Category / Guidance

Student co-authors to be captured on BRIAN

BU research, Guidance

It is now possible to capture on BRIAN if a BU student has co-authored your publication.  This information is important in monitoring our strategic KPIs. 

If you have any publications which you know a BU student has co-authored, please can you ensure that not only are they in the list of authors for that publication, but that they are also added to the ‘co-author student’ field (it’s as simple as adding a name)?  This will enable the student details to be captured in the publication reports.

Many thanks for your assitance.

How is NERC changing its peer review processes?

Guidance, Research news

NERC is making changes to its peer review processes to strengthen and streamline the assessment of responsive mode grants.   NERC  has agreed a series of reforms to improve the consistency, quality and transparency of peer review that identifies the very best research proposals to fund.

The following changes will apply to responsive mode research grant and fellowship calls with closing dates on or after 1 October 2013.

Consistency of review number and expertise – For each scheme minimum and optimal number of peer review reports required have been agreed; these are detailed in the assessment process. Decisions will only be made based on lower or higher number of reviews in exceptional circumstances.

The reviews will be provided by a combination of NERC College members and internationally-recognised experts, depending on where the most appropriate expertise exists. Reviewers who consider they have low expertise will no longer be asked to contribute.

Standard grant process – There will no longer be a ‘sift’ to reject uncompetitive proposals during the review process. All proposals will reach the stage where there is an opportunity to respond to review comments. Proposals, reviews and responses will then be assessed by two panel members who will assign a ‘pre-score’ for excellence. The Chair will then prioritise the proposals to discuss at the moderating panel. NERC will aim to provide decisions on the majority of Standard Grant proposals within 20 weeks of the closing date.

Moderating panels – Half of the membership of any panel will regularly attend as ‘Core Panel Members’ and there will be an identified Chair. Flexibility to select members from the College according to the particular proposals being considered will remain. For schemes where multiple panels meet (ie Standard Grants and Fellowships), business will be divided between panels with stable remits. A preliminary panel structure will be announced in June 2013. Applicants will select the panel to consider their proposal during submission.

Feedback – Panel members will be responsible for the content of feedback from panels to applicants. For any proposal discussed, moderating panel feedback will automatically be provided.

Peer Review College – Changes to the NERC Peer Review College from January 2014 are also planned, and its performance will be more actively managed. A membership review and recruitment initiative (call opening June 2013) will take place, to continue to increase the number of established academics and grant holders involved as College members and Chairs. Members will have a lead responsibility for either reviewing or moderating panel activities. Core Panel Members will be identified to work within the new moderating panels.

When will these changes happen? 

From January 2014. The PRC year will start from January rather than July from that point onwards. In the meantime there will be a call for new membership in June 2013.

Research funding: 10 tips for writing a successful application

BU research, Guidance

The following post was first published on The Guardian’s Higher Education Network in April this year.  If you are thinking about developing a funding proposal, it would be worth having a quick read through the following useful tips.  

Read the eligibility rules

It’s important to understand what can be funded and what can’t on a particular call, says Ken Emond, head of research awards at the British Academy for the Humanities and Social Sciences. Take a hard look at the priorities of the funding body you are applying to. It is the knack of linking what you want to do, with what they want to know, adds Mel Bartley, a medical sociologist.

Leave plenty of time to prepare

Most people would be better off submitting fewer grants but putting far more effort into the ones that they do, says Rebecca Steliaros, strategist, facilitator and REF (research excellence framework) impact advisor to eight UK institutions. It’s important to remember individual behaviour versus what the rest of the crowd is doing.

No unexplained jargon

The review is conducted by your peers, so advice we give on grant writing is about getting your message over in the clearest way in the available space, says Adam Staines, head of policy at Research Councils UK. Make sure the reviewer “gets it” and is excited about what is proposed, rather than infuriated by having to wade through to find the nub of the idea, adds Rebecca Steliaros.

