'It's Very Much Worth the Effort'

Dr Richard Guest

Marie Skłodowska-Curie Innovative Training Networks (ITNs) are one of the most popular schemes within Horizon 2020, and it’s easy to see why: they offer an opportunity for the recruitment of talented early career researchers to be trained in any discipline, whilst also enabling them to flex their wings across national and sectoral boundaries.

However, this popularity comes at a cost, and the success rates for them can make bleak reading. A perfect opportunity, then, to hear from a successful applicant about what’s involved and how best to prepare for the ‘trial by resubmission.’

Dr Richard Guest, from the School of Engineering and Digital Arts, has just received funding for AMBER (enhAnced Mobile BiomEtRics), an ITN that addresses a range of current issues around biometrics on mobiles, and stretches across five universities and seven industrial partners.

ECRs: Positioning Yourself for a Fellowship

Kay Guccione

Last week Dr Kay Guccione (Sheffield) spoke to the Early Career Researcher Network about the difficult task of positioning yourself for a fellowship when you’re just starting out. Her insights came from a project she had undertaken, ‘Fellowship Ahoy!’, which looked at the key behaviours of those who had been successful in securing a fellowship.

“I was frustrated at hearing people who had worked really hard say, ‘I was just really lucky’” she began. ‘It’s not all about luck, individual agency is a major component in recent models of academic and researcher development.’

Notes from Wellcome Trust Visit

The self-styled 'largest owner of marinas in the UK' came to the University last month to talk about what was on the Wellcome horizon, but also offered help and advice for potential applicants.

Roger Blake, the External Liaison Manager, and Paul Woodgate, the Portfolio Developer for Humanities and Social Science, started by outlining some recent and imminent changes at the Trust.

Responding to Reviewers' Comments

Prof Sally Sheldon

Yesterday we re-ran a session for the Early Career Researcher Network on 'Getting Published: targeting top journals and writing book proposals.' It was led by Prof Sally Sheldon (KLS) and Prof Mick Tuite (Biosciences). I've written up some notes from it before, but I wanted to add to these by highlighting an important aspect of the process: how to respond to reviewers' comments. 'We don’t take it seriously enough,’ suggested Sally, and yet it's crucial if you want to get published - or funded.

Impacting Parliament: Giving MPs the Information They Need

 In the second of her guest posts, the University's Impact and Engagement Officer, Maddy Bell, shares some notes on what academics should bear in mind when working with Parliament.

Parliament is actively seeking external input to make informed decisions based on sound evidence. But MPs are under huge pressure – working long hours with limited opportunity to absorb key information. Given this, academics can play a crucial role in providing them with the knowledge and understanding they need to make better policy. 

At the end of last year I attended an event run by the Houses of Parliament Universities Programme that outlined the ways in which academics can engage.  Here I summarise these, and the potential impact your research can have from working with Parliament.

Using Social Media to Support your Research

I’ve written before about social media, and about some of the sessions we’ve run on research and social media (such as those led by Nadine Muller and Becky Higgitt), but there seems to be an insatiable appetite amongst academics to understand them better, to participate fully and - in time - benefit from them.

The Early Career Researcher Network session in Medway on Wednesday went some way towards satisfying this demand. It was led by three academics from very diverse disciplines, who together gave an overview of the way in which social media can be used to talk about your research and engage with others beyond your School, to recruit research participants and manage a project, and to disseminate research, track impact, and improve citations.

How to Write a 4* Article

Prof Mark Reed

Last week Prof Mark Reed, Professor of Socio-Technical Innovation at Newcastle University and the man behind Fast Track Impact, tweeted some thoughts on how to write a 4* paper for the REF. Here he explains his thinking in more detail.

_____________

How do you write a 4* paper for the Research Excellence Framework (REF)? It is a question I’ve asked myself with some urgency since the Stern Review shredded my REF submission by not allowing me to bring my papers with me this year to my new position at Newcastle University.

Obviously the answer is going to differ depending on your discipline, but I think there are a few simple things that everyone can do to maximize their chances of getting a top graded research output.

How to Get a Job in Research Management

A surprisingly large part of my work involves recruitment. I recruit for my own team, of course, but I often sit on other people’s interview panels, and I quite enjoy the experience.

I enjoy the snapshot you get of other lives and the choices people have made. I like that element of detective work that goes on when you look at someone’s CV and covering letter. Why have they decided to go for this job? Why did they change direction there, or only stay in that job for a few months? Would they be able to turn their hand to what we want them to do?

