Transcript Slide 1

Applying for competitive funding
Assessment of Applications
Facilitator
Debbie Thackray PhD
Research Development Officer
Experience and Insights:
Prof. Dongke Zhang FTSE, Director, Centre for Petroleum, Fuels and Energy, UWA
Dr Tim Sercombe, Senior Lecturer, School of Mechanical Engineering
Prof. Greg Ivey, Professor, School of Environmental Systems Engineering
http://www.ecm.uwa.edu.au/staffnet/committees/research/best_practice
Outline:
Debbie Thackray: 2010 changes; Who assesses applications and how
(10 mins)
Dongke Zhang:
Recipes for losing an ARC grant application
(15 mins)
Tim Sercombe:
Tips to establishing a track record
(15 mins)
Prof. Greg Ivey:
How to win friends and influence people (in the ARC process) (15 mins)
Debbie Thackray: Summary; Support
Questions as we go.
(5 mins)
ARC Discovery: Understand the scheme
http://www.arc.gov.au/about_arc/arc_profile.htm
Main changes 2010:
•Funds for PI to travel to Australia – 1 trip/year
•International collaboration awards – 1-6 months, up to $40k
•Funds for workshop services allowable
•CI eligibility – 50% of time (not salary) with eligible organisation
- non-resident employee of eligible organisation may be a PI
READ THE GUIDELINES AND FUNDING RULES
MAKE ELIGIBILTY REQUESTS WHERE UNSURE
Applications to Research Grants Office at latest 10 working days before close:
* Ensures that good quality, accurate, complete, eligible applications submitted
* Certification – gold forms etc. Ensures support is there.
ARC Discovery: Who assesses applications?
ARC / computer assign Panels and Oz readers usually on RFCD codes
College of Experts (Panel): (may have only a general understanding of field)
- Engineering and Environmental Science (EE)
- Mathematics, Information and Communication Sciences (MIC)
Panel assigns international assessors, based on keywords and project summary.
External assessors:
- 2 Oz Readers: Australian based readers, scores and text (expert / semi-expert)
- 2 Int Readers: internationally recognized experts, scores and text (expert)
ARC provides assessment reports to applicants.
Applicants submit rejoinders.
Final Assessment:
2 panel spokespersons: EAC1 and EAC2 provide final scores
Applications ranked based on all assessors rankings. Can be modified by College
based on rejoinders. Budgets scrutinised, best projects get closest to requested $.
Meet the panel: Engineering and Environmental Science
http://www.arc.gov.au/about_arc/CoE_EE.htm
Particles/
Nano
Professor Rose Amal
(Chair) The University of
New South Wales
Materials
engineering
Professor Graham Schaffer
The University of Queensland
Fibre
Science/
Nanotech
Professor Xungai Wang
Deakin University
Electromaterials
Professor Maria Forsyth
Monash University
Bio materials
Professor Robert Short
University of South Australia
Carbon &
Nutrient
cycling
Professor Zhihong Xu
Griffith University
Fluid
mechanics
Professor Ivan Marusic
The University of
Melbourne
Geotechnical
engineering
Professor Scott Sloan
The University of Newcastle
Water
quality
Dr Eric Wolanski
Australian Institute of
Marine Sciences
Process
optimisation
Professor Steven Grant
Re-locating from UK
Structural
stability
Professor Brian Uy
University of Western Sydney
Combustion
& Energy
Professor Dongke Zhang
University of Western Australia
Meet the panel: Mathematics, Information and
Communication Sciences
http://www.arc.gov.au/about_arc/CoE_MIC.htm
Electronic
warfare
Dr Len Sciacca (Chair)
Defence Science and
Technology Organisation
Network
systems
Professor David Hill
The Australian National
University
Computer
vision
Professor David Suter
University of Adelaide
String, Index
& Quantum
field theories
Professor Alan Carey
The Australian
National University
Statistical
computation
Professor Geoffrey
McLachlan
The University of
Queensland
System
design
Mr Glenn Wightwick
IBM Australia
Microelectronics
Professor Lorenzo
Faraone
The University of
Western Australia
Signal
processing
Professor Bill Moran
The University of
Melbourne
Modeling
decision
making
Professor Mary-Anne Williams
University of Technology,
Sydney
Equilibrium
statistical
mechanics
Professor Tony Guttmann
The University of Melbourne
Systems/
signal
processing
Professor Victor Solo
The University of New
South Wales
Information
systems
Professor Yanchun Zhang
Victoria University
ARC Discovery: Get in the “right box”
•Find out which panel similar applications have gone to.
•Chose RFCD codes and keywords carefully – to try to direct to desired panel
•Don’t use novel or unusual words that the non-expert panel will not recognise. Who
do you want to assess it, what keywords would they use to describe their research?
