Claire Smith Humanities and Creative Arts Panel ( )

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
UNSW Strategic Educational Development Grants
Advertisements

The University of Queensland November 2014 Professor Marian Simms Executive Director, Social, Behavioural and Economic Sciences (SBE) Funding Prospects.
Denise Meredyth Executive Director, Humanities and Creative Arts HCA, partnerships and the public interest Research platforms 12 October 2014 ACHRC.
Research Administrators Seminar NCGP update Dr Laura Dan Chief Program Officer 25 November 2013.
CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B ARC DISCOVERY, 2016 BUDGET OVERVIEW (DP & IN) ROSE FIRKIN –EXECUTIVE OFFICER, GRANTS DEAKIN RESEARCH.
ARC Applications: What Matters Peter Fairbrother, Social, Behavioural and Economic Panel, College of Experts (ARC) and Centre for Sustainable Organisations.
ARC Rejoinders Michael Reeder School of Mathematical Sciences and ARC Physics, Chemistry & Geosciences Panel.
Professor Alan Johnson Executive Director, Biological Sciences and Biotechnology Australian Research Council Bilateral Cooperation Opportunities.
Professor Elizabeth Kendall Chair Social & Behavioural Sciences Panel ARC College of Experts Success in the ARC Linkage Scheme.
Professor Marian Simms ARC Executive Director Presentation to University of Canberra Policy Roundtable 9 February 2015.
Denise Meredyth Executive Director, Humanities and Creative Arts Australian Research Council ARC funding and HCA University of Melbourne 10 October 2014.
ARC Medical Research Policy The Psychology Foundation of Australia 20 February 2015 Professor Marian Simms ARC Executive Director.
CRICOS #00212K 1 University of Canberra ARC Tips and Tricks Professor Andrew Cheetham PVC – Research & Information Management University of Canberra Professor.
ARC Discovery Projects Grants Flight DP08 from Monash to ARC Dr Kathy Avent Research Coordinator Monash University Research Office 14.
1 New Staff Grants and Returning from Parental Leave Grants: An Overview.
CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B ARC DISCOVERY, 2016 SCHEME INFORMATION & MAJOR CHANGES ROSE FIRKIN – EXECUTIVE OFFICER, GRANTS DEAKIN RESEARCH.
Professor Marian Simms ARC Executive Director Presentation to UQ Political Science and International Relations November 2014.
3 December 2014 Jane Graham, Director, Program Operations (Linkage) Sam Grunhard, Director, Program Operations (Discovery) Managing ARC Proposals.
ARC Special Research Initiative for a Science of Learning Research Centre 24 April 2015 Professor Marian Simms Executive Director, SBE, ARC.
Getting Funded: How to write a good grant
NSERC has an overview of the discovery grant program on their website:
How to Improve your Grant Proposal Assessment, revisions, etc. Thomas S. Buchanan.
How the ARC funds good research 8 July 2015 Professor Aidan Byrne CEO, Australian Research Council.
Grants Factory GRANTS FACTORY WRITING GROUPS Essential Elements of a Good Grant Application Mick Tuite School of Biosciences
PLANNING YOUR RESEARCH CAREER CULTURAL RESEARCH NETWORK ECR WORKSHOP University of South Australia June 2006 Vera Mackie, University of Melbourne.
CRICOS #00212K Discovery Projects Info Session 28 October 2014 Funding Rules Selection Criteria Common pitfalls Process of application Compliance requirements.
ARC Overview Water Services Association meeting 14 July 2015 Dr Fiona Cameron Executive Director, Biological Sciences.
Grant Writing Strategies for Doctoral Students Scott M. Lanyon Professor and Head, Dept. of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior College of Biological Sciences.
ARC Presentation to Federation University 17 April 2015 Professor Marian Simms ARC Executive Director.
