Exchanging Knowledge with the AHRC

Knowledge exchange, underground style.
Just don't pick the Northern Line.

What’s the difference between knowledge transfer (KT) and knowledge exchange (KE)? To the AHRC’s Robert Keegan, it’s the difference between Newcastle’s Metro and London’s Underground. Whilst the Metro is good, and does the necessary, it is somewhat linear. One station follows on from the next with little option for change, for interaction, for sideways movement. The Underground, on the other hand, is a sprawling, vibrant, interchanging, twisting, turning, living network. It gives, it takes.

This is the kind of ecosystem that the AHRC wants to nurture. It wants to embed it within all of its schemes, encouraging applicants to go beyond the usual suspects – the website, the exhibition, the database – and instead facilitate collaborations which are of value to both partners, the academic and the non academic, at any time within the project’s lifecycle.

After a two year pilot, it launched a Follow on Funding for Impact and Engagement scheme on 31 January. This is intended to provide funding for innovative, creative and relevant research, and to stimulate pathways to impact. It is not for research, but for impact activities. More details here. 

AHRC: A Final Check before Submitting

Check that you've got something written
next to your tickboxes...d'oh!

The AHRC's Morag Sullivan gave us a startling statistic at yesterday's AHRC event: between a quarter and a fifth of all applications submitted to the AHRC are rejected by the office for commonsensical and easily avoided oversights.

So, if you’re planning to apply to the AHRC shortly, make sure you’ve got the following ‘i’s dotted and ‘t’s crossed:

·         Does the proposal fit within AHRC’s remit?

·         Is the primary classification in the AHRC subject area?

·         Have appropriate key words been selected?

·         Does the proposal meet the scheme aims?

·         Are all required attachments present?

·         Are the page limits for each attachment right?

·         Are there surplus attachments?

·         Are costs listed under the correct cost heading?

·         Are they explained in the Justification of Resources?

·          Do costs match across different documents?

·         Is the Technical Summary complete?

·         Is the Early Career Researcher eligibility statement completed?

·         Do you have the necessary employment contract to apply?

·          Is the start date within correct timeframe?

·         Do the hours worked match the hours charged?

·          Is the RA of postdoctoral standing?

AHRC - View from the Committee Room

I took part in the AHRC’s inaugural ‘Developing Better Applications’ event yesterday. It was a great event, and a good opportunity to chat to others doing a similar job to me in a wide range of different institutions.

Prof Roberta Mock gave a really useful talk based on her experience as a peer review panellist for the AHRC. Amongst the points she raised were:

·         The AHRC is not a cabal. It is not us and them. They rely on academics reviewing other academics. We are all part of it, and necessary for its successful running.

·         Applicants should not run before they walk. Having a commensurate track record was crucial for getting an appropriate grant.

·         You should write with potential reviewers in mind, and imagine the ‘nightmare critic’. Preempt their criticism, but don’t be defensive. Reviewers smell fear.

·         Choose keywords wisely. These are used for choosing your reviewers, so do think about what specialism you want your reviewer to have.

·         Talk to colleagues, and share your application. Get some tough love. Better still, take it through internal peer review. It was always clear at panel which applications hadn’t.

·         Take time over preparing it. A good application takes at least two months (and at least 40 hours of intense writing) to draft. 

·         The standard has changed over recent years. What worked five years ago will not work now. Have to keep getting better to stay still.

·         Grammar, spelling and clear formatting do all make a difference.

·         Use the sections, and write what they ask for in the appropriate sections. Doing otherwise makes you appear arrogant.

·         Don’t over inflate claims for impact. The panel is not necessarily looking for the most impactful project , but just for reassurance that you’ve got an effective strategy in place.

·         Don’t hide or disregard ethical elements of your research. If you blank this, or claim not to have any, the panellists will look all the harder for them.

·         It’s all in the detail. Be specific about such issues as which journals you intend to publish in or which conferences you plan to attend. Give them a sense of how you arrived at your costs.

·         Have a realistic work plan that takes account of having a life beyond your research – i.e. factor in holidays, recruitment, potential illness, etc. You are not a robot, and neither is your RA.

·         Value for money is important. That’s not just a case of offering the lowest price. Rather, it’s asking for the money necessary to achieve the objectives and answer the research question. Moreover, it offers research that has both reach and significance.