Get other people to read it

Having the application read by someone you trust who is not a specialist in your field often helps to highlight areas where the application could be better expressed, says Ken Emond. Mock funding panels are very effective in helping people understand how hard it is to communicate in writing, adds Andrew Derrington, executive pro vice-chancellor of humanities and social sciences at the University of Liverpool. This exercise takes less than 90 minutes and helps researchers understand what happens to their applications as they pass through the grants’ committee process, and how they need to structure and write an application to succeed.

Explain why research is needed

It’s good to explain why it is important for a piece of research to be done now (at the time of application), for example to take advantage of the opportunity to interview people alive now who won’t be around forever, says Ken Emond. Explain why we need to know the things that your sub-projects will discover, and make sure in every paragraph you write, the message of the paragraph is contained in the first sentence, adds Andrew Derrington.

Network effectively

Networking both within your university and subject area allows you to develop the support that you need to work your way up the research funding ladder, says Andrew Derrington. It’s mostly applied common sense but there are several good blogs. The best way in is Phil Ward’s blog which has an excellent blogroll. If you are inexperienced in getting funding from a particular body, collaborate with people who have that experience, adds Adam Staines.

Justify extra time or resources

You have to justify the time and cost of any additional specialist staff, says Adam Staines. I have seen many panels supportive of 10% – 20% time of a bioinformatician or technician. Things tend to go wrong when you ask for 100% time and don’t need it, or ask for any time and don’t justify it in the case for support.

Participate in funding panels

It can be a real eye-opener in terms of what you need to do to stand out. You should develop a style that communicates your proposed work quickly and effectively, a contributor advises. It’s also a good idea to get your proposal reviewed internally by someone you trust to give good feedback, particularly on the summary sections which will be read first.

Interpret referees feedback carefully

If you can get the funder to tell you how far your proposal was below those that got funded, it can help, says Andrew Derrington. Once you have calmed down from the disappointment of rejection, look at the application again and show a colleague what the referees’ comments were. Often colleagues who have experience on panels will spot things that might explain the result. One harsh reality is the UK is very good at research, so many excellent applications don’t get funded with the available funding, adds Adam Staines.

Plan applications in batches

 The best way to ameliorate the post-rejection blues is to have another application already under consideration when the rejection comes, says Andrew Derrington. Never get down to your last application. Given that rejection rates are very high and panels can be slightly capricious, you probably want to try out a set of ideas four or five times before you decide that they are unfundable and move on

 If you found this useful, you might be interested to learn that the The Guardian supplemented this information with a live, on-line question and answer session.
 

Questions?

If you have any questions about research funding proposals and the support available to you please contact Caroline O’Kane in the Research and Knowledge Exchange Office.   

Application rejected? what to do next….

BU research, Guidance

 

As you all know, the research funding environment is highly competitive.   Whilst winning an award is a major achievement.  Rejection will be a common experience, for even the most seasoned academic.

All is not lost!   A huge amount work goes into the development of a proposal.  It is a great shame to park your idea, when it could be re-worked, and submitted to an alternative funder.

Our internal peer review scheme, the RPRS, is very happy to support unsuccessful submissions.  We will provide feedback on your original proposal, and make suggestions as to where amendments could be made, how you can potentially improve the style of the proposal, advise on other possible funders, and provide other useful information.   To find out more please contact Caroline O’Kane.

I would also suggest you read a couple of blog posts from a little while ago on ‘coping with rejection’.   This is a two-part series, written by Adam Goldberg from the University of Nottingham, that looks at how you can move forward when it becomes clear your time courting a potential funder comes to an end.   Follow these links if you are interested:   Part 1,  part 2.

Application rejected? what to do next….

Guidance, Research news

As you all know, the research funding environment is highly competitive.   Whilst winning an award is a major achievement.  Rejection will be a common experience, for even the most seasoned academic.  

All is not lost!   A huge amount work goes into the development of a proposal.  It is a great shame to park your idea, when it could be re-worked, and submitted to an alternative funder.

