Five Ingredients for a Perfect Research Funding Bid

Five ingredients for a perfect recipe.
Photo by Calum Lewis on Unsplash

Is there a formula for a successful funding proposal? Not quite, but there are five elements that you should definitely keep in mind when drafting your application. 

The Joy of Six

Life on Quality St: the three speakers in action

The ‘Essential Elements of a Successful Application’ workshop is like the purple one in Quality Street: it’s a perennial favourite. We’ve been running variations on it since we began the Grants Factory in 2009, and there is always a good turnout and a stimulating discussion. I’ve written up some notes from previous sessions here, here, here and here (I could go on). Friday’s iteration was no different.

Essential Elements of a Good Application, 2014

Last week we revisited the 'essential elements of a good application' in the first Grants Factory workshop of the 2014/15 season. 

I wrote an extensive post on last year's event, and I don't want to rewrite all of the points I noted there. These still stand. If anything, they are more relevant as ever as the success rates for the Research Councils take a dip. Instead I wanted to pick out some of the points that I might have skimmed over, or note those that were raised additionally. 

2 Forthcoming Grants Factory & ECR Network Events

The following Grants Factory and ECR Network sessions are coming up at the end of the month. Both events are free and all Kent staff are welcome, but do let me know if you intend to come along. Tea/coffee will be available, and there’ll be lunch for the Essential Elements session.

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.

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.

European Grants Factory - 9 May

On 9 May we will be joining in the University’s celebrations for ‘Europe Day’ by holding two European Grants Factory events.

12:00 – 13:00 An Overview of Horizon 2020
Sobia Aslam (UKRO) 
Rutherford Lecture Theatre 2 

Sobia Aslam from the UK Research Office in Brussels (UKRO) will provide an overview of the EU’s new funding programme for research, Horizon 2020. It will succeed Framework Programme 7 (FP7) in January next year. It has a proposed €80 billion budget (a 46% increase over FP7), will bring together both research and innovation, and is intended to simplify the process of applying to the EC. Draft work programmes will start to emerge over the summer, so now is an excellent time to find out more about the new framework.

 In addition, Sobia will be holding a surgery session after lunch to discuss individual applications, or focus on specific issues. So if you have questions about H2020, or perhaps have a Marie Curie application on the go, get in touch to book a slot.

13:00-13:30 – Lunch 

13:30-15:00 – European Funding: is it for me? 
Prof Simon Thompson (Computing) & Jenny Billings (CHSS) 
Rutherford Lecture Theatre 2 

This is a rerun of last year’s sell-out seminar that offers a warts and all view of the European funding. The EC is notorious for the complexity of its applications, but unlike the UK funding for research is ringfenced and growing. Jenny Billings (CHSS) and Simon Thompson (Computing), both veterans of EU funding, offer their insights into the highs and lows of applying for, managing and reviewing European applications.

The events are free, but do let me know if you are planning to come so that I can make sure there’s enough space and catering for all.

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.

Horizon 2020: Slides from UKRO Talk Available

Thanks to all those who were able to make it to the UKRO European Funding event on 20 January. The slides and the handout from the talk on Horizon 2020, together with the slides from the ERC workshop, are now available on the Research Services website, here (Kent login needed). If you have any questions about them, don’t hesitate to ask.

We are starting to take bookings for the next European funding event, due to take place on 9 May. This will focus on the pros and cons of European funding, led by two academics (Prof Simon Thompson (Computing) and Jenny Billings (CHSS)) who have considerable experience of both the highs and lows of engaging with the EC. Notes from last year’s event are available on the blog, here; if you’d like to take part in May do drop me a line.

2011-12 Grants Factory Programme Announced

A new programme of Grants Factory events is now available for 2011/12. Each of the themed workshops addresses a different aspect of the research funding process and is led by a senior Kent academic with a track record in winning (and awarding) research grants.

