothing has been ruled out. There is an ‘expectation’ that it will be interdisciplinary, and that the investigators will be physically in the same place. But this is an expectation, not a requirement.

What the FET's it All About?

2011-07-09T03:19:00.000-07:00

Now here’s a hidden gem. At a time when funders are increasingly risk averse and focused on established academics, the EU is providing funding for technology projects undertaken by anyone at any stage of their career that are inherently uncertain. The Future and Emerging Technologies (FET) scheme funds research that seeks fundamental understanding, but that is inspired by everyday problems. Think Louis Pasteur.

There are three schemes within FET:

FET-Open: bottom up funding for small scale, novel and fragile ideas. It has a light 2 step assessment process, and an open deadline.
FET-Proactive: top down ‘managed’ funding that focuses on transformative, thematic research and emerging communities. It’s targeted and is aimed at developing a critical mass. There are fixed deadlines.
FET-Flagships: One step up from the ‘FET-Proactive’ are these large, roadmap-driven research initiatives.

Now if you’re still with me then you must still be interested. So stick with me and we’ll drill down for more detail on the first of these, the FET-Open. The deadlines are open, but applications are batched in 6 month groups. There are five different streams within the scheme:

Challenging Current Thinking (€75m): Provides funding for 3-6 partners, with each award of about €1.5 – 3m. They’re looking for new and alternative ideas that are risky and unconventional. They don’t want research that just provides incremental improvements. It’s all about foundational breakthroughs, ambitious proofs of concept, and new, interdisciplinary collaborations.The success rates initially appear low: 4%. But that’s the total number of outline applications divided by the total number of projects finally funded. If you use the more realistic number of full applications divided by the number of awards, it’s a much more respectable 35%.
High Tech Research Intensive SMEs in FET Research (€9m): This provides funding for research outside large labs. Like the ‘Research for the Benefit of SMEs’, this is intended for SMEs who are willing to take the driving role in research, and get the primary benefit from it. The EC is not interested in projects that seek short term commercial outcomes.
FET Young Explorers (€6m): This is aimed at catching the creativity, potential, and openness of young researchers, and to develop their leadership, empowering them to be independent. By ‘young’ they mean less than 6 years from the submission of their PhD.
International Cooperation Top up Call (€3m): This provides funding to extend existing FET projects with complementary research activities that develop collaborations with new non-EU research partners. It’s restricted to on-going FET projects, and there must be 18 months left of the award.
Science of Global Systems (€3.5m): Here, they are seeking IT projects that are developing models that will be used to understand global systems – eg ecological, socio-economic – and improve their ability to respond to changes. There’s a deadline 17 Jan 2012.

Pass Notes: the Innovation Union

2011-07-09T03:10:00.000-07:00

‘Innovation Union’ has become a buzz word in the world of European funding recently, and it’s a key influence on the development of Horizon 2020.

I’d just got used to the European Union. What’s the ‘Innovation Union’ when it’s at home?

Oh do keep up. The Innovation Union was introduced in October 2010, and set out 34 commitments aimed at creating a supportive and stimulating environment for innovation.

And innovation is...?

Where have you been? Innovation is the universal panacea, the cure for all known evils, the magic pill that will save us from the Great Recession, and help us to leapfrog our competitors in a single bound.

No seriously.

It’s the development of ideas to the stage of commercial exploitation. But most funders do see it as the universal panacea, and all are keen to get on the innovation bandwagon.

Okay. Gotcha. So how will the Innovation Union encourage innovation?

It hopes to learn from those countries that have successfully embedded innovation. It was clear that success has been no accident there: they had strong strategies for innovation that were integrated across the board, in education, skills, regional development, standardisation, and tax policies. It was backed, steered and monitored at the highest levels. If Europe is serious about innovation, it’s got to do likewise.

Can’t imagine the UK is keen on being told to prioritise innovation by those pushy Brussels bureaucrats.

