The Funnel of Love

 Funnelling grant success
(photo: Sergio Mena Ferreira on Unsplash)

Although larger universities get the majority of research funding, their success rates are no better than that of smaller ones. What makes the difference is the culture and expectations at each.

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.'

What You Need to Know: ESRC Secondary Data Analysis Initiative

Or do you have a better idea about using the data? 
Photo by Franki Chamaki on Unsplash

The ESRC’s Secondary Data Analysis Initiative might not win any awards for ease of verbal articulation, but it does “do exactly what it says on the tin”. Sarah Tetley hears more from Tina Haux about the scheme, and what academics need to do if they want to be successful.

Conversion Conversations

Alchemy: like getting a research grant,
only easier (image: Wellcome CC BY)

Last week Alex Hulkes, the Economic and Social Research Council’s strategic lead for the insights team, wrote an interesting report on the council’s conversion rate for grants. This is the percentage of fundable grants that it is able to fund. In November he provided a similar analysis of success rates. Taken together, the two reports suggest that while the quality of applications has increased (the proportion of ‘fundable’ applications has risen from roughly one-quarter to half of the total), the success rate is pretty much where it was five years ago.

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.

Nana Mouskouri to lead ESRC

In what was described by Research Professional as a surprise move, the Government has appointed Nana Mouskouri as head of the ESRC.

'It was expected that the position would be filled by a senior researcher from the University of Oxford,' said RP. Instead, Theresa May plumped for seventies crooner Nana Mouskouri. 

'There is no truth whatsoever in the scurrilous rumour that the PM only chose her because her song 'By Persistently Praying' offered her a way forward on the Brexit negotiations,' insisted a No 10 spokesman.

Any resemblance to Prof Jennifer Rubin, Director of the Policy Institute at KCL, is, of course, entirely coincidental.

Social Media, Networks and Impact

A couple of years ago Nadine Muller, a cultural historian and English literature researcher at Liverpool John Moores University, visited the University of Kent to talk about how she used social media in her work. One thing that stood out was how much of her efforts were based around creating a virtual community.

Muller studies the cultural understanding of widowhood. By engaging with widows’ groups on Twitter, she has gained access to a more personal well of experience. She has also connected with people beyond academia who might benefit from or be interested in her research, including policymakers, teachers and informed lay people.

Research, especially in the humanities and some areas of the social sciences, can be solitary work. Social media, Muller said, allowed her to discuss her work and interact with people without leaving her desk. It also gave her a chance to think aloud, and to run a rough draft of a paper or a research project past people before taking it further.

The same goes for those of us who support academics. At the European Association of Research Managers and Administrators (Earma) Conference this year, I am linking up with colleagues from the universities of Ghent and Coventry, and University College Dublin, to deliver a session on using social media. 

Generating Priorities

Deep in the heart of Death Star House, RCUK
workers tirelessly adjust the settings for the Priority Generator

Sometimes, calls for thematic programmes make complete sense. Sometimes they sort of make sense, once you dig a little deeper. Sometimes they make no sense at all.

It was the last category that prompted me to develop the Research Council Priority Generator for my blog. It was a tongue-in-cheek look at how the funders seem to jam together apparently random and often conflicting ideas to create new themes. The generator would give you Nanotechnology and Remembrance, for instance, or Progress towards Language, Radicalisation beyond Space and Expressionism in Transport.

None of these seemed a million miles from the real thing, such as Science in Culture, Lifelong Health and Wellbeing, Nanoscience through Engineering, Care for the Future and Living with Environmental Change. Indeed, the random generation of priorities gave us themes that were all too plausible, such as Progress and Islam, Technology of Wellbeing and Curating the Future.

Thoughts on BA Small Grants & Fellowships

Jack Carswell in action last week

Last week we hosted a visit by Jack Caswell the Assistant Head of Research Awards at the British Academy. The BA plays an important part in the research funding ecosystem: with the demise of smaller grants from the ESRC and AHRC, the BA is one of the few places where those working in the humanities and social sciences can turn if they want to undertake riskier, explorative research.

This may come as a surprise to many. The BA has something of a reputation as a fusty, traditional funder, a kind of Piccadilly gentlemen's club with an academic veneer. An unfair reputation, perhaps, but one that I've duly exploited for humourous ends in the past.

Success Rates and Scratch Cards

Revealed: the design of the new Je-S form

At the end of last month I wrote a piece on my blog about the success rate of applications submitted to the Economic and Social Research Council in July. Of 144 applications submitted, only 14 awards were made, giving a success rate of 10 per cent.

This is a frightening figure. It suggests that we’re getting to lottery levels of success when applying to the research councils. In fact, the ESRC odds are half those you have on a Health Lottery scratch card, which suggests most universities have got their research funding strategies all wrong.

'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.'

ESRC Success Rate Drops to 10% for July Open Call

'Swindon, we have a problem'

My colleague Brian Lingley drew my attention to a rather alarming set of data from the ESRC last week. The scores and funding outcomes published in November show that it received 144 responsive mode applications for July. Of those, only 14 were funded, giving a success rate of 10%.

Is this an anomaly? It is certainly less than the 25% ESRC average for 2013-14 given in the Times Higher round up published at the same time. More alarming, perhaps, was the number of high quality applications which didn't make it past the funding cut off point, which was in the 8-8.9 score range. In fact, there were more unsuccessful proposals in this range than there were successful ones.

Thus, according to ESRC's own definitions, it has had to turn away more than half of the 'excellent proposals which are of significant value, and are highly likely to make a very important scientific contribution and/or will significantly enhance the development of the applicant's academic career.'

