Research Active Vol 11 Issue 3 May 2017

1

RESEARCH PRIZES 2017

The Newsletter of University of Kent Research Services, Vol 11, Issue 3, June 2017

Research Active

Image: Matt Wilson

RESEARCH PRIZES 2017 At the third annual Research Prizes ceremony in April sixteen awards were handed out for exceptional research achievements, including publication in top-ranked journals, high citation rates, significant funding awards and impact through public engagement and policy development.

The ceremony was hosted by Prof Catherine Richardson (Associate Dean, Humanities), and the awards were presented by the DVC Prof Philippe De Wilde.

Prof De Wilde commended the high quality of applications received and congratulated the winners on their success. “The nominations highlighted the diversity of research, and the impressive achievements for which Kent academics and stu-

dents are responsible. Such excellence made selecting 16 winners particularly difficult, and as well as congratulating the winners I would like to thank all those who put their work forward for consideration. It has shown me how much excellent work is being undertaken, how many publications and grants are being secured, and how many accolades are being won.”

The Research Prizes scheme has grown considerably since it was launched in the University’s fiftieth year (2015), and this year 44 applications from 13 of the University’s Schools were submitted.

Next year’s competition will open in October 2017 with a deadline in January 2018, and an award ceremony in March 2018.

Want to know more?

Citations and brief summaries of all this year’s winners are available p8-12.

For more information about the scheme or next year’s competition, contact Phil Ward (p.ward@kent.ac.uk, xtn 7748) 2017 Winners on the front page include (L to R): Prof Darren Griffin, Dr Beth Breeze Ms Dee Goddard, Dr Karen Baker, Dr Rory Loughnane, Prof Adrian Podoleanu, Prof Martin Hammer, Dr Alessia Buscaino, Dr Becky O’Connor, Dr Jennifer Hiscock, Prof Toni Williams and (Dr Donal Casey for the Bingo Team), and Dr Zoe Davies

MANIFEST PROMISES

What are the major parties promising for research? We take a look at the jam tomorrow.

Conservatives The Conservatives promise to double investment in research and development to 2.4% of GDP within ten years, with a further increase to 3% at an indefinite later stage.

This includes additional funding from the international development budget: they will recommit to spending 0.7% of gross national income on aid to poorer countries, so the Global Challenges Research Fund looks set to stay.

There are also positive signs on enabling continued mobility and immigration rights of scientists and other highly skilled workers. However, for students it’s more bleak: they will remain in net migration figures, and ‘we will toughen the visa requirements for [them]’.

Finally, there is little in the manifesto about Brexit, although it does say

that ‘there may be specific European programmes in which we might want to participate and if so, it will be reasonable that we make a contribution - there is still good reason to hope that this includes research programmes such as Horizon 2020 and even Erasmus+.’

Labour Like the Conservatives, Labour has pledged to increase R&D spending to 3% of GDP. However, their take on students is different: they promise to abolish tuition fees and take them out of net migration figures.

In terms of EU funding, Labour promise ‘to ensure that the UK maintains our leading research role by seeking to stay part of Horizon 2020 and its successor programmes and by welcoming research staff to the UK…[and] that Britain remains part of the Erasmus scheme.’

2

Liberal Democrats The Lib Dems promise to protect the science and research budget and ‘double innovation and research spending across the economy.’ Part of this would be an unidentified amount of funding for R&D in green technologies.

However, the headline for the Lib Dems is Brexit: the manifesto confirms that the party will be campaigning for the UK to remain in the EU, and failing that, to remain in EU research programmes including Horizon 2020.

Want to know more?

Both Research Professional and WonkHE have good coverage of the election, politics and HE:  http://bit.ly/RefProf and  http://wonkhe.com/

Research Funding, Jan-Mar 2017 For the last five years we’ve provided a broad overview of the distribution of awards between faculties and between funders. However, I’m always open to suggestions as to what would be useful. Would success rates, for instance, be interesting? Or totals for schools and faculties? Or would you rather concentrate on individuals, as in the list below? Any thoughts, do drop me a line; details on p5.

Largest Individual Awards (titles of projects listed below) Social Sciences: Dr Freya St John (SAC) £22,174 from Natural England

Sciences: Dr Konstantinos Sirlantzis (EDA) £723,105 from the EU Interreg IV Channel Programme

Humanities: Dr David Stirrup (English) £462,769 from the AHRC

FULL LIST OF AWARDS: 1 Jan – 31 March 2017* Faculty of Humanities Kent School of Architecture Nikolopoulou

Urban Albedo Computation in High Latitude Locations: An EPSRC Experimental Approach

£328,570

School of Arts Trimingham

The Atkinson Residency

The Atkinson

£5,495

£5,126

School of English Bolaki

Women's Writing and Health: The Material Power of Artists’ Books

British Academy

Stirrup

Beyond the spectacle: Native North American presence in Britain

AHRC

Cooper

School of European Culture and Languages Alexander von Celan and Heidegger Fifty Years after Todtnauberg Humboldt Foundation Non-Faculty

£2,396

Pitt

Does engaging students in dialogic feedback improve their utilisation of feedback?

British Academy

£5,200

Regulation of inflammation in glomerular disease by thymo- Kidney Research sin-B4; a novel treatment for patients UK

£122,577

£462,671

Faculty of Sciences Medway School of Pharmacy

Vasilopoulou

Continued over 3

School of Biosciences/Centre for Industrial Biotechnology

Warren

Partnership to develop compartmentalisation technology

BBSRC

£30,613

Garrett

Investigating new drugs for the treatment of breast cancer

Breast Cancer Kent

Kad

Reconstitution of nucleotide excision repair at the single molecule level in vitro and in vivo

BBSRC

£325,746

Michaelis

Identification of algal extracts with anti-cancer activity

BBSRC

£15,218

£7,050

School of Computing Chu

Applying statistical thermodynamics to cell computers

Royal Society

Arief

Continuing GCHQ Summer Internship Work

GCHQ

£10,359

Hernandez Castro

Oxford Martin School Programme on the Illegal Wildlife Trade

Oxford University

£10,000

King

RI2 Business Continuity Case for Semantic Malware MatchGCHQ ing (SeMaMatch) Project

£29,567

Arief

Red-Blue Team Approach for securing IoT Operating Systems

£37,500

GCHQ

£9,976

School of Engineering and Digital Arts Batchelor

Passively Powered Non-invasive Human Body Sensing on Bio-Degradable Conformal Substrates

Sirlantzis

Assistive Devices for empowering disAbled People through Interreg V robotic Technologies (ADAPT)

£723,105

Gao

Low cost wideband passive and active antennas for THz wireless communications

£157,212

EPSRC

CHIST-ERA

£649,398

School of Computing Deano Cabrera

Painleve equations: analytical properties and numerical comEPSRC putation

Pech

Young Researchers in Mathematics 2017

London Mathematical Society

Tapadar

Insurance Loss Coverage

Radfall Charitable Trust

£95,541 £2,242 £10,300

School of Physical Sciences Moeller

Entanglement and topology of time-reversal symmetric fracEPSRC tional topological insulators

Bristowe

Designing functionality at oxide interfaces

4

Royal Commission for the Exhibition of 1851

£101,003

£22,313

Faculty of Social Sciences Centre for the Study of Higher Education

Parkinson

The values of Turkish music education: an analysis of the curricula and practices of university music departments in contemporary Turkey

British Academy

£2,640

British Academy

£7,860

Socio-Legal Studies Association

£2,000

Kent Business School Matousek

The Global Financial Crisis and Spillovers of US Monetary Policy: Lessons from Vietnam Kent Law School

