Figures behind the Figures: Prof Paul Allain

Each term I feature a different Kent award winner in the Research Services newsletter, looking at their research and discussing their career path and funding track record. Earlier in the year I featured Prof John Batchelor. Dr This time the spotlight falls on Prof Paul Allain in the School of Arts.  

Few can say that they cut their research teeth by slipping under the Berlin Wall in the 1980s to join a Polish theatre group travelling to the provinces to perform. But Paul Allain, Professor of Theatre and Performance, did just that.

He had been a jobbing actor in London, but had signed up to do a PhD at Goldsmiths to explore the physical performance styles for which Polish theatre was known at the time. He subsequently worked as a movement director, using knowledge gained from his training with actors such as Jude Law and Simon Russell Beale.

Grants Factory 2016/17: Essential Elements of a Successful Application

Prof Mick Tuite

We’ve almost finalised the programme of Grants Factory and Early Career Researcher Network events for 2016/17.  More details will be available soon, and a full listing will be in Research Active, which will go out in mid-October.

The first event will look at the ‘essential elements of a successful application’. 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. This session will look at these, and will provide insights into how to get them right.

ECR Network: How to Engage the Public with your Research

The second Early Career Researcher Network event of this term will take place on Thursday 4 February between 12noon and 2pm, and will focus on how to engage the public with your research.

The idea of engaging the public with your research has becoming increasingly important over recent years, and was given added impetus with the introduction of ‘impact’ in 2008. Impact was measured in the last REF, and rumour has it that it will be even more important in the next exercise. But what do we mean by impact, public engagement, outreach and public involvement? What is the difference between these terms that are often used synonymously? And how can academics ensure that they are maximising this important element of their work?

This session will be led by Prof Paul Allain (Arts) and Dr Vicky Mason (SPS), both of whom have had considerable experience in outreach, engagement and impact. The new Impact and Engagement Officer, Maddy Bell, will also be on hand to discuss people’s ideas. However, as ever the ECRN session is an opportunity to talk to others at the same point in their career, to share your experience, and to offer help and advice to each other.

Lunch will be provided. The event is free and open to all, but places are limited so please let me know if you intend to come along. If you would like to come, I will ask you to draft a brief outline paragraph of your research and (if appropriate) any public engagement plans you have, so that these can be the focus of small-group discussions.

Early Career Researcher Network: 2015-16 Programme Announced

Making links, forming networks

The ECR Network exists to offer mutual support to academics at the beginning of their careers. The sessions below will run in the Spring Term, and complement the Grants Factory workshops and Graduate School research development training programme. There will also be an opportunity to meet others informally and share the highs and lows of getting started in academia; more details on this soon.

I’ll send more detail about these events closer to the time, but do make a note in your diary if you plan to come along. To whet your appetite I've included links below to notes I took when any of these sessions have been run previously. 

It's Good to Talk

Bob: it's good to talk

To some, getting feedback is a no-brainer. To others, it's as alien as the moons of Jupiter. Wednesday's Early Career Researcher Network meeting looked at the reason why feedback was essential, and how applicants should seek and use it.

Prof Paul Allain kicked off by outlining why feedback was important:

• It's a chance to test ideas, even if it's just a 'corridor chat' with a colleague;
• It 'depersonalises' your research. Whilst your work is personal to you, it also plays a part in the wellbeing of the department and the University. Sharing your ideas with others helps to move it from the personal to a more objective 'commodity.'
• It's an opportunity to consider other, unimagined options for your research;
• It gives you a chance to benefit from more experienced colleagues;
• It allows you to hone and clarify your ideas before it's too late.

However, feedback should be sought in good time. Paul suggested that the whole process could take up to two months, and longer if there was a need for more discussion and redrafting. 

He finished by highlighting some of the reasons why people avoid seeking feedback. These included a fear of criticism and of IP theft, and a desire for perfectionism. Ultimately you need to develop a thick skin; your research will be improved as a result of external comment, and the chances of someone stealing your ideas is actually very slim.

Prof Darren Griffin took over. Your research, he suggested, was like your children: to you its fabulous clever and handsome, devastatingly interesting and packed full of potential. However, to others it's a snotty-nosed, ill-mannered, incoherent mess. 

Unfortunately perception is reality. It doesn't make a difference how good you think you are, or even how good - objectively - your research is. It's about the presentation of that research, of selling it to the reviewers and panellists. If they can't understand it or can't see its worth, they won't be interested. Darren was quite frank: the process of selecting applications to be funded was 'shallower and more formulaic than you think.' 

