Beyond Its Natural End

Jes. No, not that one. 

When I was working at the Arts and Humanities Research Council a colleague was given the task of preparing procedures to revolutionise the application system.

“What, we’re going to share a common application form with all the other councils? With the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council? With the Medical Research Council?” I asked.

“Yes”, she answered simply. And while I scoffed, and was sceptical about the potential for the artists and lone scholars of the arts and humanities to find common ground with engineers and scientists, she was vindicated by history.

In 2002 the Joint Electronic Submission (Je-S) system was born. At first people were horrified. It was just so...complicated. It seemed to ask for the same information multiple times. And all those attachments. But over the years people have become, if not exactly fond, then at least accepting of it.

But it has begun to show its age. Last autumn the research councils announced that they were going to replace the creaking system. “Je-S is no longer a viable product,” they admitted. “It has come to a natural end and this is a fantastic opportunity to design a smarter, simpler, more user-friendly service in line with the latest digital standards.” Say what you like about the research councils, but they are wonderfully optimistic.

ESRC Introduce New Attachment for JeS

The ESRC has announced that all those applying for funding from them via the JeS system will now be required to complete an additional attachment: a 'Data Management Plan'.

They first mooted this back in September 2010 with their Research Data Policy. It will be mandatory from 19 April 2011.

The Plan should be used to describe how any new data are going to be managed through the life-cycle of the award, until data is accepted for archiving by the Economic and Social Data Service (ESDS).

In the Research Data Policy, the ESRC suggested that a Management Plan would include the following:

• an explanation of the existing data sources that will be used by the research project with references;
• an analysis of the gaps identified between the currently available and required data for the research;
• information on the data that will be produced by the research project, including the following: data volume; data type, e.g. qualitative or quantitative data; data quality, formats, standards documentation and metadata; methodologies for data collection;
• planned quality assurance and back-up procedures [security/storage];
• plans for management and archiving of collected data;
• expected difficulties in data sharing, along with and causes and possible measures to overcome these difficulties;
• explicit mention of consent, confidentiality, anonymisation and other ethical considerations;
• copyright and intellectual property ownership of the data; and
• responsibilities for data management and curation within research teams at all participating institutions.
  

They go on to say the the Rural Environment and Land Use programme was a good example of best practice, and encourage potential applicants to have a look at this when thinking about their Data Management Plan. There's even a template for a Plan available here (doc).

So, if you're planning to generate new data do have a look at this site, and also talk to the ESDS, who are past masters at managing and sharing data effectively, and can help you prepare your Plan so it cuts the mustard with the ESRC.

Are Friends Electr(on)ic?

The MRC has announced that it will be using the Joint Electronic Submission System (JeS) from now on. The other Research Councils have been using it for some time. Medical researchers may be unsure whether to break out the champagne or the black crepe. Whilst the MRC's own EAA system was far from perfect, JeS does have a habit of bewildering and confusing newcomers. All those sections! All those attachments! Do get in touch if you want a quick tour through the system. Once you get used to it the advantages do begin to become apparent, such as the facility for sharing your application with others.

Incidentally, I was interested to read about Impact in the MRC's announcement. Some of you will remember that the MRC was, at best, agnostic about the merits of predicting the impact of its research. Indeed, one very senior MRC officer once described impact to me as 'bullsh*t'. To them, the impact of their funded research was part of their raison d'etre, and having to explain it beforehand was almost demeaning.

Well, now that they're part of the JeS congregation they have to sing from the same hymn sheet, however much the words stick in their throats. In somewhat cool terms they describe themselves as being part of 'an RCUK project' that would 'encourage researchers to be actively involved in thinking about who could benefit from their research.' Makes the whole impact agenda sound a little like an intriguing play thing, a tentative pilot project that probably won't come to anything. Not the hoop-jumping administrative behemoth it's been for the rest of us for the last couple of years.

Advice on the 'Pathways to Impact' Section of JeS

We recently ran a workshop on preparing the 'Pathways to Impact' section of the JeS form. Here are some notes drafted by my colleague Jacqueline Aldridge on the most important points to come out of this.

