A roundup of this week’s Funding Insight articles

This week, we profile Blood Cancer UK’s first early career fellowship scheme since the pandemic and learn why understanding who grant reviewers really are can improve the chances of success of any bid.

This week in Funding Insight

Blood Cancer UK changed its name from Bloodwise in 2020. Around that time, because of the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, the charity paused new calls for its fellowship schemes. This year, that support is returning in the shape of Early Career Advancement Fellowships, which offer a maximum of £350,000 for projects lasting up to three years (or five years part time).

The charity says the scheme is for “outstanding early career researchers who are dedicated to pursuing a career in blood cancer research and who are aiming to transition towards independence”. The deadline for applications is 19 September.

Richard Francis, deputy director of research at Blood Cancer UK, explains how the scheme fits into the charity’s reinvigorated grants portfolio and relates what assessors will be looking for in applications.

From the archive: As Funding Insight eases into its summer break, we spare a thought for all our readers who won’t be able to spend as much time away from a computer screen as they might have liked because they have grant application deadlines looming in the coming months.

To help focus your minds, we republish this reflection from May 2021 on who you will be writing for as you work up your bid. As the article makes plain, you won’t be writing for a panel of fearsome, omniscient mega-minds but rather inquisitive, intelligent but time-limited and pressured researchers (and others)—much like you. And that requires a different mindset…

Elsewhere on Research Professional News

Labour tipped to ‘change focus’ on next UKRI leader—Recruitment process well underway before election, but new science minister may have “names up sleeve”

Dsit announces £16m boost for UK biomedical database—Government matches contribution from Amazon Web Services, aiming to benefit medical research

Researchers’ views sought on new EU platform—First European Open Science Cloud platform to be presented to scientific community in October

British Academy makes housing expert its next president—Cambridge-based geographer Susan Smith will head up humanities and social sciences body from July 2025

Volkswagen Foundation offers €10m for Earth sciences—Professorships established to create fresh perspectives on our planet

The Funding Insight email is taking its habitual summer break and the next one will hit your inboxes on 4 September. In the meantime, if you have comments, feedback or suggestions for Funding Insight, or if there are other people in your institution who would like to receive this weekly email, please contact james.brooks@clarivate.com.

The post Blood Cancer UK fellowships and understanding who will read your bid appeared first on Research Professional News.

Blood Cancer UK returns to offering fellowships after a pandemic-induced break

Top tips

• All bids must excel on three elements: the research project, the team and the training.
• Patient assessment of bids is an important step in the process.
• Engage with patients and the public as early as possible.
• Seek to collaborate and consult with specialists in your field.
• Take care over the statistical elements of your bid.

Blood Cancer UK changed its name from Bloodwise in 2020. Around that time, because of the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, the charity paused new calls for its fellowship schemes. This year, that support is returning in the shape of Early Career Advancement Fellowships, which offer a maximum of £350,000 for projects lasting up to three years (or five years part time).

The charity says the scheme is for “outstanding early career researchers who are dedicated to pursuing a career in blood cancer research and who are aiming to transition towards independence”. The deadline for applications is 19 September.

Richard Francis, deputy director of research at Blood Cancer UK, explains how the scheme fits into the charity’s reinvigorated grants portfolio and relates what assessors will be looking for in applications.

Is this a new scheme for Blood Cancer UK?

Yes, it is. We do have a long history of funding fellowships to advance people’s careers, but we actually stopped almost five years ago. Because of the pandemic, we weren’t able to restart any of that funding, but the moment is right now and we’ve got really big ambitions to grow our research budget and portfolio.

In the meantime, we’ve been diversifying the ways that we fund research across a number of schemes, and this is partly to give researchers suitable opportunities for funding at different levels, depending on what they want to do and the research questions they want to answer.

So we’re restarting the fellowships after quite a long break, with real enthusiasm for the Early Career Advancement Fellowships because we know that there is a genuine need to help blood cancer researchers starting out on their path towards independence.

How do you define an “outstanding” early career researcher? 

We are looking for people who have the potential to lead their field within blood cancer research. To impress upon reviewers that you can do that, you need to cover a number of areas. First, the project must answer an important, relevant question to people affected by cancer. Second, we must see the support of a network of supervisors and mentors, typically from a university or research institution. Third, there must be evidence of thought about the training required to realise any fellowship or career development skills, as well as leadership—how will this fellowship help you develop to potentially manage a research team in the future? 

How are applications assessed? 

The application process involves external peer reviews, input from a patient voice group and interviews. First, the external peer review will assess the research project and the applicant’s technical expertise. Then it will go to the patient voice group, who will shortlist selected candidates to interview. Finally, our panel will see how good of a fit they are for the scheme, the quality of their application and the likelihood of their status as a potential star in blood cancer research.  

Are there any eligibility criteria you’d like to highlight? 

Within the scheme, we’ve asked people to be six years post-PhD, but we have said we will be flexible on that. Particularly during the Covid-19 pandemic, people had to take time out from their research. Or people might have had a break due to, for example, having a child, or maybe they took on greater clinical responsibilities.

If there’s anything in the eligibility criteria that people are unclear about or would like to discuss further, we do recommend they get in touch with us. It’s often best to address individual eligibility questions directly in this way.

Is there anything applicants can do to make their bids shine?

Yes, I’ve got a couple of pieces of advice here. First, engage with the public. One of the things that we value most is high-quality patient and public involvement. As a charity, we are supported by patients and work closely with our patient voice groups.

Even at the earliest stages of developing your application, I would suggest trying to work with any groups of patients. The charity can help with that, advise you and match you up with people. We know that universities and research groups do already have patient groups they consult with, but we also work with those groups and it’s probably best you go through us to match you up. 

My second tip is to collaborate. Try to find other people who you haven’t interacted with before that are working in similar or related areas. This will help ensure that you have the right methodologies for your research.

Are there any recurrent missteps you see on Blood Cancer UK bids? 

People often don’t have the right statistical expertise. If your work is proposing any kind of sample size, in preclinical models or clinical work, ensure you verify the statistics. Make sure all your numbers and statistical methods are as good as they can be. 

Is the £350,000 maximum a hard limit?  

Yes, it is. We realise that people might want to use it in different ways and we try to be open to that. And we expect that quite a large proportion of the funding amount will go towards salary costs. 

The post Opportunity profile: Early career support for blood cancer research appeared first on Research Professional News.

Why you might be writing funding bids with the wrong readers in mind

As Funding Insight eases into its summer break, we spare a thought for all our readers who won’t be able to spend as much time away from a computer screen as they might have liked because they have grant application deadlines looming in the coming months.

To help focus your minds, we republish this reflection from May 2021 on who you will be writing for as you work up your bid. As the article makes plain, you won’t be writing for a panel of fearsome, omniscient mega-minds but rather inquisitive, intelligent but time-limited and pressured researchers (and others), much like you. And that requires a different mindset…

When you’re writing a research grant application, who are you writing for? And who should you be writing for? Considering these questions matters because tailoring your bid to suit the needs of its key audience (peer reviewers and panel members) will raise its chances of getting funded. But before you focus on who you are writing for, you might have to admit that a mixture of education and wishful thinking has led you to write for the wrong people.

You are not writing for teacher 

For most of our time in formal education, we write for an audience of one: for a teacher at school, a tutor at university and external examiners at crunch moments. We would write about a topic that our sole reader knew more about than we did, with the purpose of convincing her to grade our knowledge of one of her specialist areas as highly as possible.

This starts to change through masters or PhD theses and into early career and academic publications and grant proposals. You’re no longer writing for the all-knowing, functionally omniscient reader: the locus of expertise has started to shift. As a grant applicants you are still writing for highly skilled and knowledgeable people, but their expertise is not the same as yours. The chances are that you—not teacher, not reviewer—are now the expert in the topic you are writing about.

To quote Darth Vader as he battles his former mentor Obi-Wan Kenobi: “The circle is now complete. When I left you I was but the learner. Now, I am the master.” Now you are the master, you need to write like the master, not for the master.

You are not writing for your ideal reviewer

Because even if she exists, she’s probably too busy. Or conflicted. Or the funder’s review scheme doesn’t know who she is. Ask anyone who has—like me—served on a funding panel, and you’ll find decisions are taken on each application relatively quicky, especially compared to the time they take to write. There will not be a special one-day conference convened to discuss the merits of your proposal, and the scrutiny it will be subjected to will be less ‘fine-toothed comb’ and more ‘quick onceover with the clippers’ until a broadly defensible result is achieved.

Now we can return to our original question: who are you writing for?

You are writing for busy, best-available-reviewers

Your reviewers are mostly researchers too. And as researchers they’re under much the same pressures you are, only they’ve also got one or a whole bunch of proposals to review. It’s not that different from having a pile of marking to do, only they’re not the expert. They’re an expert, just not on every subject contained in that pile of work. As an applicant, you’d be well advised to make life as easy as possible for them by expressing your ideas as clearly and unambiguously as possible.

But to what end? Now you know your audience a bit better it’s worth considering the effect you want your text to have on them, or in existential terms…

What are you trying to achieve?

In your grant application, you’re trying to achieve three things—explain, inspire and reassure—in order to persuade.

1. Explain

Remember, you’re the master now, you can’t assume the reviewer knows the field as well as you do. So you need to explain what you propose to do: what are your research questions/hypothesis and methods, why are these the right methods, and how does the whole thing hang together as a coherent package? 

I don’t know who first said this, but a really well-written application flatters the reader into thinking she understands it, while a poorly written one beats her over the head with her own ignorance. As a non-academic, I don’t expect to understand how a technical proposal works, but I expect to understand what it’s for.

This is one of the hardest things for researchers new to grant writing to get right. Many drafts I see start at the wrong level of focus—they’ve zoomed in much too closely onto the key details that are most exercising the applicant but lack any kind of broader context or overview and end up functionally incomprehensible. Reviewers won’t recommend funding they can’t understand.

2. Inspire

Many early draft applications I see don’t adequately explain the novelty of what’s proposed, what the contribution of the programme of work will be, nor why it matters. When I ask, applicants will often look confused because to them, it’s obvious. It’s not, because it’s implicit. It needs to be explicit. Don’t leave your busy, best-available-reviewer to puzzle it out for herself.  Don’t overclaim, don’t overhype, but don’t undersell your work either. If you’re unable to clearly articulate the significance, novelty and contribution of your proposal, it’s too soon to apply for funding.

3. Reassure

Don’t submit research applications, submit research plans. You’re asking a funder to take a punt on your proposal ahead of others, so you need to make the funding panel feel confident about that decision. You do this by concisely and efficiently citing the right literature, by having the right research team with appropriate track records, and by producing robust, high-quality responses to the more administrative parts of the form. You can also reassure with your risk management plans, especially your plan Bs for if an experiment doesn’t produce the finding you predict. How might you recalibrate or refocus the project?

4. Persuade

Funding is competitive. There are more good ideas than there is funding for good ideas. It’s not like an A grade at school or a driving licence, or even a PhD, where there is an unlimited number available and where everyone who deserves one can have one. It’s not enough to be good, you need to finish in the top tier to get funding. You need to be more persuasive about the excellence of your proposal than the competition.

You can’t control what other applications will go to the same panel for funding, nor their respective merits. But you can give yourself the best possible chance by making sure your application is pitched at your actual audience, the best-available-reviewer—not the all-knowing teacher, your PhD supervisor or Obi-Wan Kenobi.

Adam Golberg is strategic research development manager (research growth) at the University of Nottingham. He tweets @Cash4Questions and blogs at socialscienceresearchfunding.co.uk.

The post From the archive: Know your audience appeared first on Research Professional News.

A roundup of this week’s Funding Insight articles

This week, Funding Insight asks whether funding-awareness initiatives are worth the time and effort spent on them, and gets a caveated positive answer from a team at the Danish Technological Institute. We also profile the Private Physiotherapy Educational Foundation which, contrary to what the name might have you believe, supports physiotherapy research beyond private settings, including in academia. And we conclude by readying for this year’s New Generation Thinkers scheme, run by the Arts and Humanities Research Council and the BBC.

This week in Funding Insight

All over the world, research managers and administrators can be found organising awareness-raising activities to help researchers in their institutions find and engage with the right schemes for them. But they face well-known issues: researchers are busy, emails may be overlooked, central events rarely fit everyone’s schedules and targeted listings are resource-intensive.

Can these issues ever be sufficiently overcome to make awareness initiatives worthwhile? Based on their experiences at the Danish Technological Institute, Luke John Murphy, Paula Andrea Páez and John Stian Haukeland think so. They pass on what they have learnt from the awareness initiative they have overseen in recent years, here.

The Private Physiotherapy Educational Foundation is a charitable trust that works to further postgraduate education and research in physiotherapy.

PPEF runs three research funding schemes. Research Awards are for pilot projects typically led by early-career researchers. Innovation Awards can be used to test a physiotherapy product or technique already used in one setting in another, or to introduce a novel idea, service or product into physiotherapeutic practice. Both schemes are open now with a deadline for applications of 5 August and both are worth up to £30,000. Finally, Individual Scholarship Awards support conference presentations or scholarships in physiotherapy, and can be worth up to £3,000. These usually open in the spring.

A physiotherapist and former academic at the University of Southampton, Fleur Kitsell has been chair of the foundation’s board of trustees for the past seven years. She explains what the charity looks for in applications, focusing on the Research and Innovation Awards.

From the archive: One of the most unique and highly valued schemes for early-career arts and humanities researchers in the UK, the Arts and Humanities Research Council’s New Generation Thinkers call opened once again to applications earlier this month. The deadline is 3 October.

As usual, the prize on offer for winners is a package of media and public engagement training, workshops with BBC producers and the possibility of seeing their ideas—and hearing their voice—broadcast across the nation on BBC programmes, especially on the Free Thinking programme on Radio 3.

Last year, Tom Forest, senior public engagement manager at the AHRC, drew on several years of experience with the scheme to offer advice to potential applicants.

Elsewhere on Research Professional News

Global research centre could be ‘economic boost for UK’—Vallance plan to explore hosting major facility may meet Treasury opposition, former STFC head warns

Top EU official calls for major simplification of R&I funding— Marc Lemaître says European Commission will take seriously sector’s demands to reform “extremely complex landscape”

King’s speech pledges Industrial Strategy Council and AI bill— UK government agenda for legislation focuses on skills and technology

UK aid-funded health R&D ‘needs stronger focus on impact’—Aid watchdog praises UK development achievements but also finds room for improvement

UK funding at a glance: 4-18 July—This fortnight: chemistry innovation, UK-Swiss collaboration, addressing regional disparities, defence technology loans, and more

If you have comments, feedback or suggestions for Funding Insight, or if there are other people in your institution who would like to receive this weekly email, please contact james.brooks@clarivate.com

The post Assessing awareness initiatives, physiotherapy research, New Generation Thinkers appeared first on Research Professional News.

Media opportunities abound in the AHRC and BBC’s long-running scheme

One of the most unique and highly valued schemes for early-career arts and humanities researchers in the UK, the Arts and Humanities Research Council’s New Generation Thinkers call will open once again to applications this Autumn.

As usual, the prize on offer for winners is a package of media and public engagement training, workshops with BBC producers and the possibility of seeing your ideas—and hearing your voice—broadcast across the nation on BBC programmes, especially on the Free Thinking programme on BBC Radio 3.

Last year, Tom Forest, senior public engagement manager at AHRC, drew on several years of experience with the scheme to offer advice to potential applicants.

Top tips:

• Programme ideas should be for a general as well as an academic audience.
• Applicants should demonstrate a creative and imaginative approach to exploring their topic.
• Don’t underestimate the importance of the review in the application.
• Don’t try too hard to link your research to current events.

Launched in 2009, the Arts and Humanities Research Council’s New Generation Thinkers scheme now has a track record in propelling early career arts and humanities researchers into the public consciousness.

Successful applicants gain opportunities to showcase their research and ideas on BBC programmes, especially on the Free Thinking programme on BBC Radio 3.

Tom Forest, senior public engagement manager at AHRC, reveals the ingredients to a successful application.

What’s in store for someone who applies and is successful in this scheme?

