How to write an ARC application

Assoc. Prof. Lesley Hughes Dept of Biological Sciences

Getting started

    Start early Read guidelines and funding rules carefully Get a mentor/s Read some successful applications

National Research Priorities

    An Environmentally Sustainable Australia; Promoting and Maintaining Good Health; Frontier Technologies for Building and Transforming Australian Industries Safeguarding Australia  Each NRP has a subset of 4-7 Priority Goals

Your audience

 Grants read – by panel member/s in the College of Experts (100+ proposals each) – 2 Oz readers (12-20 proposals each) – Up to 4 “international experts” (may be Australian or from overseas, one to a few proposals each) College of experts will be the most influential

College of Experts

      Biological Sciences and Biotechnology Engineering and Environmental Sciences Humanities and Creative Arts Mathematics, Information and Communication Sciences Physics, Chemistry and Geoscience Social, Behavioural and Economic Sciences

Who will assess your grant is determined by:

    Key words Title Project summary RFCD codes Select/write these carefully to guide your proposal toward those most appreciative

Discovery

 Investigator/s 40%  Project 60% – Significance & innovation 30% – Approach 20% – National Benefit 10%

Linkage

 Investigator/s 20%  Project 80% – Significance & innovation 25% – Approach & training 20% – National benefit 10% – Commitment from partner organisation 25%

Discovery project objectives:

     support excellent fundamental research enhance the scale and focus of research in the National Research Priorities expand Australia’s knowledge base and research capability foster the international competitiveness of Australian research encourage research training in high-quality research environments.

  

Discovery projects will support:

pure basic research undertaken to acquire new knowledge strategic basic research undertaken to provides the broad base of knowledge necessary to solve recognised practical problems; and applied research undertaken with a specific application in view

Discovery projects will

not

support:

      clinical medical and dental research activities leading solely to the creation or performance of a work of art scholarly investigations that do not lead to conceptual advances or discoveries production of teaching materials alone compilation of data alone development of research aids and tools alone

Part E: The proposal

General:  Remember that most/all of the assessors will not be specialists in the subject area   Proposal MUST be readable and clear Proposal must grab the readers attention and convince them that you and your project is special

Make the assessors task EASY

  Make sure they get a clear answer to each of these questions within 10 minutes: – What am I going to do? (AIMS) – Why am I going to do it? (SIGNIFICANCE) – How is my idea novel? (INNOVATION) – How am I going to do it? (METHODS) Follow instructions about section headings

exactly

Try an upfront summary

    This research will…..

The team are…..

We will use…..

The benefits/outcomes will be…

E2 Aims

  The project aim(s) – A very clear statement of the overall aim should appear within the first paragraph – An aim must be outcome focused; if the aim is achieved, how is the field advanced?

Don’t say your aim is “to investigate xxx…”!

– It doesn’t give any outcome

E2 Background (literature)

      Not formally assessed (in % points) but… Very important to set the scene and to convince the reader that it’s important Need a comprehensive but concise review of all relevant previous work in the field Expert assessors will want to be sure you are up to date in the discipline Only refer to papers that are easily accessible (minimise grey literature) Include reference to work of CIs

E3 Significance & Innovation (30%)

 Imagine you are being interviewed by a journalist – “What is new about this research, Dr. Smith?” (innovation) – “Why is your research important, Dr Smith?” (significance)

E3 Significance & innovation (30%)

Official questions  Does the research address an important problem?

 Will the anticipated outcomes advance the knowledge base of the discipline?

 Is the research principally focussed upon a topic or outcome that falls within one of the National Research Priorities and associated Priority Goals  Are the Proposal’s aims and concepts novel and innovative?

 Will new methods or technologies be developed?

Single most important thing

The

WOW

factor    What is the problem?

Why is it important How are you going to solve it?

Significance could be due to:  Importance of problem  Novel combination of people, skills, methods Can’t be just more of the same, however worthy

E4 Approach & Methodology (20%)

Official questions:  Are the conceptual framework, design, methods and analyses adequately developed, well integrated and appropriate to the aims of the Proposal?

 How appropriate is the proposed budget? (new question)

E4 Approach & Methodology (cont)

   Sufficiently detailed to show experts you know what you are doing and precisely how you will do it Include preliminary data (but have to avoid impression that project already almost complete You can be technical (e.g. use equations)

E4 Approach & Methodology (cont)

   Use figures and diagrams to simplify explanations where possible Give a clear strategy for achieving each major aim: break down into sub tasks giving dependencies Give clear time line for the project. Give reasonable estimates of how much time is required for each sub task

E4 Approach & Methodology (cont)

   Address potential weaknesses/risks and have a considered strategy to deal with them (Plan B?) If compromises must be made (eg. between sample size & no.) give reasons why your choice is the best one BUT: try not to give reviewers doubts that they wouldn’t have thought of themselves

E5 National benefit (10%)

Official questions  What is the potential of the research project to result in economic and/or social benefits for Australia from the expected results and outcomes of the project?

 What is the potential for the research to contribute to the National Research Priorities?

Easier for some projects than others

Other sections

E6 Communication of results    Remarkably similar across grants (conferences, peer-reviewed publications, workshops etc) Try to be as specific as possible e.g. name potential conferences Especially important for Linkage grants as it adds weight to case for value to partner

Other sections (cont)

E7 Role of Personnel   Make clear what each participant will do, including students Don’t forget potential participants other than the CIs & PIs (e.g. advisors amongst your colleagues

Budget

 Assessors now specifically asked to comment as to appropriateness of the budget  Don’t be greedy  BUT: an overly frugal plan and budget will diminish the apparent importance of your proposal  Justification is crucial especially level of proposed appointments and travel

Commitment of Partner Organisation (25% Linkage only)

    More the better, demonstrates how important the project is to the partner Make clear how partner will be involved Involvement must be specific to project Need to convince assessors of value to the partner and potential for long-term collaboration

Some more general points

 Proposal must be written with as much rigour and care as a scientific paper for a top journal  The average ARC Oz Reader has to write 60 to 100 separate paragraphs of feedback  Try to help the assessors as much as possible – Layout: Use dot points, sub-headings, boxes and adequate spaces to make the proposal physically easy (& enjoyable) to read – Language: avoid jargon, keep it clear and simple

Common mistakes/reasons for lack of success

    Project fails to grab reader’s attention (lacks clarity, originality, excitement) Project not nationally or internationally competitive Project emphasises data collection rather than innovative approaches to address important problems Scope is too broad or too narrow, under or oversells ideas or people

Common mistakes/reasons for lack of success

     3 pages of background (0%) then only half a page of significance and innovation (30%) Aims, outcomes, significance and innovation not clearly identified or lack specificity Approach lacks detail Aims & approach mismatched Apparent carelessness – spelling, formatting, difficult to read, repetitive, references out of date or inaccurate

Some final thoughts

It’s a lottery

If you miss out:

Ask yourself:   Is this research really exciting?

Is my track record the problem?

Then:  and non-experts)  Get some honest feedback (from experts Address weaknesses  Try again

Further hints & resources

  Research.curtin.edu.au/grants/application.html

www.uq.edu.au/research/orps/downloads/slides/pe rsuasive05-drinkwater.ppt