Piska

Power, Property and the Law of Trusts Revisited: Roger Cotterell's Contribution to Critical Trusts

Fudge

Unacceptable Forms of Work: Global Dialogue/Local InnoESRC vation

£1,809

School of Anthropology and Conservation Smith

Thames to Thanet

Natural England

Roberts

Oxford Martin School Programme on the Illegal Wildlife Trade

Oxford University

St John

Questionnaire development for Hen harrier brood manageNatural England ment trial

£3,000 £10,000

£22,174

School of Economics Leite Lopez de Leon

Does Brexit trigger racism on individuals? An Experiment among British and Europeans residents in the UK

British Academy

£14,322

School of Psychology Abrams

Short

Billings Forder

Bradshaw

The psychology of social unity: building good relations through theory-based arts interventions

People United

School of Social Policy, Sociology and Social Research Clinical Research NIHR Clinical Research Network (CRN) Funding for ReNetwork: Kent, search Manager Surrey and Sussex Kent Community Evaluation of the Kent and Medway Buurtzhorg pilot Health NHS Foundation Trust National Institute Devolving Health and Social Care Manchester Proposal of Health Research (NIHR) Piloting evaluation of Early Positive Approaches to Support

Royal Mencap Society

£6,000

£11,215

£19,377 £7,239

£5,008

*The list given above are for all awards of £1,000 or more. They do not include extensions or supplements ResearchActive is edited by Phil Ward. Contact him for more information or clarification on any of the items in this edition: p.ward@kent.ac.uk, xtn7748. For the latest from the world of research funding, go to fundermental.blogspot.com, or Twitter @unikentresearch.

5

The Figures behind the Figures A regular look at the work of those who have won grants at Kent Jenny’s research focuses on integrated care. She evaluates the effectiveness - or otherwise - of the links between the health and social care systems. Whilst potentially offering huge benefits, integrated care suffers from ‘initiative fatigue.’ ‘Each government introduces a ‘new’ way of Prof Jenny Billings integrated care working,’ Centre for Health Service Studies, SSPSSR she says. ‘Often there’s not enough time for these to bed in and for us When I met Jenny Billings in Nero’s to really understand their effectiveshe was feeling the first effects of ness before another one is introBrexit. ‘In the past I’ve had an aver- duced and the landscape shifts.’ age of five offers of Horizon 2020 As ever, Jenny accepts the chalcollaborations per year,’ she said. lenge this presents and has found a ‘Now I’ve got none. Everyone’s way of making a virtue of it. She has nervous and waiting to see how been involved in developing things shape up.’ ‘implementation science’ methodolHowever, Jenny’s track record has ogy for integrated care evaluation proved that she never accepts a which focuses on the change prosituation passively. When faced cesses that are needed and allows with a challenge she finds a way to researchers to gather evidence and engage with and overcome it. As provide analysis more quickly. This nervousness and uncertainty seeps new way of working is catching into her European networks she is hold across the sector and producgoing out and making sure that she ing interesting results. What’s is still a strong presence in her dis- more, it’s leading to fruitful collabocipline in Europe. She’s proactively rations and funding. Her latest proengaging with the European Social ject, a £1.8m collaboration with the Network, taking part in consulta- University of Manchester, will use tions with the European Parliament the methodology in analysing and reviewing proposals for the EU ‘Vanguards.’ funding programmes. ‘You’ve got to Vanguards are £3m-£9m collaborakeep wired in and making yourself tions aimed at more effectively linkindispensable,’ she says. ing health and social care providers What is an ORCID? An ‘ORCID’ is a little like a National Insurance number for you as an author: it’s a unique identification that prevents confusion between different authors with similar names.

Once you’ve got one it will belong to you throughout your career, and all of your publications can link to it. You will get the attribution you deserve.

It’s a good idea, so the Univer-

sity has said that all research active staff must have one.

How do I get one?

It takes 30 seconds. Click on https://orcid.org/register and follow the prompts.

How do I link it to KRIMSON?  Go to KRIMSON, and make sure you’re logged on as ‘Researcher.’  Go to ‘My settings’ by clicking 6

within primary care. There are currently 50 of them nationally and, although only introduced in 2015, they are already being superseded by the next initiative: Sustainability and Transformation Partnerships (STPs). Jenny raises an eyebrow and smiles.

However, despite the ever shifting landscape and lack of government consistency, Jenny remains positive about her work. ‘I love being at this University. It’s the best place to work. The flexibility, support and commitment is energising.’ This is particularly so in her unit, the Centre for Health Service Studies, where, after a period of uncertainty and difficulty following the departure on health grounds of the former Director, Prof Andy Alaszewski, it has found stability, strength and vision under the new Director, Prof Stephen Peckham.

Since his arrival she has felt valued and trusted again, and this has resulted most recently in her promotion to chair. Her golden touch in securing grants has returned, and in the last three years her success rate has bounced back from 20% to 63%. Her new position has helped raise her profile and, in turn, nurture more relationships which will, in time, lead to further collaborations and work.

‘I’m never going to retire,’ she jokes. ‘I want to do something that challenges me everyday.’ Working in Europe after the Referendum certainly does that, and she will continue to engage, question - and secure funding - for many years to come. on the orange arrow next to your name.  Click on ‘Connect to you ORCID account’ and sign in.  Your ORCID will be automatically saved.

Want to know more?

Have a look at https://orcid.org/.

For help and support contact B et t y Wo essn e r: b.woessner@kent.ac.uk

The European Research Council is Europe’s most prestigious funder. It offers career-making grants for the best individual researchers with the most exciting ideas. There are no priorities, themes or consortia.

Three of the main schemes are opening soon, and now is the time to think about planning your application. To help with this we will be running a workshop on 28 June 2017. In the meantime we summarise the parameters of the schemes below, and provide some hints and tips from last year’s workshops.

ERC

Upcoming Grant Schemes Deadline

Success rate

Number awarded per year

Max value

Scheme

Type

Career stage

Advanced grants

Individual

Established career

19 May 2017

31 Aug 2017

14%

280

€2.5m

Synergy grants

Teams

Any

19 July 2017

14 Nov 2017

-

25-30

€10m

Individual

Early Career Academics & postdocs PhD: 2-7 years ago

26 July 2017 (tbc)

18 Oct 2017 (tbc)

12%

350

€1.5m

ERC Starting grants

Hints & Tips Last year we played host to Maribel Glogowski from the UK Research Office in Brussels (UKRO), and Psychology’s Dr Heather Ferguson, who had recently won an ERC Starting Grant. Between them they offered the following hints and tips:  Give yourself plenty of time to write it and revise it. Try to clear your diary, and talk to your Head about what you need.  Convey excitement in both the application and the interview.  Think big. Think about what you would like to achieve, money and politics were no object.  Look at previous applications. Pick out the best bits, and make yours easy to read, both in the language and the format.  Use the right language and include the right information. Check the UKRO guidelines and reviewer criteria. In addition don't be shy about shouting about

















Opening

your brilliance.

Explain any UK-specific terminology. The panel might not know about the REF, or understand the significance of specific UK funders.

Offer a clear, concise workplan with intermediate goals.

Make the application a pleasure to read, and break up the text with figures and graphs.

Explain clearly:  what each member of the team is doing.  how you will manage and disseminate your project.

Be realistic in the budget and justify your resources. Include everything, , and remember that costs rise and exchange rates might fall.

Get feedback from a variety of critical people, but ultimately trust your own instincts.

