EPSRC: Update on changes, and advice on impact

Ah, Swindon. Photo by Peter Albanese on Unsplash

Polaris House, which houses UK Research and Innovation in Swindon, can seem like a fortress: powerful, mysterious, impenetrable. A little like the Emerald City in the Wizard of Oz, in fact.

But last week the city gates were flung open to the UK’s research-management Munchkins and we gained a glimpse of what was going on behind the walls. Yes, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council’s annual webinar for research office staff took place, with representation from more than 60 universities and research organisations.

In terms of active research funding, the EPSRC is the largest of the research councils and we were given a whistlestop tour of what’s afoot. Here are my top takeaways:

UKRI Delivery Plan Top Trumps

For us research policy nerds, the past week has been like Christmas. Each of the constituent parts of UK Research and Innovation, as well as the all seeing eye that watches over them, have all produced their Delivery Plans.

These flesh out the - ahem -  'Strategic Prospectus', which was published last year. How long are these valid for? Well, that's moot, but at least until the next Comprehensive Spending Review (so 2019-20) after which it will 'update our 'near-term actions' to reflect the financial years covered in the SR.'

EPSRC's 'Concept Auditions'

'Heeelllooo Swindoooon!'
Photo by James Barr on Unsplash

Last year EPSRC launched a scheme for which applicants had to sign up for a 'concept audition'. What's going on? 

The Concentration of Mr Kipling

Alex Hulkes settles down for the winter

There’s something wonderfully autumnal about Alex Hulkes, the Strategic Lead for Insights at the ESRC. He has a comforting fireside tone, somewhere between Mr Kipling and JR Hartley. You can imagine sitting with him as the logs crackle, gazing, entranced, as he strokes his mutton chops, flicks crumbs from his smoking jacket, and talks about his exceedingly good cakes or fly fishing escapades.

His latest report is littered with sublimely arcane phraseology: ‘laudable curiosity,’ ‘one may conclude,’ ‘it is incumbent upon [us],’ ‘let us return briefly to the question posed at the beginning,’ and my favourite: ‘[it] pulls a thread that is weaved discretely into most of the analyses presented thus far.’

Hulkes is a national treasure, and not just for his cakes. He opens up what he himself admits is ‘the black box...of [the] Research Councils’ to reveal ‘the wiring [that] is hidden.’ Like modern cars, most of us are happy that they just work, but Hulkes wants to show you the wonder of the internal combustion engine, and revels in the interlocking genius of the carburettor, distributor, spark plugs and camshaft.

The Joy of Six

Life on Quality St: the three speakers in action

The ‘Essential Elements of a Successful Application’ workshop is like the purple one in Quality Street: it’s a perennial favourite. We’ve been running variations on it since we began the Grants Factory in 2009, and there is always a good turnout and a stimulating discussion. I’ve written up some notes from previous sessions here, here, here and here (I could go on). Friday’s iteration was no different.

'Nothing You Do Is Ultimately Wasted'

Each term I feature a different Kent award winner in the Research Services newsletter, looking at their research and discussing their career path and funding track record. In September I featured Dr Heather Ferguson. This time the spotlight falls on Prof John Batchelor in the School of Engineering and Digital Arts.

Prof John Batchelor

John Batchelor looked bashful when I pointed out that he had won more EPSRC grants - and received more EPSRC funding - than anyone else at the University. ‘I’ve just developed a thick skin,’ he joked. ‘Everyone gets knocked back. The trick is not to give up. But that’s easier said than done, especially when the rejections come all at once. That was the case for me in December. Christmas was quite dark last year.’

'I Believe the Children Are Our Future'

EPSRC Scientists getting busy
with 'Adventures in Energy'

'Whitney Houston' and 'cutting edge research agendas' are not concepts that are usually sited side by side. Well, all that could be about to change.

As any Whitney fan will know, she believed that children were our future. Indeed, she suggested that we should teach them well and let them lead the way. Now, funders are beginning to see the gnomic wisdom of her words.

At the end of last month the Scottish Government took its cue from five year olds and issued a research tender for a project asking a key pre-school question: 'how high do birds fly?'

ESRC Announces New Grant Limits

An ESRC 'Costing Stormtrooper'

Last month the ESRC announced that it would be introducing changes to the funding thresholds for its Research Grants scheme. The lower threshold was to rise to £350,000 and the upper threshold fall to £1 million at Full Economic Costs.

In a surprise move the ESRC has decided to take this one step further.

'We changed our minds,' admitted Head of Analysis and Marginal Tweaking at the Council, Amelia Throttleford. 'We've crunched some numbers and have realised that we need to narrow the range still further.'

Fundermental Top 10 of 2014

Last year I compiled a list of the top ten posts on Fundermentals, based on page views. As we inch towards Christmas, and before the deluge of the REF, I reckon it's time to do the same for 2014.

EPSRC Christmas Ad Launched

Pigeon holes stuffed full of rejection letters

Hot on the heels of the mawkish Christmas adverts launched by John Lewis and Sainsbury's, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) has unveiled its bid to capture yuletide hearts.

Their advert centres on a lonely applicant attempting to get funding from the notoriously cold-hearted Council.

