Thoughts on BA Small Grants & Fellowships

Jack Carswell in action last week

Last week we hosted a visit by Jack Caswell the Assistant Head of Research Awards at the British Academy. The BA plays an important part in the research funding ecosystem: with the demise of smaller grants from the ESRC and AHRC, the BA is one of the few places where those working in the humanities and social sciences can turn if they want to undertake riskier, explorative research.

This may come as a surprise to many. The BA has something of a reputation as a fusty, traditional funder, a kind of Piccadilly gentlemen's club with an academic veneer. An unfair reputation, perhaps, but one that I've duly exploited for humourous ends in the past.

Grands Projets: J'accuse

A previously funded large project.

The Times Higher last month published an article by Prof Bill Amos of Cambridge, who questioned the wisdom of funders moving increasingly to backing big projects, 'taking ever-larger bites from a modest and diminishing funding pot.' By doing so, Amos concluded, the funder 'starves the wider scientific community. Consequently, the next generation of scientists is already leaving, and many undergraduates I have spoken to feel that their chances of getting one of the handful of studentships on offer these days are too low to be worth the effort.'

Amos articulated what many of us have been feeling for some time. In recent years there has been an inexorable move by the Research Councils and the Wellcome Trust to concentrate funding on longer, larger grants. The logic is impeccable:  in order to answer the big questions that will make a big difference to society, we need big teams of big hitters doing big science. Or big social science. Or big humanities. Moreover, big projects don't require proportionately more administration, and by cutting back on all those pesky small grants, funders will be saving a lot of time and money in selecting and monitoring the things.

What has particularly rankled in this is a sense that the funders are shooting themselves in the foot. I always believed that the funders got many, many more bangs for their bucks by funding small grants. Principal investigators tended to makes sure that every pound, every penny counted. Better still, these small grants offered early career researchers a first step on the ladder of research funding. Sure, some funders do offer dedicated routes for ECRs, but they still tend to be be substantial, and the success rate as a result is negligible. Small grants with a high success rate allowed funders to light the blue touch paper and watch as the subsequent careers fizzed and whirred, glittering in a thousand different directions. To many, this initial light has been extinguished.

However, up until now this view was, for me, nothing more than a hunch. This changed last week when I stumbled across 'Big Science vs Little Science: How Scientific Impact Scales with Funding' via Twitter (thank you, Open Access).  Its authors, Fortin and Currie, looked at whether it was 'more effective to give large grants to a few elite researchers, or small grants to many researchers.'

Focusing on the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the National Science Foundation of America, Fortin and Currie start by asking what the goal of the funder is. Is it to maximise major discoveries (sometimes criticised as 'photo opportunity science'), or to maximise the 'summed impact' of the community. The authors looked at four measures of 'impact': total number of papers published, number of citations, number of citations for the most highly cited paper, and the number of very highly cited papers.

Interestingly, they found either no correlation or even an inverse correlation between size of grant and impact:  'impact is a decelerating function of grant size'. They continue: 'our results are inconsistent with the hypothesis that concentrating research funds on 'elite' researchers in the name of 'excellence' increases total impact of the scientific community. Quite the opposite: impact per dollar remains constant or decreases with grant size. Highly cited studies are no more likely to result from large grants than from spreading the same funds among multiple researchers.'

Furthermore, 'if maximising the total impact of the entire pool of grantees is the goal, then the 'few big' strategy would be less effective than the 'many small' strategy...funding more scientists increases the diversity of fields of research, and the range of opportunities available to students.'

The time has come to reconsider this passion for large 'ribbon cutting' projects. Whilst funding many small projects might mean that you can't blow your trumpet about unpicking the human genome, it will have a huge effect on a wide, diverse range of research and careers, which might actually have a more positive effect on the health of your discipline - and consequently your profile as a funder - in the long run. Funders, think again.

ESRC Opens Secondary Data Initiative

Last June I wrote about how the ESRC was going to implement its Delivery Plan. Yesterday news came through about one arm of this implementation: the Secondary Data Initiative. As you will doubtless remember, the ESRC scrapped its Small Grants scheme, with the exception of this Initiative. Backed by £10.8 million funding, it will offer grants of up to £200k to exploit major data resources that the ESRC and other agencies had already created.

These include cohort studies, the British Household Panel Survey, Understanding Society, census datasets, and the European Social Survey. In this first phase they will only be funding 20 or so projects, but if your research uses these or other sources of existing data, it's worth considering putting together an application. The deadline is 19 April; get in touch if you want any help with putting together an application.

