/ Full archive

Come and meet the Research Development Unit! THIS WEEK!

This Thursday between 11am-1pm we will be commandeering a space in the Atrium and available to talk to all of you lovely people about Research!

If you want to know about the new BU internal research funds (the Open Access Publication Fund and the Research Development Fund), the internal peer review service (RPRS), UK, EU and international funding opportunities, the REF, BU’s new research management system, the changes we’re making to RED, Research Professional, the emerging BU Research Themes, publishing and research outputs, in fact anything at all to do with research then now is your chance!

Drop by and have an informal chat with us. There might even be  a cake in it for you 🙂

Research is cool – come and find out how to get involved!

fEC step by step guide to costing! ~ Step 2 Estimating staff time

Guidance

This week is fEC week on the Blog! Each day we will be explaining a different element of fEC as a quick reference guide to help you prepare the budgets for your research proposals. Today’s focus is on estimating staff time.

See Friday’s blog post (Introduction to full economic costing) for an explanation of what fEC actually is and why we use it to cost projects.

Step 2 – Estimating staff time

A key resource in the delivery of any project is academic staff time. All projects will have a Principal Investigator (PI) and some may also have Co-Investigators (Co-Is). PIs and Co-Is are the core academic staff who probably also spend time working on other research/enterprise projects as well as having other duties, including teaching and administration.

Academic staff are required to estimate how much time they think they will need to spend on a particular project. Below is a suggested approach as to how this could be done by taking into account three considerations: i) time available to do new research/enterprise, ii) project tasks, and iii) what to include and what to exclude. Considering these three things should help to produce an estimate of the average number of hours per week over the life of the project that could be spent on the project in question.

Academic staff will generally not have to keep detailed formal records to verify this, but will have to be able to:

  • justify this as a reasonable estimate of the effort required to deliver a particular project
  • produce some evidence of time spent on the project at the end of the project, e.g. lab notes, minutes of project meetings etc

Some funders (such as the EU) require more detailed documentation to justify the amount of time spent on a project; this can include keeping accurate timesheets showing time spent working on the project and the tasks that were undertaken. Where necessary, the CRE Operations team will advise as to the exact requirements. 

Time available to undertake new research – It is worth considering the amount of time already committed to teaching activities, management/administrative duties and other research/enterprise projects. 

Project tasks – The second consideration is the factors that are likely to affect how much time a particular project may require. Projects differ in terms of scale and complexity and have varying requirements for the amount of academic time needed. The following factors might be worth considering, but this is not an exhaustive list as each project will differ:

Research project tasks Factors likely to affect this
Establish methodology, approach, technique What is PI’s experience?How well understood is the area?
Assemble project team / plan / coordination of team meetings How many PI/COI?How many collaborating partners?

Frequency of meetings
Fieldwork, Laboratory, Studio What is PI’s experience?How well understood is the area?

How accessible is the location?

Recruitment of sample/research subjects
Report writing (initial, progress, final) How demanding is the funder?How many words is each report?
Conference attendance / dissemination activities How large scale is the planned activity?Where are the conference held?

What to include / exclude – Under fEC methodology, certain activities be included whilst others can’t.

Include:

  • Write-up time for reports and dissemination activities
  • Direct time required to manage the project, undertake the work and supervise any project staff

Exclude:

  • Bid preparation time
  • Postgraduate research student supervision (if applicable)
  • General administrative duties not directly related to the project 

Time estimate – The PI should now be in a position to confidently estimate the amount of time which will be spent by staff on the project.

You can use the BU estimating staff time spreadsheet as a rough guide to calculate time available to undertake new research and enterprise activity.

See tomorrow’s blog post on Directly Allocated (DA) costs for the next exciting installment of fEC!

fEC step by step guide to costing! ~ Step 1 Directly Incurred costs

Guidance

This week is fEC week on the Blog! Each day we will be explaining a different element of fEC as a quick reference guide to help you prepare the budgets for your research proposals. Today’s focus is on Directly Incurred costs.

See Friday’s blog post (Introduction to full economic costing) for an explanation of what fEC actually is and why we use it to cost projects.

Step 1 – Directly incurred (DI) costs

Directly incurred (DI) costs are items or services which are incurred or purchased specifically for a project. Costs are charged to projects on actual cash value and are auditable in the financial accounts (e.g. supported by a supplier invoice). If the project didn’t go ahead then these costs would almost certainly not be incurred.

Care should be taken when identifying costs for inclusion as some costs, such as telephone, photocopying or stationery, will already be covered by the indirect cost charge. The CRE Operations team will be able to advise you on this.

