Assessment of Applications Facilitator Debbie Thackray PhD Research Development Officer

1. Applying for competitive funding Assessment of Applications Facilitator Debbie Thackray PhDResearch Development Officer Experience and Insights: Prof. Dongke Zhang FTSE, Director, Centre for Petroleum, Fuels and Energy, UWA Dr Tim Sercombe, Senior Lecturer, School of Mechanical Engineering Prof. Greg Ivey, Professor, School of Environmental Systems Engineeringhttp://www.ecm.uwa.edu.au/staffnet/committees/research/best_practice

2. Outline: Debbie Thackray: 2010 changes; Who assesses applications and how (10 mins) Dongke Zhang: Recipes for losing an ARC grant application (15 mins) Tim Sercombe: Tips to establishing a track record (15 mins) Prof. Greg Ivey: How to win friends and influence people (in the ARC process)(15 mins) Debbie Thackray: Summary; Support (5 mins) Questions as we go.

3. ARC Discovery: Understand the schemehttp://www.arc.gov.au/about_arc/arc_profile.htm Main changes 2010: Funds for PI to travel to Australia – 1 trip/year International collaboration awards – 1-6 months, up to $40k Funds for workshop services allowable CI eligibility – 50% of time (not salary) with eligible organisation - non-resident employee of eligible organisation may be a PI READ THE GUIDELINES AND FUNDING RULESMAKE ELIGIBILTY REQUESTS WHERE UNSURE Applications to Research Grants Office at latest 10 working days before close: * Ensures that good quality, accurate, complete, eligible applications submitted * Certification – gold forms etc. Ensures support is there.

4. ARC Discovery: Who assesses applications? ARC / computer assign Panels and Oz readers usually on RFCD codes College of Experts (Panel): (may have only a general understanding of field) - Engineering and Environmental Science (EE) - Mathematics, Information and Communication Sciences (MIC)Panel assigns international assessors, based on keywords and project summary. External assessors: - 2 Oz Readers: Australian based readers, scores and text (expert / semi-expert) - 2 Int Readers: internationally recognized experts, scores and text (expert) ARC provides assessment reports to applicants. Applicants submit rejoinders. Final Assessment: 2 panel spokespersons: EAC1 and EAC2 provide final scores Applications ranked based on all assessors rankings. Can be modified by College based on rejoinders. Budgets scrutinised, best projects get closest to requested $.

5. Particles/ Nano Electro-materials Fluid mechanics Process optimisation Professor Rose Amal(Chair) The University of New South Wales Professor Maria ForsythMonash University Professor Ivan Marusic The University of Melbourne Professor Steven Grant Re-locating from UK Materials engineering Geo-technical engineering Bio -materials Structural stability Meet the panel: Engineering and Environmental Sciencehttp://www.arc.gov.au/about_arc/CoE_EE.htm Professor Graham SchafferThe University of Queensland Professor Robert ShortUniversity of South Australia Professor Scott SloanThe University of Newcastle Professor Brian UyUniversity of Western Sydney Water quality Combustion & Energy Fibre Science/ Nanotech Carbon & Nutrient cycling Professor Xungai WangDeakin University Professor Zhihong XuGriffith University Dr Eric Wolanski Australian Institute of Marine Sciences Professor Dongke ZhangUniversity of Western Australia

6. Electronic warfare String, Index & Quantum field theories Micro-electronics Equilibrium statistical mechanics Dr Len Sciacca (Chair)Defence Science and Technology Organisation Professor Alan CareyThe Australian National University Professor Lorenzo FaraoneThe University of Western Australia Professor Tony GuttmannThe University of Melbourne Systems/ signal processing Network systems Statistical computation Signal processing Meet the panel: Mathematics, Information and Communication Scienceshttp://www.arc.gov.au/about_arc/CoE_MIC.htm Professor David HillThe Australian National University Professor Geoffrey McLachlanThe University of Queensland Professor Bill MoranThe University of Melbourne Professor Victor SoloThe University of New South Wales Modeling decision making Information systems Computer vision System design Professor David SuterUniversity of Adelaide Mr Glenn WightwickIBM Australia Professor Mary-Anne WilliamsUniversity of Technology, Sydney Professor Yanchun ZhangVictoria University

7. ARC Discovery: Get in the “right box” Find out which panel similar applications have gone to. Chose RFCD codes and keywords carefully – to try to direct to desired panel Don’t use novel or unusual words that the non-expert panel will not recognise. Who do you want to assess it, what keywords would they use to describe their research? Look at successful applications and write in the “style” for that panel Write application Summaries for non-experts (Panel) Write Background and Approach for semi-experts and experts (Oz and Int readers) Make it easy on the reader – they may have 100 applications to read. Each section should stand alone and have an introductory sentence or “flag”. Break up text.

