Research Active Vol 11 Issue 1 Oct 2016

Research Active The Newsletter of University of Kent Research Services, Vol 11, Issue 1, Oct 2016

FUTURE OF THE REF In July Prof Nicholas Stern delivered his long-anticipated review of the Research Excellence Framework (REF).

Main Recommendations His main recommendations were:  That all research active staff be returned in the REF;  That outputs should be submitted at Unit of Assessment (UoA) level with a set average number per FTE, up to a maximum of six per individual;  That outputs should not be portable;  That there should be more flexibility on institutional-level impact case studies, to allow for the showcasing of interdisciplinary work;  That impact could be based on a body of work rather than a specific project;  That the interpretation of impact be broadened out beyond socio-economic impact to such areas as public engagement, culture, policy and teaching.  That the environment assessment should include an account of future research strategy, including the support of interdisciplinarity, Open Access (OA) and impact;  That individual UoA environment statements be condensed and complement an institutional level one.

Reaction from the Sector Whilst broadly welcomed, some in the sector have raised concerns about some of the unintended consequences of these recommenda-

tions. For example, will the ‘total number of staff’ be taken from a specific census date, or over a period of time? If taken from a census date, would a UoA that has only recently grown to a certain size be expected to produce as many outputs as one that had been at full capacity for the full period?

Furthermore, output non-portability raises questions around monitoring and staff mobility, particularly for ECRs; and OA compliance is a recognised issue.

Kent Preparations Whilst a HEFCE consultation is expected in November, the University will work on the assumption that Stern’s recommendations will be adopted. It is mindful of some of the concerns, and hopes to anticipate and prepare for these.

With this in mind it intends to continue with the current timetable of preparations as follows:  Annual audits, including one at the end of 2016;  A full mock REF in 2017.

UoA Coordinators will be kept informed, and will correspond closely with all staff in their discipline.

Want to know more?

Maddy Bell gives her thoughts on the implications for Kent, p8. The Stern Review itself can be read in full at http://bit.ly/sternref, and a good summary is available at W o n k h e a t http://wonkhe.com/blogs/policywatch-not-very-hard-a-stern/ More detail is available from Simon Kerridge (s.r.kerridge@kent.ac.uk, xtn 3229) 1

Prof Nicholas Stern INSIDE THIS EDITION Questions of Space

2

Overview of Funding

3

New Awards

4

New REF Manager

7

Stern-ed, not Shaken

8

Central Charges Dropped

8

Research Admin Project

9

Office for Scholarly Comm

9

Thinking Big in Humanities Shut up and Write Figures behind the Figures

10 11 11

ESRC Impact Prize

12

Grants Factory & ECRN

13

Global Challenges

14

GCRF & Eastern ARC

15

Creative Commons

16

Eastern ARC Conference

18

Welcome

19

Newton Fund

19

Choice Cuts from the Blog

20

QUESTIONS OF SPACE Public Engagement with Research at Canterbury Cathedral

In June Prof Paul Allain (Arts, and Humanities Faculty Associate Dean for Research) worked with colleagues to run an ambitious and successful Festival of Ideas at Canterbury Cathedral which drew in daily crowds of over 1000 visitors.

The festival served to both showcase research in the Faculty of Humanities, and to further develop a valuable long term partnership with Canterbury Cathedral, addressing the University’s strategic aim of engaging with its local society.

On a more personal level, the experience of sharing research with members of the public was incredibly rewarding. As curator, Paul reflects on the experience as being ‘somewhat like directing a theatre show’.

The Cathedral itself has reaped significant benefits from the festival both in terms of engaging new audiences in their Canterbury Journey project and in developing their own support for engagement, leaving them in a stronger position to seek other partnerships in the future.

Nevertheless, the Festival was a huge undertaking. Impact and Engagement Officer Maddy Bell spoke to Paul about the challenges he faced and what he learnt from the

experience. He highlighted the following: Plan well

It is always surprising how much time and resource is needed for any kind of event or partnership. Planning for Questions of Space began a year ahead of its delivery, and needed to work for all those involved in the project. In this case, it was helpful that the majority of planning took place within the same academic year as the event itself.

Be flexible The more people you work with, the more flexible you will need to be and the more compromises you will need to make. Planning is important but contingency planning is vital, particularly with more complex long-term projects in which you are working with new partners.

Try to leave ‘wiggle room’ wherever you can.

Given the religious significance of the spaces within the Cathedral, the contributors to Questions of Space had to be respectful and flexible in the way that they used the spaces.

There may be unknowns for which you cannot always prepare. The Cathedral was suddenly unable to accommodate some of the events at the time slots initially allocated. Having built a trusting relationship with the Cathedral, Paul was able to negotiate an amended programme and each component of the festival was delivered.

Dr Una McIlvenna (English) conducts the ‘Singing Walk’

Be tactful Be sensitive to the moti2

vations, capacity, processes and constraints of those with whom you are working.

You need to balance the ambitions of large stakeholders and individual contributors with the overall aim of your work.

There may need to be difficult conversations, so establishing and managing the expectations of everyone involved is key.

One example of how this worked in practice was in developing trust with the Cathedral. This was helped by involving them in selecting the components of the Festival (from 35 applications) and with regular structured communication from Paul as festival curator.

Reflect So - even the experts are still learning. Reflection is a key component of any project and important for improvement over time. What is important is the quality of your interaction with your audience and that you learn as you develop your experiences. The effort is worth it.

As with most things in life, the more you put in – the more you get out of it.

Want to know more?

Of course, not every project needs to be on this scale. If you are new to research and/or the idea of engaging the public with your research – start small. If you would like to discuss your ideas, do get in touch with Maddy Bell (m.r.bell@kent.ac.uk, xtn 6595).

For more on Questions of Space, go to: https://www.kent.ac.uk/ publicengagement/questions-of-

An Overview of Research Funding, Apr-Jul 2016 Largest Individual Awards (titles of projects listed overleaf) Humanities: Dr Christin Hoene (Arts) £85,664 from the Leverhulme Trust

Last term saw a welcome resurgence in EPSRC funding, with a third of grant value coming from that Research Council.

Since the last edition of Research Active, the EU Referendum has taken place, and we are still monitoring the Brexit effect on research funding. For the moment it looks to be steady: last term they were 11% of grant value, in line with the average for the University.

The figures overleaf don’t include

Social Sciences 39%

Sciences: Prof Simon Thompson £728,766 from the EPSRC

Percentage of overall award value by faculty 35

Social Sciences: Dr Emilie Cloatre (KLS) £675,647 from the Wellcome Trust

What’s It All About?

An insight into one of the projects funded this term, taken from the application summary.

This term: Dr Ann Logan and Dr Kate Bradley (SSPSSR) received £11,235 from AHRC/Gateways to the First World War Research Fund for ‘Rochester and Borstal in the First World War’

extensions and supplements. However, it is worth noting a couple of significant supplements last term: Forder (PSSRU) & Beadle-Brown (Tizard) for 'Quality and Outcomes of Person-Centred Care' (£880k), and Beecham (PSSRU) for 'Unit Costs of Health and Social Care' (£512k). Congratulations to all of the winners, and thanks to all of those who have made the effort to apply for funding.

