Tagged / Research Councils

ESRC Transformative Research Call: internal competition

Funding opportunities

The ESRC expects universities to exercise demand management for the ESRC Transformative Research Call and therefore a special panel has been convened.Therefore, colleagues wishing to submit an application to this call should adhere to the following time scale:

You can find further information here: ESRC Transformative Research Call

The aim of this call is to provide a stimulus for genuinely transformative research ideas at the frontiers of the social sciences, enabling research which challenges current thinking to be supported and developed. Transformative research is an involving pioneering theoretical and methodological innovation. The expectation is that the transformative research call will encourage novel developments of social science enquiry, and support research activity that entails an element of risk.

If you have a queries please contact  Alexandra Pekalski

When telling tales is good!

Funding opportunities

The RCUK Digital Economy Theme ‘Telling Tales of Engagement’ Competition 2014

The RCUK Digital Economy Theme is running a competition designed to help capture and promote the impact that your digital economy research is having. Three prizes of £10,000 are available to support researchers to further tell the story of your research impact in an interesting and engaging way to a wider audience.

Key Dates

Activity Date 
Call for EoIs launched 05 September 2014
Deadline for EoIs 19 November 2014
Panel and Funding decision 06 December 2014
Award duration From January 2015

Summary
The RCUK Digital Economy Theme (DET) is running a competition designed to help capture and promote the impact that your digital economy research is having. Three prizes of £10,000 are available to support researchers to further tell the story of research impact in an interesting and engaging way to a wider audience. The competition, which has been co-developed with the National Centre for Universities and Business (NCUB), is designed to produce very informative case study exemplars which can be used to help the wider research community develop understanding of the nature of a pathway to impact. It aims to encourage applicants to tell a story to describe the pathway to impact which actually occurred. This should be even more informative because understanding how impact arises is key to planning for future impact pathways. They want the stories to portray impact as including what capability has changed outside the institutions, and what benefits that exercising this capability change has then delivered. Each “Tale of Engagement” should show how the actual impact arises and the evidence of the impact itself and will thereby show clearly the link between the impact and the research. Choosing how to tell the story should reflect the nature of the story itself. The story should stimulate thinking on a more imaginative and illustrative ways to tell the tale of engagement and the resulting impact.

How to Apply
Please complete the form at the main call page (http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/funding/calls/tellingtales2014), addressing the questions raised in “Scope of Competition” section and taking into account the “Guidance on completing proforma” notes below. Please ensure you include a single PowerPoint slide which summarises your entry in an interesting and engaging way.

DEADLINE: 12:00 (noon) on Wednesday 19 November 2014.

You can find further information here: TellingTalesOfEngagementCall

If you have any questions, then please do contact:
EPSRC
Dr John Baird 01793 444 047
Mrs Ruth Slade 01793 444 261
tellingtalesofengagement@epsrc.ac.uk

Impact Awards Announced

Steve Mould, science and TV presenter, announced the winners of PraxisUnico’s Impact Awards  held earlier this month at a ceremony held in Cardiff.

The awards were first established in 2009 with over 500 entries submitted, demonstrating the impact  of university research within the UK and around the world.

A solution to the problem of vision-limiting smoke generated in operating theatres during laparoscopic surgery – based on proven electrostatic precipitation technology, was the winner of the Business Impact – Aspiring category.

An international collaboration between the University of Wolverhampton and the University of Maiduguri in Northern Nigeria was the winner of the Collaborative Impact award; the Universities are working together to increase the numbers of high growth SMEs in a country with challenging, unstable conditions generated by six years of violent terrorist insurgency.

A digital analytics technology company built on ten years of research received the Business Impact – Achieved award.  The technology – developed by Queen Mary University of London, helps businesses benchmark how good their digital service should be and identifies underperformance, thereby improving the experience of employees, customers, and partners with regard to important digital products and services. 

Building on the success of The Impact Awards to date, The Research Councils and PraxisUnico are pleased to announce that in 2015 we will be working in partnership to deliver Awards that will recognise outstanding impact achieved through successful knowledge exchange and technology transfer, and the benefits these bring to society and the economy. 

The winners and finalists 2014:

Business Impact Aspiring Award

  • Ultravision™from Cardiff University (winner)
  • Ketsofrom UMI3/UMIP, University of Manchester (finalist)
  • STAR, remediation of tar and oil land contaminationfrom The University of Edinburgh (finalist)
  • Seralite® The power to know, the power to act from University of Birmingham (finalist)

Collaborative Impact Award

  • Knowledge transfer partnership working in Nigeria from University of Wolverhampton (winner)
  • Unique collaborative research training partnership with GSK from University of Strathclyde (finalist)
  • Local business support delivering regional business impact from University of Wolverhampton (finalist)

Business Impact Achieved Award

  • Actual Experience PLCfrom Queen Mary University London (winner)
  • Oxford Photovoltaicsfrom Isis Innovation Ltd, the University of Oxford (finalist)
  • Smarter Grid Solutionsfrom University of Strathclyde (finalist)

 

 

Deadline! Panic. Click Submit: Grants Academy Diary Part 3

Grants Academy, R & KE Operations, Training

Email flurries. Cut-and-paste frenzies. Forgetting if draft v3.1.5 is most recent despite diligent attempts to effectively dropbox. Sound familiar? Grant deadline time demands we are at our sharpest, but more often finds us high on caffeine and flung headlong into chaos. Whether one clicks submit with confidence, hesitation or blind faith, when the closing hour comes, we breathe a sigh of relief. It’s out of our hands and into the 1 in 12 success rate abyss.

Like many colleagues, I’ve been on grant teams where ‘click submit’ was done with varying shades of satisfaction. But this time, something felt different. This wasn’t any ordinary bid. This was my Grants Academy bid. A bid that had gone through three days of extensive surgery via R&KE OP’s staff development programme on bid writing run by expert consultant Dr. Martin Pickard. It benefited from Martin’s expertise, as well as the critical eyes of five interdisciplinary BU colleagues also attending the workshop. Further developed by two CI collaborators,  two external peer reviewers,  BU Quality Approver Richard Berger and the devoted attention of my research officer Pengpeng Ooi, never before had I been on a grant handled with so much personalised and professional care.  This time when I clicked submit, there wasn’t a sentence worth changing.

In two earlier diary posts I discussed the daunting task of getting started with bid writing and my (somewhat unfounded) fears of impact agendas. After the first two workshops we each went off, brains buzzing with new tips and tricks, to independently work on our bid drafts. But rather than spend hours crafting confident cases for support, those two weeks during the start of spring semester saw little time to devote to redrafting. Like the students we sometimes bemoan, most of us ended up in a last minute ‘meet the deadline’ whirlwind, turning in work we were only half proud of.

Building on session one’s tips about project formulation and session two’s insights on expressing the wider value of our research, session three provided a simulated peer review process to help us better understand how bids are evaluated and scored.  This final stage of the Grants Academy began with a discussion of review criteria, followed by a tally of the scores we gave fellow academy members, and then individual rounds of feedback on each of our six draft bid submissions. While none of us broke most research funder’s thresholds of 70% approval, few of us felt we deserved to, at least not yet.

Offering a supportive environment to watch our work get torn apart — a necessary if uncomfortable part of the bid enhancement process — day three of Grants Academy proved as beneficial as the first two. Rather than disheartening, the patterns and repetition of criticism shared across our cross-disciplinary colleagues’ reviews helped us to hone in on what desperately needed fixing. This peer review process was topped off with one-to-one feedback from Martin on where to go next with our bid’s development.

After the session a few of us stayed behind, manically typing away, not wanting to forget any of our colleagues’ sage advice. I knew my deadline was only a few weeks away and I wanted that 60 up to a 90, to fill the gap of the 1 in 12 success rate with sure-fire reasons why we deserved funding. Over the next two weeks my CIs and I racked up 57 emails, 3 hours of skype meetings and 5 budget drafts — all for just a £10,000 bid. In the words of our Grants Academy Guru, “To compete, we train.”

My biggest takeaway tip for colleagues registered in an upcoming Grants Academy session, or those thinking about enrolling, would be to come with a bid in the early to mid-stages of development. (NOT something either brand new or nearly finished.) This will allow you to get the most out of the developmental process of the workshops. Attending the sessions forces you to make time for drafting by providing structured deadlines and feedback to carry forward. I chose to develop a small Fusion Funded pilot project. 

Anna Feigenbaum is a Lecturer in CMC group at the Media School. As part of her CEMP Fellowship she created this diary of her time at the Grants Academy.  You can read her Day One Diary post here and Day Two here.  

 

Book Now! The Leverhulme Trust are visiting BU on Wednesday the 19th of March 2014

Funding opportunities, Grants Academy

Following on from our well attended visit from the AHRC and the British Academy I am pleased to remind you that the Leverhulme Trust will be visiting us next on the 19thof March – it is not too late to get yourself booked in….

Working on a variety of initiatives in R&KEO over the years, one element of development which we receive consistently excellent feedback, is the events we arrange where funders come to BU and present their organisations funding priorities and give advice on making an application. We have arranged for several funders to visit BU in 2014, we have already hosted visits from the AHRC and the British Academy and are pleased to announce our next arranged visit is with the Leverhulme Trust.

This will be taking place on Wednesday 19 March 2014, and Jean Cater (Mrs) The Assistant Director from the Leverhulme Trust which funds all academic disciplines will be visiting to discuss their grants and give advice on making an application.

Spaces on this event are becoming limited due to the room available so booking is essential!

Grants Academy members can be guaranteed a space by emailing Dianne. Or by emailing Staff Development

The booking hyperlink is:

Leverhulme Trust  funder visit

This is taking place mainly over the lunchtime period (12 midday until about 1pm -1:30pm ish) so please feel free to bring your lunch with you

We look forward to seeing as many of you who can make it.

Book Now! Leverhulme Trust – our next funder visit March 19th 2014

Funding opportunities, Grants Academy, Training

Following on from our well attended visit from the AHRC and the British Academy I am pleased to remind you that the Leverhulme Trust will be visiting us next on the 19th of March – it is not too late to get yourself booked in….

Working on a variety of initiatives in R&KEO over the years, one element of development which we receive consistently excellent feedback, is the events we arrange where funders come to BU and present their organisations funding priorities and give advice on making an application. We have arranged for several funders to visit BU in 2014, we have already hosted visits from the AHRC and the British Academy and are pleased to announce our next arranged visit is with the Leverhulme Trust.

This will be taking place on Wednesday 19 March 2014, and Jean Cater (Mrs) The Assistant Director from the Leverhulme Trust which funds all academic disciplines will be visiting to discuss their grants and give advice on making an application.

Spaces on this event are becoming limited due to the room available so booking is essential!

Grants Academy members can be guaranteed a space by emailing Dianne. Or by emailing Staff Development

The booking hyperlink is:

Leverhulme Trust  funder visit

This is taking place mainly over the lunchtime period (12 midday until about 1pm -1:30pm ish) so please feel free to bring your lunch with you

We look forward to seeing as many of you who can make it.

Book Now! British Academy visiting Wednesday the 19th of February and Leverhulme Trust in March 2014

Funding opportunities, Grants Academy

 

Following on from our well attended vist from the AHRC I am pleased to remind you that the British Academy will be visiting BU on the 19th of February and Leverhulme on the 19th of March – it is not too late to get yourself booked in….

Working on a variety of initiatives in R&KEO over the years, one element of development which we receive consistently excellent feedback, is the events we arrange where funders to come to BU and present their organisations funding priorities and advice on making an application. We have arranged for several funders to visit BU in 2014, and are re-advertising the next two in order for you to block out time in your diary now!

Our next Funder visit will be on Wednesday 19 February 2014, The British Academy will be visiting to discuss proposals they fund and share their tips on making an application. On Wednesday 19 March 2014, The Leverhulme Trust which funds all academic disciplines will be visiting to discuss their grants and give advice on making an application.

Spaces on both these events are limited due to the rooms available so booking is essential!

Grants Academy members can be guaranteed a space by emailing Dianne. Or by emailing Staff Development

The booking hyperlinks are:

British Academy funder visit

Leverhulme Trust  funder visit

This is taking place mainly over the lunchtime period so please feel free to bring your lunch with you

We look forward to seeing as many of you who can make it.

Grants Academy Diary – Day Two

Grants Academy, R & KE Operations

After completing my homework, I arrived for day two of Grants Academy ready to watch my ‘one page proposal’ get ripped apart. Day one provided a new bag of tricks and background knowledge on funding bodies and their remits. Yet, rather than feeling more confident, I seemed to have developed a sudden outbreak of academic imposture syndrome. Taking a seat around our workshop table, I quickly realised I wasn’t alone. It seemed most of us participating in the Academy went home for a round of self-doubt:  Did our research really have any benefits? Were there enough people in our research networks? Do any of us actually have the skills (or time!) to coordinate a major research project?

Day two’s session was focused on locating benefits and articulating impact. Facilitator Martin Pickard once again dove right into the murky grant-writing world: The days of academic freedom are long gone. The only way to win funding is to wade into the dark waters and train for competition.

Our first job of the day was to learn how to uncover and articulate the outward-facing values of our research. While many of us in the Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities fear that impact must be financial, Martin showed us RCUK’s list of possible beneficiaries and impacts to diversify our thinking. These include the environment, health, society and citizenship among others. While all bids must clearly identify impacts to beneficiaries, our job is to ‘potentially impact,’ not to promise world change. Most of our research is making a minor contribution to a bigger problem. The task then is to make a strong case for the minor contributions we make.

To examine how an impact agenda reshapes the ways we present our projects, we workshopped Dr. Hywel Dix’s research proposal. Hywel and his collaborators are bidding for a BA/Leverhulme Small Research Grant for a pilot study. Their research plan proposes to re-evaluate the tacit assumptions that work produced by contemporary authors late in their career is of inferior quality to their earlier work.

Martin put Hywel on the hot seat, asking him to identify impacts and beneficiaries.  At first it seemed difficult to think about this English literature project through the business-oriented language of impact agendas. But through collaborative brainstorming we came up with concrete ways groups of people would potentially benefit from Hywel and his team’s research:

Beneficiaries – Re-evaluating Literary Production in Later Life

  • Academic: scholars in literary studies
  • Cultural sector: contributes a new evaluative framework for making aesthetic judgement around authors work (i.e. impact prize competitions, Arts Council grants)
  • Students/Teachers: inform ways canonical literature is selected for curriculum and testing
  • People in later life:  placing value on these literary productions has the potential to impact people in later life with dementia and Alzheimer’s as writing and reading improves health and wellbeing

After lunch it was time for the dreaded peer reviews of our ‘one page proposal’ homework. Working in the silos of our own departments, on a day-to-day basis we rarely exchange ideas with colleagues across schools. As Communication Scholars read a Computer Science bid and a Business researchers evaluated a Social Work proposal, we realised what it takes to write clearly and convincingly outside our comfort zones. Having seven pairs of interdisciplinary eyes on each of our proposals was terrifying but invaluable. The peer review highlighted the importance of Martin’s advice to give reviewers exactly what they want to see. Use the remit and criteria to structure your arguments so a reviewer does not need to search through the document with a fine tooth comb to find key elements.

The peer review also pushed us to explain the basic tenants of our research. We easily come to take the big picture of our research for granted, when this is often what actually needs the most justification in our proposals.  We are accustomed to disciplinary conferences and peer review journals where we argue the fine points of theory, method and approach. While this does belong in the application to show rigour and expertise, without a clear case for why our research matters, we can’t win.

Anna Feigenbaum is a Lecturer in the Media School. As part of her CEMP Fellowship she is creating a diary of her time at the Grants Academy.  You can read here Day One Diary post here. 

AHRC a success for BU Part 2: The Media Story:

Awarded & submitted bids, Funding opportunities, R & KE Operations

 

By Alex and Eva

Following yesterday’s Blog post on the Faculty of Science and Technology’s success, we would like to focus today on The Media’s success with AHRC. Over the last few years The Media School have a 44% success rate from 25 projects submitted with 11 funded.

So how can we replicate The Media School success?

Once again, Eva and I got on the bus to Talbot Campus and interviewed successful AHRC grant holder Dr. Bronwen Thomas to find out more…

What was your project about?

We have had two projects funded by the AHRC, the first was a research development award, and the current project supports a research network. Both look at the impact of digitisation on readers and reading.

How is it going?

It’s going well, the network is growing and our monthly blogs have helped to keep the discussion going between our scheduled meetings. We had a very successful public engagement event before Christmas, and we are currently planning a symposium to be held here at BU in June.

What do you want to achieve?

The main outcome for our project would be that the network remains active after the period of funding and that it helps support collaborative projects, including publications, involving our members.

What gave you the edge, do you think?

The fact that our research area is of key strategic importance to the funder, and that we were able to respond speedily and effectively to the call.

In hindsight, what would you do differently, what advice would you give to others?

The funding calls we applied for were limited in terms of the amounts available. The downside of this is that the PI ends up doing quite a lot of admin and planning work, leaving less time for scholarly research.  So anything that could be done to reduce this burden would be helpful.

 Also any other comments/tips from your experience that is worth noting.

We have been successful responding to specific calls under the highlight themes.  Under the current system, this may become more difficult, as typically there are only a couple of months between the announcement and the deadline, but there does appear to be ongoing funding for the highlighted themes, so they are well worth looking at.  It is important to demonstrate that your research is collaborative, cross-disciplinary and with genuine rather than tokenistic public engagement.   But it’s also about showing that you can manage projects, that you are likely to work well together as a team, and that the proposed research and outcomes are doable.

For other hints and tips you should check out Dr Anna Feigenbaum posts on International, Interdisciplinary, Innovative: the AHRC brings grant bidding advice to BU.

~Don’t miss tomorrow’s edition, when we find out more about studentship block grants.

International, Interdisciplinary, Innovative: the AHRC brings grant bidding advice to BU

Funding opportunities, Fusion

On January 20, 2014 Bournemouth University played host to a lunchtime visit from the AHRC. The funding advice seminar covered general information about the Arts & Humanities Research Council, as well as tips and advice on AHRC bid writing here at from BU. In the lead up to the AHRC visit, the BU Research Blog offered a great round up of key facts and figures. Reiterated at the event were the AHRC’s commitments to:

  • Influence public policy
  • Engage with the creative economy
  • Impact internationally
  • Increase their profile with public

The AHRC offers research grants, fellowship grants, network grants and a special international stream. Across all funding lines, international collaboration was stressed, as were innovation, interdisciplinary work and making a clear case that your planned output matches the target audience for your research agenda.

Our AHRC visitors also highlighted their focus on developing management and leadership skills for Early Career Researchers. If you are out of your PhD for less than 8 years or in an academic post for less than 6 years, you are eligible to apply for their ECR streams. While ECRs go through the same grant process, the success rate is higher, as the ‘bar’ for a fundable project rests below their standard streams.

The Pivotal Peer Review

The AHRC reps also gave valuable insight on the evaluation process. Every proposal is ranked on a 1-6 scale by a group of up to four peer reviewers, selected from their list of 1,000 senior academics. If your proposal includes technical components, such as developing a digital archive, it will additionally be reviewed by someone who knows the technologies you’re engaging.

If your proposal scores a 4 our higher by the majority of reviewers, you’ll make the second round. Here you’ll have a chance to respond to reviewer feedback and clarification questions. “Don’t underestimate the importance of this response,” we were told. The clarity and directness of your PI response can make your application a success.

Also illuminating the evaluation process, the reps from AHRC attempted to demystify the term “impact.” In recent years the notion of ‘impact’ has caused much controversy – especially in the arts and humanities. “Impact is not just economic,” they assured us. Influencing quality of life, public service, policy and creative output also count as impact. To figure out how to articulate the impact of your research, they advised us to “simply ask yourself who, what and how” people benefit from your research.

The AHRC reps also said to keep an eye out for highlight notices that feature key strategic research themes. These themes–currently, Care for the Future, Digital Transformations, Science in Culture, and Translating Cultures—are intentionally broad and intended to offer space for a wide range of research subjects and activities.

Improving our Bids at BU

Bringing their advice home, to end the seminar, the AHRC reps offered some excellent tips for improving our bid writing here at BU.

  • BU has 9 AHRC reviewers, let’s take advantage of their expertise and experience.
  • The BU research blog is full of grant writing advice and info on the grants academy
  • Our BU research office offers an internal review process, use it!
  • Check out the peer review college section of the AHRC website.
  • Give yourself 3 months to develop your bid from research to writing to final edits.
  • Don’t be too repetitive in the bid and watch your spelling!
  • Make sure your methods of dissemination are appropriate for your stakeholders.
  • The reviewers love to see clear timescales and ‘value for money‘
  • Always ask yourself: Is this the best way to do this research?
  • If you get to the PI response round, it is crucial and can move up your overall ranking.
  • Remember, it’s not just about having a great proposal, you’re in a big pool competing against other really good research.

 Added to this are a couple reflections I had from my perspective as an Early Career lecturer in the Media School, a CEMP fellow and Fusion Fund committee member:

  •  ‘Rise-Up Collaborations’ – Early Career Researchers can pair with senior academics as CIs for the AHRC’s various ECR strands. As emergent researchers, we are often scared of the ‘big bids’ and tempted to stay small or follow professors onto their large-scale research projects. The in-built collaborative nature of the AHRC ECR routes are a great opportunity to push forward with our own initiatives and lead a team, supported by more experienced CIs.
  •  ‘The Three I’s’ – International, Interdisciplinary and Innovative research tops the agenda of the AHRC. This means great opportunities to be thinking about projects both across Schools at BU and with international university’s we have MoUs and Erasmus partnerships with. These ‘three Is’ are also embedded in Fusion. Pump-priming SMN Fusion Grants could be a great place to initiate the early stages of an AHRC bid for those of us in the arts and humanities seeking to expand our research horizons.

Book Now! AHRC visiting BU – Monday 20th Jan and British Academy in Feb and Leverhulme Trust in March 2014

Funding opportunities

Attention!! Funder visits – many of you may have missed this Blog post sent by Corrina at the end of November 2013 however it is not too late to get yourself booked in….

Working on a variety of initiatives in R&KEO over the years, one element of development which we receive consistently excellent feedback, is the events we arrange where funders to come to BU and present their organisations funding priorities and advice on making an application. We have arranged for several funders to visit BU in 2014, and are re-advertising the first three in order for you to block out time in your diary now!

On Monday 20 January 2014, the AHRC will be visiting to discuss their research priorities, calls and their top tips for making a submission. On Wednesday 19 February 2014, The British Academy will be visiting to discuss proposals they fund and share their tips on making an application. On Wednesday 19 March 2014, The Leverhulme Trust which funds all academic disciplines will be visiting to discuss their grants and give advice on making an application.

Spaces on all these events are limited due to the rooms available so booking is essential! Grants Academy members can be guaranteed a space by emailing Dianne. The booking hyperlinks are:

AHRC funder visit

British Academy funder visit

Leverhulme Trust  funder visit

The 5 ‘Golden Rules’ for e-submission of bid applications

Funding opportunities, Guidance, R & KE Operations

For all standard RCUK bids (for example AHRC, ESRC, EPSRC, MRC, NERC, etc), the requirement is for the completed application to be submitted on J-es (J-es is the Research Councils’ web-based Joint Electronic Submission system for grant applications and award administration) by the Principal Investigator at least 5 working days before the application deadline.

The flowchart below illustrates the basic steps involved in the  ‘behind-the-scenes’ administration of  J-es bid applications before they are finally submitted to the councils.

As demonstrated in the flowchart, bid applications submitted through J-es are not exactly straightforward and quite often can be time-consuming and frustrating in some cases. Even when a bid application is ‘perfect’ in the eyes of the J-es checkers and institutional approvers, the process will still take up at least two working days, depending on the length of the application, and the availability of both J-es checkers and institutional approvers. Therefore, the 5-working-day turnaround will allow just enough time for potential changes and alterations to be made to the applications in order to maximise chances of success.  

When asked about the most common factors which delay the submission of a bid to J-es, institutional approvers and J-es checkers have collectively identified the following:

EligibilityThe eligibility of the PI is the first thing which you need to check, before embarking on the roller coaster ride of a bid application. The variety of funding bids from numerous research councils available out there means that each bid will come with a different guidance note. Even within the same research councils, guidance can sometimes differ between two separate funding opportunities.

Start date and duration of projectThe start date and the duration of the project should be planned in accordance with the funding guidance. For example, most of the times, funding councils require a minimum of 24 weeks between the bid submission date and the project start date but this can be different for each council. When there is a last minute change on J-es for the project start date or duration, this often involves a lengthy process as all previous costing figures provided for the project would have changed too.

AttachmentsAlthough providing a comprehensive CV or showing proof of all previous track records can be beneficial to your application, it is important to bear in mind that this is not always required. RKEO cannot stress enough times, the importance of reading the guidance and only attaching the required documents.  We have had applications returned to us due to attachments that were not specifically required and this will inevitably have an impact on the success of the application. 

Letter of supportThis is a major contributing factor to the delays in bid submission as quite often, letters of support come from external organisations or people and can take time to come back if there is missing or incorrect information that needs to be changed. And quite often, the most important and yet common missing information on a letter of support can be as simple as the date or signature.

 

FormatThe formatting on bid application documents is a constant bugbear for J-es checkers and institutional approvers. In the attempt to squeeze in as many words as possible onto the application document, the minimum margins, font size and page limit as stipulated by the council is quite often overlooked by PIs and this can cause unnecessary delays in the submission of the bid application.

These are just a few examples of cases which can cause unnecessary delay and angst in the process of submitting a bid application. Although they may seem obvious, knowing these factors may end up saving you time in the long run!

If you are interested in applying for a funding bid and would like to speak to one of us, do get in touch with us at the Research and Knowledge Exchange Office at 01202 961200.

Publish empirical or experimental data early whilst letting theory mature?

PG research, Publishing, Research assessment, Research Ethics, Research Integritiy, Training

My colleagues and I have written several papers to help budding researchers about the process of writing and publishing academic papers (Hundley, & van Teijlingen 2002; van Teijlingen 2004; Pitchforth et al. 2005; van Teijlingen et al. 2012; Simkhada et al. 2013). For all researchers – students and staff alike publishing research findings is important as new insights will add to the existing knowledge base, advance the academic discipline and, in the case of applied research, perhaps improve something in the lives of others such as, well-being, the economy or the environment. Apart from this general/altruistic drive to add to knowledge, the advice academics give our postgraduate students is: to get your study published as soon as possible. The two main reasons for publishing early are: (a) getting into print to potentially help your careers; and (b) staking once claim as an authority in the field and/or publishing your findings before someone else does.
As always there are exceptions to the rule. As academics we agree that trying to get into print early is a good personal strategy for an early researcher or a postgraduate student especially for those working with empirical or experimental data. However, occasionally it is better to wait and give the underlying idea in the paper time to develop and mature. The kind of paper that often improves with time is one based on theory. Let me share a personal example: a theoretical paper from my PhD (awarded by the University of Aberdeen in 1994). This paper started life as a theory chapter in my PhD thesis (van Teijlingen 1994). This chapter on models of maternity care was not the strongest part of my thesis and it took me another decade of fine-tuning to get it into a state worth publishing. The paper ‘A Critical Analysis of the Medical Model as used in the Study of Pregnancy and Childbirth’ was finally published in Sociological Research Online, the original online-only Sociology journal in the world (van Teijlingen 2005). The wait was worthwhile as the paper is today (May 2013), eight year after publication, the seventh ‘most viewed articles during the past eight weeks’ in the journal (see: http://www.socresonline.org.uk/stats/top20.html).
In conclusion, it is generally sound advice to new researchers and postgraduate students to publish early. Occasionally though, waiting and giving your paper time to improve through discussion with colleagues, presenting the ideas at conferences and on blogs may lead to a better final product.
Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen
Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health
School of Health & Social Care

References
Hundley, V., van Teijlingen E. (2002) How to decide where to send an article for publication? Nursing Standard 16(36): 21.
van Teijlingen (1994) A social or medical comparison of childbirth? : comparing the arguments in Grampian (Scotland) and the Netherlands (PhD thesis), Aberdeen: University of Aberdeen. Available online in the British Library (search for: uk.bl.ethos.387237 ).
Teijlingen van, E. (2004) Why I can’t get any academic writing done, Medical Sociology News 30 (3): 62-6.
van Teijlingen, E. (2005) A Critical Analysis of the Medical Model as used in the Study of Pregnancy and Childbirth, Sociological Research Online 10(2) Freely available online at: www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/teijlingen.html.
Pitchforth, E., Porter, M., Teijlingen van, E.R., Forrest Keenan, K. (2005) Writing up and presenting qualitative research in family planning and reproductive health care, Journal of Family Planning & Reproductive Health Care 31 (2): 132-135.
Teijlingen van, E., Simkhada. P.P., Simkhada, B., Ireland, J. (2012) The long and winding road to publication, Nepal Journal Epidemiology 2(4): 213-215. http://nepjol.info/index.php/NJE/article/view/7093
Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E., Hundley, V. (2013) Writing an academic paper for publication, Health Renaissance 11 (1): 1-5. www.healthrenaissance.org.np/uploads/Pp_1_5_Guest_Editorial.pdf

Bournemouth University Clinical Research Unit (BUCRU) Annual Report

At the Bournemouth University Clinical Research Unit (BUCRU) we think it is important to review our activities on a regular basis, to document our achievements and to outline our plans for the future. We have decided that the best way to do this is to prepare an Annual Report. It was completed some months ago and now we would like to share it more widely with our colleagues in the University. It can be found on our microsite at http://microsites.bournemouth.ac.uk/bucru/news/ we hope it is of interest.

The support and collaborations we offer are available to staff within the University, and to staff in the NHS. In the next year we will be particularly trying to develop new collaborations between University and health service staff that will lead to high quality grant applications.

If you would like further information please contact Louise Ward (wardl@bournemouth.ac.uk Tel: 01202 961939)

http://microsites.bournemouth.ac.uk/bucru/ 

European Science Foundation and Global Changes in the Marine Environment

Funding opportunities, R & KE Operations

I was very proud to have been invited by the Institute of Marine Sciences – National Research Council (ISMAR-CNR) in Venice who developed on the European Science Foundation Platform, the Exploratory Workshop:  Marine woodborers: New Frontiers for European Waters. And I have to say that that was one of the most exciting research opportunities I have taken part of in the recent past.

The European Science Foundation (ESF) was established in 1974 to provide a common platform for its Member Organisations to advance European research collaboration and explore new directions for research. Currently it is an independent organisation, owned by 67 Member Organisations, which are research funding organisations, research performing organisations and academies from 29 countries.

The focus of the Exploratory Workshops scheme is on workshops aiming to explore an emerging and/or innovative field of research or research infrastructure, also of interdisciplinary character. Workshops are expected to open up new directions in research or new domains. It is expected that a workshop shall conclude with plans for follow-up research activities and/or collaborative actions or other specific outputs at international level.

The organisers, namely Davide Tagliapietra, Erica Keppel and Marco Sigovini – all from the ISMAR-CNR- did an amazing job in organising this much needed research group and by planning an excellent working programme.

The topic, centred on Marine woodborers is of utmost important as these organisms are a threat to maritime structure and archaeological heritage. Recently, an increase in attack and a northward spread has been reported. Despite the ecological, economical and cultural importance, research on this subject is carried out by few scientists scattered across Europe. An interdisciplinary approach is needed to reach a synthesis of knowledge and a deeper understanding of the causal factors. The main outcome of the workshop is the establishment of a research network aiming to coordinate scientists with an European perspective and a global view. Through the establishment of such a network, new theoretical and technical developments could be achieved.

The agenda of the workshop was to focus on:

1) bringing together experts in complementary fields that have hitherto not collaborated as a group;

2) identifying additional research competences that are not covered within the group of participants;

3) identifying, exchanging and sharing research interests for future joint leading research projects and developing an application strategies;

4) the establishment of an international network on marine woodborers.

Despite the subject ([wood-]‘boring’ organisms), there wasn’t a single dull moment. It was very exciting to spent a considerable amount of time with international peers coming from as far as Colombia and discussing the problems surrounding these particular organisms.

All sessions were extremely interesting and productive and I totally enjoyed chairing one of them in the Knowledge Café, with my hat of maritime archaeologist whose research interest based also based on marine organisms and global changes, but I am also one of few who combines degradation and protection of the cultural heritage and marine science. The Knowledge Café focussed on Systematics and biogeography, Marine woodborer-microorganism interactions, Protection of shipwrecks and maritime structures. Each group discussed weaknesses: Problems, constrains and bottlenecks, Strengths: Opportunities, synergies, and Perspectives: Solutions, actions and recommendations.

19 international peers attended, which was by invitation only, this amazing opportunity, some of which were old friends and some of which have become reference points for my current and future research on wood borers.

All with the amazing architectural beauties of a tiny Venetian island just in front of one of the world most famous squares: San Marco square!

Paola Palma 

Launch of our new Research Council Application Guidance webpages!

Guidance

We have recently launched a new section on the Blog that focuses specifically on providing guidance and information about writing applications to Research Councils – you can access the information here: Research Council Application Guidance. The pages contain information about the different sections required when writing a proposal to a Research Council, including guidance on writing: the impact sections, the data management plan, and the justification of resources documents. Where possible examples of good practice are also provided. We really hope this will be a useful resource 🙂

We aim to develop this into a comprehensive suite of information for academic colleagues writing proposals to Research Councils. If you have any feedback on the pages or if there is anything you’d like to see that isn’t there yet then please let us know so it can be added.

You can access the information from the Research Toolkit link in the top menu bar of the Blog (just beneath the picture of the books) or from this handy link – Research Council Application Guidance.

RCUK success rates published! Exciting news!

RCUK logoLast week the Research Councils published their success rates for the period April 2011 to March 2012. The key message seems to be that demand management measures are working; most Councils have seem a decline in the number of applications and a rise in success rates, despite a decrease in the amount of funding allocated.

Demand management, the term given to the steps taken by RCUK and the Research Councils to reduce the amount of applications they receive, now features in the plans of all of the Research Councils. This is because the Research Councils are receiving more applications that they are able to support and research institutions currently submit more applications than are likely to be funded. 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.

Read more about the demand management measures that the Research Councils have put in place here: Demand Management

The table on the right shows the success rates over the past three years for the four main Research Councils to which BU makes applications – AHRC, EPSRC, ESRC and NERC. For all Councils, bar the ESRC, the success rate has increased year on year although it is worth noting that the ESRC claim that since they started requiring institutions to sift applications prior to submission (June 2011) it has recorded an overall success rate of 24%. We will have to wait until the 2012-13 success rates are published to see if this trend follows through into the statistics for the year, but the early signs are promising.

In 2010-11 BU’s success rate with Research Councils was 0%, despite 16 applications being submitted. This year we have submitted less applications (10) and our success rate has increased to 10% – which is excellent news! The successful application was written with advice and guidance from Dr Martin Pickard who facilitates our Grants Academy workshops. Whilst there are many reasons why grants are awarded this is a good sign that the advice given during these workshops and on individual proposals is beneficial and can help make your proposal a success. BU has had more grants awarded from the Research Councils over the past year, however the stats only show against the lead institution so successful bids where BU is the collaborating institution are not shown against BU in the data.

The key message here is to spend time writing and refining fewer applications, making use of the support available (such as the internal peer review and the Grants Academy), and making sure your applications are of as high a quality as possible prior to submission.

BU is especially keen to reduce the number of bids submitted to Research Councils whilst significantly increasing the quality of those which are submitted. BU initiatives, such as the internal peer review scheme (RPRS) and the Grants Academy, have been specifically established to support academics to design, write and structure competitive, fundable research proposals and to maximise their chances of being awarded funding. It is excellent to see that these initiatives are so popular amongst academic colleagues and I would encourage you to make use of the support available.

Read more about the 2011-12 success rates on the Times Higher website: Limit on demand lifts grant award success rates and Hard line pays dividends (but not hard cash

 

Wanted: members for RC governing councils

Six research councils are inviting applications to fill governing council vacancies expected to arise in 2013.

Suitably qualified academics and experienced individuals from industry, commerce, government, and the voluntary, creative and cultural sectors, can apply.

The vacancies are at the Arts and Humanities Research Council, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, the Economic and Social Research Council, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, the Natural Environment Research Council, and the Science and Technology Facilities Council.

The vacancies include some positions with audit committee responsibilities for part-time membership.

Annual honoraria of £6,850 will be paid. The closing date for applications is 19 November.