Update your online profile, and keep it up to date. Once you submit you are 'public', and reviewers will probably seek you out Submit your application continually. you can press 7





Duration 5 years 6 years

5 years

submit as many times as you want, and each new submission will overwrite what you've written before. Having put in all the work, it's best to submit whatever you have rather than lose it to a last minute technical glitch before the deadline.

Prepare for the interview by looking at previous interviews PowerPoints, and arranging mock interviews, making sure that those taking part robustly challenge you and your work. The panel is strict about timing, so practice and make sure it’s no more than10 minutes.

And remember: the vast majority are rejected. Accept the process for what it is: a chance to dream, and to imagine what can be, but always have in mind a Plan B.

Want to know more?

Contact Carolyn Barker to join the workshop (c.m.barker47@kent.ac.uk). A full version of these notes is available at http://bit.ly/KentERC

UNIVERSITY PRIZES Advanced Research Prize

Starting Research Prize

Prof Adrian Podoleanu Physical Sciences

Dr Beth Breeze SSPSSR

Awarded in recognition of outstanding achievements in developing the field of optical coherence tomography (OCT), founding a strong and successful research group, and Prof Podoleanu’s record of internationally leading publications, patent protection and extensive grant in-

come.

Prof Podoleanu produced the first en-face OCT image of the human retina in 1996, and has since developed an international reputation in the field. He has attracted more than 30 grants worth over £6m, including three European Research Council awards, two Marie Curie training sites, and three major EPSRC grants.

In nominating him for the Prize, his Head of School Prof Mark Green stated that ‘Prof Adrian Podoleanu is one of the leading physicists in the country. I don’t believe there is anyone in the history of science at the University of Kent that has done more to increase the international research profile of the University. As the Royal Society and the UK government has recognised this so publically in 2015, he unquestionably deserves accolade from Kent in the form of the University Advanced Research Prize this year.’

Awarded in recognition of Dr Breeze’s collective body of research in helping to found a new field of academic study in the UK: Philanthropic Studies.

Philanthropic income annually contributes c.£10 billion of funding to over 150,000 registered charities. Despite its financial and social importance, there has been little substantive research on philanthropy, and many important questions require further scrutiny. Dr Breeze’s research has begun to fill an important void, building a new field of Philanthropic Studies, which is bringing new research funding and fee-paying students to Kent, as well as achieving significant impact.

In nominating her, Prof Miri Song, the Director of Research in SSPSSR, said that ‘Beth has made possible the establishment and financial sustainability of Kent’s Centre for Philanthropy. She has an excellent portfolio of research outputs. Her research impact is outstanding.

She has firmly established herself as the key expert in the field of philanthropy and charity and played a key role in establishing philanthropic studies.. For this I believe she should be awarded the research awards.’

Consolidator Research Prize

Postgraduate Research Prize

Dr Zoe Davies Anthropology and Conservation

Dr Rebecca O’Connor Biosciences

Awarded in recognition of strong leadership, influential publications and an outstanding record in securing research income, allowing her to develop a crossdisciplinary area of research that has led to highly productive interdisciplinary collaborations culminating in a prestigious £1.6m European Research Council fellowship.

Dr Zoe Davies is an applied landscape ecologist by training, who uses empirical data to address questions of importance to conservation management and policy.

She has secured over £3m of funding since arriving at Kent, and her recent ERC grant is the second largest fellowship ever awarded to a Kent academic.

In nominating her, Prof Jim Groombridge said that ‘she has had an impeccable career, shining on a number of fronts, including grant income and publication record, but also in nurturing an ever-increasing research team.

Dr Davies has achieved such an exemplary course so far that it is with great anticipation that the School awaits the next chapter of her career to unfold.’

8

Awarded in recognition of an exceptional publication record, including a potential 4* publication, and achievements far beyond those normally expected of a doctoral student.

As part of a project in the Griffin Laboratory Becky O’Connor examined the links between dinosaur and modern avian genomes. The work has proved that a typical avian genome structure became established much earlier than previously thought. In addition, she has been involved in the development of a pig chromosome translocation screening service.

In nominating Becky her supervisor Prof Darren Griffin stated that ‘ she has had an outstanding year. To get a single 4* paper as a result of a PhD would be considered exceptional. For it to be the centrepiece of a suite of 5 papers has me reaching for superlatives.

‘Becky was awarded her PhD “without corrections”.

Such achievement could not have been better deserved and thus the same would apply to the award of a University prize for best postgraduate researcher.’

FACULTY PRIZES Faculty Advanced Research Prizes Humanities Prof Martin Hammer (below) Arts Awarded in recognition of Prof Hammer’s significant contribution to the discipline of Art History, including the curation of major exhibitions and the resulting public engagement with his work.

Prof Hammer’s research has been pivotal in reexamining the work of a group of key British artists: Graham Sutherland, Francis Bacon, Lucien Freud and David Hockey. He has worked with the Scottish National Gallery of Modern Art and the Tate Gallery to encourage, support and mentor the next generation of researchers through AHRC Doctoral Partnerships, and has engaged with the Dulwich Picture Gallery and the Scottish National Portrait Gallery on exhibitions that have been both popular and influential.

In nominating him for the prize, Prof Aylish Wood, the Director of Research for the School of Arts, said that ‘his research outputs, curation activities and his extensive public engagement work with major galleries, make him an impressive candidate for the prize.

‘His success in persuading museums to collaborate with him on exhibitions with six figure budgets is very important to note. Though it does not stand as grant income, such a degree of investment and collaboration is only undertaken with major figures in the discipline of art history, and it is a testament to the unique and important position that Martin has in the field.’

Sciences Prof Darren Griffin (right) Biosciences Awarded in recognition of Prof Griffin’s outstanding contribution to the field, his publication and income track record, his impact activity and his achievements in nurturing and facilitating ground-breaking interdisciplinary work.

Prof Griffin is a key figure in genomic research and has made significant breakthroughs, such as the development of the first clinical application of a universal test for diagnosing disease in IVF embryos.

His publication record, research and innovation income, impact and public engagement activity all attests to his standing and achievements in the field, including over 100 publications in some of the world’s highest impact journals e.g. Science, Nature, Nature Genetics and Genome Research; £6.5m research grant income as principal investigator; the most citations for any academic in the University and the second highest h-index (SciVal); over £1m of innovation funding, the highest for any single academic in the University; the most viewed articles by journalists; and supervising 20 PhD students to completion.

In nominating him for the prize, Prof Alan Thornhill emphasised that ‘an outstanding researcher in his own right, his work in working collaboratively gives the University of Kent incredible international kudos from the point of view of the outside observer, combining excellence in social, scientific and clinical research.’

Social Sciences Prof Davina Cooper KLS Awarded in recognition of the 9

innovative methodologies, reach and impact of Prof Cooper’s book Everyday Utopias: The Conceptual Life of Promising Spaces, and the substantial track record that led up to its publication.

Prof Cooper was Director of the AHRC Research Centre for Law, Gender & Sexuality (2004-9, graded Outstanding), and has been published, cited, profiled, and translated across a wide range of disciplines, including socio-legal studies, geography, politics, anthropology, gender studies and education.

Her ground-breaking scholarship over the past fourteen years at Kent has consolidated her position as a highly influential and visionary thinker with unique capabilities to advance conceptual thinking on current debates in politics, law, social justice, and equalities.

In nominating her Prof Toni Williams, the Head of Kent Law School, stated that ‘Davina’s earlier major works established her as an extremely innovative legal and political scholar, working consistently at the forefront of her discipline by reapproaching key concepts in highly original ways through new sites of enquiry.

‘This project epitomises Davina’s originality and influence, and further evidences her leading role in the social sciences in the United Kingdom and internationally.’

