RESEARCH ACTIVE The Newsletter of University of Kent Research Services, Vol 5, Issue 2, Feb 2011
WEATHERING THE STORM
After the cyclone of the Spending Review the Research Councils are beginning to assess the changed funding landscape. They know that they will have to cut back and more assiduously patrol their turf in future. It’s easy to be disheartened by this. It feels like the barriers are going up, and only the favoured few will be allowed in. However, funding is as important now as it has ever been, and there are steps you can take to make sure that you are well placed to secure it. Research Funding Is Still Important • • •
•
It frees you up to do research; It’s an important indicator for the REF; It enables you to do what would not be possible normally, from visiting archives and collaborators, to buying equipment, to hiring RAs to help with the work; It brings in overheads for your School, either directly with the grant, or through increased QR. Giving your Proposal the Edge
Do your homework • Understand what the funder and scheme want to fund; • Make sure your project meets the strategic priorities of the funder; • Look at the panel membership and work out who will look at your application. Spread your bets, and don’t give up • Apply to more than one funder. Don’t wait to be rejected before trying elsewhere; • Resubmit, taking into account any feedback. Get as much advice and feedback as possible • From colleagues working in your field; • From academics who have reviewed or got grants from the funder. Going to the Grants Factory is a good way of doing this (see enclosed poster); • From the funder. Don’t be afraid of calling them up and sounding out their officers; • From Research Services, who can help you draft your application and properly cost it.
Image: SXC
Inside is more specific detail on the changes at the Research Councils after the budget allocations, and advice on drafting a storm-proof application. 1
RECENT AWARDS Recent awards have included: Dr Tamar Jeffers McDonald (Arts): £23,005 from AHRC for ‘Doris Day: Exploring the Myth of the 40 Year Old Virgin’; Dr Luke Lavan (SECL): £182,598 from Leverhulme for ‘Visualising the Late Antique City: Everyday Life AD 300-600’; Dr Richard Williamson (Biosciences): £239,648 from Wellcome for ‘Conformational, Dynamic and Ligand-Binding Properties of Protein DisulphideIsomerase: Studies with Site-Specific NMR and Fluorescent Probes’; Prof Frank Wang (Computing): £111,229 from EPSRC for ‘Accelerating NFS/CIFS to Produce a Tenfold Performance Improvement for Office/Database Applications’; Dr Serena Corr (SPS) : £14,981 from Royal Society for ‘Microwave Synthesis of New Functional Metal
Oxide Nanostructures for Lithium Ion Battery Applications’; Dr Ruth Blakely (PolIR): £51,461 from ESRC for ‘The Globalisation of Rendition and Proxy Detention’; Dr David Wilkinson (Psychology) and Prof Patrick Pullicino (Biosciences): £201,166 from the MRC for ‘Does Repeated Vestibular Stimulation Induce Lasting Recovery from Hemi-Spatial Neglect?’ Dr Ellie Lee (SSPSSR) and Prof Sally Sheldon (KLS): £79,235 from ESRC for ’Assessing Child Welfare under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act: the New Law’. Congratulations to all award winners—both listed and unlisted—and all the best with your research.
...and Where We’re at Overall Despite all the gloomy news, the level of awards has held firm in the first 5 months of the year. Kent got £5.9m in new awards, up £2.6m on the same period last year, and the second highest total for that period in the past 7 years. Well done to all those who have played a part in this.
Crafting a Storm-proof Application Concentrate on the methodology Keep theoretical background to a minimum, and get on to the project itself as soon as possible. Funders want to know what you’re going to do with their money, and whether your methodology is reasonable, appropriate, and likely to yield an answer.
Bid writing is not an exact science, but there are some common points that you should keep in mind when preparing your application: Do you have the right profile and project? This is a basic one, but crucial. Do you have the right track record and profile to be ‘viable’ in the funder’s eyes? Is the project plausible and necessary, and appropriate for you at your stage of your career?
Give yourself time It takes longer than you think to write a proposal. Be aware of the deadline and don’t leave it to the last minute. I’d suggest at least a month to write, at least a week for approval, on average 6 months for outcome, plus you'll need time to recruit staff etc
Now think of the specifics So you’ve got a good idea, but you’ve got to think about the specifics of the project. What will you do? What are you objectives, your plan, your timescale? Why now? Why you? What are the outcomes? What resources do you need?