Autumn Term

• Thurs 1 December 12-2pm Big Questions, Big Projects (Prof Elizabeth Mansfield, Prof Jon Williamson)
• Weds 7 December 2-2pm Inside the Grants’ Committee (Prof Peter Taylor-Gooby, Prof Mick Tuite)

Spring Term

• Weds 15 February TBC Playing the Game: how to understand the rules (Dr Jenny Billings, Prof Sarah Spurgeon)
• Thurs 1 March 10am-12 Writing Better Bids (Prof David Shemmings)

Summer Term

• Weds 9 May TBC Eurovision: the pros & and cons of European funding (Dr Jenny Billings, Prof Simon Thompson)
• Weds 30 May 10am -12 Writing Better Bids (Prof David Shemmings)
• Mon 11 June TBC Winning Fellowship Funds (Prof Paul Allain, Prof Darren Griffin)

All events are suitable for researchers of any discipline and at any career stage and you can find more information here

Please get in touch if you would like more information or want to reserve a place.

Forthcoming European Funding Events

Part of the problem with going on holiday - or rather, the coming back - is remembering what you've already publicised and what you haven't. I don't think I've mentioned these on the blog yet. If I have, well, nod politely, smile wanly, and pass on.

We’ll be running a couple of European Funding events this year:

• European Funding Clinic (12-2pm, 15 September) This is intended for people who are applying to the current FP7 calls. It will be an opportunity for applicants to present and discuss their proposals with two experienced academics (Simon Thompson and Jenny Billings) who have been applicants, grant holders and reviewers for the EC.
• Eurovision: Is European Funding for Me? (w/c 7 May, TBC) This will be a rerun of the well-attended event in January. It will look, honestly, at the pros and cons of European funding, and may include an overview of any draft Work Programmes we have at that point.

These event are free and open to all staff. Do let me know if you would like to come along to either or both of these.

Notes from 'European Funding: Is It for Me?'

A packed room listened to Prof Simon Thompson, Jenny Billings and Andy Smith give their personal thoughts on European funding yesterday. All have had considerable experience in dealing with the European Commission: Simon has had funding via the Framework Programme, Jenny from a number of other streams, and Andy works for UKRO, the UK Research Office in Brussels, which provides advice and insight on European funding for the UK research community.

Pros and Cons

Andy started by giving an overview of the pros and cons of applying for European funding. He started with the ‘cons’, which recognised the fact that it’s complicated, bureaucratic, acronym-riddled, and inconsistent, with low success rates for some schemes and a ‘top down’ structure which leaves some disciplines out in the cold. However, these are balanced with considerable ‘pros’: the Framework programme handles a huge (€52bn) pot of funding, which is ring-fenced and increasing over the next three years. It allows you to think internationally, to be flexible in whom you work with, and offers good career development opportunities. It’s prestigious, offers great opportunities for exploiting and developing your work, and the success rates for UK institutions bucks the average across Europe with a respectable 23%.

Applying for Funding

Simon followed this by describing his experience of applying to the Framework Programme. He explained the process he went through to turn a single good idea into a complicated 80 page proposal. This might seem like a nightmare for many, but but there are some similarities with domestic funding. Roughly the same amount of detail is needed, but, because there are more partners and a bigger budget, the quantity of information is greater. However, the EC does gives equal weighting to the assessment of the 'science', the project management and the impact. This differs from Research Councils, which focus mainly on the scientific quality. In addition, unlike the Research Councils, the EC mainly issues 'calls for proposals', so you will have to respond to what it considers important. Finally, you have to work as a group, and manage conflicting demands from the participants.

If you’re interested in developing a proposal, how do you build a consortium? Simon suggested starting with a one page outline. This gives potential participants an idea of what you intend to do. Each participant must justify their inclusion, and regular discussions are crucial. Face to face meetings are best (and could be added to a conference trip), but Skype offers great – and free – opportunities for conference calls. The drafting of the proposal should not be left with one individual, and should ideally be shared between two or three, with people pairing up to write. Don’t email each other amended versions of the proposal: this leads to confusion. Instead, use a web-based repository, such as Dropbox (www.dropbox.com), to hold a ‘master copy’ of the proposal.

