Research Active Vol 06 Issue 3 Oct 2011

RESEARCH ACTIVE The Newsletter of University of Kent Research Services, Vol 6, Issue 1, October 2011

Image: nuchylee/freedigitalphotos.net

PEER REVIEW LAUNCHED

Image: NASA

INSIDE THIS EDITION The system is intended to be supportive rather than oppressive. Applicants will be able to get feedback from two reviewers: one will have an underAs reported in the last edition of standing of their discipline, and one Research Active, the University is in- an inside knowledge of the funder to troducing a new internal peer review whom they are applying. system this term.

Prof John Baldock, Pro Vice ChanKent Peer Review (KPR) went live cellor for Research, said ‘I believe on 1 October for applications due that the new system will have a posito be submitted on or after 14 No- tive effect on the quality of applications being submitted from Kent, vember. and, in turn, lead to an increase in It is being introduced in response to awards. I would encourage you to demands from the Research Coun- engage with it as early as possible in cils, and has been developed after the development of your proposals.’ widespread consultation through the Board for Research & Enterprise and More detail of KPR is available at the Directors of Research Network. bit.ly/kentpeerreview. You can also talk to your Faculty Funding Officer The new system only affects certain or Phil Ward (p.ward@kent.ac.uk) if applications: those to the Research you have any specific queries about Councils; first grants; or large grants. the system.

New Grants •

2

Featured Award

Virginia Tech Awards

2

Grants Factory

3

•

New Programme

•

Notes from recent events

European Funding

4

•

Proposals for Horizon 2020

•

Proposed Budget

•

New UKRO Contact

Research Council Funding •

A Tale of 2 Success Rates

•

AHRC Blackout

•

NERC Cuts Small Grants

•

EPSRC Changes

5

Welcome to New Staff

6

REF Update

7

Research Services Contacts

8

ResearchActive is edited by Phil Ward. Contact him for more information or clarification on any of the items in this edition. In addition, for 1 the latest from the world of research funding, go to fundermental.blogspot.com, or Twitter @UoKResearch & @frootle

RECENT AWARDS Recent awards have included: Dr Catherine Richardson (English): £20,596 from AHRC for ‘Ways of Seeing the English Domestic Interior 1500-1700’; Dr Abby Day (SECL): £80,070 from ESRC for ‘The Death of the Christian, Female Generation A: social, religious, economic impacts’; Prof Martin Warren (Biosciences): £365,135 from BBSRC for ‘Unravelling the Remarkable Synthesis and Mechanisms Involved in the Biogenesis of Heme and Heme d1 from Siroheme’; Prof John Batchelor (EDA): £417,757 from EPSRC for ‘Digital Fabrication of UHF Electromagnetic Structures;’ Prof Andy Hone (SMSAS), pictured: £7,365 from the Royal Society for

‘Generalized Hamiltonian Structure of Differential Equations and Dissipative Dynamic Systems’; Dr Dan Petrovici (KBS), pictured: £4,670 from the British Academy for ‘A Cross Cultural Study on Comparative Advertising Effectiveness and Implications for Nutrition Policies’; Prof Richard Sakwa (PolIR): £6,586 from the British Academy for ‘Business Raiding in Contemporary Russia; Dr Heather Ferguson (Psychology), pictured: £136,823 from Leverhulme for ‘Understanding the Minds of Others: a Cognitive Approach to Theory of Mind’.

Congratulations to all award winners—both listed and unlisted—and we wish you all the best with your research.

Outcome of the Second Round of Virginia Tech Partnering Awards This year marks the second anniversary of the Virginia Tech-University of Kent Partnering Award Program.

The Program is aimed at encouraging and facilitating collaboration between the two institutions, and this year three awards were made.

Ms Bilge Daldeniz (KBS) Dr Nancy Gard McGehee (VT) The investigators will examine the impacts of volunteer tourism on host communities. Volunteer tourism is a niche that has grown significantly in recent years, but little is known about its effects on host communities. Dr McGehee has worked on volunteer tourism for over a decade, whilst Ms Daldeniz is an emerging scholar in the area; the former’s research experience and theoretical background will complement the

Featured Award Imagining Autism: Drama, Performance & Intermediality as Interventions for Autistic Spectrum Conditions Dr Nicki Shaughnessy, Dr Melissa Trimingham (Arts), Dr Julie Beadle-Brown (Tizard) and Dr David Wilkinson (Psychology) have been awarded £429,000 from the AHRC. Their project will investigate how children with autism can benefit from a range of drama interventions centring on live, interactive performance using puppetry, light, sound and digital media.