·         Include information about monitoring of the project. This is often left out, but is really important. It needs to be built into the workplan. It demonstrates institutional buy in and shows that the stewardship of the award is taken seriously.  

·         A ‘super critical ’review is not the end of world, but a convincing right to reply is crucial. You need to be very gracious, but be aware that the panel sees everything. You don’t need to repeat praise from the reviewers, and don’t use one reviewer’s comments against another. The panel sees all the paperwork, and can see if any of the reviewers are out of line.

·         Yes, there is an element of luck. However, there is usually agreement about the first and second ranked applications. The grey area – and the luck – comes further down the list. So give yourself as much of a helping hand as possible. If there’s an early career researcher card, play it. If there’s a highlight notice you can latch on to, do it.

The questions that followed flushed out a final, interesting point: not all reviewers read applications in the same order. Roberta, for instance, flicks to the CV first. All the more reason to do as the Grants Factory suggests, and make sure that key messages are written through the application like words through Brighton rock. Wherever you bite into it, you can see what the research question is, why it’s important, why it offers value for money, and why you’re competent to handle the project.

The training event runs again in London on the 8 March. I'm not sure if it's booked up, but get in touch with the AHRC if you want to go along.

Notes from a Mock Panel

'Save me from my friends'. Never truer than in the bearpit
of academic peer review

I took part in the University's PGCHE research funding module today, which took participants through a 'mock panel'. This is always a useful exercise as it gives potential applicants a feel for the issues that peer review panellists are having to grapple with in real life.

There were about thirty participants, and we divided them into five panels: one of humanities academics (looking at AHRC applications), two of social scientists (looking at ESRC applications)  and two of scientists (looking at EPSRC applications).

In preparation I did some reading around the ESRC process, and I'll write these up in a post shortly, but in the meantime it's worth noting some of the key points that came out of the session:

• Firstly, no matter what your discipline, you can spot the weaknesses in the applications. This is interesting: I chaired one of the social science panels, and all those who took part were in disciplines that were very different from those of the applicants. Nevertheless they picked up on a lot of the weaknesses, and were pretty accurate in the ranking of the applications.
• Secondly, seniority matters. We pretend it doesn't, but if a PI has an impressive CV, we're more likely to let some vagueness in the application slide. This was a bit disheartening for the ECRs present. However, I pointed out that two of the best applications under consideration were from ECRs who had overcome this difficulty by either have a strong, robust and well thought through project design, or had more senior co-investigators on board to give it gravitas and reassurance. 
• Thirdly, time is short. You imagine the panellists have all the time in the world to consider your application, but time's snapping at their heals. Decisions need to be made, compromises struck, and the agenda moved on. You - as the applicant - have to help the introducers by giving the the information they need to support your application in a format and place that they can grab it quickly. Cut to the chase: what's your research question, why's it important, why's it timely, why are you the person to answer it, how are you going to do it, and how are you going to disseminate it.
• Fourthly, confidence shines through. If you believe in yourself and your research, it really helps. Don't be tentative, uncertain or - let's be frank - academic. You need to sell your proposal, and to do so you've got to believe in both its worth, but also in its achievability.

Peer Review: Roulette, Black Magic...or Fair & Transparent?

The next Grants Factory event will focus on ‘how the peer review panel works,’ and will take place on Wed 30 January at 12noon in Cornwallis NW SR6.

Prof Mick Tuite

Dr Simon Kirchin

To many the assessment of their well-crafted proposal by the funder is somewhere between a game of roulette and a black magic session. A sense of randomness, of unfairness, hangs over the system. But what really goes on? Are these concerns justified, or are the panellists doing the best they can with limited resources? This session will hear from two Kent academics who have had considerable experience of sitting on peer review panels. Prof Mick Tuite (Biosciences) has had experience of the BBSRC and the Wellcome Trust, amongst others, and Dr Simon Kirchin (SECL) has sat on panels for the AHRC. Both will talk about how these panels function, what they look for in proposals, and how decisions are made.

The event is free for staff at the University of Kent and lunch will be provided, but do let me know if you intend to come as places are limited.

Essential Elements of a Good Application

Kent's Essential Elements. If only we could bottle it.
And put a Clown Fish on the label.

Everyone’s research is different, but successful funding proposals share a number of common elements. Mastering these is essential if your application is going to get the consideration it deserves, no matter how good your underlying research idea is.

