RESEARCH ACTIVE The Newsletter of University of Kent Research Services, Vol 5, Issue 3, May 2011 Image: kakisky
PEER REVIEW A University-wide system of internal peer review for large funding applications is currently being drafted, and it is hoped it will be introduced in the autumn. The move comes in response to the Research Council Delivery Plans, published in December last year. All the Councils stated their wish to ‘manage demand’. This means that they want to limit the number and increase the quality of applications they receive. The EPSRC has already done so by implementing its ‘blacklisting’ procedure (see p5). The BBSRC has talked about ‘triage’, the AHRC about ‘selfmanagement’, and the ESRC is currently consulting on different demand management options (see p4), which may penalise institutions that put in consistently low grade applications. It has stated that: ‘the Research Councils, where possible, will harmonise their demand management strategies. There is general agreement that HEIs should be encouraged to self regulate with a particular emphasis on structured peer review aimed at the submission of significantly fewer but better quality applications. This self regulation will be underpinned by the regular supply of performance data to institutions alongside better applicant guidance.’ Whilst the ‘push’ has come from the Research Councils for structured peer review, the University system
is intended to make a virtue of this necessity. It encourages applicants to discuss their proposals and get constructive feedback from those in the best position to help. Research Services are currently discussing the system with Heads of Schools, Directors of Research and others. Final proposals will be published in the Summer.
The Proposed System • will be mandatory for large applications (>£100k for
•
• • •
1
the Humanities, >£200k for Social Sciences, and >£300k for the Sciences), and voluntary for others; Applicants would complete an ‘intention to apply’ form outlining their project. On the form, two reviewers will be named: • Reviewer 1: has knowledge of the discipline; • Reviewer 2: has knowledge of the funder. These will be identified with help from the relevant DoR and Faculty Funding Officer. Applicants can discuss their applications with the Reviewers, and will show them the final version. Applicants do not have to accept feedback they receive, but will have to explain why they have not on the Internal Approval Form. The HoS, as now, will decide whether to approve the application.
RECENT AWARDS Recent awards have included: Prof Marialena Nikolopoulou (Architecture): £110,408 from EPSRC for ‘Detecting Terrorist Activities: shades of grey’; Dr Patricia Novillo-Corvalan (SECL): £4,615 from Wellcome for ‘The Art of Medicine in Iberian and Latin American Literature & Film’; Dr Ruey-Leng Loo (Pharmacy): £389,128 from the MRC for ‘Analyses of O~mniHeart Urine Samples’; Prof David Chadwick (Computing): £57,808 from EPSRC for ‘My Private Cloud’; Dr Stephane Launois (SMSAS): £102,685 from EPSRC for ‘Positive Positivity, Quantised Rings and Poisson Geometry’; Richard Pendry (Journalism) : £3,835 from the British Academy for ‘Georgia: censorship, access and security’; Dr Stephen Loughnan (Psychology): £80,489 from ESRC for ‘The Impact of Sexualised Images
on Thoughts, Perceptions and Behaviours’; Prof Peter Taylor-Gooby (SSPSSR): £40,826 from Leverhulme for ‘Social Cohesion at the Cross-Roads’. Space limitations mean that we can only list a small, indicative number of all the grants awarded last term. Apologies if yours is not listed. If you would like to see a full list, go to bit.ly/kentgrantlist. Congratulations to all award winners—both listed and unlisted—and all the best with your research.
...and Other Indicators? There has been a recent suggestion that academics would be interested in other indicators of research activity rather than just the number and value of awards. These could include: Number of publications; Citations; Keynote addresses; Membership of academies or committees.
• • • •
Of course this will be more difficult to collate, but perhaps staff could be invited to give an annual summary of such indicators, and the edited results publicised in Research Active and elsewhere, with a profile of the most active. If you have any thoughts on this get in touch with Phil Ward (p.ward@kent.ac.uk).