The interdisciplinary study will evaluate the impact of the drama interventions on 18 children during the 30-month project.

Trust: one for a project grant, the other for a Visiting Professorship.

Dr Joao Macieira (VT) Dr Diogo de Souza Monteiro latter’s extensive contacts in the (KBS) field. Together they will submit an application to the ESRC to develop a Certification – such as that for orrobust, evidence-based framework ganic farming standards – tends to be for future planning, management and implemented and monitored by third parties (e.g., The Soil Association), hosting of volunteer tourism. and there is now a fast growing global market for the provision of Dr Todd Mei (SECL) these services. However, there has Prof Nicolaus Tideman (VT) been little empirical research examDr Mei and Prof Tideman will discuss ining the performance of this market. economic and philosophical concepts The investigators will undertake a of land, and how related questions of pilot project to do just that, focusing rights and justice can be developed in initially on the organic food sector in new ways. The investigators do not the USA, UK and Portugal. This will share identical views on these areas, lead to a joint paper, and the develbut a fertile mixture of agreement opment of a grant proposal targeted and difference exists that will lead to at DEFRA or the National Institute a healthy and critical dialogue and of Food and Agriculture in the US. develop each scholar’s thought and contribution to their respective Congratulations to all those involved fields. Their collaboration will lead to in these partnerships. two proposals to the Leverhulme 2

Applying to the ERC

Clocking on at the Grants Factory Image: Library of Congress

The new Grants Factory programme kicked off this month with two events in the same week: Dr Peter Bennett gave a talk on responding to reviewers’ comments, and Dr Jenny Billings and Prof Simon Thompson led a workshop on European funding applications.

You should respond to reviewers’ comNotes from both events are given on ments with humility. Don’t the right, and dates for the new draft flare up and respond in haste. Step programme are below. back, take time, and plan your response. Extract the criticisms from the text, and work out how you Your Cut Out and Keep will respond to them. All of them should be treated as valid, even if Guide to the you feel that some are ridiculous.

Grants Factory 2011-12 Respect the opinions of reviewers and panellists. Thank them for their 14 Sept: Responding to Reviewcomments, and either: ers Comments Address their concerns head 15 Sept: European Funding on: if their feedback is valid, say Clinic that you have taken it on board, 1 Dec: Big Question, Big Prohave made the necessary changes, jects and that the proposal is stronger as a result; 7 Dec: Inside the Panel

Responding to Reviewers’ Comments

15 Feb: Playing the Game 1 Mar: 9 May:

Writing Better Bids Eurovision: Pros & Cons of European Funding

30 May: Writing Better Bids 11 June: Fellowships

Sweeten the pill: if their feedback is invalid, say that you consider it to be an interesting idea, but that the nature of the current project would not allow you to incorporate their suggestions, and that it might be possible to do so in a future project.

3

The workshop on European Funding concentrated on applications to the ERC. This allowed the discussions to be more focussed, and the group explored the crucial elements of a successful proposal: Question At the first stage of the assessment process your application is seen by a wide ranging panel, which will only look at your 5 page ‘extended synopsis of the scientific proposal’.

You’ve got to ‘hook’ them in by outlining a tantalising question, and a clear route to finding the solution.

Programme Your work programme has to be feasible, structured around achievable ‘work packages’.

Team The ERC offers generous funding, and it is more likely to fund a project that involves a team than one with a lone academic. However, their inclusion has to make sense and be necessary.

Experience Not everyone will have the perfect track record of publications and grants. However, capitalise on what you have achieved, and how this leads naturally on to your current proposal.

Language The panellists (and later, external reviewers) will be from across Europe, and English is unlikely to be their first language. Keep it simple, and don’t ‘over conceptualise.’

Whilst you should make bold claims about your track record and the potential of your research, you should always ground these claims with evidence and demonstration.

Meanwhile, in Brussels...

SHOW ME THE MONEY How much is the EC planning to spend on Horizon 2020, and will it offer the same deal for researchers as FP7?

