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.

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.

Involving End Users in Your Research

Involving the end users in the design and management of research projects has become increasingly important . It is no longer acceptable to run projects in which participants don’t have a voice. But how does this work? How do you identify potential users? What are the potential pitfalls or problems, and what benefits can you expect? The latest Grants Factory session took two very different case studies and looked at the difficulties –but also the significant benefits – of involving users in research.

Case Study One: Research for Patient Benefit

Annette King

The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) has been a strong advocate for ‘patient and public involvement’ (PPI), and has established an advisory group, INVOLVE, to advocate greater participation. Users should be engaged at all stages of a project as ‘active partners’, and not just as ‘subjects’. This engagement can range from ‘consultation’, to ‘collaboration’, to ‘user-led’, where the service users themselves set the research agenda.

Annette King described a ‘collaborative’ project funded by the NIHR’s Research for Patient Benefit scheme. The project, led by Eve Hutton of Canterbury Christ Church, was a study into the effectiveness of an education programme for parents and teachers responsible for the postural care needs of disabled children. This had been developed with users, including the parents and children themselves. One such was Judi Mortimore, who had helped the project team in identifying the research questions, had been active in the management of the project, had developed participant information resources and techniques, and had helped to disseminate the findings.

With her input, the team had been far more effective at engaging with those who would benefit from the research. Neither Annette nor Judi shied away from the fact that, at times, the relationship had been difficult: there had been misunderstandings and differences of opinion. Nevertheless, the research was stronger and more robust as a result, and the findings more useful and applicable.

Case Study Two: Age Discrimination

Dr Hannah Swift

The second case study looked at a different kind of user: those who commission and use the research. Dr Hannah Swift, a Research Associate working with Prof Dominic Abrams, explained how a small, straightforward piece of research commissioned by Age Concern a decade ago had led to a broad portfolio of interrelated projects for Age UK, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the European Social Survey, and the Department for Work and Pensions. This portfolio had been incredibly fruitful for both the academics and the users of the research.

Prof Dominic Abrams

Throughout the process, Prof Abrams and his team had to be both reactive and proactive. On the one hand, they had to react to specific requests from external bodies, and consider the benefit (and dangers) of working with them.  On the other, they had to make contact with organisations that might be interested in their work, finding the most appropriate people, and making the links.

Whilst their experience had been positive, Abrams and Swift highlighted some issues that need to be considered before entering into collaborations with external users:

• What do they want to get out of the relationship?
•  What do you want to get from it? Access to data? Or further opportunities?
•  Make sure you protect your intellectual property.
• Make sure that you get all necessary ethical approvals.
• What is the timeframe? Deadlines are often tighter than you may be used to.
• How will you deal with any conflict outcomes? In other words, what will you do if the research doesn’t tell the ‘story’ that the user was hoping for?
• How will you get the research into a ‘useable’ form? The user will probably want the findings in a more accessible and useable form than an academic article.
• What will happen if the research is not used? The organisation might be happy with your work, but the report may be shelved for political or other reasons. What will you do?
• What will happen after the report is written and the relationship is formally finished?
• Make sure you have more than one contact within the organisation. People move on, and you don’t want the relationship to dwindle when they do.

Above all, for both of these case studies, it was clear that good communication, openness and honesty were key. Expectations should be managed, and both sides need to be clear about what can and can’t be done.

Slides from the session will be available on the Research Services website shortly.

Grants Factory: Involving End Users in your Research

12 Feb, 2-4pm

Keynes Seminar Room 4

Annette King

Prof Dominic Abrams

Involving the end users or beneficiaries of research in its design and management has become increasingly important recently. It is no longer acceptable, in projects that involve human participants, to run projects in which those participants don’t have a voice. Health funders in particular, such as the NIHR, specify that the public and patients be fully involved in the projects. In other areas, too, ‘participatory design’ should be seen as best practice.

But how does this work? How do you identify potential participants? What are the potential pitfalls or problems, and what benefits can you expect? This session will hear from two people with a strong track record in working productively with the public: Prof Dominic Abrams (Psychology) is the Director of the Centre for the Study of Group Processes, and has led a number of externally funded projects looking at issues of ageing and inclusiveness, and Annette King works for the NIHR’s Research Design Service, working on public health and health service studies, and advising academics on the design of projects. 