WELCOME! In the September issue of Research Active we listed the 28 academics who had recently joined us. Since then 12 more have started. Join us in welcoming them and finding out more about their research. Dr Markus Bindemann (Psychology): is a cognitive psychologist interested in various aspects of person perception, including face detection and eyewitness identification. Prof Phil Hubbard (SSPSSR): is an urban scholar with interests in the geographies of the city, including sexuality, space, leisure, nightlife, and antisociality. Ms Sarah Lauwo (KBS): works in social & environmental accounting, corporate governance, social responsibility, regulation and accounting, accountability and governance issues in developing countries. Prof Gordon Lynch (SECL): has interests in the cultural study of contemporary religion, as well as the sociology of contemporary sacred forms such as human rights and the care of children. Dr Matthew Loveless (PolIR): specializes in comparative and European politics with a particular focus on the European Union, Central & Eastern Europe. Mr Francesco Messineo (KLS): works in public international law, particularly in relation to human rights, refugees and migrants, and armed conflict.
Prof Marialena Nikolopoulou (Architecture): has interests in sustainable design. More specifically outdoor thermal comfort, urban microclimate, occupant perception and use of space and rational use of energy in the built environment. Prof Geoffrey Samuel (KLS): has research interests in the Law of Obligations, comparative law, legal remedies, theory and epistemology. Dr Silvia Stanescu (KBS): is a Lecturer in Finance, with an interest in volatility modelling with applications to financial risk management. Dr Joseph Tzanopoulos (SAC): focuses on biodiversity conservation using a landscape approach that integrates ecological and socio-economic aspects in order to monitor and assess the impacts of policy scenarios. Dr Wei-Feng Xue (Biosciences): has interests in protein amyloid assembly, and how amyloids are associated with diverse biological function or devastating neurodegenerative diseases. Dr Krystin Zigan (KBS): has interests in intellectual capital theory, strategic management in non-profit organisations and performance management 2
What’s New in the REF?
public with the research must have happened between 1 January 2008 and 31 July 2013. Submissions will consist of case studies; one per submission plus one per 10 FTE reImpact decisions published: in turned (ie a minimum of 2 case March HEFCE published an interim document (bit.ly/UoKREF1) outlining studies per submission) and supthe key features of the Framework, porting information about how the unit supported and enabled the and the weighting of the three key components (impact 20% -to be in- achievement of impact during the creased in subsequent REF exercises, assessment period (1 January 2008 outputs 65% and environment 15%). to 31 July 2013). Impact will be broadly defined, and can include “all kinds of social, economic and cultural benefits and impacts beyond academia, arising from excellent research”. However, it must be based on research of excellent quality (to be defined). Some of this research must have been undertaken by the submitting unit between January 1993 and December 2013. Engaging the
Equality and diversity: More information about the approach HEFCE will take to fostering an inclusive approach has been released on the REF website, bit.ly/UoKREF2. Further details will be included in Guidance on Submissions; REF panel members will all receive an equality briefing. The Kent Code of Practice setting out procedures to be followed in our REF preparations will
be drafted over the summer, and briefings will be held in the autumn term. Timetable for the REF: this is firming up. We now know that the staff census date is 31 October 2013, the submission deadline 29 November 2013; and the publication deadline is 31 December 2013. Full details from the HEFCE website bit.ly/UoKREF3. Diary date: the definitive Guidance on Submissions document will be published this July, alongside the first drafts of the Panel Criteria and Working Methods. We’re holding a discussion event on the 8th September to run through what this will mean for us, and gather feedback. If you’d like to come along please email Clair Thrower (c.thrower@kent.ac.uk).
Leverhulme Director Visits Kent Prof Sir Richard Brook, Director of the Leverhulme Trust, visited the University in April. He spoke to a full Senate Chamber, and stimulated a • good discussion around the philosophy and function of the Trust. At the heart of the Trust is the Board. It decides on policy, but also on who gets the awards. It is made up of ex-Unilever employees, almost all of whom have been CEO of the company. They are not academics, and many don’t have a background in the UK. They’re straight talking, straight acting businessmen, often with an international background.
how your research fits with whatever government initiative. It won’t wash; they don’t care. What they do like are projects which have: • Originality; • Forward significance; • Lateral significance (i.e. significance for other disciplines); • Risk.