8. ARC Discovery: Selection Criteria Investigator/s track record - 40% (LP = 20%; Industry commitment = 25%) Relative to opportunities and/or suitability to supervise postgraduate students (as appropriate) and capacity to undertake the proposed research. Proposed project content – 60% Significance and innovation - 30% (LP = 25%) Approach and Training (including appropriateness of budget) - 20% (LP = 20%) National Benefit - 10% (LP = 10%)

9. Prof. Dongke Zhang FTSE (EE Panel) Recipes for losing an ARC grant application!

10. Dr Tim Sercombe Tips to establishing a track record

11. Prof. Greg Ivey How to win friends and influence people!(in the ARC process)

12. Make it easy on the reviewer Use line breaks, italics, figures to break up text. Spend lots of time polishing your summary = instant understanding for the public / media. “Wow” the reviewer and make them really want to know more! Reviewers may do their reading in bits-and-pieces – organise your application so that it can be read in this way. They may only revisit some sections. State your key message at the beginning of each section, and keep reminding them of why and what you are going to do and how excited you are about it! Show a strong link between aims and approach – same headings are best. Avoid abbreviations, acronyms and jargon. Explain terminology. Read the application aloud to spot long worded text and unclear areas. Make sure that your application is free from errors.

13. Summary: Give EVERY section your time Get feedback on your track record and your proposal early on – 2 pager. A good project is paramount, but don’t spend 95% of your time on the description. Show clearly, up-front and throughout how significant, innovative and exciting the research is! Grab the reader’s attention from the first page onwards. Spend enough time on the CIs profiles (especially for Discovery), use similar layout, pull out the “wow” factor for each early on, show team links, etc. Explain National Benefit – list outcomes, name beneficiaries, etc. Spend adequate time on budget justification – only a few proposals get all. Mention budget items throughout – show how used. Address communication thoughtfully and not only “will publish in high quality journals”. Especially important for Linkage and Collaborative projects: Get lots of feedback on EVERY section. Submit to Grants Office early.

14. Support Workshops: RDOs, Research Exec, OSDS, FECM, visiting funding bodies, etc. FECM contact and Mentoring: Associate Dean Research Rachel Cardell-Oliverrachel@csse.uwa.edu.au Ph: 6488 2231 FECM Staffnet and Research pages: Research Committee (in-progress), mentoring, funding, Strategic plan, priorities, presentations, etc. Research Development Office: Debbie Thackray: debbie.thackray@uwa.edu.au Ph: 6488 4765 Judy Berman: judith.berman@uwa.edu.au Ph: 6488 8033 FECM RDO: watch this space Research Services: Grants and Finance Office, Integrity and Ethics, Graduate Research School, Scholarships Office, etc. The people around you.

15. Additional Suggestions:

16. Sections: 100 word Summary A good summary/abstract captures and illustrates the entire research picture without leaving the reader puzzled or confused. Start with a strong sentence which explains the problem for which this research is a response. Review panel members often study the application (and prepare written reports, if required) weeks or months before the meetings. They then quickly review all the abstracts just before the meetings in order to recall the essentials. Assume that you are writing for a reviewer in a somewhat related field, rather than for an expert in your area.

17. Sections: Summary Acknowledgements to Mark Cassidy, Mark Randolph, Yuxia Hu

18. Sections: Track Record (40%) Get feedback on how strong you are from successful CIs. Applications with 2 CIs less likely to be funded: Must show genuine commitment (> 5%). Not because CI has 1 DP already, or CI’s track record boosting application. Collaboration with CIs in WA and east beneficial, but must show team cohesion. Overseas partners becoming more and more important. Be sure to write with respect to opportunities, and claim ECR status if you can. Write in 1st person. Use consistent layout for all CIs – shows cohesion! Show the reader clear evidence of your strengths and international profile. Use Impact Factors and Citations and draw attention to these. Discuss with research grants office, research development officers and mentor- readers how to optimize your track record and how to best present it.

19. Sections: Track Record example See Tim Sercombe’s examples

20. Sections: Background and Aims This section should answer 3 questions: what is known, what is not known, and why is it essential to find out. Critically evaluate the relevant literature and state your contributions. Discuss fairly all sides of a controversy or disagreement. Don’t leave out your competitors’ work! Identify specifically the gaps and contradictions that you will clarify. Clearly list / dot point your aims and use same headings in Approach. Ie. Use flags to guide your readers. Use line breaks between paragraphs, headings, italics, figures (not greyscale). Balance between innovation and your likelihood of success.