The session is free, open to all staff, and tea/coffee will be available. Do let me know if you intend to come so that I can get a sense of numbers.

Building an Internal Peer Review System

ARMA training: The Royal York Hotel

I took part in an ARMA event today. The focus was on how we, as research administrators and managers, could help to improve the quality of applications. I talked about the Grants Factory programme and Kent's internal peer review system. I shared the platform with Linsey Dickson from Heriot-Watt and Sue Coleman from Edinburgh, and it was interesting to hear what they did at their institutions, and how they compared and contrasted.

However, for me the most interesting part of the day was when the delegates talked amogst themselves about what an ideal peer review system would look like, and what challenges they would face in introducing one.  Common themes emerged:

• Timeliness is key. Applicants need feedback as early as possible. Of course, this isn't always possible: funder deadlines might be too tight, or applicants' collaborators may not give access to proposals early enough. Or (whisper it) the applicants themselves might just do things last minute.
• Feedback has to be useful. Well, durr. Perhaps I need to rephrase: reviewers have to be forced to give feedback which can be used. It's not enough to say, 'fine', or 'needs more work.' What applicants need is detailed feedback: what needs changing, and how?
• There needs to be more than one reviewer. This is something that Kent's system includes (our proposals have to be seen by a disciplinary reviewer and a funder reviewer), but some of the suggestions around the room included a user reviewer, or applicants having the opportunity to nominate their own, but having no guarantee that they'd be used. Additionally, reviewers should be compensated for their time, either through some form of (annual) fee, or perhaps factoring in their review work to the workload allocation model.
• There needs to be buy in. This is crucial: any new system has to have the backing of the PVC, the Heads of School and the Directors if Research. If it comes just from the centre, or is seen to be nothing more than a bureaucratic burden, then it's doomed. Moreover, or needs to be seen by the applicants as relevant and 'on their side'. Which brings me on to the final point:
• It should be Faculty/School based. This surprised me, and I don't think I agree with it. However, I understand the point being made: it needs to have ownership by the academics. If it's university wide there's a danger that this will be lost. This may be true at bigger universities, but I feel that at Kent the academic base is small enough for this not to be a problem. In addition, I tried to incorporate some of the school systems that already existed before our peer review system was launched. Nevertheless, we need to be alert to this as a potential issue.

And it's that kind of thing which makes involvement in these kinds of events worthwhile. Although I'm at the front pontificating and pretending I have all the answers, I've got as much to learn as anyone.

Fundermental Top 10 of 2013

It's that time of year, isn't it? Never mind peace on Earth and goodwill to all: give us your lists! What have you been watching? What have you been reading? Where have you gone? What have you eaten?

So, in the spirit of the season, here are the ten most read posts on the blog this year. It's like a mix tape of the best bits, and a reminder of what we've all been thinking about this year.

1. Notes from OA Forum (January). I can't believe it's been almost a year since we held this event.

   

   No. 1: OA Forum

   2013 is the year that Open Access became mainstream, when we consulted on and drafted an OA Policy. This was part of the process, and maybe its popularity came from many people being in the same boat, trying to work out exactly what they were going to do about OA.
2. Thinking Imaginatively about Impact (May). Although OA has dominated people's minds (after the REF, natch), Impact continues to have a hold. Kevin Parker of KKI

   

   No. 2: Impact

   Associates came and spoke about how to be creative with interpreting impact. Inspiring.
3. EPSRC Bingo (October). Whilst Fundermentals is meant to inform with notes on meetings such as those on OA and Impact above, it's also meant to be a way of sharing frustrations - hopefully with a bit of humour. This came from reading one policy document too many.
4. Essential Elements of a Good Application (November). A write up of a Grants Factory event this year. We brought together four academics who have had experience of the BBSRC, ESRC, AHRC and EPSRC, and it was a really useful panel session. 

