ARC Discovery Grant Scheme

1. ARC Discovery Grant Scheme Peter Lovibond School of Psychology, UNSW Member, Social, Behavioural, andEconomic Sciences panel of ARC

2. Thanks to – • Phyllis Tharenou • Cynthia Fisher

3. ARC Website: www.arc.gov.au Funding rules Instructions to applicants Sample application form Your University’s Research Office Expertise on rules, help with budgets, use of RMS Assistance with editing, internal review processes Actual submission of proposals Key Resources

4. How Proposals are Evaluated

5. College of Experts There are six discipline panels in the CoE Biological Sciences and Biotechnology (BSB) Engineering and Environmental Science (EE) Humanities and Creative Arts (HCA) Mathematics, Information & Communication Sciences (MIC) Physics, Chemistry and Geosciences (PCG) Social, Behavioural and Economic Sciences (SBE) Three tiers of assessors for Discovery

6. Each panel has an Executive Director; currently Phyllis Tharenou for SBE • CoE members are paid, hold 3-year terms, read 160-200 applications per year, go to Canberra for selection panels twice/year • Each proposal is read by two CoE members, one of whom has primary responsibility • CoE members DO NOT provide written comments to authors

7. Marian Pitts PsychologyLa Trobe Martin Bell GeographyUQ Harry Bloch Economics Curtin Barbara Comber EducationUSA Stephen Crain Cognitive Science Macquarie Cynthia Fisher ManagementBond Graeme GillGovernmentSydney Bill GriffithsEconometricsMelbourne Peter Lovibond Psychology UNSW Victor MinichielloSociology/Health UNE John PiggottEconomicsUNSW Kaye StaceyEducationMelbourne Karen ThorpePsychologyQUT Mark WesternSociology UQ Adrian Wilkinson HR Management Griffith

8. Australian readers (OzReaders) paid (a little), read 5-15 proposals per round, assigned by Executive Director Specialist readers (IntReaders) internationally recognised experts in area of application (Australian or overseas) unpaid, read 1-5 proposals, assigned by COE1

9. Executive Director reads only summaries/ keywords/ FOR codes to assign CoE members and Ozreaders CoE members read widely, including proposals outside their discipline. They use abstracts and keywords to assign IntReaders. OzReaders read in or close to their discipline IntReaders are specialists in your area/topic Who you are writing for

10. Investigators 0.4 track record relative to opportunity capacity to undertake the proposed research Significance & Innovation 0.3 how will the project advance knowledge? what novel hypotheses are being tested? Approach 0.2 conceptual framework, design, methods and analyses support aims of proposal National Benefit 0.1 economic / environmental / social benefits Assessment criteria

11. Simultaneous assessment by Int, Oz, and CoE readers Applicants are sent Int and OzReader narrative feedback and have a chance to write a rejoinder. Review and Selection Process

12. Weighted Average Percentile Rank (WAPR) Ratings on each criterion are multiplied by weights to create overall score for each reader Scores converted to percentile rankseg reader who has 20 applications:1st  100; 2nd 95; 3rd 90 . . . 20th  0 Ranks from different readers are weighted by the number of proposals they read, and averaged to create a draft WAPR (CoE weight limited to 25)

13. CoE members get draft WAPRs, comments, ratings, and ranks from other readers, and rejoinders from CIs. CoE members then confer and may recommend slight changes in WAPRs. Selection meeting in Canberra. Top down funding on revised WAPR scores. trade-off between number of applications funded (20-25%) and % budget awarded (average  65%)

14. Discussion of budgets for proposals to be funded, based on CoE1 recommendations. unjustified requests cut higher ranked proposals receive higher % of requested budget

15. ARC has a 15% target for ECR-only Discovery Projects All CIs on proposal must be ECR - PhD awarded within past 5 yrs at time of application Extra consideration for ECR-only proposals on the borderline of being fundable Still need a strong project and good track record (relative to opportunity) Reviewers have to be convinced you can do the work Don’t be too ambitious with scope/budget Might be better to work with more experienced person instead Early career researchers

16. How to get funded 1. very good track record and 2. very good proposal

17. Improving track record

18. 1. apply when your track record is strong • if your recent track record is not strong, may be better to write papers / collect pilot data / write Linkage application • 2. work on quality as well as quantity • journals rather than books / chapters / conferences • 3. choose good collaborators • strong track record and commitment to project • don’t include CI with weak track record • PI track records now included