Faculty Consolidator Research Prizes Humanities Dr Mattias Frey Arts Awarded in recognition of three outstanding and influential recent publications which are redefining how we understand film

Image:s Matt Wilson

criticism and art house cinema, and the achievement of a rare and prestigious Philip Leverhulme Prize.

The three books arise from two projects which explored different elements of modern cinema. The first looked at the future of film criticism in the age of the internet; the second examined why ‘outrageous’ art films are made, distributed and seen.

Based on his track record and most recent projects, Dr Frey was awarded the £100k Philip Leverhulme Prize, perhaps the highest and most prestigious award for an early career research in the humanities.

In nominating him for the Prize, his Head of School Prof Martin Hammer noted that, ‘as a researcher he is already operating at professorial level, a status he is sure to achieve very soon. His productivity is remarkable, but this does not come at the expense of the quality, impact and international reputation of his work, as testified by the extensive evidence of esteem. In addition he is an excellent all round colleague in terms of teaching, leadership and citizenship, and I thoroughly commend him for the Prize.’

Sciences

Dr Alessia Buscaino (left) Biosciences Awarded in recognition of Dr Buscaino’s establishment of a highly productive research group and her impact on a new research field that is emerging as one of the keys to unlocking how the human fungal pathogen Candida albicans operates in the human body.

Dr Buscaino is investigating the mechanisms regulating adaptation and chromosome stability of the

human fungal pathogen Candida albicans. Since joining the University she has secured almost £900,000 of competitive research funding. Her successful BBSRC New Investigator Proposal was ranked 4th out of 116 applications. The significance of her research outputs to date is demonstrated by an ‘H-index’ of 10 with almost 700 citations to date.

In nominating her Prof Colin Robinson, her Head of School, said that ‘Alessia is a highly motivated scientist who strives to be at the forefront of her research field by doing innovative and exciting science.

What is significant about her current research project is that it is addressing an aspect of fungal biology that has to date received relatively little attention, but which is rapidly emerging as one of the keys to unlocking how this fungus operates in the human body. By being willing to “think outside the box” and being receptive to the ever expanding repertoire of advanced tools and technologies available to the fungal biologist, her work is already viewed as ground breaking.’

Social Sciences The Bingo Project (Dr Kate Bedford, Dr Donal Casey, Prof Toni Williams (above) and Ms Luiza Jobim) KLS Awarded in recognition of the achievements of this exceptional and complex ESRC-funded project, and its significant impact within and beyond academia.

The Bingo Project is one of the largest grants ever won by KLS, and is the third highest award in law given by the ESRC since 2012. The team have used the resources to achieve 10

exceptional results in outputs, and in impact/public engagement, managing to exceed targets laid down in the grant.

The project used bingo – rather than the usual suspect of casinos – to fundamentally transform how we think about political economy, gender, charity, and the role of speculative play within everyday life.

In nominating the project for the award the KLS Director of Research, Dr Emilie Cloatre stated that ‘the Bingo Project is an excellent example of how vision, effective leadership, and the dedication of all members of a team make large projects successful. Dr Bedford led the project with skills and dedication, and ensured that the ambitious vision she had for the project, in terms of its outputs and impact was not only met, but exceeded. With her project, she has also played a significant role in the career development of her ECR colleagues.

‘It has reached academics across several disciplines and non-academic audiences across the UK, Europe, Canada and Brazil, and generated further international networking opportunities; it has demonstrated how excellent sociolegal research could significantly challenge pre-existing knowledge and policy strategies.’

Faculty Starting Research Prizes Humanities Dr Rory Loughnane (right) English Awarded in recognition of Dr Loughnane’s significant contribution to the landmark new critical edition of Shakespeare’s works,

including the attribution of Christopher Marlowe as the co-author of the three Henry VI plays.

The New Oxford Shakespeare is the flagship publication of Oxford University Press (OUP) in 2016-17.

The editing of Shakespeare is generally undertaken by the most senior scholars after a lifetime of teaching and research. Rory was hired as Associate Editor at the age of twenty-seven.

The launch of the New Oxford Shakespeare attracted worldwide headlines with the news of the identification of Christopher Marlowe as co-author of the three Henry VI plays. As editor of the second of these plays and co-author of the study which determined this attribution, his work was thus highlighted to a worldwide audience.

In nominating Rory, his Head of School Prof David Herd stated that ‘his work on the New Oxford Shakespeare is notable for its volume, quality, profile and the significance of its findings.

‘As this is a most significant edition of the work of a playwright of significance across the world, Dr Loughnane’s research here has shaped the way readers across the globe will understand Shakespeare as a collaborator.

Although he has made this the centre of his work, Dr Loughnane also has an impressive profile outside the New Oxford Shakespeare project.

His level of production is extremely impressive at his career level, and I would imagine makes him fairly unique amongst his peers in his field.’

Sciences Dr Jennifer Hiscock (above) Physical Sciences

Awarded in recognition of an exceptional range of achievements for an early career researcher, and the development of a novel and underutilised field in the wider scientific community.

A molecular – or covalent – bond binds electron pairs between atoms.

Dr Hiscock’s area of supramolecular chemistry examines the weaker and reversible noncovalent interactions between molecules. It was only defined as an independent field of chemistry in the mid-1980s, and is relatively underutilised due to its infancy.

Dr Hiscock’s work to date has enabled her group to synthesise molecules with potential uses including chemical decontamination, as antimicrobial agents, in understanding and disrupting bacterial membranes and in ATP detection. It has applications beyond chemistry in areas such as materials science, biology and medicine.

It has resulted in over 35 peer-reviewed journal articles, a combined citation count > 1200, an H-index of 16, and funding of over £150k.

In nominating her for the Prize, the Deputy Head of School Dr Simon Holder commented that ‘her research work is fundamentally multi-disciplinary and consequently she has been incredibly active in developing collaborations, including with Biosciences, Pharmacy, the Centre for Health Services Studies and the East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust, DSTL and Anton Paar.

SPS has now appointed Jen as a Lecturer in Chemistry in the school commencing April 2018, after the end of her Fellowship.

‘She is an incredibly enthusiastic, innovative and hard-working scientist who has a brilliant career ahead of her.’

gagement.

Dr Key’s research specialises in the interplay between the cultural and biological aspects of early human evolutionary history. His research is unique within the UK, combining the morphometric analysis of stone tool artefacts with biomechanical examinations of stone tool production and use, fracture mechanics theory, ergonomic design principles, and large-scale laboratory-based experiments.

Dr. Key recently secured a British Academy Postdoctoral Fellowship.

These are notoriously difficult to secure; applications typically have a <5% success rate, with competition in 2016 comprising +900 applications. Dr. Key’s BA Fellowship was the first ever awarded to the Faculty of Social Sciences and only the second awarded to the University as a whole.

In nominating him for the Prize, his H e a d o f S c h o o l Pr o f J i m Groombridge said that he was a unanimous choice ‘given his outstanding track record at such an early stage in his career.

‘His number of publications is well beyond what is expected from an early career researcher in biological anthropology. What Dr Key managed to achieve since obtaining his PhD in the second half of 2015 makes him a true rising star of biological anthropology, and more specifically palaeoanthropology. He wholly deserves appreciation and encouragement as it is our hope that the School will be in a position to retain such talent for the future.’

Social Sciences

Humanities

Dr Alastair Key Anthropology and Conservation Awarded in recognition of Dr Key’s impressive publication record, a prestigious and rare fellowship, and his multidisciplinary en11

Faculty Postgraduate Research Prizes Mr Luis Rocha Antunes Arts Awarded in recognition of the monograph that resulted from Mr Antunes dissertation, which has been nominated by the BAFTSS as the best monograph

of 2017, and for his work in developing an innovative symposium and research network.