European funding news Image: Zulgadia/freedigitalphotos.com

In June the EC ran a competition to including: name the successor to the Seventh • a rationalised set of funding Framework Programme (FP7). The schemes and instruments; shortlist was fairly insipid: ‘Discover • a single set of rules for eligibility, 2020’, ‘Imagine 2020’ or ‘Horizon reporting and auditing; 2020’.

• a simplified approach to cost reimbursement; The final choice was ‘Horizon 2020’, and since the summer the Commis- • a greater use of lump sums and flat rates; sion has been putting some meat on • shorter negotiation and selection the bones of its proposals. phases; The intention is to bring together • a single IT portal for grant applications and management. several research and innovation funding streams, If agreed, Horizon 2020 will start in 2014 and will conNEW UKRO sist of three broad pillars: •

•

•

one will focus more on ‘basic’ research, including the ERC, Marie Curie and Future and Emerging Technologies (FET); One will focus on ‘tackling societal challenges’ in health, food security, secure and green energy, smart, green and integrated transport, raw materials and climate, and inclusive societies.

One will focus on integrating innovation and links with business.

As ever when a new Framework Programme is announced, the EC is proposing to simplify the structure and process of European funding,

REPRESENTATIVE Jo Frost—no, not that Jo Frost— will be taking over from Andy Smith as our contact at the UK Research Office in Brussels.

Jo has been at UKRO for over five years, and is the ERC guru there. Prior to this she worked at NERC, helping to introduce its Peer Review College and two st age review process. Jo has a MSc in Chemical Engineering from Cambridge.

4

The proposed budget for Horizon 2020 will increase from the current total for FP7 of €50bn to €80bn, a rise of 46%.

This proposal will now be negotiated with the Parliament and Council, and agreement will probably only be finalised in 2012.

In the meantime the EC is also considering reimbursement rates for participants in the new Framework. Europe rarely offers 100% funding, The suggestion is that • • • •

Research activities should attract 75% funding, Innovation activities 50%, and Combined research and innovation activities 60%.

Marie Curie and ERC would be up to 100%, as at present.

These would be for all participants (both academia and industry) and would apply to an entire project.

More controversially, indirect costs would only be costed at 75% of personnel costs rather than the project total.

This may have a substantial effect on projects that have a large amount of equipment or other costs. However, we’ve done some initial modelling in Research Services and Kent would be largely unaffected by these changes.

...and Swindon

Research Council news Image: ZaptheDingbat/freedigitalphotos.com

A Tale of Two Success Rates

AHRC Application Blackout—Again

Two interesting articles in the Times Higher in two successive weeks last month sent out mixed messages about Research Council success rates.

The first suggested that the ESRC’s slumping success rate (16%) spelt the end of the Council; the other suggested that the EPSRC’s rocketing success rate (36%) spelt the end of the Council.

You could forgive the RCUK bosses for rolling their eyes at this response.

There’s no pleasing some people.

The point that THE was making was that applying to the ESRC was little better than a lottery, but that the EPSRC’s limiting of applications via its blacklisting system was too draconian.

However, there’s a more important point to take from this tale: the Research Councils will be more determined than ever to introduce ’demand management’ to push their figures towards the EPSRC rather than the ESRC end of the spectrum.

They will be pushing even harder for more HEI ‘self-regulation’, which makes our own peer review (see front page) all the more timely.

The AHRC has announced that it will be making some significant changes to its Fellowships scheme, in line with its Delivery Plan 201115. The scheme will thus be closed for applications between 17 October 2011 and January next year.

Having spoken to insiders at the AHRC it’s clear that, when the Fellowships reopen, they will expect applications to be closely tied to their strategic priorities, and that the Council will be expecting universities to do more of the filtering of fellowship applications, as the Council moves into line with the ESRC and EPSRC demand management strategies. In addition, they will allow ECRs an additional year post-doctoral experience to qualify for the early career route.

NERC Cuts Small Grants NERC will be cutting its Small Grants scheme, and limiting its Consortium Grants to one round a year.