We normally get between 250 and 350 applications. Of those applicants, 60 get to go to workshops to develop their ideas. Of these, 10 are selected as New Generation Thinkers. They get a year of focused development and opportunities in the BBC and AHRC, including bespoke training, appearing on BBC programming and opportunities to take part in various festivals. 

They appear on a range of programmes, including Free Thinking on Radio 3. We also fund a Radio 3 podcast called New Thinking, which is hosted by the New Generation Thinkers. They can also pitch their programme ideas to producers. I should mention that, of the 60 that take part in the workshop stage, the BBC often invites some of the researchers to participate in BBC programming as well.

What has changed since this scheme was launched back in 2009?

The reputation of the scheme has grown since then. Aside from well-known applicants, we’ve had lots of interest from publishers who strike deals with NGTs. The AHRC’s role in the scheme has also increased over the past seven years or so. When the scheme began, we were mostly just involved in the selection and recruitment part and the BBC handled everything. But these days we provide more of an active role in providing training and opportunities.

The scheme retains its flexibility, however. There is no fixed delivery period or a fixed number of hours. It’s one of those schemes where, the more you put in, the more you get out of it. It’s a scheme that caters to the individual.

Would you like to flag any eligibility criteria?

The scheme is targeted at early career researchers. We define that as being within a year of submitting your PhD, eight years of having been awarded it or six years from your first academic appointment, excluding career breaks such as maternity leave or time off for illness.

The scheme is specifically for arts and humanities researchers, but we do welcome interdisciplinary applications. We just ask that projects be at least 50 per cent arts and humanities-based. For example, a few years back we had a successful applicant who was a civil engineer whose research was about how dams affected culture. It was a fascinating interdisciplinary application that was nonetheless firmly rooted in the arts and humanities.

Do New Generation Thinkers receive any funding?

Not directly. However, any contributions they make to BBC platforms will be compensated at standard BBC rates. We also cover expenses to attend various events and we do offer small funding pots for researchers to take part in the Being Human Festival in November.

What makes successful applicants stand out?

We’re looking for exciting research ideas that are explored in an accessible way. Programme ideas should be for a general as well as an academic audience. Your application will be reviewed by some clever and well-read people but they will not be looking for an academic essay. Successful applicants also have a creative and imaginative approach to exploring their topic and we should be able to hear their own voice and unique perspective.

What might surprise applicants?

We ask them to review a recent cultural event like a film, a play or a book as part of their submission. Don’t underestimate the importance of this. It’s one of the most important parts of the application because we’re using that to find researchers who can think creatively about things outside of their own research area, command a broad range of knowledge, and bring exciting ideas of their own. 

We like to be surprised. I’m expecting lots of reviews of the Barbie movie this year because that seems to be a cultural phenomenon. We went through a spate where about five per cent of applications were reviews of the various Avengers movies, including one review from a Marxist viewpoint. That was quite interesting!

Are there any frequent missteps you have noticed over the years?  

One thing we often say is don’t try too hard to link your research to current events. Several applicants will always try and link their research to a contemporary issue, such as Brexit. In some cases that works well and demonstrates contemporary relevance, but in other cases it can feel contrived and a bit forced. 

If you’re going to make such a link, make sure there is a genuine connection. Lots of ideas will make your research relevant and true to the human condition. You don’t always need to link it to something ripped from today’s headlines.

What kind of impact does the scheme have on academics’ careers?

Becoming a New Generation Thinker can dramatically raise researchers’ profiles and help their career to take off. Previous thinkers have gone on to have significant academic and media careers. From our perspective, it also helps to create a group of academics who showcase arts and humanities research and help to get bold research ideas in front of the widest possible audience.

Who are some notable previous New Generation Thinkers?

There are three in particular who stand out. Shahidha Bari, from the 2010 cohort, whose original pitch was about orientalism and the Arabian Nights, is now a presenter of Inside Culture on BBC Two, a host on Free Thinking and a presenter on Radio 4’s Front Row. She is also a professor at the London College of Fashion. 

Another is 2013 New Generation Thinker John Gallagher, whose pitch was about the study of foreign languages in 16th and 17th century England. John has made programmes for BBC Four and Radio 3 and is an associate professor of early modern history at the University of Leeds. 

Finally, Islam Issa, a 2017 New Generation Thinker, has appeared on BBC Two, the History Channel and Netflix. His original pitch was about John Milton, and how he may have drawn inspiration from the Quran and subsequently influenced major Middle East events such as the Arab Spring. He is now a professor of literature and history at Birmingham City University.

I’m sure they would all have done just fine without us because they are extremely capable and brilliant, but I think the scheme gave them a leg up in their careers and helped them stand out.

On 23 July this article was corrected to indicate that this year’s New Generation Thinkers competition had not yet opened but would do so in the autumn. We apologise for the error.

The post From the archive: A new generation takes to the airwaves appeared first on Research Professional News.

Lessons from a Danish research institute’s funding engagement scheme

The funding world is a jungle of possibilities. For classic research funding, it might be top-down or bottom-up; in innovation, dilutive or non-dilutive; and then there is the overload of abbreviations: RIAs, IAs and CSAs…

Truly, guiding researchers to suitable funding opportunities is no easy task.

To help researchers find and engage with the right schemes for them, many research managers and administrators organise awareness-raising activities. But they face well-known issues: researchers are busy, emails can be overlooked, central events rarely fit everyone’s schedules and targeted listings are resource-intensive. All too often, research support offices risk becoming passive rather than actively building a pipeline of future proposals.

Our journey

At the Danish Technological Institute, the research managers and administrators in our international centre have developed an awareness-raising process that works well for the nearly 1,100 specialists employed by the institute. This effort has increased both the number of proposals we submit and the number of projects we win. While every institution is different, we believe a well-thought-out awareness-raising initiative can bear fruit. Here, we outline our initiative, known as Outreach.

DTI is a research technology organisation, conducting applied research that bridges the gap between academia and commercial R&D. We’re an independent non-profit that operates test and demonstration facilities, so our researchers also perform commercial contracting for both Danish and international customers, and many clients become partners in our research projects.

It was the launch of the EU’s Horizon Europe programme in 2021 that prompted us to think strategically about our awareness raising. We decided to reinvent our approach based on the challenges we faced during previous framework programmes and put the user experience of our researchers at the heart of our work.

In particular, we knew that it was in sprawling top-down programmes such as Horizon’s second pillar, on global challenges and industrial competitiveness, that awareness raising could have the greatest return on investment. So while our centralised team of seven full-time research managers and administrators also supports proposals in a range of other programmes, our proactive efforts are focused firmly on pillar two and its associated joint undertakings.

Intense knowledge

When we redesigned our awareness-raising initiative, we set out to promote internal collaboration between departments and encourage our researchers to coordinate proposals themselves. We knew we’d be facing challenges along the way—particularly the workload that proactive awareness raising would bring to our small research support office.

Our Outreach initiative, scalable by design, has grown and evolved since its 2021 rollout but the core remains the same: we start by analysing the pillar two work programmes, which outline hundreds of funding opportunities for specific challenges. Our team reads all 1,500+ pages of those programmes—sometimes multiple times as drafts develop—to build intense knowledge of the opportunities available. We refresh our knowledge annually and hold office-wide workshops whenever new work programmes are published.

We also conduct ‘interest-mapping meetings’ with DTI’s 20+ R&D departments to stay updated on their interests, capabilities and priorities. These meetings, held at least twice a year, involve two research managers and administrators and a handful of senior researchers from each department. We’ve found that a mixture of shared note-taking and regular conversations keeps us up to date on various departments’ interests and ensures we always know which research managers and administrators will have the latest information.

Armed with detailed knowledge, our team matches researchers with funding opportunities, producing longlists at departmental level. These lists include details like expected project budgets and technology readiness levels, helping researchers make informed choices. We review these longlists in targeting meetings with departmental researchers, helping them select a shortlist of target calls.

We’ve found that well-informed research managers and administrators can really help researchers in prioritising multiple attractive opportunities due at the same time and understanding the funding programmes’ technicalities. Even experienced applicants can benefit from our knowledge of the political thinking behind specific ‘destinations’ within Horizon Europe, or our inside track knowledge on what’s coming.

Building capacity

In parallel, we conduct capacity-building initiatives including an institute-wide network focused on Horizon Europe, fostering peer-to-peer learning and expert insights through regular meetings, workshops and newsletters. We also run workshops and training courses to improve proposal-writing skills and build internal networks between departments.

This process puts our researchers in a strong position as they start engaging with their networks and forming consortia. While not every effort results in a proposal, this approach feeds a steady stream of engagement into our proposal-writing pipeline. More proposals entering the pipeline leads to more submissions, more projects won and more top-notch research.

Of course, the Outreach initiative is labour-intensive, so in late 2022 we started a concerted effort to develop tools to reduce the workload and automate tasks such as compiling lists of funding opportunities. Thanks to this, we created the Outreach Table, a digital platform on DTI’s intranet, which helps researchers see which of their peers are considering bids to similar opportunities.

Our Outreach work has certainly improved collaboration within DTI, and our Outreach Table has enabled early proposal collaborations to happen. The systematic approach has demystified Horizon Europe for our researchers, lowering barriers and increasing engagement in international projects. This has driven up interest and success rates in the programme and had wider positive impacts across DTI.

Pro tips

Our Outreach programme was designed specifically for DTI and will not be universally applicable. However, we firmly believe that a proactive approach to awareness raising is worth the effort. Here are some key takeaways from our experience:

• Decide which programmes to target—focus on those offering the greatest return on investment (which may not necessarily be financial).
• Adapt processes to your specific case—tailor your approach to your researchers and institution.
• Review and revise your process—be flexible to meet colleagues’ needs.
• It’s a team effort—collaborate with other research managers and administrators for greater effectiveness.
• Embrace digital tools—use technology to ease the workload.
• Accept that it takes time to save time—invest upfront in developing tools and processes for long-term benefits.

What’s next?

While we’re proud of our Outreach initiative, it’s still very much a work in progress. This year, we’ve begun developing tools that incorporate generative artificial intelligence to help us in our work while also keeping our eyes open for commercial tools that can directly help or inspire us.

We’re also now focusing on how to support researchers’ participation in external partnership activities earlier on in the process.

And we keep our ears open to ideas from outside DTI, and that certainly includes other research managers, research administrators and research support offices, so if you’d like to discuss any of the ideas presented here or maybe your own awareness efforts, please do get in touch.

Luke John Murphy is a consultant, Paula Andrea Páez is a senior consultant, and John Stian Haukeland is EU funding manager at DTI.

The post Tight focus can make awareness-raising initiatives pay off appeared first on Research Professional News.

A roundup of this week’s Funding Insight articles

This week, Funding Insight details what is actually changing as the European Research Council’s Advanced Grants competition moves to the lump-sum funding model. We ask whether institutional thematic priorities are worth the effort, in terms of funding revenue. And we revisit some tips on partnership-building when time and budgetary pressures are paramount.

This week in Funding Insight

The EU’s rollout of a lump-sum funding model across more of its Horizon Europe research and innovation programme reached an important milestone with the opening of the European Research Council’s 2024 Advanced Grants competition.

This year’s competition—the deadline for which is 29 August—will use the lump-sum model instead of the ERC’s traditional actual-costs model. This has understandably caused some trepidation among applicants and their institutions, which the ERC sought to allay in a recent webinar. There were four key takeaways that—considering the ongoing rollout of the new model—potential applicants to other Horizon Europe instruments may also be minded to consider.

Universities often use thematic priorities, showcased on self-aggrandising web pages, to boost morale, research collaboration, and funding success rates at their institutions. But do they work? And do some approaches to priorities—specific ones versus vaguer ones, for example—work better than others? Phil Ward, director of the Eastern Arc research consortium, does a quick survey of UK universities and sets out his thoughts.

Archive selection: Collaboration—and this is not a novel observation—is the lifeblood of science. And when scientists collaborate in pursuit of funding, their institutions have to do so as well. Much has been written about how to make scientific partnerships work, but much of it fails to take into account the rushed and cash-strapped circumstances of most partnership-building exercises.

In this article, published in September 2018, Alison Lundbeck, research and innovation development manager at the University of Leeds, refers to the difficult contemporaneous context for universities and their researchers, but the picture she paints is remarkably similar to that existing now. Thanks to that, her six tips for practical partnership-building should still be relevant, too.

Elsewhere on Research Professional News

Dsit confirms it is ‘working on’ improving R&D links with EU—Keir Starmer wants ‘closer ties’ with bloc on research

Government stresses need to cut migration after Vallance interview—Science minister said visa issues “need to be looked at” to ensure UK remains “competitive”

AHRC puts grant extension scheme on hold—Review of £100,000 knowledge exchange grants is part of a re-examination of responsive mode grants

Jacqui Smith’s university brief could spell ‘gargantuan’ changes—Former Ucas head says appointment shows government is aware of the challenges facing higher education

ERC’s 2025 budget plan includes big boosts for some grants—European Research Council increases Starting, Consolidator and Synergy Grant indicative budgets by a quarter

If you have comments, feedback or suggestions for Funding Insight, or if there are other people within your institution who would like to receive this weekly email, please contact james.brooks@clarivate.com.

The post ERC lump-sum pilot, the point of thematic priorities, practical partnership tips appeared first on Research Professional News.

European Research Council seeks to allay fears as Advanced Grants deadline nears

The EU’s rollout of a lump-sum funding model across more of its Horizon Europe research and innovation programme reached an important milestone with the opening of the European Research Council’s 2024 Advanced Grants competition.

This year’s competition—the deadline for which is 29 August—will use the lump-sum model instead of the ERC’s traditional actual-costs model. This has understandably provoked some trepidation among applicants and their institutions, which the ERC sought to allay during a recent webinar presented by Josefina Enfedaque, chair of the European Research Council Executive Agency (Ercea) taskforce on lump sums. Here are the main points that, considering the ongoing rollout of the new model, potential applicants to other Horizon Europe instruments may also be minded to consider.

1. Most elements of Advanced Grant applications are unchanged

The ERC has done much to publicise its adoption of the lump-sum model to help prepare applicants for its implementation. However, this has arguably had the effect of leading some researchers and support staff to expect wide-reaching ramifications on how proposals should be prepared and submitted, and how they will be assessed. The webinar was peppered with reassurances that such fears were unfounded.

For example, Angela Wittelsberger, head of sector in the life sciences unit at the Ercea Scientific Department, said that, while the new system does indeed bundle up all the financial aspects of an Advanced Grant proposal into one lump sum—very much like one work package—this does not mean that proposals should now be structured that way.

Wittelsberger said: “Applicants should not change the way they think about or develop their proposals, and they should not change the way they think about structuring their project. They can structure it how they see fit, with or without scientific work packages.”

Similarly, when the question of assessment and evaluation was addressed, she stressed: “The focus of the evaluation remains on the scientific merits of the proposal; it is scientific excellence only—there’s no change there.”

And although most ERC grants have only a single beneficiary, the principal investigator—which Mila Bas, head of the grant management department at Ercea, acknowledged—that is not always so. In such cases the ERC will award a lump sum per beneficiary.

Furthermore, while the use of the term lump sum may lead some applicants to expect the designation of an unalterable fixed amount once a proposal has been approved, Wittelsberger assured attendees that the ERC’s principles of “serendipity and flexibility” would not change for this competition.

She said: “We know that frontier research does not always go exactly as planned, and we will continue to be as flexible as we were in the past with deviations to the original work plan. The principle of portability—the right of the principal investigator to transfer their grant to a different host institution—also remains valid.”

2. For applicants, changes mostly concern the budget forms

With the lump-sum model, instead of grant-winners tracking their costs and claiming them back after carrying out their research, applicants submit extra detail on budget in their grant proposal and receive payment when they reach agreed milestones. In the case of Advanced Grants, this will happen in two instalments: at the beginning and at the end of the project.

The changes to application requirements, therefore, mostly hinge on providing that extra detail. In particular there are changes to how both personnel and equipment costs are submitted.

For personnel costs, the budget table now has an additional column to be filled in with the number of person-months—a measurement taking into account the number of people working on the project and the amount of time each person spends on it—per staff category. (There is a further additional column in which the average monthly cost is automatically calculated.)