Our internal peer review scheme, the RPRS, is very happy to support unsuccessful submissions.  We will provide feedback on your original proposal, and make suggestions as to where amendments could be made, how you can potentially improve the style of the proposal, advise on other possible funders, and provide other useful information.   To find out more please contact Caroline O’Kane.

I would also suggest you read a couple of blog posts from a little while ago on ‘coping with rejection’.   This is a two-part series, written by Adam Goldberg from the University of Nottingham, that looks at how you can move forward when it becomes clear your time courting a potential funder comes to an end.   Follow these links if you are interested:   Part 1,  part 2.

BU internal peer-review scheme for your research proposal

BU research, Funding opportunities, Guidance

Why is the internal peer review of research proposals important?

  • The competition for research funds is high and is likely to increase.  Research Council funding presents a particular challenge – with the ESRC having one of the lowest success rates.
  • In recent years funders have expressed their growing concern over the number of poor quality research proposals they receive, with the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) taking the action to implement a ban on submissions from unsuccessful candidates who fail repeatedly and requesting evidence on steps institutions take to improve academic skills in producing research proposals.
  • Internal peer review has been credited with producing higher quality research proposals and increased success rates and is a process encouraged by the Research Councils.

Who reviews the applications?

  • The Peer Reviewers are a selection of BU academics who have a considerable track record in successfully gaining research funding, who sit on funding panels and who review research proposals for funders.
  • We select two reviewers to review your proposal.

Who can apply to the RPRS?

  • The service is open to anyone at BU and for any type of research funding.

What kind of feedback can I expect?

  • Peer reviewers will provide feedback on the proposed research in terms of topic selection, novel value, clarity of ideas proposed and advise on how the proposal can be further strengthened. They may also provide the names of potential collaborators where applicable.
  • The Research Development Unit will provide feedback on general structure and style, clarity of ideas, timescales proposed, estimated costs, potential funders, eligibility for funding schemes, and any potential ethical issues.
  • Feedback will be delivered within 3 weeks of submission – often before.

How do I submit an application?

Will the RPRS help with unsuccessful applications?

  • Yes, if you have a unsuccesful proposal, the RPRS will provide feedback on your submission on how you could potentially improve the style of the proposal, advise on other possible funders and provide other useful information.   The system works as for as yet unsubmitted drafts.

Remember

  • It is now mandatory for all Research Council applications to go through the RPRS
  • Please allow sufficient time in your proposal development to allow for the  mandatory internal deadline of five working days for the submission of Research Council bids via the Je-S system.
  • This also applies to applications made via the E-Gap2 and Leverhulme Online e-submissions systems (affecting applications made to the British Academy, the Royal Society and the Leverhulme Trust).

Who can I ask for further help?

  • Caroline O’Kane in the Research and Knowledge Exchange Development team manages the RPRS and will answer any questions you have.

BRIAN – Depositing Full Text Articles

BU research, Guidance, Publishing

Full Text Articles should be uploaded through BRIAN to comply with Bournemouth University Academic Publications Policy on Open Access.

As most publishers allow the Accepted Version of journal articles to be made available this is the version we recommend authors deposit via BRIAN. The Accepted Version is the author-created final version that incorporates referee comments and is accepted for publication. It should not have the publisher’s typesetting or logo applied.

Supplementary files of various file formats can also be deposited as files or as zipped folders.  A listing of publishers, their journals and policy on archiving in BURO is provided by theSHERPA/RoMEO project; see http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo.php.  BURO staff will liaise with the copyright holder regarding the inclusion of full text for other publication types.

Depositing files step by step

When in BRIAN, click on ‘my publications’ to see your full list of publications.  Each record will show a summary screen and below the title of each record you will see a set of six tabs. Click on the ‘Full text’ tab (the second tab from the right).