Mr Antunes’ doctoral project links neuroscience and cognitive film theory with stylistic and thematic analysis to forge a new paradigm in Film Studies. The fact that his research has already been widely disseminated, cited by leading academics, and triggered new research projects in the field testifies to this, as well as to the impact of his work.

His dissertation has already been published as a book, The Multisensory Film Experience: A Cognitive Model of Experiential Film Aesthetics, which demonstrated a link between the audiovisual medium and a corresponding multisensory experience. This has created an entirely new understanding of film perception and aesthetics.

In addition, Mr Antunes founded an international research network on Arctic Cinema that emerged from an international symposium, hosted by the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, for which he won some 70k Canadian Dollars (approx. £40k), including a substantive element for his own research. He was the main organizer and event administrator.

In nominating him for the prize, his supervisor Dr Virginia Pitts said that ‘his g r o u n d breaking scholarship, his extraordinary productivity and his leadership in the field have earned him an international reputation that is simply astounding at this stage of his career, especially as his PhD is still being examined. I wholeheartedly recommend him for the Prize.’

Sciences Dr Karen Baker (above left) Biosciences

Awarded in recognition of Dr Baker’s exceptional thesis, leading to high-quality publications and excellent and productive links with industrial partners.

All cells have cytoskeletons, formed of complex networks of polymers which are essential in maintaining cell shape and required for many dynamic processes such as cell division and migration. The actomyosin cytoskeleton is one part of this network.

Despite the importance of this in multiple cellular processes, details of many of the interactions and regulatory events remain unknown. Dr Baker’s project sought to rectify this.

She significantly exceeded the normal expectations for a PhD student within cell biology and demonstrated excellence in a range of areas, including the publication of a REF submitable paper and work towards Wellcome Trust and research council grant applications.

In addition, her industrial collaboration was so successful that they supported a further BBSRC CASE studentship application, and were collaborators on a major BBSRC grant application and EU H2020 ITN. In nominating her for the prize her supervisor Dr Dan Mulvihill stated that ‘Karen’s research has led to a number of significant breakthroughs in understanding the regulation of the cytoskeleton and will have significant impact upon research of a number of human diseases.

‘In his report the external examiner stated that ‘this is one of the best theses that I have read. A huge amount of original experimental research is presented to the highest of standards. The thesis has been a joy to read and examine. I have learnt a lot and everything about it is of high quality.’’

Social Sciences Ms Dee Goddard (above right) Politics and International Relations 12

Awarded in recognition of the significant dataset collated during Ms Goddard’s doctorate, and the important findings that have resulted.

Ms Goddard’s ESRC-funded research looks at how women have been appointed to ministerial positions across Europe. Her work makes an original contribution to the study of how governments are appointed, and provides a new dataset which details the gender-balance of every government in Europe since 1945. This is an invaluable resource for the study of the allocation of ministerial portfolios across Europe to offer a better understanding of both the issue of the representation of women in cabinets and the process of appointing the cabinet more broadly.

Ms Goddard gained an ESRC Policy Internship within the Cabinet Office, working as a Policy Advisor for the Committee on Standards in Public Life. She was subsequently hired as a part-time Senior Policy Advisor, and will continue in this role alongside completing her PhD thesis.

Her work has already resulted in a paper submitted to a high-ranking journal, which is currently under review, two comment pieces for The Conversation, and a co-authored report for the Foundation for European Progressive Studies. In addition she has presented at nine international conferences.

In nominating her for the prize her supervisor Prof Elena Korosteleva commented that ‘Dee’s research has already proven unique and highly impactful, and her scholarly work has been gaining recognition both nationally and internationally. I believe her research achievements exceed all possible expectations ordinarily assumed of a young scholar in a similar position, and which could be indisputably referred to as simply outstanding.’

WELCOME! Five academics have joined Kent since January. Join with us in welcoming them to Kent, and take a moment to find out about their research interests.

Prof Nizar Allouch (Economics, left): Public economics and the economics of networks.

Dr Chris Bowman

NCCPE Manifesto for Public Engagement The University has joined 76 other UK universities in supporting the NCCPE (National Centre for CoOrdinating Public Engagement) Manifesto for Public Engagement, The Engaged University.

Signing up to the Manifesto shows Kent’s commitment to Public Engagement with Research, including ‘sharing our knowledge, resources and skills with the public, and to listening and learning from the expertise and insight with which we engage.’

In the coming months we will be reviewing the RCUK Concordat for Engaging the Public with Research and will be taking action to address points which need further development.

Want to know more?

The manifesto can be found here: http://bit.ly/NCCPEManifesto The Concordat for Public Engagement with research: http:// bit.ly/RCUKPERConcordat For more information, contact B et t y Wo essn er: b.woessner@kent.ac.uk

(SMSAS): Combinatorics and representation theories of diagrammatic algebras.

Dr Jason Konek (SECL): Accuracycentred epistemology, belief updating in response to uncertain evidence, and reasoning and decisionmaking with imprecise probabilities Dr Tim Ireland (Architecture, above): How organisms interact with their world and construct nich-

es to enhance their existence, as well as how shape, form and structure arise in nature, and how this can inform the configuration of buildings.

Dr Silvia Montagna (SMSAS, right): Bayesian statistics, computer emulation, NP Bayes, functional data analysis, latent variable methods, uncertainty quantification.

OPEN ACCESS

The Faculty Librarian for Research Support, Roz Bass, gives an overview of OA, REF compliance, and the new Data Repository Open Access and the REF compliance Since we started reporting on this there has been a large increase in the total number of publications in KAR to which the REF guidelines apply, from 318 in Sept 2016 to 1125 at the end of April 2017. Of these 920 are fully compliant , 165 have missed the deadline, and 40 are at risk of not complying.

In the last issue of Research Active we explained that the compliance rate for the items in KAR is not the whole picture for the University, because there may well be publications that never reach KAR. In February we carried out a matching exercise between Scopus and KAR to see if we could get a clearer idea of overall compliance. This indicated that 77% of the University publications on Scopus to which the REF guidelines apply had already been added to KAR. Since then, we have been routinely checking Scopus and then contacting Kent authors to request manuscripts for KAR before the three month deadline from publication is reached.

REF Assisted Deposit Service To help meet Open Access requirements, staff can now send the Authors Accepted Manuscript version of their journal articles and conferences proceedings to the library upon acceptance for publication and we will add them to KAR for you. We will help you ensure that all the information necessary for Open Access REF compliance is complete. Details and the form to send us your manuscripts are available via the link below. 95 deposits have been made using the new service since it was made available in March.

Want to know more?

Kent Data Repository More on Open Access is on The new Kent Data Repository is in a the dedicated IS website here: pilot phase with selected individuals test- http://bit.ly/kentOA ing it. The repository uses EPrints software, with the actual data stored in For specific questions, contact Arkivum. A full launch of the repository R o z Bass: r.basswill take place in September.

583@kent.ac.uk

13

Typewriter image created by Qeaql-studio - Freepik.com

Medway: Shut up and Write! th

rd

19 to 23 June ‘Shut up and Write!’ workshops are intended to give academics an opportunity to start working on a grant application for a week in a peaceful environment. They are open to all, whatever your career stage or discipline.

Faculty of Sciences

Early Career Research Festival

13th September 2017 Royal Dockyard Church Lecture Theatre, Historic Dockyard, Chatham

The week is structured as follows:  Mon– Thurs: 90min dedicated writing slots starting at 9am each day, interspaced with morning and afternoon refreshment breaks and lunch (all of which are provided free).  Friday: a peer review panel, where each participant’s draft application will be peer reviewed by their colleagues and a small number of guest academics.