For equipment, an extra table—the ‘equipment depreciation table’—has been added to the list of mandatory documents, which also requires some input from applicants, with some columns calculated automatically. Bas stressed that, for the 2024 round, even applicants with projects that do not include any equipment costs must complete this table.

3. Assessment panels will pay closer attention to the budget

The lump-sum model sets the overall amount that beneficiaries are entitled to receive during the evaluation of proposals (although this can be adjusted as the project advances—see below). Logically then, there is greater scrutiny of proposal budgets than under the actual-costs model.

This is particularly true regarding assessment of personnel costs, Wittelsberger said, as the panel will not only assess whether the number of personnel is appropriate for the project but also consider the related costs. Both panellists and applicants have access to historical ERC personnel cost data via a dashboard on the ERC website to guide them, Wittelsberger continued. The data provided is granular, with costs broken down by staff category and country.

The ERC provided this purely for benchmarking, she said: “The idea is not that you have to align with the historical data when you plan for your personnel costs [but that] you should plan and request what you think you will incur…If you find you are not aligned, that [should encourage] you to provide an explanation of why this is.”

Bas agreed, adding that while applicants do not have to follow the historical data, they should make sure they align with their institutions’ accounting practices and personnel costs grid.

One attendee mentioned that postdocs in their institution are typically paid 80 per cent more than the rates for their country in the Advanced Grants dashboard. They asked what kind of justification the ERC would expect beyond “those are our actual current salary rates”.

Bas replied: “In most cases, that’s a very good justification [if] you have that salary grid in your institution.” She reminded applicants in similar situations to put such a justification “very clearly in the proposal”.

Another attendee asked what the outcome would be if the panel concludes that the proposal fulfils the scientific excellence criterion but its budget is not well-dimensioned. Bas replied that even if the budget would receive closer attention with the lump-sum system, scientific excellence remains of paramount importance. Such a bid “will be in the same place in the ranking list” as it would have been in the actual-cost model, she said.

Wittelsberger added: “The first thing [the panel] would do is ask a question about it in the interview. And based on the explanations and justifications provided, they might, or might not, consider a cut in a particular cost, as they do now.”

Wittelsberger advised applicants not to worry that the assessment panels would be overbearing. “Our panels will not start to micromanage the budget or the personnel costs just because we have moved to a lump-sum model,” she said. “Mostly, the details of the budget will be looked at by experts once the rank list has been established, but our panels do this already. Under the lump-sum model, this step of the assessment has an increased importance because, remember, there’s no additional checks on costs anymore during the lifetime of the project.”

4. Post-award grant management should be easier

Ease of post-award management is one of the major drivers of the EU’s move towards the lump-sum model. No timesheets are required to be submitted, and there will be “no financial audits, no certificate of financial payments”, according to Bas, who then laid out how financing will proceed.

The ERC will pay 80 per cent of the budget as pre-financing, she said, a maximum of 30 days after the grant agreement is signed. As with the existing model, there will be a scientific mid-term report to assess project progress and whether any deviations from the project plan have taken place, requiring amendments to the budget, but the mid-term report “will not be associated with a payment”, Bas specified.

Payment of the remaining 20 per cent, or the appropriate amount in the case of modifications, will be made following a final report and a scientific assessment. As Wittelsberger stressed at the start, payment is dependent entirely on the work having been completed, not on the outcome or results.

The post What you need to know about the ERC’s lump-sum pilot appeared first on Research Professional News.

Tips on partnership-building when time and budgetary pressures are paramount

Collaboration—and this is not a novel observation—is the lifeblood of science. And when scientists collaborate in pursuit of funding, their institutions will have to do so as well. Much has been written about how to make scientific partnerships work, but much of it fails to take into account the rushed and cash-strapped circumstances of most partnership-building exercises.

In this article, published in September 2018, Alison Lundbeck, research and innovation development manager at the University of Leeds, refers to the difficult contemporaneous context for universities and their researchers, but the picture she paints is remarkably similar to that existing now. Thanks to that, her six tips for practical partnership-building should still be relevant, too.

Recently in Funding Insight, Ross McLennan at the University of South Australia wrote about partnership building. He said it was essential that academics stop pushing their own agendas, listen actively to others and commit to making their partnerships work. This is certainly true, but this week I want to expand on these points and look at what we need to do in practice to make this happen.

Do more with less

We all know that UK research and higher education is continuing to change. There is austerity, the Higher Education and Research Act 2017, and changes to the Research Excellence Framework after Nicolas Stern’s review and Brexit. Many of these imply that we need to do more with less: there’s less funding available and more competition for it, and if successful there’s a demand for more auditable results. 

Expectations are growing, while confidence in the value of universities and research to society are at a low ebb.

The pressure is overwhelming, and it could be difficult for universities to deliver on all fronts. They must provide excellent teaching, world-leading research, societal impact, national productivity and more. They need cracking sustainable development and must deliver overseas development assistance. Value for money is important, as is interdisciplinarity for everything. We need to partner and collaborate to do bigger and better things that have practical outcomes, not just esoteric explorations that will sit on a shelf and gather dust.

Plus ça change

But so what? Is this really new? The mood music may have changed, but the fundamental purpose of a university hasn’t. The intrinsic value of research is the same as ever, and I think the values and motivations of researchers are too. Collaboration isn’t more important now; it’s just more lauded.

But isn’t it hard? Not really. Not if you want to do it. And I think most academics are intrinsically motivated to seek new knowledge, to quest and to make the world a better place. What better way to do that than by joining with other people? Inspiration doesn’t come by sitting alone in a room. The hardest problems probably won’t be solved by a lone genius. Others will have different perspectives, different skills and different experience that can help shine new light on an issue.

Collaboration in practice

So how do you go about it? There’s no single way, but there are certain things that can help.

1. Think about your motivation. What do you care about? What interests you about your research? What questions are you asking? What problems do you want to solve? Who could benefit from your research? You won’t be the only person in the world interested in these things. More importantly, you won’t have all the insight. Consider who else might be thinking about the same issues and start a conversation.
2. Don’t prejudge what you expect from a collaboration. Other perspectives, other tacit knowledge and other experience can bring insights you probably can’t conceive. You might have an ‘offer’. You might have an ‘ask’. But the best value isn’t transactional, it comes from open dialogue.
3. Pique the interest of others. That said, in starting a conversation don’t underestimate the value of “what’s in it for me?” Getting the ball rolling can be the biggest hurdle, and it’s important to pique the interest of a potential partner. If you’re making contact out of the blue (rather than, say, seeking an introduction from a mutual acquaintance or going to an open forum where attendees would expect to meet people around a shared issue), you can’t assume that other people have the same perspective on the situation, or will be able to see the possible value. Most people you might want to collaborate with don’t have the time to spend on something of no relevance.
4. Manage expectations and watch your language. Whether it’s a different discipline or a different sector, the acronyms and assumptions of a shared understanding of the same language can set your relationship back. Avoid (or at least explain) acronyms. Don’t get lost in irrelevant details. Even more of a pitfall is promising everything and delivering nothing. Set out early an understanding of how each partner works as much as possible, especially when working with those outside of universities. Timescales, processes, red tape, and even the type, scale or speed of deliverables expected can vary drastically between sectors. It’s important to tackle these types of issues upfront.
5. Build trust and collegiality. You might be an expert, but you don’t know everything. Develop a healthy respect for what colleagues can bring. Partners are your colleagues too. You’re coming together for mutual benefit, not because you have to, so make the effort.
6. If you have to negotiate, be as open as possible. It all comes back to trust, and understanding each other’s worlds. Can’t get authorisation yesterday? A certain cost isn’t eligible under a particular research funder? Need deliverable A, as well as pragmatic outcome B? Explain. Don’t assume your potential partners understand your sticking points. A fixed position can be misinterpreted as a strength in negotiation, but this isn’t a game of chicken. Leaving no room for manoeuvre has the potential to sink any collaboration. And you can’t be sure you’re not undermining the chance of an innovative solution. The underlying reason why a particular outcome is needed might not be the same as the thing itself: there could be a better outcome for all concerned. 

Is it worth it?

So is it all worth it? Hopefully, yes. We’re all pressured for time, but a stimulating conversation about an issue you’re passionate about can do the world of good for your motivation and enthusiasm back in the day job. Many hands can make light work when you’re trying to solve a complex challenge. In fact, many hands can make the work possible.

Reality is complex at the best of times: we’re all partial, subjective and limited in our own individual understanding. Take every opportunity you can to get a better view of the world, of the challenge you’re trying to tackle. You can’t understand the context, or how possible solutions may sink or swim in practice, without seeking the views of others.

Value the working relationships you already have, but don’t shut off from new opportunities. At worst, you might gain some valuable experience. At best, you might kick-start a brilliantly productive partnership and do some good in the world. Cross-disciplinary and cross-sectoral partnerships really are the key to meeting the big, global, integrated problems the world is facing. If a problem isn’t small, neat and standalone, it can’t be solved by a lone person. And aren’t those the sort of problems we really need to solve?

The post From the archive: Six practical steps for successful partnerships appeared first on Research Professional News.

Are thematic priorities worth the effort?

Teenage dress sense and universities’ strategic research priorities may appear to have very little in common. But both hold to a universal law that I’m going to call the Phil Ward Principle of Homogeneity: the more unique we try to be, the more uniform we appear to others.

UK Tribes, a cultural research project by the broadcaster Channel 4 to identify the nation’s youth subcultures, puts it well when it describes the loose grouping of ‘alternative tribes’ of modern Britain: “Tired of cookie-cutter celebs and how everyone at school looks the same, alternative tribes are driven by the need to set themselves apart from the mainstream. From candy-hued hair to sleeve tattoos and multiple piercings, they’re determined to be different—but do it together.”

Difference is difficult

Universities are equally “determined to be different”, but are loath to “do it together”. They seek to stand out from their competitors, but are often unable to do so because their thematic priorities seek to include as much of their research as possible—and are therefore generic to the point of magnolia—but also be relevant to the external funding flavours du jour. As such, they inevitably bump into and overlap with others.

Earlier this year, I did an analysis of the stated strategic research priorities of the Russell Group of research universities in the UK and former 1994 Group universities (smaller research-intensive institutions that were founded that year). Of the 38 institutions within this cluster, almost two-thirds (23) had thematic priorities. 

I believe there are four reasons for doing so, and these can be mapped onto a continuum running from being a passive ‘shop window’ at one end, to having a deliberate and directive ‘case for cash’ at the other, as illustrated in the Phil Ward Continuum of Priority Rationalisation presented here:

Most institutions present their themes as articles of faith, corresponding closely with the second and third rationales (‘emphasise beliefs’, ‘prioritise efforts’) given above. Some evidence them with metrics. For instance, at University College London, ‘mental health and wellbeing’ is top of the metric totem pole (£20m, 150 researchers, 82 projects), while ‘justice and equality’ (£200,000) and ‘transformative technology’ (30 projects) are the poor relations. It’s a bit like playing Top Trumps. 

Few of the universities are explicit about having thematic priorities in order to position themselves for winning awards. Their cause is apparently far nobler. However, the University of Bath is refreshingly honest. It might start out saying that its thematic priorities will “empower our research community to tackle major global challenges”, but then it cuts to the chase. Its priority initiative “supports a culture of grant capture for multidisciplinary collaborations that address UK Research and Innovation strategic themes”. But what will happen when our national funder decides to refresh its themes?

The number of priorities for the 23 universities ranges between three and 10, with the average being five, falling broadly into the following categories:

Health: The most popular of the themes, with 20 of the 23 institutions having a claimed strength in this area, and some having more than one. Some are relatively specific, such as ‘cancer’ at Manchester or ‘infectious diseases’ at Liverpool, but most go for something more generic, from ‘healthy society’ (Imperial) to ‘health and wellbeing’ (Bath, Nottingham and York), ‘healthy living for all’ (Queen’s University Belfast) and ‘lifelong health’ (Surrey). 

Environment: Here, universities take bites at the same issue from different angles: ‘sustainable societies’ (Imperial and Nottingham), ‘sustainable cities’ (UCL and Warwick), and ‘sustainable food’ (Sheffield). You get a sense that, if you gathered together all this fractured and atomised effort, you really could crack this.

Society: The keywords here are ‘social justice’, from ‘striving for social justice’ (Bristol) to ‘social and economic justice’ (Goldsmiths), ‘social justice, inequalities and conflict’ (Kent) and back to plain old ‘social justice’ (Leicester).

Technology: There’s a creeping unease with technology detectable here. On the one hand, we have the exciting potential of a new dawn (from the vaguely Instagram-friendly ‘future life’ at Glasgow to a ‘smart society’ at Imperial), and on the other, a palpable terror of what’s to come (‘cybersecurity’ at Warwick and ‘secure connected intelligence’ at Queen’s).

Culture: You can imagine the strategic discussions that led to the final category. “Right, we’ve got the basics sorted. Shall we throw in something artsy?” “Yes,” comes the reply, “but we’ve got to make it relevant.” So Glasgow has ‘cultural and creative industries’, Goldsmiths goes for ‘invention, creativity and experience’, UCL has ‘culture and understanding’, and both Nottingham and York offer ‘culture and communication(s)’.

By striving to be unique, the universities demonstrate that they are anything but. The reasons are understandable, but do negate the value that a priority can offer. It’s rare and refreshing when a university offers up something unusual (I’m looking at you, Leicester, with your Asimovian ‘space power and AI’), but it’s risky: they will be waiting for some time before a major funder offers up a call in the area. When it does so, however, the payoff will be immense. While the others scrabble forth from their ‘health and wellbeing’ resting position, the space scientists of Leicester will be coining it in. The candy-hued hair and sleeve tattoos will have been worth it after all.

Phil Ward is director of the Eastern Arc regional research consortium, UK

The post Determined to be different appeared first on Research Professional News.

A roundup of this week’s Funding Insight articles

This week, Funding Insight looks at a vital and always oversubscribed scheme in the social sciences: the Nuffield Foundation’s Research, Development and Analysis Fund. We also hear about the funder looking to improve understanding of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and open to high-risk, high-gain applications to do so.

This week in Funding Insight

Founded in 1943, the Nuffield Foundation is the UK’s leading specialist, independent funder of research geared towards social policy in education, welfare and justice.

Its central and longest-standing funding stream is the Research, Development and Analysis Fund, which is open now to outline applications, with a deadline of 14 October. It funds projects worth up to £750,000 for between six months and three years. Most grants are for sums of less than £300,000. 

All Research, Development and Analysis Fund applications must be relevant to at least one of the foundation’s three core interest areas (education, welfare and justice) and also to the UK context, even if that is in a comparative way.

Competition for these grants is usually tough, with only 15 per cent of outline applicants typically invited to send full proposals. Alex Beer, head of grants operations and portfolio development at the Nuffield Foundation, suggests how applicants can raise their chances of selection to the full application stage.

Due to unforeseen circumstances, an article on understanding lump-sum funding as it applies to European Research Council grants will now be published next week. Apologies to readers for the delay.

Archive selection: Foundations in the US have a reputation for welcoming the kinds of high-risk, high-gain research ideas that national funders might be inclined to shy away from. The Kenneth Rainin Foundation, which focuses on supporting biomedical research on inflammatory bowel disease, is certainly one of them.

The foundation’s Innovator Awards support individual research projects with grants of up to $150,000 and collaborative projects involving multiple investigators with grants of up to $300,000. It usually awards between 15-25 grants each annual round. For the current round, the deadline for initial applications (via a letter of inquiry) is 30 September, and 3 February for invited full applications.

In this interview published in July 2022, Laura Wilson, director, health strategy and ventures, at the foundation, explained that a strong idea was key to a successful bid, and that the foundation accepted that researchers with truly daring ideas “may be starting from scratch”.

Elsewhere on Research Professional News

Labour leader promises better R&D deal with EU—But experts say UK’s priority should be getting the best out of Horizon Europe association

Nature’s London staff end strikes after deal agreed—NUJ and Springer Nature reach agreement on two-year pay settlement, averting potential disruption to journals

Analysis: UK regional research and development spending—Progress towards a more equal distribution of R&D funding is slowing down

Slow erosion: Why ERC grants aren’t what they were—Intense demand and limited budgets have made European Research Council grants fall behind inflation

UK funding at a glance: 21 June to 4 July—Venture capital fellowships, minority researchers, engineering prize and more

If you have comments, feedback or suggestions for Funding Insight, or if there are other people within your institution who would like to receive this weekly email, please contact james.brooks@clarivate.com.