Rejoinders for ARC DP Assessment Reports: Your last chance for influencing the CoE members Zhihong Xu Griffith University.
School of Mechanical Engineering Seminar Friday, 12 December 2008 Recipes for losing an ARC grant application! Dongke Zhang, FTSE.
The Australian Research Landscape Dr Fiona Cameron Australian Research Council.
Understanding ARC Future Fellowships ANU College of Medicine, Biology and the Environment and ANU College of Physical Sciences 20 th October
ARC Presentation to University of Newcastle 16 July 2015 Professor Marian Simms ARC Executive Director.
Presentation to Business and Law Research Forum University of Newcastle 17 July 2015 Professor Marian Simms ARC Executive Director.
The ARC — overview and opportunities (Japan) 19 October 2015 Presented by Mr Justin Withers Director, Policy and Integrity The Australian Research Council.
Professor Marian Simms Executive Director, Australian Research Council ARMS SEMINAR 19 November, 2012 National Competitive Grants Program.
OCTOBER 18, 2011 SESSION 9 OF AAPLS – SELECTED SUPPORTING COMPONENTS OF SF424 (R&R) APPLICATION APPLICANTS & ADMINISTRATORS PREAWARD LUNCHEON SERIES Module.
Research Funding: UOW & External Grants Claire Carter Research Grants Manager Research Services Office.
The Australian Research Landscape The University of Sydney—Business School 28 January 2016 Presented by Professor Marian Simms ARC Executive Director.
The Australian Research Landscape RMIT University 18 January 2016 Presented by Professor Marian Simms ARC Executive Director.
ARC Scheme Updates for 2016–17 RMIT University 4 November 2015 Professor Marian Simms ARC Executive Director.
The Australian Research Landscape Presentation for ECRs at the AARE Society Conference, Crawford School, Canberra 31 January 2016 Presented by Professor.
ARC presentation to RUN meeting 10 March 2015 Presented By Prof Marian Simms, with Prof Denise Meredith, Sam Grunhard and Alex Hodgson.
ARC Updates and education research AARE annual conference Fremantle WA 2 December 2015 Presented by Professor Marian Simms ARC Executive Director.
2012 Discovery Projects Leah Mount Monique O’Callaghan 31 st January 2011.
The Australian Research Landscape Deakin University 1 February 2016 Presented by Professor Marian Simms ARC Executive Director.
ARC Scheme Updates for 2016–17 University of Canberra 24 November 2015 Professor Marian Simms ARC Executive Director.
Presentation to Annual Conference of ANZAM 25 June 2015 Professor Marian Simms ARC Executive Director.
The Australian Research Landscape The University of Melbourne 9 December 2015 Presented by Professor Marian Simms ARC Executive Director.
Revising Your Paper Paul Lewis With thanks to Mark Weal.
Strategies to Address Research Opportunity and Performance Evidence (ROPE)/Track Record: ARC Discovery Projects Weighting of Selection Criteria to Obtain.
Dr Gayle Morris – Director Research Services
How Research Environment Matters
How to improve ARC-linkage success: What college members look for
ARC DISCOVERY PROJECTS 2017
How to improve ARC-Discovery success: What college members look for
HOW TO IMPROVE ARC GRANT SUCCESS
HOW TO IMPROVE ARC GRANT SUCCESS
ARC Workshop 10 am DECRA and Discovery Projects: tips for writing successful proposals Professor Claire Smith, ARC College of Experts member 11 am Morning.
What makes an ARC Linkage Project fundable?
ARC – The Rejoinder Process
How to improve ARC-linkage success: What college members look for
MSc in Social Research Methods
FUNDING RULES AND APPLICATION SUPPORT
Future Fellowships: perspective from a SAC member
The NSF Grant Review Process: Some Practical Tips
Rick McGee, PhD and Bill Lowe, MD Faculty Affairs and NUCATS
Grant writing Session II.
K R Investigator Research Question
Presentation transcript:

Claire Smith Humanities and Creative Arts Panel (2009-2011) ARC Discovery and DECRA Schemes From an Assessor's Perspective 30th January, 2012 Claire Smith Humanities and Creative Arts Panel (2009-2011)

Who are the Assessors?

ARC College of Experts 79 MEMBERS 5 PANELS Biological Sciences and Biotechnology (BSB) Engineering, Mathematics and Informatics (EMI) Humanities and Creative Arts (HCA) Physics, Chemistry and Earth Sciences (PCE) Social, Behavioural and Economic Sciences (SBE)

BSB PANEL 2009 13 MEMBERS Biochemistry Biotechnology Molecular Biology Protein structure Immunology Microbiology Plant biochemistry Nutrition Embryology Evolutionary genomics Plant physiology Animal behaviour Ecology Three year cycles

Assessment Process

Assigning Applications to Panels and EAC Members Automatically assigned to a Panel using Research Fields Courses and Discipline Classification codes. Checked by Executive Director (ED). ED assesses Summary and allocates applications to EAC1 and EAC2. EAC1 has primary responsibility.

Assigning Readers Extensive databases for OZ and INT readers searched. EAC1 assign two OZ readers. EAC1, with help from EAC2, nominates two INT readers. All DP assessors finalised in April.

EAC Member Role Over 500 applications for each Panel. 50-150 applications for each EAC member. EAC1 and EAC2 scores each application (these scores are not provided to the applicant). No involvement, whatsoever, with applications from Flinders University.

CoE Assessment Steps CoE assess proposals to determine preliminary and provisional scoring and ranking. CoE revise scores with access to reviewers’ scores. Finalise scores with access to Rejoinders.

Ranking Proposals Scores from EAC1 and EAC2. Scores, Rankings and Reports from Readers. Rejoinders from applicants. Each application given score based on Weighted Average Percent Rank. EAC1 adjusts calculated score as necessary, in consultation with EAC2.

Ranking System A ranking system is used to combine CoE and reviewer assessments submitted for each proposal. This provides a single value for each proposal. These single values are ranked within each selection panel—proposals are assessed and ranked in order of merit.

Ranking of Proposals To determine the final ranked list, the selection panel considers and discusses proposals — particularly those around the funding margin. Selection panel members may revise the ranking of a proposal in response to a number of factors including: Assessor reports. Persuasive rejoinder arguments. Panel discussions comparing the relative merits of proposals against the selection criteria.

August Meeting Scores submitted by EAC1 used as initial ranking of all applications. Panel debates each application, and scores (rankings) can be changed. Final ranking used for budget allocation. Consensus on scores for Fellowships. Quotas applied to ECR applications.

Budget

Facts Range $30K to $500K per annum. What’s allowable given in guidelines. Panels view teaching relief differently. Maximum of $50,000 for duration of project for travel. ARC will not fund standard computers. ARC will remove all salary increments. Budget justification is closely scrutinised!

Assignment of Budgets Once a selection panel has determined the final ranked list, funding recommendations are determined for all proposals in the fundable range. Selection panel members consider in detail each proposal budget request and recommend an appropriate level of funding. Selection panel members may recommend less than requested funding in cases where the proposal budget is considered to be inflated, is inadequately justified or includes items that are prohibited. Each scheme’s funding rules set out what type of funding may be requested and any budget item restrictions.

Budget: Do Provide costing evidence for all major items. Quantify requirements. Relate budget items to timing and aims. Highlight institutional support. Provide alternative budget for Fellowship applications (e.g. Research Associate or teaching relief).

Budget: Don’ts Double dip. Over-price items, especially those with generally known costs. Artificially expand Budget items – each one needs justification. Claim for excessive numbers of personnel. Ask for excessive travel support.

Using Budget to Write Application How much can you ask for? What do you want? What will it be used for? What will personnel do? When will it be used? Make it logical: Work within known bounds

High-Ranked Applications

High-Ranked Applications Aimed at specialist and non-specialist assessors. Present hypotheses/controversies and explain how the research will resolve them. Ambitious goals and plausible but innovative approaches - argues the case high, but not so high it is unbelievable. Compelling argument for why the topic demands funding now. Places the research challenge in both national and international contexts. Believable case in relation to national benefit.

High-Ranked Applications Show how the research builds on the work of previous researchers - does not denigrate or minimize the contributions of other researchers. Strong Chief Investigator track records. Chief Investigators are well-placed in strong national and international research networks. Research teams have the right combination of expertise to address the research challenge. Includes Early Career Researcher Mentoring and postgraduate supervision.

High-Ranked Applications Clearly indicate the logical structure of project. Explain how methods relate to project aims. Explain how hypotheses will be tested. Outline what partner organisation facilities will be used. Divide with subheadings: relate to your specific hypotheses. Cover contingencies: try to predict and address reviewers comments.

High-Ranked Applications Well-written, easy to understand, interesting. Balance technical detail (for specialist assessors) with accessibility (for non-specialist assessors). Link research staff and students to work to be done - explain why these people are essential to the success of the project. Link budget to timing. Strong rejoinder - demonstrates how the project has progressed since submission of the application (publications, agreements); is considered in its tone (addresses assessor criticisms strongly but not aggressively).