The Council has moved to reassure the sector by saying that ‘it 5

will remain possible to submit proposals for small discrete projects, proof-of-concept studies and pump-priming exercises to the Standard Grants scheme, if they exceed the minimum scheme funding level', which is defined by NERC as '£25,000 for directly incurred costs', I spoke to Sarah Collinge of NERC about the cut to Small Grants. She suggested that partly it was due to cuts to their budgets, partly to the fact that it was just as bureaucratic to manage small grants as it was standard, and partly to recognising that lower quality grants were getting funding compared with the Standard Grants.

I suggested that taking away an opportunity to access small scale funding removed that crucial 'first step' for ECRs to get experience of managing a grant. Interestingly, however, she said that they'd done some analysis of the awards, and the profile for small grants was roughly the same as the standard, and that there wouldn’t be a large number of ECRs disenfranchised by the move.

EPSRC Ch-ch-changes The EPSRC has introduced a new Fellowship scheme. Changes include: a single, unified scheme for all career stages; no closing date, outline stage or eligibility criteria based on years of post-doc experience; a focus on specific disciplines linked to EPSRC’s strategic priorities; and freedom for applicants to ask for less than 100% of their time.

Elsewhere, the Council has got into hot water with scientists affected by suggested cuts outlined in the ‘Shaping Capability’ proposals.

Paul Clarke, a synthetic chemist at York, said that ‘it will set fundamental research back at least a generation, We won't have the resources...the manpower [or] the people with the necessary skills to do the research.'

WELCOME! Last year 30 academics came to the University. This term sees 25 more joining our ranks.

A warm welcome to them, and here’s a brief summary of their research interests.

Rob Bailey (Journalism): was a chief reporter and news editor with the Kent Messenger Group for more than 12 years. His research interests are in convergent journalism and the future of regional journalism.

Dr Ben Baumberg (SSPSSR): has research interests in disability, the workplace, inequality, the benefits system, addictions policy & Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), and the relationship between evidence and policy.

Dr Stella Bolaki (English): looks at elements of contemporary American literature and culture, including multi -ethnic writing, Bildungsroman, migration and diaspora, gender theory, life writing and medical humanities.

Dr Judith Bovensiepen (SAC) pictured: is interested in the way people rebuild their communities after violent conflict and displacement and more generally in the anthropology of Southeast Asia and the Pacific.

Dr Francesco Capello (SECL): researches turn-of-the-century Italian literature and culture, the city and literature, twentieth-century Italian poetry, contemporary psychoanalytic theory and psychoanalysis applied to the humanities.

Dr Li-Cheng Chang (KBS): has interests in institutional theory and public sector accountability. In particular, has been examining the use of performance measurements for accountability purposes in the NHS. Dr Heejung Chung (SSPSSR): has interests in labour market and welfare state research, recently focusing on issues surrounding work-life balance, employment insecurity, and gender norms.

Dr Vicky Conway (KLS): looks at policing and police accountability with a current focus on how social changes change the nature of policing in a given society. She is also interested in miscarriages of justice

and how the criminal justice system attempts to address this problem.

Iain Frame (KLS): draws on American legal realism to analyse the private law rules of property, contract and negotiable instruments as they influenced the evolving structure of money and banking in England and Scotland in 18th & 19th centuries.

Dr Edward Kanterian (SECL)is interested in Kant's metaphysics, the history of modern philosophy, the philosophy of language and the ethics of memory.

Dr Shenxue Li (KBS): studies the strategy of multinationals, including recent empirical studies on the dynamic capabilities of MNCs operating in high velocity markets, and an examination of the local knowledge management strategies within 19 Multinationals in China.

Dr Jessica Frazier (SECL): is interested in the nature of religion, and the study of Hindu traditions.

Dr Neophytos Loizides (PolIR): focuses on nationalism, democratization and ethnic conflict regulation in deeply divided societies. particularly negotiating the right of return and missing persons in post-conflict societies.

Dr Dunstan Lowe (SECL): has interests in Roman poetry, as well as the role of classical antiquity in modern culture, especially in video games and other entertainment media.

Dr Gianluca Marcelli (EDA): looks at mathematical modelling for cell mechanics (red blood cell) and cell signalling (ovary, intestine, drosophila).

Prof Roger Matthews (SSPSSR): has research interests in crime-related issues, prostitution, desistance, and sex trafficking.