  

Click on the link ‘Manage full text’ where it says ‘Manage full text for this publication’.  The File management box will open. Browse and select the file(s) you wish to deposit. Click on Upload’. As indicated above, please include your final version in the first instance.

Books are rarely allowed, although some publishers will permit the use of a sample chapter.  BURO staff can liaise with the publishers on your behalf to check permissions.

Click on ‘Grant’   to confirm you are depositing the file(s) for possible dissemination via BURO. This process does not transfer copyright to BURO.  When you have deposited the files you wish to transfer to BURO click on ‘Home’ in the top left hand corner of the screen to return to your BRIAN profile home page.

If you have any queries about BRIAN, please contact BRIAN@bournemouth.ac.uk/.  If you require help assessing whether an open access version of your work can be contributed to BURO please contact your Subject Library Team or SAS-BURO@bournemouth.ac.uk.

Research Professional

BU research, Guidance

Every BU academic has a Research Professional account which delivers weekly emails detailing funding opportunities in their broad subject area. To really make the most of your Research Professional account, you should tailor it further by establishing additional alerts based on your specific area of expertise.

Research Professional have created several guides to help introduce users to ResearchProfessional. These can be downloaded here.

Quick Start Guide: Explains to users their first steps with the website, from creating an account to searching for content and setting up email alerts, all in the space of a single page.

User Guide: More detailed information covering all the key aspects of using ResearchProfessional.

Administrator Guide: A detailed description of the administrator functionality.

In addition to the above, there are a set of 2-3 minute videos online, designed to take a user through all the key features of ResearchProfessional.  To access the videos, please use the following link: http://www.youtube.com/researchprofessional 

Research Professional are running a series of online training broadcasts aimed at introducing users to the basics of creating and configuring their accounts on ResearchProfessional.  They are holding monthly sessions, covering everything you need to get started with ResearchProfessional.  The broadcast sessions will run for no more than 60 minutes, with the opportunity to ask questions via text chat.  Each session will cover:

  • Self registration and logging in
  • Building searches
  • Setting personalised alerts
  • Saving and bookmarking items
  • Subscribing to news alerts
  • Configuring your personal profile

Each session will run between 10.00am and 11.00am (UK) on the fourth Tuesday of each month.  You can register here for your preferred date:

23rd April 2013: https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/255287520 

28th May 2013: https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/806064201 

25th June 2013: https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/492839664 

23rd July 2013: https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/771246561 

27th August 2013: https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/398714217 

24th September 2013: https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/882372120 

These are free and comprehensive training sessions and so this is a good opportunity to get to grips with how Research Professional can work for you.

New APF Process goes live today!

Guidance

Currently all research and knowledge exchange bids require an Activity Proposal Form (APF) to be signed off by the applicant, Dean and, depending on the value, members of UET and the Board.  To date the APF has focused on financial issues, primarily the financial recovery of a proposed bid or grant.  Currently the APF process has been a paper based system rather than one which allows for electronic approval.  This is about to change with one important addition!

The APF has to date not required any sign-off with respect to bid quality, yet submissions of poor quality endangers both personal and institutional reputations. In future all bids will require a dual sign-off one focused on financial issues and one focused on quality.  The quality will be determined by a senior academic within a particular school, typically the Deputy Dean for Research/Knowledge Exchange and other nominated assessors.  This will all be wrapped up in a new paper-free system. 

The redesigned APF process will introduce a formal three stage approval process which will work as follows:

Stage One: An Intention to bid form will be completed by the Principal Investigator (PI) in conjunction with RKE Operations and approved before the PI can progress with the bid.  As part of this process, the PI will nominate a quality approver from a School’s approved list.  Out of courtesy the PI is expected to inform the nominated Quality Approver that they will receive the bid in due course.   Once the form is completed and RKE Ops have entered the details on RED, the Authorised School signatory will be sent the bid electronically, which they will receive in the form of an email containing a link.  Clicking on the link will direct them to the APF Approval Screen to make their decision.  If UET/Board Member approval is required then it will follow the same process and they will receive the link also.