BA Reinstates Small Grants

Well, fresh back from my hols, I'm ploughing through the emails and finding out what I've missed. Firstly, good news from the British Academy: it has reinstated its Small Grants scheme. Hurrah! God bless the BA for swimming against the tide and backing a popular scheme that plugs that small grant-sized hole in national research funding provision.

I spoke to Ken Emond, Head of Research Awards at the BA, to check whether this would be a one off, or whether it would continue to fund the grants. He said that the intention was that it would be on-going, and that they would make 'strong representations and arguments' to BIS to do so. Whilst this is excellent news, it's still uncertain if it will run twice a year as it has in previous years: it might be reduced to an annual round.

So, good on the BA Fellows and Officers, who - very unfairly - I always imagine as inhabiting a private members club in Piccadilly, complete with leather wing back chairs and a grandfather clock ticking away in the distance somewhere. A few of the older members might be slumbering under their copies of the Times and dreaming of steamed sponge puddings, along the lines of Rowley Birkin QC. Please, if you work for the BA, don't shatter my dream and tell me it's all beige offices and power suits.

Changes to the ESRC - Part 2

Last week I wrote about imminent changes to the ESRC funding schemes. Yesterday I went along to their regional event at Brighton, and got further clarification and detail about how they see these changes being implemented:

• Risky research. As mentioned before, they will be introducing a new mechanism into their grants scheme for risky research, with a 'breakpoint' mid way through at which the success or otherwise of the pilot project will be assessed. However, they made it clear that, in effect, this would mean the reintroduction of the small grants scheme, but with a very specific remit of encouraging risky, innovative, ambitious research.
• Advanced Sifting. As well as outline applications, the ESRC would introduce 'advanced sifting' of their Research Grants. In practice, this would mean that applications go through an initial peer review by 2-3 academics. If it's an application for a small amount, this might be all the assessment it gets: depending on the outcome, the application will get funded or rejected. If it's for a larger amount, this peer review will decide whether the application goes to full panel.
• Outline Applications. The ESRC will simplify the JeS form for outline applications, including the costing element. They will shortlist approximately three times as many applications as they can fund, so that the success rate for the second stage (full applications) will be around 33%.
• Right to Reply. A right to reply would be built into all their funding schemes.
• Demand Management. The deadline for the consultation process on the demand management options closed on 16 June. They will now consider the responses. It is hoped that they will not have to introduce any of the more draconian measures. They will allow a year to see how the 'interim measures' have worked - eg outline applications, no uninvited resubmissions, encouraging HEIs to implement 'quality assurance' procedures. They admitted that a year might not be enough for these to have a real effect, but it should be enough to see the 'direction of travel'. If they are happy with the 'direction', they will allow more time for them to have further effect.
• Statistics. To support the demand management measures, the ESRC will provide HEIs with stats on their comparative performance. These will be provided three times a year and, it is hoped, they will be more nuanced than just presenting simple success rates. For example, they should show the relative position of an institution's applications in the peer review panel's prioritisation list, so that HEIs can get a sense of the quality of their applications.
• Working with the Other Research Councils. The ESRC made clear that they will be working with their sister councils to implement a common form of demand management. Of course, this will have to allow for variance that arises from the culture and patterns of those working within a council's disciplines. Thus, what works for the EPSRC wouldn't necessarily work for the ESRC. However, as far as possible they hoped for a consistency across RCUK.

Social Science Small Grants

Times have been tough recently for those seeking small grants in the Social Sciences. The past year has seen the BA, Nuffield and ESRC all cut their dedicated small grants schemes. But don’t despair: things aren’t as bad as they seem. Recent news from the ESRC, and a little creative thinking, means the funding horizon isn't as gloomy as it may seem:

• ESRC Secondary Analysis: the ESRC will be offering small grants for those whose research involves analysis of existing datasets;
• ESRC ‘Risky’ Standard Grants: the ESRC will be introducing a new mechanism to fund innovative or ambitious risk-taking projects. Funding will be in two parts: the first tranche will be for a pilot project, the second for a full scale follow up after a ‘break point.’ In effect it’s two grants, the first of which is essentially a small grant. They're ironing out the details of both of these schemes, and more information should be available over the summer.
• ESRC Reciprocal Grants & BA Country-specific Funds: If your research involves working with colleagues abroad, have a look at the countries that the ESRC and BA have agreements with. They include Germany, France, and the Netherlands. And, if your research involves travelling abroad, think about:
• Leverhulme Study Abroad Fellowships: provide the direct costs of working abroad. Success rates tend to be higher for these than for other types of fellowships and grants, as they are inevitably more self-selecting. Overall you can apply for up to £22,000, and eligible costs include: reasonable replacement cover whilst the Fellow is overseas; travel to and within the overseas country or countries; a maintenance grant to meet the increased expense of living overseas; and essential research costs. And, whilst thinking of Leverhulme:
• Leverhulme Project Grants: these can be 'up to' £250k - but can be for a lot less. They cover all disciplines, including social sciences, and are looking for interesting blue skies research with has a healthy disregard for disciplinary boundaries.
• Nuffield Project Grants: whilst they’ve explicitly cut the small grants (for less than £15k) their project grants are still available, and the starting point is a low £10k. However, your research has to fit within their specialist areas of interest, namely 'children and families,' 'law and society' and 'education'. If your research doesn't fit within these, there's still hope. As long as your research meets their overall aim of 'advancing social wellbeing', you could try their catch-all 'open door' route. Both Leverhulme and Nuffield have an outline stage, which means that you don't have to wade through torturous, extended application forms. However, they do still expect your project to be well thought through and accurately costed, so don't think that you can cut corners in the designing your research.