You can attend for the whole or for part of the week. We only ask that you commit to submitting a research funding application in the near future following the sessions.

Want to know more?

Contact Dr Helen Leech (h.leech@kent.ac.uk) or Aure li ja P o vi la ike (a.povilaike@kent.ac.uk) to take part.

Are you a PhD student, post doc, fellow or new lecturer working in the Sciences in either Canterbury or Medway?

The Faculty will be holding a Festival for you, providing career development info, but also research talks and poster sessions.

Want to know more?

Details are still to be confirmed, but for more info or to sign up, contact Dr Helen Leech (h.leech@kent.ac.uk)

THREE RULES OF IMPACT Dr Julie Bayley (Coventry) is a passionate advocate of impact, and makes a convincing case for both its importance and the logic underlying it. For her, impact is simple: 'impact is the provable benefits of research in the real world.'

For the purposes of the REF, impact is  underpinned by excellent research  a change in something beyond academia  demonstrated with evidence  achievable through partnership, collaboration and engagement.

It is not simple dissemination, media activity or the pathway itself.

Having looked at the REF case studies, Julie suggested common attributes of successful ones included:  Having a higher reach and signifi-

 





cance Marking out unambiguous and unidirectional impact Using active, causative language, using such words as 'enabled' and 'resulted in'.

Using scale and metrics to back up their claims and had uptake mechanisms to ensure a wider adoption of outcomes Being strategic

Most importantly impact should not be prioritised over research, or seen as separate from it.

Planning and Creating Impact For Julie there are some basic rules for planning and creating impact.

Rule 1: Think First Start at the end point. What effects do you want to achieve from your impact? Who do you want to influence? What do you want to change?

14

And when? How will you know when it has happened?

You shouldn't overpromise: assessors sniff this out quite quickly. You need to present realistic, achievable and above all measureable impact.

Rule 2: Map It Now pin down the detail. Start with your end point and work back to understand what steps you need to take.

Rule 3: Think, Plan, Write The final rule reinforces the previous steps. Only start writing your impact once you've fully thought about it and planned it.

Want to know more?

The full text of these notes is available on the Fundermentals blog: http://bit.ly/3rulesofimpact

More than 150 staff and students took part in the second ‘Maximising your Research Impact’ event on 17 May. Through a series of talks and workshops, together with a poster exhibition, participants gained a deeper understanding of what impact looked like, and how best to make it happen.

in unexpected areas  Recognise that impact and public engagement are not the same but are mutually beneficial  Network as much as possible and use social media to reach out beyond academia.

When approaching stakeholders, don’t ask for too much initially, and try and make personal connections.  Capture data continually

Speaking after the event, Social Sciences Associate Dean for Research, Dr Tim Hopthrow said, “The event showcased the clear commitment of Kent researchers in making a difference to the wider society through impact.

It provided a fantastic opportunity to network and learn from the many differing approaches to achieving and documenting imDr Julie Bayley pact.”

Talks The plenary focussed on examples of projects which had incorporated and led to successful impact. These were:  Dr Stuart Gibson (SPS), who outlined his EFIT-V facial recognition software, which had been adopted by three quarters of all UK police forces,  Prof Nicola Shaughnessy & Dr Melissa Trimingham (Arts), whose ‘Imagining Autism’ project engaged with autistic children through drama, and  Prof Theresa Gannon (Psychology) whose team had developed innovative and effective interventions for ‘firesetters’ to prevent reoffending.

For those just starting out, the speakers suggested that they:  Plan strategically and long term. When starting out, make use of internal seedcorn funding  However, recognise that projects have a life of their own.

Tolerate uncertainty, take calculated risks, and embrace impact

Workshops Following the plenary, delegates chose between three workshops led by Prof Mark Reed, Dr Julie Bayley, and DVC Education Prof April McMahon.

Notes from Dr Bayley’s session are given in a separate article, left., but basic dos and don’ts of impact included:

Do:  identify a clear problem and the contribution your project will make to resolving it;  use active language and structure  involve stakeholders from an early stage  justify the scale  set out clear paths, methods and dependencies  set out a clear timescale  be realistic Don't:  rely on passive dissemination and academic routes  be vague and woolly, or use passive language (eg 'it is hoped')  assume readers accept that the research will solve the problem  be non-directional or 'scattergun'  give unjustified paths  be arrogant, or assume past glories or associations are enough.

15

Posters Around 30 researchers from across the University showcased their work in a diverse and engaging poster competition. The winners were:  Prof Glynis Murphy and Aida Malovic (Tizard) whose collaborative research demonstrated the positive impact their work has had on sex offender treatment services. This includes an applied programme that has been rolled-out nationwide to more than 500 clinical and forensic psychologists, social

Prof Glynis Murphy and Aida Mlovic





workers and probation officers Dr Donna Arnold (SPS) for her ground breaking work on the potential impact of multiferroic materials on industry and enterprise.

Dr Ben Marsh (History) for his work on gender and silk cultivation in the Atlantic world explored an encounter between a colonial America plantation mistress and British royalty in the 18th century.

Want to know more?

To find out more about maximising the impact of your research, or for help with public engagement contact Betty W o e s s n e r (b.woessner@kent.ac.uk)

GANGING UP Dr Sarah Tetley, the University’s Eastern ARC Officer, will be chairing a conference panel in June to discuss the role, benefits—and difficulties—of strategic institutional consortia, such as N8, GW4 and Midlands Innovation. She was invited to write about this for Research Fortnight. Below is an edited version of the article.

Prior to a mid-life crisis which sent me into a second career in academia, I worked for the NHS. At the time the favourite buzzword was “evidence-based decision making”.

In reality, this rarely came into play, the NHS being far too reactionary and political to make logical, coolheaded decisions.

When I moved into academia I assumed that things would be different. To my puzzlement, here too decisions, seemed to generally lack any rigorous theoretical or empirical underpinning.

Take the establishment, in recent years, of academic research consortia. Despite an extensive literature exploring the costs and benefits of university-industry research consortia and of collaboration within and between institutions through blockfunded research centres, only limited academic attention has been paid to understanding the drivers behind and ongoing performance management of, voluntary, yet formally constituted, crossinstitutional, collaborations within academia.

There is no shortage of study material - various such consortia now exist within the UK and internationally. Some are focused upon specific topics and bring together academics from an array of institutions to collaborate on a set of commonly agreed priorities.

At a more general level are those consortia that bring together academic institutions more broadly.

The University, of course, belongs to Eastern ARC with the universities of Essex and East Anglia. Other examples include the GW4 Alliance of institutions in the west of England and Wales, the N8 group of northern English universities, and Midlands Innovation. In Europe, the U4 network brings together the univer-

sities of Gent, Groningen, Uppsala and Gottingen.

Each of these is characterised by its membership being voluntary and by the consortium being largely selffunded. Each has also pursued a blend of activities that emerge from both top-down directives, such as sharing costly research equipment, and bottom-up initiatives, created by cross-institutional networks of like-minded academics and research professionals.

These similarities, though, obscure multiple differences that pose some interesting questions about where collaborative research is headed.

Thus, while also engaging in research, N8 and Midlands Innovation have a much greater emphasis upon innovation and industrial collaboration than either Eastern ARC or GW4. Eastern ARC has prioritised the nurturing of academic talent we employ 9 Research Fellows and 21 PhD students across three priority research areas (synthetic biology, digital humanities and quantitative social sciences). GW4, in contrast, has focused upon supporting collaboration between existing academic leaders, providing significant financial support to establish crossinstitutional research centres.