Professionalising the Imposters

Last week, a colleague at another institution asked me to be their professional mentor. This came out of the blue and shocked me. I was flattered but bewildered, because I’ve always felt like a bit of fraud. What right do I have to mentor anyone?

Of course, such feelings are common in higher education. Ruth Barcan wrote in Times Higher Education earlier this year about this sense of fraudulence among academics. “Many of my colleagues (especially women) gave out subtle signs that they did not feel they were up to the job—almost as though they had been employed in error and would sooner or later be found out.”

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.

Confusion, Damned Confusion and ESRC Statistics

In the heart of Death Star House,
the Unifying Calendar of Everything

I recently received a little gift from the Economic and Social Research Council’s chief executive, Paul Boyle.

“I am pleased to attach a report,” he wrote, “which summarises the general progress that has been made under the council’s demand management strategy, along with a digest of statistics for your own institution, which I hope you will find useful.”

For me, a data-fixated research manager, this was a very welcome present. Here, I hoped, was evidence of the value of our internal peer-review system. Here were hard facts. Here, I hoped, was something to crow about.

Unfortunately, the data presented by the ESRC obfuscated as much as they illuminated.

The Battle of the RCUK Research Ships

NERC's new polar research ship

Excitement was palpable at Death Star House this morning as NERC unveiled plans for it's new polar research ship. Painted a bold, brazen red, with 'SCIENCE' emblazoned on its side, the ship will send out a positive signal that the UK is serious about scientific research.

The CEO of NERC, Prof Duncan Wingham, purred through what the ship had to offer. 'This vessel will be equipped to support oceanographic, marine ecosystem, geophysical and other research activities.'

Not to be outdone, however, Prof Rick Rylance, head of the AHRC, spoke to a hastily convened press conference elsewhere in the building.

'I'm pleased to announce that the AHRC will be launching a Humanities 'Super Yacht,'' he said. To gasps of astonishment, Rylance held up what was clearly a badly photoshopped image of a speed boat with 'HUMANITIES' written across it.

AHRC's 'Super Yacht': Rylance's Artist's Impression

'The yacht will be fuelled with the redundant words that have been stripped out of research proposals,' claimed Rylance. 'We've built up quite a stock pile of unnecessary padding. It's completely valueless in terms of application content, but we've found that it burns very nicely'.

He went on: 'we believe we have enough 'overarching's and 'lacuna's to power us around the world fifteen times. But should we ever get through these we have reserves of 'furthermore's and 'step change's.'

It is understood that candidates for the post of ESRC Chief Executive will be asked to present at interview a model of a possible SOCIAL SCIENCES research ship. Fundermentals has spoken to one of the front runners for the job, who has spent several nights gluing together match sticks to recreate the Dunkirk 'flotilla of small boats'.

Thoughts from an ESRC Mock Panel

Last month we held an ESRC mock panel as part of the Grants Factory. This is a really useful exercise; it gives participants a flavour of the discussions and debates that take place in a real Grant Assessment Panel (GAP), but it also gives them an idea of the tough assessment their application will have to go through.

Whilst I've posted elsewhere on this blog about what makes a good application (eg here, here, and here), a couple of points were raised at the workshop that I thought that they were worth repeating:

• Firstly, panellists rarely read your proposal in the strict order in which its presented. The two panellists who led the workshop said that they normally read the JeS form first, to get a sense of what the project is about, then skip to the reviewers' comments and PI's response, before returning to the Case for Support. Your response, then, is crucial. This is true of all the Councils. A panellist for one of the other Research Councils said the following after returning from a panel meeting:

'The PI's responses were key and a substantial number of these were badly done (serving simply to refute or to point out disagreement between reviewers rather than rebut with argument, to clarify or to accept reviewers' suggestions).  Not all PIs made use of the whole space allowed.  Spending time reminding the panel of the positive things that reviewers had said was a waste of space if there were substantial issues to be addressed...I'm certain that I saw applications that would have received a higher final grade (and possibly funding) if the PI response had been better done.'

• Secondly, most panellists won't have a background in your area. The GAPs are quite broad (see their disciplinary configuration here), so you need to make sure of two things: first, that you explain your research in a way that an intelligent general reader can understand; and secondly, that your methodology is watertight. Why? Because although the panellists might not understand the specifics of your project, they will all understand (or think they understand) the underlying methodology. So that is where they're going to pick holes. In particular, you need to be strong on how you analyse the data. Try and preempt any problems they might see in your methodology, and head them off at the pass. 

The final mock panel of the year will focus on the EPSRC, and will take place on 4 June. Drop me a line if you want to take part.

ESRC Changes Grant Assessment Panels

The ESRC has decided to change the configuration of its Grant Assessment Panels. These changes will take effect from November 2014.

Previously, the three panels covered the ESRC's remit as follows:

From November they will be:

My understanding is that these changes came about partly to balance out disproportionate workloads, but partly because (to quote my source) 'panels were getting set in their ways'.

This makes sense. I wouldn't want the panels to ossify (to borrow the ESRC's own term). Nevertheless, this does seem like an odd mix, and there are some strange divisions, such as 'economics' and 'economic and social history' being in separate panels. Similarly, I would have thought that 'Social Policy' had more in common with 'Sociology' and 'Socio-Legal Studies' than, say, international relations.

But the ESRC's task was a thankless one. They were never going to please everyone. I wish them well with this, and I do hope - for all our sakes - that the new arrangement works. For those who might be nervous about how their application might be viewed under the new system, there's still time to get your proposal in to be viewed in July under the final meeting of the old panels.