1 / 30

Presentation of FIK

Presentation of FIK. We are: Lise Walsted Kristiansen - Head of Division Research consultants: Annette Hjort Knudsen Astrid Holm Olsen Jan Andersen Mette Christiansen Theresa Larriba Harboe. We have divided the departments and funding options between us:. Annette Hjort Knudsen

michaelbooth
Download Presentation

Presentation of FIK

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Presentation of FIK • We are: • Lise Walsted Kristiansen - Head of Division • Research consultants: • Annette Hjort Knudsen • Astrid Holm Olsen • Jan Andersen • Mette Christiansen • Theresa Larriba Harboe TLHA 2010

  2. We have divided the departments and funding options between us: • Annette Hjort Knudsen FØI, IMHS, IPH & LMC EIT, EFSA, FVM-pools & PhD-financing • Astrid Holm Olsen IFV, UNIKs & BEST Research infrastructure & DGF • Jan Andersen S&L & IPB EU, FP7 programmes & Lobby • Mette Christiansen IGM, IJØ & ViVa DFF, DSF, RTI, EliteForsk travel stipends & large foundations • Theresa Larriba Harboe IVS, IHE & IBHV EU FP7 Health-related projects, DFF-FSS, DSF, HTF & smaller foundations TLHA 2010

  3. Who am I Bachelor in Biochemistry, KU-NAT Cand. scient, molecular genetics (KU-NAT & KU-SUND) PhD, molecular genetics (KU-SUND) Postdoc, Harvard Medical School Postdoc, RUC & KU-SUND Research advisor, KU-LIFE • All afterwards mentioned advice is based on: • Personal experience with both FSS and smaller foundations • Conversations with council members and staff members at the national research councils and private foundations • Advice and talks from colleagues TLHA 2010 TLHA 2010 3

  4. Research & Innovation • Our goal is to: • Ensure that the researchers at LIFE have the best possible help to write applications of the highest possible quality • Ensure information and communication on the calls, guidelines and rules for external funds • Be sparring partners and consultants for specific ideas and projects FIK TLHA 2010

  5. Which type of help and sparring do we offer? Technical support Writing support TLHA 2010

  6. Which type of help and sparring do we offer? Technical support: Discussion of appropriate calls for your application Application guidelines Evaluation criteria Announcement of calls through newsletter TLHA 2010

  7. Which type of help and sparring do we offer? • Writing support: • Questions about your application • Read-throughs • Schedules • Appearance • Help you to sell not tell your project • Make sure your application addresses all items mentioned in the call such as • Context • Impact • Implementation TLHA 2010

  8. Why do rejections happen? A large numbers, approx. 75-90% of all fund applications are refused The reasons include:The project does not fall within the purpose of the fundThe application is ill-prepared - the guidelines are not read and followed carefully - too many errors of formalities The application may not reflect the researcher's competence and the organisations capacity to implement the projectApplication budget is poorly worked outThe quality of the project is not high enough... .. Unfortunately, funds do not have unlimited resources, therefore your application may also fall outside their priorities. TLHA 2010 TLHA 2010 8

  9. Planning an application Preparation before writing a fund applicationPlease be ahead of timePlan your budget - how much and why?Shotgun or rifle methodInvestigate funds within your professional areaWhich funds to apply for what? TLHA 2010 TLHA 2010 9

  10. Our favourite tool: the 1-page proposal • Why bother? (Which problem is being solved and why is it important?) • For whom is it important? At which level? (Regional, National, European Union or Global?) • What is new? (clearly indicate the current state of the art, and the essence of what is new in the proposed project – before and after scenario) • Why now? (not 5 years ago, or 5 years in the future)? (What would happen if we did not do this work now?) • Describe what will be made possible when the project has delivered its results and achieved its objectives and these can be taken into use • Why not buy a product or service on the market (why do R&D)? Why not transfer the technology? Why develop? TLHA 2010

  11. Considerations during the preparation of fund applications - Public/Organizations/company Funds- Technical Committees- Research Councils - Private and family foundations / company funds- Lawyers  - Councils More accessible, more generally understandable language, appeal to emotions, include illustrations, without of course compromising your integrity, professionalism and quality of the project. You should also beware of talking "down ‘to the target audience. They are often used to reading difficult material of different academic disciplines. High academic content, much facts related, include illustrations, tables, but beware that it does not become too esoteric! Many funds emphasise on the quality of the research, why your project should appear professional and ambitious.Many funds have professionally competent research officers/committee members or outside experts who make a recommendation to the Board. Remember to clarify whether the fund potentially send your application to expert evaluation – then a very professional, high scientific application is of course relevant For both:Get a colleague or someone else to review your application TLHA 2010 TLHA 2010 11

  12. Considerations during the preparation of fund applications Content and structure of an application: Whether an application form has to be used or not it is relevant to the below mentioned. The list provides an overview of what a good application may contain:Cover letter Brief introduction Requirements Specification Purpose and summary Presentation of research and university Popular description for publication Budget and financial plan CV – some times CV for primary partners as well Other Annexes TLHA 2010 TLHA 2010 12