Humanities 5%

Sciences 56%

Percentage of overall award value by funder

30 25 20 15 10 5 0

This project uses the Books of Remembrance, Cenotaphs and memorial boards of Rochester and Borstal as a gateway for current residents to explore the experience of the First World War in the town.

Building on work done by Patricia Allen, Dr Alison Robinson and the Revd. Anne Bennett in 2014 on the parish of St Matthew’s in Borstal, volunteers will compile by crowdsourcing a biographical database of all the men from Rochester and Borstal who died. This will in3

form both an interactive online map of where these men had lived and a travelling exhibition to be hosted at various community sites in the run-up to the centenary of the Armistice in 2018, and in the longer term will be a valuable community asset.

Logan (above) and Bradley (right)

FULL LIST OF AWARDS: 1 Apr – 31 July 2016* Faculty of Humanities

Maes

School of Arts Art, Aesthetics and Beyond: The third British Society of British Society of Aesthetics Aesthetics PG conference

£5,000

School of English Hoene

Colonial Soundscapes and non-Western Modernities

Leverhulme Trust

£85,664

Innes

The last Nawab of Bengal, and British relations

Leverhulme Trust

£7,235

School of European Culture and Languages Laurence

Artefacts, Poetry, and Roman Roads

School of Advanced Study

£1,500

Willis

Hatcliffe Top Archaeological Project Faunal Report (ancient animal bone)

Royal Archaeological Institute

£2,200

Wellcome Trust

£5,000

Anderson

School of History Medicine in its Place: Situating Medicine in Historical Contexts

Beckett

Casualties of War

AHRC

£11,955

Connelly

Leverhulme Visiting Professorship

Leverhulme Trust

£78,920

Schmidt

Cold War Bioethics

Wellcome Trust

£48,151

Faculty of Sciences

Ellis

School of Biosciences Validation of swim-down assay for measurement of cat- British Society of Animal tle sperm motility & viability Science

£2,500

Goult

Control of cell migration and polarity by a mechanosen- Human Frontier Science sory complex linking adhesion and microtubules Program Organization

Michaelis

Modelling resistance of ER positive breast cancer to tamoxifen and fulvestrant

Eli Lilly and Company

£15,600

Rossman

Ebola Virus protein interactions affecting pathogenesis

Microbiology Society

£1,880

Shepherd Shepherd Tuite Xue

Robinson

Engineering E. coli for enhanced production of antibody fragments Optimising the disulphide load in the periplasm of E. coli cell factories A search for prions in Saccharomycetes sensu stricto yeasts Synthetic Biology Approach to Self-Assembled Fibrous Materials

BBSRC

£10,000

BBSRC

£10,000

Microbiology Society BBSRC

Industrial Biotechnology Centre (formerly Centre for Molecular Processing) An enhanced platform for translocation of biotherapeuBBSRC tics to the E. coli periplasm *The list given is for all awards of £1,000 or more. They do not include extensions or supplements 4

£239,302

£1,730 £11,000

£1,584

School of Computing Bocchi

Time-sensitive protocol design and implementation

EPSRC

£101,195

Freitas

Data-Driven Discovery of Correlations Between Genes and Ageing-Related Changes

Leverhulme Trust

£138,659

Hernandez Castro SEEK (Steganalytic wEb-rEsearch frameworK)

EPSRC

£273,996

Hernandez Castro RAMSES: Malware analySis for intErnet forenSics

European Commission

£305,815

McLoughlin

Super-audible speech interface

Google

£46,993

Thompson

Trustworthy Refactoring

EPSRC

£728,766

Deravi

Gao Lu Sanz Izquierdo Yan

School of Engineering and Digital Arts How are conspiracy theories communicated and spread, and are they dangerous? Perspectives from psychology, computing, political science and anthro- ESRC pology Lead Niobate-based Tunable Dielectrics for Smart EPSRC Microwave and Millimeter-wave Systems Investigation into Characterisation of OxyEPSRC Coal/Biomass Flames Development of Electronically Reconfigurable Anten- Royal Academy of Enginas neering Dynamic Signal Processing for Complex Industrial ProKROHNE cesses

£4,906

£361,127 £18,154 £29,128 £35,063

School of Mathematics, Statistics and Actuarial Science Krusch

2nd Geometric models of nuclear matter conference Institute of Physics

Krusch

2nd Geometric models of nuclear matter conference

Launois Shank Tapadar Tapadar Wang

Dartnell

London Mathematical Society

Interactions between representation theory, Poisson EPSRC algebras and differential algebraic geometry Herstmonceux - Group actions and algebraic combi- London Mathematical Socinatorics ety Institute and Faculty of AcUniversity of Waterloo conference tuaries Identify and quantify the impact of changes in populaSSHRC (Canada) tion structure on asset values over long time periods.

Hamiltonian structures and n-component integrable London Mathematical Socipeakon systems ety School of Physical Sciences Raman spectroscopy, cosmic radiation, and the Search STFC for Life on Mars

Hiscock

Symbiotic Supramolecular chemisty - Smart Soap

Moeller

Simulating strong correlations in unconventionally orRoyal Society dered systems

Passfield

£1,200

5

£301,910 £6,000 £2,000 £1,500 £1,000

£76,342

US Army Research Office

School of Sports and Exercise Sciences Experimental studies aimed at developing a new valiPolar dated measure of training load

£4,700

£55,389 £246,145

£38,595 Continued over

Faculty of Social Sciences

Groombridge Groombridge

School of Anthropology and Conservation Translocating conservation success and skills-exchange Darwin Initiative across four Indian Ocean countries Conservation genetics of Bengal tigers using fecal Panthera Wildlife Trust DNA genotyping and DNA sequencing

Julia Arias Martorell Mosaic: fellowship for Julia Arias Martorell Struebig Wheeler

European Commission

Enhancing Environ. Resilience in Oil Palm Landscapes British Council via Design of Riparian Reserves Can nonhuman primates socially learn the meaning of International Primatologisignals? cal Society

£306,364 £4,477 £153,338 £81,591 £1,036

School of Economics Cartwright

Malware analysis for internet forensics RAMSES

Leon-Ledesma

Workshop on structural transformation and economic Royal Economic Society dynamics

Oberoi

European Commission

Kent Business School Identify and quantify the impact of changes in populaSSHRC (Canada) tion structure on asset values over long time periods.

£62,523 £2,608

£4,500

Kent Law School

Bellido

Oral History of Intellectual Property Law

CREATe

Cloatre

Traditional and Alternative Medicine

Wellcome Trust

Cooper

Imagining the state for progressive politics

Perry-Kessaris

Graphic design and the econo- legal reunification of Cyprus: Preparatory work

Socio-Legal Studies Association Socio-Legal Studies Association

£20,000 £675,647 £3,618 £2,730

School of Politics and International Relations Dardanelli

Exploring and Explaining Devolution in Europe

Fritz Thyssen Foundation

£4,145

Dardanelli

Exploring and Explaining Devolution in Europe

James Madison Trust

£4,000

Pabst

In or Out? Informing the political debate and popular James Madison Trust opinion on UK’s EU membership

£15,000

Douglas

Beadle-Brown

School of Psychology How are conspiracy theories communicated and spread, and are they dangerous?