Dr Lex Mauger (Sports Studies): focuses on the effects of anticipatory regulation during high intensity exercise performance and the importance of central control, as well as the role of pain in exercise and performance.

6

Prof Martin Michaelis (Bisociences): is interested in cancer cell chemoresistance mechanisms. His unique tool is a collection of chemoresistant cancer cell lines that are used for the study of molecular resistance mechanisms, and for the testing of anti-cancer agents.

Dr Henrik Schoenfeld (Architecture): is interested in the history of environmental design in architecture and the role of the natural sciences in its development.

Dr Harmonie Toros (PolIR): focuses on the intersection between terrorism studies, conflict resolution and transformation, looking in particular at whether and how talking can contribute to the transformation of conflicts marked by terrorist violence.

Prof Yuri Ushkaryov (Pharmacy): looks at the control of communication between neurons, and in particular how presynaptic receptors and neuronal interactions modulate cytosolic Ca2+ and control neurotransmitter secretion.

Dr Nikolaos Voukelatos (KBS): focuses on financial econometrics, specifically models that describe asset returns and conditional volatility.

Dr Huamao Wang (SMSAS): is interested in utility optimization and derivative valuation under restricted financial market conditions, including parameter uncertainty, information incompleteness, frictions and limited arbitrage, by applying Bayesian and nonlinear econometric methods.

Dr Richard Watkins (Architecture): works in sustainable architecture, and has had funding from Defra and EPSRC on retail refrigeration and future climate data.

Prof Richard Whitman (PolIR), pictured: researches the international role of the EU and its developing foreign policy capacity. Currently working with Chatham House in assessing the performance of the new EU diplomatic service.

Pass Notes on the So what’s the latest?

Over the summer HEFCE published a swathe of guidance on the forthcoming REF, and we now have a good idea of what it will look like.

Armed with this information the University will be running a pilot exercise in 2012 as a dress rehearsal for the final countdown in 2013.

Pilot Exercise! Do I need to do anything for it now?

Impact (worth 20% of the final score) This will be based on a summary and a small number of case studies for each Unit of Assessment.

HEFCE is defining impact very broadly, and it will include ‘all kinds of social, economic and cultural benefits beyond academia arising from excellent research.’ The research on which it’s based must have taken place between Jan 1993 and Dec 2013. The impact must have been felt between Jan 2008 and July 2013.

and if any changes are needed, they’ll be implemented before the final deadline.

Okay. So we’ve got a good understanding of what’s in store.

Are there still any unanswered questions?

Oh yes. The Guidance was useful, but there are still a number of issues that need to be nailed down. One of the biggest areas of uncertainty is around outputs, particularly:

Early Career Researchers (ECRs).

For ECRs, HEFCE is proposing a sliding scale. An ECR starting after 1 Aug 2009 needs 3 outputs; if they started after 1 Aug 2010 they need 2,; and if they started in August this Discipline-specific issues, and how year the need just one. each subject area will work in practice, are currently under consulta- Double-Weighted Outputs. Outputs tion. of extraordinary scale and scope may count as two for some panels; Panel Right. So no nasty surprises so D may allow a ‘reserve’ item. far. Anything else?

Allowance for Career Breaks. This is Yes. HEFCE will be treating equality still uncertain, particularly for and diversity very seriously in the women who’ve been on maternity REF, both in universities as they pre- leave. HEFCE has yet to decide pare their submissions, and in the whether they be allowed to submit panels and sub-panels when they one fewer outputs per pregnancy, or make their assessments in 2014. whether there should be a minimum 14 month absence before allowance What does that mean for Kent? is made?

Research Environment: (worth 15% of the final score). This includes the management of research, research strategies, what facilities are available, income and so on.

7

Co-authored Outputs: Once again, this is still unclear: will universities be allowed to include them more than once in a submission, if two authors are from the same university. Should there be a minimum contribution before someone can cite a paper?

We’ll keep you updated as details are finalised. There is a REF email list. If you’d like to be included on this contact Clair Thrower (c.thrower@kent.ac.uk, xtn 7350).

Image: Dorling Kindersley

Only if you’re a REF Coordinator.

This term, they will be preparing for the pilot by drafting a number of impact case studies. They will consult with colleagues to identify examples of impact on which to focus. They will then test these out on other Coordinators at Lunchtime Seminarstyle sessions, which will identify the strengths and weaknesses of each.