The speakers for last week’s Grants Factory session came from very different disciplines, but it was their diverse backgrounds which was their strength: it showed that, whether you’re applying to the AHRC or the BBSRC, you need to understand these key elements. Paul Allain is Professor of Theatre and Performance in the School of Arts, and Mick Tuite is Professor of Molecular Biology in the School of Biosciences.

For Mick, there are three elements that make a project fundable:

·         Firstly, it must ask an important question;

·         Secondly, it must offer a realistic chance of a solution within the time;

·         Finally, it must be run by someone who knows what they’re doing.

Demonstrating these three elements should be the main aim of your proposal.  The application itself is a complex patchwork of sections, but all of these must tie together to achieve this aim.

·         Lay Summary: this is the key to the proposal. It gets the reviewer and panel interested enough to read on. It should make the case, in a few paragraphs, as to why your project is exciting, timely and crucial, what you’re going to do, and why you’re the person to do it.

·         Background: don’t spend too long on this, but make it clear that you understand the context, and show – once again – why you’re well placed to undertake the research. However, avoid too much self-citation, but do disclose preliminary data or analyses.

·         Aims & Objectives: ideally, there shouldn’t be more than five, and that there’s a logical flow between them. Give a sense of timelines, of what you’re going to do when.

·         Work Plan: the idea of ‘work packages’ is becoming more common. Each of these should have its own aim and outcome, and there should be sufficient detail in each for the reviewer to be able to judge the work. Don’t be shy about highlighting what is innovative or ground breaking. Be ambitious but realistic.

Paul took over to look at the essential language of the application. He made the analogy of seeing a bank manager. You don’t need to justify why you need a house, but you do need to show that you can handle it, that you’re the one, and you’ve got a good ‘investment’. ‘It’s the language of money’, but your proposal should also ‘tell a story’ with a clear and compelling narrative.

  

The nuts and bolts that hold this narrative together should include:

·         A clear layout, with bullet points, short sentences, paragraph breaks, spell check.

·         Questions, sub-questions, priorities. Use numbering. Show that you’ve thought it through.

·         Diagrams, visual representations for timelines. If they’ve looked at hundreds of applications, they will be drawn to it.

·         Frames and signposts – create flow and interlink phrases. Show that you have control over the process.

·         Repetition and emphasis.

·         Value for money. Applications can fall down on this, but it’s not necessarily a ‘dealbreaker’. If things cost, they cost. Think through everything you will need.

·         Milestones. Clear demarcations, progress markers.

A compelling narrative needs to be assertive.

·         Don’t hypothesise too much – research needs ‘steps towards the unimaginable’.

·         Use active verbs, not aspirational ones. Not ‘I would like to...’, or ‘perhaps I will...’ Be assertive.

·         Depict a momentum that can’t be stopped now (pilot/investigatory/preparatory project). It’s their chance to give this idea some legs.

It also needs to be certain.

·         The project team is the right balance of expertise. If you’ve got a shortcoming in any area, bring in external help.

·         The structures and timescales are sensible and achievable.

·         For your outputs, play to your strengths; make them achievable, and don’t overstretch yourself. However, there is a need for a ‘mixed economy’: academic, impact, public engagement.

RCUK Decent Success Rate Shock!

'100% you say? Well I'm sure
I could make my Chaucer
project fit  'Environmental Change''

Now here's a good news story that the Research Councils have been remarkably slow to crow about: success rates for most are looking surprisingly healthy. Looking at the latest published stats (RCUK has gathered links to them all here, including a broken AHRC one. *sigh* Best go direct, here), they give a lie to the current feeling that RCUK success rates have fallen so low that you may as well buy a ticket to EuroMillions. The  success rates for the five councils that have produced them for 2011-12 range from 21-41%, and average a healthy 31%.

Of course, there are a number of factors which have buoyed the figures:

• firstly, some Councils have either introduced, or are strongly encouraging, some form of demand management. This is almost certainly the reason for EPSRC's 41% success rate.
• secondly, other success rates are skewed by 100% success rates for some managed programmes, such as the 6 out of 6 that the AHRC's Researching Environment Change Follow Up scheme garnered. This helped the AHRC achieve an eye popping 40% success rate last year.
• finally, many have seen application numbers drop, not necessarily because of demand management, but perhaps because applicants have become demoralised by rejection, or their attention has been diverted elsewhere, such as on the REF, or teaching , or (perish the thought!) impact activities.