Show it to your peers I can’t stress this enough. You’ve lived with and worked on your application for so long you might not be able to see the wood for the trees. Show it to colleagues, friends, respected others. The man on the Clapham omnibus. All feedback is good. It’s better to get criticism now than with the rejection letter.
Think defensively Assessors are looking for reasons to reject applications. Justify your choices.
Make sure costs match outcome Costs should be reasonable, accurate and eligible. Value for money is a factor, and you shouldn’t ask for a million pounds to produce one article.
Keep it simple, keep it readable Panellists are time poor, and may not have an in depth knowledge of your area. So keep the language simple and sentences short. Eliminate jargon. Explain any acronyms. Repeat key messages.
Don’t give up Success rates are plummeting. At best you have a 1 in 4 chance. Applications are time consuming. Reviewing is a lottery. Don’t give up, and don’t wait until you’re rejected before trying elsewhere.
Communicate enthusiasm Reviewers see literally hundreds of applications. Make yours stand out and pass on some of the interest and enjoyment of the subject. 2
CHANGES TO THE RESEARCH COUNCILS The Research Councils have announced changes to their funding priorities in light of the Government's budget allocation, with a 3% cut from all but the MRC:
ESRC: • Funding on research to be cut by £5m pa by 2014; • The small grants scheme will be cut and minimum spend for standard grants scheme will be raised to £200,000, from 1 Feb 2011; • It will combine existing schemes for early career researchers into a future research leaders scheme, and combine large grants and centres competitions with each other. • Its contribution to interdisciplinary programmes (such as food security) will be maintained, but it has signalled a shift from global to UK focus and greater emphasis on impact. • Its ‘seven challenges’ will narrow down to 3 strategic priorities: Economic performance and sustainable growth; Influencing behaviour and informing interventions; Vibrant and fair society.
AHRC: • Capital funding will be cut entirely; • It will abolish the Creative and Performing Arts Fellowships, Practice-led Research Grants and Applied Route KT Fellowships and Catalyst schemes; • It will introduce 4 priorites: digital transformations; translating cultures; care for the futre, and science in culture. In addition, it will invest in 3 areas of 'strategic need': modern languages, design and heritage. • It will increase investment in cross council programmes: 'connected communities', 'living with environmental change' and the 'digital economy'. • It will also increase its investment in 'impact' activities, including knowledge transfer, and 'creative economy hubs'.
NERC: • Big cuts to its own institutes; • However, it will increase external grant funding by £23m by end of period (2015); • As with ESRC, it seems to draw back from international focus, instead emphasising the importance of meeting national objectives; • It also wants to 'concentrate' funding in fewer organisations, although it already gives 4/5ths of its money to just 25 institutions; • As with others, it's encouraging more interaction with external organisations, for instance in renewable energy and risk management.
BBSRC: • A possible move away from blue skies research: “The intention over this period is to effect a greater alignment of the basic underpinning bioscience investment into the critical strategic priorities within the available funding envelope.” • Most of the funding cut will be shouldered by research grants (cut by 6%), although fellowships will take a bigger percentage hit (from £9m to £6m); • As with the other councils, it will plough more into impact/knowledge exchange activity; • Thus, its priorities will be industrial biotechnology, food security and bioenergy; • It will also increase its contributions to cross-council programmes.
STFC: • STFC has split its budget into three streams in order to protect its grants funding from the demands of international activities and currency fluctuations, from which it has taken a hit in the past;
EPSRC: • EPSRC is positioning itself as a 'sponsor' rather than a 'funder', so it's seeking to provide more strategic leadership, and encourage links with industry. • Capital funding cut by 50%. The EPSRC wants to see more sharing of facilities as a result; • It will cut project studentships; • It will focus on 4 main themes: maufacturing, energy, the digital economy and healthcare technologies. Funding in these areas will increase over the period, whereas more general responsive mode funding will decrease by c£58m pa by the end of the period (2015).
MRC: • MRC was the only Research Council to see an increase in funding. • Much of the income rise will come from a change in policy that will allow it to keep funding that arises from commercialisation. This will be reinvested in developing translational medicine. The full Research Council delivery plans, which give detail of all the changes, are available via links on the Blog at bit.ly/RCUKplans.
