The 'T' Factor

Plimsole, Doomberger and O'Leary

The ESRC recently launched a radical new scheme for funding 'transformative research'. Not only will the projects they fund be groundbreaking; the way they assess the applications will be too. Applicants will put in a  bare bones outline to the ESRC by 24 Jan, and those who tickle their fancy will be shortlisted and invited to an - if you will  - 'pitch to peers' workshop.


What exactly is a 'pitch to peers' workshop? I'm glad you asked me that. Imagine the X Factor for social science academics, with the other competitors as the judges. 

What could possibly go wrong? 

Dermot O'Leary: 'So, Prof Plimsole, what did you think of Dr Doomberger's project?'
Yes, we're all very much looking forward to the televising of this innovation in peer review. We've invested in  a widescreen plasma TV to watch the spectacle, and will be ready to vote for our favourites, frittering away our block grant on premium rate phone calls. Put your feet up, crack open the popcorn and let the spectacle begin!

Prof Plimsole (sniffily): 'To be honest, Dermot, it lacked cohesion. I admire her bravery in exploring the sociology of Lego, but her research questions were all over the place, her objectives were unrealistic, and her outputs were frankly negligible.' 
(boos from the audience)
Dermot O'Leary: 'Hmm, I'm not sure the audience agrees with you, Prof Plimsole...' (squeals from the audience. O'Leary turns to Doomberger) And Dr Doomberger: what do you think of Prof Plimsole's project?'
Dr Doomberger (angrily): 'I've never seen such routine, dull... incremental research (gasps of horror from the audience) masquerading as transformative in my life! His project couldn't transform its way out of a paper bag!' 
(the audience explodes)

Transformers: Impact in Disguise?

Interesting news from the EPSRC peer review panels. Apparently panel members are now being asked to assess the 'transformative' potential of a proposal. And, in a strange reverse of traditional marking conventions, 'A' is for humdrum applications, 'D' is for uber-transformative ones. Here's the list in full:

• A: Builds on current work and is the accepted way forward;
• B: Some work packages deviate from the accepted way forward and show elements of adventure and creativity;
• C: The majority of the work packages show high levels of adventure and creativity e.g. new methods, new techniques, bringing together existing approaches to form new directions;
• D: Entire proposal presents high levels of adventure with a highly creative approach with the potential of the research to be transformative e.g. creation of new area of research, paradigm shift, disrupting current approaches/methodology.

By 'transformative', EPSRC mean 'research that has the capacity to either: revolutionise existing fields, create new subfields, cause paradigm shifts in existing thought and knowledge, and/or support discovery that might lead to radically new (disruptive) technologies.'

Whilst this might seem a million miles from 'impact', with its applied research overtones, it's yet another way that peer reviewers are being asked to distinguish between proposals on any other criterion but quality. And, whilst EPSRC are clearly saying that a proposal's 'transformative score' has no bearing on the final overall score, will that always be the case, or is this the beginnings of another assessment hoop that applicants will be expected to jump through?