Stage Two: Each School’s Deputy Dean Research/Knowledge Exchange has provided a list of Quality Approvers.  Training is being provided to the Quality Approvers during February and March.  When the bid is ready the Quality Approver will be sent the bid electronically to confirm that it is of sufficient quality to be submitted for external funding and they will approve the bid via link as per Stage One.  Sufficient quality is defined as ‘without causing reputational damage to the individual or BU’.  The Quality Approver will be required to justify their decision and may also provide feedback to help the applicant fine tune the final bid.  If a bid has been through the Internal Peer Review Process this step will be largely automatic.  Quality approval is only required for: (A) competitive research bids (e.g., RCUK, Charities etc.) regardless of value; and (B) competitive knowledge exchange bids such as tenders and contract research bids where the value is in excess of £50k.  If a bid is declined by a Quality Approver RKE Ops will inform the Dean and Internal Peer Review Team to trigger support and guidance to the PI to improve the quality of the bid if there is sufficient time.  The Dean will be responsible for informing the PI that their bid has been declined on the grounds of ‘Quality’ and will provide them with feedback.  Appeal can be made directly to the PVC who will adjudicate differences of opinion on the basis of their own review of the bid. 

Stage Three: Final approval is only required if finances within a bid have changed  significantly from those set out in Stage One.  RKE Ops will decide whether this is the case and whether re-approval is required. 

For all stages of approval, all approvers will be sent an email containing a link to the bid; relevant documentation will be provided in the link; comments can be added to say why a decision was made (these will appear on the APF); and no log-in to RED is required.

The RKE Operations team will provide the PI with the Intention to Bid form.  Jo Garrad, RKE Operations Manager, has provided a user guide explaining the new process to all those involved in the approval stages.  If you would like a copy of the user guide then please contact Jo Garrad.

Revision to the Activity Proposal Form Process

BU research, Guidance

Currently all research and knowledge exchange bids require an Activity Proposal Form (APF) to be signed off by the applicant, Dean and depending on the value members of UET and the Board.  To date the APF has focused on financial issues, primarily the financial recovery of a proposed bid or grant.  Currently the APF process has been a paper based system rather than one which allows for electronic approval.  This is about to change with one important addition!

The APF has to date not required any sign-off with respect to bid quality, yet submissions of poor quality endangers both personal and institutional reputations. In future all bids will require a dual sign-off one focused on financial issues and one focused on quality.  The quality will be determined by a senior academic within a particular school, typically the Deputy Dean for Research/Knowledge Exchange and other nominated assessors.  This will all be wrapped up in a new paper-free system. 

The redesigned APF process will introduce a formal three stage approval process which will work as follows:

Stage One: An Intention to bid form will be completed by the Principal Investigator (PI) in conjunction with RKE Operations and approved before the PI can progress with the bid.  As part of this process, the PI will nominate a quality approver from a School’s approved list.  Out of curtsy the PI is expected to inform the nominated Quality Approver that they will receive the bid in due course.   Once the form is completed and RKE Ops have entered the details on RED, the Authorised School signatory will be sent the bid electronically, which they will receive in the form of an email containing a link.  Clicking on the link will direct them to the APF Approval Screen to make their decision.  If UET/Board Member approval is required then it will follow the same process and they will receive the link also.