In addition, it helps to have: • A clear individual vision; • An apparent fresh direction; • A disregard for traditional disciplinary boundaries. With this in mind, the Board should Whatever you do, make sure your be viewed as: project avoids: • Generalist: They don’t under- • ‘empire sustenance’: I’ve stand your discipline. Unless it’s been ploughing this furrow for business, of course, in which the last 30 years, I’ve got a lab of case you should be very careful... 20 people, and this project will sustain them.’ No. • Decisive: these are businessmen. Don’t flannel. Tell it like it • ‘initiative sustenance’: just is. because your area has been dropped as a priority by another • Resistive to fashion: don’t go funder, it doesn’t mean that on about impact, or the REF, or
3
Leverhulme will be interested. ...and don’t be an applicant who: • Make a claim to status entirely in metrics (eg how many 4* publications, which journals, which award, on which panel etc) • Think there’s some kind of hidden agenda. Really, there isn’t. • Talk in jargon. Remember, they’re non-academic generalists. Sir Richard made it clear that Leverhulme was refreshingly unfettered by the political demands of government, and that it ‘tries to avoid rules’. Above all, it wants to fund interesting research that has the potential to make a difference to the individual, to their discipline, and to others more broadly. To this end it doesn’t so much encourage interdisciplinary research as research that is blind to subject distinctions – what he called a ‘disdain for disciplinary boundaries.’ If you want to find out more about Leverhulme, or would like help with applying, do get in touch.
Funders are finding it increasingly hard to get reviewers; • The overall quality of applications has gone up. When he started c.50% of them were poorly written and/or unfundProf Mick Tuite able. These days almost all are gave a Grants well formatted, well thought out, Factory talk in and over 90% are 'internationally February on competitive'. how peer re• This makes the panel's job very view panels difficult. They are having to be work in practougher, and on average each tice. application has only 2 minutes Mick's had over worth of discussion before its 25 years experience of sitting on fate is decided. This is partly bereview panels for both research cause the 'introducing members' councils and charities, and has seen (IMs) are expected to have read many changes. These include: the application in full beforehand, • The process has become slower and steer the rest of the panel. and more involved; With this in mind, some key mes• The number of non-academics sages follow on from this: and admin staff on the panels has • Try and find out who's on the increased; panel, and particularly who is
likely to be your IM; • Get to know them, and, if possible, make them aware of you and your work; • Take time to really work on your Lay Summary. This is crucial, as it is the first (and often only) part that the non-IMs will read. Make your project clear, important and achievable; • Use clear formatting, a readable font, and make sure you avoid sloppy typos and grammar; • When responding to referees' statements, keep it succinct, courteous, and include new information if necessary. The Grants Factory programme will continue next year. Details will be available over the summer.
ESRC Consults (Again) on Demand Management
The Wellcome Trust will be visiting the University on July 8. More details to follow, but contact Carolyn Barker (cmb47@kent.ac.uk) if you would like to attend.
In the Belly of the Beast
After a stream of complaints about the limited nature of their postChristmas consultation on ‘demand management’, the ESRC is running the process again. It's issued a new consultation document, and is seeking responses by 16 June 2011.