I've collated the figures I can find, and the full table of application numbers and success rates can be found (for Kent staff only, I'm afraid) on our SharePoint site.

RCUK Publishes Impact Case Studies

Last week RCUK published impact case studies. The intention of this was, I think, twofold: to highlight to external bodies (such as the Treasury) that public money is being well spent, and to highlight to potential applicants examples of best practice. Having read them all now I feel that they might have succeed at the latter, but not necessarily the former. Which is a shame, as I do think that it's crucial to make the case for the importance of research to government and the wider world.

The case studies are split into four categories: ‘policy’,‘business’, ‘public engagement’ and ‘voluntary and charitable’. Some appear in more than one category. RCUK had a huge pool of projects to choose from for their fourteen examples. The Research Councils give out grants for some 2,500 projects each year.As such, you would expect them to be spectacular examples of their kind, but I wasn't convinced.

Unsurprisingly, the business-related ones have the clearest impact and it is easy to make the case with these: licensing agreements, patents, and new technology with applications that will benefit society. All good. Things become a bit less clear in the other three categories which, to my mind, are somewhat weaker. Or rather, I think it’s very difficult to make the case. Many talk about ‘stakeholder engagement’, which of course is good, and of feeding into the development of policies and working practices. Which is also good. Others talk about their tweets and blogs, their public lectures and even their jazz compositions. Okay, so I know it's very hard to try and quantify the effect that these activities have had, but I would have thought that RCUK might have been able to provide more hard evidence as to the effect their funded research is having on society.

Nevertheless, I think the positive that potential applicants should take from this is that expectations are low and broad. If you can demonstrate that you are able and willing to engage with end users, to talk to school children and put on public events, then you will easily have met the expectations of your future paymasters. And, you never know, with your conceptual art spin-offs and children’s books sub-projects, you could well be up there on the RCUK website in years to come.

Beware the Poets

I'm worried about those clever people at Polaris House. Our great and glorious research leaders, those academic taste makers who hold UK funded research in the palms of their hands, seem to be entering the world of self parody.

A couple of weeks ago I devised the Research Council Priority Generator. This randomly mashed together abstract nouns to create strategic priorities that sounded edgy and thoughtful, but were ultimately empty and meaningless.

Whilst it highlighted how randomness could produce apparent profundity, I thought it was too exaggerated and  stupid to really bear any resemblance to reality. How wrong I was. Within hours of launching the Generator, the AHRC had produced its latest 'emerging theme': 'Care for the Future: Thinking Forward through the Past'.

Beautiful. I couldn't have invented a better nonsense programme myself. But, oh, it got better. The AHRC weaved together a fine piece of poetic prose to explain the rationale of the theme: it was, they gushed, 'an opportunity for researchers...to generate new novel understandings of the relationship between the past and the future, and the challenges and opportunities of the present through a temporally inflected lens'.

'New novel'? Really? 'A temporally inflected lens'? If I had a temporally inflected lens I'd be sure to take it down to Jessops to have it looked at.

But the muse is upon them, and they continue in a stream of consciousness that would make Molly Bloom blush:

'...these include questions around what is meaningful about continuity and change, and the role that narratives, experiences, visualisations, performances and stories have to play in these processes. Issues around understanding modes of cultural learning and intergenerational equity, as well as questions relating to authority, ownership and justice within and across time, may help inform understanding of current and future global challenges faced by society today. Technological development, alternative lifestyle movements, and the nature of ideological and philosophical, ethical and creative, historicised and imagined perspectives jostle for attention and require a diversity of approaches and disciplinary engagements for the theme to reach its full potential.'

It's like a postmodern disciplinary shopping list, complete with an unreliable narrator. It's all there, but it's up the reader to try and make sense of it.

However, the AHRC is not alone in bowing to the creative urge. Following swiftly on this is EPSRC's announcement that it will be running a 'creativity greenhouse'. They've already had us playing in 'sandpits', and the TSB is encouraging us to develop 'catapaults'. What analogy, metaphor or simile will they reach for next? The ESRC Trouser Press? The NERC Hostess Trolley? The BBSRC Kenwood Mixer? Now there's an idea for a new generator...

But should we welcome all this creativity? After all, other great leaders have succumbed to the inner poet. Barack Obama has written poetry, as has Jimmy Carter. But then, apparently, so has Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ivan the Terrible and Goebbels.

Hmm. On second thoughts perhaps the Research Councils should stick to their day jobs before they take UK research any further into this weird parallel universe.