You should consider whether the project requires the following DI costs:

  • Fixed-term project staff (research assistants, research fellows, dedicated technicians or administrators)
  • Travel, subsistence and conferences
  • Equipment and consumables (purchased specifically for project)
  • External consultancy fees

See tomorrow’s blog post on estimating staff time for the next exciting installment of fEC!

REF update from the VC and PVC

Research assessment

In the latest Vice-Chancellor’s email, Prof John Vinney gave an update on the Research Excellence Framework (REF) and BU’s preparations for the exercise. The email also introduced this month’s VC video in which he and Prof Matthew Bennett discuss the REF in more detail – and what it means for BU – with Sue Eccles from the Media School.

You can watch the video here:

httpv://youtu.be/7s8RTlOOPnU.

EU funding relevant to Health and Media

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism – Economic Research on Incentives for Efficient use of Preventive Services: This R01 funding opportunity announcement solicits applications for economic research on the role of incentive arrangements in promoting efficient use of preventive services and interventions, specifically considering both costs and health outcomes. NIH intends to commit approximately $1.6 million in fiscal year 2012 to fund approximately four awards. Application budgets are not limited, but need to reflect actual needs of the proposed project for the maximum project period of five years. Deadline 15.11.11

Healthy Ageing: Funding is available for innovative policies to support healthy, active and dignified ageing and raise the effectiveness and efficiency of spending on social, health and long-term care services and benefits. Deadline 26.09.11

ESF-LiU Travel Grants for Conference on Images & Visualisation – Imaging Technology, Truth and Trust: The conference, to be held from 17 to 21 September 2012 in Scandic Linköping Vast, Sweden, will bring together experts from across the natural and social science with curators, artists, producers and users of images based on advanced visual engineering, in order to explore challenges at the interface between science and visual art. Grants are available to cover conference fees and possible part travel costs for students and early stage researchers. Deadline 06.06.12

Culture Programme: The Culture Programme has been established to enhance the cultural area shared by Europeans, which is based on a common cultural heritage, through the development of cooperation activities among cultural operators from eligible countries, with a view to encouraging the emergence of European citizenship. The Programme is aimed at three specific objectives: promotion of the trans-national mobility of people working in the cultural sector; support for the trans-national circulation of cultural and artistic works and products; and promotion of inter-cultural dialogue. The Programme has a flexible, interdisciplinary approach and is focused on the needs expressed by cultural operators during the public consultations leading up to its design. Deadlines are: 15.09.11, 05.10.11, 16.11.11, 03.02.12, 03.05.12

fEC week on the Blog! Introduction to full economic costing

Guidance

Next week is fEC week on the Blog! Each day we will be explaining a different element of fEC as a quick reference guide to help you prepare the budgets for your research proposals.

What is fEC? – Full Economic Costing (fEC) is a standardised method of calculating the actual costs of an activity which was developed in response to the funding councils’ ‘Transparent Approach to Costing (TRAC)’ methodology with the aim of increasing funding whilst making HEIs responsible for their own financial stability. TRAC data indicated that publicly-funded research in particular was significantly under-funded as the true costs of running the activity were not being adequately identifed or subsequently reimbursed. fEC was introduced for all UK HEIs in September 2005, with the first fEC grants being awarded from April 2006.

In essence, fEC is a national, standardised costing method that provides a forecast of the full cost of undertaking a research project.

How do I calculate the fEC? – All bids at BU must be costed in accordance with the principles of fEC by the CRE Operations team using BU’s costing software. Everything must be costed and cross-checked against the funding body’s guidelines. You must ensure all costs are included at this stage as funders will not make up a shortfall after money has been awarded, but ensure costings are realistic and offer good value for money as most funders require a full justification of the requested resources.

How do I price the work? – After completing your costing you will need to establish what funding is available, i.e. the price, and consider how this compares to the cost (fEC recovery). The majority of research funders have set guidelines stating how much of the Full Economic Cost (fEC) they will fund or whch elements of the costing they will fund. However, where the funder/client does not have guidelines on this then a decision needs to be made of how to price the work to be undertaken. Pricing should be considered carefully and discussions should take place after the fEC has been calculated. Pricing decisions should always be discussed with your Deputy Dean (Research & Enterprise ), Dean and/or Director of Operations prior to quoting a price to the client. Pricing for contract research and enterprise should be carefully considered to ensure that ‘pricing precedents’ are not established with a particular funder.

  • Research Councils and NHS 80%
  • Charities averaging around 50%
  • EU around 75%
  • Industry 100%

The rate for commercial work varies but BU aims to recover 110% fEC across the whole Research & Enterprise portfolio. Therefore surpluses must be achieved where possible (i.e. over 110% fEC) to cover the deficit made by research (typically 80% fEC and lower).