ESRC

School of Social Policy, Sociology and Social Research All-age neurodevelopmental pathway development Kent County Council project

£45,018

£6,976

Billings

Thanet and South Kent ICO evaluation

All Seasons

£9,000

Bradshaw

Evaluation of a mindfulness intervention

Avenues Trust Group

£2,250

Coulton

RISKIT-CJS

NIHR 6

£511,924

Darton

The Provision of Social Care in Extra Care Housing

NIHR

£29,120

Darton

Quality of Life in Specialised Housing and Alternative Settings: Further Analysis of ASSET Project and Relat- NIHR

£8,000

Evaluation of mindfulness-based modified cognitive therapy intervention for reducing stress in GPs Outcomes from forensic services for those with intellectual/developmental disabilities A review of in-patient services for people with intellectual disabilities

Royal College of General Practitioners

£1,498

NIHR

£4,471

Royal College of General Practitioners

£15,000

Logan

Rochester and Borstal in the First World War

AHRC

£11,235

McCarthy

Forced marriage of adults with learning disabilities

NIHR

£14,999

Milne

Utlising Carers Related Research and Knowledge

NIHR

£15,654

Peckham

Vanguard evidence reviews

NHS

£40,400

Stevens

RISKIT-CJS.

NIHR

£6,292

Vickerstaff

Challenges and possibilities for mobility for the 50+ population

Research Council of Norway

Hamilton-West Langdon Langdon

£89,264

Centre for the Study of Higher Education Leigh

Exploring embodied academic identity

Society for Research into Higher Education

£3,000

NEW REF MANAGER A new REF and Systems Manager has been appointed to take the place of Clair Thrower, who left at the end of last term to join SOAS. Betty Woessner will join the University on 15 November and will support the DVC Research in preparing Kent for REF2021 (see p1).

She has a long and distinguished career in higher education management and administration. Originally from the States, she studied at both UCLA and the Sorbonne, she worked in New York and Paris before joining the Society for Research into Higher Education in London at the turn of the Millennium.

Since then she has worked for Queen Mary, University of London, and the University of the Arts, where she was technical lead and

on the REF Team for their submission in 2014.

Her latest post has been as the Research Impact and Planning Manager at the University of East London, where she was responsible for the overall preparations for the next REF. As such, she is well versed in the background policy developments of the REF, the particular requirements (as currently understood) for 2021, and what the University needs to do to position itself to make the most of the exercise.

‘I am delighted to welcome Betty to the University,’ said Research Services Director, Dr Simon Kerridge.

‘Her knowledge and insight will be invaluable for Kent in the run up to the REF. She has a depth of knowledge and a breadth of experi7

ence that will ensure that the preparations, including the annual audits and mock exercises, run as smoothly and seamlessly as possible.’

Betty will head up a small team within Research Services that will include both the Impact and Engagement Officer Maddy Bell and the KRIMSON Project Manager Renata McDonnell. As such, she will be able to coordinate the gathering of data and the support for impact.

Want to know more?

For more information about the University’s preparations prior to Betty’s arrival, contact M a d d y B e l l (m.r.bell@kent.ac.uk, xtn 6595)

Stern-ed, not Shaken With the future of the REF a little more clear, Maddy Bell looks at the implications for Kent The findings of the Stern Review (p1) were generally welcomed by the sector. It was more of a tweak than a wholesale change. Assuming that most of the recommendations are adopted, there are a number of key implications:

cruitment strategies in light of this.

Outputs would be submitted at the institution where they were generated (date accepted for publication), increasing the importance of accurate recording of acceptance dates on KAR.

All staff submission Submitting all research active staff is to avoid exclusion of staff from a process with kudos. This would be good news for Kent, as it submitted 85% of its research staff to REF2014. However, there is still potential here for game playing around how the REF defines ‘research active’ and there may be tactical switching of contracts around the census. HESA staff data will probably be used, so consideration for the REF will need to be balanced against other benchmarks e.g. staff-student ratio (SSR) figures.

Institutional level impact case studies and environment statement Inter- and cross-faculty coordination would be paramount in putting together an institution level environment statement, avoiding duplication in UoA statements, and enabling the recognition of existing and potential institution level impact case studies.

With an enhanced emphasis on multidisciplinary research and the broader scope for impact, Kent should continue to be bold in its collaborations and in submitting a wide range of impact types. The Global Challenges (p14-15), and potential collaborations within Eastern ARC, will be important. The renewed public engagement with research agenda will help to encourage academic staff to be ambitious.

Selection of Outputs The proposal to decouple outputs from individuals would negate the time consuming and stressful process of submitting ‘special circumstances’ for those not able to submit four outputs. However, it will still require a very time consuming comparison of all eligible outputs.

This will be particularly problematic in the larger UoAs. With fewer outputs than those later in their careers, ECRs could be out-competed by those more established in their careers.

Non-Portability of Outputs The implication here is that outputs would become the property of the institution which invested in them as opposed to the individual. It could serve to reduce pre-census movement of staff, although it may just shift this until after the census date. Once the rules are clear, attention should be given to the re-

REF and TEF It is important that Research Services and UELT work collaboratively as we come to know more about how the TEF assessment will work.

Planning and submission should be as efficient as possible, mirroring the consistency that the Government will hopefully provide.

Moving forward With confirmation of the process expected in summer 2017, Research Services will coordinate a December 2016 data collection, similar to that in 2015, ahead of a full mock REF in 2017.

8

Central Charges Dropped for Charitable Organisations Given Kent’s ambitious target of doubling research income by 2020, the University needs to do everything necessary to remove or reduce barriers or disincentives that may prevent this.

One such is the central charge levied on grants that have low or no overheads, and the negative effect that this has on School resource allocation models (RAMs).

Recent changes mean this will no longer be charged on research projects funded by charitable organisations (whether UK-based or overseas and including Royal Society/British Academy/Arts Council/British Council). In order to benefit from this credit, your School would need to demonstrate that:  Any new staff funded by the grant will interact with the school, e.g. contribute to practicals/lectures, co-author papers and/or give regular research seminars.  The project has the potential for REF-related impact.  The project will expand the network of the grant holder.  The project is in line with the research of the grant holder, and will improve his/her track record.

Any exceptions, will be referred to the DVC Research & Innovation for a decision.

Want to know more?

The impact of this policy will be assessed in two years’ time.

In the meantime, if you have any questions, do drop a line to Nigel Martin, the Research Accounts Manager, (n.t.d.martin@kent.ac.uk, xtn 16448)

RAAAP Research Administration as a Profession

What is research management and administration? Is it a profession, a career choice, and if so how might you best position yourself for advancement?

The Director of Research Services, Dr Simon Kerridge, is leading a project to find answers to these questions.

Funded by the National Council for Research Administrators (NCURA) in the States, the project surveyed research management and administration (RMA) professionals around the world to get a sense of how they entered the profession, and what skills and experience they

needed to make advance within it.

2,691 responses were received, and the analysis, and findings are due to be published next term.

