Gaining the Grail External Research Funding

1. Comunicación y Gerencia Gaining the Grail External Research Funding Karen Mow Research Development Advisor University of Canberra Karen Mow - University of Canberra

2. It is a journey - much more than grant writing Karen Mow - University of Canberra

3. Track Record International refereed journal articles*** Major grants from respectable agencies*** Collaborations with prominent people*** Consistent output** Memberships, awards* Invitations to speak/consult* Acknowledgement: W Sawyer, BLIS Research Planning Workshop 2006 Karen Mow - University of Canberra

4. Publish Build track record High Quality refereed international journals and other national journals – check leaders’ outputs) Publish strategically – on several streams or topic areas with others, think ahead Obtain small research grants - from university and other sources 1-5 years out Karen Mow - University of Canberra

5. Profile -who knows you? Begin Locate leaders in your discipline. Talk to them. Help them*. Spin your work in their direction. Publish with them. Go to high level conferences – present papers, mingle, talk to others. What is the buzz? Monitor ARC / NHMRC Panel membership (you should know many of them) and be strategic about networks Every year Karen Mow - University of Canberra

6. Collaborate Build a network of collaborators - other researchers with similar interests and good profiles run academic conferences with potential industry partners Relationships – must work for joint research to be effective. Avoid really difficult people Remote collaborations need regular communications and in face meetings Skills should overlap – complementary skills energy and flair. Need to meet regularly, clear tasks and timelines for each member of the team. 1-3 years out Karen Mow - University of Canberra

7. Quality Team Quality, a euphemism for performer track record, is the dominant factor in determining reviewer overall quality score for existing and proposed research. Karen Mow - University of Canberra

8. Partners Develop agendas for research needs with relevant industry partners and researchers –issues raised at industry conferences which have most interest and support. Look for - authority, knowledge, skills and the money 1-2 years out Karen Mow - University of Canberra

9. Funding sources Identify the best funding sourceand know the detail - rules and decision makers eg ARC Linkage Project funding, must have partner $, time and real commitment to win a grant as well as track record and national need. Databases for funding opportunities – InfoEd, Research Research, GrantSearch, 1-2 years out Karen Mow - University of Canberra

10. Project Building Good question Build a team with right skills Sequence of tasks Communication Confidence Focus Passion On Going Karen Mow - University of Canberra

11. Team and Question Form the team for the task – get commitment Quality partners in high ranking universities, peak body industry players. Think laterally. Be sure you can work together. Big teams can be hard to manage. Clarify the research question– and your approach to investigating it.Do not leave this until you are writing the grant application. 6-12 months out Karen Mow - University of Canberra

12. Research Council Funding The Text Draft over time and have others edit it. Start 6 months out and rework it as the research focus is clarified. Get partner input. Check for clarity of answers to each of the parts and against selection criteria Partner Information Provide all partners with complete list of all that will be required from them to complete the application. If ARC, get GAMS accounts for all parties. 6 months out 3-4 months out Karen Mow - University of Canberra

13. Bend your work Bend your work to develop the proposal National research priorities – find one, fit this research to it (broadly) Other priorities – rural and regional, IT, international links, collaboration Get the cash – ASK for more than you need from your partners . Aim to double the bottom line requirement. Do not pussy foot around the vulgarity but tell the partners why you must have their money and in-kind support. Karen Mow - University of Canberra

14. Now it’s about writing Refine text for “excitement” – it’s a judgement maker – the WOW factor Imagine reading 150 applications… Karen Mow - University of Canberra

15. Detail Get the information enter it into GAMS (or pay someone to do it for 3 weeks of assembly). Nail the detail – great applications fail because of this Double check references to the same thing eg budget pages & text descriptions Karen Mow - University of Canberra

16. Peer Review Funding program differences ARC DP uses these components: • Executive Director • Expert Advisory Committee • Oz reader • Int assessor • Quality panel (with non-experts) Karen Mow - University of Canberra

17. ARC DP Process Karen Mow - University of Canberra

18. NHMRC Project Grants Process Karen Mow - University of Canberra

19. Inside a selection panel Politics inside the panels – sharing, equality, distribution, excellence? Eating the young Weight for age Epistemological differences and understanding quality Workload and time constraints Negotiated settlement Karen Mow - University of Canberra

20. Highly ranked applications Are deliberately written to score top marks against the selection criteria Convey and reflect clear and important research plans Show commitment and collaboration Use language that presents ‘technical’ matters in a balanced and accessible way Easy to read and comprehend by a non-expert Karen Mow - University of Canberra

21. Highly ranked applications Clearly present aims and significance up front (especially sections: Summary, National Benefit and p.1 of E) Demonstrate how the project is situated in the context not only of ‘academe’ but also of industry knowledge and practice and how the joint university-industry study proposed will progress or challenge this Appreciate that first impressions count eg, the title, the 100 word summary, the snapshot of investigators, the opening few paragraphs of the Additional Text, care in presentation, etc Karen Mow - University of Canberra

22. Highly ranked applications Clearly convey how the project: Addresses a clear and important problem Is significant and innovative Is part of a long-term research program and agenda for the academics involved AND the industry partners Builds on previous work by the researchers (pilot studies, earlier publications, data already gathered) and/or industry (ideally through some collaboration to date) Karen Mow - University of Canberra

23. Uncompetitive applications Fail to “grab” the reader’s attention (esp. in the 100 word summary and opening paras of the Additional Text) Are written in such a way that only the most expert reader could reasonably understand the project or the investigator(s) track record Read more like a piece of contracted work or consultancythan genuine research that is innovative and challenging. Karen Mow - University of Canberra

24. Uncompetitive applications Seem largely university/academic-led, and instyle and substance do not seem to be genuinely collaborative Do not clearly present the key questions, hypotheses, controversies, puzzles and how these will be addressed Leave the reader feeling there is little evidence that the applicants know what it is like/what it takes to undertake (and successfully) complete a project with industry?’ Karen Mow - University of Canberra

25. Uncompetitive applications Do not make strategic use of Part B and fail to convey each applicant’s track record relative to opportunity, and especially their capacity to ‘deliver’ on this LP project Do not convincethat this study needs to be funded now, in the (Australian) National Interest Look like they have been rushed Karen Mow - University of Canberra

26. An application for funding is one means of persuading other people to give you resources to support interesting, important work that you really want to do, that you can do, and in which they have an interest Karen Mow - University of Canberra