   

   No. 4: Essential Elements

5. AHRC: View from the Committee Room (February). I've taken part in a couple of AHRC training events this year, to talk about what we do at Kent with internal peer review. This post was writing up the hints and tips of one of the other speakers, Prof Roberta Mock of Plymouth University.
6. H2020: Where We're at (July). As well as the growth of OA, we've all been keeping a weather eye on the development of the new European funding programme, Horizon 2020. This was an overview of the developments mid-year, after coming

   

   No. 6: H2020

   back from the EARMA Conference in Vienna.
7. Meanwhile, in Moscow Airport (July). Another bit of silliness. In the summer all eyes were on Moscow Airport as whistleblower Edward Snowden fled American authorities. I couldn't help but see certain similarities between him and the Times Higher's own Phil Baty...

   

   No. 8: Recycling

8. Recycling your Proposal (May). A write up from last year's Grants Factory. The low success rates of the research funding process means that applicants need to think about what to do if their bid fails. Here's some ideas.
9. Balancing the Conflicting Demands of Academia (June). Last year we launched the Early Career Researcher Network. These were the notes from a really useful session, at which many shared their experiences, and learnt from each other.

   

   No. 9: Balancing

10. Introduction to Open Access (June). So the list ends as it began: with OA. This was six months after the OA Forum, when we stopped to take breath, gather our thoughts, and try and distill what OA is all about.

Thanks to you all for reading the blog this year. If you have any thoughts or ideas on things that should be covered in 2014, drop me a line.

Grants Factory: AHRC Mock Panel

The final Grants Factory session of this term will take place on 11 Dec in the R&D Centre (G23), and will provide an insight into how the AHRC assesses applications. This is the first of the three ‘mock panels’ (there will be ones for the ESRC and EPSRC in the Spring and Summer), and will consist of two parts:

• Firstly, two experienced panellists, Dr Simon Kirchin (SECL, and Acting Dean of Humanities) and Prof Peter Boenisch (Arts) will give an overview of the priorities and processes of the AHRC, outlining how your proposal will be assessed;
• Secondly, Simon and Peter 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 AHRC panels, which will, in turn, help you to focus and draft your application more effectively.

Given the nature of the mock panel exercise, places are strictly limited, and allocated on a first come, first served basis, although priority will be given to those currently working on an application. If you're a member of staff at Kent, do let me know if you would like to take part.

Essential Elements of a Good Application

Prof Mick Tuite began last week's Grants Factory session by outlining the essential elements of a good application. From his experience with the BBSRC, it was clear that getting a 'good' grade was not enough. Whilst in theory your proposal might be 'fundable', in reality you need to be graded either 'excellent' or 'exceptional' to be in with a chance. The same is true of all the Research Councils, and most other funders: only those in the top 10% have a realistic chance of success.

For Mick, in order to put yourself in this bracket your proposal needs to demonstrate five essential elements:

• it needs to ask an important question; 
• it needs to offer a potential solution; 
• it needs to be cost effective;
• it needs to bring together the right team;
• it needs to have a clear impact. 

Importance, success, value, competence, impact. These five essential elements are key, and Mick highlighted The Research Funding Toolkit, in which Prof Andrew Derrington and Jacqueline Aldridge had developed these concepts further. However, it is also important to structure your application so it brings these to the fore. The panellists and reviewers need to be excited by the proposal, and convinced that there is both the need for the research and a viable solution to it.

In order to do this, applicants need to understand the difference between four key terms, and use them appropriately, structuring the 'narrative' of the proposal around them.

• Aim: this is what you hope your project will achieve; 
• Objectives: these are what need to be achieved in order to achieve the aim; 
• Outputs: these are the 'deliverables' of the project; 
• Outcomes: these are the final achievements from the project. 

At the heart of the application is the Case for Support. (CfS). It is here that the applicant is given the space to set out the five essential elements.