So there is hope. Do get in touch if you want more information on these, or help with putting together an application.

Time, Gentlemen, Please...Last Orders at the BAr

As mentioned in a previous post, the British Academy is phasing out Small Grants and Conference Funding. To this end they've just announced the final calls to these schemes, as follows:

Overseas Conference Grants
Grants are available for the travel expenses of a scholar delivering a paper at a conference abroad.
Deadline for submission of applications: 2 March 2011
Results expected: end May 2011
Earliest Start Date for Conference: 1 July 2011
Latest Start Date for Conference: 31 December 2011

Conference Support Grants
Grants normally not exceeding £7,500 (but in exceptional circumstances up to £20,000) to promote the dissemination of advanced research. Conference convenors may apply for financial assistance, e.g. to bring key speakers to the conference, or for a wider range of expenses.
Deadline for submission of applications: 16 March 2011
Results expected: end June 2011
Earliest Start Date for Conference: 1 September 2011
Latest Start Date for Conference: 31 August 2012

Small Research Grants
Grants are offered of up to £7,500 for collaborative or individual projects to facilitate initial project planning and development, to support the direct costs of research, and to enable the advancement of research through workshops or by visits by or to partner scholars.
Deadline for submission of applications: 23 March 2011
Results expected: end June 2011
Earliest Start Date for Research: 1 August 2011
Latest Start Date for Research: 1 April 2012

BA Cuts Small Grants and Conferences

Sigh. Another day, another bad news story. This time it's the British Academy, which is going to drop its popular Small Grants scheme and funding for conferences. This info leaked out as an afterthought in the 'Joint AHRC, BA and ESRC Statement on early and mid career support' . Whilst the three funders struggled to demonstrate their 'joined up thinking on cuts', they succeeded in doing nothing so much as highlighting how little support there'll be for anyone in the future.
The BA cuts are a particular blow to early career researchers. Whilst not huge (you could apply for up to £7.5k), the success rate was phenomenal (up to 75% at one stage), and they provided really useful 'enabling' money. Better still, it was a very simple application form, with the BA not asking for much more than a side of A4 on what you planned to do. You could do a pilot project, or undertake a visit, or set up a collaboration. It was often the first step on the ladder, the stepping stone to greater things.
Many in the Humanities and Social Sciences don't necessarily need large grants or prestigious programmes, and, as has been stated elsewhere on this blog, some great research comes out of this small acorn funding.
The cut doesn't make sense. Given the size of the grants, the BA isn't going to save itself much money. Instead, it will be discouraging those seeking their first grants, stymying those who are just setting out, and snuffing out plenty of good - albeit small - projects.
There'll be more info on the BA website in due course, I'm told, so keep checking there for a better rationale for the move. In the meantime the next round of Small Grants is likely to be their last, so get your skates on if you've been planning to submit.

Nuffield Relaunches Small Grants Scheme

After a hiatus of almost a year, the Nuffield Foundation has re-launched its Social Science Small Grants Scheme. Previously the remit of the scheme was wide open, but they've decided to be more prescriptive about its areas of interest, and have increased the amount available. The Foundation is now offering grants of up to £15,000 for research projects in line with the Foundation’s areas of interest including:

• Children and families
• Education
• Law and society
• Older people and their finances
• Government, law-making and constitutional change
• Poverty and disadvantage
• Cross national comparisons
• Reviews of government policy or practice
• Development in Africa

Applications will be considered until the end of 2010. Full guidance and further information is available from the Foundation’s website.

The also mention, in the letter to Deans, that they are 'likely to take a different and
more strategic approach to fostering social science research capacity from 2011, to provide
funding that will increase quantitative research skills and other research skills in other areas
of long-term interest to the Foundation through some sort of centres competition. We
expect to have reached a final decision and make a public announcement in the autumn of
2010.'