•Look at successful applications and write in the “style” for that panel
•Write application Summaries for non-experts (Panel)
•Write Background and Approach for semi-experts and experts (Oz and Int readers)
•Make it easy on the reader – they may have 100 applications to read. Each section
should stand alone and have an introductory sentence or “flag”. Break up text.
ARC Discovery: Selection Criteria
Investigator/s track record - 40% (LP = 20%; Industry commitment = 25%)
Relative to opportunities and/or suitability to supervise postgraduate students (as
appropriate) and capacity to undertake the proposed research.
Proposed project content – 60%
Significance and innovation - 30% (LP = 25%)
Approach and Training (including appropriateness of budget) - 20% (LP = 20%)
National Benefit - 10%
(LP = 10%)
Prof. Dongke Zhang FTSE (EE Panel)
Recipes for losing an ARC grant application!
Dr Tim Sercombe
Tips to establishing a track record
Prof. Greg Ivey
How to win friends and influence people!
(in the ARC process)
Make it easy on the reviewer
• Use line breaks, italics, figures to break up text.
• Spend lots of time polishing your summary = instant understanding for the
public / media. “Wow” the reviewer and make them really want to know more!
• Reviewers may do their reading in bits-and-pieces – organise your application
so that it can be read in this way. They may only revisit some sections.
• State your key message at the beginning of each section, and keep reminding
them of why and what you are going to do and how excited you are about it!
• Show a strong link between aims and approach – same headings are best.
• Avoid abbreviations, acronyms and jargon. Explain terminology.
• Read the application aloud to spot long worded text and unclear areas.
• Make sure that your application is free from errors.
Summary: Give EVERY section your time
• Get feedback on your track record and your proposal early on – 2 pager.
• A good project is paramount, but don’t spend 95% of your time on the description.
• Show clearly, up-front and throughout how significant, innovative and exciting the
research is! Grab the reader’s attention from the first page onwards.
• Spend enough time on the CIs profiles (especially for Discovery), use similar
layout, pull out the “wow” factor for each early on, show team links, etc.
• Explain National Benefit – list outcomes, name beneficiaries, etc.
• Spend adequate time on budget justification – only a few proposals get all.
Mention budget items throughout – show how used.
• Address communication thoughtfully and not only “will publish in high quality
journals”. Especially important for Linkage and Collaborative projects:
• Get lots of feedback on EVERY section. Submit to Grants Office early.
Support
• Workshops: RDOs, Research Exec, OSDS, FECM, visiting funding bodies, etc.
• FECM contact and Mentoring: Associate Dean Research Rachel Cardell-Oliver
[email protected] Ph: 6488 2231
• FECM Staffnet and Research pages: Research Committee (in-progress), mentoring,
funding, Strategic plan, priorities, presentations, etc.
• Research Development Office:
Debbie Thackray: [email protected]
Judy Berman:
[email protected]
FECM RDO: watch this space
Ph: 6488 4765
Ph: 6488 8033
• Research Services: Grants and Finance Office, Integrity and Ethics, Graduate
Research School, Scholarships Office, etc.
•The people around you.
Additional Suggestions:
Sections: 100 word Summary
•A good summary/abstract captures and illustrates the entire research picture
without leaving the reader puzzled or confused.
•Start with a strong sentence which explains the problem for which this research
is a response.
•Review panel members often study the application (and prepare written
reports, if required) weeks or months before the meetings. They then quickly
review all the abstracts just before the meetings in order to recall the essentials.
•Assume that you are writing for a reviewer in a somewhat related field, rather
than for an expert in your area.
Sections: Summary
Acknowledgements to Mark Cassidy, Mark Randolph, Yuxia Hu
Sections: Track Record (40%)
• Get feedback on how strong you are from successful CIs.
• Applications with 2 CIs less likely to be funded: Must show genuine commitment (>
5%). Not because CI has 1 DP already, or CI’s track record boosting application.
• Collaboration with CIs in WA and east beneficial, but must show team cohesion.
• Overseas partners becoming more and more important.
• Be sure to write with respect to opportunities, and claim ECR status if you can.
• Write in 1st person. Use consistent layout for all CIs – shows cohesion!
• Show the reader clear evidence of your strengths and international profile.
• Use Impact Factors and Citations and draw attention to these.
• Discuss with research grants office, research development officers and mentorreaders how to optimize your track record and how to best present it.
Sections: Track Record example
•See Tim Sercombe’s examples
Sections: Background and Aims
•This section should answer 3 questions: what is known, what is not known, and
why is it essential to find out.
•Critically evaluate the relevant literature and state your contributions.
•Discuss fairly all sides of a controversy or disagreement.
•Don’t leave out your competitors’ work!
•Identify specifically the gaps and contradictions that you will clarify.