EPSRC Visit, 2 July 2014

Alex Hulkes, the Senior Global Uncertainties Manager for ICT at the EPSRC, is visiting the University on the 2nd July (venue tbc).

Grants Factory - EPSRC Mock Panel - 4 June 2014

Prof Sarah Spurgeon

 Next month’s Grants Factory session will provide an insight into how the EPSRC assesses applications. This is third of the three ‘mock panels’ (there have already been ones focusing on AHRC and ESRC), and will consist of two parts:

• Firstly, two experienced panellists, Prof Sarah Spurgeon (EDA) and Prof Simon Thompson (Computing) will give an overview of the priorities and processes of the EPSRC, outlining how your proposal will be assessed;
• Secondly, Sarah and Simon will lead a ‘mock’ panel, at which you will assess, discuss and rank a number of real applications, and decide which should be funded. This is invaluable to help understand the issues and difficulties faced by the EPSRC panels, which will, in turn, help you to focus and draft your application more effectively.

EPSRC Bingo

You know how it is. You're sitting there, listening to EPSRC outlining its strategy, and, well, it all just seems to blend. The words jumble, and you get lost amongst the Grand Challenges and the Great Technologies, the Strategic Partnerships and the Sustainable Commitments.

Well, help is at hand. As part of it's public service remit Fundermentals has developed a framework with which to make sense of it all. 

Yes, it's a game of bingo. But at least it will help you to pay attention.

First to spot all the words and finish the grid wins. Extra points if you manage to combine words from two or more boxes to create your own vapid strategic priority. 

RCUK Scrabble

It's holiday season, even for the good folks at Death Star Avenue. Now read on.

A holiday cottage on the west coast of Wales. Rain is lashing against the windows, and the casements are rattling. It's August. A group of RCUK apparatchiks are huddled around a game of Scrabble. It's clear they're playing an unusual variant of this family favourite in which only acronyms can be used.

Writing a Response to EPSRC Reviews

Making a virtue of criticism

Last week we had an impromptu Grants Factory workshop, prompted by the visit of the EPSRC's Jane Nicholson the week before. Focussing on applying to EPSRC, Profs Simon Thompson (Computing) and Sarah Spurgeon (EDA) spoke about their experience of sitting on EPSRC panels, before running a 'mock panel' exercise in the second half of the event. It was a really useful event, and I thought it would be good to jot down some notes from it, particularly around the vexed question of responding to reviewers' comments, which is crucial in applying to any of the Research Councils. So, if you have recently received your comments and are mulling over your response, some top tips:

• The panel aren’t re-reviewing the application. They are instead moderating the reviews and ranking the applications accordingly. Thus, the PI response is critical, as it’s your only chance to answer any concerns or criticisms. Whilst it’s not mandatory, you should always provide a response. As Prof Sarah Spurgeon said at the event, ‘writing a good response does make a competitive difference’.
•  Some of the reviewers’ comments can be hurtful. You’ve invested time in the application, and they can be dismissive or even wrong-headed. Don’t respond in haste. Take time to provide a measured, considered response. Don’t dismiss any comment that is ‘obviously’ wrong: you can make it clear that you disagree without using emotive language. For instance, suggest that you want to ‘clarify’ a point.
•  Go through the reviewers and pick out every comment that needs a response. List them, and answer them in order.
• Give evidence to rebut the criticisms. Once again, don’t be hasty and impassioned. This is the time to be clear and analytical. Give the panellists just the information they need, the information necessary to ‘empower’ them;  it’s not the time to be quoting complicated mathematical formulae – unless absolutely necessary.
• Some responses may not be given to the panel before the meeting, but tabled on the day. The panellists have to read them quickly, so make it easy for them: plain language, clear formatting, bullet points. Don’t be ‘clever’ with unusual fonts, minimal margins or complicated figures.
•  Don’t clutter the response by thanking the reviewers, or take too long highlighting the positive points. The panel will have already seen both the application and the reviews, and will already have a view.
• Don’t feel you have to write to the limit. To quote Prof Spurgeon again: ‘a short response is more powerful.’
•  Finally, if the reviewers have suggested a good idea, there’s no harm in welcoming it and agreeing with them – as long as it doesn’t contradict the main thrust of your proposal.

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.

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.

Red Dead Research Redemption

I was very excited to read today about The Wellcome Trust's 'gamify your research' initiative. This is the natural and welcome next step in the infantilisation of research that began with EPSRC's 'sandpits'. At the time unreconstructed academics such as Prof Thomas Docherty complained that the concept of sandpits 'regards us as noisy children who can be tamed and contained...after the sandpit, will it be the playpen?'

Playpen! What a ridiculous notion! No, it's the video game, silly. As we all know, the only way to make research appealing is to anthropomorphise it as a well endowed avatar, and set it loose in a post-apocalyptic landscape where it has to kill zombies with a range of cruel and unusual weapons.

This initiative should be lauded. No longer will research be held back for want of a 211-V Plasma Cutter, Blades of Chaos, or an Insect Swarm Plasmid. To be honest, I'm amazed that Crick and Watson got as far as they did without somehow co-opting Black Ops 2 into their quest for the structure of DNA.

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.