And I also like seeing my organisation from outside. Like a foreign press news story about the UK, it’s quite interesting to see how we are perceived by the rest of the world. Recruitment gives you an insight into how jobseekers see you.

What I find amazing, however, is how many people get the basics wrong. Now remember: we’re recruiting people for a service that is, essentially, about helping people prepare applications. We therefore set quite a lot of store by your ability to, well, prepare an application. If you are thinking about applying for a job in this increasingly professionalised world, take the time to get the basics right. For me, these basics have a lot in common with those necessary for external funding applications.

The Dark Art of Costing

Professor Massoura-McGonagall instructing colleagues in the dark arts

Sometimes costing a grant application can seem like a dark art, full of unfamiliar terms, complex algorithms, and strange exclusions.

The latest Grants Factory session sought to demystify the process, clearly setting out what you can and cannot apply for, how the calculations are made, and how Research Services can help.

It was led by Dr Andrew Massoura and Dr Jane Benstead. Between them they have an encyclopedic wealth of knowledge about how costing works. Based on this, here are my eleven key points for understanding the dark art of costing research proposals.

Global Challenges Research Fund: A Primer

Introduction

The Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF) was announced in last year’s spending review (December 2015), and came as something of a surprise to the sector. The previous spending review (2010) had protected the research budget from the worst ravages of austerity, but it was still a flat settlement, and funding was looking a little threadbare five years in.

George Osborne, the Chancellor at the time, sought to remedy this somewhat, and announced that the research budget would rise from £4.7bn to £5.2bn by the end of the parliament (2020).

Source: THE

However, there was a catch. The extra £1.5bn would come from a different pot. It would not come from the budget of the Dept for Business, Innovation and Skills, but rather from International Development, and would aim ‘to develop new solutions to the complex multidimensional problems faced by developing countries.’ Note how the Science budget stagnates in the chart on the right, and GCRF rises.

Simplifying Impact: a Review of Mark Reed's 'Research Impact Handbook'

When Prof Mark Reed came and did an impact workshop at the University recently, the transformative effect he had on the audience was wonderful to behold. I could almost see eyes lighting up and weights being lifted as he spoke. To many, ‘impact’ is an intimidating mountain they have been asked to climb, and a considerable number don’t feel that they have the necessary tools or map to do so. Reed was like an experienced guide at basecamp, handing out the crampons, the rope and the carabiners, sketching out the best route to the top, and then stepping back with arms thrown wide, inviting them to take the first steps. 

This books offers up the same approachable, practical level of support. Reed starts by recognising that it’s not the academics’ fault that they don’t immediately ‘get’ impact. ‘We have been trained how to do research, not how to generate impact,’ he begins. ‘This means many of us feel unprepared and out of our depth when we think about working with people who might be interested in our research. It is hard to know where to start.’

How to Prepare a Successful ERC Application

Last Wednesday we hosted Maribel Glogowski, our UKRO representative, who gave a thoughtful overview of the European Research Council (ERC) and offered insights into how best to target the funder. Dr Heather Ferguson, who recently won a Starting Grant, joined her to offer an invaluable viewpoint from someone who had been through the process.

Background

The ERC has been one of the great success stories of the EC's Framework Programme. The prestigious, responsive mode fellowships were clearly what the European research community wanted, and this was demonstrated in the heavy oversubscription of the first call for Starting Grants in 2007, when over 9,000 people applied for just 300 awards, giving a success rate of just 3.4%.

Since then the situation has settled down, and now the Starting Grant success rate is actually broadly in line with that of the ESRC at 12%. In Horizon 2020, the ERC is part of the 'Excellent Science' pillar, which funds responsive mode research. Of the total €24.2bn budget for the pillar, the ERC has almost half (€13.1bn). It provides five types of grants:

●     Starting Grants: up to €2m for 5 years for investigators 2-7 years from PhD

●     Consolidator Grants: up to €2.75m for 5 years for investigators 7-14 years from PhD

●     Advanced Grants: up to €3.5m for 5 years (no set career point restriction, but investigators must be well established leaders in their fields)

●     Synergy Grants: up to €15m for 2-4 investigators. The scheme is currently on hold.

●     Proof of Concept Grants: for ERC award holders: up to €150k for 18 months.

