Category / Guidance

Grant Writing Workshop 26th January – Early Career Researchers

Guidance

Are you at an early stage in your academic career and need some help in perfecting your grant writing skills?  Dr Martin Pickard is coming back to BU on 26th January to run a full day workshop. 

The day is designed for early career researchers with no, or very little, experience in preparing research applications. It  covers the fundamental structure and arguments inherent within any research proposal and initially develops the principle ways to achieve this – whilst at the same time encouraging the necessary overarching approach.

The workshop will take place on Talbot Campus and run from around 9.30am until 4-5pm.  Lunch and refreshments will be provided.  There are a limited number of spaces on the workshop so if you would like to come to the event please email Susan Dowdle to book a space as soon as possible.

 

Structure of the Day

 

Session 1: Introduction and general approach to the funding mechanisms

These sessions are individually tailored to the session theme. They evaluate and present key insights into the fundamental approach principles behind a successful grant application in the respective research area and develop the essential common elements of a successful bid.

Break – Coffee – Includes 10 minute assignment exercise

Session 2  – Theory and practice – optimising the approach

This builds from session 1 detailing the “in depth” structure of a successful bid, the need to present and optimise the supporting arguments and justifications required and how to achieve this.

Break  – Lunch – including further assignment exercise

Session  3 – Building the case for funding – case studies and examples

Using the assignment exercises, and worked illustrations, this puts theory into practice covering most of the common pitfalls and provides the tips, tricks and techniques for optimising your proposal within minimum space.

Break – Coffee – including 10 minute assignment exercise

Session 4 – Theory into practice – interactive assignment analysis and workshop discussion

With analysis and reworking of both previous cases and current applications this primarily “Q & A” workshop session provides an important consolidation taking live examples through the optimisation process using the skills and techniques acquired throughout the day.

 

Academic Writing Workshop 13th December

Guidance

Have you a paper to write?  Do you want to write it well?  Do you need space to focus on developing academic writing skills?  This full-day course is designed for staff at an early stage of their academic careers who write papers or reports as part of their research work. The course consists of intensive tuition and gives participants immediate, useable methods of improving style, developing arguments, strengthening organisation and avoiding common errors, all with the aim of producing succinct and informative prose in a well-organised academic framework. 

The day itself involves instruction, group exercises and discussion, all designed to enable participants to increase the quality of their writing and to develop their confidence and critical thinking.  In addition, there is advice on how to successfully communicate the subject matter.  You can view an outline of the day.

This will be a full day workshop taking place on Tuesday 13th December.  If you would like to attend please email Susan Dowdle asap as there are only a few places remaining.

Funding with a Media Flavour – UK

Funding opportunities, Guidance

At a recent Media School meeting attendees asked us to outline some of the common funders, so here is a general overview of those funders with a Media flavour both domestic and further a field.  Part One concentrates on the key UK funders and in the next few days we’ll post information on potential EU funders and schemes.

 

Research Councils

The two primary research councils for media-focused research are the Arts & Humanities Research Council (AHRC) and the Economic & Social Research Council (ESRC) which are responsible for funding the vast majority of arts and humanities in the UK. The success rates for the AHRC are the highest of all RC’s (see the recent blog article) and it offers standard grants,  networking grants, collaborative doctoral awards and early career research grants.

The RCs also focus on particular initiatives to address issues of intellectual and wider cultural, social or economic urgency, these schemes tend to have higher success rates than the standard grants so are always worth consideration. Information on AHRC initiatives can be found here.

An overview  – AHRC Early Career Research Grants:

Early Career Research Grants are intended to assist new researchers at the start of their careers in gaining experience of managing and leading research projects. They look to support well-defined research projects enabling individual researchers to collaborate with, and bring benefits to, other individuals and organisations through the conduct of research.

They also enjoy higher success rates than standard grants, there are no set submission dates, projects can last up to 60 months and should cost between £20,000 and £200,000 fEC.

To be eligible as an early career researcher you must be within eight years of the award of your PhD or equivalent professional training or within six years of your first academic appointment.

Further information on all opportunities can be found here – AHRC ESRCs

British Academy

The British Academy supports excellent ideas, individuals and intellectual resources in the humanities and social sciences.  In particular, the Academy enables UK researchers to work with scholars and resources in other countries, sustain a British research presence in various parts of the world and help to attract overseas scholars to the UK.