However, initial results suggest that:  Most (74%) are full time, but a significant proportion of respondents combine RMA with another role. This is often administrative, but for many it is research-based.  RMA is incredibly varied, including proposal development, project support, policy, audit, and service delivery. Around half are responsible for systems and the translation of research and perhaps a third look after research students. Role titles are, therefore, very diverse, ranging up to ‘Professor of Research Administration.’  Most work in central departments (such as Research Services) but around a quarter are based in academic departments.  The median number of

RMA roles that people have had is three, but some have had over 10.  Progression is sometimes slow. Around 3% of respondents had progressed from an assistant role through operational and management to an RMA leadership role, although on average this take 17 years.  Over 90% of RMA professionals have a degree, and of those around two thirds have a masters and over a quarter a doctorate.

For Kerridge, the message is clear: not only do we love research, we like to understand it to.

Want to know more?

For more information contact Simon Kerridge (s.r.kerridge@kent,ac.uk, xtn 3229), or go to https://raaapworldwide.word press.com/

Office for Scholarly Communication The University will shortly launch an Office for Scholarly Communication (OSC).

OSC is to provide a single point of contact for supporting academic staff and researchers with issues relating to publication, metrics and impact. These include, but are not confined to, Open Access, intellectual property, data management, public engagement and alternative publishing platforms.

Such a service is becoming increasingly commonplace in universities, and Harvard, Princeton and Cambridge have all established an OSC. At Kent, the OSC will be based in the Templeman Library, but will work closely with Research Services, bringing together expertise to better support staff in navigating the

9

complex environment around modern academic publication.

Want to know more?

More information is available on the IS blog at http://bit.ly/KentOSC, or contact researchsupport@kent.ac.uk)

THINKING BIG IN THE HUMANITIES Faculty Funding Officer Lynne Bennett looks at the application and award statistics for the Humanities, and suggests that there is an opportunity to be more ambitious

Given the aim of the University’s new Research and Innovation Strategy to ‘double research funding [and ensure that] at least 50% of staff attract[..] significant funding for their area,’ I’ve been giving some thought as to how the Faculty of Humanities can play its part.

As a starting point, I looked at where its research funding comes from, shown in the chart above.

In some respects this illustrates what we might have expected: most of the Faculty’s funding has come from the main research funders such as Leverhulme and the Research Councils (mostly AHRC).

But the picture is more interesting when you look at the number of applications it takes to generate these award amounts.

For instance, we made 99 applications to Research Councils in this period and 97 applications to ‘Other’ funders.

In other words, a similar number of applications to the Research Councils has generated £2.5m rather than £166,000 .

In the past when I’ve spoken to academics about applying to a Research Council the message has often been that RCUK applications take too much time and the success rates are too low.

Whilst I can’t deny that an AHRC application takes a lot of work and effort, a quick look at Kent’s success rates with AHRC applications shows that things aren’t quite as bad as you think.

In 2015/16 we made 13 applications to the AHRC and 4 were awarded, generating an award value of £889,176.

Furthermore there were only 18 universities which received more than Kent from the AHRC, and most of these are Russell Group universities. Our success rate for all schemes is bang on the average nationally at 31%.

I would suggest, then, that the message is clear: if even ten more people across the Faculty of Humanities diverted their efforts to a Research Council application rather than making a small funding application

10

over the next couple of years, the Faculty could be well on the way to meeting its commitment towards this target.

Thus, my advice is:  Give some thought to making a large collaborative application to a Research Council.  The Faculty can often help with teaching buyout via the Faculty incentivisation scheme if you need time to do this.  You don’t always have to act as principal investigator on an application. Working in partnership with others as a coinvestigator gives invaluable experience, still attracts funding, and is incredibly useful for taking forward your own research and developing your track record.  Don’t agonise for months over your application trying to fine tune it. We have several experienced academics across the Faculty who can give you advice and peer review your draft application at various stages before submission.  Speak to your Director of Research and, where available, your School Research Administrator. Their role is to help and support, so make the most of it.  Attend one of the training events on offer via the Grants Factory (see p13). We intend to run a workshop focussed on large applications towards the end of term.  Attend the next Grants Writing Week workshop in January 2017 and spend a few days or the whole week planning your project, writing your application and then having your idea/draft peer reviewed on the final day.

Want to know more?

Contact Lynne (l.bennett282@kent.ac.uk, xtn 4799).

Full AHRC grant statistics can be found at http://bit.ly/ AHRCstats, and you can look at Kent’s own figures at http://bit.ly/KentRSstats).

Details of the Grants Factory will be available at http://bit.ly/ GrantsFactory

SHUT UP AND WRITE! Have you been meaning to write a grant application but never feel you have the time or the space?

Shut & Write is a new initiative in the Social Sciences. It offers a secluded and supportive ‘retreat’ where academics can concentrate solely on writing a proposal.

The first took place between 12-16 Sept 2016, and followed a similar form to the Humanities Writing Weeks (see article, left). Ten academics took part from across the Faculty, including SSPSSR, Economics, KBS and Psychology.

Their proposals targeted the Nuffield Foundation, Leverhulme Trust, ESRC, British Academy and Wellome Trust.

After four days of writing they put their proposals to a peer review panel, and received constructive feedback to further develop their drafts.

‘It was a very positive experience,’ said one participant. ‘Being in a different location helped me switch off from the piles of admin I would normally be dealing with this term and gave me a legitimate excuse NOT to deal with issues, but instead to say I will deal with them when I get back. I would never have gotten this amount of writing done without the retreat.’

‘It helped me understand better some of the issues related to writing a grant proposal,’ wrote another. ‘In 5 days I was able to prepare the outline and have a draft of the costs. The feedback from the panel was very beneficial. Participating in this workshop also helped in networking with academics from other schools.

Want to know more?

The next Shut up and Write session will take place 9-13 Jan. There will also be a session in Medway (date TBC).

If you want to take part in either contact Aurelija Povilaike (4427, a.povilaike@kent.ac.uk)

The Figures behind the Figures A regular look at the work of those who have won grants at Kent

Professor Mark Smales School of Biosciences Prof Mark Smales likens his work to ‘hijacking a factory’. ‘We work on mammalian cells,’ he says, ‘trying to alter their processes so that they produce proteins that can fight disease.’

It can be a frustrating business, and the successes which lead to commercial drugs are far outweighed by those that don’t.

But Mark is phlegmatic and recognises that his research is about the long term. This is true not only for the research, but for the collaborations and grant applications that make the research possible.

‘I’ve collaborated with fantastic people,’ he says. ‘A big part of what I do is going out and talking to people, being bold and approaching people, however eminent, whose work interests me and has links to mine.’

The collaborations, in turn, have lead to him exploring avenues far beyond his core area. ‘You’ve got to remain flexible and adaptable, and I think it’s crucial that you ‘reinvent’ yourself every 5-10 years. It may just be a matter of presenting your work differently, but you have to be in tune with what the funders are interested in.’

His track record is a demonstration of this. Since 2004 he has submitted 59 proposals, resulting in 38 research grants, as well as a large number of innovation and enterprise projects. These grants have totalled more than £10m as principal investigator, and he has a success rate of 11

39%, getting almost half of the funding he has applied for.

However, there was a period between 2009-12 when his success rate was much lower. ‘I’m not sure what it was,’ he admits. ‘The committees may have been awaiting outcomes from work already funded, but I think it was probably time to reinvent my work and align it more closely with the funder’s priorities as they changed.’

