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.

Involving End Users in Your Research

Involving the end users in the design and management of research projects has become increasingly important . It is no longer acceptable to run projects in which participants don’t have a voice. But how does this work? How do you identify potential users? What are the potential pitfalls or problems, and what benefits can you expect? The latest Grants Factory session took two very different case studies and looked at the difficulties –but also the significant benefits – of involving users in research.

Case Study One: Research for Patient Benefit

Annette King

The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) has been a strong advocate for ‘patient and public involvement’ (PPI), and has established an advisory group, INVOLVE, to advocate greater participation. Users should be engaged at all stages of a project as ‘active partners’, and not just as ‘subjects’. This engagement can range from ‘consultation’, to ‘collaboration’, to ‘user-led’, where the service users themselves set the research agenda.

Annette King described a ‘collaborative’ project funded by the NIHR’s Research for Patient Benefit scheme. The project, led by Eve Hutton of Canterbury Christ Church, was a study into the effectiveness of an education programme for parents and teachers responsible for the postural care needs of disabled children. This had been developed with users, including the parents and children themselves. One such was Judi Mortimore, who had helped the project team in identifying the research questions, had been active in the management of the project, had developed participant information resources and techniques, and had helped to disseminate the findings.

With her input, the team had been far more effective at engaging with those who would benefit from the research. Neither Annette nor Judi shied away from the fact that, at times, the relationship had been difficult: there had been misunderstandings and differences of opinion. Nevertheless, the research was stronger and more robust as a result, and the findings more useful and applicable.

Case Study Two: Age Discrimination

Dr Hannah Swift

The second case study looked at a different kind of user: those who commission and use the research. Dr Hannah Swift, a Research Associate working with Prof Dominic Abrams, explained how a small, straightforward piece of research commissioned by Age Concern a decade ago had led to a broad portfolio of interrelated projects for Age UK, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the European Social Survey, and the Department for Work and Pensions. This portfolio had been incredibly fruitful for both the academics and the users of the research.

Prof Dominic Abrams

Throughout the process, Prof Abrams and his team had to be both reactive and proactive. On the one hand, they had to react to specific requests from external bodies, and consider the benefit (and dangers) of working with them.  On the other, they had to make contact with organisations that might be interested in their work, finding the most appropriate people, and making the links.

Whilst their experience had been positive, Abrams and Swift highlighted some issues that need to be considered before entering into collaborations with external users:

• What do they want to get out of the relationship?
•  What do you want to get from it? Access to data? Or further opportunities?
•  Make sure you protect your intellectual property.
• Make sure that you get all necessary ethical approvals.
• What is the timeframe? Deadlines are often tighter than you may be used to.
• How will you deal with any conflict outcomes? In other words, what will you do if the research doesn’t tell the ‘story’ that the user was hoping for?
• How will you get the research into a ‘useable’ form? The user will probably want the findings in a more accessible and useable form than an academic article.
• What will happen if the research is not used? The organisation might be happy with your work, but the report may be shelved for political or other reasons. What will you do?
• What will happen after the report is written and the relationship is formally finished?
• Make sure you have more than one contact within the organisation. People move on, and you don’t want the relationship to dwindle when they do.

Above all, for both of these case studies, it was clear that good communication, openness and honesty were key. Expectations should be managed, and both sides need to be clear about what can and can’t be done.

Slides from the session will be available on the Research Services website shortly.

Grants Factory: Involving End Users in your Research

12 Feb, 2-4pm

Keynes Seminar Room 4

Annette King

Prof Dominic Abrams

Involving the end users or beneficiaries of research in its design and management has become increasingly important recently. It is no longer acceptable, in projects that involve human participants, to run projects in which those participants don’t have a voice. Health funders in particular, such as the NIHR, specify that the public and patients be fully involved in the projects. In other areas, too, ‘participatory design’ should be seen as best practice.

But how does this work? How do you identify potential participants? What are the potential pitfalls or problems, and what benefits can you expect? This session will hear from two people with a strong track record in working productively with the public: Prof Dominic Abrams (Psychology) is the Director of the Centre for the Study of Group Processes, and has led a number of externally funded projects looking at issues of ageing and inclusiveness, and Annette King works for the NIHR’s Research Design Service, working on public health and health service studies, and advising academics on the design of projects. 

The session is free, open to all staff, and tea/coffee will be available. Do let me know if you intend to come so that I can get a sense of numbers.

ECR Network: Relationships with Senior Staff

The next Early Career Researcher Network event will take place next week (Wednesday 13 March, 12-2pm, Cornwallis SR6), and will look at ‘Relationships with Senior Staff’.

What? You want me to take all your lectures
and seminars again?

ECRs have very different experiences of working with senior staff. Some have had very supportive mentors and managers, who guide them and help them, lightening their teaching load, discussing and developing their research plans, and providing funding so that they can attend conferences etc. For others, the experience is less positive, and some feel that unreasonable demands are being made of them, resulting in a sense of isolation and burnout.

Led by Prof Dominic Abrams (Psychology) and Prof Ray Laurence (SECL), this workshop will explore how you can best develop positive relationships with senior staff, and what to do if you feel that the expectations of others are unrealistic.

The workshop is free and open to all, and lunch will be provided. However, places are limited so do get in touch as soon as possible if you wish to come along.

Concentration: the Agenda that Won't Go Away

I responded here to rumblings from Phil Willis on the need to concentrate research funding on the favoured few. Prof Dominic Abrams did likewise here. He highlighted the inherent contradiction in the messages coming from government. When it comes to investing in commercial organisations, the government emphsises 'the value and role of small businesses and enterprises as the basis for growth.It is argued that there should be fewer barriers and thresholds for these businesses to compete for contracts, for work and to develop - quite the reverse of concentration'. Likewise, in the finance sector, 'most stockbrokers like to spread their investments in terms of size and risk, because, over the long term, this is the most profitable strategy.'

So why is it so different for research funding? 'Critical mass' is the usual justification used by advocates of concentration. We need to be big in order to compete globally. We need to be pool our resources, and not salami slice the limited budget. But this, I would argue, is bad for risk taking, creativity, and innovation. The system is already skewed towards safe, empire-sustaining research (incidentally, it's worth having a look at Tim Harford's piece on Mario Capecchi in relation to this); what we need is more funding (including small-scale funding) for risk-taking pilot projects, wherever they originate.

Which is why it was so refreshing to read Professor Les Ebdon's counterblast to concentration in the Guardian yesterday. His article marked the publication of Research that Matters (pdf) by the thinktank Million+. This highlights the fact that modern (or post-92) universities get relatively little central research funding, but manage to leverage a great deal of activity and investment from this. Why should more be taken from them? Wouldn't it be better to invest more, rather than less, in pockets of excellence, wherever they're found, rather than continuing to subsidise the large, inefficient, risk-averse behemoths?

Prof Ebdon finishes his piece by pointing to notable - and perhaps surprising - successes, including research to tackle disease in sub-Saharan Africa that was undertaken at the University of Greenwich, and has been voted one of the 10 most important discoveries to be made in a UK university in the last 60 years.

I'm sure the 'concentration' juggernaut will continue to rumble on, but we shouldn't accept it as a done deal. The more that people question it, and highlight its failings, the better for the long term health of UK research.