Professor Elizabeth Kendall Chair Social & Behavioural Sciences Panel ARC College of Experts Success in the ARC Linkage Scheme

The ARC and its Context; The ARC and its Context; Purpose of Linkage Grants; Purpose of Linkage Grants; The Process of Assessment; The Process of Assessment; What makes a Good Proposal? What makes a Good Proposal? Building an Industry Partnership. Building an Industry Partnership.

The Australian Research Council Annual budget around $700 million - only 2% to running expenses Annual budget around $700 million - only 2% to running expenses About 8% of the total research and innovation budget in Australia About 8% of the total research and innovation budget in Australia 9 Schemes with over proposals 9 Schemes with over proposals Research Centres Research Centres Australian Laureate Fellowships (10% success rate) Australian Laureate Fellowships (10% success rate) Future Fellowships for mid-career researchers (20% success) Future Fellowships for mid-career researchers (20% success) Discovery Projects with DORA, APAI and ICA (21% success) Discovery Projects with DORA, APAI and ICA (21% success) Discovery Indigenous Research Development (40% success) Discovery Indigenous Research Development (40% success) DECRA DECRA Linkage Infrastructure, Equipment & Facilities (40% success) Linkage Infrastructure, Equipment & Facilities (40% success) Linkage Projects (40% success) Linkage Projects (40% success) Linkage Learned Academies and Special Research Initiatives Linkage Learned Academies and Special Research Initiatives (future Researchers in Industry Training Scheme) (future Researchers in Industry Training Scheme)

Main Objectives of the ARC Research—To support excellence in research Research—To support excellence in research Capacity—To build research capacity Capacity—To build research capacity Promotion—To raise our research profile Promotion—To raise our research profile Proposals need to discuss each of these throughout the text and demonstrate how it will achieve these outcomes for Australia. Proposals need to discuss each of these throughout the text and demonstrate how it will achieve these outcomes for Australia.

What I have learned so far……... Few proposals fully address the ARC objectives. Note the importance of industry R&D funds to research productivity in Australia – ARC is a minor player in the funding of research. The aim of Linkage is to help us tap into this larger pool of funds that are so critical to research in Australia. There are a lot of ARC schemes and some are not so well used – Linkage, LEIF, DIRD. At University level, we need to be refining our submission process so the best proposals are getting through and our reputation is enhanced – ARC is a small world and applicants get known by reputation.

Purpose of the Linkage Scheme To encourage and develop long-term strategic research alliances....in order to apply advanced knowledge to problems and/or to provide opportunities to obtain national economic, social or cultural benefits; To encourage and develop long-term strategic research alliances....in order to apply advanced knowledge to problems and/or to provide opportunities to obtain national economic, social or cultural benefits; To enhance the scale and focus of research in the National Research Priorities; To enhance the scale and focus of research in the National Research Priorities; To foster opportunities for postdoctoral researchers......, targeting those who have demonstrated a clear commitment to high- quality research; To foster opportunities for postdoctoral researchers......, targeting those who have demonstrated a clear commitment to high- quality research; To provide outcome-oriented research training for high-calibre postgraduate research students; and To provide outcome-oriented research training for high-calibre postgraduate research students; and To produce a national pool of world-class researchers to meet the needs of the broader Australian innovation system. To produce a national pool of world-class researchers to meet the needs of the broader Australian innovation system.

Improve research outcomes and the use of research outcomes by strengthening links within Australia’s innovation system (between researchers and between researchers and end users of research) and with innovation systems internationally. Improve research outcomes and the use of research outcomes by strengthening links within Australia’s innovation system (between researchers and between researchers and end users of research) and with innovation systems internationally. Encourage end-user organisations (including business, industry, community organisations and other publicly funded agencies) to partner with university-based researchers. Encourage end-user organisations (including business, industry, community organisations and other publicly funded agencies) to partner with university-based researchers. Foster opportunities for postgraduate and postdoctoral researchers to pursue research in collaboration with organisations outside the higher education sector. Foster opportunities for postgraduate and postdoctoral researchers to pursue research in collaboration with organisations outside the higher education sector. Objectives of Linkage Projects

ARC Key Performance Indicators Collaboration: Number of partner organisations (multi- organisational proposals are good). Collaboration: Number of partner organisations (multi- organisational proposals are good). Financial contributions of partner organisations (must be eligible, but greater contribution is better). Financial contributions of partner organisations (must be eligible, but greater contribution is better). Projects involving international collaboration as % of total projects supported (international partners are good if they can be justified – ICAs are not automatically awarded and the funds can only be used for that purpose). Projects involving international collaboration as % of total projects supported (international partners are good if they can be justified – ICAs are not automatically awarded and the funds can only be used for that purpose). Research careers: Number of APDIs awarded (APDIs are ranked separately from the proposal, but cannot be awarded if proposal is not successful). Research careers: Number of APDIs awarded (APDIs are ranked separately from the proposal, but cannot be awarded if proposal is not successful). Number of APAIs awarded (APAIs cannot be used for another purpose without approval – APAIs must have a suitable project). Number of APAIs awarded (APAIs cannot be used for another purpose without approval – APAIs must have a suitable project).

