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.

A Decade of Development

Research Fortnight asked me to write an article to coincide with the 2013 ARMA Conference. I've reproduced it below (thanks to John Whitfield for this), but you can see the original on their website, here.

_________________

Spoiler: Neil Young doesn't feature
in this article. At all. 

Ten years ago, Iraq had just been invaded. Tony Blair was still in office. The iPhone hadn’t been invented. John Peel was still alive.

Ten years ago, I started working as a research funding officer at the University of Kent in Canterbury. University research offices up to then had essentially been branches of finance: they acted as accountants, costing applications and managing awards. Anything else—an occasional visit from a funder, a termly newsletter—was an add-on.

The introduction of a research development service was intended to provide more proactive support to researchers at the university. We could do whatever we thought necessary to help staff improve the quality and quantity of applications. Here was a service that aimed to change the role of university administrators: to have them stand beside academics, take them by the hand and lead them through the funding maze.

In the decade since, research development has become embedded in higher education, transforming the relationship between academics and administrators. It is now unthinkable that a research-intensive university would not have a research development team, says Adam Golberg, a research manager at Nottingham University Business School. “An institution where researchers have no access to specialist information about funders, and no-one sending them possible leads, is not one that is serious about research,” he says.

Each university has defined the job in its own particular way. Some focus on supporting applications, others take a more strategic view; some have a dedicated research development officer, whereas others combine the role with costing and contract duties. David Young, research funding manager at Northumbria University, sees funding development as falling into two categories: direct and indirect. “Direct support,” he says, “is about one-to-one or group-based co-writing support for particular grant applications. Indirect support covers the whole framework or environment surrounding research bidding activity—such as mentoring schemes, training programmes and mock panels.”

Development is still a relatively small part of research support. Jon Hunt, deputy director and head of the Research Development and Collaborations team at the University of Bath, estimates that such roles account for about 10 per cent of the team’s service. However, though the team gets involved in only a fifth of grant proposals, they “have supported nearly 40 per cent of the value of this year’s awards—around £20 million”, he says.

Even so, it’s difficult to attribute a successful application to a development office’s input. This makes practitioners wary of taking the credit. “It is hard to attribute increases in success rates to any one element,” says Linsey Dickson, research funding and liaison manager at Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh.

For Justine Daniels, head of research development at the University of Sheffield, proactive engagement with funders is vital. They discuss schemes and applications and listen to feedback “that principal investigators can’t always hear”. As a result, Sheffield’s Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council applications have become more in tune with the council’s priorities, success rates have improved, and 20 Sheffield researchers hold fellowships from the European Research Council, up from four in 2010.

Daniels thinks that research development will increasingly become linked with post-award activity. As funders aspire to become sponsors, rather than distant bodies distributing funds, universities need to build on a relationship that begins before an award, and project managers will need to interact more closely with funders. Hunt agrees: his team has both research development managers and a research project management service that works on 14 projects worth around £17m.

Research development is a child of these straitened times, its bullish rise shadowed by the bearish withering of the economy. Budgets are tighter, and schemes have been axed or restricted by demand management. In this climate, research development has not led to a great leap forward, but it has prevented a slow slip backward.

At Kent, I believe the funding team has fostered a more positive research environment, from supporting individuals to developing an internal peer-review system. This has led to some notable wins, but more importantly has kept research—and research funding—at the top of the university’s agenda when the shutters outside have been banging in the cold wind of austerity.

A Sierra-Fuelled Dawn

The Shuttlebus, in R2D2 livery, awaits its first customers

Following the commendable example of the Universities of Bristol, Bath, Exeter and Cardiff in forming the GW4 collaboration, we are pleased to announce that Fundermental Towers University will be forming an alliance with its sister institutions in the wider Rochester area.

The research intensive universities of Fundermental Towers, Ebbsfleet White Horse (Unrampant), and Snodhurst, together with Deangate Ridge Golfing Academy, will form a strategic alliance to explore and identify opportunities where their combined research strength can more effectively address global challenges, as well as getting an impressive discount on stationery costs.