This flexibility has resulted in an impressive run of funding. Since 2012 all of his proposals - 20 in total have been funded.

Like his research, his application process can be likened to a production line. ‘I’m always thinking about the future,’ he says. ‘I’m currently working on a number of different ideas, and am planning applications to BBSRC, EPSRC and the EC’s Marie Curie ITN scheme.

‘There’s no denying that applying for funding is time consuming,’ he admits. ‘And its publications that can suffer. But the funding is crucial for the work. However, you need to make sure that you submit high quality applications. Peer review is essential for this, and you need to develop a thick skin to take on board criticisms.’

He finishes by emphasising the importance of the abstract in a proposal. ‘80% of the panel won’t read the application in depth. They rely on the summary, so you need to put in as much time on that as the rest.

They’re crucial to getting a fair hearing.’

Mark is now involved in a bid to the Global Challenges Research Fund, and is also looking at a future proposal with Brazilian colleagues to tackle the zika virus. Another reinvention, perhaps, but let’s hope it leads to success. Because if anything deserves a fair hearing, it’s this.

ESRC Impact Prize for Firesetter Project

In June Prof Theresa Gannon and team (Psychology) won the prestigious ESRC Impact Prize. Maddy Bell talks to her about the impact of her research, and the lessons learnt.

Every week, arson (or criminal firesetting) causes 65 casualties and costs over £40 million in the UK alone.

‘Prior to our research there was little understanding of the motivations for starting fires, and no standardised treatment,’ Prof Theresa Gannon explains.

Gannon and her team’s work has led to 33 UK hospitals and prisons changing their practices, a subsequent reduction of offenders’ interest in firesetting, and an increase in those offenders meeting criteria for release or transfer from prison or hospital. The programme is now being rolled out internationally.

It was this achievement that saw Gannon and her team—Dr Emma Alleyne, Dr Magali Barnoux, Dr Caoilte Ó Ciardha and Dr Nichola Tyler–win the ESRC prize for Outstanding Impact in Society.

Gannon stresses the importance of planning and working with key stakeholders to maximise the impact of your research. So what lessons has she learnt from her experience?

Talk to stakeholders early, but don’t make premature promises It can be tempting to try and pin down the detail at this stage, but wait until you’ve got the funding and the direction of your research is clear. Those early conversations are vital, but be mindful of raising expectations unrealistically.

Find the right medium for communication The medium you use will be dependent on who your stakeholders are, how involved they need to be, and what you want them to bring to the table.

Gannon’s team convened a steering group with representatives from the fire service, police arson task force, NHS and probation staff. This was a very effective forum for a project that had the potential to have impact on a wide range of interrelated areas across the criminal and mental health systems.

Understand the stakeholders Consider who you are talking to and make time to understand them and the work they do, particularly if

you haven’t worked with their sector before.

Not only can this help build a trusting relationship, but it will enable you to talk about your research in a way that makes sense in their context.

Embrace impact in unexpected places One benefit of engaging with multiple groups is that sometimes impact can arise in unexpected places. Gannon’s group had expected their research to be used predominantly by prison staff. However, the impact came primarily from the NHS. At the time of the ESRC award, 150 people had undergone the new treatment. It transpired that the NHS have more flexibility in how their services are run than the prison service.

Pathways to impact statements call for applicants to look ahead to where their potential impact may arise and how they will maximise the chances of this happening. But it’s okay if things turn out a little differently and there should always be room for flexibility, particularly when you are working on something over a long period of time.

There may be unexpected twists and turns to embrace.

Want to know more?

You can find out more about Theresa and her team’s work on the ESRC’s website: http://bit.ly/firesetter

For help and advice on the impact of your own research, contact Maddy Bell (m.r.bell@kent.a.cuk, xtn 6595) Prof Theresa Gannon

12

GRANTS FACTORY & EARLY CAREER RESEARCH NETWORK

2016/17 Draft Programme Published The programme of workshops and visits for 2016/17 is being finalised, and will be available shortly. The draft programme is given below.

The aim this year is to structure our support into three broad categories: the ‘foundational’ elements

necessary for succeeding in a research environment, the ‘operational’ skills necessary for securing funding and managing grants, and the ‘contextual’ to fill in the background on the policy and strategy.

Want to know more?

For more information or to come along to any of the events, contact Phil Ward (p.ward@kent.ac.uk, xtn 7748)

Essential Elements of a Successful Application (Canterbury)

14/10/2016

12:00-14:00

British Academy Visit

19/10/2016

12:00-14:00

Applying to Arts Council England

20/10/2016

13:00 -14:30

Costing a Proposal: What Can I Include?

01/11/2016

12:00-14:00

Applying for a Leverhulme Fellowship

16/11/2016

13:00-15:00

GROW workshop on SE Asian Funding

24/11/2016

TBC

How to Use Social Media to Support your Research (Medway)

30/11/2016

14:00-16:00

European Funding for the Humanities

05/12/2016

TBC

Finding External Partners outside of Academia

14/12/2016

14:00-16:00

Humanities Writing Week/Social Sciences 'Shut up and Write'

w/c 09/01/2017

09:00-17:00

How to Overcome Imposter Syndrome

25/01/2017

12:00-16:00

Developing Resilience

26/01/2017

10:00-14:00

Finding Funding: Using Research Professional

TBC

TBC

Essential Elements of a Successful Application (Medway)

24/02/2017

12:00-14:00

How to Use Social Media to Support your Research (Canterbury)

28/02/2017

12:30-14:30

Getting Published: Targeting Top Journals & Writing Book Proposals

07/03/2017

12:30-14:30

The REF: An Introduction

TBC

TBC

Understanding Open Access

29/03/2017

14:00-16:00

Applying for a Marie Curie ITN

10/05/2017

14:00-16:00

Measuring your Research: an Introduction to Metrics

25/05/2017

14:00-16:00

How to Manage an Award

29/05/2017

12:00-14:00

Who Owns What - and Why? Understanding Intellectual Property & Copyright

07/06/2017

12:00-14:00

Finding Funding: Alternative Funding for Research

13/06/2017

14:00-16:00

ResearchActive is edited by Phil Ward.

Contact him for more information or clarification on any of the items in this edition.

In addition, the following RS members tweet: Carolyn Barker: @CarolynBarker1 Lynne Bennett: @kenthumres Simon Kerridge: @SimonRKerridge Helen Leech: @HelenLeech16 Andrew Massoura: @LeadDiceBeers Aurelija Povilaike: @povilaike Phil Ward: @frootle

For the latest from the world of research funding, go to fundermental.blogspot.com, or Twitter @unikentresearch.

13

GLOBAL CHALLENGES A new Government fund is set to offer £1.5bn until 2020, 10% of the overall research budget. It’s a gamechanger in the world of research funding, and all should be aware of what it has to offer Introduction The Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF) was announced in last year’s spending review (December 2015), and came as something of a surprise to the sector.

The previous spending review (2010) had protected the research budget from the worst ravages of austerity, but it was still a flat settlement, and funding was looking a little threadbare five years in.

George Osborne, the Chancellor at the time, sought to remedy this somewhat, and announced that the research budget would rise from £4.7bn to £5.2bn by the end of the parliament (2020).