The post Nuffield Foundation and an ‘off-the-wall’ IBD funder appeared first on Research Professional News.

Alignment with the Nuffield Foundation’s priorities is vital for grant success

Top tips

• Ensure your research is aligned with the precepts and principles of the foundation
• Impact is vital but the foundation takes a broad and collaborative approach to assessing it
• Grants can be used for smaller projects as well as larger ones
• In both cases, showing that you have the right expertise and team to carry out the work is vital

Since its founding in 1943, the Nuffield Foundation has established itself as arguably the UK’s leading independent funder of research geared towards social policy in education, welfare and justice. 

As a funder that has long had impact as a priority, the foundation says it seeks to fund rigorous research and encourage innovation to improve people’s lives. 

The Nuffield Foundation’s central and longest-standing funding stream is the Research, Development and Analysis Fund, which is open now to outline applications, with a deadline of 14 October. It funds projects worth up to £750,000 for between six months and three years. Most grants are for sums of less than £300,000. 

The foundation also runs more specialised funding streams, including the Racial Diversity UK Fund, which focuses on the future of UK society as shaped by migration from former UK colonies. The Racial Diversity UK Fund is also open now, with a deadline of 14 October.

All Research, Development and Analysis Fund applications must be relevant to at least one of the foundation’s three core interest areas (education, welfare, justice) and also to the UK context, even if that is in a comparative way.

Competition for these grants is usually tough, with only 15 per cent of outline applicants typically invited to send full proposals. Alex Beer, head of grants operations and portfolio development at the Nuffield Foundation, suggests how applicants can raise their chances of selection to the full application stage.

Are there any recent changes to the Research, Development and Analysis Fund that applicants should be aware of?

We have just simplified our outline application form. We are asking fewer questions, fewer words are required, and we have shortened our overall application timetable. Hopefully that means it is easier and quicker to apply.  

What is your best advice to get over the threshold of the outline stage? 

To get over the line, what I would advise is reading our guide for applicants and understanding where our priorities lie. We are interested in improving social wellbeing; we are interested in the way that disadvantage, vulnerability and inequalities play out in the areas of education, welfare and justice. So, aligning the research questions with our interests is absolutely key.

How do applicants signal a bid’s relevance to those areas?  

There is a checkbox on the application form that says education, welfare or justice, but if the idea is cross-cutting, tick the box that is most relevant. Most applications are looked at by more than one person, and that will include people with interests across those areas. So, checking one box over another will not force the application into a silo.

What else is important?

We want to ensure there is that alignment with our priorities and a clear rationale for why the research question matters. Why is it relevant? Why is it needed? 

We also want a clear methodology. We are interested in a wide range of methodologies; quantitative, qualitative, mixed-methods. The main focus for us is whether the proposed methods are suitable for answering the question that is being posed. And, finally, we want to understand how the research is going to make a difference and change lives. So, we will focus on impact. 

How do you measure impact? 

We have a broad definition but what is important is the project being able to ultimately deliver policy and practice change. We accept, however, that improving understanding and changing attitudes and behaviours are vital ways in which the research that we fund might make that difference. 

We do not expect applications to aim for all of those, but to set out which dimensions of impact they might be able to make a difference with and then qualitatively how they will progress to do that.  

We do take quite a qualitative approach to assessing impact, and we are open to how we do so. From the moment someone is funded by us, there will be a regular dialogue between us and them, with our aim being to support our grant holders to deliver that project and maximise impact.  

What does the rest of the application process look like? 

For the applicants we invite for the full application stage, we will set out some questions we have for them; some things that were not clear, some challenges we might have for them. We would expect the applicant to address those in their full application. If the applicant at that stage wanted a conversation about exactly what we meant by any of the questions, we are more than happy to discuss that.

The full application gets peer-reviewed, if it meets the quality threshold. All applications are returned to the applicant with the reviews and any additional commentary from us that we would like to see addressed. The applicants then have an opportunity to respond before the final decision. 

Where are applicants usually based? 

We fund a lot of research from think tanks and from universities, but we also fund research that is led by third sector organisations—for example, domestic violence charities or children and young people-centred justice organisations.

However, most of our funding goes to researchers based at universities. The current breakdown is 160 universities, 30 research policy institutions and nine charities, but provided the team has the necessary skills and expertise, then we are relatively neutral about where they are based. 

What considerations come into play when assessing larger versus smaller applications? 

One big question is, is your expertise sufficient to deliver what you are going to do? Grant applicants should highlight the strengths that are going to enable you to deliver the project. 

I should add that although the Research, Development and Analysis Fund invites applications up to £750,000, we still welcome applications for smaller sums—say, between £20,000 or £50,000—where those sums are more appropriate. I would not put a limit on the amount depending on a researcher’s career stage because that is not the way the foundation thinks about it, but it might be that earlier career researchers are after smaller grant awards and they just need to demonstrate that their skills and experience are commensurate with what they are proposing. 

We would expect the larger grants to answer more strategic questions than those posed by smaller grants, and for there to be more institutional involvement and more people and partners involved. There would also need to be an integrated and extensive engagement strategy.

The post Opportunity profile: Sharing a sense of purpose appeared first on Research Professional News.

US-based Kenneth Rainin Foundation is on the lookout for new ways to tackle unmet needs

Foundations in the US have a reputation for welcoming the kinds of high-risk, high-gain research ideas that national funders might be inclined to shy away from. The Kenneth Rainin Foundation, which focuses on supporting biomedical research on inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), is certainly one of them.

The foundation’s Innovator Awards support individual research projects with grants of up to $150,000 and collaborative projects involving multiple investigators with grants of up to $300,000. Usually it awards between 15-25 grants each annual round. For the current round, the deadline for initial applications (via a letter of inquiry) is 30 September, and 3 February for invited full applications.

In this interview published in July 2022, Laura Wilson, director, health strategy and ventures, at the foundation, explained that a strong idea was key to a successful bid, and that the foundation accepted that researchers with truly daring ideas “may be starting from scratch”.

Top tips

• Bids from those from outside inflammatory bowel disease or gastroenterology are welcome
• The foundation funds both basic and translational research
• Preliminary data may not be necessary; the foundation is happy to provide funding that will lead to preliminary data
• Do not be afraid of tackling any of the major questions around IBD; the charity likes high-risk, high-gain research

If you’ve worked in a lab, there’s a good chance you’ll have used the ergonomic pipettes designed by the late American businessman and philanthropist Kenneth Rainin.

The Kenneth Rainin Foundation, based in Oakland, California, awards grants for the arts and education, and also research into inflammatory bowel disease—the condition that ultimately led to Rainin’s death in 2007.

The foundation’s director of health, Laura Wilson, says that the funding is squarely focused on biomedical research for IBD, and not healthcare or patient education. She says that the Kenneth Rainin Foundation is one of just a handful of US-based funders that focus on the disease, though of course the National Institutes of Health is also a big player in the field.

High risk

“What sets us apart is we really do support high-risk, potentially high-reward grants,” Wilson says.

The funder’s Innovator Awards offer up to $150,000 for projects by individual researchers and up to $300,000 for collaborative projects involving multiple investigators. Funding is initially available for just one year, but there is the potential for projects to be extended for up to an additional two years.

The 2023 round of the Innovator Awards is now open. Wilson says the foundation usually receives 150-200 letters, which are whittled down to 40-50 applicants invited to submit a full application.

Wilson says she has roughly $6 million (£5 million) per year to spend on grants, and that on average 15-25 grants are awarded; of these about 80 per cent are in the US, however the funding is open to researchers around the world and the foundation is keen to have a global reach.

The foundation supports a mixture of basic biomedical research and more translational work, Wilson says. On its website it lists a number of focus areas, including cell biology, complementary therapies, diet and nutrition, immunity and inflammation, microbiome and new technologies.

“In a nutshell, bench to bedside, potentially having some benefits for the IBD patients within the lifetime of a grant,” she explains. While the foundation isn’t large enough to fund clinical trials, it does look for studies that could open the door to a larger trial, such as human-sample studies.

Preliminary data

While other funders of IBD research often require preliminary data, Wilson says that’s not necessary for Innovator Awards. “We don’t require that because sometimes when you do have that idea…you may not have that preliminary data, you may be starting from scratch. We do not require you to have solved the problem before you come to us with an application.”

The Kenneth Rainin Foundation doesn’t prioritise gastroenterologists or people with pre-existing expertise in inflammatory bowel disease. “Some of our most successful work has come from parasitologists,” Wilson says. “Taking knowledge from somewhere else and applying it and asking a question for an unmet need in IBD is highly attractive.”

As a mininum, applicants must have a lab of their own, but they don’t need to have a permanent academic position. This means that postdoctoral researchers are not eligible to apply for Innovator Awards, but Wilson says that the people supported by the foundation are as much of a focus as the research, and this includes junior researchers.

“We really encourage, in our programmes, for PIs to apply in a way that allows their postdocs and younger trainees to be lifted up and do work and [be] included on the grants.”

This support also extends beyond the lifetime of the grant, as Wilson says that the Kenneth Rainin Foundation sees itself as a “pump-priming funder so that, beyond our funding, you don’t fall off a cliff”.

While a year is a relatively short lifespan for any research project, Wilson says that in reality many of the foundation’s applicants end up being funded for longer.

“I would say 80 per cent of our current Innovator Awards, if they’re seeking a year’s renewal, they get renewed,” she says. Grantees are given plenty of opportunities to demonstrate their progress, including through progress reports and an opportunity to give a presentation to Wilson and her scientific advisory board.

In addition, there is the option of no-cost extensions if grantees have not used all their funding after a year but are making good progress.

Application process

Wilson clearly wants to make applying to the foundation a good experience. She says that, compared to other funders, the application process is “quite quick and painless” and the foundation encourages applicants to contact its health programme staff to discuss potential research ideas.

In terms of what the Kenneth Rainin Foundation is looking for in applications, Wilson says it comes down to “a novel idea that has a solid hypothesis” and a researcher with the capacity to answer the research question.

The post From the archive: IBD funder welcomes off-the-wall ideas appeared first on Research Professional News.

A roundup of this week’s Funding Insight articles

This week, Funding Insight learns how vision research charity Fight for Sight has refocused its Small Grants to encourage bids from early career researchers. We talk bid strategy with multiple European Research Council grant-winners. And we revisit some suggestions on making internal peer review a smoother, happier process for all concerned.

This week in Funding Insight

Fight for Sight is the UK’s leading specialist vision research charity, and its Small Grants have helped spur research ideas and careers for many years.

The grants are intended for applicants to collect preliminary data to bolster subsequent bids for larger follow-on funding in vision research. They open annually and provide up to £15,000 for projects of up to one year. The deadline for this year’s competition is 24 July. The charity runs its Small Grants with highlight notices jointly supported by other charities, and this year eight partner charities are participating. Fight for Sight also welcomes submissions that fall within its remit alone.

Grants manager Steven Smith explains how the Small Grants work and what applicants can do to give their bids the best chance of success.

The European Research Council is arguably Europe’s most prestigious funder of individual research grants and inarguably a vital pillar of blue-sky research funding in Europe.

The funder sets a high bar for applicants to clear and for their bids to be accepted. According to its president, Maria Leptin, “research funded by the ERC is expected to lead to advances at the frontiers of knowledge and to set a clear and inspirational target for frontier research across Europe”.

Accordingly, success rates are low, ranging from 8 to 15 per cent depending on the grant. But even so, some applicants manage to clear the bar more than once. We caught up with three of these multiple winners to get their view of the funding landscape from the enviable vantage point of generous five-year funding awards.

Archive selection: Following on from Adam Golberg’s call to make internal peer review a more positive experience for all concerned, republished last week, we revisit his follow-on article on how that might be achieved—and a potential “spectacular own goal” to be avoided.

Elsewhere on Research Professional News

Feedback on proposals for REF 2029 published—Research Excellence Framework team releases consultation summaries on Future Research Assessment Programme

Tory and Labour manifestos ‘fall short on university funding’—Analysis of five party manifestos shows they fail to provide “a clear programme for government”

Bridget Phillipson: ‘University stability will be a day one priority’—Shadow education secretary talks up universities and promises to tackle financial woes

Nuffield Foundation streamlines grant application process—Charity simplifies outline application form and updates guidance for researchers

We work for Nature. This is why we’re striking—When salaries don’t keep pace with inflation, a passion for science doesn’t pay the bills

If you have comments, feedback or suggestions for Funding Insight, or if there are other people in your institution who would like to receive this weekly email, please contact james.brooks@clarivate.com.

The post Vision research pilot grants, repeat ERC winners, improving internal peer review appeared first on Research Professional News.

Fight for Sight has refocused its Small Grants on early career researchers and patient benefit

Top tips

• Be clear on the path forwards for your research upon completion of the Small Grant.
• Make sure you have a strong team around you.
• Even for lab-based projects, try to involve patients.
• Consult the guidance carefully and read the charity’s updated research strategy.

Fight for Sight is the UK’s leading specialist vision research charity, and its Small Grants have helped spur research ideas and careers for many years.

The grants are intended for applicants to collect preliminary data to bolster subsequent bids for larger follow-on funding in vision research. They open annually and provide up to £15,000 for projects of up to one year. The deadline for this year’s competition is 24 July.

The charity runs its Small Grants with highlight notices jointly supported by other charities. Participating in the current round are the Azoor Society (for acute zonal occult outer retinopathy research), the British and Irish Orthoptic Society, the Birdshot Uveitis Society, the Bowman Club, Debra (for epidermolysis bullosa research), Glaucoma UK, the Thyroid Eye Disease Charitable Trust and Versus Arthritis. Fight for Sight also welcomes submissions that fall within its remit alone.

Grants manager Steven Smith explains how the Small Grants work and what applicants can do to give their bids the best chance of success.

We last spoke with Fight for Sight in 2019, what changes have there been since then?

Fight for Sight has since merged with the Vision Foundation. The Vision Foundation was a London-based charity interested in social change, and therefor focused on the actual benefits to people with visual impairments. As a result, we now fund work concerned with how we can use research to benefit outcomes for patients and improve quality of life.

How else has this affected the research you fund?

The research we fund remains mostly within what might be called discovery science—so before the translational stage—but nonetheless now takes into greater consideration the rest of the pipeline. Lots of our projects, including the Small Grants, are focused on how to move ‘blue sky’ ideas into de-risked situations, so they can be taken forward and have a benefit for patients.

We’ve just released our new five-year research strategy—it’s on our website and I highly recommend people have a look at it before applying. The framework we now use very much follows the patient pathway.

Has it affected who you fund?

The charity is increasingly interested in capacity building, and this is particularly true regarding the Small Grants, which have changed focus to become more supportive of people earlier in their careers.

How do you define early career, and do you still accept Small Grants bids from more senior researchers?

Our definition of an early career researcher aligns closely with the Medical Research Council’s—it is given in full on our website. 

We are happy for more senior researchers to apply with rare-disease projects, but they must justify doing so, and that justification will be scrutinised. My personal advice to senior researchers is to ask whether they could put forward an early career researcher from their lab to lead on the project, to try and encourage that next generation. There’s nothing stopping the more senior researcher being a collaborator or co-applicant.

How do the joint grants with partner charities work in practice?

Our partner organisations match-fund the amount that we put in—so it’s half and half. From the point of view of the applicant, there’s a drop down-menu on the application form, where they should specify which partner call they are applying to. If they don’t specify, and we notice a bid is aligned with one of the joint calls, we may get in touch and ask if they don’t mind us sharing the application with the partner. All applicants to the partner calls should keep in mind the need to meet the remit of the relevant partner as well as our own. However, the remits tend to be fairly broad.

How many Small Grants do you tend to award?

This information is now on our website. Last year—2023-24—our success rate was 63 per cent and we awarded roughly a dozen Small Grants. But for each round it’s dependent on the quality and number of applications.

We do set a potential budget in advance and we would like to award one grant in each partnership, and at least a couple of our own. If you are applying for a grant in partnership with one of our partners and they can only support one, you’re not disadvantaged, because you will still be compared across the whole scheme. Sometimes, if the quality is there and if both partners can agree, we will fund multiple partnership grants when we’d expected to only fund one.

Are there any eligibility criteria you’d like to flag up?

The topline advice for this would be to check on the website where we do have a very detailed guidance section that sets out the remit and eligibility, also bearing in mind that some partners have different allowances to others. Our grants team also welcomes any queries. We often get questions from PhD students, who want to apply while they’re still completing their PhD. Our usual guidance is that you need to already have your PhD, and such people are often advised to hold fire for that round. However with good support from a mentor or institution, then a degree of flexibility may come into play.

In terms of costs, are there any potential eligibility issues?

With Small Grants now focusing on early careers, we do get questions about the salary. But with £15,000 you’re not likely to be covering a postdoc’s yearly salary. The intention is that the money is used to get the consumables and perhaps additional temporary support—maybe a statistician or technician on a couple of hours a week for a couple of months.

Beyond excellent science, what other characteristics will a strong Small Grant application have?

The clearest thing that I can advise applicants here relates to the path of progression for the research—knowing exactly what the desired Small Grant outcome is which will build towards a follow-on application. You’re in a good place if you know that, for example, you’re ultimately aiming for a project grant and you’ve got, say, two different models that you could use in that grant but you don’t know which is better. You want to use your Small Grant to resolve that issue, and you express that clearly.

What frequent mistakes crop up on bids?

One recurrent weakness, especially for applications that involve our partner charities, is a lack of a multidisciplinary approach, failing to identify collaborators of potential partners. It’s vital that applicants have the right support team around them. Therefore, I’d advise careful consideration of who’s involved in the project and why. A multidisciplinary team with relevant experience will always be pleasing from a funder’s perspective. This definitely applies to those who are new to vision research; it would be very hard to move into a field without the support of someone who knows it intimately.

Do you accept bids that put engineering and physical sciences upfront?

Yes, and there are examples in our portfolio that do so, especially in corneal research. We would certainly encourage bids from those fields where appropriate, especially with the rise of artificial intelligence, if that can unlock discoveries.

What are your requirements for patient participation and involvement and engagement (PPIE)?

PPIE is a genuine focus for the charity and applications are very strongly encouraged to include meaningful PPIE. For laboratory research we know that will be harder than in a pilot study working with a handful of patients. But even if, for example, you’re doing fundamental research for a potential gene therapy, you should consider how that may affect patients, perhaps taking into account the delivery mechanism. Any patient input that can help shape that thinking early on would be advisable.

If your university has links to a National Institute for Health and Care Research Support Service, then we would advise consulting with them. We know this might be considered as extra work, but it is never acceptable to say that PPIE is just ‘not applicable’ to a bid. There must be some form of consideration of the patient perspective.

The post Opportunity profile: Looking ahead in vision research appeared first on Research Professional News.

A cost-benefit analysis is advised before starting a bid

The European Research Council is arguably Europe’s most prestigious funder of individual research grants and inarguably a vital pillar of blue-sky research funding in Europe.

The ERC’s three core grants are all valid over five years and track researchers across career stages, with Starting Grants worth up to €1.5 million, Consolidator Grants worth up to €2m and Advanced Grants worth up to €2.5m.

The funder sets a high bar for applicants to clear and for their bids to be accepted. According to its president Maria Leptin, “research funded by the ERC is expected to lead to advances at the frontiers of knowledge and to set a clear and inspirational target for frontier research across Europe”.

Accordingly, success rates are low, ranging from 8 to 15 per cent depending on the grant. But even so, some applicants manage to clear the bar more than once.

We caught up with three of these multiple winners to get their view of the funding landscape from the enviable vantage point of generous five-year funding awards.

Cost-benefit analysis

Anja Groth leads a research group at the Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Protein Research at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark, and is a three-time ERC grant winner. She won a Starting Grant in 2011, a Consolidator Grant in 2016 and an Advanced Grant in 2023.

Groth says: “These grants have been instrumental for the success of my lab. I mean, it has really been a core component of the lab and very, very important for maintenance.”

She says that science for many can risk becoming “a constant chase for funding” and so it is important for researchers to think carefully about whether they are really competitive for any grants they put in for.

Before each bid, Groth says that she asks herself: “How competitive am I?” That will set the balance “of how many grant [applications] you need to write and how much you can focus your time on science”.

And then, she adds, other elements should come into play: in particular, the general rule that the smaller the grants are, both in terms of money and timeframe, the more effort will be spent on applying for them relative to the award.

“Of course we need to compete for grants,” Groth says, “but we should take care that we do not waste too much of our researchers’ time on them compared to how much they can invest in actually doing science and coming up with new discoveries.”

Because of this fine balance, Groth says that “the major, major importance of the ERC grants has been the relatively long-term vision that you can have over five years compared to many other grants that, at least in Denmark, will mostly last three years, which is relatively short”.

William Martin, head of the Institute of Molecular Evolution at Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Germany, has also won three ERC grants—in his case, all Advanced Grants (in 2009, 2015 and 2021). Martin agrees that national grants are underfunded in comparison to ERC grants.

He says that with an ERC grant, “the same amount of writing work, the same amount of text, will get you almost 10 times more if you are good”.

Building a team

Most applicants apply for a full or almost full ERC grant. The awards have the same upper funding limits regardless of discipline, with occasional additional allowances for equipment.

For Martin, one of the most important resources that an ERC grant provides is the ability to hire an adequate team of PhD students and postdocs. Some of his former researchers have gone on to win ERC grants themselves.

One of them is Tal Dagan, a professor of microbiology at the Christian Albrecht University of Kiel, Germany. She went on to win an ERC Starting Grant in 2012 and currently holds an ERC Consolidator Grant that started in 2023.

Most of her spending is on personnel, and the grant enabled her to fund full four-year positions. She says that “the fourth year is typically the most productive as the students become ‘grown-up scientists’ and working with them becomes a true collaboration”.

This would have been impossible with a grant from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Germany’s largest public funder, which until recently only funded three-year PhD studies. Dagan says this “is much too short in my opinion”.

Furthermore, she says: “The DFG is quite reluctant to fund postdocs and it’s quite tricky to have them funded via standard grants as one must justify a higher level of expertise required for the project.”

Equipment

The equipment allowance was also highly valuable, Dagan says. She was able to spend €20,000 on high-performance computing in her Starting Grant and €130,000 on a droplet digital PCR machine during her Consolidator Grant.

She says that similarly to the situation with staff costs, “there is almost no funding scheme in Germany that enables scientists to buy ‘medium tier’ equipment besides large-scale collaborative consortia”.

And yet, even though the time spent on ERC applications can be justified by their size, the fact that so many bids get knocked back will still put off many excellent researchers from applying.

And while it seems unlikely that success rates will rise sharply any time soon, the ERC is taking steps to make the application process less burdensome. From next year, Advanced Grants will move to lump-sum funding, meaning less restrictive budgeting and less paperwork.

“This is absolutely great news,” Dagan says. She hopes the move to lump-sum funding will be replicated in other ERC grants. Groth agrees, saying that easing the burden on applicants will hopefully serve as a “very good incentive” to apply.

The post Our winning proposals: On being a repeat ERC winner appeared first on Research Professional News.

Suggestions for a smoother, happier process

Following on from Adam Golberg’s call to make internal peer review a more positive experience for all concerned, republished last week, we revisit his follow-on article on how that might be achieved—and a potential “spectacular own goal” to be avoided.

Most universities now have internal peer review processes for grant applications. How can we make them work better for all involved? There are several questions that follow from this initial one, and I’ll try to answer them here.

Who should do the reviewing?

The ideal reviewer is a senior academic with a track record of success with major research funding applications and some insight into the subject area. Even at research-intensive institutions, there is a limited supply of these people and their time is valuable. So our instinct is to ask senior professors, but I wonder if a closer review by someone less senior might be more useful at times. We should certainly think beyond the usual suspects, as reviewing can be a developmental exercise.

Should reviews be anonymous?

This is tricky. In my view, ideally, no. Being able to put feedback in the context of the reviewer’s background can be valuable. I also think that people should be willing to stand behind their comments.

However, because internal peer review has a filtering role, one could argue that the protection of anonymity is required for reviewers to be willing to say that proposals shouldn’t go forward. Or perhaps even so that academics will be willing to criticise colleagues’ work at all.

That said, I would expect the rationale for soft-filtering out an application to be one that most applicants would accept and understand. For a hard filter (when only a certain number of applications can go forward from the institution), there would usually be a committee decision bound by collective responsibility. I’m not aware of any research or internal survey work done on internal peer reviewers and their attitudes to anonymisation, and I’d be interested to see if anyone has looked at this.

How should reviewers approach applications?

It’s not obvious how to review a grant application. Those without much experience may be reluctant to trust their instincts or judgment because ‘it’s not really my area’. A small number go the other way and become power-crazy at the opportunity to judge others. They end up judging the proposal from their own personal, partisan perspective and completely write off entire academic disciplines and subdisciplines.

One option to try to reduce such responses is to ask reviewers to use the same form that the funder in question gives to referees or panel members. It’s a great idea in principle, but academics typically have a loathe-hate relationship with forms. Nonetheless, there are some specific questions we could ask reviewers in a structured way or use as prompts. Fewer questions will get better answers.

• What isn’t clear in the bid?
• What are the potential weaknesses?
• What’s missing?
• How could the application be improved?

But if I were to ask a single question, it would be the pre-mortem: if I could see into the future and tell you now that this application is not going to be funded, what will be the main reason?

It helps home in on key weaknesses: it might be fit-to-call, it might be unclear methodology, it might be weak impact pathways, it might be the composition of the research team. It’s a good question for applicants to ask themselves.

How should reviewers give feedback?

It’s not enough for feedback to be correct—it must be presented in a way that maximises the chances that the principal investigator will listen.

Ideally, I’d like a face-to-face meeting involving the internal reviewers, the research development manager, the principal and possibly the co-investigators. The meeting would be a discussion of a full draft in which reviewers can offer their views and advice and the principal investigator can respond and ask questions about their impressions of the proposal.

I like face-to-face meetings because of the feedback multiplier effect: one reviewer makes an observation, which triggers another in the second reviewer. A principal’s response to a particular point triggers a further observation or suggestion. If approached in the right spirit (and if well chaired), this should be a constructive and supportive meeting aimed at maximising the applicant’s chances of success. It must not be a Dragons’ Den-style ordeal.

In reality, with packed diaries and short-notice calls, it’s going to be difficult to arrange such meetings. So we often have to default to email, which needs a lot of care, as nuance of tone and meaning can be lost. I would advise that feedback is sent through an intermediary—another task for your friendly neighbourhood research development manager—who can think about how to pass it on: whether to forward it verbatim, add context or comments or smooth off some abrasive edges. I’ve had a reviewer email me to say that she’s really busy and ask whether I could repackage her comments for forwarding. I’m happy to.

A good approach is to depersonalise the applicant: that is, address the feedback to the draft application, not its authors. But I think depersonalising the reviewers and their comments is a mistake. Impersonal, formal language can come over as officious, high-handed and passive-aggressive. It will make applicants less likely to engage, even if the advice is solid. Using (even rhetorical) questions rather than blunt statements invites engagement. In other words…

Which would you respond to best?

• The panel’s view is that your summary section is poor and is an introduction to the topic, not a proper summary of your whole project. You should rewrite before submitting.
• Could the summary be strengthened? We thought the draft version read more like an introduction to the topic, and we think reviewers are looking for a summary of the complete proposal in a nutshell. Is there time to revisit this section so it better summarises the project as a whole?

Institutions invest time and money in having arrangements that provide prospective principal investigators with detailed feedback from senior academic colleagues to improve their chances of success. They ought to be glad of the support. It’s a spectacular own goal if the resulting advice is ineffective because of the way the feedback is communicated or the way the whole process is presented or perceived by researchers.

Adam Golberg is strategic research development manager (research growth) at the University of Nottingham. He tweets @Cash4Questions and blogs at socialscienceresearchfunding.co.uk.

The post From the archive: How to improve internal peer review appeared first on Research Professional News.

A roundup of this week’s Funding Insight articles

This week, we gather tips for research office staff on getting published, from a session at the Association of Research Managers and Administrators’ annual conference. We revisit Adam Golberg’s musings on whether research managers should do more to make putting a bid through a peer review process a positive experience. And we compile all the news and views from Arma.

This week in Funding Insight

Getting published is not just the preserve of researchers. Forays into writing for professional publications can help advance the wider community of research managers and administrators too.

This was the consensus view of panellists at a session of the 2024 Arma conference in Brighton, which took place this week. What’s more, as chair and panellist Sarah Richardson, editor-in-chief of Research Professional News, told attendees, opportunities for research managers to write and get published abound.

All the same, the world of publishing may seem forbidding to many. So a key goal of the session was to share pointers for those keen to publish their experiences and knowledge. Here are the five top tips that emerged.

From the archive: Republished to coincide with the Arma conference, this article from May 2019 asks whether research managers should do more to make putting a bid through a peer review process a positive experience.

In the follow-up article, to be republished next week, Adam Golberg, now strategic research development manager (research growth) at the University of Nottingham, adds some suggestions as to how that might be achieved.

Elsewhere on Research Professional News: Arma special

Oxford research integrity training tackles ‘publish or perish’ culture—Institution’s training courses aim to align research careers with “what’s good for research”

Universities ‘face risks’ without responsible research assessment—Research managers hear how to overcome institutional barriers to assessment reform

Prepare for final Je-S phase-out, research managers told—Research teams must ensure staff have access to UKRI’s new funding system

Research managers urged to experiment with AI—Artificial intelligence touted as aid to grant application support and early career researcher coaching

EPSRC chair: political interest in research brings pressure—Increased political and public support for research means system ‘must provide better answers’

Randomising funding ‘could boost breakthrough research’—Dsit metascience experts look at ways to make funding less risk-averse

New government ‘must not lose focus on research bureaucracy’—Association chair Lorna Wilson also calls for greater recognition of research manager role

If you have comments, feedback or suggestions for Funding Insight, or if there are other people in your institution who would like to receive this weekly email, please contact james.brooks@clarivate.com.

The post Publishing for research managers, learning to love internal peer review, Arma news appeared first on Research Professional News.

Arma 2024: opportunities abound and research office staff should feel confident to seize them

Getting published is not just the preserve of researchers. Forays into writing for professional publications can reap benefits and advance the wider community of research managers and administrators (RMAs) too.

Such was the consensus view of panellists at a session during the Association of Research Managers and Administrators’ annual conference in Brighton on 18 June. What’s more, as chair and panellist, Sarah Richardson, editor-in-chief of Research Professional News, told attendees, many opportunities are available for RMAs to write and get published.

All the same, the panellists noted that the world of publishing may seem forbidding to many. A key goal of the session was therefore to share pointers for RMAs keen to publish their experiences and knowledge. Here are the five top tips that emerged.

1. Knowledge should be shared

The panel first looked at the reasons for RMAs to get into writing. According to Chloe Jeffries, head of strategic funding at the University of Manchester, who writes for Arma’s membership publication, Arma Insights, one reason is to showcase what you know about an area and share your expertise with a wider audience. “It will raise your profile to people outside of your institution,” she cited as an added benefit.

Oonagh Collins, the Euraxess UK programme manager at the British Council, built on this by encouraging RMAs to hold on to thoughts like “why haven’t I seen anything about this” for inspiration as to what to write.

She said: “If you are thinking this, there will be an audience of people for what you are saying.” It therefore follows that there is an opportunity to fill publication gaps with your knowledge.

Richardson highlighted that “no one is a better expert on your own experience than you are”. Several publications, including Arma Insights, greatly value research managers giving their opinions and sharing their experiences. “An example of this in Research Professional News was a piece written by Pauline Muya [former director of research services at the University of Leicester, and now independent consultant] reflecting on her career in research management, which did really well,” she noted.

Christopher Daley, head of evidence and analysis at the London School of Economics and Political Science, who writes for LSE’s Impact Blog, concluded that “research managers are at the intersection between professional services and academia, so they have the perfect knowledge blend to comment on research and innovation as a whole”. All panellists encouraged more RMAs to get involved. 

2. Cater to your chosen publication

The panel’s consensus was that budding writers should look at what the publication is looking for before contacting them and making their pitches. For instance, Alicen Nickson, director of research and innovation at Cranfield University, said that the Journal of Research Management and Administration, which she has published in, is looking for 3,000-to-8,000-word pieces, so writers should pitch longer, evidence-based pieces. Daley said that the journal Public Humanities, where he is an advisory board member, is “happy to receive pitches for 4,000-to-5,000-word journal articles, but also shorter opinion pieces as well”.

On choosing which publication to write for, Nickson said “the more you read, the more you understand what publications are looking for and if your writing would be suited to them”.

Richardson then pointed out that it is always worth contacting editors before writing your piece, as “then they can work with you to help guide it”.

3. Be confident

Discussing what holds RMAs back from writing, Daley said: “I don’t think people have the confidence to write opinion pieces about overcoming challenges brought about by research policy changes”. He went on to discuss a successful piece he wrote six years ago on overcoming challenges that were a result of open access requirements in the Research Excellence Framework. “Don’t be afraid to articulate your opinions,” he said.

Richardson added that “people may be worried about sticking their head above parapet in the age of social media”, but “people shouldn’t be put off using their professional expertise to make an informed argument”.

4. Take your time 

But there was another significant barrier to RMAs writing, the panellists agreed—finding the time to do it in. However, this need not be the barrier many felt it to be. Jeffries pointed out that for Arma Insights, “although writing should be topical and timely, there’s no pressure to ‘break scoops’”, which she said relieves time pressure for budding writers. Richardson quipped that if research managers did have a scoop, then they could always contact the reporting team at Research Professional News.

Collins added that there was “no time pressure” for those wanting to submit to Euraxess UK, which publishes once a month. She encouraged RMAs to email if they had a topic in mind.

Of course, some publications do run on a tight schedule, and the LSE’s Impact blog is one of these, said Daley. As its name suggests, it seeks topical and impactful pieces that will grab attention and generate clicks. “You will work with a managing editor on a rapid publication process,” he said.

5. Work collaboratively

Another aspect agreed upon by all panellists was that the best writing is produced in collaboration with others. Nickson gave the example of “working collaboratively on a literature review looking at the landscape of research management” as one particularly fulfilling project she had worked on. She also praised the Arma network for being very reliable, collaborative and willing to engage with others.

Jeffries concluded that “this panel demonstrates that there are real people doing this” and she urged attendees to “not hesitate to get in touch”.

The post Five tips for getting published as a research manager appeared first on Research Professional News.

If research managers can lessen aversion to internal peer review, everyone benefits

Republished to coincide with the Association of Research Managers and Administrators’ 2024 annual conference, this article from May 2019 asks whether research managers should do more to make putting a bid through a peer review process a positive experience.

In the follow-up article, to be republished next week, Adam Golberg, now strategic research development manager (research growth) at the University of Nottingham, adds some suggestions as to how that might be achieved.

Internal peer review of research grant applications has two distinct functions that can easily become blurred.

The first function is to filter—to select which applications go forward and which do not. This has two variants:

• A ‘hard filter’ for a scheme or funder with formal limits on the number of applications that one institution can submit.
• A ‘soft filter’ where there are no formal limits on application numbers, but where there’s a steer from the funder to submit only the most competitive applications or there’s limited research development capacity.

The second function aims to improve the quality of the application, producing concrete suggestions to increase the chance of success. In a previous article I explained how research development staff could bring a fresh perspective to an application. Similarly, comments from a senior academic with experience as an expert reviewer or funding panel member can be helpful, but with the added benefit of academic expertise.

Both functions of peer review—filtering and improving—are often rolled together into one process. This may cause confusion for both reviewers and the reviewed. Do we over-emphasise the role of the filter at the expense of the improvement? Does fear of the filter reduce the efficacy of the suggestions for improvement?

How internal peer review comes across

When discussing internal peer review with academic colleagues, I’ve seen wildly different reactions. Some are very enthusiastic and hungry for comments and feedback. Others are a bit more…Gollum and don’t want anyone to gaze upon their precious.

Most are somewhere in the middle: they welcome useful comments and insights but are wary about being forced to make changes against their better judgment—or being prevented from applying at all.

There’s no denying that the ‘filter’ role exists. However, I try to reassure academics that in my experience it’s rare for a bid to be soft-filtered out because of internal reviewers’ comments and for the applicant to disagree with the rationale.

The reviewer has usually spotted something that the applicant missed, either related to the application or the underpinning idea. Perhaps it needs another co-investigator or stronger engagement with partners or the public.

The application may need to engage with a particular body of literature or requires more time to develop. Perhaps there is a poor fit to funder or too little time to work up the idea into a competitive application by the deadline.

When we send out details of calls with our internal timetables and internal deadlines for the various stages, are potential applicants seeing peer review (and associated deadlines) as a supportive process or a barrier to be overcome or even evaded?

Wires crossed

I sometimes worry that in our desire to set out processes to try to prevent and preempt disruptive last-minute applications, we end up sending the wrong message about peer review and about the broader support available.

If we’re dictating terms and timetables for peer review, do we make it look as if grant applicants must fit around reviewer and research support requirements and timescales? And is that the right way around?

To be clear, I’m certainly not arguing against having a structured process with indicative milestones with some level of enforcement. Last-minute applications are disruptive and stressful, forcing people to drop everything to provide support with no notice. Worst of all, rushed applications are seldom competitive. We absolutely should try to save people from this kind of folly.

And, of course, we need to allow time for senior (and therefore busy) academics to undertake internal peer review. I suspect that most institutions rely on a relatively small pool of reviewers who are asked to read and comment on multiple applications per year, and that few get any formal workload allocation.

While we should certainly give applicants plenty of time to write their applications, we need to treat our reviewers with consideration and value their time.

Putting peer review in a positive light

I’m not arguing that we disguise or minimise the ‘filter’ element of internal peer review in favour of an unqualified upbeat presentation of internal peer review being entirely about improving the quality of the application. But perhaps we could look at ways to present internal peer review in a more positive, supportive and developmental light.

The most important part of peer review positivity—and the subject of the second article of this series—is how internal peer review happens in practice: who reviews, how and when; and how and in what spirit reviewer comments are communicated to applicants.

If internal peer review as a process helps to strengthen applications, word will get round and support and buy-in will grow, one positive experience at a time.

But even before that stage, I think it’s worth thinking about how we communicate our internal peer review processes and timetables. Could we be more positive in our framing and communication? Could we present internal peer review more as a helping hand to climb higher, and less as a hurdle to overcome?

Adam Golberg is strategic research development manager (research growth) at the University of Nottingham. He tweets @Cash4Questions and blogs at socialscienceresearchfunding.co.uk.

The post From the archive: Framing internal peer review positively appeared first on Research Professional News.

A roundup of this week’s Funding Insight articles

This week in Funding Insight we profile one of the most keenly anticipated funding schemes in recent memory—the Royal Society’s Faraday Discovery Fellowships. A winner of the British Academy’s Talent Development Award discusses the growing trend for similar schemes with an interdisciplinary, methodological slant. And we revisit a profile of the Humane Research Trust, a rare funder of specifically animal-free biomedical research.

This week in Funding Insight

Offering up to £8 million over 10 years to work on a topic of the applicant’s choosing, the Faraday Discovery Fellowships will not need much advertising to attract high-quality bids.

However, as Francesca Stokesmore, senior manager of international grants at the Royal Society, made clear at a webinar on 12 June, not all researchers with ambitious ideas will be eligible to apply as the scheme is targeted at mid-career scientists only. As Rachel Magee reports, Stokesmore gave further clarifications and pointers for those working on bids to the scheme’s first round, which will open on 14 August.

The British Academy’s Talent Development Awards launched in 2021 as a way to boost the skills and abilities of UK-based humanities and social science researchers. The scheme is particularly focused on helping researchers pilot new methods and approaches, which may involve digital, language or interdisciplinary aspects, that will help them apply for larger grants or develop new partnerships.

The scheme’s fourth annual call will open to applications on 19 June and close on 11 September. Full details are yet to be published, but grants to the 2023 competition were worth up to £10,000, with projects running for six to 12 months.

Rob Topinka, a senior lecturer at Birkbeck, University of London, who won an award in the 2022 competition, discusses what went into his bid and why grants such as these are increasingly popular with funders.

Archive selection: One of the rare funders of specifically animal-free biomedical research in the UK, the UK’s Humane Research Trust disburses most of its funding via its research grants, which are taken in for assessment four times a year.

The trust supports research projects in most fields of fundamental research on human health and disease that do not involve animals or animal-derived products. It also supports projects which develop, test and apply novel methods, techniques and products that offer alternatives to those that currently involve animals.

Grants are usually for sums of £90,000-£200,000 and will fund PhD studentships for up to four years, or two-year postdoctoral positions. The next deadline is 25 August.

Alison Giles, the charity’s chief executive, discussed the research grants with us in April 2023, shortly after her appointment. Evidence of a commitment to animal-free research was a particularly important element that the trust prizes in applications, she said.

Elsewhere on Research Professional News

Government’s £14m bill to abandon ‘mega lab’ branded ‘waste of taxpayer money’—Virus testing and research facility dropped after total spending of £474m

UCU: ‘Scrap fees, TEF and REF and overhaul ineffective OfS’—Union publishes manifesto for UK general election, also calling for Teachers’ Pension Scheme pledge

Centre holds in provisional European election results—Ursula von der Leyen in strong position as poll paves way for centrist coalition

Wellcome: Wielding influence—Wellcome’s new chief executive is ready to make his voice heard in the corridors of power

Arma 2024: Funders unite on culture—One-stop shop for communication and gathering data could reduce burden and drive change, says Anne Taylor, associate director, funding operations and governance, at Wellcome

If you have comments, feedback or suggestions for Funding Insight, or if there are other people in your institution who would like to receive this weekly email, please contact james.brooks@clarivate.com.

The post Faraday Discovery Fellowships, testing methods with the British Academy, animal-free research appeared first on Research Professional News.

The Humane Research Trust is looking for applicants who share its vision

One of the rare funders of specifically animal-free biomedical research in the UK, the UK’s Humane Research Trust disburses most of its funding via its Research Grants, which are taken in for assessment four times a year.

The trust supports research projects in most fields of fundamental research on human health and disease that do not involve animals or animal-derived products. It also supports projects which develop, test and apply novel methods, techniques and products that offer alternatives to those that currently involve animals.

Grants are usually for sums of between £90,000 to £200,000 and will fund PhD studentships for up to four years, or two-year postdoctoral positions. The next deadline is 25 August.

Alison Giles, the charity’s chief executive, discussed the Research Grants with us in April 2023, shortly after her appointment. Among the elements that the trust prizes in applications, evidence of a commitment to animal-free research was particularly important, she said.

Top tips

• The trust no longer accepts bids involving animal-derived products
• Training can be made available for applicants who are new to animal-free experimentation
• A commitment to going animal-free, or at least reducing animal use, in your own research will be viewed positively
• Projects should have potential wider application than just the applicant’s own work

For more than 60 years, the UK’s Humane Research Trust has supported work to develop skills and techniques that would replace the use of animals in medical research.

It now does this principally via its Research Grants,which are taken in for assessment four times a year.

There are no set limits on length of project or amount of funding that people can apply for, but these elements must be fully justified in application. In its guidance the trust says: “Typically, we support three-year PhD studentships and two-year postdoctoral students, with the possibility of an extension for another year depending on the progress of the project.”

Alison Giles, the charity’s recently appointed chief executive, discusses the scheme and gives some pointers for those new to animal-alternatives research.

Have you always offered research grants?

Yes, research grants have always been the focus of the trust, it was set up to fund animal-free research.

Are there any other similar funding sources available to researchers?

In the UK, we’ve got two very similar organisations—Animal Free Research UK and Frame—but we probably fund longer projects than those two. They are moving more toward short pilot feasibility studies. On the other side of the scale, I understand that the UK Research Councils have also started offering funding for specifically animal-free research, which might be suitable for someone who has completed a pilot study. We’re somewhere in the middle of those, I would say.

How many applications do you tend to get per round and what’s the success rate?

In recent times, it’s been two or three applicants per round—very few. In the last round, we received two and funded both.

Is the number of applications surprising to you?

I think so, and part of my role here is to make sure that we become better known and gain more applicants. Currently, our scheme is not massively competitive, but once we get better known it might well become more so.

Is there anything new for this round of the grants?

Yes, we have tightened up our guidelines for applicants. First, we are not going to fund the use of animal-derived products in research, such as animal-derived antibodies. What we’ve also done is amended the application form to be clearer about the criteria we’re looking for when people apply, although we will accept anyone who completed an earlier version of the form.

What are the changes to the form that you’ve made?

One of the changes is about how people are going to communicate about the grant and their research—we’ve never asked specifically about that before. We are also being clearer about how the research is going to be replacing animals, so for a particular disease or methodology, what can this research prove to the field? how would other researchers be able to take the outcomes and apply them, and including elements of scalability and reproducibility as well.

What can make an application stand out from the crowd?

What stands out to us often is the principal investigator and the team’s commitment to our agenda, which is using non-animal methods in research that otherwise would have used animals. We’re not keen on projects that are standalone and one-off, that is, when the rest of team’s work involves animals. We want to see commitment to using non-animal methods in the whole team’s research. Also, we like to see a real desire to develop a methodology that others can use, either to take it to a commercial partner, or if not at that stage, then there could be scope for it in the coming years. We’re looking for something with more applicability than answering a single research question in a single PhD.

Are there any frequent mistakes for grant applications?

Yes, sometimes, in the past, that was our fault because we didn’t specifically ask for things that we now ask for. Otherwise, it really is about not giving us a strong sense that there is a commitment to become animal-free, it’s that sense of direction.

Do you want applications from people who aren’t specialist ‘animal experimentation alternatives’ researchers?

A success for us would be that people move towards being animal-free. We’re OK for people to have experimented on animals in the past and to be moving in that direction. In terms of publications, it must be clear that our money did not fund research involving animals or animal-derived products, and we want that commitment to moving away from animals across the whole team rather than running two things concurrently. Obviously, we appreciate it will be a journey for some applicants, particularly if they have not used these methods before—they’re not necessarily going to be experienced in alternatives.

What advice would you have for anyone who’s had an idea based on something they’ve discovered during their research but haven’t delved into the world of animal alternatives before?

I would expect that if they’ve had such an idea, they will have looked at other research to see where it has parallels with other techniques in terms of feasibility. If they have reached that stage, they can certainly contact us to see if it would be something we would fund.

We’d also be very happy to put people in touch with previous grant-holders who might be able to give advice, and our sister organisations I mentioned earlier might be able to provide opportunities to train in methods before they get a grant to do it themselves. These kinds of opportunities exist for applicants who feel that they are a long way from being able to confidently use these methods so that then they can actually go ahead with a research project.

The post From the archive: No more ‘in vivo’ appeared first on Research Professional News.

British Academy Talent Development Award winner on bids with an interdisciplinary, methodological slant

Top tips

• It is useful to address an area of societal concern, but smaller grants should always drill down on one specific aspect
• Academic impact is not just arrived at via publications
• Where possible, tackle current problems that researchers face
• Keep honing your bid for clarity, especially regarding the aim and objectives

The British Academy’s Talent Development Awards launched in 2021 as a way to boost the skills and abilities of UK-based humanities and social science researchers.

The scheme is particularly focused on helping researchers pilot new methods and approaches that will help them apply for larger grants or develop new partnerships.

Overall, the awards have three aims. First, to raise the quality of data science skills used in research. Second, to create opportunities for knowledge and skills exchange across disciplines and sectors. And third, to promote language learning and associated skills among UK-based researchers. In the most recent round, the guidance encouraged applicants “to be creative in their thinking about how these awards can best help advance their research ideas, including through collaborative, partnership working”.

The scheme’s fourth annual call will open to applications on 19 June and close on 11 September. Full details are yet to be published but grants to the 2023 competition were worth up to £10,000, with projects running for between six and 12 months.

Rob Topinka, a senior lecturer at Birkbeck, University of London, who won an award in the 2022 competition, discusses what went into his bid and why grants such as these are increasingly popular with funders.

Can you give a brief overview of your project? 

It’s on misinformation in everyday life. The goal of the project was to combine qualitative and quantitative research approaches while thinking about conceptual questions to do with misinformation. We [my co-applicant Scott Rogers and I] noticed there were a lot of studies tracking this information but not necessarily asking what misinformation is and why people are attracted it. Particularly on the latter, we wanted to find out what draws people to this information, what makes it resonate with people. 

How did this fit with the methodological, upskilling remit of the scheme?

We believed that you needed to mix quantitative approaches enabled by computational work, together with a more sociological, even ethnographic, engagement with how people navigate online culture. The goal of the project was therefore to bring together a team of researchers from both the qualitative and quantitative sides to discuss how misinformation in social media may be approached with these conceptual questions in mind. At the project’s core were two workshops in which we tested out how to explore misinformation in different ways. 

What did you highlight on your bid for this particular scheme?  

One important thing was pointing out that a lot of work in misinformation tends to be on large datasets, tracking it from one area to another. This can miss trying to understand what misinformation really is.

Another that we highlighted is that in the wake of ChatGPT, increasingly social media companies are cutting application programming interface (API) access—what you need to access these datasets. For instance, all of Reddit’s metadata used to be freely available for download. But now that information is not available to readers because they realised that as ChatGPT is trained on data, potential competitors could access all their data for free—which they obviously don’t want. As it’s harder for researchers to access these datasets, researchers will need to be nimbler in their research methods. Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods becomes essential for this kind of work. 

In your proposal, did you say much about how your research would impact the academic community and beyond? 

At the core of the grant, the talent development awards, is the idea that you’re learning new skills that may be useful for others. Part of what made our pitch attractive is that it is collaborative. We are bringing researchers together to share ideas and compare approaches. One of the key takeaways is developing “research recipes” of structured steps for social media research. We are developing new research methods, and we are building a network to share this with other academics. Although there will be research outputs such as articles, the bid was more about sharing useful tools for other researchers. 

Did you have a research background in misinformation and social media?

Scott and I both have in our own projects. I have a project on the alt-right’s use of misinformation, and on conspiracy theories, which are a form of misinformation in some ways. Scott is also working on a project on Facebook community groups and how they respond to plans from councils.

What feedback did you get on your application and how did it alter the bid?

We workshopped it with colleagues in our department, which was really helpful. The best piece of advice I received is that bid reviewers are looking at your project with tired eyes. It’s not always the most interesting job and they have many applications to review. Don’t make them work to understand what you want to do from the beginning. You always think that’s something you’ve done, but other people’s feedback will quickly show that you haven’t. Ultimately, what helped us the most is having people reading it and saying what we needed to do.

What advice would you give to other people applying for this scheme?

The British Academy publishes the previous winners of this scheme, so I’d recommend looking at that to see what people have done previously. From my experience, it’s good to have a topic that’s part of a wider debate but that’s also relatively specific. For our bid, we have big conceptual questions which we’re looking at in a pretty complicated way: a series of workshops and a set of recipes. They are the anchor that allows us to explore bigger themes. Think about something detailed and complex you can reasonably pull off in the given amount of time that still taps into a bigger question. This a good way to approach this.

Could that approach work with other schemes?

Well, the Talent Development Awards are linked to the British Academy Innovation Fellowships scheme. This and the Arts and Humanities Research Council’s Curiosity and Catalyst Awards, as well as others, encourage taking new approaches to shared problems in creative ways. I guess grants have always done this, but there seems to be a particular move now.

It can be useful for these schemes to reframe your research, not just methodologically but highlight what it is about your approach that will answer a pressing problem in a new way. That seems to be highly prized among funders at the moment.

The post My winning proposal: Think big, then focus appeared first on Research Professional News.

Faraday Discovery Fellowships will nourish group leaders en route to the promised land of seniority

The Faraday Discovery Fellowships, which are among the most keenly anticipated new grant schemes scheduled for launch in 2024, will open to applications on 14 August.

The Royal Society’s showcase awards for mid-career researchers were first pitched to the government for funding in 2019, but without success.

They then became part of the government’s plans for a UK alternative to the EU’s research and innovation programme Horizon Europe—but when the UK gained access to the EU programme, they were no longer needed to fill that hole.

However, as participants of a Royal Society webinar on 12 June were told, by then the Faraday Discovery Fellowships had already gained favour in Westminster. In the 2023 autumn statement, chancellor Jeremy Hunt announced £250 million for the scheme.  

The fellowships offer science, technology, engineering and maths researchers up to £8m over a 10-year period to support them in carrying out high-quality research.

They aim to provide mid-career academics with the time and freedom to focus on their research. The Royal Society hopes that the long-term and stable funding the awards offer will allow researchers to tackle “difficult and intractable” problems. 

At the webinar, Francesca Stokesmore, senior manager of international grants at the Royal Society, set out the fundamentals of the scheme for those considering a bid. Here are the main points.

1. These grants are strictly for the mid-career cohort

Stokesmore explained that mid-career researchers had “long been” recognised as lacking dedicated support, not just from the Royal Society but across the UK. She added that the Royal Society has been hoping to offer mid-career support for quite some time.

While she acknowledged that the term ‘mid-career’ is unpopular with some, she said the society decided to “stick with it” so it could draw a line from early to mid to senior.

She said the society wanted to divide its portfolio up in a way that would help with signposting but would also “protect” mid-career funding. She highlighted that there is often competition between mid-career and senior researchers for the same award, and that the society hopes to minimise such competition with this grant scheme.

According to Stokesmore, the “most talked about” element of the scheme is how the term ‘mid-career researcher’ will be defined.

The society settled on the broad definition of researchers with 10 to 20 years of post-PhD or equivalent research experience. While exceptional candidates with fewer years of experience will be considered, the upper cut-off of 20 years will be kept as a harder limit, she said, in order to protect the funding for mid-career researchers specifically.

Career breaks and non-linear career paths will be taken into account when calculating the number of years of research experience, Stokesmore said, and applicants who have switched discipline and consider themselves mid-career in their current field can get in touch with the society to discuss their eligibility.

Job titles or employment status (whether in a permanent position or not) are not relevant to eligibility, she continued, but the society does expect applicants to be established as a group leader, have an established international network and to have made significant original research contributions.

Reviewers will also be keen to see that applicants have made wider contributions to research, perhaps via public engagement, knowledge exchange and peer review.

2. Don’t rush your bid

Unlike funding for its other awards, the Royal Society has received an endowment from the government for the Faraday Discovery Fellowships. The society has 20 years to spend £250m via the scheme, plus any investment gains it makes on it.

With other schemes, the society often receives funding for shorter periods of time, typically three years.

Stokesmore said that the different funding model for the Faraday Discovery Fellowships will bring benefits for applicants. For example, the greater certainty of funding will mean people can spend time on their applications knowing they can always wait and apply next year.

There will also be greater flexibility on things like start dates, she added, and reduced bureaucracy in terms of reporting. She said the funding model frees the society from having to show early indicators of impact and allows it to focus on longer-term impacts.

3. The society has a rough idea of the number of fellowships it will award

In the Royal Society’s deal with the government, it agreed to make 30 awards within the 20-year period. But Stokesmore said it is expecting to make closer to 50—an estimate based on its modelling around the expected investment gains and the fact that some researchers may not want the full £8m.

Considering the long duration of awards—which means that the final grants under the £250m allocation would mostly be awarded within the next 10 years—the society’s current prediction is that it will award around seven fellowships a year via the scheme.

4. Applicants should build up their teams

Although the awards are handed to one principal investigator, Stokesmore said that team building is expected to be a “significant part” of the programme.

She pointed out that they are large awards and the Royal Society would like to see the funding supporting the creation of world-leading research groups.

She added that the society is also looking for the fellowships to train the next generation of researchers.

It expects that teams will have early career researchers, PhD students and technicians on board. Training should be provided to these people, she said.

5. Anything within the Royal Society’s disciplinary remit is eligible

As with all Royal Society funding, the programme will fund research across science, technology, engineering and mathematics. This will include collaborations outside Stem, although lead applicants must have a track record in Stem.

Stokesmore highlighted that the society does not fund translational medicine, clinical trials or the development of new treatments. Research with a health outcome also tends to fall outside its remit, she said.

The post Opportunity profile: The Royal Society’s mid-career manna appeared first on Research Professional News.

A roundup of this week’s Funding Insight articles

This week in Funding Insight we conclude a two-part series on funding fundamentals with some tips on justifying your proposal’s importance and methods. We profile a new scheme from the Leo Foundation aimed at bringing the international dermatology research community together. And we revisit a pep talk from columnist Adam Golberg on attacking your first grant bid.

This week in Funding Insight

Research is all about asking questions. But to do that, researchers must usually answer other questions on funding applications first.

In a recent webinar organised by the Worldwide Universities Network, Taryn Bell, research development adviser at the University of Leeds, boiled these questions down to three essential ones where applicants frequently go awry. In her words, they are: “What do you want to investigate, why is this important and how are you going to do it?”

Our first article about the webinar, published last week, reported on Bell’s suggestions for responding to the first question via a proposal’s aims and objectives. This second part deals with the other two questions.

The Leo Foundation is the world’s largest private funder dedicated to skin and skin disease research. Its best-known grants are its Research Grants, profiled in Funding Insight in February 2023.

This year, the foundation added two schemes to its portfolio, the Visiting Researchers grant, which supports international visits from Danish research institutions and vice versa, and the Research Networking Grant, which supports international knowledge-sharing within dermatology. Both schemes will open for their second round on 15 August and close on 2 October.

The Research Networking Grant can be worth up to 500,000 Danish Kroner (€67,000) and is open to applicants worldwide. Anne-Marie Engel, the chief scientific officer at the Leo Foundation, tells us more.

From the archive: The two-part series on funding fundamentals, which concludes this week (see above) is primarily for early career researchers just getting to grips with the challenges of finding funding. Such readers might also want to consider this article from July 2022, in which columnist Adam Golberg laid out how to prepare for a first bid before putting pen to paper—or much more likely—finger to keyboard.

Elsewhere on Research Professional News

Open access: The price of diamond—The push for non-profit academic publishing is raising questions about how to pay for it

Current funding model will lead to university closures, report says—Hepi paper explores how universities will react if income levels do not increase

‘Be ambitious or lose R&D advantage’, Wellcome tells parties—Charity urges next government to make changes on immigration, long-term funding and building science facilities

ERC explains approach to using lump-sum model—EU funder is hopeful pilot will reduce administrative work for researchers without hampering their ambition

UK funding at a glance: 24 May to 6 June—Scottish healthcare, artificial intelligence, ‘science superstars’ and deception technologies

If you have comments, feedback or suggestions for Funding Insight, or if there are other people in your institution who would like to receive this weekly email, please contact james.brooks@clarivate.com.

The post Communicating the why and how of research, dermatology funding, advice for first-time bidders appeared first on Research Professional News.

The Leo Foundation launches a Research Networking Grant scheme

Top tips

• The international element is very important in this scheme.
• These grants should not be used for meetings to support ongoing research projects or potential research bids.
• Encourage participation across career stages at events.
• Meetings can be open beyond the research community where appropriate.

The Leo Foundation is the world’s largest private funder dedicated to skin and skin disease research. It granted 217 million Danish Kroner in 2023 and aims to award half a billion Danish Kroner a year by 2030. 

The Foundation’s best-known grants are its Research Grants, profiled in Funding Insight in February 2023. These open to applications three times a year, with the next deadline on 12 September.

This year, the foundation added two schemes to its portfolio, the Visiting Researchers programme, which supports international visits from Danish research institutions and vice versa, and the Research Networking Grants, which supports international knowledge-sharing within dermatology. Both schemes will open for their second round on 15 August and close on 2 October.

The Research Networking Grant can be worth up to 500,000 Danish Kroner (€67,000) and is open worldwide. It encourages participation from researchers at any career stage, including students, and money can be allocated for travel costs. 

Anne-Marie Engel, the chief scientific officer at the Leo Foundation, discusses what the foundation hopes for from its new schemes, focusing on the networking grant.

Why did the foundation launch its new calls in 2024? 

We are in the process of implementing our 2025 grant strategy, which directs our philanthropic activities into two main tracks: one supporting world-class skin research in different programmes, such as the long-standing Research Grants in Open Competition, and the Leo Foundation Dr Abildgaard Fellowships programme and Serendipity Grants, which were introduced last year. These programmes all support research projects.

The other track is to catalyse a strong and coherent global skin and skin disease research ecosystem.

Research Grants are of course an important instrument, but another important way of supporting the ecosystem is making sure people eager to meet and exchange ideas and challenge each other can do so. This is why we have introduced the networking grants.

We know from experience that new ideas come up when researchers meet in different settings, or when they visit people from another research tribe, so to speak. When researchers challenge each other in physical meetings, new and maybe important collaborations can emerge. 

What are the eligibility criteria for the networking grant? 

There are specific criteria for this instrument, and one is that it should be open to an international public. You cannot say that at this hospital we are having an internal educational session of some kind, and then apply for money. That will not work.

The call is also not open to researchers who would for instance like to get together to write an application for a large grant, for example to the Horizon Europe programme, together. 

The idea is for people who have a common interest in setting up a meeting or a network event of some kind to develop what they are already doing.

Should these groups also be open to the general public? 

Whether you invite people from the public will depend on those who make the agenda and what kind of meeting they would like to have. If it is relevant for a meeting to invite patients or representative organisations to discuss relevant topics, designing trials for example, that will be fine. We would not exclude anything like that.  

The meeting must have a starting point in a shared scientific question or topic, but who they invite to give input or inspiration is up to applicants.

What errors were made on bids to the first round? 

We had some applicants who saw the scheme as an opportunity to obtain funding for project meetings, for people to travel and meet to discuss a project funded elsewhere—and that was too narrow a mission. 

We also had a couple of applicants who saw this as a research project grant involving travel and meetings. They scoped a research project for us which we have other instruments for. The Research Networking Grants are specifically for meetings, for conferences, for symposia. It is important that applicants distinguish between our different programmes and their purposes. 

Does that point to a more general error that you might see on bids to other schemes?

Yes, a general pitfall is that people read the guidelines, but they read the guidelines through a lens to see what they would really like funding for. Quite a few applicants give us a call, or send us an email saying, “You’ve got this scheme, I’ve got this project, does it fit? What would it take to make it fit?”. We have a lot of good dialogue through which we can also learn about how people read the guidelines that we put out. This helps us to improve and adjust them.

Is this a pilot scheme or can it be considered as a permanent one now? 

When we introduce a new instrument, we introduce two deadlines that year. We like to run a few rounds just to gather experience. Even though we have done our best to design the instrument so it answers all the questions we can think of, we will not know them all. 

After a few rounds, we can stop and say “Okay, are there questions popping up or are people disregarding what we think is very clear guidance? Should we adjust anything? Do we get too many of some and too few of others? Should we try to invite some more people in with specific kinds of applications?”. But it is still too early to say about that for this year’s new instruments.

Were there many bids to the first round?

We didn’t get that many applications, but we did not announce it long ago. In our experience, it takes time to build up awareness in the scientific community, even though there is always a lack of money for good projects or good meetings. It takes maybe a year or so, depending on how frequent your application deadlines are, for the community to be aware that there is this option. 

There will be a build-up of interest, that is for sure. We know the need is there, it just takes a bit of patience from our side as well.

The post Opportunity profile: Bringing the skin research community together appeared first on Research Professional News.

Tips on justifying your proposal’s importance and methods

Research is all about asking questions. But in order to do that, researchers must often answer other questions on funding application forms first.

In a recent webinar organised by the Worldwide Universities Network of 23 research-intensive institutions, Taryn Bell, research development adviser at the University of Leeds, boiled these questions down to three essential ones where applicants frequently go awry.

In her words, they are: “What do you want to investigate, why is this important and how are you going to do it?”

Our first article about the webinar, published last week, reported on Bell’s suggestions for responding to the first question via a proposal’s aims and objectives. This second part deals with the other two questions.

Reach

To write a competitive funding bid, Bell said, applicants first need to reframe the central ‘why’ question. “When we write in a funding proposal about why our research is important, the people reviewing funding applications, and the funders themselves, are essentially asking a different question. They’re asking: ‘Why should I care?’”

A few funders—for example, the Leverhulme Trust in the UK—are willing to fund projects just because they are intellectually interesting, she said, but most funders don’t do this. The case therefore has to be made for a proposal’s impact beyond personal intellectual curiosity.

This could be done, Bell said, by considering the reach of the proposed research, meaning “the extent or range of its application, effect or influence”.

Identification

Bell proposed three steps to integrate reach into research proposals in order to tell the funder why they should care.

The first is to identify people within that reach, which is similar to identifying those who could benefit from the research. Bell advised applicants, especially those applying to fellowships, not to neglect an obvious answer to this question. She said: “In the very narrowest sense, it could be you. You can benefit from your research; it might benefit your own professional practice or confidence; it might be good for your career.”

Of course, even with fellowships, it is important to consider potential spheres of influence beyond that, Bell continued. The identification phase might start with institutional or disciplinary colleagues and move further out, perhaps into government, the private sector or a section of the general public, she said.

Bell emphasised honesty being key during the identification phase. She said that for many projects, the reach—which is closely related to the project’s impact—would be quite restricted.

“As an early career researcher, it wouldn’t be very usual for your research to have tons of societal impact, so don’t feel like you have to promise that you are going to change society.”

During the identification phase, it is also worth considering what benefits those audiences will derive from the research, Bell said. Again, something quite limited like “improved understanding” might be an acceptable answer there, but applicants should check that the funder is not keen for wider impact.

Planning

Bell’s second step is to plot out when the identified people within reach of the project could be involved in it. She stressed that an important cohort would need to be contacted before the bid is submitted and often before any writing has begun.

This is particularly true in biomedical research, she said, where patient participation and involvement is an increasingly vital component. But in most fields, the strongest proposals arise from consultation with others.

Early on, most applicants need to “start initiating collaborations, networks and co-production, and build the proposal together with some of those beneficiaries”. This does not have to happen in any formal way, she added. “Just bouncing ideas off people who might want to be involved can help you see your idea from a fresh perspective.”

Some people will only be strongly involved once the research has started, Bell said, and might come on board as project partners or to sit on a project’s advisory board, while others may be included after the project has concluded, possibly once results have been published or during follow-up research.

Engagement

The final step, Bell said, is an obvious one but needs to be stressed: researchers should actually contact some of the identified people within a project’s reach.

She said: “It’s really common for researchers to feel like they can’t get in touch until they have a finished proposal, but I would say do it now…People can take a long time to respond.”

As Bell had previously said, research ideas always benefit from being discussed with others, but there are other benefits to plucking up the courage to make early contact. “Reviewers love it when you’ve already got potential collaborators on board, or you’ve already had discussions with those audiences. It gives the reviewers confidence that you’re asking the right people and you’re developing that research idea.”

She also stressed the importance of identifying and contacting an institutional or department expert on impact early, as this person could give further ideas on evidencing an answer to that all-important question: why should the funder care?

Method

Finally, Bell turned to the question of how the research would be done. This is a question, she stressed, that needs to be answered in detail in the methods section.

Researchers should always strive to be specific—and that includes detailing the theories and frameworks underlying the methods themselves. This is too often omitted, she said, which plays badly with funders.

Spelling out a well-grounded theoretical basis for the research and the methods “ensures that the proposal doesn’t sound like you’re on a fishing expedition where you’re just throwing some ideas out there, trying to catch some data, but are unsure of how you’ll analyse it”.

Detailing the methods themselves means answering a plethora of questions. Bell listed some major ones: “What kind of information are you collecting? How are you going to collect it? How are you going to analyse it? When is it going to be done during the lifetime of the project? Where will it be done—at your host institution or do you need to go somewhere else? Who’s going to do it—you or a PhD student or a technician?”

And there is one final question that should not be neglected, she added. “You need to be able to answer: ‘Why not another method?’ Reviewers ask this all the time and for funding that involves an interview, that question will often come up then.”

Finding the right answer can be tricky, she warned: “Every method has limitations and risk—there is no such thing as a perfect method…but you must make a strong argument that you’ve picked your method for a good reason.”

The post Spelling out the why and how of a research bid appeared first on Research Professional News.

A roundup of this week’s Funding Insight articles

This week, we drill down on an essential elements for any research bid—the aims and objectives. We also hear from a Russian exile about how he found a safe haven to continue his research at the Hanse-Wissenschaftskolleg (HWK), one of Germany’s Institutes for Advanced Study, and how others (who might not be political exiles) can too. And we round out our trio of articles by revisiting a profile of Marie Curie’s Research Grants scheme, as it prepares for relaunch.

This week in Funding Insight

A poorly written aims and objectives application section is likely to torpedo any bid’s chance of success. At a webinar organised by the Worldwide Universities Network, Taryn Bell, research development advisor University of Leeds, gave some practical advice to early career researchers on how to ensure their aims are true and their objectives measurable. It often comes down to using the right verbs, she related.

The HWK is a not-for-profit foundation of the states of Bremen and Lower Saxony, and the city of Delmenhorst in north-west Germany.

Its fellowships give scholars of any nationality the opportunity to study at the HWK for between 3 and 10 months. Regular Fellowships, supported by a personal stipend of up to €5,000 a month, are offered to researchers with more than five years’ post-PhD experience, while Junior Fellowships, with stipends of up to €2,000 a month, are for those with less. The call for fellowships opens once a year and the 2024 round is open now with a deadline of 15 July.

The fellowships are open to scholars in a variety of professional situations—including exiles. Andrei Yakovlev had to leave Russia when the country declared war on Ukraine. He needed not only financial support for his research but also a place to stay and a welcoming environment to work in. He found it at the HWK, as he relates here.

Archive selection: As Hannah Thomas, senior research manager at the charity Marie Curie, acknowledged in this interview in May last year, end-of-life care is an underfunded research field. For that reason, Marie Curie’s Research Grants scheme is particularly valuable to researchers in this area.

The scheme runs with a different focus each year, and for the 2024 competition Marie Curie is partnering with the Alzheimer’s Society. Call details will be published at the beginning of June, but the charities have already announced that up to £1 million will be available in total for successful bids.

Thomas discussed the importance that the charity puts on co-creation of bids and listed frequent missteps in previous rounds that potential applicants would do well to avoid.

Elsewhere on Research Professional News

Leadership quality: What will it take to get the top job at UKRI?—A glittering research career may no longer be enough to command UK Research and Innovation

‘Path forward conceivable’ for UK participation in Iter fusion facility—Discussions with international fusion energy project “ongoing” despite UK departure from EU nuclear programme

ESRC clarifies rules on making political comments—UK social sciences council chair confirms ERSC-funded researchers are under “no constraints”

British Heart Foundation awards £35m to nine universities—Funding will support collaborative research into diagnosis and prevention of cardiovascular disease

Germany says it cannot fund planned Cern particle accelerator—Europe’s nuclear research organisation urged to reconsider next accelerator by key contributor

If you have comments, feedback or suggestions for Funding Insight, or if there are other people in your institution who would like to receive this weekly email, please contact james.brooks@clarivate.com.

The post Aims and objectives, fellowships in Germany, Marie Curie Research Grants appeared first on Research Professional News.

Nailing a vital section of any grant application

Guidance for grant calls will often spread over several web pages and online documents, which may often reference yet more web pages and online documents. Application forms, meanwhile, may require costed, itemised breakdowns of everything that will be needed to undertake a project, requiring projection years into the future.

For those new to grant applications, it may seem overwhelming. And it can be helpful to distil requirements down to their essential components.

At the start of a recent webinar organised by the Worldwide Universities Network of 26 research universities, Taryn Bell, research development adviser at the University of Leeds, did this by focusing on three elements.

In her words, “Every research proposal must answer three questions: what do you want to investigate, why is this important, and how are you going to do it?”

The what, she continued, centres on developing robust aims and objectives; the why, on “how you can maximise the reach of your research”, and how relates to methods and planning ahead.

Bell said that after reading “dozens, if not hundreds, of funding applications” she came to the conclusion that “these are the things that researchers most often think they can do but get wrong”.

“They are the fundamentals to any research project,” she said, and would be the focus of the two-part webinar, with the first part focusing on the first question—what do you want to investigate?—and how to answer it in a proposal’s aims and objectives. The second part dealt with the other two questions and will be covered in Funding Insight next week.

Aims or objectives?

Well-written aims and objectives are essential to any competitive funding application, Bell stressed. They are often used by funders during initial checks that bids are in scope and will provide an immediate first impression of a bid. Poorly written aims and objectives risked inspiring a lack of confidence on the part of reviewers in the researcher’s ability to complete that project, she added.

Not understanding the difference between aims and objectives often led researchers astray, she warned.

The aim, Bell said, is the project’s “main goal or purpose” and should be communicated by a “concise general statement—and you generally only have one aim per project”. Objectives, Bell said, “are how you’ll achieve that aim; you focus on specific steps, [their description] consists of longer specific statements and you’ll generally have three to four per project”.

Refining the aim

Ideally, a project’s aim—its overall goal—should be no more than one sentence long and the touchstone phrase for those composing one is ‘keep it simple’, she said. “One of the most common misconceptions I see is people thinking they need to use complicated terms and jargon that is specific to their discipline to explain their ideas. This is particularly untrue for the aim.”

Readers of bids are often not specialist in the proposer’s niche subject, she related—in the case of patient and public members of panels, they may not be academics at all. “When it gets to the methods section, you absolutely need to go into [a specialist’s] level of detail,” Bell said, but that was never appropriate for the aim.

How could researchers achieve a high level of accessibility? In two ways, Bell said. First, it helped to have a particular reader in mind when drafting the aim: “Imagine you’re speaking to an undergraduate student, they’re not an expert in your area but they’re interested to learn more. How would you explain in one sentence what your overall goal was, avoiding scientific jargon as much as possible?”

Second, by asking around. “Go and speak to someone who is a non-expert and read them your aim. Ask them honestly, ‘Do you understand what it is I’m trying to do?’”

She said that getting down to the required level of clarity and simplicity may result in some of the apparent novelty of the proposal being lost, but applicants should accept that. “The rest of the proposal will allow you to back [the aim] up with evidence and bring that novelty out. The aim will always be quite generalised and simplified.”

Measurable objectives

Discussing objectives, Bell stressed the need for measurability, which she defined loosely as “whether you can tell at the end of the project if you’ve achieved them or not”. Precise figures did not necessarily have to be used (for example, the number of subjects in a study), she said, although they could be.

The language—particularly the verbs—used in objectives is crucial to their credibility, she stressed. She warned against using phrases like, ‘As part of this project I will consider…’ or ‘I will explore…’ “Those vague terms are not helpful because it’s very difficult for anyone to measure whether you’ve considered something or not, or whether you’ve explored it.”

Instead, Bell advised the use of “measurable action verbs” and offered a handful of examples: assess, calculate, compare, contrast, identify, verify. Such words “actually tell the reviewer how I’m going to do the research”, she said.

Bell said that using these kinds of verbs was often easier for researchers who rely on quantitative rather than qualitative methods, but that these measurable verbs were almost always preferable to vaguer terms. She offered a few verbs and phrases that might help qualitative researchers: “You can say that you’ll develop a framework, or you might talk about describing something, or explaining or demonstrating it. If you’re looking at different arguments, you might talk about critiquing or appraising; you might be interpreting.”

But reading the aims and objectives of other research proposals in your field was often the best way for early career researchers to get a feel for the kind of language that is appropriate. That went for those favouring both qualitative and quantitative, she stressed.

The post Targeting your aims and objectives appeared first on Research Professional News.

The Hanse-Wissenschaftskolleg supports researchers in a variety of situations—including political exiles

Top tips

• Even though yours may be a personal project, consider where collaboration would be beneficial.
• Reach out to academics in local universities and former fellows for advice.
• Remember to keep your application accessible to non-specialists in your field.

The Hanse-Wissenschaftskolleg (HWK), one of Germany’s Institutes for Advanced Study, is run as a not-for-profit foundation of the states of Bremen and Lower Saxony and the city of Delmenhorst in north-west Germany.

It has ties with universities in Bremen and Oldenburg and other scientific institutions in the north-west, and it focuses its activity on four research fields: brain and mind; earth; technology and science; and arts and literature.

HWK fellowships, which give scholars of any nationality the opportunity to study at the HWK for between 3 and 10 months, are its lifeblood. Regular Fellowships are offered to researchers with more than five years’ post-PhD experience, while Junior Fellowships are for those who completed their PhD within the past five years. Proposed projects must fit in with one of the HWK’s research fields.

All fellows are granted rent-free accommodation on the HWK campus, with provision for families also available but limited. Regular Fellowships are supported by a personal stipend of up to €5,000 a month, while the stipend for Junior Fellowships is up to €2,000 a month. Fellows can also apply for a one-off payment to cover personal travel costs, but funding of research expenditure is not provided.

Applications should be submitted between one and two years before the desired start date. The call for fellowships opens once a year: the 2024 round is open now, with a deadline of 15 July.

The fellowships are open to scholars in a variety of professional situations—including exiles. Andrei Yakovlev had to leave Russia when the country declared war on Ukraine. He needed not only financial support for his research but also a place to stay and a welcoming environment to work in. He has found it at the HWK, as he relates here. His fellowship runs until October.

Can you give a brief overview of your project? 

I am trying to understand how the degradation of Russian political and social institutions that led to the country’s declaration of war in 2022 could have happened. I would like to determine what actions internal and external actors could take to prevent similar developments in other countries. 

I focus on a political-economic analysis of the relationships between the main groups in the Russian elites and society over the past 30 years, as well as some of their interactions with external actors represented by international organisations, transnational companies and foreign governments. 

One of the goals of the project is to find out who and how—after the collapse of Putin’s regime—could build a Russian state that would be accountable to its citizens and capable of constructive cooperation with other countries. 

How did your personal situation play into your decision to apply for the fellowship?  

I left Russia after the war started and left my position at my home university in Moscow. I needed any kind of financial support. While I was a visiting scholar at the Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies at Harvard University, I’d started to think about a book on this topic to help understand a longer history of economic and political development in Russia.

The idea to apply for a fellowship was proposed to me by my German colleagues and friends, who I’ve had for many years. Although I thought about different opportunities, this fellowship was a great opportunity because it provided not only financial support for the project but also an apartment to live in and an overall very friendly environment. 

Are you collaborating with colleagues in Germany? 

Yes. While my project proposal for the HWK was about preparing a book based on my research, it’s not just about me but other colleagues as well. I have two partners on this project at the University of Bremen: Heiko Pleines from the research centre for eastern European studies and Michael Rochlitz from the department of economics. 

Both are colleagues and collaborators of long standing, and during my stay at the HWK I have also extended my local contacts to colleagues at Constructor University [a private university in Bremen]. 

What feedback did you get on your application and how did it alter the bid?

I actually got most of the feedback from my project partners, as the HWK did not provide formal feedback during the application process.

In particular, there was a comment about the structure and composition of my proposal. Initially, I tried to provide more specific details about Russian cases. But I was told that there was not enough general information about the economic and political development in Russia for readers who have not specialised in Russian studies. So they recommended I formulate some specific points shortly and clearly, while adding links to theories in a broader spectrum of literature. This was very useful. 

What advice would you give to potential applicants? 

It’s important to have counterparts in local universities or local research institutions who are interested in your research and in collaborating with you. In this case, you can expect more detailed feedback on your project. At the application stage, you will only get responses on technical questions about timing and formal conditions. It’s your partners who can really help you improve your proposal. 

I didn’t do this, but I would still advise contacting previous HWK fellows in your field. The HWK supports a very broad spectrum of research; there are only a few people in the social sciences but there are still scholars you can find online who you may be able to contact.

How has the fellowship been so far? 

The HWK is a very good place to do research. I’ve been in many different places in my long academic career. I would stress that this is a very friendly environment, which you need when you’re moving to a new place and a new country. 

Through the scholarship, I was given a nice, fully furnished apartment. It is excellent in terms of administrative support to manage all necessary formalities such as getting a bank account in the country. Compared with the US, where it took me four to six weeks to rent an apartment, find the furniture for it and obtain a social security number, it took me only two or three days here. Here, you have more time for your project.

The post My winning proposal: Finding a new home for research appeared first on Research Professional News.