Professor Gymslip Plimsole, Vice-Chancellor of Fundermental Towers University and former contestant on ESRC's T Factor, welcomed the news. 'This is an exciting day for the wider Rochester area, and the impact will be felt right the way from The Esplanade in the West to Tinker's Alley in the East. Together the 'R2D2' collaboration of universities is more than the sum of its parts. With a total turnover in excess of £7.83(sterling), these four royal and ancient seats of learning will create an unstoppable critical mass of ground breaking research.'

'We have already commissioned a 'shuttle service' between the universities', continued Plimsole. 'I have had my son Kevin, our Transport Officer, source and purchase a 1983 Ford Sierra which is ideal for the job. We hope to paint it in the colours of all four institutions. When combined these come out as a rather fetching puce-brown. Fortunately most Sierras of that age came in that colour, so there may be no need for a repaint. See? This collaboration is already saving us money!'

'Whilst we are all excited about the bright new Sierra-fuelled dawn ahead of us,' concluded Plimsole, 'there are still a number of details to iron out. The most important of these is the biscuit selection for our intra-R2D2 meetings. I know Snodhurst have a penchant for jammie dodgers, but we at Fundermental Towers have more refined tastes. For us, it's custard creams or nothing.'

The 94 Seven Join and Leave another Mission Group

'Please sir, we're looking for a mission group to join.
And leave'

The Council for the Defence of British Universities was launched today to act as a champion of traditional academia in the face of current economic and policy challenges. Welcomed by many in the Sector, including the British Academy, the launch was marred somewhat by the fact that it was followed shortly after by news that seven of its original members had decided to leave.

'Membership of the Council for the Defence of British Universities does not reflect the type of university we are, nor sit well with the future direction of the University’s strategy,' said Bath's VC, Prof Glynis Breakwell.

A spokesman from the University of Surrey concurred. 'The decision to leave the Council has not been taken lightly and reflects the University’s response to the changing higher education environment. It will continue to seek and develop new, mutually beneficial relationships with other leading UK and global academic institutions, and intends to leave further umbrella groups as and when the opportunity presents itself.'

It is believe that all 7 founding members, who have also left the 94 Group recently, are intending to apply for membership of rival mission group, The Council for the Destruction of British Universities, otherwise known as The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

Bath to Join Million+ Shock

Coffee time in the Million+
Senior Common Room

Following its departure from the 94 Group, Bath has shocked the sector by applying to join Million+ rather than the Russell Group.
'Membership of the Russell Group does not reflect the type of university we are, nor sit well with the future direction of the University’s strategy,' said Bath's VC, Prof Glynis Breakwell. 'The Russell Group is perceived as too 'Old Skool', and we feel the future lies with Million+'.
However, it is still uncertain whether Million+ will accept Bath's membership application. 'To be honest, I'm not sure we want them,' said Million+ Chair, VC of the University of East London, and former Avengers star Prof Patrick McGhee. 'Current members will have to vote on whether we want to admit a pre-92 institution to be in our gang.'
Other universities have tried and failed to join Million+. It is understood that, when upstarts Exeter, York, Durham and QMUL joined the Russell Group in March this year Oxford, Cambridge and Imperial tried to jump ship and join the elitist Million+, but were refused.

'It's a Sad End to a Great...Um...'

Medics were today called to a house in the leafy home counties to try and resuscitate a local celebrity.

Known only as '94', the once glamorous patient had recently cut a shuffling, slightly confused figure, and friends had become increasingly concerned by his apparent lack of direction.

'He used to corner people at parties,' confided one university, that wished to remain anonymous. 'He'd plead with them to be his friend, to join him. When they didn't, he'd start to rant and swear. It was frankly embarrassing'.

Lately he had been seen at bus stops in the dodgier university towns, with a can of Special Brew, shouting at the passing cars. On more than one occasion the police had to be called, and one of his fourteen remaining friends had to bail him out.

It is believed that 94 had issues around maintaining his position in society.  When passers-by started to concentrate their funding elsewhere his friends abandoned him, and his descent accelerated.

'It's a sad end to a great..um, a great...er,' said another university, eyes darting around the room. 'By the way, have you seen Russell?'