Tagged / RPRS

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

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

BU research, 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.  

 

AHRC – a success for BU

BU research, Grants Academy, R & KE Operations, Research news

AHRC are visiting BU today (find out how you can join in) and so it is timely to highlight our success with obtaining funding from them.

BU’s success rate of applying for funding with the AHRC has improved over the last few years from 33% in 2011/12 (the AHRC’s financial year runs from April to March), to 50% in both 2012/13 and 2013/14.

Since 2008, notable successes have occurred in the following Schools/Faculties:

Faculty of Science and Technology have a 45% success rate from 20 projects submitted with 9 funded

Business School have a 60% success rate from 5 projects submitted with 3 funded

Media School have a 44% success rate from 25 projects submitted with 11 funded

So, what is it that we need to know about the AHRC? 

Firstly, they have more than 50 disciplines within its remit. The arts and humanities is a large, dynamic and diverse body of disciplines and activities.  They range from practice-based work through to scholarly enquiry into history and culture. What they have in common, however, is a distinctive approach to ways of thinking about the conceptual, creative and historical basis of the human world.  You can find out more about their strategic priorities here.

Since receiving its Royal Charter in 2005, the AHRC has made a total of more than £700 million of funding available for arts and humanities research.  The AHRC’s Delivery Plan 2011-15 commits them to spend 72 percent of research funding in responsive mode schemes and 24 percent on targeted programmes, including International and Knowledge Exchange activities.  Since 2005, more than 16,400 research outputs have been published as a result of AHRC funding.  Of all disciplines in the UK, the humanities produce the largest world share of published articles at nearly 11 percent.

The RAE (Research Assessment Exercise) 2008 revealed the scale of the arts and humanities research base, with 14,000 active researchers, representing 27 percent of researchers in the UK. Across all disciplines, arts and humanities researchers achieved the highest proportion of top-rated 4* work, defined as ‘world-leading in terms of originality, significance and rigour.’  The latest available statistics suggest that there are 17,000 academic staff within the arts and humanities who are involved in research either wholly or coupled with teaching duties in UK institutions.

How have BU benefitted from AHRC funding? 

AHRC have funded several types of grants in BU including responsive mode, early career, and large grants.  The biggest impact has been the Block Grant Partnership that has led to several Masters and PhD students being funded in the School of Applied Sciences and the Media School.  These have helped fund students researching areas such as ‘Physiochemical past integrating geochemical & geophysical approaches to site location & interpretation’, ‘Identifying activity areas in Neolithic sites through ethnographic analysis of phytoliths & geochemical elements’, and ‘Film, digital & media production’.  As mentioned above, several research grants have also been won, the most recent being research into ‘Music publishing’ in the Business School and a large grant researching ‘Cultural and scientific perceptions of human-chicken interactions’ in the School of Applied Sciences.

How do I go about applying to the AHRC?

The key message here is to spend time writing and refining 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 (please note this is mandatory for research council applications) 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. 

RKEO recently published a blog article that listed fifteen top tips for getting research funding, as advised by an AHRC panel member.  This should help to increase your chances of being successful when applying for research funding.  Other useful information can be found in the research toolkit on the blog, which provides guidance on applying to research councils.  Advice is giving on how to write a research summary, case for support, impact statement, justification of resources, and a data management plan, as well as advice on ethics.  As all research councils require electronic submission of applications with a two-stage institutional check and approval, you need to have finalised your application five working days before the funder cut off in order for RKEO to check and approve your application to ensure it stands the best possible chance of being successful.  As soon as you think you might apply for funding, do get in touch with your RKE Operations contact and we will help you through the process.

So, if that has whet your appetite and you’re keen to find out more, do come along to the AHRC visit today at 12 noon (registration details can be found here).

Demand management works says RCUK

BU research

I have heard one of two grumbles over the years over our mandatory internal peer review for Research Council (RCUK) proposals and this can sometimes seem like an ‘additional hurdle’ to get through in making a submission. BU is not alone in having a mandatory review process for RCUK grants and we implemented this, as did others around the UK, on the back of demand management measures initiated by some of the Research Councils (such as the EPSRC who will ban repeatedly unsuccessful applicants from making further submissions for 12 months). To help ensure no one at BU is unable to bid for the calls they wish to, we want to offer this extra support to our academic community in helping them submit the best possible application that they can.

At BU we have seen success rates with RCUK funders increase due to the utilisation of the RPRS. Today Times Higher Education announced that due to initiatives taken by BU and other institutions in reviewing applications before submission, across the board RCUK success rates for funding have risen. The ESRC responsive mode scheme for instance has gone from a 14% success rate in 2011-12 to a 16% success rate in 2012-13.

Helping ensure fewer numbers of lowe quality bids are submitted to RCUK funders facilitates a reduction in administration costs, which can then be redistributed into funding calls. This is great news for the funders and for applicants and potential applicants.

We are reviewing how the internal peer review process works at BU to make it even more useful and ever less bureaucratic to help any RCUK applicants and indeed applicants for any funding bodies. More details on this will be placed on the blog soon!

Why the RPRS is more than just another BU hoop in submitting a proposal

BU research

Undertaking internal peer review (the RPRS) at BU became mandatory for all Research Council UK (RCUK) applications over a year ago in response to many funders demand management measures (which include banning applicants with two unsuccessful proposals within a time frame from applying to that funder for 12 months). The European Commission will also bring in demand management measures for all European Research Council grants under Horizon 2020.

But the RPRS is more than just a mandatory hoop for RCUK grants. In fact, most of the applications we receive are on a voluntary basis for a range of funders and schemes and those who have undergone it once, tend to use the scheme several times because of the value it adds.  Indeed an analysis of recent RCUK submissions to the RPRS found that it has a 44% success rate when the proposals are sent off to the funder and with some finders such as the ESRC having a 15% success rate in 2012 – that is not a bad statistic!

The RPRS has been described by applicants as a ‘very valuable service’ giving a ‘positive’ experience. Not only are the comments helpful in further refining the bid, but the peer support helped eradicate the loneliness which often accompanies writing a proposal ‘[The RPRS] is a great support when writing bids – it can be a lonely business sometimes.

If you haven’t used the RPRS yet, why not give it a go for your next proposal?

 

Application rejected? what to do next….

BU research, Guidance

 

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

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

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

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

My experience of the BU peer review scheme for research bids

Awarded & submitted bids, BU research, Grants Academy, R & KE Operations, Research assessment, Research news

My experience of the BU peer review scheme for research bids – Dan Jackson

Constructing a credible research bid is not an easy process. Anyone who has experienced this will attest to the headaches, confidence crises, as well as the very practical obstacles of application forms that include boxes that defy common sense! Building an internal deadline and peer review process into this might seem like another unnecessary headache.

Our experience of putting a Higher Education Academy (HEA) collaborative teaching grant included all of the above. As a relatively inexperienced grant consortium, we requested internal peer review, and found it to be an invaluable process. We submitted a draft version of the whole bid document to the reviewers and got very useful feedback from two colleagues who were familiar with the funding body. Not only that, we continued the dialogue with the internal reviewers over the next few weeks leading up to the grant deadline.

This is what I would recommend to anyone undertaking the internal peer review process:

  • Build it into your bid deadline from an early stage.
  • Give them as much of the bid document to comment on as possible. The more feedback the better.
  •  Choose your peer reviewers carefully – RKEO can help here – you ideally want people with experience of the particular funding body so as to give you the inside line.
  • If necessary, continue the dialogue with the reviewers after you receive the feedback.

Who can I ask for further help?

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

 

 

BU internal peer-review scheme for your research proposal

BU research, Funding opportunities, Guidance

Why is the internal peer review of research proposals important?

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

Who reviews the applications?

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

Who can apply to the RPRS?

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

What kind of feedback can I expect?

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

How do I submit an application?

Will the RPRS help with unsuccessful applications?

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

Remember

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

Who can I ask for further help?

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

How to network workshop – places available

Guidance, Research news

Networking is crucial in academic life and critical for participation in funded research. In today’s world, to develop a strong academic career, publications aren’t enough; network relations can play a huge role.  Being well connected and carrying out research in cooperative partnerships significantly increases your chances of attaining a professorship and will allow you to grow your research career by participating in a range of multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary projects.

Networking can be daunting and exhausting. To help you identify key players and how best to approach them as well as learning  how to network effectively with a range of stakeholders, expert Dr Martin Pickard of Grantcraft will deliver 3 hours (9.30am-1.30pm, which includes an hour for lunch) of  fantastic guidance in this session on Lansdowne campus (Studland House), on Wednesday, 20th February.

Important booking information:

Booking is essential through the Staff Development website.

The link should be now be working correctly however if you have not received a reminder from Staff Development prior to the event please feel free to also email Dianne Goodman direct.

If you have already booked on to this session please note:

As you may be aware Staff Development encountered some problems with their main booking site around Oct – Nov 2012. So if you have previously booked onto this Networking session we recommend you email Dianne Goodman to check your name is on our current list.

RCUK success rates published! Exciting news!

Research 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

 

British Academy session – slides now available

Funding opportunities, Research news

The British Academy visit, led by Ken Emond (Head of Research Awards) and Kate Kenyon (International Officer) gave a comprehensive overview of the work of the British Academy, the funding schemes they offer.

The slides are available here:

British Academy – November 2012 visit – slides

As part of the presentation, Ken Emond gave some insights into what applicants need to think about when they are writing a proposal.  Please bear his advice in mind when writing your proposal!

  • Is the project feasible? (both in terms of methodology and time-frame)
  • Is the project defined, specific, focused and clearly expressed?  (applications will be assessed by non-experts in the field, so keep jargon and unexplained terms to an absolute minimum)
  • Is there a defined outcome? (ie:  what will you be producing at the end of your research:  publication, database etc).

 

Interested in applying for British Academy funding?

If you are interested in applying to the British Academy (or to any other research funder), please contact me, and I will put you in touch with the range of support that is available to you.  You will also need to contact the RKEO operations team, as they will be working with you on costing your project.

 

 

 

September Early Career Forum – How to get that first grant or paper…..

BU research, Research news

In September we held the second of our open forum meetings for Early Career Researchers (ECRs).  These meetings provide  an opportunity to ask for advice and guidance from a team of experienced academics and research managers in an informal setting. Questions can be about anything related to research – from publications to projects to funding to research strategy! The Forums also provide an opportunity for ECRs to network with colleagues from across the University.

The September meeting was well attended by ECRs from Schools across the University, and they met with Prof Bogdan Gabrys, Assoc Prof Richard Berger,  plus Jennifer Roddis and myself from the Research and Knowledge Exchange Office.

The discussions related getting started – how to get that first grant, or first paper when you don’t have a track-record (apart from your Phd research). One of the key messages here was to work on your profile, and there are various ways you can approach profile-raising.  Here are some of the key messages that emerged from this theme:

Publishing: Remember, your Phd is a valid piece of research!  You might want to talk to your supervisor about targeting likely publications and jointly publishing on your Phd topic or theme.  Regularly publish if you can.  Get your name out. 

Don’t be afraid to take a tangent:  A useful message from this meeting was don’t be precious about your research area.  You may miss opportunities if you are not prepared to follow a research path on a tangent.  After completing your Phd it can be challenging to find topics to research or publish on.  Take a look at your literature review and early drafts of your Phd.  Examine the abandoned strands of argument and research questions you decided not to pursue.  These could present themselves as great opportunities for research and publication, as they are related to your Phd topic, but not restricted by it.   This is one way that you might expand your research out of your Phd subject.

For example, Richard Berger won a BBC grant that was not strictly in his subject area.  He felt out of his comfort zone for the 8 weeks of the project.  However, he learned enormous amounts about new methodolgieis, delivering research, and presenting his work, which has stood him in good stead for his further research work.

Networking: Getting involved in networks is an effective part of raising your profile.  Attending conferences is a good start. You might start by choosing conferences with the best repuation, or by going to small conferences, where you may find other academics like you!  Over time, you will naturally get to know the other conference attendees (peopl you sit next to etc).    If you find someone you like, you might want to start presenting together. 

This was the experience of one of the senior academics – they started presenting together, then started to write together, then started their own journal on the subjects that they are interested in.   Starting your own journal is not as hard as it sounds.  You could publish online, and academics from around the world like being invited to be on editorial boards.  Its worth a thought. You can try submitting papers to conferences – but bear in mind that there is a lot of competition, with probably a 20% chance of your paper being accepted, but if you don’t try, you won’t know!

Networking funds?  Ask in your School if there are funds available for attending conferences.  Each School has a different way of doing things, so it is worth asking around. Investigate the research councils and other funders, which offer networking grants.   You could organise your own conference – this would be a great opportunity to generate some funds, plus a fantastic way to create your own network.  Host it at the EBC, write about it on the reserach blog, write about it on other blogs, advertise it through online networks.    

Cold calling:  When you are cold-calling, make sure you have something to offer – be honest and be upfront.  The worst that can happen is that you receive a polite no, or are ignored!   Maybe don’t always email potential collaborators. If they are within BU knock on their door and be pursuasive!  Research groups at other institutions may well be looking for speakers on certain topics.  Do some research, find out, offer yourself as a speaker.

Online communities: there are networks of excellence that operate online.  Join in and find like-minded people.   A good opportunity to make connections and raise your profile.

Research Grants:  Take advantage of schemes such as the Grants Academy and Research Proposal Review Service.   Subscribe to the research blog for news on internal funding opportunities.  Bid for Phd studentships. Talk to colleagues – maybe you could collaborate?  Use Research Professional and look for open calls.  Don’t focus only on the big research council grants – these are highly competitive, and generally are looking for a research grant track record.  Look for smaller funding opportunities – charities, foundations and even regional funding agencies are often good places to start.  A good piece of advice:  stay away from scary deadlines until you are ready!   

Prepare to fail! You will get rejections – because everyone gets rejections for papers submitted to journals, and for research grant applications.   When you suffer a rejection your first reaction will be emotional.  Take time to reflect.  Then go back to your proposal and take a constructive look.  The work won’t be wasted, as you will be able to re-work it for another journal or another funder.

BRIAN: make sure your profile is up to date.

Make the most of internal support available:

One of the ECRs who attended has helpfully set up a Facebook page called ECR BU – here is the link:

http://www.facebook.com/groups/265825716854423/

What next?

If you’re interested in coming to one of the next ECR Forums you will need to book to confirm your attendance (this is so we can order enough food and refreshments in advance). The next Forums are scheduled as follows (rooms to be confirmed):

19 November 12:30 – 15:00 on the Lansdowne Campus

11 December 12:30 – 15:00 on the Talbot Campus

Sir Jules Thorn Charitable Trust – call for proposals

Funding opportunities, Research news

What is the Sir Jules Thorn Charitable Trust?   The Sir Jules Thorn Charitable Trust is dedicated to the prevention and treatment of disease and the care of the sick and the disadvantaged.  The Charity makes grants to numerous charitable causes throughout the United Kingdom in support of medical research, medicine generally and charities engaged in humanitarian work.

What is the call?    To mark the 50th anniversary of the Trust’s founding by Sir Jules Thorn, the Trustees have decided to hold a competition for a substantial capital grant in support of translational research. Submissions have been invited from universities and from within the NHS.   

The criteria are set out in the “Call for Applications” guidelines.

Process for submission

The Trust are looking for one proposal per institution.  With this in mind BU has established a process for submissions to this call. All proposals must be submitted to a special version of our internal peer review scheme (the RPRS) first and must be signed off by Matthew Bennett as PVC (Research, Enterprise and Internationalisation) prior to submission.

Applicants will initially submit a one-page outline, which will be assessed by our panel of reviewers.  Based on feedback from the panel, applicants will be invited to submit a full proposal, which will also be assessed by the panel.  Final proposals will be sent to our PVC for his assessment and final approval over which proposal will be submitted to the Trust.

Key dates and deadlines

5th Oct – One page outlines submitted to the RPRS and sent for review

15th Oct – Panel feedback returned to applicants

 9th Nov – Full proposals submitted to the RPRS and sent for review

19th Nov – Applicants to finalise proposals based on revewier feedback

30th Nov – Proposals sent to PVC for review and approval

1st Dec – 31st Dec – Selected applicant finalised proposal based on PVC comments

14th Dec  – Final date for costings

31st Dec – Proposal submitted to Sir Jules Thorn Charitable Trust

 Would you like to apply?

 You can access the outline application form  by clicking here:  One page application form

All applications will need to be accompanied by your line manager (or equivalent) approval. Please forward an email with that approval to carolineo@bournemouth.ac.uk by the submission date.

If you have any questions about this call or the Resarch Proposal Review Service please contact Caroline O’Kane

Support for your funding proposal from the RDU

Guidance, Research news

Why is the internal peer review of research proposals important?

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

What is the RPRS? 

  • It is a university-wide scheme, that manages the peer review of funding applications, and supports academics while they are developing or finalising their proposals.

Who reviews the applications?

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

Who can apply to the RPRS?

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

What kind of feedback can I expect?

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

How do I submit an application?

  • Contact RKE Operations to obtain a rough costing for your proposal. RKE Operationswill guide you through the process
  • Send in a Word or PDF version of your electronic submission draft (such as Je-S) and submit to Caroline O’Kane
  • The Research Development Unit will undertake review of the proposal and forward to 2 experts
  • You will receive feedback within 2-3 weeks

Remember

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

Who can I ask for further help?

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

 

ESRC Future Research Leaders scheme 2012/2013 – how to apply

Funding opportunities

The ESRC’s Future Research Leaders call is currently open with a closing date of 4th October 2012.

Universities are expected to consider applications very carefully prior to submitting them to the ESRC through this call, and all applications need to be supported with a letter from the PVC (Research, Enterprise and Internationalisation).

With this in mind BU has established a process for submissions to this call. All proposals must be submitted to a special version of our internal peer review scheme (the RPRS) first and must be signed off by Matthew Bennett as PVC (Research, Enterprise and Internationalisation) prior to submission.

For applicants interested in the scheme, the key internal dates are as follows:

28th Aug Proposals to be submitted to the RPRS and sent for review.
10th Sept Proposal feedback to be returned to applicants.
10th Sept – 21st Sept Applicants to finalise proposals based on reviewer feedback.
21st Sept Final proposals to be sent to Matthew Bennett (via RKE Ops).
  Matthew Bennett to review and approve final proposals (and write the PVC letter of support). Once reviewed, CRE Operations will let applicants know when to submit via Je-S.
26th Sept Final decision from Matthew Bennett re: proposals to submit
26th – 1st Oct Selected applicants finalise proposals
1st Oct Final proposals submitted via Je-S
4th October ESRC deadline
   

If you are considering applying to the scheme but have not yet confirmed this with the RKE Ops team please could you do so as soon as possible.

Please take the time to read through the call documentation available on the ESRC website – it contains a lot of important information about assessment criteria and what the ESRC are looking for in a proposal.

If you have any questions about this call or the Resarch Proposal Review Service please contact Caroline O’Kane

Last day for submissions to the Marie Curie Internal Peer Review!

EU

With the  Calls for Proposals   released and the deadline next month, this is your one and only chance to make use of our expert internal peer review of your Marie Curie submission.  I am thrilled that two of our excellent recipients of this funding – Rudy Gozlan and Rob Britton – have agreed to be the reviewers for our specialist RPRS internal peer review panel for the Marie Curie submissions to help you. Rudy and Rob will review yoru draft and give you feedback on any issues they can foresee given their experience and highlight any areas which should be addressed to maximise your chance of success before you submit in August.  You will receive your feedback on July 20th, which gives you plenty of time to tweak your proposal and get it submitted on time. There are no forms to fill in; just save a copy of your application as a PDF/ Word document and email over.

We are very lucky to have such fantastic expertise within our institution so please do take full advantage of it :)

AHRC presentation – slides now available

Research news

Last week, Professor Mark Llewellyn – Head of Research for the AHRC came to BU.  

He spent the day with us, meeting with our AHRC peer reviewers,  Arts and Humanities Profs, Deputy Deans and AHRC grant holders.  Professor Llewellyn also addressed a well-attended public meeting.    We gave Professor Llewellyn a good introduction to BU and our work – and I’m delighted to say he found the day extremely informative.

The slides from the open meeting can be accessed here: AHRC presentation 2012

If you are thinking about applying to the AHRC for research funding please contact Caroline O’Kane, to ensure you have access to all the support that is available for grant development.

Last chance to sign up for the AHRC open meeting!

Research news

On, Wednesday,  27th June Professor Mark Llewellyn, Director of Research from the AHRC is coming to BU. 

This is a great opportunity to ask your questions about the AHRC.    It is unusual for a Research Council to make university visits, so please make the most of this chance to hear first hand about AHRC’s future strategy, and how your research might fit within it.

The open meeting with start with a presentation, and then be followed by discussion. 

Click here to book your place.

Day: Wednesday, 27th June

Time: 1.30pm – 2.15pm

Place: Talbot Campus – PG16

If you are off-campus and experiencing difficulty accessing the staff intranet please email your booking to staffdevelopment@bournemouth.ac.uk

In the meantime, if you have any questions please email Caroline O’Kane