Stage Two: Each School’s Deputy Dean Research/Knowledge Exchange has provided a list of Quality Approvers.  Training is being provided to the Quality Approvers during February and March.  When the bid is ready the Quality Approver will be sent the bid electronically to confirm that it is of sufficient quality to be submitted for external funding and they will approve the bid via link as per Stage One.  Sufficient quality is defined as ‘without causing reputational damage to the individual or BU’.  The Quality Approver will be required to justify their decision and may also provide feedback to help the applicant fine tune the final bid.  If a bid has been through the Internal Peer Review Process this step will be largely automatic.  Quality approval is only required for: (A) competitive research bids (e.g., RCUK, Charities etc.) regardless of value; and (B) competitive knowledge exchange bids such as tenders and contract research bids where the value is in excess of £50k.  If a bid is declined by a Quality Approver RKE Ops will inform the Dean and RKEDO Internal Peer Review Team to trigger support and guidance to the PI to improve the quality of the bid if there is sufficient time.  The Dean will be responsible for informing the PI that their bid has been declined on the grounds of ‘Quality’ and will provide them with feedback.  Appeal can be made directly to the PVC who will adjudicate differences of opinion on the basis of their own review of the bid. 

Stage Three: Final approval is only required if finances within a bid have changed  significantly changed from those set out in Stage One.  RKE Ops will decide whether this is the case and whether re-approval is required. 

For all stages of approval, all approvers will be sent an email containing a link to the bid; relevant documentation will be provided in the link; comments can be added to say why a decision was made (these will appear on the APF); and no log-in to RED is required.

The APF Process is being piloted in HSC throughout March and the official go-live date for all Schools will be 2 April.  The RKE Operations team will provide the PI with the Intention to Bid form.  Jo Garrad, RKE Operations Manager, will provide a user guide explaining the new process once the pilot has been completed.

Academic Profile Pages

Guidance, Uncategorized

Please accept our apologies whilst the Academic Profile Pages are still incorrect.  IT are working on correcting the pages.  There are issues around random question marks and brackets being added to text, as well as names.  Please bear with us whilst the work is carried out on the profile pages and we apologise for any inconvenience caused.

RCUK publishes guidelines on the governance of good research conduct

BU research, Guidance, Research Integritiy

Research Councils UK (RCUK) has published its latest policy and guidelines to help researchers and research organisations achieve the highest standards possible when carrying out research. The policy and guidelines have been updated to reflect growing national and international experience in identifying and promoting good research conduct, and in addressing unsatisfactory conduct.

The RCUK Policy and Guidelines on Governance of Good Research Conduct:

  • sets standards of good research practice, with associated guidelines
  • specifies and describes unacceptable research conduct
  • provides guidelines for reporting and investigating allegations of research misconduct
  • clarifies the respective responsibilities of the Research Councils and Research Organisations in fostering and safeguarding the highest possible standards of research conduct.

This document replaces the RCUK Policy and Code of Conduct on the Governance of Good Research Conduct, published in July 2009, and was developed after a wide consultation with partners across the higher education and research sector. It covers the promotion of good research conduct, including good conduct in peer review, the need for appropriate training and development, what constitutes unacceptable research conduct, and the investigation and reporting of unacceptable research conduct.

Professor Rick Rylance, Chair of RCUK, said: “A commitment to good research conduct lies at the heart of an effective research system. High standards of integrity underpin the quality and reliability of research outcomes and of the decisions we make about funding.

“The Research Councils have long been committed to maintaining the highest standards. As a signatory of the Universities UK Concordat to support research integrity, RCUK expects all individuals engaged in research – including researchers themselves, support staff, managers and administrators – to abide by its principles and foster a supportive and open environment.”

The Policy and Guidelines are intended to apply across the full spectrum of research and training funded by the Research Councils and should be amplified in specific disciplines by the guidance issued by individual Research Councils, other funders, professional associations and learned societies.

Research Professional

BU research, Guidance

Every BU academic has a Research Professional account which delivers weekly emails detailing funding opportunities in their broad subject area. To really make the most of your Research Professional account, you should tailor it further by establishing additional alerts based on your specific area of expertise.

Research Professional have created several guides to help introduce users to ResearchProfessional. These can be downloaded here.

Quick Start Guide: Explains to users their first steps with the website, from creating an account to searching for content and setting up email alerts, all in the space of a single page.

User Guide: More detailed information covering all the key aspects of using ResearchProfessional.

Administrator Guide: A detailed description of the administrator functionality.