Notes from HERA Cultural Encounters Information Session

Last Thursday my colleague Lynne Bennett attended a HERA Cultural Encounters Information Session in London.  The Slides from the event are available here.

If you are planning to make an application to this call (either as the Project Leader or as one of the Principal Investigators), it is important that you contact Lynne asap.  The deadline is 4 May but costings for these are complicated and may take much longer than you anticipate.

Lynne provided the following notes from the event. A few of these would apply equally to all large applications – so even if you’re not planning a HERA application, it’s worth having a look at the following:

• Large collaborative projects should be managed by a steering committee.  Your application should include plans for the committee to meet regularly to review progress against milestones (associated travel costs can be included in the budget);
• All large collaborative projects should include costs for an Administrator at an appropriate level.  In the case of a HERA application, where there are several European partners, it would be reasonable to have 2 or 3 administrators working on different aspects of the project;
•  Project management should include regular team meetings and have a robust internal reporting system 
• For any large AHRC application, knowledge exchange should be embedded throughout the project and should not be added as an afterthought.  (The AHRC are VERY keen on ‘mutually-enriching’ collaborations with non-academic partners.);
• Non Academic Partners can be included but the AHRC will not pay for their time (only travel and subsistence);
• Interdisciplinarity means ‘challenging the familiar and conventional’ and ‘moving the boundaries of the discipline’;
• Collaboration means that you can address familiar questions in new ways that would be impossible for a lone researcher;
• Read the rules – AHRC and the other funders are continually surprised at how many applicants fail to do this;
•  The Project Leader must demonstrate in the application that he/she has the experience and skills to lead the project.

Thanks very much to Lynne for these.

AHRC Appoints Lyne-ker as New Associate Director

Hot on the heels of the AHRC's appointment of Mark Llewellyn as Director of Research, it has announced that Dr Ian Lyne is to be its Associate Director of Programmes. As you will remember, Mark Llewellyn is something of a babe in arms, having been a jobbing postdoc until five years ago. By comparison Ian Lyne is positively decrepit, having been a BA-funded postdoc at Warwick from 1995-98. That was last century!

Unlike Llewellyn, Lyne's postdoctoral career has been more administrative than academic. By the sounds of it, he felt battered and bruised by the expectations of academia: 'an academic research career is...very competitive and I was beginning to fear that I was not going to enjoy the constant pressure to keep publishing new work. There was also a growing feeling that it would be nice to have a job where one could feel one could see more concrete results, and get involved in more concrete activities.'

Thus, he fled to Durham, where he became an Administrative Officer, before moving to Exeter to be Assistant Registrar (Graduate School). He then got swallowed up in Death Star House as Head of Careers and Skills at the BBSRC, before becoming Head of Policy at RCUK.

An interesting trajectory, then, and not one that would necessarily instil confidence in the hearts of Humanities academics, I think. He will, after all be 'work[ing] alongside Emma Wakelin and Gary Grubb in developing the AHRC’s new range of research programmes.' He it is who will have his finger on the button of the AHRC's Random Word Generator, used in the creation of all their programmes. If his most recent experience at the cutting edge of Humanities research is as a postdoc 14 years ago, there may be rumblings of discontent in the sector.

However, I think this does him a disservice. His diverse career should be seen as a strength rather than a weakness: he has seen academia from both sides: as academic and administrator, as recipient and giver. He should be well placed to empathise with all sides, and make the judgements of Solomon necessary in concocting new programmes. We here in Fundermental Towers wish him all the best in the challenging times ahead.

Finally, whilst I know the photo's blurry, is there the hint of Gary Lineker in Lyne's greying locks? No? Just wait until he picks up a packet of crisps; the resemblance is uncanny.

Notes from Rick Rylance Visit

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:

1. 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;
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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:

1. 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.
2. '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.
3. '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.

Everything's ROS-y at NERC

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.

AHRC's Rick Rylance to Visit this Friday

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.

Tales from Topographic Oceans

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 Mark Llewellyn, and even Andrew Lloyd-Webber in his predecessor, Alan Thorpe. Is there a touch of the keyboard virtuoso Rick Wakeman in Duncan Wingham?

The Past Was Yours but the Future's Mine

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.

Getting Involved with Funders

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.

Call for Nominations to AHRC Peer Review College

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.

Kent Peer Review Goes Live

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.

Bring on the Visionaries

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.