Initial draft proposal for Horizon 2020

Draft proposals for Horizon 2020 have been released. These are in no way the finalised documents so please bear that in mind when you’re reviewing this information! The latest proposals suggest that objectives will be focused on three areas:

1. Tackling Societal Challenges: focusing on health, demographic changes and wellbeing; food security and bio-based economy; secure, clean and efficient energy; smart, green and integrated transport; resource efficiency and climate; and inclusive, innovative and secure societies.

2. Creating Industrial Leadership & Competitive Frameworks: focusing on  leadership in enabling and industrial technologies (ICT, nanotechnology, materials and production, biotechnology, and space); innovation in SMEs; and access to risk finance.

3. Raising Excellence in the Science Base:  European Research Council (ERC); Future and Emerging Technologies (FET); Marie Curie; and European research infrastructures.

There are likely to be a range of funding schemes, used across the whole of the programme, including:

  • Research and innovation grants covering all sizes and types of projects)
  • Training and mobility grants
  • Programme co-funding grants
  • Support grants  
  • Prizes
  • Grants to public procurement of innovation
  • Procurements
  • Debt finance and equity investments

When I have further updates on the possible structure of FP7 I will add to the blog.

Partner Search from University of Lincoln for the project ‘ Precarity in Europe’

The University of Lincoln is seeking partners to participate in a project regarding precarity in Europe. The project they are proposing builds on research that they are already conducting on multiple exclusion homelessness in England, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council. They have traced the life histories of 104 homeless people in the city of Stoke-on-Trent, and are now wanting to extend and develop this approach across at least seven European countries.

Precarity together with the relationships people have within the family are key themes in practically all of the life histories that they have explored but, apart from this common factor, they have found an extraordinary diversity of stories and experiences. The University of Lincoln would like to find out if this diversity continues to increase as they move beyond the UK to consider the experience of those living precariously in other countries, and to see if, in spite of this, common themes can be identified that cut across national boundaries.
As part of their work they have begun to explore the transitions people make within the family and the meaning these have for people. They would also like to explore whether and how different kinds of families across various national boundaries cope with changes within the family.

If you’re interested, contact Peter Somerville – 01522 886267/ psomerville@lincoln.ac.uk

Sharing your research data?

Would you be prepared to share your data with the wider research community or the general public? 

A report published by the Research Information Network has found that UK data centres, which collect, store and supply research data to academics (such as the National Geoscience Data Centre at the British Geological Survey), have boosted research efficiency and improved a “culture of sharing data”.  However, the report adds that work is needed to encourage researchers to submit more data to the centres.

The Royal Society has an ongoing major policy study that looks at the use of scientific information as it affects scientists and society, “Science As a Public Enterprise”.   In theory raw data should be available for validation and further exploration but issues of quality control, appropriate retention policies, and the utility of storage of vast arrays of ‘raw’ data require urgent attention.  The study is primarily focusing on the exchange of information among scientists and other scientifically literate audiences.  A secondary focus of the study is public engagement with scientific information.

The British Academy response to the project is that all data produced through publicly funded research should be made available, provided confidentiality is protected, so that public policy and debate can be based on the best available evidence.  They suggest that opening up data could also have the advantage of aiding interaction between the arts and sciences.

Tenders released for mortality monitoring, transport statistics and SME internationalisation

Real-Time Excess Mortality Monitoring in the EU/EEA Region: The aim is to produce a report for European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control exploring all-causes of mortality patterns in EU/EEA countries between September 2011 and January 2012. Deadline 06.09.11

EUROSTAT Statistical Services in the Field of Transport: The tender is divided into three lots, covering regional transport statistics, road freight statistics, and support for the implementation of transport safety statistics respectively. Funding is worth a maximum of €70,000 for lot one, €120,000 for lot two, and €60,000 for lot three. Each project should last for 12 months. Deadline 16.09.11

SME Internationalisation through Clusters: The purpose of this funding is to support the preparation and organisation of five events in 2012–2013, offering matchmaking opportunities for European cluster organisations and their member SMEs with international partners outside Europe. The proposals shall prepare the ground for practical cluster co-operation across borders, and make a more strategic use of transnational cluster co-operation in markets outside Europe, in areas of strategic interest such as renewable energy and clean-tech, creative industries and tourism. Deadline 14.10.11

Tags:

Creative Commons – how copyright, content sharing and collaboration can lead innovation in the digital age

Guidance

open access logo, Public Library of Science

Creative Commons is a non-profit organisation that develops, supports, and stewards legal and technical infrastructure that maximizes digital creativity, sharing, and innovation. They believe that academic research, journals, and data should be available to everyone, and are one of the leading organisations in the Open Access movement which is making scholarly research and journals more widely available on the internet. The world’s largest Open Access publishers all use Creative Commons licenses to publish their content online. Today, 10% of the world’s entire output of scholarly journals is Creative Commons licensed.

