IRCHSS Postdoctoral Awards 2011-2012

1. IRCHSS Postdoctoral Awards 2011-2012 Michael Breen October 26 2010

3. Postdoctoral Fellowship Awards 2005-10

4. Successful by HEI (PDF 10)

5. Eligible Applicants vs Awards (PDF 10)

6. Awards by Discipline (PDF10)

7. ELIGIBLE vs. SUCCESSFUL by discipline (PDF 10)

8. 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

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

10. 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

11. 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!

12. 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)

13. Three PDF Strands

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. Evaluation Criteria 3Implementation 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).

17. Evaluation Criteria 4Impact 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.

18. 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