• Don’t wait until the end of the application process to design your impact activity – it should be integral to the project.
• You need to be very specific and concrete – named contacts in named organisations make your plan look credible.
• Stick to appropriate and achievable aims for your impact statement.
• Vague or grandiose indications of possible impact are liable to be ignored. Try to avoid the ‘oh yeah?’ response.
• This attachment is now called ‘Pathways to Impact’ so you need to plot exactly how you will take your findings from academic to other communities and how far along this pathway you will get within the life of this project.
• Every impact plan talks about workshops, press releases, websites – bring yours to life with project-specific detail
• Consider what you will do if the project findings are not what you expect.
• Specify which project resources will be devoted to this project (costs for a seminar, a proportion of PI/postdoc time).

Thanks to Jacqueline for these.

Confused Signals from MRC on Impact

It was a simple question: does the MRC require an Impact Plan (or 'Pathways to Impact', as they're now called), as all the other Research Councils do? The EAA Guidance suggests that in the Justification of Resources you 'need to justify any resources requested to support the impact plan', and the Applicants Handbook has a whole section on how the assessors are going to be checking on societal and economic impact.
But after some digging, and uncertain 'we'll get back to you's when I phoned the MRC, the message came back: no Impact Plan is needed, though the Case for Support does need to give a nod to impact. The sense I get is that the MRC are not entirely on board with the impact agenda, and take the impact of their research as a given.
It will be interesting to see what happens when they go over to JeS system in the autumn, though...

EPSRC Demand Management and 'Office Rejection'

I've been seeking further clarification on the way the EPSRC's new 'demand management' - or blacklisting - system will work. In particular, I was wanting to know whether proposals that had not gone to the panel, so called 'office rejects', would be included in the three unfunded proposal allowance applicants get before blacklisting kicks in. The answer is, unfortunately, yes. However, EPSRC are reassuring on this; a proposal would only be rejected by the office if:

• it had been sent out to peer review, and the reviews were so unsupportive that there was no point in it going to panel. This may seem fair enough, but I know of at least one case where a proposal was rejected was rejected on these grounds, but the reviews were based on a misunderstanding, and were factually inaccurate;
• it doesn't fit with the call criteria, or with the remit of the EPSRC. Once again, this seems fair, although there is the question of interdisciplinary proposals. In these situations, however, EPSRC encourages applicants to contact it first and submit a 2 page 'remit query' so that it avoids being rejected on these grounds.

I asked if a proposal would be rejected by the office on a technicality - eg not having the right attachment, or a section of JeS being filled incorrectly, or the costings being incorrect. No, she said, this would not happen: if there was enough time before a deadline (or the deadline was open) the office would come back to you to rectify this. Also, JeS would be unlikely to allow you to submit an incorrectly completed form. If there wasn't time before the deadline and the application was incomplete in some way, the application would be returned, but it wouldn't count as a rejection, as it would not have gone through an assessment process.

Ch-Ch-Changes to JeS

The Research Councils' Joint Electronic Submission system (JeS) is introducing some changes on 20 April. These are intended to make the site more accessible - well, as John Lennon sang in response to Paul McCartney's chirpy 'it's getting better', 'couldn't get much worse...'

The changes include a redesigned layout, a check list of what has and has not been completed, guidance information, a clearer link to the attached documents, and the 'submit' button only appearing once all the mandatory sections have been completed. I've a pdf outlining all these changes in more detail; contact me if you would like me to pass this on.

EPSRC JeS Summary: 'Suppose Sarkozy has a Wedding...'

In a recent update from the Maths Programme of the EPSRC, the Council gave some useful tips on completing the Summary section of the JeS form. This is often overlooked, but is crucial to the application: it's often the first place that reviewers and panel members look. It's a good way to get your foot in the door, to persuade them to read the rest of the proposal.

They highlight the need to keep it simple, and understandable to a general audience.
They quote Dr Shaun Stevens, an EPSRC Leadership Fellow, who suggested that applicants should 'make it accessible -- so minimal technical language: certainly none at the beginning and, where there is some, it should be explained. I would say there are (at least) two approaches: either treat it like a summary of a popular lecture, so it is in teaching mode, explaining basic concepts at the beginning and then trying to give a vague idea of the mathematics involved; or do it by analogy (a la Sarkozy) without really explaining any of the mathematics at all.'

If you are curious about the Sarkozy reference take a look at Shaun's grant proposal from 2008.

More Justification

If you are thinking of applying to one of the Research Councils you should be aware that the guidelines for the Justification of Resources have changed. It can now be up to TWO pages, and they give fuller guidance (including the headings to be used) here.