Low-Ranked Applications

Low-Ranked Applications Emphasis on data collection and/or contracted research. Doesn’t highlight significance and/or context of the research topic. Has no focusing questions or research hypothesis. Doesn’t address the timeliness of the application. Why should this be funded now? What’s changed? Too much technical jargon for non-specialist assessors to fully appreciate - clouds the case for a compelling research program.

Low-Ranked Applications Cover too many aspects in insufficient detail (weakest link). Inflated and implausible claims about expected outcomes. Unsupported claims of excellence or progress (poor progress reports). Inappropriate or weak Chief Investigators. Lack of reference to other researchers. Weak links to national and international research networks.

Low-Ranked Applications Negative tone about the state of the research area in Australia. Over inflated budget. Poorly written and edited (spelling, grammar, incoherent passages, inappropriate cut and paste). Unclear diagrams, photos, maps, etc. Weak rejoinder.

Low-Ranked Applications Avoid: “Cutting Edge Research” = “only 20 other Australian Universities doing it”. “State of the Art Facilities” = “installed sometime in the last 15 years”. “We are unaware of any study where this procedure has been attempted before” = “We haven’t really checked but probably no-one else has done it on a south facing laboratory bench.” BE SPECIFIC IN YOUR CLAIMS OF RESEARCH LEADERSHIP

Additional Points

Progress Reports Limit each progress report on current ARC grants to one page (including title, ARC details, names of CIs). Reports can be important in supporting the grant proposal and in strengthening track record. Uninformative progress reports reflect badly on applicants and application. List all publications and conference papers emanating from these projects-in-progress.

Rejoinders Briefly reiterate any favorable comments. Address all major comments and criticisms. Point out inconsistencies between reports. Correct erroneous track record comments. Update Track and publication records. Provide any relevant new research results.

DECRA Scheme Objectives Support and advance promising early career researchers. Promote enhanced opportunities for diverse career pathways. Focus research effort in the National Research Priority areas to improve research capacity and policy outcomes. Enable research and research training in high quality and supportive environments.

DECRAs Up to 200 DECRAs are available each year (almost double). Proposals are ranked in order of merit, based on peer review assessment. Publications are an important part of track record. Project quality (50%), candidate (30%), research environment (10%), feasibility and benefit (10%). Success rate in 2011 around 12%.

DECRA’s: Project Quality Project quality is assessed in terms of: Does the research address a significant problem? Is the conceptual/theoretical framework innovative? Will the project advance knowledge? Are the project design and methods appropriate? Does the project provide economic, environment or cultural/social benefit to Australia? National Research Priorities.

DECRA’s: Candidate Project candidate is assessed in terms of: Research opportunity and performance evidence (ROPE). Capacity to undertake the research.

DECRA’s: Institutional Support Institutional support is assessed in terms of: A developing, supportive and high quality research environment. Availability of facilities. Are there adequate strategies to encourage the dissemination, commercialisation, where appropriate, and promotion of research outcomes.

Request not to Assess Applicants may provide written notification to the ARC naming any person or persons whom they do not wish to assess their proposal. Normally, requests must contain detailed justification and be submitted to the ARC by the closing time for the proposal. The process for submitting these requests are set out in scheme funding rules. The responsible Executive Director considers each request and the justification provided, but may choose not to give effect to any a request.

Longer-term ARC Strategies Persist sensibly DESPITE FAILURE: If you were far from funding: Build other funding opportunities. Build links with more successful groups. Focus on track record. Aim to be back in the future.

Longer-term ARC Strategies 2) Continue to submit after success Remember success is a stochastic process DO NOT wait until your funding is about to run out You can be involved in up to 4 LINKAGE grants BUILD ON YOUR SUCCESS

Help each other submit excellent applications. Final Thoughts You’ve got to be in it to win it. Identify what is unique about your project, and ‘sell’ it to the assessors. Judge the page length of sections of the application in (general) relation to the percentage of assessment - don’t use 10% of the text for significance if this constitutes 40% of assessment. Really nail the Summary of Proposal and Summary of National/Community Benefit boxes. Get both specialist and non-specialist advice and comments on your draft. Help each other submit excellent applications.