What I have learned so far……... Show how partnerships will be or have been sustained over time and why each partner is critical to research. Show how the partnership will result in the application of research outcomes, possibly beyond the partner organisation. Show how the partnership and project will result in strategic benefits at several levels of Australian society, in an area of national priority. Show how the research will benefit our research and innovation systems relative to international benchmarks. Apply the “So What?” test to each section of your proposal. Select CIs and team members wisely – name and describe non- CIs where possible and show the quality of each member irrespective of career stage – why essential to the project. Thoroughly describe the training opportunity provided by the project and why this is important to the field.

The ARC Assessment Process Proposals are assigned to relevant panel according to codes and key words. Some proposals are multi-disciplinary, crossing two panels. Proposals are assigned to relevant panel according to codes and key words. Some proposals are multi-disciplinary, crossing two panels. Relevant ARC Director reviews proposals, excludes if ineligible and distributes to two relevant non-conflicted CoE members using codes and keywords. Relevant ARC Director reviews proposals, excludes if ineligible and distributes to two relevant non-conflicted CoE members using codes and keywords. Once allocated and accepted, these CoE members are responsible for the rest of the process – one takes primary carriage of proposal. Once allocated and accepted, these CoE members are responsible for the rest of the process – one takes primary carriage of proposal. CoE with primary carriage of the proposal selects up to four assessors with no conflict of interest from a database, using codes and keywords. CoE with primary carriage of the proposal selects up to four assessors with no conflict of interest from a database, using codes and keywords. Both CoE members review and score the proposal (probably about 40 Linkages, but could have up to 200 across all schemes). Both CoE members review and score the proposal (probably about 40 Linkages, but could have up to 200 across all schemes). The review of these Assessors is weighted at 50% of the final score (CoE members weighted at other 50%). The review of these Assessors is weighted at 50% of the final score (CoE members weighted at other 50%). Reviews of Assessors (not CoE members) are returned to the CIs for rejoinder. CoE members do consider rejoinders. Reviews of Assessors (not CoE members) are returned to the CIs for rejoinder. CoE members do consider rejoinders. CoE members discuss the final rank and moderate score. CoE members discuss the final rank and moderate score. Panel makes final decision relative to the total pool of proposals and determines budget relative to available funds. Ineligible items are excluded. Panel makes final decision relative to the total pool of proposals and determines budget relative to available funds. Ineligible items are excluded.

A Outstanding: Of the highest quality and at the forefront of research in the field. Approximately 10% of Proposals should receive ratings in this band. B Excellent: High quality research and a strongly competitive Proposal. Approximately 15% of Proposals should receive ratings in this band. C Very Good: An interesting, sound and compelling Proposal. Approximately 20% of Proposals should receive rating in this band. D Good: A sound research Proposal, but lacks a compelling element. Approximately 35% of Proposals are likely to fall into this band. E Uncompetitive: The Proposal is uncompetitive and has significant weaknesses or more fatal flaws. Approximately 20% of Proposals are likely to fall into this band.

What I have learned so far……... Get to the right CoEs and Assessors by choosing codes and keywords carefully. Do things to be noticed amongst a large pile of proposals. Address all points made by Assessors in your rejoinder – be unemotional and clear – don’t waste space repeating positive comments. Explain discrepant views where possible. Be able to impress specialists in your area, but also be accessible to general readers. Know the rules – teaching relief, ICAs APAIs, APDIs, standard equipment. Develop a thoroughly justified budget that is not inflated – discuss the “value for money” of the project. Justify the type of expenditure, amount, duration in detail and implications of not being funded.

Distribution of Proposals Bad Project Excellent CIs (10%) Excellent Project Excellent CIs (15%) Poor Project Poor CIs (50%) Good Project Poor CIs (25%)

Investigator(s) (20%) Research opportunity and performance evidence (ROPE) Research opportunity and performance evidence (ROPE) Capacity to undertake and manage the proposed research Capacity to undertake and manage the proposed research Partner Organisation Commitment (30%) Is there evidence that each of the Partner Organisation(s) is genuinely committed to, and prepared to collaborate in, the research Project? Is there evidence that each of the Partner Organisation(s) is genuinely committed to, and prepared to collaborate in, the research Project? Will the proposed research encourage and develop strategic research alliances between the higher education organisation(s) and other organisation(s)? Will the proposed research encourage and develop strategic research alliances between the higher education organisation(s) and other organisation(s)? Value for money and budget justification for cash and in-kind contributions. Value for money and budget justification for cash and in-kind contributions. Quality of the Team

Quality of the Project Significance and Innovation (25%) Does the research address an important problem? Does the research address an important problem? How will the outcomes advance the knowledge base? How will the outcomes advance the knowledge base? Are the project aims and concepts novel and innovative? Are the project aims and concepts novel and innovative? Will new methods or technologies be developed? Will new methods or technologies be developed? Will the research provide benefit to Australia? Will the research provide benefit to Australia? Does the Project address National Research Priorities? Does the Project address National Research Priorities? Approach and Training (15%) Is the method adequately developed, well integrated and appropriate to the aims of the project? Is the method adequately developed, well integrated and appropriate to the aims of the project? Where relevant, is the intellectual content and scale of the work proposed appropriate to a higher degree by research? Where relevant, is the intellectual content and scale of the work proposed appropriate to a higher degree by research? How appropriate is the proposed budget? How appropriate is the proposed budget?