There is much we do not know.

How do these consortia view their current and future purpose? How has time, organisational maturity and political context shaped their aspirations? Is there a “right” balance between research versus innovation, policy development, education and training, or is this wholly context-specific? How do funders see proposals from consortia? Can organisational and individual egos be left at the door, or is competition a barrier to genuine collaborative working? And, perhaps most fundamentally, how do the consortia 16

know if they are adding value?

I can venture a guess at some of these answers for Eastern ARC. We are beginning to consider our relationship with industry, for instance, specifically how we can build productive relationships with the creative arts and heritage sectors.

We are exploring opportunities within the Consortium and with our neighbouring Doctoral Training Partnerships to work smarter on the delivery of postgraduate training; and we have developed a set of performance metrics for the Consortium that we will report on annually and continue to refine as our work develops.

Does this resonate with how N8, GW4 and Midlands Innovation see their futures? I don’t yet know but I suspect that, given our differing origins, if left to our own devices we will evolve in different directions.

Given the significant investment tied up in these consortia, however, we owe it to ourselves to understand if and how current models are working.

I will be chairing a panel at the 2017 ARMA Conference where I will be joined by colleagues from these consortia. We intend this to be the start of a serious attempt to apply some academic rigour to understanding the drivers of and future for UK based academic consortia. If you would like to join the debate, then do please get in touch !

Want to know more?

The full text of this article is available at http://bit.ly/ RFeasternarc and the Eastern ARC website can be found at http://easternarc.ac.uk/ For specific questions contact Sarah Tetley on s.r.tetley8@kent.ac.uk

Early Career Researcher Network

PREPARING FOR A FELLOWSHIP In March Dr Kay Guccione (Sheffield) spoke to the Early Career Researcher Network about how to position yourself for a fellowship when you’re just starting out.

“I was frustrated at hearing people who had worked really hard say, ‘I was just really lucky’” she began.

‘It’s not all about luck, individual agency is a major component in recent models of academic and researcher development.’

Equally frustrating was hearing those aspiring applicants who write themselves off with an barrier such as, ‘I’m not independent enough yet, or not an ideas person, or I’m just not confident.’

In both cases there’s almost a suggestion of predestination: some are destined for fellowships and fame, others are not. ‘This is just not true,’ said Kay. ‘There’s a lot of success factors which are just unrecognised.’

Kay emphasised this point by dispelling some myths around fellowships.

They don’t always go to those who are employed full time working in research, have a good relationship with their PI, and win it first time. In addition, not all those who won them had moved institutions, and many had felt uncomfortable about asking for help from others.

However, you do need to be proactive in seeking success. It’s not enough to keep your head down, do good work, and expect that opportunities will come knocking.

Common elements of successful research leaders include:  Having a distinctive high profile research identity.

Develop your niche, and make sure that there’s a place where others can go to find out more about it.  Connecting with others in their global research field.

What works in your field? Are there mailing lists, or a very visi-

ble online community through platforms such as Twitter  Garnering valuable social capital through peer and collaborative networks.

Around 80% of academic jobs go to those whose work is known by those making the appointment. Make sure you’re visible enough out there.

The people around you are important, and so Kay asked the workshop participants what they were positively doing to ensure that their networks are in good shape.

‘Do others know you and what you do?’ she asked, ‘and how do you meet people who can help and support you?’

The Fellowship Ahoy project (Guccione, 2016) interviewed 25 research fellows and found things they all had in common. They all sought to develop their awareness of the opportunities open to them, to improve their application gameplay, to develop and protect their research ideas, and the boost their own confidence and resilience. In doing this, fellows had sought out and sought help from people across their networks.

Kay finished by looking at how you develop the ideas that can form the kernels of great fellowship proposals. These can take many forms, and the group suggested a number, including:  Responding to ideas in recent papers, including a frustration that the authors hadn’t included a specific area or methodology.  In conversation, within your group, or online, or at conference.  From events in the real world, such as developments that require policy input, or trends in social or healthcare.  From being immersed in an area, and seeing the gaps, or 17

having an idea triggered by your current research questions.

Given the serendipitous nature of idea development, make sure you have a way to record them, and document them - with a timestamp (such as a photo on your phone) when you do. Above all, if and when you tell others about your ideas, make sure you don’t tell one person. ‘Tell a group of witnesses, or tell no one,’ said Kay. If the ideas aren’t forthcoming on their own, try and encourage them by making them a ‘structural’ part of your life. As with Google employees who are expected to suggest new ideas frequently, it’s good to challenge yourself to think differently.

Not all the ideas are going to be great, or even worth exploring further, but within the dust there will be a nugget.

And finally, make sure you are supported by the right people. Kay suggested you needed both a career champion (who facilitates access to the resources needed to develop and write the application. This is often your supervisor, mentor or PI) and a ‘tour guide’ (who has an insider knowledge of the call and the process, and knows what you need to do. Research Services can help with this).

Want to know more?

The full text of this article is available on the Fundermentals blog at http://bit.ly/ fellowshipsahoy Kay’s original research is available at http://bit.ly/kayfellowships For more on the Early Career Research Network, and help on joining, contact Phil Ward at p.ward@kent.ac.uk

WHAT WELLC

The Wellcome Trust is the second largest research charity in the world February, and it was a chance to understand what makes it tick Roger Blake, the External Liaison Manager, and Paul Woodgate, the Portfolio Developer for Humanities and Social Science spoke about what was on the Wellcome horizon, but also offered help and advice for potential applicants.

Looking forward  New









Strategic Approach: whilst previously they had been a fundamentally 'responsive mode' funder, the Trust recently adopted a new three-strand strategic approach; Advancing Ideas: still retaining their funding for responsive mode projects at the same level, but Seizing Opportunities: by introducing more 'managed programmes' in areas that would benefit from investment. These would be identified internally.

Two such areas, in the forthcoming year, would be tackling epidemics and drug-resistant infections Driving Reform by engaging more politically. They talked euphemistically about championing science through 'changing times'.

More specifically, they wish to ensure that the government does all that it can to ensure that UK scientists still have access to H2020, and for there to be no barriers to people coming over to the UK to do research. The results of the EU referendum are already having an effect on its work: applications from non-UK EU students for Wellcome PhDs has dropped by half.

Reintroducing Innovation Funding: It plans to offer

£500m for innovation over the next five years. This will primarily be through the 'Innovator Awards', which will initially be focussed on mental health, neurological disorders and neglected tropical diseases. More information will be available shortly, but they are expect ing a strong interest in this scheme, and competition to be fierce as a result.  Reintroducing S m a l l Grants: whilst the number of awards in the social sciences and humanities (SSH) make up a fifth of the total Wellcome portfolio, they only account for 5% in terms of value.

SSH research tends to be less expensive than in the sciences, and in the past the small grants scheme has been a useful 'kick start' to a lot of promising research. These will be relaunched next month, and it is thought that they will be larger, but that they will be more competitive.

From there, Roger and Paul were joined by colleagues at Kent who have had experience of getting funding from the Trust (Emilie Cloatre, KLS), or sat on the Wellcome expert review groups (Ben Baumberg Geiger, SSPSSR, and Julie Anderson, History). They covered both the process through which applications are assessed, and some thoughts on 18

what to look out for when applying.