•
and greater use of outline application processes. They’ll review this after 12 months to see if it’s had any effect. Depending on this, they may look to introduce some further ‘demand management’. They suggest that this could be:
Since last time it has developed a more thorough and thoughtful document. Whereas the previous one was a relatively breezy eight pages, the current consultation document is a meaty 25 pages. In it the Council talks about introducing an ‘initial programme of meas• ures’, starting in June 2011, which will be a fairly light touch form of demand management. This includes: • Universities/individuals having to demonstrate that they are ‘looking at ways to improve selfregulation’ - see our cover story; • • Providing more ‘performance data’ to institutions; • Invited-only resubmissions; • Earlier ‘sifting’ of applications,
STOP PRESS: WELLCOME VISIT
•
Researcher sanctions: limiting the number of applications from individuals who consistently fail to meet an agreed quality threshold – along the lines of the EPSRC’s ‘blacklisting’. Institutional sanctions: limiting the number of applications from institutions which don’t meet an agreed quality threshold. This could take the form of limit4
•
ing applications to 50% of the number submitted before, followed by a 12 month ban if quality hasn’t improved. Quality threshold may be at least 50% of applications Alpha rated or above each year. Institutional quotas: institutions would be put into one of four quota ‘bands’, based on previous performance, and could be ‘promoted’ or ‘relegated’. The four bands would be: top ten, next twenty, next thirty, and all the rest. Charging for applications: The ESRC is suggesting a maximum of £1k per application, refundable if the application passes a quality threshold.
The outcome will be known in autumn 2011. Once they’ve reviewed the ‘initial programme of measures’, they’ll announce any new measure in October 2012.
RCUK: Changes to Equipment Costs As the Research Councils (RCUK) get to grips with the dramatic cuts in capital funding, they have had to make some big changes in the way they fund equipment on research grants. The existing rules allow equipment worth less than £50k to be funded at 80%, and that worth more to be funded at 100%. From 1st May 2011this will change: • The lower limit for individual items of equipment will increase from £3k to £10k. Items below £10k will be classified as ‘Consumables’, and be added under the ‘Other Directly In-
•
•
•
•
curred costs’ in Je-S. For items between £10k-£121.5k, RCUK will expect at least 50% match funding. Universities will also need to confirm that the piece of equipment does not already exist within the University or at any other accessible location. These details will need to be included in the ‘Case for Support’ or the ‘Justification of Resources’ depending on which Research Council you’re applying to. Equipment costing over £121.5k will need a separate business
EPSRC BLACKLISTING Sharing Information on Staff Affected Research Services (RS) receive regular updates from EPSRC on who has been affected by its ‘blacklisting’ procedure. The procedure instigates a ‘cooling off’ period for those who have submitted 3+ unsuccessful, low-ranked applications in a 2 yr period and have a personal success rate of <25%. The ‘cooling off’ period lasts a year, in which affected applicants can only submit one application, and at the end of which they have to show what steps have been taken to review their strategy for submitting applications, including mentoring or other arrangements.
aware that they should not sign off the Internal Peer Review form if there is any danger of the application ending up in the bottom half of the EPSRC panel’s prioritisation list.
‘Constrained’ (for those academics who have been placed on the blacklist) The same sets of people are informed. However, the HoS and DoR will be made aware that they will need to be more proactive in supporting the relevant academic, and should include the following: • Mentoring arrangements: A mentor should be identified Academics should be aware that RS to discuss the academic’s rewill only use the information they search and funding plans with receive from EPSRC to alert those him/her, to identify problems who need to know, as follows: with/solutions to previous applications, etc ‘Warned’ • Peer Review: This may be (for those academics who are one apredundant when the new sysplication away from being blacklisted) tem is introduced, but all appliThe following are notified: cations by those identified • RS Funding & Contracts Teams should be reviewed by at least • The Head of School & Director two other academics. of Research. They will be made 5
case. Funding will be at 100% but RCUK will decide the strategic location for the equipment. • Instrument development is not affected by the changes and will still be funded at 80% Research Councils are to issue further guidance, in particular on the sharing of facilities and equipment with other universities. Guidance is now available on the Je-S System and from Research Services.
PVC’s LUNCHTIME SEMINARS: Call for Topics The fourth year of PVC’s Lunchtime Seminars drew to a close this month with an engaging exploration of issues around ‘Violent and Nonviolent Protest’. The Seminars Series has firmly established itself as an open forum that allows academics from across the University to explore a research area from a multidisciplinary perspective. Over the years more than eighty academics have taken part, and hundreds have come along to listen, question, and meet others. Now is your opportunity to be involved. Over the summer we will be preparing the programme for next year. If you’ve got a good idea for a subject that would benefit from an interdisciplinary approach and would be willing to lead on it, do get in touch. We look forward to hearing from you!