An overview  – International Partnership and Mobility Scheme:

Aims to support the development of partnerships between the UK and other areas of the world where research excellence would be strengthened by new, innovative initiatives and links. Awards are for research partnerships between scholars in the UK and scholars in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, Middle East, South Asia, or East Asia.

Partnerships might include a range of related activities, and mobility should form an integral part of proposals. Workshops and seminars should form an integral part of the programme. The main purpose of the funding is to cover travel and maintenance costs, although costs related to other eligible activities will be considered. Partnerships including a training element and involving scholars in the early stages in their career will be looked on favourably.

Grants are offered up to a maximum of £10,000 per year for a period of one year or three years. The submission deadline is 8th February 2012.

Further information can be found here – British Academy International Partnerships

In addition to these big UK funders, there are also some smaller more focused funders which may appeal to the interests of specific research groups within the school. For instance conference grants offered by the The Modern Humanities Research Association (MHRA) could be of interest to the Narrative Research Group – information can be found here MHRA.

 

Grant writing – an art or a science?

Guidance

Martin Pickard from GrantCraft came to the university last week to deliver grant writing workshops focusing on applying to the research councils. Martin has an excellent track record of helping universities win funding and provided some top tips on how to prepare a better application.  His main aim was to encourage participants to start thinking of applications as a sales document – how to make an impact with every part of the application and convince the funder to ‘buy’ the research.  Fundamentally your research doesn’t change but it’s how you package it that matters.

One of the things that Martin advised was that when you give your applications to colleagues to review ask them to give you 10 reasons why they wouldn’t fund it.  You may not agree with everything they say but it gives you some constructive feedback and can help you think about whether you have fully defended your project.  The people reviewing your application for the funder may not be as close to the field as you and everyone has had those comments from reviewers where you wonder if they have a clue.  Don’t give your reviewers a chance to think, give them all the answers even if you think it’s obvious.

The other big message from Martin’s sessions was that you need to think about what the overarching problem is that your research is addressing and make that clear from the start.  This is bigger that just the research need that you are addressing and you need to think outside the box!  Once you start to think bigger, about where your research fits within other research, with practitioners and within society, it makes the section on impact much simpler because the message is there throughout your application.

And finally give yourself enough time…to think about it, prepare several drafts and get feedback from colleagues.

Martin is coming back in the new year to deliver a few more sessions. In January he is running a session aimed at staff preparing their first research grant and in February he is running two sessions on EU funding – one particularly looking at the Marie Curie scheme and the other at EU funding in general. If you’re interested in attending these sessions please contact Susan Dowdle from the Research Development Unit.

Life as an AHRC Panel Reviewer

Guidance

AHRC

At the moment the Arts and Humanities Research Council are recruiting new members for their review panels. I have been member of the review college (as it’s grandly called) for just over two years have reviewed many bids in that time. Like Dr. Richard Shipway of the School of Tourism – who has recently posted about his experiences reviewing for the ESRC – I’ve found it to be a surprisingly enjoyable experience.

I get around 4-5 bids to review a year. It is all done online – although you can save and print all of the documents as PDFs if you want. I’ve looked at all sorts of bids, submitted by all sorts of academics, at varying stages of their career. Sometimes I have heard of the researcher, sometimes not. Sometimes I know a great deal about the proposed topic, sometimes not so much. That’s OK, because you can evaluate your own expertise in commenting on a proposal when reviewing the bid – this is great if you’re not entirely comfortable.

So, you get to see what other people are bidding for, and for what. The review process then directly informs your own bidding activity. The training for reviewers – at Polaris House in Swindon – is excellent, and the regular sessions are a further opportunity to meet other academics from all over the UK. The most useful thing though is to read and discuss same successful and unsuccessful bids with other reviewers, panel chairs and AHRC staff.

Being a reviewer gives me a great insight into the ways in which a successful research proposal can be crafted. It’s like being at the other end of the ‘pipe’ because on one hand I’m putting together bids with my colleagues here at BU, and then I’m very often reading the submissions at the same time. Right now I have a proposal sitting in my inbox waiting to be reviewed, alongside an almost complete proposal I’m working on with a colleague at the University of Wolverhampton, which we will be submitting to the AHRC very soon.

For me, this dialog between the two processes (reviewing and writing) has been invaluable, and has certainly improved the practice of putting together research bids. It’s also shaped my thinking a lot more strategically in terms of what to go for, and who to work with.

There is still time to put yourself forward as an AHRC reviewer and I would highly recommend it.

If you’re interested in being nominated as a reviewer for the AHRC then read how to do so here: AHRC Still Seeking Nominations for Peer Reviewers

RCUK launches the ROS!

Guidance

Last month Anita posted on the blog about the forthcoming RCUK Research Outcomes System (ROS) due to be launched imminently. That time has now come and the system is now live!

As of this week the ROS goes live for grant holders of AHRC, BBSRC, ESRC and EPSRC awards. The MRC and STFC are using the e-Val system and at present NERC is currently continuing to use its Research Outputs Database (ROD) until a decision has been reached regarding which collection system to replace it with. This week RCUK will be emailing all PIs of live awards with AHRC, ESRC and EPSRC to launch the ROS.

The ROS is a website that allows users to provide information about research outcomes to four Research Councils – AHRC, BBSRC, ESRC and EPSRC. Outcomes are categorised into nine areas:

  • Publications
  • Other Research Outputs
  • Collaboration/Partnership
  • Further Funding
  • Staff Development
  • Dissemination/Communication
  • IP and Exploitation
  • Award/Recognition
  • Impact

The Research Councils will use the information to inform their analysis of research investments.

The ROS will be available at www.rcuk.ac.uk/researchoutcomes and you can log-in using your Je-S account details.

A number of us in the R&KEO have viewed a demonstration of the new system and are able to help / advise as necessary. The system is fairly intuitive and RCUK have produced some good online guidance (recorded demonstrations or written help sheets), but do let me know if you have any questions and we’ll be happy to help.

Responsibility for updating the ROS lies with the PI, although Co-Is should also have access to update joint grants. The Research Councils will be undertaking an audit of how the ROS is being used in March 2012 so we will be looking at the system at the end of January 2012 to see the level of engagement and offering help where necessary.

Some key features of the ROS are as follows:

  • Outcomes can be inputted at any time during the lifetime of a grant and beyond, not just at the end as with a final report.
  • Existing data can be uploaded from HEIs own research information systems, therefore minimising the burden of having to re-submit information to the Research Councils. (We are currently investigating how best to do this at BU using the new publications management system BRIAN).
  • A bulk upload option allows multiple outcomes for multiple grant holders to be inputted at the same time, therefore saving time and effort.
  • HEIs will have access to the information submitted by grant holders from their institution to the ROS.
  • Access to ROS can be delegated to any other Je-S registered users, including joint investigators or co-investigators, and research managers.
  • Outcomes can be attributed to funding from more than one Research Council.
  • The ROS takes account of and, where possible, accommodates the reporting requirements of other bodies, for example the UK Funding Councils’ Research Excellence Framework (REF) and Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) data returns.

You can read more about the ROS on the RCUK website here (including a set of excellent FAQs): http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/research/Pages/ResearchOutcomesProject.aspx

Sometimes a kick in the teeth can be good for you!

Guidance

My rationale needed to be contextualised, my aims were too tentative and I had a weak dissemination strategy. Apart from that my bid had potential.

This was the feedback I got on a two-day course run by the Missenden Centre on bidding for research funding. John Wakeford and his small team of experts began by painting a rather dismal picture – an institutional success rate of more than 50% is rare apparently. And this does not necessarily mean that the amount of bidding should be increased, rather it’s better to ensure that every bid is precise, well-crafted and perfectly pitched.

The course was structured around presentations on the national context, the processes of the research councils and, most usefully, dissection of our own bids. My group was small and we quickly learned not to be too precious about surrendering our proposals for scrutiny. The critique we got from each other, from the facilitators and from the research development officers (who joined us on day two) was invaluable and I left with these key lessons:

  • Take time to prepare a robust bid – rushed responses to late calls are rarely successful;
  • Make sure the bid is going to the right place – make sure you know exactly why a particular body should fund your research;
  • Build in plenty of time for peer review – even minor errors can have a disproportionately negative effect;
  • Be bold and convincing about the impact your research will definitely have;
  • Write like a journalist – seduce and engage your reader – minimise the chances they have to say ‘no’.

And now I have some revisions to do…

 

The RDU has funding available to send BU academics on external proposal writing workshops, such as the one Mark went on at the Missenden Centre. If you’re interested in attending then email me (jnortham@bournemouth.ac.uk) to discuss the workshops coming up.

 

Grant Writing Workshops for Staff – Research Councils Focus

Guidance

Next week the Research Development Unit are organising 2 full day workshops on preparing applications for the research councils.  The workshops will be run by Martin Pickard, who has 25 years experience of writing, supporting and managing literally thousands of research proposals and has worked across Europe with a large number of universities, research institutes, industrial firms and international companies.

  • 23rd November will be focused on social sciences and humanities research council bids. 
  • 24th November will be focused on applied and natural sciences research council bids, including engineering.

There are still one or two places left on the 23rd and several places on 24th.  If you would like to attend please contact Susan Dowdle asap.

RCUK Demand Management week on the blog! AHRC and demand management

Guidance

Welcome to RCUK Demand Management week on the blog! Today’s focus is on the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) and their views on, and actions around, demand management. The AHRC’s current approach is to develop good practice guidelines for institutions (such as good practice in internal peer review and setting up an internal institutional triage system whereby only the best applications are submitted to Research Councils). However, along with the other Research Councils, the AHRC are keen to reduce the number of applications by implementing demand management procedures.

What are the AHRC’s future plans for demand management? – The AHRC’s Delivery Plan for 2011 – 2015 identifies demand management as a key aim of the AHRC, with a view to implementing procedures that will ensure that resource is used to maximum advantage for researchers, HEIs and the AHRC. The AHRC will disseminate information on application success rates and then enter into strategic discussions with HEIs falling below the average to develop ‘self-management of demand’ (p21). If this is ineffective, AHRC will introduce sanctions (e.g. institutional quotas). The AHRC’s approach to demand management will also use more targeted schemes to include longer and larger awards with greater use of the Expression of Interest phase, and an increase in the number of ‘sandpit’ style workshops to limit the number of applications on specific schemes to those which have been invited.

Will sanctions be introduced for repeatedly unsuccessful applicants? – The AHRC only plan to introduce sanctions as a last resort however they will be monitoring success rates as the basis for strategic discussions with institutions and introducing sanctions if deemed necessary.

I am interested in applying to the AHRC. How can I make sure my application stands the best chance of being funded? – BU has established an internal peer review scheme (Research Proposal Review Service) which has been up and running in its current form for almost 12 months now. The scheme is managed by Caroline O’Kane and a whopping 21 proposals have been reviewed since July. If you are submitting an bid to EPSRC then I strongly encourage you to work with Caroline through the RPRS. You can also check the Blog to see what proposal writing sessions are running at BU. For example, on 23 and 24 November Dr Martin Pickard will be visiting BU to run sessions specifically focusing on writing and preparing applications for Research Council funding – read more and book a place here. Martin’s sessions are excellent and always well received, and I would encourage anyone considering applying for research funding to attend.

RCUK Demand Management week on the blog! NERC and demand management

Guidance

Welcome to RCUK Demand Management week on the blog! Today’s focus is on the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) and their views on, and actions around, demand management.

What does NERC do already in respect of demand management? – NERC already employs various measures to manage demand and to maintain success rates at around 20%, such as:

  • limiting the number of proposals a principal investigator can submit;
  • rejecting around 40% of proposals prior to external peer review through a triage-type sift;
  • limiting resubmissions;
  • requiring pre‐application outline‐bids for large grants;
  • publishing the success rates of research organisations to encourage self‐management of demand and quality;
  • consolidating and streamlining grants schemes (e.g. the small grants scheme which closed recently).

What are NERC’s future plans for demand management? – NERC’s 2011-15 Delivery Plan stipulates a number of further plans for managing demand for funds in future, including the introduction of demand management procedures for Responsive Mode proposals submitted from 1 January 2012. The aim will be to improve success rates and to increase the efficiency of the applications and assessment procedures. Uncompetitive proposals (defined as those scoring 6 ot below for excellence) will be the main focus. NERC aim to manage this by working with institutions, asking them to self-manage their applications and focus on competitive proposals. All institutions will be required to participate and will be eligible for sanction, if progress in reducing uncompetitive proposals are not observed to the targets and timescales agreed. Full details of the demand management system being introduced will be available from the NERC website later this month. We will bring you full details on the Blog when they are announced.

I am interested in applying to NERC. How can I make sure my application stands the best chance of being funded? – BU has established an internal peer review scheme (Research Proposal Review Service) which has been up and running in its current form for almost 12 months now. The scheme is managed by Caroline O’Kane and a whopping 21 proposals have been reviewed since July. If you are submitting an bid to NERC then I strongly encourage you to work with Caroline through the RPRS. You can also check the Blog to see what proposal writing sessions are running at BU. For example, on 23 and 24 November Dr Martin Pickard will be visiting BU to run sessions specifically focusing on writing and preparing applications for Research Council funding – read more and book a place here. Martin’s sessions are excellent and always well received, and I would encourage anyone considering applying for research funding to attend.

RCUK Demand Management week on the blog! ESRC and demand management

Guidance

Welcome to RCUK Demand Management week on the blog! Today’s focus is on the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and their views on, and actions around, demand management. Over the summer the ESRC consulted with the sector on a range of proposed demand management options/ sanctions. The results, published last month, indicated that 68% of respondants favoured individual researcher sanctions. You can read the full details of the consultation and its outcomes on the ESRC website here.

Will the ESRC be introducing demand management procedures? – The ESRC will not be introducing any demand management procedures YET. However, it they do decide to introduce individual researcher sanctions at a later date these are likely to be much tougher than those introduced by EPSRC. The ESRC would ban any researcher who had two unsuccessful outline or full proposals in 24 months which failed to reach an alpha grade equivalent from submitting further applications for 12 months. Failed applications would also be counted against both PIs and Co-Is, and a sanctioned researcher would be banned from submitting any applications as either a PI or Co-I over the next 12-month period. Ouch!

What are the ESRC doing instead of individual researcher sanctions? In June the ESRC introduced a number of changes to existing peer review practises and submission policies to help reduce the pressure on resources, and it is hoped that these changes along with self regulation from the research community (such as institutional peer review schemes) will be enough reduce demand.

I am interested in applying to the ESRC. How can I make sure my application stands the best chance of being funded? – BU has established an internal peer review scheme (Research Proposal Review Service) which has been up and running in its current form for almost 12 months now. The scheme is managed by Caroline O’Kane and a whopping 21 proposals have been reviewed since July. If you are submitting an bid to EPSRC then I strongly encourage you to work with Caroline through the RPRS. You can also check the Blog to see what proposal writing sessions are running at BU. For example, on 23 and 24 November Dr Martin Pickard will be visiting BU to run sessions specifically focusing on writing and preparing applications for Research Council funding – read more and book a place here. Martin’s sessions are excellent and always well received, and I would encourage anyone considering applying for research funding to attend.

Introducing the new Executive Briefing Centre

Guidance

The sixth floor of the Executive Business Centre (EBC) on the Lansdowne Campus has recently been refurbished to include a Briefing Centre, an impressive new facility which is now available for staff to use when meeting and hosting external visitors and contacts. Co-located with the Centre for Entrepreneurship, it offers the ideal venue to brief external clients.

The Executive Briefing Centre suite consists of a Reception area with sofas and Welcome Desk, two large state-of-the-art meeting rooms (EB602 & EB603), as well as access to the floor’s kitchenette facilities. The purpose of the Centre is to provide suitable meeting space for all staff and students to book when hosting external visitors, with the aim of facilitating links and engaging with the business community. Such meetings may include developing consultancy projects and research opportunities, media relations, student consultancy assignments, and more. 

The larger of the two rooms, EB602 which sits 12, houses an exciting state-of-the-art HD video conferencing system which enables real time broadcast of video and audio as well as the transmission of computer graphics over the internet. A network-based image store is also available, and lighting in this room has been specifically designed to enhance the quality of the video calls.

Bookings and access – To book either of these two superb meeting rooms please use the Room Booking Request form on the Estates and IT Services web page, http://www.bournemouth.ac.uk/itservices/index.html. If you require EB602 for a video conference, please fill in the relevant information on the request form.

In order to access the meeting rooms, please collect key card/s from the EBC Reception and ensure that all cards are returned on your departure. The information on the confirmation email includes a link to the Chartwells website to order catering, as well as information on how to book car parking for external visitors.

Instructions on how to use the AV equipment are available in the meeting rooms in paper format, however training can be given on how to operate the equipment in advance of your booking. Please call the IT Service Desk on 01202 965515 in order to arrange this, if required.

RCUK Demand Management week on the blog! EPSRC and demand management…

Guidance

EPSRC logoWelcome to RCUK Demand Management week on the blog! Today’s focus is on the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) and the steps they have taken to enforce demand management. The EPSRC was the first Research Council to initiate a policy for demand management and it was particularly controversial at the time. Back in April 2010 the EPSRC launched the ‘12-month cooling-off period for repeatedly unsuccessful applicants‘ as a way of reducing the number of applications they received through individual researcher sanctions. This policy restricts repeatedly unsuccessful applicants to submitting one application (as PI or Co-I) for a 12-month period.

What is the criteria for ‘repeatedly unsuccessful applicants’? – Researchers are considered repeatedly unsuccessful if they meet both of the following criteria:

  1. Three or more applications within a two-year period ranked in the bottom half of a funding prioritisation list or rejected before panel (including administrative rejects);
  2. An overall personal success rate of less than 25% over the same two years.

The two year period is calculated from the date on the letter the applicant receives informing them of the decision not to fund their application.

Will all applications to EPSRC be taken into account? – All full proposals submitted by an applicant as PI will be considered over a rolling two-year period. Examples of applications not taken into account include: training grants, outline applications, applications submitted as Co-I, and all activities where peer review is led by another funding body. See the EPSRC website for a full list.

What sanction is applied to applicants who meet the criteria? – They will be allowed to submit only one application during the next 12 month period and asked to review their submission behaviour with their university.

How are people notifed that they have met the criteria? – They will be emailed by EPSRC. The Research Development Unit are also notified and keep a central record of BU applicants who have met the criteria.

I am interested in applying to EPSRC. How can I make sure my application stands the best chance of being funded? – BU has established an internal peer review scheme (Research Proposal Review Service) which has been up and running in its current form for almost 12 months now. The scheme is managed by Caroline O’Kane and a whopping 21 proposals have been reviewed since July. If you are submitting an bid to EPSRC then I strongly encourage you to work with Caroline through the RPRS. You can also check the Blog to see what proposal writing sessions are running at BU. For example, on 23 and 24 November Dr Martin Pickard will be visiting BU to run sessions specifically focusing on writing and preparing applications for Research Council funding – read more and book a place here. Martin’s sessions are excellent and always well received, and I would encourage anyone considering applying for research funding to attend.

Discrepancies in guidance from funders

Guidance

We in RKE Operations have recently become aware of some discrepancies within funders’ guidance notes. In some instances, separate sets of guidance for the same call have provided different information. In others, guidance notes relating to a specific call have been released a while after the call notes, and have included important and relevant information for writing the bid. In order to guard against this, we recommend:

–          Checking back regularly – up to the date of submission – on the funder’s website in case they have released amended or supplemental  guidance.

–          Where amended guidance is released, always using the most up-to-date version.

–          Ensuring that all guidance notes are read thoroughly – important information may be found hidden where you least expect it.

–          If bids are submitted through an electronic system, this includes reading the guidance notes relevant to and attached to the e-system as well.

–          If different sets of guidance for the same call give conflicting information, check with the funder (or ask us to do so).

If the guidance isn’t clear or doesn’t give you the information you need, funders are generally happy to help – as are we in RKE Operations – so feel free to pick up the phone.

RCUK Demand Management week on the blog! What is RCUK Demand Management?

Guidance

Welcome to RCUK Demand Management week on the blog! There has been a lot of discussion and debate about demand management over the past 12 months or so, particularly in response to the RCUK Efficiency 2011-15 strategy, Research Councils’ delivery plans, and EPSRC’s cooling off period launched in April 2010. The other Research Councils have now started to publish their plans for demand management so it’s timely to look at what this actually is, how each of the Research Councils will enforce it, and what it means for researchers. Every day this week on the blog we will focus on a different element of demand management starting with today’s overview of what demand management actually means…

What is Demand Management? – Demand management is the term given to the steps taken by RCUK and the Research Councils to reduce the amount of applications they receive.