3
debate; likely to be 15% or 20% of the total quality profile. There will be one case study per 5-10 staff members submitted, and the impact Panel membership statement is to become part of the The chairs of the REF sub-panels ‘research environment’ section. Full were announced in November details are available from a main re(http://bit.ly/REFpanelchairs ), and port on the findings of the panels membership of the sub-panels is cur- (http://bit.ly/hvY3SW ), and by derently being finalised. Early indicatailed feedback on the process tions are that Kent will have good (http://bit.ly/g21vh9). Example case representation on the sub-panels, studies from the impact pilot have with one sub-panel chair, around five been published (http://bit.ly/ sub-panel members, and one memREFimpact), covering each of the ber of the panel secretariat. Full pilot Units of Assessment (UOAs) details are expected shortly. plus the impact profiles awarded (http://bit.ly/REFimpactProfile). Impact stays Note though that the pilot submisThe results of HEFCE’s pilot impact sions were experimental, and HEIs exercise were published in Novem- were encouraged to submit case ber. The big news is that impact is studies which tested the panels; so confirmed as an integral part of the the profiles probably aren’t a true REF, though its weighting is still in reflection of the HEI’s impact.
Update on the REF
FROM THE BLOG For the latest news and rumours from the world of research funding, log on to fundermental.blogspot.com/ . You can also follow us on Twitter @UoKResearch Feedback from Collaboration Workshop 17 Sept 2010 Dr Peter Bennett and Prof Jon Williamson led a session on the prizes and pitfalls of collaborations. Peter suggested that his most fruitful collaborations had started informally, in tea rooms or pubs, and he stressed the importance of getting on well with your project partners. Jon gave some reasons for collaborating: it enables you to solve a larger problem, and to 'do more with your time'. It’s also an opportunity to learn from other disciplines and to propagate new ideas. The difficulties were also recognised, particularly in large projects. When preparing an application you need to have a clear, well defined research question and sub-goals. It was suggested that fewer partners was better logistically, ideally fewer than four.
ESRC Consults on ‘Demand Management’ 4 Jan 2011
What’s happening next with the REF at Kent? • Guidance on impact will be issued shortly; in 2011 we’ll focus on identifying and preparing impact, while 2012 will see a full mock submission before the real thing in 2013. • This Summer: Publication of the Guidance on Submissions, and draft panel criteria. The latter will detail the scope of each UOA and what the panel will expect. We’ll be able to feed into the development of the REF and identify any concerns. It will settle such questions as provision for Early Career Researchers, Research Fellows and those on maternity leave, and whether we can make more than one submission to the same UOA. Further details about the REF from Clair Thrower, c.thrower@kent.ac.uk, www.ref.ac.uk, or http://bit.ly/kentREF. Your Time May Come 7 Oct 2010
The ESRC’s Chief Executive Prof Paul Boyle has stated explicitly that it will be introducing some form of 'demand management'. This means that he intends to limit the number of applications individuals or institutions can submit.
A great report in the press this week, following the announcement that Robert Edwards was to receive the Nobel Prize for Medicine. Edwards was the developer of in-vitro fertilisation treatment, which has led, since 1978, to millions of 'test tube babies'.
In a discussion paper, he lays out five options: • Researcher Sanctions: limiting proposals from those regularly rejected; • Institutional Sanctions: sanctions for HEIs with low success rate and/or quality threshold; • Institutional Quotas for ‘managed mode’ schemes. Limiting numbers for schemes such as Large Grants/Centres, Professorial Fellowships; • Institutional quotas for all schemes: as above, but for all; • Charging for applications. Levying deposit, redeemable if the application is successful.
Now what normally happens when a British Nobel Prize laureate is announced is for one of the Research Councils to jump on the announcement and claim credit. Strangely, all have been a little quiet this time around. Why? Perhaps it's because the MRC originally rejected Edwards application in 1971. This was for a number of reasons, including the government policy at the time that focused on limiting population growth rather than encouraging more. So Edwards had to turn to private sources of funding.
The ESRC is currently consulting the sector on these options, and will announce its decision in due course.
So if your research doesn't fit the current RCUK fads, don't worry: your time may come.
4