However, there was a catch. The extra £1.5bn would come from a different pot. It would not come from the budget of the Dept for Business, Innovation and Skills, but rather from International Development, and would aim ‘to develop new solutions to the complex multidimensional problems faced by developing countries.’

Themes The GCRF is arranged around a set of themes focussed on key issues facing the world:  Health: To tackle diseases, strengthen health systems and reach the worlds’ most vulnerable.  Clean Energy: To provide access to clean energy, including new technologies and the behavioural insights required for successful introduction to developing countries.  Sustainable Agriculture: To improve nutrition and food security, support technological innovation, and increase resili-

ence to climate change.  Conflict and humanitarian action: New insights and approaches for preventing conflict and violence, build stability and strengthen humanitarian action.  Foundations for Inclusive Growth: To understand what works best for developing countries to build the foundations for economic development - macroeconomics, institutions, innovation and private sector growth, cities and infrastructure, education systems, jobs and skills.

Other potential topics identified include: mass migration and refugee crises and resilient systems.

First Calls The first calls were somewhat rushed, with short deadlines and expressions of interest. However, ,the GCRF should not be dismissed as a momentary aberration, a craziness that will pass. The Fund is intended to account for 10% of the UK’s total research budget within five years, by which time it will match the total research expenditure of the BBSRC. Key Facts So what do you need to know?

First, this is very much about research that will be of benefit to developing countries. These are defined by the OECD as ‘countries and territories eligible to receive official development assistance’, and the full list is available via the link at the end. Note that this list does change, and it is understood that it will do so in 2017, with some of the countries being removed from it. So make sure you 14

check this list, and the countries you want to benefit are still on there.

You don’t have to work in, or with, those countries - but it helps. Your research is for the benefit of those countries, and should address the problems faced by them, but you don’t have to collaborate with them or do fieldwork in them.

All disciplines are eligible. This includes the humanities and social sciences. Whilst the AHRC and ESRC get a smaller share of the GCRF pie, they are fully engaged.

We don’t yet know where all the money’s going. There is an ‘Unallocated’ element that, after the first couple of years, matches and then outweighs that which has been allocated. So there is still time to influence your own area. Lobby your Research Council. Get involved: volunteer to take part in working groups, strategic committees, workshops. Remember the 10%: there is a lot of funding at stake here.

Impact is crucial. That’s probably unsurprising, given the remit of the GCRF, but don’t take it for granted.

It has to be written right through your project, and you should take on board DFID’s Research Uptake Guidance.

Remember the policy framework. The GCRF comes from the international development budget, and as such should be seen as aid.

Thus, you need to be mindful of the policy framework which surrounds this, and try and set your project within the context of the UK aid strategy and UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.

Global Challenges at Kent So what help and support is there at the University if you want to find out more or apply to GCRF? At Kent we are aiming to support all academics explore the GCRF and, where appropriate, help them in applying for funding.

In July we held a broad meeting to explain the GCRF. It was also an opportunity to network and to hear from a number of colleagues who had potential projects. Contact me if you would like the slides from this event.





Future Action Following on from that we will:  Develop a comprehensive database of all those with an interest in GCRF research, based on the delegate list from the event, but also from our knowledge and understanding of our strengths across all of our disciplines.





Run future workshops around the specific themes.

Further to this, we will hold workshops in 2016-17 around specific themes, to share knowledge, contacts and potential projects.

Work with International Partnerships to identify collaborators. IP has a list of all the universities around the world with which Kent has memoranda of understanding, or more informal links.

Work with Eastern ARC colleagues to pool our expertise. The Eastern ARC is a crucial element in our preparations, and will allow those at Kent, Essex and UEA in complementary disciplines to collaborate (see box below).

Provide seedcorn funding to

work with overseas collaborators. The PVC Research & Innovation recognises the importance of the Fund, as well as the tight turn around for many of the calls, and the expense incurred in collaborating. To offset these, he has agreed to open up his EU Partnership Fund to those applying for the GCRF. Want to know more?

A full version of these notes is available on the blog at http:// bit.ly/KentGCRF For more information or to get involved with any of the future events, contact Phil Ward (p.ward@kent.ac.uk, xtn 7748)

GCRF and Eastern ARC The Eastern ARC initiative has been fully operational for a year now, and the Consortium is well placed to facilitate the network of colleagues that could help the University access GCRF grants. ARC Officer Dr Sarah Tetley explains what has happened already.

Eastern ARC was established around three focus areas: digital humanities, synthetic biology and quantitative social sciences.

In the past year these have started to coalesce very well, and in 2015/16 20 joint research proposals have been submitted to the research councils, Wellcome and Leverhulme across the three universities of Kent, Essex and UEA. On 23 September, over thirty academics from across Eastern ARC gathered for a one-day workshop to explore the specific opportunities presented by the Global Challenges Research Fund. The event was

both multi- and inter-disciplinary, bringing together colleagues from the sciences, social sciences and humanities and challenging them to think about how they could work in new ways to address the challenge themes.

The energy and creativity in the room was palpable; and, by the end of the day, outline research questions had been generated in the areas of inclusive growth (considering issues of “vulnerability”); renewables and waste management; data literacy (linked to capacity building and inclusive growth); public health (using smart IT to better distribute 15

and target medicines to hard to reach groups); well-being (defining well-being in differing cultural and economic contexts); micro-and macro-institutional trust; and, on the “costs” of development.

These will continue to be developed, and further discussions will take place at the Eastern ARC Conference (see programme, p18).

Want to know more?

For more information on EARC contact Sarah Tetley (s.r.tetley8@kent.ac.uk, xtn 816423)

CREATIVE COMMONS What is it, and what does it have to do with my research?

Copyright Officer Chris Morrison gives an overview of the licencing arrangements underpinning Open Access A Changing Landscape The internet has changed the way we share knowledge, and it has meant the we have to rethink the way we licence and control it.

Traditionally, authors assigned the rights of their outputs to commercial publishers which, in turn, distributed them through subscriptions to university libraries and research centres.

Open Access (OA) publishing moved away from subscriptions to give access to the latest research without subscription or fees.

Central to the concept of OA is the idea of ‘open licences’ which allow broad re-use terms to anyone without them having to ask for the author or publisher’s permission. The most widely used of all open licence tools is Creative Commons.

Free as in free beer, or as in free speech?

However, simply making something available online without charge does not actually make that content ‘free’ in its broadest sense.

To differentiate between the ’free beer’ and ‘free speech’ understanding of the word, the Latin terms ‘gratis’ and ‘libre’ are widely used.  Gratis: ‘free of charge’, in the sense that some good or service is supplied without payment, even though it may have value.  Libre: ‘having freedom’. In the context of copyright it means allowing others to reuse creative works for the benefit of society.

Creative Commons licences are designed to make your works both ‘gratis’ and ‘libre’.

Creative Commons Creative Commons is a non-profit organisation founded by US lawyer and activist Lawrence Lessig based on the principles behind the open source software movement.

His vision was to unleash the creative and innovative potential of the internet by removing the legal barriers to sharing art, science, social insight and all other forms of human expression.