Research Impact and Parliament

My colleague Jacqueline Aldridge, co-author of The Research Funding Toolkit, attended a recent event hosted by the Parliamentary Office for Science and Technology (POST), which gave academic researchers an insight into how they can best contribute to the parliamentary process. 

Jacqueline kindly agreed to summarise the main points that arose from the day. Huge thanks to her for doing so, and do get in touch if you any questions arising from these.

Tips on Using Twitter in Academia

Dr Rebekah Higgitt

Yesterday I took part in a presentation with Rebekah Higgitt on 'using social media to promote your research'. I gave an overview, and touched on some of the issues I'd picked up from Nadine Muller and Andy Miah. Rebekah followed up by focussing on Twitter, and I thought it would be worth noting some of the points she made as a long term user.

Hard Lessons in the Digital Humanities

Eric Poehler at Kent last week

Digital humanities. Most of us have heard the term, but very few are aware of what it actually means or how it's created. A bit like spreadable butter or that milk they sell in opaque white cartons that stays fresh for decades. It's familiar, but at the same time not.

Luckily, the digital humanities pioneer, Eric Poehler of the University of Massachusetts Amherst, came to the University last week to talk about some of the 'hard lessons' in the fledgling discipline. Even before he got on to the lessons themselves, he was having to try and nail down the term. 'Is it singular or plural?' he asked. 'Should we use it to describe a mindset or methodology, or to label any humanities endeavour that uses technology?' As ever with DH, the answer was not straightforward, and emerged during the course of his talk.

Leverhulme Fellowships: Notes from a Panellist

Prof Davina Cooper

Last week we ran a Grants Factory session on Leverhulme Trust Fellowships. Prof Davina Cooper from Kent Law School offered some thoughts from her time on the Research Awards Advisory Committee which administers a number of Leverhulme’s fellowship schemes, and my colleague Brian Lingley provided some notes from the session below. 

Impact: What Works?

The Award-Winning
Julie Bayley

Whilst impact has become an accepted fixture on the research landscape since it was introduced by the Research Councils in 2008, there is still a nervousness about what it is and how it should be recorded.

Fortunately help is at hand: Julie Bayley has developed a national reputation in supporting colleagues in understanding impact at Coventry University, and she accepted our invitation to come to Kent and talk about her experiences.

Engaging with Europe

In April I wrote about the European Research Area, the ‘borderless continent’ that the founding fathers of the European Union hoped to achieve. The ERA can best be seen as a work in progress, but that shouldn’t stop academics from engaging with it and trying to influence its future direction and focus.

To many, the European Commission can seem like an impenetrable technocracy. If you ever hear a commissioner speak, it will do little to dispel this notion. I wrote once about the basic components of a Commission presentation. The vital elements are PowerPoint slides dense with text, detailed maps of the process by which directives have been agreed, preferably involving an incomprehensible flowchart, lots of clip art, and a peppering of unexplained acronyms.

Imposter Syndrome: Notes from ECR Network

The Imposter Syndrome is a relatively new concept. Dr Pauline Rose Clance, a clinical psychologist, was the first to coin the phrase in 1971 when she noticed that her female students were not putting themselves forward as much as their male counterparts. Initially it was assumed that it was a gender-based phenomenon, but at last week’s ECR Network meeting it was clear that it was prevalent across academia.

Engaging with Politicians & Policymakers

Academics and politicians don't, traditionally, mix. The academics often see the politicians as Machiavellian mischief makers; politicians see academics as detached boffins. There's mutual distrust.

Last week's Grants Factory tried to remedy that. The Parliamentary Outreach Service (POS) showed that, not only were politicians not antagonistic to academics, but they actually valued and benefited from their research. Prof Jagjit Chadha (Economics) also spoke about the potential benefit for academics, in engaging with the parliamentary system, of understanding how decisions are made, and of playing a part in helping those decisions to be better informed.

He felt that it could be an immensely rewarding experience, both from just being part of the “process”, but also from having a real route to impact for your work. He did, however, warn of a couple of pitfalls that he had observed. Firstly, you need to beware of “capture” by politicians and policy makers, who will try to influence your input and research. Secondly, you may be exposed to potentially hostile media interest. This is outside the experience of most academics, and he advised that you get good media management support.

MPs are, by their very nature, generalists. They're paid to have shallow opinions on a broad range of issues. To deepen these opinions somewhat, they rely for their information on three sources: