Tagged / funding

Apply now for travel grants for impact development 

Grants of up to £200 are available via the Research Impact Fund to facilitate relationship building with external stakeholders such as policymakers or industry contacts leading to impact development. 

The aim of this is to support ad-hoc requests leading to impact development, such as media appearances, meetings with policy makers, meetings with industry contacts, or attendance at industry/policy/third sector events where network-building (leading to potential impact) is the key reason for attending. 

The funding can be used to meet with new stakeholders, organisations or groups or meet with existing stakeholders to gather testimonials or other evidence to demonstrate how research has made a difference (e.g. has resulted in real world impact). 

Please note that the travel fund cannot be used to fund conference attendance except in instances where attendance will result in achievable impact or evidence of impact. 

Eligibility:  

You will be eligible to apply if you meet the following criteria: 

  • You are an ECR and / or you are new to research, or 
  • You can demonstrate you have emerging impact from existing research 

Please familiarise yourself with BU’s Research Impact Policy and Research Impact Fund Guidance Notes before applying. 

The online application form can be completed here. 

Please contact researchimpact@bournemouth.ac.uk with any queries.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Good UK – Horizon Europe News

According to Research Professional, UK government has extended a financial “safety net” for successful UK applicants to Horizon Europe (HEU). This follows last November’s guarantee for the limited number of “first wave” of funding calls from the European Union’s €95.5 billion (£80.5bn) R&D programme.

On 15 March, 2022 science minister George Freeman extended the guarantee to awards that are expected to be signed by the end of December 2022, while efforts continued to associate to the programme. The announcement comes after yesterday’s news that the business department has allocated £6.8 billion for EU programmes during 2022-2025, supporting the UK’s eventual association with Horizon Europe, Euratom Research and Training, and Fusion for Energy.

The extension now covers “all eligible, current applications to calls where researchers expect to sign grant agreements this year” but are unable to do so due to the ongoing delays to formalising UK association. Full details of the scope and terms of the extended guarantee are available on the UKRI website.

As usual, we encourage BU academics to apply for next Horizon Europe calls. To discuss more details about your potential HEU project, please get in touch with RDS Research Facilitator International Ainar Blaudums or your allocated Funding Development Officer.

RKEDF: Research Methods Training Fund – Applications Open

An unsuccessful grant application can be demoralising so make your next bid successful! Remember, there can be many reasons for the lack of success! Some beyond your control others not!  Funders feedback will help to evaluate why your bid was unsuccessful and along with training via the Research Methods Training Fund you can look forward to future success!  

 The Research Knowledge Exchange Development Framework has announced this fund specifically targeted at academics who have submitted unsuccessful bids!   The aspiration is that by reinvigorate the research methodology via a training workshop successful recipients will aim to resubmit their bid within a 12-month period! 

 

FAQs 

How do I apply?  

MS Form application 

 

When do I need to have booked and paid for the course by?  

By Wednesday 1st June 2022 

 

When is the closing date?  

Friday 22nd April 2022 

 

Who selects the successful applicants?  

DDRP and RDS Panel will offer support to those in scope 

 

Examples of courses that you might choose: 

NCRM research courses  

NCRM training overview 

Oxford Qualitative Courses: Short Courses in Qualitative Research Methods 

Oxford Qualitative Courses – from specialists in qualitative research methods — Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford 

Qualitative Research Methods Courses 

Qualitative Research Methods Courses | University of Oxford (oxforduniversitystores.co.uk) 

 

Examples of methodological support you might choose: 

Residential research retreat 

Research Design Service South West (nihr.ac.uk) 

 

Embedding Impact in Funding Applications

Writing about impact in a grant application can be challenging, but a strong description of the benefits you hope your project will have can make all the difference between getting funded or not.

This refers to Research Impact. Although some projects will have a theoretical scope with no discernible benefit outside academia, these are unlikely to be eligible for external funding.​

You can find our A brief guide to impact on Brightspace which explains what we mean by Impact.

The Funding Landscape

Funders consider the whole call when reviewing applications, so think about what is currently big in policy/research/the media etc. The panel review all applications which have been shortlisted and will assess the potential impact of funding a group of them, not just individual projects.

PPI/participatory/engaged research has never been more important. Studies show that effective and meaningful co-production/involvement of beneficiaries enhances impact at every stage of the study​ so make sure to thread it throughout where appropriate.

A quick note on UK Research and Innovation (UKRI). Recently the Research Councils dropped their required ‘Pathways to Impact’ attachment. This does not mean that impact is no longer important in applications, but that they want to see it woven throughout.

Funder Requirements

Requirements will vary by funder, call, theme, endowment etc., so always read the guidance and speak to your Research Facilitator for advice.

Academic excellence is fundamental. Consider additional collaborators if they would provide a different angle, and include knowledge mobilisers or those who are needed for implementation.

Look out for key words in the guidance that highlight impact: engagement, non-academic partnerships/governance, regional/national significance etc. ‘Value for money’ is also common- potential research is a social return on an investment and cost consequences are scrutinised.

For projects working with developing countries you need to aim for impact on the involved population​. Try to demonstrate that the generation of impact will be led by those it most affects.

Impact in the Application

For a standard UKRI application you should be aiming to include impact in each section:

Objectives and Aims: integrate your research goals and your impact goals​ – funders want to see the need for the research.

Plain English Summary: non specialists need to be able to understand the impact so the panel can assess properly the problems you are solving and the proposed beneficiaries.

Case for Support: most of this needs to contain impact including the background to the project and its potential contribution, methods of research and their relevance/suitability, track record of the team, delivery milestones, monitoring and evaluation, success criteria etc. ​

Justification of Resources: cost impact in, you are encouraged to!​ Consider public engagement resources, evaluation costs, staff members – UKRI say that they want to see 10-15% of costs going to impact.

Work Packages (WP): either have an Impact WP, or include some impact in all of your WPs​

Fast Track Impact is full of great resources including How to integrate impact into a UKRI case for support

For all funding applications:

Make impact easy to find: use formatting, cross referencing or signposting. This can also help with wordcounts, as flowcharts and diagrams if allowed often don’t count as text.

Involve beneficiaries/stakeholders/end users in the design of the research and impact plan: BU has brilliant resources for involving the public in research, so do contact PIER or VOICE for advice.

Think about the project’s longevity​: consider what follow-on support you might need to generate/upscale impact, or how you might leverage further investment after the funding. This is difficult but funders like to see project sustainability and an exit plan.

Troubleshooting

If you have trouble identifying your potential impact, consider:

  • Aims – what do you want to change with your research?​
  • Beneficiaries/stakeholders – who will benefit?​
  • Activities – how will you reach your goals?​
  • Evaluating and evidencing – how will you demonstrate change?​

A Theory of Change model (diytoolkit.org) can be helpful in plotting these concepts.

 

Finally, remember that embedding impact at the start will improve both the application and your research, and that you should be aiming for game-changing (but realistic) results.

Some useful resources are listed below, and you can always get in touch with your Impact Advisors at impact@bournemouth.ac.uk.

Stakeholder analysis (ODI)​

Research Impact toolkit (ESRC)​

Impact tracking and evaluation (Matter of Focus)​

Impact planning guide + template (Fast Track Impact)​

Planning for impact – NIHR toolkit for researchers – ARC (many links)​

PiiAF (Public Involvement Impact Assessment Framework)​

Towards co-production in research with communities (AHRC)

Rejection is the norm

In academic life rejection is the norm, for both journal articles and grant applications, the average academic is more likely to fail than to succeed at any time.  This can also be true, although to a lesser extent, for applications to present at academic conferences.  At the time of writing this blog (12 February 2022), I have 299 published papers listed on the databases SCOPUS.  Of these nearly 300 papers only two papers ever were accepted on first submission as submitted.  Most papers went through one or two rounds revision in the light of comments and critique offered by reviewers, and sometimes also additional feedback from the journal’s editor.

After rejection by the first journal, your paper needs to be rewritten before submitting it to another journal.  Obviously, this process of rewriting and resubmitting takes time as different journals have different styles, lay-outs, sub-headings, audiences, and often peculiar ways of referencing.  I would guess more than half of my papers have been through the review process of at least two journals.  Quite a few of my published papers were accepted by the third or even fourth journal to which we had submitted them.  Persistence is the name of the game.   Some paper fell by the wayside often after second submission, if especially if review process had been time-consuming and the reviewers very critical and demanding too many changes.

Peer review can be very good and constructive but also brutal and destructive.  Blind peer-review is a fair process as it means the quality of the paper is all that counts in getting accepted.  I have had the pleasure of being co-author on papers rejected by journals for which I was: the book review editor at the time (Sociological Research Online), on the journal’s editorial board at the time of submission (e.g. Midwifery, Nepal Journal of Epidemiology), one of journal’s Associate Editors (BMC Pregnancy & Childbirth) and, to top it all, on which I was one of the two editors (Asian Journal of Midwives).   

Grant applications in the UK have a one in eight to one in ten chance of success.  Most of our successful grant applications have been resubmissions, with attempts to improve the application each time in the light of reviewers’ comments.  For example, our successful application to THET (Tropical Health & Education Trust) resulted in the funded project ‘Mental Health Training for Rural Community-based Maternity Care Workers in Nepal‘ [1], led by Bournemouth University (see picture).  This THET project was organised by Tribhuvan University in collaboration with Bournemouth University and Liverpool John Moores University (LJMU).  However, I was only successful during our second submission.  Our first submission was rejected the year before with feedback that our partner organisation in Nepal was deemed to be too small.  In the resubmission we changed to work with colleagues at Tribhuvan University, the oldest and largest university in Nepal. Apart from some further, but minor changes, this was really the main change between the rejected and the successful application.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The situation for conferences is slightly better, the success rate for an application to present a paper or poster are higher. This is partly because conference organisers realise that most academics are unlikely to get funding from their institution unless they present something.  Conferences are often themed and submitted abstracts are peer-reviewed.  This makes in important to write a clear abstract, focusing in on the conference theme.[1]  In the past I have had the honour of being rejected to present a paper at a BSA Medical Sociology Conference, whist I was on the organising committee.

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

CMMPH

References

  1. Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen E., Hundley, V., Simkhada, BD. (2013) Writing an Abstract for a Scientific Conference, Kathmandu University Medical Journal 11(3): 262-65. http://www.kumj.com.np/issue/43/262-265.pdf

 

 

 

New Intention to Bid and Bid Enquiry Process

Following the announcement of the new electronic ITB form on 24 January 2022, these are some updates since the launch.

The new ITB form and Enquiry service will provide a better user experience and create a more efficient administrative control process for Research Development and Support (RDS).

 

New ITB form: The new Intention to Bid (ITB) form and the updated Research Costings Request Sheet are both available now in the Policies & Procedures/Research/Pre-award section of the intranet under Research > Pre-award. Please complete the Research Costings Request Sheet and attach it to the e-ITB form for completion. PDF copies of all submissions can be printed or saved but there are limitations to editing a form once it has been submitted.

 

Bid Enquiry Process: If you have more than 4 weeks to the submission deadline and need advice or support regarding a bid, please access the same form link and select ‘Enquiry/Advice on Bidding’. This ensures that the pre-award team will see your Enquiry, rather than emailing a sole officer who may not be available at the time.

 

As a service, RDS is committed to delivering service excellence to enable BU’s academic community to deliver and grow world-leading research for societal benefit. The program of work continues to look at processes to enhance the user experience.

 

Changes include improvements to the pre- and post-award support being offered. Building on the delivery of a new Principal Investigator report which is currently in the final stages of being rolled out, and continuing our collaboration with the Transformation Team.

 

For any queries about the transformation of pre-award services at BU, please contact Jo Garrad or Brian Kaliczynskyj to discuss further.

For any technical issues in relation to the form, please contact Roy Harvey directly.