Image: aturkus
...but how will they work in practice?
CHOICE CUTS 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 & @frootle Learn from Journalists 10 May 2011 The Wellcome Trust are currently running a competition for science writing. As part of the run up to this they've been getting journalists to talk about how to explain science. Many of the points they raise are worth bearing in mind when putting together a grant application, including: • Always keep the reader/ reviewer in mind. • Never be full of your own selfimportance. Don't be pompous. • No one will ever complain because you have made something too easy to understand. • Beware of long and preposterous words. Beware of jargon. Simple words, clear ideas and short sentences. • Beware of all definitives. • People will always respond to something close to them. This is true for journalists, but also true for research. You've got to make it relevant and important. ESRC Introduce New Attachment for JeS 18 April 2011 The ESRC has announced that all those applying for funding via the JeS system will now have to complete an additional attachment: a 'Data Management Plan'. This was first mooted in Sept 2010 with their Research Data Policy. It will be mandatory from 19 April 2011. The Plan should be used to describe how any new data are going to be managed through the lifecycle of the award, until data is accepted for archiving by the Economic and Social Data Service (ESDS).
‘Haldanegate’ 28 March 2011
Novels about Research Funding 4 May 2011
The spat within the humanities community over allegations in The Observer that the AHRC had been forced to include the 'Big Society' in its research plans has now got its own name: Haldanegate. Whilst the AHRC has now refuted the Observer claims, there's still the question of how the Big Society ended up in the Delivery Plan. In some ways its worse that the Council's arm wasn't twisted: instead, they seem to have offered themselves up willingly to the service of Dave et al. Hmm. Haldanegate will rumble on for some time, I think.
A piece in Research Fortnight, which used Orwell to explain the concentration of research funding, got me thinking about what other literary texts could be used to explain the state we’re in. Here are some possibilities: Catch 22, Joseph Heller: you have to be in a Russell Group university to get the lion's share of research funding. But in order to join the Russell Group, you need to have the lion's share of research funding. The Trial, Franz Kafka: or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bureaucracy of Applying for Grants. Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, Lewis Carroll: or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Random Surreal Beauty of Grant Decisions. Frankenstein, Mary Shelley: the dangers of stitching together collaborations, and how they can turn against you. Moby Dick, Herman Melville: the madness and majesty of seeking the 'Great White Grant'. I could go on. Some titles speak for themselves: Things Fall Apart, The Book of Laughter and Forgetting, and Songs of Innocence and Experience, for instance. But that's enough of that. I need to help some rejected applicants. Now where did I put my copy of Les Misérables..?
Buddy, Can You Spare a Dime? 2 March 2011 An interesting idea from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The National Health Council is setting up a database of all the projects that were highly rated by NIH but didn't get funded. The idea is that other funders can window shop and may back some of these projects that lost out on federal funding. Interesting idea, but...well, it's not like there are funders out there with spare millions rattling around their pockets, saying 'if only someone would relieve me of this funding burden!' The impression I get is that all funders are being equally stretched, and all have more worthy calls on their cash than they can ever fund. But good luck to this. I'd love to be proved wrong. ESRC Seminar Series 8 April 2011 A little sliver of good news: after a year of uncertainty, the ESRC Seminar Series is back! It's refreshing, after a winter of bad news and cuts to small schemes, that the ESRC is standing by this funding minnow, which offers up to £15k for researchers and users to 'meet regularly to exchange information and ideas with the aim of advancing research within their fields.' 6
And finally... James Manning, a Contracts Officer in Research Services, and Catherine Morris, Environmental Coordinator at Kent Union, have had their first baby. Owen was born 17 May 2011 and weighed 7lb 15oz. Congratulations to them all. As Maurice Sendak said, ‘let the wild rumpus begin!’