• The opening lines (5%) - like the lay summary - are crucial to this. Within the first two sentences the reader should understand the question, why it's important and how it will deliver a 'step change' in the discipline. This is not the moment to be a shrinking violet; this should not be a 'slow build'. It's the time to offer an accessible, simple message that conveys both the excitement and the timeliness of the project. 
• The background (30%): this summarises what is known and what is not known about the subject. Just as important, it's the opportunity to set out what we must now, why we must know it now, and why you, as the principal investigator, are the person to discover it. However, whilst you should demonstrate an understanding of the literature, you should avoid self-citation. There is more and more expectation that preliminary data or pilot work has already been done, and this is your chance to make clear what has already been achieved. 
• Aims & objectives (5%): Realistically, you shouldn't have any more than one aim and five objectives. Any more and things become a little confused. There should be a logical flow between them, and you should avoid interdependency, which could act as a potential weakness. 
• Work plan or methodology (50%): this is the most crucial part of the CfS: what are you actually going to do? How are you going to achieve the objectives? The methodology should be 'appropriate' to the goals, and you should offer sufficient (but not overwhelming) technical detail. Your work plan should be clearly set out, and achieve that difficult balancing act of being both ambitious and realistic. 
• Management, dissemination etc (10%): important, but not crucial. These need to make sense, and be appropriate, matching the scale and ambition of the project. 

As well as this, you can help your case in two ways:

• firstly, presentation. Use a simple font, of at least 12pt, and don't overcrowd the margins or paragraph breaks. Break up the text, if possible, with images and diagrams. Proof read the application, and show it to others to do likewise. 
• secondly, make sure you're known. Get out there. Go to conferences. Give papers, lead seminars. Get involved. Whilst applications from unknowns are funded, there is an inherent nervousness amongst panel members if you're an unknown quantity. Reassure with familiarity. 

After a short break for lunch, Mick was joined by three other academics with extensive experience of reviewing and ranking proposals: Prof Simon Thompson has had experience with the EPSRC; Prof Gordon Lynch with the AHRC; and Prof Sarah Vickerstaff with the ESRC.

Simon began by stressing the importance of the opening sentence. The panel 'want to be convinced'. One way that he had found of doing this was beginning the process of drafting an application by putting together a one page summary. This offered the bare bones of the project, but gave peer reviewers an opportunity to give advice when there was still the chance to make substantive changes. When a full application has been drafted, this chance is lost.

He noted a significant difference between the BBSRC and the EPSRC: whereas the BBSRC panel reads the full applications and can have a view on what is proposed, EPSRC panellists should only be 'moderating the reviews'. In other words, they should be basing their decisions on the referees comments, and shouldn't be re-reviewing the application.

The rest of the session became more of a discussion between the panel and the audience, with the former responding to questions from the former, and chipping in with additional thoughts on the idiosyncrasies of different funders. Issues raised included:

• striking the right balance between being overambitious and incremental; 
• that a knowledgable reviewer who can convincingly show that the work has been done before is 'the kiss of death' at ESRC panels; 
• that, whilst Research Councils don't negotiate over elements of the project, they can set conditions which need to be met (such better ethical oversight); 
• the need for collaborators, if you don't have sufficient experience in certain areas that are crucial to the successful completion of the project; 
• the 'increasing importance' of management committees or advisory groups; 
• large projects: there is an inherent conservancy amongst reviewers, and you need to make a strong case if you are asking for more than one RA for three years; 
• the importance of methodology, and the right terminology, in the Case for Support.

This session was the first of the 'Writing Group' programme. This will offer applicants an opportunity to take time out from teaching and administrative duties to work on their applications with support from experienced mentors and Funding Officers, as well as feedback from other applicants. If you want to take part in these, drop me a line. Mick's slides from the session will be available on the Research Services website shortly; thanks to all four panellists for their time, their openness and their humour in sharing their thoughts.

Essential Elements of a Good Application

Grants Factory

Essential Elements of a Good Application

30 October, 12-2pm

Keynes Seminar Room 23

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 next Grants Factory session will look at these, and will provide insights into how to get them right. The speakers come from very different disciplines, but it is their diverse backgrounds which is their strength: it shows that, whether you’re applying to the AHRC or the BBSRC, the EPSRC or the ESRC, you need to understand the basics.

Prof Mick Tuite (Biosciences, with experience of BBSRC, Wellcome and Levehulme) will start by providing an overview of these ‘essential elements’, before being joined by colleagues for a panel discussion to look at the specifics expectations of different funders. Those taking part include Prof Sarah Vickerstaff (SSPSSR, with experience of the ESRC), Prof Simon Thompson (Computing, with experience of EPSRC) and Prof Gordon Lynch (SECL, with experience of AHRC). They will be very open to questions; if you have something specific you want them to address it would be useful if you could let me know beforehand.