Research Environment Research Environment (10%) Is there an existing, or developing, supportive and high quality research environment for this Project? Is there an existing, or developing, supportive and high quality research environment for this Project? Are the necessary facilities to complete the Project available? Are the necessary facilities to complete the Project available?

ROPE Greater emphasis on ROPE in recent years. Be specific about opportunities and barriers you have encountered – how has this impacted on your career. Teaching is not a sufficient reason for limited track record. Describe your trajectory of career progression and demonstrate what you will be able to do as a result of this project.

 Clear and logical, set out neatly, free of errors, use dot points and bold/underline to make points.  Include pilot data to demonstrate feasibility.  Realistic timeframes and budgets.  Feasible method – state why it is feasible.  The best team to suit demands of project and a role for everyone.  Genuine contribution and complementary skills to produce a cohesive project (outline in the description of personnel).  A history of success – previous ARC outputs, describe outcomes and impacts of previous research in this field.  Supportive environment that values and aligns with your project.  Established partnerships and links that have demonstrated previous translation of knowledge.  Evidence of preparation and expertise in the area.  Discuss capacity directly in the proposal. Capacity to undertake project

Describing the Partners Don’t overlook the importance of the partner letter of support – this must outline why the project is of interest to the partner, but must not sound like a consultancy. Engage an active partner investigator if possible and show how they have been involved in publications, other research or the proposal preparation and project design. Cost the inkind contribution adequately. Think carefully about what you use industry funds for relative to ARC funds given eligibility rules.

The Project Summary What do you want to do – aims (not methods)? What do you want to do – aims (not methods)? Why is it important to do this? Why is it important to do this? What have you done already? What have you done already? Where will it lead and how will things be better (relate to priority areas and ARC objectives)? Where will it lead and how will things be better (relate to priority areas and ARC objectives)? How are you going to do it? How are you going to do it? Why should you do it? Why should you do it?

Significance & Innovation Important problem, current international debate, cutting edge, politically critical, costly issue etc. Important problem, current international debate, cutting edge, politically critical, costly issue etc. Advance the knowledge base in your field and show how. Advance the knowledge base in your field and show how. Address priority area and show how. Address priority area and show how. Novel and innovative aims – different from what has been done before. Novel and innovative aims – different from what has been done before. New methods and technologies, but not so innovative that they are not feasible – demonstrate specific capacity to deliver. New methods and technologies, but not so innovative that they are not feasible – demonstrate specific capacity to deliver. Do NOT exaggerate the benefits of the research, be concrete. Do NOT exaggerate the benefits of the research, be concrete. Ask SO WHAT? for a range of audiences. Ask SO WHAT? for a range of audiences. Relate to ARC objectives as well as social and economic benefits – excellent research, international reputation, research training and capacity building. Relate to ARC objectives as well as social and economic benefits – excellent research, international reputation, research training and capacity building. Innovative dissemination strategies (policy change, practice) Innovative dissemination strategies (policy change, practice) Remember how much this section is worth! Remember how much this section is worth!

Approach & Training Technical knowledge, detail and accuracy. Technical knowledge, detail and accuracy. Focused - not too large and unmanageable. Focused - not too large and unmanageable. Justification for every decision. Justification for every decision. Awareness of alternative methods and justification for your choice or rejection of other methods. Awareness of alternative methods and justification for your choice or rejection of other methods. Awareness of risks and have safeguards in place. Awareness of risks and have safeguards in place. Refer and relate approach back to aims throughout. Refer and relate approach back to aims throughout. Track the aims through the text to ensure they are clearly operationalised in the approach. Track the aims through the text to ensure they are clearly operationalised in the approach. Describe the training environment and opportunity clearly to show how the project will generate a number of quality researchers, even beyond this project. Describe the training environment and opportunity clearly to show how the project will generate a number of quality researchers, even beyond this project.

Building Industry Partnerships Partnerships are built on personal relationships. Make sure you are talking to the right level – make the links you need to progress contracts and agreements. Align yourself with partner’s mission/vision – don’t assume they will understand or value your vision and objectives. Learn how your partner operates/language/fears. Identify ideas within the industry, build research around them. Start negotiating early and build trust before moving forward. Adopt a “no surprises” policy at all times.

Build a deliberate pathway for partnerships to grow – follow all the rules of partnership. Join industry activities and build the notion of research as a sector that can contribute to solutions. Establish your value through contract research and joint projects. Engineer small wins for industry from research to convince partner of the value it can bring. Build research capacity in the organisation – make research accessible to partners through presentations, joint projects, journal clubs. Try small shared grants - Researcher in Business grants, university funds. Discuss the distinction between projects and knowledge partnerships. Explore the idea of industry-funded research agendas. The Partnership Pathway

If the Linkage Grant Fails Improve the proposal and try again! Keep your partners interested. Have a back-up plan – pilot study. Turn the grant into a short publication with partners.