19. Writing a Good Proposal

20. Critical features of a good proposal • 1. good research idea • interesting, novel, important, theoretically based • 2. sound methodology • articulate an approach that tests your ideas with appropriate procedures and measures so as to allow valid conclusions about theory and application • 3. clear presentation • readable, well-organised, understandable by both general and specialist readers

21. Must be clear enough to assign your proposal to the right readers Grab the attention of readers Summary • What is the research problem and justification? • Why is it important/urgent? • What are project’s specific research aims? • What will you do? • Howwill you do it? • Whatare the expected outcomes?

22. National/Community Benefit • Spell out the benefits and intended outcomes • Don’t promise the world – needs to be plausible • Write for educated lay people • Give info additional to that in Summary of Project • Make it free-standing, comprehensible alone

23. Field of Research and Socio-Economic Objective codes Select codes and percentages for each – determines which CoE panel gets the proposal Keywords Used to assign proposal to assessors, so should match keywords assessors are likely to use in their self-descriptions. Avoid overly narrow terms that won’t match anyone. Avoid overly broad terms that have different meanings in multiple fields (e.g., conflict, culture, bank, utility, justice). Include at least one medium-broad term, like “social development” or “mathematics education” or “speech disorders”. Classifications

24. Statement of your most significant contributions to this research field Refereed publications in last 5 years Ten career best publications Other evidence of impact and contribution to the field Other aspects we should consider Track Record Relative to Opportunities

25. Organise around your major line(s) of research or impacts (programmatic research looks good) Give objective evidence of quality of output, impact, and international reputation IN THIS FIELD Give impact factors, ranks or tiers of journals, evidence for book publisher quality Give your citation count, H factor, etc. Mention published reviews of your books or articles if relevant Leave out teaching, consulting, and practitioner activities Most Significant Contributions

26. Refereed publications in last 5 years • Group by books, chapters, articles, proceedings • List most recent first in each category • Include in-press pieces with date of acceptance • *Asterisk those relevant to proposal • Explain authorship conventions in your field especially if non-standard

27. Evidence of quality Showcase your best papers (especially if >5 years ago) Give impact factors and ERA ranking for journals(draft rankings at http://lamp.infosys.deakin.edu.au/era/) Give citation counts if impressive Leave out textbooks, reports, working papers, conference presentations Try to include at least 50% first/senior authored papers, even if they are lower quality Ten career best publications

28. Focus on international/high profile contributions Invited keynote addresses especially at major international conferences Editorial roles especially at international/top journals Roles in learned societies, prestigious academic committees Academic awards and prizes, fellowships Prior competitive grant funding Number of PhD completions supervised Government or professional association blue-ribbon panels/reports Other evidence of impact & contribution

29. Factors that have affected your productivity time off academic work, industry job, maternity leave, carer responsibilities, illness Special case for why you should be considered an ECR longer than 5 years post PhD due to above. Only include convincing and special circumstanceseg not teaching load Other aspects

30. no A or A* publications no/few first authorships lots of chapters in self-edited books or books with little-known publishers large number of low level publications claims for impact or major contribution that do not seem justified Reasons for lower Track Record scores

31. Readers will generally combine their appraisal of the track records of all investigators, weighted by order or % contribution. However the overall balance of the team is also relevant: experienced and junior researchers (ECRs, APDs) track record of working together complementary skills all CIs/PIs have a clear role and the time available to do it avoid huge teams unless for a very good reason Advice on the Team

32. Requested items should be clearly linked to the proposed work Be sure you ask for everything you need, but avoid obvious padding Get your Research Office to check calculations Budget

33. Clearly explain why you need each item to do the research What will the Research Assistants do exactly, and how did you arrive at the hours or % time you asked for? For Research Fellows, who do you have in mind and why can’t you do the work yourself? Why can’t your university provide the equipment requested? Why do you need to travel, and how was the travel budget calculated? Why is teaching relief essential? Don’t attempt to farm out core responsibilities (eg project management, data analysis) to consultants Justification of Budget

34. Write and rewrite as carefully and thoughtfully as you would for a top journal article. Remember your audience – mixed expertise. Embed your work in the literature but show how it goes beyond what is known/has been done. Don’t trash or ignore prior work; acknowledge other traditions Be specific about what you will do, how, and why. Stick to 10-page limit and don’t cheat! Use sub-headings to make life easier for readers Project Description: General Advice