•Clearly list / dot point your aims and use same headings in Approach.
Ie. Use flags to guide your readers.
•Use line breaks between paragraphs, headings, italics, figures (not greyscale).
•Balance between innovation and your likelihood of success.
Sections: Background and Aims EG.
See Tim Sercombe’s and Greg Ivey’s examples and listen to Lectopia session.
Sections: Significance and Innovation
•Don’t just say it, explain it.
•Remember you are writing for non-expert, semi-expert and experts.
•Talk about outcomes as well as the research.
•Relate to other research in the area.
•Relate to national research priorities.
•Use title headings: “Significance” and “Innovation” to make it easy for the reader.
Sections: Significance and Innovation
See Tim Sercombe’s examples
Sections: National Benefit
•Mention in Summary, discuss in Introduction/background, Significance and
National Benefit sections.
•Show outcomes from project and then EXPLAIN how project outcomes are of
national benefit.
•Link clearly to National Priority areas and explain why. You can talk about more
than one area if there is a tangible link.
•Don’t make exaggerated statements.
Sections: National Benefit
See Tim Sercombe’s examples
Don’t forget to include research training aspects, both PhDs and Post-Docs.
From part of National Benefit section of ARC Linkage project of Mark Cassidy, Mark
Randolph, Yuxia Hu
Sections: Communication
• Conferences: you’ll be informing the best in the world. You and your post-docs.
• Publications: high impact journals/ best read in field.
• Seminars: International, eastern states, local (established series), to partners.
• Media releases: through UWA Public Relations/ Faculty Marketing; national
distribution.
• Articles: UWA News, Faculty newsletters, Engineering Foundation, National
association news.
• Project Description and Progress summaries on website.
• Think outside the box.
Sections: Communication eg.
Acknowledgements to Mark Cassidy, Mark Randolph, Yuxia Hu
Sections: Budget
C1 Budget Details
Set realistic budgets – driven by the science
Teaching relief not recommended.
C2 Justification of funding from the ARC
Fully justify why you are requesting these funds. How would your research be
affected if you did not have what you are requesting funding for?
For personnel simply state why you are requesting a person at that level.
Section E7 is for explaining what they will do.
Equipment request should be realistic (<$120K) and should tie in with methods
and the experiment timeline.
Sections: Budget eg. from Arcady Dyskin
Personnel
The support is sought for 3 years (2005-2007) for salaries of Research Associate (level A)
and Technician (level 4) plus 30.95% on-cost (total for 2005 is $118,098; with the further
standard increase for each following year, see tables in C1)
The project has experimental and theoretical components. A very large amount of tests
including sample design as well as computer modelling require a qualified Research
Associate (RA) His/her specific skills should also include the basic knowledge of mechanics
of solids. A suitable candidate should have a PhD in Solid Mechanics or any closely related
discipline. Funding for the RA is sought for full-time for the duration of the project.
For the experimental programme an experienced Technician is required to manufacture the
samples, support experiments and maintain equipment. Funding for the Technician is sought
for full-time for the duration of the project.
Sections: Budget eg. from Arcady Dyskin
Equipment
The experimental programme consists of testing of structures from rectangular
blocks and hexagonal structures. The confining frame with controllable lateral load
is available at the School. Funding is thought from the ARC for manufacturing of a
loading frame for hexagonal assemblies. ($4,250). It is assumed that the School will
provide a PC system for the RA as well as software upgrades.
Maintenance
Sum of $1000 per year is requested for materials for block manufacturing and other
disposable materials and $1000 per year is requested for disposable strain gauges.
Travel
A sum of $3,000 is required for CI2 to attend the annual AGU meeting in the USA in
2007 to present the results of the research to the Geophysics community.
Other
No other support is sought.
Sections: Budget eg. from Cassidy et al.
Sections: Budget eg. from Cassidy et al.
Generic features of well ranked application
•Use language that presents technical matters in a balanced and accessible way
•Present hypotheses and/or controversies and explain how they will be solved
•Explain how/why the area demands funding now
•Show how Australian work fits into the international picture
•Back up compelling claims of excellence and innovation with evidence and others‘
judgments
•Propose daring, ambitious goals but also propose prudent, responsible modes of
attack
•Link to large international research networks/activities
•Present excellent progress reports on previous grants
•Advance compelling arguments in relation to National Interest
Generic features of poorly ranked application
•Use dense intractable technical jargon without accompanying “accessible” text
•Make grandiose and implausible claims about outcomes
•Don't support claims of excellence or past progress with evidence
•Are weakly linked into national and international research networks
•Emphasize the collection of data rather than the solution to important problems or
controversies
•Set a persistent negative or depressive tone about the state of the subject in
Australia
•Show evidence of being hastily prepared