IRCHSS Postdoctoral Awards Michael Breen October

Postdoctoral Fellowship Awards Year2010/ / / / / /2006 Scheme AppsAwardAppsAwardAppsAwardsAppsAwardsAppsAwardsAppsAwards Postdoctoral Fellowship Success Rate 9% 18% 27% 17% 19% 29%

Successful by HEI (PDF 10)

Eligible Applicants vs Awards (PDF 10)

Awards by Discipline (PDF10)

ELIGIBLE vs. SUCCESSFUL by discipline (PDF 10)

International Assessment Focus on funding excellence International Assessment Boards ▫ 15 to 25 member boards ▫ Generally Professors with extensive and current research backgrounds ▫ Experienced evaluators with international evaluation experience ▫ As broad a disciplinary spectrum covered as possible Provision of constructive feedback

Evaluation Focus on funding excellence, originality and potential No quotas, no favoured topics nor disciplines

General Board Comments Lack of awareness of ethical considerations Process – significant and feasible Importance of certain skills – pre and post PhD e.g. languages Choice of supervisor and institution – very important and generally not treated as such Use of jargon free language No handwritten applications incl. referees Need for clear methodological approaches

Feedback from 2010 IAB More applications were of a poorer quality Bad first impressions Lack of proofing, spell check, correct prose Apparent lack of input from Graduate Studies Office/Supervisor/Mentor/Department/Research advice International reputational risk particularly HEI and supervisor Referees should be franker Should not apply just for the sake of it!

Ineligibility Issues (all schemes) No hard/soft copy Late Nomination of Irish based peers Incomplete application: ▫ No/incorrect signature ▫ References sent separately ▫ No declaration or confirmation form Outside remit Outside 5 year period Part D incomplete or left blank ▫ Research environment and structured programmes: to be completed by supervisor and Department (10 marks)

Three PDF Strands

Evaluation Criteria 1: Quality of Proposal 60/100 Description of the topic and quality of the proposal. Quality of methodological approach. Originality and innovative nature (state of the art) Significance of the proposed project in the context of the specific field of research. Match between fellow’s profile and project. Quality of the host mentor (s) and motivation for this choice. Research track record and outputs to date.

Evaluation Criteria 2: Training 20/100 Clarity and quality of plans for acquisition of new knowledge including training proposed. Research experience to date. Outputs to date.

Evaluation Criteria 3 Implementation 10/100 Feasibility and credibility of research plan including practical arrangements of the implementation and management of the project (dependent on purpose of fellowship). Quality of infrastructure and facilities. Quality of international collaborations of hosts (Fellowship 3 CARA only).

Evaluation Criteria 4 Impact 10/100 Contribution to Irish, European and international research excellence Benefit of mobility to European Research Area (Fellowship 3 CARA only) Quality of plans for dissemination Potential for longer term sustainability and future plans.

Core Issues Write for the evaluator Well developed proposal for publication Liaise with supervisor and institution Ensure clarity around the research topic Be specific about methodology Check for errors Have your application read by non-expert Check Terms & Conditions carefully