Why is Demand Management required? – Research Councils currently receive more applications that they are able to support and research institutions currently submit more applications than are likely to be funded. This can be seen in the Research Council success rates which continue to fall year-on-year as the demand for funds increases compared to the limited funding available (see the table below). The costs of administering such large quantities of applications is a huge burden for the Research Councils and reduces the amount of money available to fund research. Large quantities of applications also place a heavy burden on the peer reviewers, thus increasing the risk that the quality of decision-making could be compromised. RCUK note that “there are some proposals submitted which have little or no chance of success” and that steps should be taken at both applicant and institution level to pre-sift these proposals prior to submission, therefore reducing the volume of applications submitted to Research Councils.

What has RCUK asked institutions to do? – RCUK has asked institutions to actively encourage the self-management of demand and quality control, such as through internal sifting processes.

What resources and processes has BU put in place to support Demand Management? – BU has established an internal peer review scheme (Research Proposal Review Service) which has been up and running in its current form for almost 12 months now. The scheme is managed by Caroline O’Kane and a whopping 21 proposals have been reviewed since July. BU has also invested in proposal writing sessions and bid writing surgeries for researchers. On 23 and 24 November Dr Martin Pickard will be visiting BU to run sessions specifically focusing on writing and preparing applications for Research Council funding – read more and book a place here. Martin’s sessions are excellent and always well received, and I would encourage anyone considering applying for research funding to attend.

What processes have the Research Councils put in place to enforce Demand Management? – This varies between the Research Councils and we will focus on a different Council every day as part of RCUK Demand Management week on the Blog!

Online Research – advice sought

Guidance

Hello all

I am a Lecturer in Occupational Therapy in HSC and newly registered MPhil/PhD Student.

I am planning to use online focus groups that run over a period of time to collect my qualitative narratives and I am hoping to speak to anybody that has experience in carrying out online research. So, if you are happy to meet up over a coffee to discuss the benefits and challenges you have faced, as well as potential technological issues then please do contact me.

Thanks

Kirsty Stanley (kstanley@bournemouth.ac.uk)

Share files easily with the new BU Transfer service!

Guidance

As part of the Collaborative Tools for Academics project, we have been looking at ways of enhancing the support available to academics to share information both internally and externally. Feedback from colleagues indicated that the University’s file transfer service was not adequate and required improvement. I am delighted today to launch the new file transfer service – BU Transfer.

BU Transfer will enable you to quickly and easily share large files with colleagues internally and externally via a web browser.

You can access BU Transfer from the Staff Portal, the Research Blog and MyBU via this icon.

We are very interested in your feedback regarding the service. Please could you forward all comments to Amina Uddin.

Best wishes

Matthew

Technology Strategy Board – Updates

Funding opportunities, Guidance

The Technology Strategy Board, which delivers the Knowledge Transfer Partnership scheme, has announced:

  • New funding criteria from the ESRC and BBSRC – ESRC Criteria for KTP support 2011 and  BBSRC Criteria for KTP Support 2011
  • Updated financial procedures for timely claiming and payment of awards
  • Applications for Shorter KTPs are now re-opened during the migration of KTPs to a streamlined 6 to 36 month scheme
  • A new version of Guidance Notes for Grant Application and Proposal Forms has been issued
  • An updated Management Handbook for KTPs – for Supervisors was released in October 2011
  • There is a competition for KTPs in Multicore and Parallel Processing  – closing date 24/11/11
  • Ashorne Hill have been selected to provide the new training package for Associates

As the TSB releases more information on KTP scheme, I will be posting this on the blog, so watch out for more news.

Please contact me if you have any queries about current or future KTPs, in the first instance. Further information is also available on the KTP website. For those interested in developing KTPs and networking with others with the same interests, the TSB recommends that you join the Knowledge Transfer Network.

Emily Cieciura (Research & Knowledge Exchange Operations)

ecieciura@bournemouth.ac.uk or 01202 968241