This phase will culminate in submissions of the case studies to the PVC Well, we’ve got to have in place a Code of Practice for the selection of Research on 18 November. staff to be submitted to the REF. Okay. It sounds like prepara- We’re currently drafting this. It will tions are in hand. So tell me explain who makes the decisions more about the new informa- around the submission, and based tion to come out of HEFCE this on what criteria. The Code will be publicly available, and will be pubsummer. lished with the rest of the submisWell, there weren’t many surprises sion in 2015. in the ‘Guidance on Submissions’. As expected, the submission will consist In addition, everyone who is involved in preparing our submission will take of three elements: part in equality and diversity training Outputs (worth 65% of the score): specifically tailored to the requireThese are defined broadly and can ments of the REF. We will also be include performances, physical arte- conducting an equality impact asfacts and digital material as well as sessment to see whether our selecthe more traditional books and jour- tion procedures are fair, or whether any unintentional bias exnal articles. ists; the results will be reviewed

Who should you talk to in Research Services? That depends on your query; the office is csplit into three teams: • The Funding Development Team: help staff identify funders and put together applications. If you’re not sure who else to deal with in Research Services, give them a call first.

• The Contracts Team: help with the ‘official’ costing of your application, and with negotiating the contract when an award is made.

• The Accounts Team: help you manage the finances on your award.

Below is a guide as to who in each team is responsible for your school, and contact details for all members of the office.

CONTACT!

RESPONSIBILITIES School

Funding Team

Contracts Team

CONTACT DETAILS Accounts Team

Alicia

a.barron@kent.ac.uk

3882

Carolyn

c.m.barker-47@kent.ac.uk

7957

Image: Library of Congress

SAC

Phil

Ruth

Jon

Architecture

Lynne

Ruth

Jenny

Clair

c.thrower@kent.ac.uk

7350

Arts*

Lynne

Kate

Stephen

Gill

g.brunt@kent.ac.uk

4624

Biosciences

Carolyn

James

Jon

Jacqueline

j.aldridge@kent.ac.uk

4427

Computing

Carolyn

Juan

Alicia

James

j.manning@kent.ac.uk

EDA

Carolyn

Jane

Jody

4616

English

Lynne

James

Jody

Jane

J.benstead@kent.ac.uk

4203

Economics

Jacqueline

Juan

Jody

Jenny

j.rafferty@kent.ac.uk

3591

History

Lynne

James

Stephen

Jody

j.e.m.turner@kent.ac.uk

3882

Journalism

Karen

Karen

Jenny

Jon

j.king@kent.ac.uk

7938

KBS*

Jacqueline

Ruth

Jody

Juan

j.vidal-31@kent.ac.uk

3256

KLS*

Phil

Ruth

Jenny

Karen

k.a.allart@kent.ac.uk

8967

SMSAS

Carolyn

Juan

Alicia

Kate

k.a.ferguson@kent.ac.uk

4132

Pharmacy

Karen

Karen

Jenny

PolIR

Jacqueline

Juan

Jody

Kathy#

k.l.bennett@kent.ac.uk

3229

Psychology

Jacqueline

James

Stephen

Lynne

l.bennett-282@kent.ac.uk

4799

SECL

Lynne

Juan

Alicia

Phil

p.ward@kent.ac.uk

7748

Sports Studies

Karen

Karen

Jenny

Nicole

n.r.palmer@kent.ac.uk

4797

SPS

Carolyn

Juan

Stephen

Rachel

r.l.donald@kent.ac.uk

4575

SSPSSR*

Phil

Jane

Jon

Ruth

r.p.woodger@kent.ac.uk

3789

Stephen

s.p.ford@kent.ac.uk

3765

Sue

s.c.prout@kent.ac.uk

7054

•

CHSS

Phil

Kate

Stephen

•

PSSRU

Phil

Juan

Stephen

•

Tizard

Phil

Kate

Alicia

In addition, Clair has responsibility for the REF and Nicole for ethics and governance across all schools. *Karen is responsible for both the Funding & Contract issues for staff in these schools based at the Medway Campus. 8

#Dr Kathy Bennett will continue as Director of Research Services on a part-time secondment from Finance until the end of January 2012.