Blog Roll

Passion - or frustration - led us here.
Photo by Ian Schneider on Unsplash

I started writing my blog, Research Fundermentals, a decade ago. I wanted a way to share information, notes and thoughts across the University of Kent, but also to reach out to other research managers and administrators. In effect, I wanted to ask, ‘is it just me, or…?’

I was inspired by the University of Lincoln’s blog, which is a great example of how to use an online platform effectively to communicate with the wider academic community.

Since then I’ve discovered a whole host of wonderful online resources that help me in my work but, just as importantly, make me realise I’m not alone.

The Birdman of ARMA

On the opening day of the annual ARMA Conference, it seemed only fitting to honour one of ARMA's finest: Kent's former Director of Research Services, and now LSE's Director of the Research Division, Michael Keaton.

And I know what you're all thinking: what is a Hollywood superstar doing in the world of research management? But you're asking the wrong question. Really, the salient point here is why aren't there more Hollywood superstars battering on the ARMA doors, wanting to be let in?

Well, just because you don't hear them doesn't mean they're not there. I understand that the only reason that Eddie Redmayne took the Theory of Everything gig was to get near to the privileged ground of the Cambridge Research Operations Office. Similar story with Russell Crowe, A Beautiful Mind and Princeton Office of Research and Project Administration.

Notes from Leverhulme Visit, October 2013

A Soap Opera: the source of the Leverhulme millions

The new Director of the Leverhulme Trust, Prof Gordon Marshall, visited the University last week. Whilst we've had visits from his predecessor, Prof Sir Richard Brook, and I've heard Marshall speaking at the LSE, this was the first time he's come to Kent. Anticipation was high, and was shown in the strong turnout: there was standing room only at the back.

Gordon Marshall is a sociologist by training, and has had a long and illustrious career in senior management within higher education. He taught at Bath, Essex and the LSE, was Chief Executive of the ESRC and VC at Reading. After climbing to these dizzy heights, Marshall is enjoying life at the helm of what he described as a 'small peer review shop off Fleet Street'.

The Trust gives out less than half the value of awards of the ESRC (£80m, compared to some £200m), but processes four times as many applications (4,000 pa, compared to the ESRC's 800). Moreover, it does so with just 14 people, compared to the ESRC's 125. With such a small team, 'we can't generate much bureaucracy', said Marshall.

96% of their awards are responsive mode. The exception are the Programme Grants, which offer substantial funding (up to £1.75m) in areas identified by the Trustees. The disciplinary distribution of awards generally follows applications: they get more science applications, so tend to give out more science awards. The divide is roughly as follows:

• Sciences: 50%
• Humanities: 30%
• Social Sciences: 20%

 However, these figures should be treated with caution: Leverhulme encourages interdisciplinary work, so its sometimes hard to pin down exactly which discipline any project belongs to.

The Trust does not 'manage demand', as many of the Research Councils have had to do. 'If your quality is acceptable we fund you,' said Marshall. Whilst the Trustees have the ultimate say on who gets funded, they rely for advice on reviews and on a small group of academic advisors. The Trustees, claimed Marshall, 'were the last group of people in the country who have respect for the academy'. They recognised the worth of good research, and wanted to fund it. In terms of what shape this should take, Leverhulme was very open. It covers all disciplines except:

• clinical medical research (which is already well covered by Wellcome); 
• policy-driven research, which should be funded by the Government;
• 'advocacy' projects;
• those with immediate commercial applications, which should be funded by industry.

The Trust wanted to fund the best, but didn't want to be in competition with the Research Councils or, worse still, be the 'funder of last resort' for those who have already tried the Research Councils. However, if your work is exciting, ground-breaking and robust, but can't get funding with the Research Councils (perhaps because you're emeritus, or you're seeking studentships, or the project's too risky, or too interdisciplinary), then the Trust would be interested.