Following this session, these four (and other colleagues) will be offering Writing Group sessions, to help, support, mentor and motivate staff in preparing successful proposals. These will be split into four broad areas:

·         The Arts & Humanities

·         The Social Sciences

·         Life & Health Sciences

·         ICT, Maths & Physical Sciences.

More detail on the dates and format for these will be circulated by the Faculty Funding Officers in due course, but if you would like to come along to either the Essential Elements session, or the Writing Groups, do let me know.

All the sessions are free and open to all staff, and lunch will be provided on 30 October.

Grants Factory 2013-14

This year sees our most ambitious Grants Factory yet. Not only are we continuing with the programme of workshops run by experienced academics, but we're building on the success of last year's Early Career Researcher Network to offer a forum for ECRs to meet and discuss issues around developing their careers, and we're complementing both with a series of Writing Group drop-in sessions.

Taking Stock

Summer is traditionally when we have a chance to catch our breath. Many academics have disappeared to finally catch up with their research - or with their home lives.

In Research Services it's a chance to get on with all those jobs we've been putting off all year - the dull but necessary housekeeping ones - but also to look ahead and start planning for the forthcoming year.

Balancing the Conflicting Demands of Academia

The final Early Career Research Network meeting of the year focused on how to balance the conflicting demands of academia. The fact that the room was full suggested that this was something that was close to the heart of many starting out. However, the speakers, Profs Gordon Lynch and Sarah Spurgeon, made it clear that the issue doesn't disappear with seniority; like parenthood the challenges and demands change, but they never go away.

In the first part of the session, participants talked together in small groups about the main tensions in juggling different parts of their jobs. When these were fed back it was clear that there were a number of common themes: balancing immediate and pressing deadlines with long term research work; frustrations with unnecessary and inefficient administration; unrealistic demands of some students; knowing your limits and knowing when (and how) to say 'no'.

'There's no simple algorithm for dealing with these,' confessed Sarah, and the rest of the session was an opportunity to share strategies for coping. Not all of these would work for everybody, but achieving a successful balance is about working out which of them would work for you.

• Try to work out which pressures are individual, and which are the result of the structure or institution within which you work. Having recognised this distinction, consider what can be done about them. You will have more control over the individual pressures (see the next point), but sometimes you can facilitate collective change if enough people suffer from the same pressures and are able and willing to work differently.
• Work out which of your tasks are essential and which desirable, and concentrate on the first.
• Get a sense of perspective: how much work do others have? If they have less, are their tasks more consuming? If everyone's pressured, is there any possibility of working more intelligently, or sharing workloads? (see the first point).
• Try to double up tasks, especially between research and teaching. For example, if your research project requires a literature review and you have some control over your teaching programme, try and include an element  that would require you to undertake a literature review to inform your teaching.
• Create email-free periods of work time. Modern technology has made periods of intense concentration increasingly difficult to find. By carving out a period each week which colleagues and students know as a period when you won't respond to emails, you can regain time for proper thought.
• Look for external funding to buy out your time to do things that you want to do. 
• Think more strategically about managing your time. For instance, if you want to keep weekends sacrosanct, you might have to sacrifice weekday evenings to keep on top of work.
• Have a broad career strategy, which is important to you but is informed by local, national, and international contexts.There will be times when it might make sense to go part time. Accept them, and recognise them as temporary and transitory.
• Have a plan which has many strands. Don't rely on a single strand of research, which might depend on a single grant, but consider what other options, what other interests you have, and be prepared to change between them as your life changes.
• Set realistic goals over different time scales and review them regularly.
• Get help from the right people. Having supportive mentors and colleagues is invaluable.

Sarah concluded by saying that ‘most importantly, it is difficult to get this right and, in my view, however glittering the careers of others may appear to us, I firmly believe nobody achieves the perfect balance all the time.’

Recycling your Proposal

Paper, glass, metal...but where's the slot for proposals?