Applying to Wellcome: what actually happens When an application goes to the expert group, it is dealt with as follows;  Before the meeting: members receive all the applications for that round (generally around 30), and have to 'lead' on half of them. They then have to 'second' others, but are expected to have looked at all of them. They send their scores in to Wellcome, and these are collated prior to the meeting. The scores are within a 0-3 range, with 0 being 'don't interview' and 3 definitely do.  At the meeting: if there is consensus around the 0s and 3s, there is generally little or no discussion of them. For the rest, the two nominated members introduce their applications, and they discuss the merits of each (see below for what they look out for in an application, and what has the potential to sink it).  After the meeting: those applicants that the panel agreed should go to interview (only about 30% of the original number) are invited for a formal conversation with Wellcome. Feedback is given, and details of the interview panel (of around 20 members) is set out. At the same

COME WANTS

ld, and has a very broad portfolio. Kent hosted a visit from the Trust in k, as well as getting help on preparing a successful application. time external reviews sought.

Hints and Tips

are

Across the course of the day all the speakers offered useful advice for those planning to apply. This included:  Talk to them: the Trust is unusual in encouraging potential applicants to discuss their proposals prior to submission. However, relatively few applicants (Roger thought around a quarter to a third) do so. 'Do whatever you can to have the best chance you can,' he suggested - and that includes getting informed advice on your proposal. In addition, talk to your colleagues, and get help in preparing. Emilie went through two mock interviews before her Wellcome Investigator interview, and had 'hyperprepared', pre-empting 40 pages of potential questions.  Write for the committee: 'an application is a piece of rhetoric to persuade people in the process,' suggested Ben, and as such it should be framed for the specific needs of the audience. The expert group members are generalists, so make sure you write in a way that generalists will understand but with 'enough small nods' to cutting edge research to demonstrate knowledge and engagement with it. After all, if the group gives it the nod, it will go out to expert reviewers (see above), so needs to satisfy people with a disciplinary knowledge as well. Roger concurred: you need to give sufficient information for reviewers to understand what is proposed,









what approaches will be taken, and whether it will work. In addition, make sure that you properly proof read your application.

It's not a dealbreaker, but irritates the committee unnecessarily, and suggests that you do not have an eye for detail or an ability to manage your material.

Risk-taking, but firmly grounded: Wellcome is more willing to take risks, but that doesn't mean it'll fund bad proposals. Your application needs to combine novelty, ambition, feasibility. evidence that you can do what is proposed and deal with any setbacks. And remember to make clear why your research matters, and why those outside the discipline should care. Which leads on to the next point: Right question, right person, right place: your application has to have all three. You need to offer a question which is novel and excites, but also demonstrate that your the right person with an appropriate track record working in a supportive institution who can answer that question. Proposals generally fail if any one of these three elements fails to impress.

Don't try and be someone that you're not. You may think that you need to impress across a range of disciplines or, if you work in SSH, that you need to be more 'sciencey'. However, work to your strengths and don't pretend to be someone you are not.

Be clear in your question. As Julie put it, think, 'what do I want to know?' It's easy to get wrapped up in the detail and lose 19

the focus and aim of the whole project.  Proposed costs are not really important to the expert group, and there is not a set amount of money they're working with. However, do check with colleagues and Research Services that you're not doing something really outrageous.  Public engagement: don't try and do too much. Public engagement is important, but is time consuming and exhausting, and the committee will recognise if you're overstretching yourself.  Early career fellowships must demonstrate independence: ideally, for the Henry Wellcome and Henry Dale fellowships you should move away from under the wing of your supervisor or mentor. This may well mean moving institution, but should at least mean moving group or school and demonstrating that you're finding your own feet.

Want to know more?

A longer version of this article was originally published on the Fundermentals blog: http://bit.ly/KentWellcome If you’re thinking of applying to Wellcome, talk to your Funding Officers as follows:  Humanities: Lynne Bennett (l.bennett282@kent.ac.uk)  Sciences: Helen Leech (h.leech@kent.ac.uk)  Social Sciences: Aurelija P o v i l a i k e (a.povilaike@kent.ac.uk)

CHOICE CUTS FROM THE BLOG

‘Large Hadron Colliders All Round!’

19 May 2017

For the latest news and rumours from the world of research funding, log on to http://fundermental.blogspot.com

The major parties have been making promises about R&D investment in the run up to the election on Jun 8th. Both Labour and the Conservatives have promised to increase spending on research to 3% of GDP, and the Lib Dems have pledged to 'double' R&D spending across the economy.

Don't listen to them. They'll promise it all and deliver nothing. When it comes to empty promises, only one party has the necessary track record: The Fundermental Understanding of Critical Knowledge for All party. We are committed to strong and stable research leadership. We recognise that 3% of GDP is a derisory insult to the the people of this great country of ours. It is positively European. It reeks of garlic and foreignness.

We know what the people want.

What they were - in essence - voting for in last year's referendum was an opportunity to be unshackled from the limitations of H2020 and to properly splurge on research funding. None of this namby pamby €80bn. They don't want to be held back by that Brussels red tape. Oh no. No Johnny Foreigner is going to stop them spending their moolah on a large hadron collider or two. And hell, if they want to buy a large hadron collider for every nation in this proud Union of ours, no Brussels eurocrat is going to stop them.

Large hadron colliders all round!

Praxi MacPraxface 9 May 2017 Exciting news has reached us about a new naming competition. I mean, what could possibly go wrong? I think the success of NERC's boat-naming scheme demonstrates that we have nothing to fear.

T hi s t im e it ' s P r ax i s U ni co and AURIL seeking names for their merged organisation. Never one to miss such an opportunity, we've come up with this shortlist.  PraxisUnicoAuril. I mean, what's not to like? It's got all the ingredients, including the potential to be threeletteracronymed. And, when it comes to names, more is definitely more. People might forget some but surely not all of it.  Praxythingy. Okay, so they might forget it. But surely this is enough?  Puril. Right, you're really pushing me on this, aren't you?

So you don't like the full name, or even the slightly shortened version. How about this? It's not *at all* like a mix of 'purile' and 'Persil'. Uh uh.  What do they do again? I appreciate it might be a *little* controversial. But it's essentially cutting to the chase. Rather than going through the rigmarole of saying the name, and then spelling it, and spelling it again when your dinner guest has misheard, here's something to help your poor beleaguered listener. It gets straight to the point. It also saves embarrassment by admitting that no one's entirely sure what they do.  Praxi MacPraxface. I mean, I had to, didn't I? I think it's in the bag.

All the political parties recognise what a vote winner R&D funding is, but only one party has the strong and stable imagination to put into practice the unspoken democratic will of the people: to give all the cash to boffins.

As such the FU- well, let's not bother with acronyms, let's just call ourselves the Next Government, shall we? - the next government intends to use the whole UK gross domestic product on research. We have ambition. We have strong and stable ambition and goddamn we want graphene and we want it now!

Sure, the NHS might take a bit of a hit. The school system might have to make do and mend for a while. But it'll be worth it. Finally and I know this is important to the man on the street - finally the Research Council success rates will be something to boast about.

They'll be the finest in the world.

The NIH and DAAD will look on with envy. We'll give money to academics without them having to ask for it. They need only have the germ of an idea - preferably about graphene and hadron colliders and the money will magically appear beside them.

Yes, only we, the next government, understand the priorities of everyday people. Only we can deliver the huge potential of the 'leather arm patch' vote. Only we can release the potential of being freed from H2020. Only we can give strong and stable insanity. So join us: come June 8th vote F**K All.

Lookalike Corner The most powerful man in UK research, the new head of UK Research & Innovation, turns out to be Mr Gimlet, the step father of Finbarr Saunders in Viz. Last heard he was discussing the perils of a hard Brexit with the EU. Any similarities to Prof Mark Walport are entirely coincidental.

20

Walport

Gimlet