He finished by drawing a Darwinian analogy. Feedback allows people to see how they should change, and those who adapt to take on board the comments are the ones who get funding. They are the ones who 'survive'.

The slides and notes from the talks are available on the Kent SharePoint site. 

Essential Elements of a Good Application

Kent's Essential Elements. If only we could bottle it.
And put a Clown Fish on the label.

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 speakers for last week’s Grants Factory session came from very different disciplines, but it was their diverse backgrounds which was their strength: it showed that, whether you’re applying to the AHRC or the BBSRC, you need to understand these key elements. Paul Allain is Professor of Theatre and Performance in the School of Arts, and Mick Tuite is Professor of Molecular Biology in the School of Biosciences.

For Mick, there are three elements that make a project fundable:

·         Firstly, it must ask an important question;

·         Secondly, it must offer a realistic chance of a solution within the time;

·         Finally, it must be run by someone who knows what they’re doing.

Demonstrating these three elements should be the main aim of your proposal.  The application itself is a complex patchwork of sections, but all of these must tie together to achieve this aim.

·         Lay Summary: this is the key to the proposal. It gets the reviewer and panel interested enough to read on. It should make the case, in a few paragraphs, as to why your project is exciting, timely and crucial, what you’re going to do, and why you’re the person to do it.

·         Background: don’t spend too long on this, but make it clear that you understand the context, and show – once again – why you’re well placed to undertake the research. However, avoid too much self-citation, but do disclose preliminary data or analyses.

·         Aims & Objectives: ideally, there shouldn’t be more than five, and that there’s a logical flow between them. Give a sense of timelines, of what you’re going to do when.

·         Work Plan: the idea of ‘work packages’ is becoming more common. Each of these should have its own aim and outcome, and there should be sufficient detail in each for the reviewer to be able to judge the work. Don’t be shy about highlighting what is innovative or ground breaking. Be ambitious but realistic.

Paul took over to look at the essential language of the application. He made the analogy of seeing a bank manager. You don’t need to justify why you need a house, but you do need to show that you can handle it, that you’re the one, and you’ve got a good ‘investment’. ‘It’s the language of money’, but your proposal should also ‘tell a story’ with a clear and compelling narrative.

  

The nuts and bolts that hold this narrative together should include:

·         A clear layout, with bullet points, short sentences, paragraph breaks, spell check.

·         Questions, sub-questions, priorities. Use numbering. Show that you’ve thought it through.

·         Diagrams, visual representations for timelines. If they’ve looked at hundreds of applications, they will be drawn to it.

·         Frames and signposts – create flow and interlink phrases. Show that you have control over the process.

·         Repetition and emphasis.

·         Value for money. Applications can fall down on this, but it’s not necessarily a ‘dealbreaker’. If things cost, they cost. Think through everything you will need.

·         Milestones. Clear demarcations, progress markers.

A compelling narrative needs to be assertive.

·         Don’t hypothesise too much – research needs ‘steps towards the unimaginable’.

·         Use active verbs, not aspirational ones. Not ‘I would like to...’, or ‘perhaps I will...’ Be assertive.

·         Depict a momentum that can’t be stopped now (pilot/investigatory/preparatory project). It’s their chance to give this idea some legs.

It also needs to be certain.

·         The project team is the right balance of expertise. If you’ve got a shortcoming in any area, bring in external help.

·         The structures and timescales are sensible and achievable.

·         For your outputs, play to your strengths; make them achievable, and don’t overstretch yourself. However, there is a need for a ‘mixed economy’: academic, impact, public engagement.

Grants Factory: The Essential Elements of a Good Application

Prof Mick Tuite

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.

Prof Paul Allain

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, you need to understand these key elements. 

Paul Allain is Professor of Theatre and Performance in the School of Arts, and Mick Tuite is Professor of Molecular Biology in the School of Biosciences. Using real life examples, they will share their experience and knowledge, and you should come away from the session with the basic tools for constructing a successful proposal.

The event will take place at 2pm on  12 December  2012 in Woolf Seminar Room 6. It is free, and refreshments will be provided, but do let me know if you intend to come along.

The full Grants Factory programme is available on the SharePoint website, together with slides and notes from all recent events. Notes from the ECR Network meeting last week have now been posted on the blog.

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.

