Who Ya Gonna Call?

Downtown Brussels. Help is just a phonecall away (photo: Elliott Brown)

With the news that the UK's participation until the end of H2020 has been secured, now is the time to dust off your proposal and get working for the deadlines in the early months of next year - and beyond. But do you need help with preparing it, or questions about the detail? There is a network of national contact points (NCPs) who can help you. It is sometimes hard to track these down, so here they are, in cut-out-and-keep form:

How to Fail at FP7

The workshop title was like a thrown gauntlet: 'How to Fail at FP7.' Anyone can succeed at FP7, said the workshop leader, Melvyn Askew; it takes real determination to fail. He was being facetious, but there was an undercurrent of truth. After all, the EC tells you exactly what it wants, and how: it published voluminous guidance which, if followed, should lead to success. It's when you disregard this that you come unstuck, when you assume your project can be shoehorned in to the call, or that all costs are eligible, or that you can invite all your chums along to do separate projects under a vague umbrella.

So if it's that easy, why do so many people fail? Askew suggested it was down to time. You need time to not only draft the application but, way before you set pen to paper, time to lay the foundations. So here's a quick run down of what you should be doing, now, to prepare.

• Think. Askew singled out one of the hapless workshop participants and asked, 'what's your strategy for getting European funding?' Like an embarrassed schoolboy the participant mumbled and looked at his shoes. As would the rest of us if he'd picked on us. The truth is most universities have a laissez faire attitude to applying. Askew, however, suggested that we should all be thinking strategically: what are our strengths? What are our weaknesses? What are our connections? Where should our focus be? Identify those strengths, those networks, and build on them. Don't leave it to chance, or to those on the peripherary of European research, to play the tune.


• Talk. Once you've established a European strategy, you need to lay the foundations for your consortium. Who are the best people working in your area? Who should you approach to be part of a consortium? Not everyone need be an equal partner, but equally there should be no 'make weights' or padding. Each partner should have a clear purpose. Once identified you need to sound them out and set ground rules about the collaboration. If you're coordinating, you will be the one held responsible, and you don't want to be left to pick up the bill should a partner renege on a collaboration agreement.
  You also need to talk to the Commission. Get a sense of what's on the horizon. Now is the time to start establishing contacts with Commission officials and project officers. They are there to help. Later, as the bid develops, they can clarify the intentions of the call, so that you don't end up pushing your project down a false trail. Your relationship should continue once your project's off the ground and you need to provide progress reports. Don't be scared of picking up the phone to the commission (or, in fact, to the NCPs) to get an insight into their thinking. Better still, spend the money on a Eurostar ticket to Brussels for an informal talk.


• Plan. So you've identified your strengths and you have in place your partners. Now is the time to think about the project itself. One person - preferably with English as their native language - needs to pull it together and draft the application.It must appear to be coherent and unified, not like some kind of clippings album, with pieces taken from a selection of different newspapers. Each work package should interlink and interweave with the others; it should be interdependent and integral with the whole. It should be written in plain English, with acronyms spelt out and explained where necessary, and any jargon or slang cut out. Spell out everything, and don't assume anything. Just because you think you've got a global reputation, or your university is the toast of the UK, that doesn't mean that a Latvian evaluator will have heard of you or your institution.


• Write. As you draft your application, you should keep in mind the assessment criteria that the EC will use. There are three elements, each of which gets a score out of five:
  - Science and Technology
  - Management
  - Impact
  The first of these is usually well met by applicants, albeit with a little too much context. The second is often so-so, and the third is frequently dire. Recent signals from the Commission are that they are tiring of poor impact programmes, so think seriously about how you will disseminate the findings of your research, and how you will engage with stakeholders. As with Research Council applications, it is a good idea to have an 'advisory group' that includes end users who can guide you in your research, and ensure that you are meeting the needs of those who may benefit from the research.
  The evaluation itself is, in the eyes of Askew, fair, balanced and objective. There is no truth in the belief that lobbying has any effect, or that the EC expects consortia to be balanced and equal, with members from north and south Europe, or from new and old member states. The consortium has to 'make sense' (see above), and that's it. In the peer review meeting there is a member of the Commission on hand to ensure fair play, and to object if they sense that the rapporteur is not heeding the views of all panellists, or being too partisan.
  As well as the evaluation criteria, you should bear in mind that, if your application is successful, you will have to go through a gruelling negotiation. At this stage the Commission will meet with you to discuss the nitty gritty of your project. They might present you with questions and queries that were raised by evaluators, such as unnecessary costs, or an unbalanced consortium. They may ask you to strip these out, and this may well affect your overall project. So preempt this by checking both the eligibility and the necessity of all components of your project.