Au contraire. The British government sees innovation as the key to recovery, and wants to give it a bigger share of the depleted national budget.

Alright, so Europe has got to learn from its competitors. Then what?

Then, my dear friend, it implements the 34 commitments. For higher education these include:

1: Member states have to have strategies in place ‘to train enough researcher to meet national R&D targets and to promote attractive employment conditions in public research institutions.’
2: Better benchmarking, to produce evidence for business/academic collaborations, and development of new curricula.
4: ERA framework single market, including measures to remove obstacles to mobility and cross border cooperation.
9. The European Institute of Technology (EIT).
29. European Innovation Platforms (EIP), a new funding mechanism (or instrument) for meeting societal challenges, such as climate change and energy security. There’s currently a pilot ‘EIP on healthy ageing’, with a goal of adding an average of two healthy years to older EU citizens. There will be others, including ‘smart cities.
30. Attracting highly skilled third country nationals...

Zzzz...

Wake up!

Sorry, you lost me amidst all those acronyms and aspirations.

Well let me make it simple for you. Innovation is going to be a key to research at a European level, so if you want to get some European funding, you’d better start talking to business.

Do say: ‘innovate to accumulate’
Don’t say: ‘Innovate? I’m quite happy in my ivory tower, thank you.’

New Marie Curie Schemes

2011-07-09T02:41:00.000-07:00

Two new pilot schemes will be introduced for the next round of Marie Curie Actions, due to be published on 20 July. They are intended to fill a perceived gap in the provision of training for early stage researchers (ESRs).

Innovative Doctoral Programmes (IDPs). This replaces the ‘Monosite Initial Training Networks (ITNs)’, and aims to encourage crossovers between disciplines, sectors and states. Whilst there are plenty of doctoral schools across Europe, it's relatively rare to see ones with genuinely international, interdisciplinary, cross-sectoral programmes. The IDP is intended to rectify this.
European Industrial Doctorates (EIDs). This is intended to encourage companies to get involved in doctoral training. The EID should involve at least two participants (one from each sector), and possible associated partners in any sector/discipline/country. Each researcher must be enrolled in a doctoral programme, be employed by at least one of the participants, spend at least 50% in private sector, and be jointly supervised by both participants. There should be 1-5 researchers per project.

There is considerable flexibility in the new schemes, but if all goes according to plan there will be even more flexibility in Horizon 2020. The EC is intending to simplify the current range of eight Marie Curie schemes into four broad schemes (as mentioned in an earlier post):

A scheme for early stage researchers (i.e. doctoral students): this would allow a host institution to put in place a network for providing training for doctoral students from across Europe;
A scheme for more experienced researchers: this would provide individual fellowships to encourage mobility and career development opportunities;
A scheme for research staff: a smaller fund for short term exchange and secondments between institutions.
A scheme to match fund national fellowship schemes: this would be see the continuation of the 'cofund' scheme.

Part of this push has come from the responses to the consultation on the FP8 Green Paper, in which there was a specific question about strengthening and promoting research mobility (question 23). 70% of respondents considered Marie Curie to be important, but felt that it needed a higher budget, more collaboration with business, and more streamlining.

Research for the Benefit of SMEs

2011-07-07T06:21:00.002-07:00

The Research for the Benefit of SMEs is one of the less well known areas of European funding. It could be because it’s hidden away in that catch-all area of the Framework Programme, ‘Capacities’. Although the Commission would demur, I’ve always seen the ‘Capacities’ pillar as the dumping ground of FP7. Like a skip for all those schemes that don’t fit neatly into ‘Cooperation’, ‘Ideas’ or ‘People’. Rather than spoil the neat lines of FP7, the Commission added ‘Capacities’ as a miscellaneous holdall.

The scheme does what it says on the tin: it funds research for the benefit of small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs), which make up some 99% of all EU businesses. That’s a substantial group, and is responsible for 54% of the overall value of commercial sector and 67% of the workforce.