All rights reserved vs. some rights reserved The default position of all global copyright regimes is “all rights reserved” meaning that permission must be sought for copying, distribution or commercialisation.

Creative Commons on the other hand provides a “some rights reserved” model where the copyright holder can decide to provide permission for anyone to do certain things with their work, as long as certain conditions are met.



 

Benefits It encourages others to interact with your work which can increase citation ratings and wider research impact.

It fully realises the transformational impact of publicly funded research.

It still provides protection to authors under copyright law.

Researchers are still credited.

With the exception of the ‘public domain dedication’ dedication (see below) all Creative Commons options include an attribution element and the associated clause protects the authors ‘moral rights’ which are the right to be named as the author(s) of a work and the right to object to derogatory treatment.

Issues to consider Depsite the above benefits, researchers and students need to be aware that although Creative Commons licences are non-exclusive (i.e.

16

the licensed works could also be licensed to a publisher under different terms), they are also irrevocable (i.e. the rights provided cannot be taken Chris Morrison back).

For example if you were to release your work under a Creative Commons licence that allowed for commercial use, you would not be able to stop any individual or organisation from making a profit from your work unless this amounted to a ‘derogatory treatment’.

Similarly if you license something in a way that allows it to be adapted you need to be prepared that some people might create something that you might not have expected. Indeed, this is the very purposes of the Creative Commons movement – to facilitate unexpected creative combinations.

Some researchers are concerned about the way that Creative Commons licences might impact on their ability to commercialise their work, or work with a commercial publisher to further their academic career.

Ultimately the choice of which licence to use is down to the researcher or research team.

Why am I hearing about Creative Commons now?

More and more funders are specifying the type of licence that researchers need to apply to their work as a condition of the research funding. For example:  RCUK: Gold Open Access (with an APC): a CC BY licence must be applied; Green Open Access: no specific licence is required but they advise that a





CC BY NC licence would meet their requirements HEFCE REF: no specific licence is mandatory, but they advise that a CC BY-NC-ND licence or a CC BY licence meet their requirements.

Horizon 2020: no specific licence is mandatory but researchers are encouraged to apply CC BY or CC 0 licences.

How do the licences work?

The licences are made up of a number of ‘components’ which can be selected and applied to the works.

The various flavours of Creative Commons licence are given in the box, below.

How to apply a Creative Commons licence

Creative Commons licences are free to apply to your work.

To get a CC licence you can either use the CC licence chooser tool or select the appropriate option when you deposit your article in the Kent Academic Repository (KAR).

In addition to this you can embed the licence ‘code’ within a digital work so that it can be picked up by search engines and other digital discovery tools.

Be careful to make sure that use of a Creative Commons licence is in line with any publishing agreement you may have signed.

For example publishing via the Gold OA route means that you need to have agreed the licensing terms for the published article with your publisher.

Want to know more?

For more on Open Access, got to the University’s dedicated pages at http://bit.ly/KentOA The Kent Academic Repository c a n b e f o u n d a t https://kar.kent.ac.uk/ Details of all funders’ and publishers requirements for OA can be found http://bit.ly/SherpaOA You can access the licensing tools and further advice on the Creative Commons site, here: https://creativecommons.org/ If you have any questions about the use of Creative Commons licences in your work at Kent contact either copyright@kent.ac.uk or researchsupport@kent.ac.uk

Creative Commons Licences: a Brief Guide Attribution (CC BY)

Attribution-ShareAlike (CC BY-SA)

Attribution-NoDerivs (CC BY-ND)

Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) Attribution-NonCommercialShareAlike (CC BY-NC-SA) Attribution-NonCommercialNoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND)

Public Domain Dedication (CC0)

Lets others distribute and build upon your work, even commercially. They must credit you for the original creation.

This is the most accommodating CC licence, recommended for maximum dissemination and use of licensed materials.

Lets others re-use and build upon your work even for commercial purposes. They must credit you and license their new creations under identical terms.

All new works based on yours will carry the same licence, so any derivatives will also allow commercial use.

It's the licence used by Wikipedia, and is recommended for materials that incorporate content from Wikipedia and similarly licensed projects.

Allows for redistribution, commercial and non-commercial, as long as it is passed along unchanged and in whole, with credit to you.

Lets others re-use and build upon your work noncommercially.

Their new works must acknowledge you and be noncommercial, but they don’t have to licence their derivative works on the same terms.

Lets others re-use and build upon your work noncommercially, as long as they credit you and license their new creations under identical terms.

The most restrictive CC licence. It allows others to download your work and share it, as long as they credit you.

They can’t change it in any way or use it commercially.

Use this universal tool if you are a holder of copyright or database rights, and you wish to waive all your interests that may exist in your work worldwide.

This dedication is often used to release datasets which are intended to be combined with other data, therefore making attribution impractical.

17

SECOND EASTERN ARC CONFERENCE: ‘Realising our Greater Potential’

“Collaboration isn’t about giving up our individuality; it’s about realizing our greater potential" Joseph Rain

The second Eastern ARC conference will take place on 11 Nov 2016, and will provide the opportunity for students and staff from the Universities of Kent, Essex and East Anglia to come together to learn more about each other’s work.

Through poster displays of the Consortium’s eighteen Doctoral students’ work; presentations from Eastern ARC academics; guest lectures from external speakers and theme-based workshops, delegates

will hear about the successes of the Consortium to date and the opportunities going forwards as we build upon our existing collaborative work.

Want to know more?

Registration is free. Go to http://bit.ly/EARCconf For more information on EARC contact Sarah Tetley (s.r.tetley8@kent.ac.uk, xtn 816423)

9.30 – 10.00

Registration

10.00

Welcoming Address

Professor Dame Julia Goodfellow Vice Chancellor, University of Kent

10.15

Eastern ARC in 2016 : Progress to date and Ambitions for 2017

Professor Philippe de Wilde, Pro Vice Chancellor Research, University of Kent

10.45

Interdisciplinary Collaboration in the Humanities

Dr Liam Jarvis, Lecturer in Drama, University of Essex

11.05

Cross-Institutional Collaboration

11.25

Collaborating with Industry

11.45

COFFEE

12.00

Dr Hannah Swift, Eastern ARC Research Fellow, Quantitative Social Sciences, University of Kent Dr Andrew Hemmings, Reader, School of Biological Sciences, University of East Anglia

Lessons from Other UK Research Consortia

Dr Nick Goldspink, The N8 Research Partnership

12.20

Iterative Networks : An Agency and Engine for Agile Publishing

Dean Irvine, Agile Humanities and Visiting Fellow Digital Humanities University of Kent

12.40

Facilitated panel discussion / Q&A : The Challenges of Collaboration

Phil Ward + morning speakers

13.25

LUNCH AND POSTER EXHIBITION Theme-based discussions (Digital Humanities; Quantitative Social Sciences; Synthetic Biology; Professional Services)

14.15

Reflection on 2016 and ambitions / aspirations for 2017 Challenges to be addressed Voting on best poster in the them.

15.30

Plenary Feedback Session and Announcement of Poster Winners

16.00

CLOSE 18

WELCOME! Fourteen academics have joined Kent April.-August Join with us in welcoming them to Kent, and take a moment to find out about their research interests.