Given the shrinking success rates, it makes sense to consider whether - and where - you should recycle your funding proposal. At the penultimate Grants Factory event yesterday Prof Ray Laurence and Prof Peter Taylor-Gooby encouraged people to consider doing this, but sounded a note of caution.

• Most applicants would consider recycling an application because they are passionate about the project and want to get it funded. However, their passion might blind them to its shortcomings. Make sure you take on board the feedback offered with the rejection. A dose of tough love will make your new application stronger. 
• Similarly, a rejection might be a good opportunity to step back from your project and really think about why you're doing it. Are you passionate about the project, or have you just got on the 'funding treadmill', believing you should be submitting funding bids without really thinking whether it's what you want. If you're just doing it through a sense of obligation it's actually 'hugely depressing' when you get the funding.
• If you are serious about getting funding, and are willing to take on board feedback, be alert to the different guidelines between the funders. It's easy to assume they're all much of a muchness, but there are key differences, and funders get angry with 'lazy' resubmissions from elsewhere.
• Think imaginatively. In many disciplines there are a limited number of funders to whom you can submit essentially the same project. You might have to think about carving up the project into smaller sub-projects, or seek funding for a pilot to demonstrate potential which will, in the long term, strengthen your hand. Sit down and consider your project, dividing it up into activities for which funding is essential, and those for which it is desirable. Alternatively, if your application was for a visiting fellow, say, you could think about expanding the scope of the project to a network, which would increase the possible sources of funding, and potential value of exchanges.
• Finally, consider collaboration. Not only will this change the nature of your project, and potentially strengthen it, but it may also open up alternative avenues - for example if your collaborators are in different countries. 

The final session this year is an ECR Network meeting, looking at 'balancing the conflicting demands of academia'. Get in touch if you want to come along.

Grants Factory - 'Recycling your Proposal'

The penultimate workshop in this year’s Grants Factory programme will look at how to recycle your proposal.

Preparing a research funding proposal takes a huge amount of time and work. Having prepared and submitted an application, it makes sense to make the most of it by reusing your work for alternative funders. But is this possible? If so, what is involved in doing so? 

This workshop will be led by Professors Ray Laurence (SECL) and Peter Taylor-Gooby (SSPSSR). Both have had considerable experience in drafting applications, and reusing them in part or whole with a range of funders. They will be talking about their experiences, identifying what they had to do in each case, and in what finally worked. Attendees are encouraged to bring along their proposals – at whatever stage – so that the group can look at what potential they have to be developed for alternative funders.

Please note the change of date from that advertised: it will take place on 29 May, not 22nd.

Places are free and all are welcome, but do let me know if you intend to come. Tea and coffee will be provided.

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.

ECR Network: Relationships with Senior Staff

The next Early Career Researcher Network event will take place next week (Wednesday 13 March, 12-2pm, Cornwallis SR6), and will look at ‘Relationships with Senior Staff’.

What? You want me to take all your lectures
and seminars again?

ECRs have very different experiences of working with senior staff. Some have had very supportive mentors and managers, who guide them and help them, lightening their teaching load, discussing and developing their research plans, and providing funding so that they can attend conferences etc. For others, the experience is less positive, and some feel that unreasonable demands are being made of them, resulting in a sense of isolation and burnout.

Led by Prof Dominic Abrams (Psychology) and Prof Ray Laurence (SECL), this workshop will explore how you can best develop positive relationships with senior staff, and what to do if you feel that the expectations of others are unrealistic.

The workshop is free and open to all, and lunch will be provided. However, places are limited so do get in touch as soon as possible if you wish to come along.

Grants Factory: Developing Collaborations

The slides and handout from Wednesday’s Grants Factory event are now available on the SharePoint site, here. I’ll write up some notes and add them to the blog shortly.

The next session will be an ECR Network event on ‘Developing Collaborations’. Run by Prof Jon Williamson and Dr Peter Bennett this will look at some of the issues around working with others, particularly on interdisciplinary projects. Funders are increasingly keen on encouraging collaborative research, but what are the pros and cons of this way of working? The session will use Jon and Peter’s experience to explore issues such as identifying a collaborative idea, forming productive links, and managing a complex project.

The session will run at 12pm on 16 January. As ever, it’s free and refreshments will be provided. Do let me know if you would like to come along.