35. Make Aims and Background short (1 page)(no official score but will influence reader’s appraisal) What’s the problem and why does it matter? How is the proposed research embedded in current international research and theory? What are your specific research aims and intended outcomes (dot points)? How does this build on what we already know? Aims and Background

36. Worth 30% Selective, up-to-date and critical literature review, arguing from theory and prior empirical research to proposed work. Clear theory-driven model and/or hypotheses with good rationales, clear statement of IVs and DVs What’s new, how will research advance understanding in this field, what new methods or approaches are employed? Figure may help 3-4 pages Significance and Innovation

37. Repetition of material on national benefit (focus shouldbe on theoretical significance, not practical importance) Insufficient literature review No clear hypotheses No clear rationale for hypotheses Not clear what the constructs/variables are Vague, muddled thinking Too much jargon without explanation Things to avoid in Significance/Innovation

38. Like the Method section of a journal article. Method must allow hypotheses to be tested. Clearly describe studies, designs, measures, procedures, participants, sensible timeline, analyses if unusual. Be sure Method is consistent with the budget and with the hypotheses and research questions. Use of mixed/multiple methods can be a strength. But need to articulate how they will be combined to address research questions. Present pilot data if possible (or link to your previous published / in press research) Approach

39. Lack of detail on what will be done, how data will be collected, how new constructs will be operationalised etc Research plan where later components depend on a particular outcome of earlier component (parallel structure is safer) The impression that you’ll make it up as you go along,or the doctoral student will – “wishful thinking” Stating that the first thing you will do if funded is a literature review – you should have done this already! Ditto for developing new measures, interventions, questionnaires - more impressive to cite pilot data Things to avoid in Approach

40. May be the critical 10% that gets you over the line Avoid glib comments that are not convincing What is the potential of the research to result in economic and/or social benefits for Australia? Who may be affected, how, and by how much? Pure research: enhance knowledge base strengthen Australia’s international research position & build international links create research training opportunities, build capability and capacity National Benefit

41. What academic papers do you plan to write throughout the project? What specific journals and other outlets will you target? - be realistic If you will develop practical tools or knowledge, how will the profession/ industry/public be informed about it? Communication of Results

42. Explain who does what exactly Be sure all key activities are assigned to a person who is qualified to do them. Every CI, PI, APA, APAI, APDI, Fellow, and Research Associate/Assistant needs a clear role. No one should just be a research manager. Talk up the qualities of the team Role of Personnel

43. Demonstrates your credibility, knowledge Limit to approx 1 page – you need the other 9 pages for substance Give high quality references from top international journals don’t over-cite yourself Reference List

44. List all current, past, and requested grants for all CIs and PIs for the years specified. Provide a short progress report on all current ARC- funded work. Explain delays Explain progress (relative to plan) List outputs/achievements Research Support

45. Start writing early. Preparing a good proposal takes time. Make sure the writing style and organisation of the proposal are clear - use headings and transitions. Get feedback from experts in your research area as well as scholars who are NOT experts in your field. Give readers the whole submission so they can catch inconsistencies between parts. Read successful proposals written by others Review for ARC/journals Increasing your chances

46. The rejoinder typically has little impact on the final WAPR: only read by CoE members CoE members have little time, and any changes made must be checked against proposals with similar scores Rejoinders based on OzReader and IntReader comments The rejoinder

47. However, it is still important to write a good rejoinder: looks bad not to! the rejoinder could be critical if there is a discrepancy between CoE panel member scores occasionally there may be a factual issue or misunderstanding that you can clear up worth writing no matter how good or bad your assessments appear to be

48. Address most important points, not necessarily all Take the comments seriously and respond to them rather than dismissing them Provide any requested information Be reasonable and logical rather than aggressive(ask colleagues for feedback!) OK to accept criticism and explain how it will be dealt with Take opportunity to update achievements, pilot work Don’t be overly self-congratulatory Make rejoinder easy to read, not too dense Writing a rejoinder

49. Don’t give up! – many applications are not funded the first time Use internal funds to conduct pilot work Revise it for another funding agency or scheme What if you don’t get funded?

50. Proposed new system for peer review at ARC