In addition to the above, there are a set of 2-3 minute videos online, designed to take a user through all the key features of ResearchProfessional.  To access the videos, please use the following link: http://www.youtube.com/researchprofessional 

Research Professional are running a series of online training broadcasts aimed at introducing users to the basics of creating and configuring their accounts on ResearchProfessional.  They are holding monthly sessions, covering everything you need to get started with ResearchProfessional.  The broadcast sessions will run for no more than 60 minutes, with the opportunity to ask questions via text chat.  Each session will cover:

  • Self registration and logging in
  • Building searches
  • Setting personalised alerts
  • Saving and bookmarking items
  • Subscribing to news alerts
  • Configuring your personal profile

Each session will run between 10.00am and 11.00am (UK) on the fourth Tuesday of each month.  You can register here for your preferred date:

26th March 2013: https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/518275168 

23rd April 2013: https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/255287520 

28th May 2013: https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/806064201 

25th June 2013: https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/492839664 

23rd July 2013: https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/771246561 

27th August 2013: https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/398714217 

24th September 2013: https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/882372120 

These are free and comprehensive training sessions and so this is a good opportunity to get to grips with how Research Professional can work for you.

Academic Profile Pages update

Guidance

The changes to the Academic Profile Pages this week have resulted in some glitches where not all information captured on BRIAN is being exported to the profile pages.  IT are fixing this and so please accept our apologies during this time.

Academic Profile Pages

Guidance

You may have noticed that when changing the name structure on the academic profile pages, the system defaulted to your legal name and not your ‘known as’ name.  Please bear with us whilst we rectify this glitch.

If you have any other queries, please direct these to BRIAN@bournemouth.ac.uk

Thanks for your patience.

Academic Profile Page changes

Guidance

I am pleased to inform you that a number of improvements were made to the Academic Profile Pages yesterday. 

  • Names are now shown in Forename and then Surname order;
  • Keywords are now displayed near the top of the page and so if you haven’t selected yours yet, please do;
  • Publications are now ordered in their sub-types, i.e. journal article, conference, book, etc.

There are other changes that will be implemented shortly and so watch this space.

Please also note that the remaining old staff profile pages (for the School of Applied Sciences and School of Tourism) will be removed shortly and replaced with the links to their current academic profile page (updated through BRIAN).  Those individuals with an old School web page will be contacted directly.

Boost your bid writing confidence – the Grants Academy way

BU research, Guidance, Research news

Before arriving for the Grants Academy day, I had had little interaction with this group at BU. I had procured some experience with small grant writing, but it is a lonely affair and it wasn’t always clear where to go for advice amongst colleagues or exactly how to go about pitching particular ideas to targeted funding bodies. The first day arriving for croissant and coffee, ice was broken very quickly as academics chatted about their interest research ideas and general experience at the university. It’s always amazing to me just how relevant distant subject areas of enquiry can be to your own area of expertise and talk of possible collaborative work soon emerged.

Martin Pickard, then launched into his explanation of the art and approach to guiding funding applications through the hidden maze of funding bodies’, expectations, remits and landscapes. It left me with a sudden realisation that there were indeed straightforward ways to fundamentally alter my approach that could lead to much greater chances. It was like having always played chess rather badly, but being shown just 5 key moves that conferred dramatic changes to your chances of winning. It was quite an eye opening and positive experience.

In addition to this sea change in approach, the venue, food, coffee, chocolate biscuits (particularly) and atmosphere of openness and support from Dianne and Caroline and the other participants enabled relaxed and informative discussion and a real boost in confidence concerning writing grants.

The support has kept coming and follow up workshops are in the offing. I can’t recommend this support opportunity at BU enough.

Submitted by Dave Newell (AECC)

Dave joined the Grants Academy in January 2013, and attended a 2-day bid writing workshop led by Dr Martin Pickard.    For more information about the scheme please visit the Grants Academy page on the research blog.