21. Sections: Background and Aims EG. See Tim Sercombe’s and Greg Ivey’s examples and listen to Lectopia session.

22. Sections: Significance and Innovation Don’t just say it, explain it. Remember you are writing for non-expert, semi-expert and experts. Talk about outcomes as well as the research. Relate to other research in the area. Relate to national research priorities. Use title headings: “Significance” and “Innovation” to make it easy for the reader.

23. Sections: Significance and Innovation See Tim Sercombe’s examples

24. Sections: National Benefit Mention in Summary, discuss in Introduction/background, Significance and National Benefit sections. Show outcomes from project and then EXPLAIN how project outcomes are of national benefit. Link clearly to National Priority areas and explain why. You can talk about more than one area if there is a tangible link. Don’t make exaggerated statements.

25. Sections: National Benefit See Tim Sercombe’s examples Don’t forget to include research training aspects, both PhDs and Post-Docs. From part of National Benefit section of ARC Linkage project of Mark Cassidy, Mark Randolph, Yuxia Hu

26. Sections: Communication Conferences: you’ll be informing the best in the world. You and your post-docs. Publications: high impact journals/ best read in field. Seminars: International, eastern states, local (established series), to partners. Media releases: through UWA Public Relations/ Faculty Marketing; national distribution. Articles: UWA News, Faculty newsletters, Engineering Foundation, National association news. Project Description and Progress summaries on website. Think outside the box.

27. Sections: Communication eg. Acknowledgements to Mark Cassidy, Mark Randolph, Yuxia Hu

28. Sections: Budget C1 Budget Details Set realistic budgets – driven by the science Teaching relief not recommended. C2 Justification of funding from the ARC Fully justify why you are requesting these funds. How would your research be affected if you did not have what you are requesting funding for? For personnel simply state why you are requesting a person at that level. Section E7 is for explaining what they will do. Equipment request should be realistic (<$120K) and should tie in with methods and the experiment timeline.

29. Personnel The support is sought for 3 years (2005-2007) for salaries of Research Associate (level A) and Technician (level 4) plus 30.95% on-cost (total for 2005 is $118,098; with the further standard increase for each following year, see tables in C1) The project has experimental and theoretical components. A very large amount of tests including sample design as well as computer modelling require a qualified Research Associate (RA) His/her specific skills should also include the basic knowledge of mechanics of solids. A suitable candidate should have a PhD in Solid Mechanics or any closely related discipline. Funding for the RA is sought for full-time for the duration of the project. For the experimental programme an experienced Technician is required to manufacture the samples, support experiments and maintain equipment. Funding for the Technician is sought for full-time for the duration of the project. Sections: Budget eg. from Arcady Dyskin

30. EquipmentThe experimental programme consists of testing of structures from rectangular blocks and hexagonal structures. The confining frame with controllable lateral load is available at the School. Funding is thought from the ARC for manufacturing of a loading frame for hexagonal assemblies. ($4,250). It is assumed that the School will provide a PC system for the RA as well as software upgrades. MaintenanceSum of $1000 per year is requested for materials for block manufacturing and other disposable materials and $1000 per year is requested for disposable strain gauges. TravelA sum of $3,000 is required for CI2 to attend the annual AGU meeting in the USA in 2007 to present the results of the research to the Geophysics community. Other No other support is sought. Sections: Budget eg. from Arcady Dyskin

31. Sections: Budget eg. from Cassidy et al.

32. Sections: Budget eg. from Cassidy et al.

33. Use language that presents technical matters in a balanced and accessible way • Present hypotheses and/or controversies and explain how they will be solved • Explain how/why the area demands funding now • Show how Australian work fits into the international picture • Back up compelling claims of excellence and innovation with evidence and others‘ judgments • Propose daring, ambitious goals but also propose prudent, responsible modes of attack • Link to large international research networks/activities • Present excellent progress reports on previous grants • Advance compelling arguments in relation to National Interest Generic features of well ranked application

34. Use dense intractable technical jargon without accompanying “accessible” text • Make grandiose and implausible claims about outcomes • Don't support claims of excellence or past progress with evidence • Are weakly linked into national and international research networks • Emphasize the collection of data rather than the solution to important problems or controversies • Set a persistent negative or depressive tone about the state of the subject in Australia • Show evidence of being hastily prepared Generic features of poorly ranked application