Grants Factory: The Essential Elements of a Good Application

Prof Mick Tuite

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 next Grants Factory session will look at these, and will provide insights into how to get them right.

Prof Paul Allain

The speakers come from very different disciplines, but it is their diverse backgrounds which is their strength: it shows 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. Using real life examples, they will share their experience and knowledge, and you should come away from the session with the basic tools for constructing a successful proposal.

The event will take place at 2pm on  12 December  2012 in Woolf Seminar Room 6. It is free, and refreshments will be provided, but do let me know if you intend to come along.

The full Grants Factory programme is available on the SharePoint website, together with slides and notes from all recent events. Notes from the ECR Network meeting last week have now been posted on the blog.

Constructing a Realistic Project

Projects need great ideas and to be well thought through, realistic and fully costed to maximise the chance of funding.  At the fourth Grants Factory event last week Prof Elizabeth Mansfield (SMSAS) outlined a process that could help applicants in developing such a project. She started off by tracing a continuum: at one end there was routine, incremental research; at the other there was world peace, cancer cures and ‘theories of everything’. Most people aspire to the latter, but it is unlikely that funders will provide funding for it. Similarly, if it’s too incremental, the proposal will be rejected as boring, “business as usual”.

Instead, applicants need to direct their creativity and enthusiasm to find a worthwhile long term aim, a driving force, in the believably achievable part of the continuum. But what is your driving force?  If it's promotion or fame, it's likely your lack of real interest in the research will make the proposal feel hollow.  No, the driving force has to be a commitment and an intense interest in something important to you.

The next step is to think how you would ultimately want to be ‘assessed’, that is, what your criteria for success are. What do you want the lasting achievement of the project to be? What would satisfy you?  This process tells you what your short term aims need to be, and the activities you will need to achieve them. What methodology? What outputs? What do you want in your papers, web pages, performances? Theory, philosophy, data collection, analysis, computations, textual analysis,  experiments...

The next step is working out the resources you need to fulfil these. These might include staff time, equipment, travel and subsistence. For staff, you should think what kind of person (and at what level) you want. You should also think what would make it attractive to them; what professional development opportunities are there for them?

In addition, you should think about the time frame and milestones for your project. How will it fit together? How will you manage your team to ensure the milestones are met? What are you going to do if you do not meet these milestones? You absolutely need a Plan B!

Prof Peter Taylor-Gooby (SSPSSR) spoke from experience and added some detail to this outline. For instance, when the project has formed in your mind and you’re beginning on the application itself, make sure that you’re ‘tuned in’ to the language of the call or the scheme. Look at the guidance and pick out key words. Make sure that those key words appear in your proposal. Once you’ve prepared the draft, remove the title and show it to a wide range of people. Ask them what they think it’s about. If they’re not able to say, or give wildly varying answers, you need to redraft, to keep the language simple, and to concentrate on the essence of your project.

The second half of the session was an opportunity for those in the audience to discuss the issues raised in the first. Ultimately proposals need to reach a certain quality threshold to be considered. However, above that it can be a lottery, and applicants need to do everything in their own control to shorten their odds.

Hand outs and images of the diagrams that Elizabeth used are available, with these notes, on the SharePoint site.

Grants Factory: Designing a Realistic Research Project

28 November  2012, 2-4pm

Cornwallis NW Seminar Room 6 (Directions and map here)

The next Grants Factory event is aimed at early career researchers (ECRs), but is open to all. Led by Prof Peter Taylor-Gooby (SSPSSR) and Prof Elizabeth Mansfield (SMSAS), it will look at how to construct a realistic research project.

Designing a research project can be a daunting prospect, and issues you need to address may include choosing the right methodology, selecting participants or including appropriate material, addressing ethical issues, managing staff, identifying milestones, working with collaborators, and disseminating your findings. Profs Taylor-Gooby and Mansfield have had considerable experience in designing projects in very different areas: Taylor-Gooby works in social policy, Mansfield in applied mathematics. However, their experience will be relevant to academics in all disciplines.

The event is free, and refreshments will be provided, but do let me know if you intend to come along.

The full Grants Factory programme is available on the SharePoint website, together with slides and notes from all recent events.