Marshall finished by highlighting some common failings of unsuccessful applications. These included:

• An overly detailed review of the literature. Whilst the Trustees need some context, you should concentrate on the specifics of what you are actually going to do. This leads on to the second failing:
• Under specified research design;
• Claims of scholarship. Leverhulme isn't interested in H-Index, REF scores, or any other indication of prestige. They look solely at the potential of the project and your ability to undertake the research;
• Supposition of a hidden agenda. There is no agenda. Leverhulme just wants to fund the best research, wherever it is found;
• Incremental work. They don't provide funding for 'empire building', or work that doesn't lead to a step change in understanding. Excite them.
• Claims of impact. They have no interest in this agenda.

I will make a recording of his talk and Marshall's slides available on the Research Services website shortly. If you would like me to email these to you, drop me a line.

First Impressions of the New Leverhulme Director

My colleagues at LSE kindly invited me along to listen to the new Director of the Leverhulme Trust speaking to them at lunchtime today. I wasn’t sure what to expect: I’d always been impressed with his predecessor, Prof Sir Richard Brook. He was reassuringly old school, with a glimmer of mischief in his eye. He was the perfect advocate for Leverhulme: enthusiastic, sharp, engaged, and fiercely supportive of the work of the Trust. It was a tough act to follow.

Moreover, the fact that Prof Gordon Marshall had been a Vice Chancellor worried me. You see, VCs have a characteristic desire to imprint their leadership on the organisations they steer. They reorganise, realign. Priorities are shifted, sections amalgamated, faculties split - whether it's necessary or not. Was Marshall intending to do something similar to Leverhulme?

The answer – on the evidence of this talk – was no. In fact I got the sense that Marshall was relishing the refuge that the Trust offered from the wild tornadoes and bleak arctic winds of the current funding environment. There was no need for Leverhulme to go chasing the latest political fad, or hound award holders to demonstrate social or economic relevance. Its only concern, said Marshall, ‘is to increase the sum of human knowledge. It may sound corny, but it’s true.’

And, if your experiments don’t work, or your research goes off piste, then Leverhulme will still be on your side. ‘It doesn’t matter,’ said Marshall. You will have still learnt something. The Trust was the only funder ‘to score risk positively’.

Marshall tried to encapsulate the Trust’s aims in a simple sentence. ‘Tell us (in plain language) what research you want to do, and why it is compelling, and if that sounds persuasive then we will try to fund the work.’

‘I can’t decide whether we’re just very old fashioned, or the last honourable man standing’, concluded Marshall. We clapped, and I came away from the talk reassured that this idiosyncratic funder was in safe hands. Please don't disappoint me, Gordon.

I Predict(ed) a Riot (Research Funding Call)

Cast your mind back 26 days. Yes, I know, it seems like decades ago now. Before the holidays. Before the return to work. Even before the return to school. Well, 26 days ago I was trying to predict when the Research Councils would issue a call for proposals on the London Riots.

The piece led to a short Twitter exchange in which I discussed the possible timeframe for a call. I was thinking it would be about six months, but Catherine Baker noted that there was already a call for papers on Breivik, around 20 days after the events in Norway. In the end I have to give it to Kate Bradley who accurately suggested four weeks. I thought that was hasty, but lo and behold, the LSE today announced that it had been funded to look at 'the causes and consequences of the English riots last month.'

Fabulous! The only thing stopping me handing over a big, glittering prize to Kate for her shrewd insight that, frankly, borders on clairvoyance, is that it was the Joseph Rowntree Foundation funding the research and not the Research Councils. 'There have been no attempts to systematically speak to those involved in the riots', gushes the LSE press release. Well, it was just a month ago. Give them time.

Moreover, I don't remember seeing the call for this. Given the usually glacial timeframe for funders to issue a call and assess applications, the haste of this announcement borders on the unseamly. How was Professor Tim Newburn identified so quickly as the worthy recipient of Rowntree's largesse? Hmm, I'd love to know, so that I can be well positioned for the next big news story.

LSE Chief Attacks 'Miles Away' Academics

Sir Howard Davies, the new Director of the London School of Economics (LSE), has issued a warning about public debt, according to the Telegraph. 'Something dramatic has to happen to control spending,' he said, before pointing the finger at the current strike ballot currently being considered by the Universities and Colleges Union: 'You have the best minds in the country planning to go on strike for 8pc. People are miles away from understanding what is needed.'
Thanks to Gill for highlighting this.