Targeting SMEs has both its positives and negatives. It's a good way of encouraging SMEs to prioritise research and development, but HEIs might lose out in terms of funding and intellectual property.You see, it's very much SME-led, and they get the benefit in terms of intellectual property. Moreover, as it's EU funding, it doesn't pay the full cost of the research (it's actually 75%), so you need to be sure that it would benefit you, your research and your department before committing yourself.

So how does it work? Well, an SME (that is, a commercial organisation with less than 250 employers and a turnover of less than €50m) identifies a research need, sets the objectives and contracts out the underlying work to identify the solution to researchers in academia. The SME then owns the intellectual property, although the EC is open to other arrangements.

There are three types of funding:

Research for SMEs
Research for SME Associations
Demonstrations

The first two are bottom up schemes (i.e. the applicant comes up with the idea) which provide funding to SMEs or groups of SMEs (the clue is in the title). For the first scheme, the typical budget is €0.5m-1m and last up to two years; for the second the budget and duration are larger and longer: €1.5-3m and up to 3 years.

‘Demonstrations’ take the project one step further. You’ve got to have had funding from one of the other two schemes already. It provides 50% funding for testing prototypes, scale up studies, or performance verification. It’s not meant for further research and development.

So do have a look at the funding, but don't rush headlong into it without talking to us first about the potential pros and cons. There’s a new call out on 20 July, with a deadline of 6 December. They’ve allocated some €150m for the first scheme, €49.7m for the second, and €20m for the third. Best of all, the success rate is a respectable 20-30%, and the UK has, in the past, got around 20% of the funding.

European Funding: What's on the Horizon?

2011-07-07T06:21:00.001-07:00

Keith Sequeira, Policy Officer for the Framework Programme and Simplification Unit, gave an insight into the development of the future framework programme, Horizon 2020, in his keynote address to the UKRO Conference in Newcastle on Thursday.

This was an important time for Horizon 2020: the proposed budget had been announced last week, and the starting gun for negotiations had been fired. Horizon 2020 would combine elements of FP7, the Competitiveness & Innovation Programme (CIP), and the European Institute of Technology (EIT), as well as linking to relevant parts of regional and structural funds. An increase of 46% had been proposed (to €80bn), but Sequeira made it clear that, whilst this sounded like a large increase, it represented a steady increase on the funding levels reached at the end of FP7.

In terms of the content of Horizon 2020, there would be three broad ‘pillars’, with a fourth set of cross cutting priorities:

Supporting excellence in science base: to face the imbalance with the USA, and the challenges from China, by attracting, developing and supporting world class research, through the continuation of such streams as the European Research Council (ERC), Future and Emerging Technologies (FET), Marie Curie Actions (MCA) and research infrastructures.
Tackling societal challenges: identified as health, food security, secure and green energy, smart, green and integrated transport, raw materials and climate, and inclusive societies.
Integrating innovation and links with business: including leveraging private finance.
Cross cutting priorities: in particular simpler access and openness to newcomers.

Overall, Horizon 2020 aimed to integrate research and innovation, and meet the objectives of Europe2020 and the Innovation Union. The EC wanted to move away from prescriptive descriptions of tools and methods, and instead present the problem to be solved and leave it to individuals to decide best way to do so.

There was a strong appetite for simplification. But then, how many times have we heard that before? However, they do sound serious this time. Inter alia, they intended to introduce:

a rationalised set of funding schemes and instruments;
a single set of rules for eligibility, accounting, reporting and auditing;
a simplified approach to cost reimbursement;
a broader acceptance of usual accounting practice and greater use of lump sums and flat rates;
shorter negotiation and selection phases;
a unique IT portal, common support structures, and guidance which would build on EPSS of FP7;
more use of external management of the programme, through such bodies as the Research Executive Agency (REA), which already runs the MCA.

The budget and structure would continue to be discussed in the final years of FP7, and UKRO would continue to inform the UK HE sector on developments.