A new book ‘The Power of Open‘ (published by Creative Commons and available to download from the link) contains many examples of projects and individuals from around the world whose work has been brought to a wider audience.

Mark Patterson, Director of Publishing frm the European Office of the journal Public Library of Science (PLoS), states: ‘Open access is increasingly recognised as a driver of innovation and economic development, which is why it is essential that all publicly-funded research is made available without any access or reuse restrictions.’

Many research funding bodies now have open access mandates and a list of these requirements is kept up to data as part of the Sherpa-Juliet project. The European Commission, for example, introduced an open access pilot mandate in 2008 which required that the published results of European-funded research in certain areas be made openly available. This pilot policy will soon be extended to all EU-funded research. 

To promote the benefits of open access publishing and to support academic staff making their work freely available, BU has recently launched a dedicated Open Access Publication Fund. Find out more about this fund here:

To find out more about open access publishing and opportunities available for reaching a larger audience with your research, come to:

BU’s Open Access launch event on 26 October!

 

Horizon 2020: Will it take us from basic research to innovation?

Horizon 2020 signals a range of big changes to the way research is funded in Europe. The biggest change is the increased focus on the full innovation cycle – from research to market uptake.

The EU wants to annihilate USA and Japan in the research innovation stakes and wants to ensure Brazil, Russia, India and China stay behind them.
By removing barriers between the former programmes for Cohesion, Competition, and Innovation and Research the EC hope to improve the innovation pathway by covering all areas.

Naturally we’re all concerned that the balance of funding between research and innovation is appropriate, and wonder what influence and impact the concept of full-cycle funding will have across the new programme. This does of course also raise concerns for the social sciences, where ‘products’ to sell to market aren’t often produced. Rise is a European group of higher-education institutions formed to act as an independent voice for the social sciences, conscious of the need to look beyond the traditional view that innovation is about technology.

All developments on what the future Horizon 2020 will look like will be posted on the blog.

Knowledge exchange and business links are increasingly important in academic promotion

Research commissioned by the Association for University Research and Industry Links (Auril) indicates that experience of knowledge exchange and links with business have become increasingly important to academics trying to win promotion.

Philip Graham, executive director of Auril, stated that “In some job applications, (knowledge transfer) is now rated as desirable, although not essential. Ten years ago it would not have been rated as desirable.”

The majority of survey respondents said that academic promotion depends more on academic teaching and research reputation, however, business links are becoming increasingly more important.

The government’s White Paper on higher education, published in June, says that universities should “look again at how they work with business across their teaching and research activities, to promote better teaching, employer sponsorship, innovation and enterprise.”

HEIF (Higher Education Innovation Funding) exists to support and develop a broad range of knowledge exchange activities between universities and colleges and the wider world, which result in economic and social benefit to the UK. BU submitted its HEIF-5 strategy to HEFCE in July; further information will appear on the blog in due course.

You can read the full story on the AURIL website: Build up the Business Assets if you Want to Get Ahead

Reminder of the BU Santander Scholarships 2011-12 – apply now!

Funding opportunities

Reminder of the Santander Scholarships currently on offer to BU staff and postgraduate research students.

Santander is offering five x £5,000 research and travel grants to BU staff and students

The funds must be used for a specific project to build on or develop links with at least one university from the Santander overseas network. Trips must be taken before February 2012.

Preference will be given to applications received from postgraduate research students and early career researchers.

Funds can only be used to cover direct costs (i.e. not salary costs or overheads).

To apply complete the Santander application form and submit it by email to Susan Dowdle: sdowdle@bournemouth.ac.uk.

The closing date for applications is Friday 16 September 2011.

Good luck 🙂

Bag that Bid

Richard Brooks and Katherine Timms, Officers from CRE Operations, recently attended a training session called Total Proposal run by Aron Cronin, director of GIC limited. GIC limited is an international management and business consultancy specialising in business development and training services. 

The course gave an insight into the key areas of consideration when writing a proposal. The course attendees were a mix of university academics, managers and administrators. 

The key learning point for the day that Aron wanted people to take away was that proposals need to be tailored. Too often he has seen proposals recycled with no thought for the current funding body’s requirements, and proposals have even been submitted with other funder’s name – an easy way to ruin any chance of securing funding. 