Mr David Acheson (Journalism): defamation law as it relates to corporate claimants.

Ms Sukvinder Bhamra (Pharmacy): Ethnopharmacology, Urban ethnobotany, Pharmacovigilance, Polypharmacy, plant species identification and authentication using DNA barcoding.

Dr Srivas Chennu (Computing): Neurodynamics of consciousness, predictive coding in cognition, translational neuroscience Prof Sally Kendall (CHSS): parenting and the impact on child health, including parenting experiences of Aboriginal parents, and the effect of psychological support for parents of children with complex health needs.

Dr Theologos Pantelidis (KBS):

international economics/finance, financial econometrics and forecasting.

Dr Rose Parfitt (KLS): the concept of legal personality (or legal subjectivity) and its role in the distribution of wealth, power and pleasure within states and across the global legal order.

Dr Carlos Perez-Delgado (Computing): the advantages and limitations that quantum theory conveys to communication, computation, metrology, and security.

Dr A Laaunov (Economics): Dr Sweta Rajan-Rankin (SSPSSR): the sociology of race and ethnicity, including globalisation and transnational service work, the politics of embodiment within social work, and ageing experiences among ethnic minority elders who are growing old in a ‘foreign land’ Dr Anthony Savagar (Economics): macroeconomics, industrial organization and dynamical systems, and how firm behaviour and indus-

trial organization aggregate to affect business cycle dynamics.

Dr Virginia Spielgler (KBS): modelling and designing inventory- and order-based control systems that overcome nonlinear, real world dynamics and on building resilient supply chains Dr Florian Weiler(PolIR): international environmental issues, with a specific focus on international climate change policy.

Dr ElkeVan Hellemont (SSPSSR): gangs; theoretical criminology; the seduction of deviance; cultural and critical criminology and anthropological perspectives on crime.

Mrs Johanna Woodcock Ross (SSPSSR): specialist social work communication with parents of practising Christian faith undergoing parenting assessment by a social worker in statutory Children’s Services.

Five reasons to take notice of THE NEWTON FUND The Newton Fund can seem confusing.

But don’t let that put you off. Sciences Funding Officer Dr Carolyn Barker offers five reasons to engage with it.

The Newton Fund was set up in 2014 to allow UK researchers to initiate and expand partnerships with 16 ‘developing’ countries.

A large variety of schemes are offered from small travel grants to PhD placements, fellowships and larger research grants.

The Research Councils, together with Innovate UK, the Met Office and most of the major academies, manage the calls and set the deadlines.

So what’s the attraction?  The Fund is an ideal first step



 



towards the larger and more ambitious Global Challenges Fund (GCRF—see p14) The budget and lifetime of the scheme has just been extended to £90 million a year, rising to £150 million a year by 2021 (greater than the total annual ESRC budget).

Success rates are generous, with some schemes >40%.

All research topics are eligible with no thematic priorities in the academies.

Kent has a good track record with the Fund, holding 11 Newton awards from three faculties, working with six countries.

19

ELIGIBLE COUNTRIES Africa: Egypt, Kenya, South Africa Asia: China, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, Turkey, Vietnam South America: Colombia, Chile, Mexico However, don’t wait for the call before planning the project. Talk to collaborators and Research Services now and start mapping out your project.

Want to know more?

The 2016-2017 Newton calls is included in this newsletter.

For more on Newton, talk to Carolyn Barker (c.m.barker47@kent.ac.uk, xtn 7957)

CHOICE CUTS FROM THE BLOG For the latest news and rumours from the world of research funding, log on to http://fundermental.blogspot.com What’s in a Name?

2 October 2016 In September the Royal Society announced it would be introducing a new grant application system. Now read on.

A marble-lined room in 6-9 Carlton House Terrace. The Grant Application System Naming Sub-committee Working Group.

Prof Rotwang (male) [looks at his pocket watch]: Well, we don't seem to be making much progress.

Prof Banner (male): JeS-Lite?

It's a bit like JeS, but lighter?

Prof Honeydew (male): Hmm...it might work.

Make people think that it's easy to apply to.

Prof Rotwang (male): But we don't want that! We've already got too many applications as it is! We want to try to put people off, not encourage them!

Prof Honeydew (male): Okay.

So let's think what might put people off. Some kind of connotation that would be positively repellent.

We want the veneer of accessibility and openness, but the base notes of repulsiveness.

Prof Rotwang (male): I know!

How about payday loans? They always appear to be open and attractive, and yet anyone who can find money any other way will steer well clear!

Prof Honeydew (male): Brilliant! That's it!

Prof Rotwang (male): How about Wongagrants?

Prof Honeydew (male): No, we can't just rip off a name that already exists.

Prof Banner (male): How about...Flexy? Sexyflexy?

Prof Rotwang & Prof Honeydew (both male): Flexi-Grants!

A moment of stunned silence as all admire their creation.

Prof Banner (male): It's perfect!

Meaningless, but suggestive of freedom, but with undercurrents of complexity and frustration.

Prof Rotwang (male): Let’s copyright this immediately! We don't want the Research Councils stealing this one! They're desperate to try and find a good name for their new system after [smirks] the 'Researchfish' debacle.

Doctoral Training Wordwheel 3 May 2016

Now I'm sure many of you have been struggling with the nomenclature that the Research Councils use for their doctoral training awards. One week it seems to be DTCs, the next DTPs. Or is it CDTs? Or CTPs? It's all so confusing, isn't it? And that's even before you start factoring in European ITNs, including EIDs or EJDs. Well, don't worry because Fundermentals is, as ever, on hand to help. Why not make up your own favourite three letter acronym to describe a doctoral training network using the wordwheel below?

After all, as fashions change, I'm sure your favoured acronym will have it's time in the sun.

Now remember the rules: invent a three letter doctoral training acronym using the letters in the wheel below. You can only use each letter once, and you must include the letter in the centre.

Enjoy!

NERC Launches Competition to Rename Sir David Attenborough 6 May 2016 Following the news that NERC had ignored the popular vote for ‘Boaty McBoatface’ and named its new research ship ‘Sir David Attenborough,’ the Research Council has moved to placate its critics by launching a new competition: to rename Sir David Attenborough.

'This is a tremendously exciting time for us,' gushed Prof Duncan Wingham, NERC Chief, 'But also necessary. Now that Boaty McBoatface is to be called Sir David Attenborough, it would be far too confusing to have two Sir David Attenboroughs floating around the place. ‘ 'No. There can't be two of them.

We need to rename him.’

The current favourites are:  That Monkey Guy  Is He Ever Going To Stop?  Whisper McWhisperface  Is That the One Out of Jurassic Park, or the Other One?  They're Actually Quite Interesting Once You Start Watching  There Goes the BBC's Annual Budget.

'The process for choosing the winner will be open and transparent. We promise to listen the people.

'Unless we don't like it., of course. Then we'll just ignore it and go for whatever we fancy.'

Lookalike Corner Top BBC politico Nick Robinson has been sworn in as the new head of the British Academy. After all those hours standing in front of Downing Street, then getting up to present Today, it's time for a more civilised job. Any resemblance to eminent historian Prof Sir David Carradine is entirely coincidental.

20

Carradine Davies

Robinson Wallace