A good starting point when preparing a proposal is to look at previously successful applications for clues about wording, ideas, and approaches that have worked before. You can even use some of the ‘boilerplate’ text for your own proposal. As you work up the proposal, get feedback from colleagues, UKRO, and Research Services. You might be too close to it to be able to judge it objectively. Read the Guide for Applicants, the Work Programme and the Guide for Reviewers to get a better idea of what the EC is expecting.

Reviewing and Managing Projects

Jenny took over to talk about how proposal are reviewed. The application will be judged on three criteria, and you must make sure you meet all of these.

• Scientific Excellence: this is the ‘meat’ of the proposal, and you should describe your objectives (in line with the call), what the state of the art is, and how your proposal will advance this;
• Quality and Efficiency (Management): are the consortium members both excellent and appropriate, and do they have the necessary experience?
• Impact: explain the impact of your previous research, and think of ways of explaining how the impact of this project will be effectively felt – eg concentric circles, Venn diagrams, etc. Don’t neglect academic impact, and think about potential impact in other disciplines.

Each of these need to achieve a score of 3/5, with a total of at least 10/15. However, if your proposal scrapes through with 10 or 11, the chances are that it won’t get funded, even though it’s got through to the second stage of the assessment. Make sure that your proposal ‘grabs’ the reviewers: they should have a clear idea of what your plans are by the end of the first page. Part of the review process involves them getting together in Brussels for a meeting that can take days, to reach a consensus on a prioritisation list. Give them enough detail and evidence to back up their opinions and bear in mind that the majority might not have English as their first language.

You should also consider what happens ‘after the birth’. There’s a lot of support prior to submission, but you might feel slightly abandoned once the award is made and you have to manage the grant. Managing the partnership effectively is crucial, and consortia have recently been given more powers to expel members who are not performing effectively and doing the work specified. Make contact and develop good relationships with the accounts team in Research Services, who will help with the financial management of your grant, including the completion of timesheets and making claims. There will be annual project reviews, and you need to make sure you are well prepared for these.

In addition, you should recognise the European stereotypes, and be happy to work with them!

The slides from this event are available. Drop me a line if you'd like a copy.

Grants Factory: 'Eurovision: Is European Funding for Me?'

‘Eurovision: Is European Funding for Me?’
A Grants Factory Event
19 January 2011

Have you been considering applying for European funding, but felt that you don’t know enough about it, or feel that it’s too complicated? The next Grants Factory event is aimed at you. There’s never been a better time to look to Europe, as funding for the Framework Programme is ring-fenced, is not affected by the current economic downturn, and in some areas will actually increase over the next couple of years.

Prof Simon Thompson (Computing) and Jenny Billings (CHSS) will explain what European funding is all about, and will cover:

• Pros and Cons of European funding;
• What it’s really like to apply for, and manage, a European grant;
• Dos and Don’ts in dealing with the Commission.

Both have had substantial experience in getting European funding, and they will talk simply, realistically and honestly about their experience. The University’s representative at the UK’s Research Office in Brussels (UKRO), Andy Smith, will also be on hand to provide more detailed information and advice if needed, and there will be an opportunity to talk to him individually after the event.

The event will take place at 12:30pm on 19th January, and lunch will be provided. All are welcome, but do let me know if you intend to come along so that I can book the catering.

Grants Factory Masterclass: Working the Case for Support

Prof. Simon Thompson will be giving the lastest Grants Factory Masterclass today. He is an experienced EPSRC Research Council panel chair and has led the assessment of hundreds of funding applications. Most funding bids centre on a six page research proposal and most funders have similar requirements for the content and layout of this all important document. This hour long session will look at how to best structure and present proposals so that they have maximum impact with reviewers and panellists.
It starts at 2pm in Keynes Lecture Theatre 3. If you'd like to come along get in touch with Jacqueline Aldridge.