• Submit. Submit early, and often. Each time you submit via the EPSS system it overwrites what has already been submitted. Don't leave it until the last moment, only to find the software crashes, leaving you out in the cold.

Think. Talk. Plan. Write. Submit. Sounds so easy, doesn't it? Of course it isn't, and you'll face plenty of frustrations, barriers, hurdles and dead ends along the way. But if you give yourself time then you have a much better chance of succeeding - and not failing - at FP7.

UK National Contact Points for European Funding

Ever feel you're in FP7 quicksand? Feel like you're about to drown in euro-speak? The more you struggle, the more desperate your situation? Wish there was someone on hand with a rope and a plank?

Well wish no longer. Believe it or not there's a network of plank and rope handlers out there, ready, willing and - yes - able to pull you out of the mire. They're the UK's National Contact Points (NCPs), and between them have a wealth of knowledge and experience in dealing with the Framework Programme. Their details are available here, but true to the nature of the Grand European Project, this is somewhat muddled and unclear. I've taken this info and cut to the chase: below are contacts - and numbers - that count.

Cooperation Themes

• Energy: Helen Fairclough (Enviros Consulting) 0161 8743636;
• Environment: Chris Barker (DEFRA) 0207 238 1629, or Catherine Holt (Beta Technology) 01302 322633;
• Health: Victoria Brewer (MRC) 0207 670 5418, or Graham Hughes (Beta Technology) 01302 322633;
• ICT: Peter Walters (TUV/NEL) 01932 251260, or Craig Sharp (TUV/NEL) 01355 593836;
• KBBE: Tim Willis (BBSRC) 01793 413247, Chris Barker (details under 'Environment'), or Jane Watkins (Beta Technology) 01302 322633;
• NMP: Alastair McGibbon (TUV/NEL) 01355 593810, or Craig Sharp (details under 'ICT');
• Security: Derek Gallaher 07852 556502;
• SSH: Samantha McGregor (ESRC) 01793 413141;
• Space: Robert Lowson (Beta Technology) 01302 322633;
• Transport: Cliff Funnell (Cliff Funnell Associates) 01243 552921, or Gill Richards (GR Aero Ltd) 01908 583916;

European Research Council

• Jo Frost (UKRO) 00 32 2 2896121;

Marie Curie

• Emma Carey (UKRO) 00 32 2 2305275;

Capacities

• SMEs: Steve Bradley (Beta Technology) 01302 322633;
• Science in Society: Stephanie Remola (ESRC) 01793 413146
• INCO: Kate o'Shea (UK Collaboration on Development Sciences (UKCDS)) 0207 611 8276.

There's a number of others, but I think these are the main ones you will deal with. If anyone comes across a phone number that no longer works, or a responsibility that's changed, drop me a line and I'll update this post.

Notes from FP7 SSH Event

The National Contact Point for the Socioeconomic Sciences and Humanities in the EC's Framework Programme (FP7) held an event at UCL in London yesterday on the forthcoming call.

It was slightly disappointing: it fell into the trap beloved of those dealing with European funding of battering the audience with dense, text-heavy Powerpoint slides. I was hoping for a little insight beyond the published Work Programme, but instead we were treated to a deathy - but skimpy - overview of it. They took no prisoners: the title of every topic was incanted, but no detail or background given beyond that.

In fact, the event only came alive when Prof Evelyn Welch arrived and spoke about her specific experience of managing a framework project. She infused her talk with the personality, experience and subjectivity that had been so absent from the administrative talks. In particular, she highlighted:

• the need to have had a substantial background in managing project before even thinking of going for European funding. She had run five projects already, from the AHRC, ESF and Marie Curie.
• she had applied for - and got - funding from the Humanities in the European Research Area (HERA) scheme, which was a partnership between national funders (such as the ESRC and AHRC) and the EC.
• you should 'promise what you want to deliver.' You should apply for funding because you actually want to do the research, not because your institution is forcing you to do so, or you feel a sense of obligation to the other members of the consortium. The acid test is: would your heart leap or sink if the award letter came? The research, the project, has to be something you actively want to do.
• a lot of academics in the humanities struggle with the idea of 'work packages', because it's not part of their culture. Work packages are discrete subprojects. However, they should all feed in to and help answer the overall research questions of the project.
• your consortium should be built on a trusted network of contacts, and should 'make sense'. It shouldn't be a flag of convenience. It is also good to involve 'associate partners' - i.e. users and groups outside of academia such as museums or policy bodies.
• you must, must, must include a project coordinator, and ask for the cost of this as part of the application. The academic shouldn't manage the project: it's too large a task, especially as the PI would also be leading one of the work packages. A project manager is expected by the EC, and they might question how you could possibly complete the project without one.