Fellowships Applications: Notes from the Grants Factory

‘I looked at the criteria and thought, ‘that’s me!’’ Prof Darren Griffin kicked off the latest Grants Factory event by highlighting the importance of ‘fitting’ the funder’s scheme. The event focused on fellowship funding, and Darren was talking about his experience of applying for a BBSRC Career Development Fellowship.

Fellowships offer more flexibility and freedom than standard project grants, but both you and your research have to be ripe for it. To do so you have to piece together the past, present and future of your research, and demonstrate its momentum and trajectory.

Prof Paul Allain continued by highlighting the necessary ‘craft’ in preparing a fellowship application:

• Read the guidance, but also read the guidance for the funder’s other schemes so that you can understand the specific aims, and specific requirements, of the fellowship. Where the funder has stated their ‘strategic priorities’ make sure that your fellowship fits with them and, ideally, show them how it does. Quote their Delivery Plan back at them;
• It’s all about the person, stupid: highlight your ‘pedigree’, and how previous work, publications and practice lead inevitably to this fellowship. Show how you are the person, the only person, who can deliver on this research. Create the picture;
• Use diagrams and timelines. This both breaks up the text (see below), but also gives a sense of certainty and deliverability – making the ‘picture’ more believable;
• In terms of the language, keep it simple. No jargon. Check and double check for typos. Make the format clear, with paragraph breaks and bullet points. You’re not writing for an academic journal, and the requirements are different here. As Paul said, ‘you can’t be too subtle.’ Use frames and signposts, interlinked phrases, repetition and emphasis;
• Don’t hypothesise: what are you actually going to do? Avoid hesitancy and conjecture, and use active verbs. You want to develop a sense of a momentum that can’t be stopped, and that you’re ready to go if they give the word.

As with all funding, you’ve got to think of the peer review panel members on the train, rattling towards London for the panel meeting. They’re reading through applications for the first time. There’s someone barking into a mobile phone next to them, and a child bouncing on the seat in front of them. The conductor’s coming down the aisle in one direction, and the refreshment trolley down the aisle in the other. Take pity on them, and keep your application simple, realistic and compelling. They need to know quickly and clearly:

• Who are you? What's your research? Why now? (‘Tickets from Birmingham New Street, please’)
• Why should I care about any of it? (‘Can you hear me? We’re just going through a tunnel...hello?’)
• Okay, okay, so you're right for the fellowship - but what are you actually going to do - and can you succeed? (‘Mum! Muuuuum!’)
• How are you going to tell people about your findings? (‘Tea, coffee, hot chocolate?’)

If you can do that, and keep their attention amongst all those distractions – well, yours is the fellowship, and all that’s in it. As Kipling very nearly said.

Grants Factory: Making a Successful Fellowship Application

Prof. Paul Allain (School of Arts) and Prof. Darren Griffin (School of Biosciences) will lead a new Grants Factory workshop on Monday 13 June on how to make a successful Fellowship application.

Both Paul & Darren have exceptional track records in attracting research funding from a wide variety of sources - their diverse backgrounds will ensure that the workshop appeals to staff in all 3 Faculties.

The workshop will cover presenting yourself and your proposed project in the best possible light and will include a practical session.

It runs from 11.00-2.00pm and includes lunch. Places are limited so contact Lynne Bennett as soon as possible if you would like to participate.

Lone Researchers: Designing a Fundable Project

Prof. Paul Allain and Prof. Elizabeth Mansfield will lead a new Grants Factory workshop on Tuesday 22 June - on how to take a research idea and turn it into a fundable project.

Both Elizabeth and Paul have exceptional track records in attracting research funding from a wide variety of sources - although neither work within fields where project-based research is a necessary component of a successful research career.

Consequently this workshop should appeal particularly to any academic who feels that their research topics and methods do not fit the standard 'aims/questions/methods/dissemination' project structure required by funders. Staff at all levels and using any methodological approach (from archive research through interview-based projects to modelling) will find this session useful.

The workshop runs from 11.00-3.00pm and includes lunch. Places are limited so let me know as soon as possible if you would like to participate.

'A brilliant concept poorly explained has no chance'

At his masterclass last month Prof Paul Allain gave a very useful insight into the language which you should use when preparing a grant application. He highlighted the multiple different readers your proposal has to be seen (and understood) by, and gave pointers to help in this, including:

• Use a clear layout -eg bullet points, short sentences, paragraph breaks, signposts, diagrams
• Use repetition and emphasis, but be economic and brief
• Learn 'the language of funding', and follow the AHRC's suggested format.

His full slides are available on the Research Services website.