Key points from the training:

 Proposals need…

  • To be responsive in terms of the approach, timescales, and deliverables.
  • To be compliant in terms of: administration, legal, and technical requirements.
  • To provide a workable offer – the apportionment of work must be flexible and phased appropriately.
  • To stress benefits over features:
  • Be a selling document – ‘why us?’
  • Be structured
  • Contain clear expressions
  • Hit the ‘hot buttons’ on the evaluation grid/table
  • Give an indication of the two-way traffic we would expect – there needs to be a tangible benefit to both parties
  • Indicate our expectations

Project stages…

  • Pre-planning stages, it is important to realise that this stage is a project in its own right and requires:
    • a plan;
    • an action list; and
    • a timetable.
  • Proposal process requires:
    • a key issues meeting;
    • ownership at a senior level (authorised signatories) – investment in risk is essential;
    • CVs
      • should be tailored
      • should contain a ‘golden paragraph’
      • should be written in the context of the team the strengths you bring
    • Proposal
      • should be tailored
      • should link directly to the ‘job’
      • should be linked to the CVs
    • Finance
      • should capture all elements
      • should allow for secure risks
    • Quality assurance – use the following tools to help ensure this:
      • checklists
      • call over (read out loud/ to other people)

Aron left us with some helpful techniques; these can be found in the uploaded course material (see link below): 

  • helpful hints and winning tricks
  • story boarding
  • word consistency grids
  • blue checklists

(\\Lytchett\IntraStore\CRKT\Public\Research & Enterprise\Conference & Workshops handouts\15-06-11 Training Gateway Total Proposal)

If you would like any further information, email me or Richard

Get tweeting: how to make an impact with Twitter

Researchers, Mark Reed and Anna Evely from one of the LWEC accredited Rural Economy and Land Use projects have produced a clear  “top tips” guide to twitter for academic staff.  Although based on their own experiences on the Sustainable Learning and Uplands Project and intended to help other academics to disseminate their work, the “Twitter Tips” guide could be used by anyone.

A Twitter account set up for specific research projects can be an excellent way to disseminate your research findings further afield than just the academic community, however using twitter well is a skill that needs to be developed.  This is a really simple 12 page guide to using Twitter in an effective way. 

Some suggestions from the guide:

  • Every time you do a conference/workshop/seminar presentation, put your slides online (e.g. using SlideShare) and tweet them.
  • Contact relevant people with large followings to ask if they can re-tweet key messages you’ve sent – tweet or Direct Message them via Twitter.
  • Ensure the majority of your tweets have hyperlinks to further information
  • If someone gave you the information credit him or her with it, either by using @person1 (if they are a twitter user) or as a quote in text.
  • Get to know when your followers are most likely to read your tweets – most academics who use Twitter for work purposes only tweet 8-5 pm Monday-Friday.

 

  

Funding success for Dr Lee Ann Fenge

Dr Lee-Ann Fenge, Associate Dean Postgraduate Students at Bournemouth University’s School of Health and Social Care has secured nearly £10K from the Big Lottery Fund for the project, ‘Developing Practice with Older Lesbians and Gay Men – A Method Deck’ . 

The project follows on directly from work accomplished in the ‘Gay and Pleasant Land? Research Project’ carried out at the School at Bournemouth over the past three years and led by Dr. Kip Jones in which Dr. Fenge acted as Community Organiser.

A Method deck consists of a range of colourful playing cards which include exercises, suggestions for activities and brain-storming ideas for practitioners and their clients.  The Method Deck will develop, produce and distribute this educational training tool to promote understanding of the needs and experiences of older lesbians and gay men amongst their peers, communities and service providers within UK society. The deck of cards will include information and activities to promote good practice with older people from minority sexual groups. The deck of cards will be designed to inspire and empower local communities, community organizations and health and social care practitioners to review and develop their practice with such groups. This will encourage an inclusive approach to practice, promoting recognition of the diversity within the ageing population.

The content of the Method Deck will be particularly informed by the findings from two recent research projects at HSC: The Gay and Grey Project (2006) funded by Big Lottery led by Dr. Fenge and The Gay and Pleasant Land? Project (2009-2012), funded by the UK Research Councils under the umbrella of the New Dynamics of Ageing Programme. The Method Deck will support practitioners to reflect on their own practice, the agency context and the wider structural issues which influence the experiences of older lesbians and gay men in their local communities. Development of the deck will begin shortly with the input of the project’s community partners.

Thanks to the Social Innovation Lab for Kent for their earlier advice on their project and the use of their Method Deck in this photo.