Prof Welch finished by summarising why people should get involved with European funding:

• That's where the funding is. As national funding shrinks, the Framework Programme is increasing;
• It offers you the opportunity to work wiht an exciting, diverse range of people with different skills and backgrounds;
• It gives you access to materials and expertise and information that would be impossible to put together on your own.
• It's good fun.

She illustrated this by giving an example from her HERA project which was looking at the reasons why fashions came and went. At a project meeting at a small town in Finland they uncovered a teasure trove of costumes from the seventeenth and eighteenth century that completely changed her understanding of how contemporary fashion had spread through Scandinavia. Such revelations, such insights, would not have been possible had she not had the impetus and the framework of a European research grant.

The next SSH call will open on 20 July, with a deadline of 2 Feb 2012. If you want any more information on it, do get in touch.

FP7: All the Funding Available for SSH

Net4Society, which sounds suspiciously like some fly-by-night insurance comparison website, is actually a network of National Contact Points (NCPs) for the Socioeconomic Sciences and Humanities (SSH) in the EC's Framework Programme (FP7).

Is that enough acronyms?

Anyway, they've put together an interesting document that lists all the FP7 funding available to SSH researchers. It's not just in the SSH stream itself, but also in areas such as Health, Environment and Transport. It's a tough document to chew on, with turgid eurospeak, acronyms and reference numbers throughout, but interesting to see how many places SSH, and particularly social sciences, feature. And it's a useful lesson to bear in mind: if you work in - say - health research don't just limit yourself to the Health stream, but look at other areas too.

Gear Up for FP7 ICT Call 7

The UK's National Contact Point for the Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) within the European Framework Programme is giving researchers an insight into the forthcoming call, due to be published on 28 Sept. Peter Walters has produced a summary which will help potential applicants prepare for the call. The NCP will also be running a couple of info days for applicants.
All details are available here.

FP7 Success Rates

Each of the EC’s Cooperation areas has a National Contact Point (NCP), and I went along to a talk given by the UK’s NCP on Socioeconomic Sciences and Humanities (SSH) on Friday. The NCP passed on some interesting success rate stats.
First, the success rates for all areas and all 'pillars':

• Overall success rate: 16%. The overall success rate for the UK is slightly higher, at 23%.
• Co-operation: 18%
• Ideas: 4% (skewed by first starting grant call)
• People: 29%
• Capacities: 18%
  

Secondly, the success rates for each area within Cooperation:

• Health: 18.2%
• Food, Agriculture, Fisheries and Biotechnology: 16.9%
• Information & Communication Technology: 15.45%
• Nanotechnology: 36.1%
• Energy: 15.7%
• Environment: 13.9%
• Transport: 22.8%
• SSH: 10.9%
• Space: 27.7%
• Security: 13.3%
  

10.9% for SSH; not a great start. Drill down further, and you can see which topic areas are the likeliest to yield funding within SSH:

• Activity 1: Growth, employment and competitiveness in a knowledge society: 6.35%
  
• Activity 2: Combining economic, social and environmental objectives in a European context: 5.26%
• Activity 3: Major trends in society and their implications: 4.51%
• Activity 4: Europe in the world: 7.27%
• Activity 5: The citizen in the European Union: 6.17%
• Activity 6: Socio-economic and scientific indicators: 15.38%
• Activity 7: Strategic activities: 11.76%
• Activity 8: Foresight activities: 21.43%

So it’s the eighth of these which is pulling the overall average up. However, the eighth is the area which is only open to NCPs and other overarching organisations to bring together policy across Europe, not for research itself. Which leaves quite a gloomy picture, I’m afraid. The message to take away is that you have to be sure that your research fits squarely within the individual topic of the call, is timely, makes sense, and has an appropriate mix of partners to be in with any chance of funding. Otherwise, don't even think about it...