  13. Considerations during the preparation of fund applications Content and structure of an application: Project description Project title History and background of the problem Purpose and objectives Target group and needs Method Collaboration Practical feasibility Ethical aspects Expected results - including dissemination New Value Time and activity level, Gantt chart TLHA 2010 TLHA 2010 13

  14. Considerations during the preparation of fund applications Popular description for publicationSome funds want a short, popular summary of the project for possible publication. Here you may choose to cut down on the cover letter and do something more with this description.In preparing this, you must consider your language carefully and eliminate very difficult technical terms.Published descriptions is for a very broad audience. It should be a catchy description of the project, but the emphasis must be on project news and usefulness.Get an outsider to read and correct the popular description. May be approx. ½ -1 page or according to the Fund's limitations.Pay close attention to target audience - lay persons, scientists outside the field or researchers within the field TLHA 2010 TLHA 2010 14

  15. Considerations during the preparation of fund applications Send the applicationGet an outsider – possibly a friend - to review and correct the application in relation to the purpose of the fund. Make a check sheet for requirements – does the application meet the funds requirements for innovation, quality, clinical research, etc.Check that all formalities have been complied with. Investigate how many copies of the application the fund wishes. Some funds also have rules on whether the material must be stapled or not (for subsequent copying) or similar.Be aware that many funds want application by ordinary mail because they have difficulty in handling electronically transmitted applications. TLHA 2010 TLHA 2010 15

  16. Reflections after the application has been reviewed Follow-upFollow up on your application - both the accepted and rejected.Rejection - If you do not feel you got a proper justification for your refusal call them - unless the fund generally does not provide rejection reasons. It can give you advice for the next time you need to apply for funds. Questions of appropriate character could be:1. Why was the project rejected?2. What suggestions and improvements are recommended?3. What doubts were raised about this project?4. Was the budget realistic? Was the amount requested realistic?5. Were the benefits for the fund clearly answered? Sufficiently?6. Is it possible and realistic to reapply? When?7. Can the fund propose other funding sources for this project? TLHA 2010 TLHA 2010 16

  17. Reflections after the application has been reviewed Follow-upThe goal of follow-up after an appropriation is to build a good relationship to the fund. Follow-up could consist of one or more of the following initiatives:1. Send a personal letter of thanks to the fund2. Send press clippings about the project where the fund is listed3. Send reports on project status and progress4. Send any publications where the support of the fund is recognised 5. Recognition of the fund on a project website6. Be prepared to attend fund events and tell about your project and results TLHA 2010 TLHA 2010 17

  18. Reflections after the application has been reviewed Follow-upBy project milestones or project completion you can:7. Invite the board to a laboratory tour and presentation of results8. Reporting - in the form of records (remember it must be comparable to your previous budget)In particular no. 8, the fund will probably even make it obligatory.So please remember that you can do a number of initiatives to preserve the good relationship to the fund and that this is "preparing the ground" for future appropriations. TLHA 2010 TLHA 2010 18

  19. Reflections after the application has been reviewed Personal follow-up For your own experience, it is advisable to make an overview of:which funds you are applying towhich funds you have received rejections fromwhich funds you receive appropriation from and how muchThis way, you have an inventory of your own success and perhaps a better feel for whether you should change your application practices. TLHA 2010 TLHA 2010 19

  20. Concluding remarks Personal follow-up It is not an exact science to write fund applications, therefore take the present advice as a guide and not as an answer book for fund application. Funds are a non-homogeneous group with very different requirements and objectives. Here it is preparatory work and the experience that counts. If you get the opportunity, become an evaluator/committee member in a fund/organization/research councils or similar. The best experience you can get is to read other people's applications and build a sense of what works and what is certainly not working in an application. TLHA 2010 TLHA 2010 20

  21. Remember • Make sure your CV matches the call • – do not reuse the same CV every time. Make it specific • Make sure your research actually fit the call text • Read the call text thoroughly and make sure you address all points to be answered • Read the evaluation criteria closely so you know on which grounds you will be judged TLHA 2010

  22. Call or write us when you: • Plan an application to the research councils or foundations. You are welcome to keep regular contact until the application has been submitted • Would like to apply for scholarships or Marie Curie • Have questions about formalities, tables, forms, rules etc. • Want a critical eye on your draft application • - Why fail when you can have success – give us a call TLHA 2010

  23. Useful information Lise Walsted Kristiansen 353-32036liwk@life.ku.dk Annette Hjort Knudsen 353-32244knu@life.ku.dk Astrid Holm Olsen 353-32643aho@life.ku.dk Jan Andersen 353-32378jaan@life.ku.dk Theresa Larriba Harboe 353-32044tlha@life.ku.dk Mette Christiansen 353-32106mech@life.ku.dk Mette writes and sends out the newsletter so contact her if you would like to be on the mailing list. TLHA 2010

  24. Chekliste - ansøgning Formål Hvad prøver jeg at opnå med mit projekt? Hvorfor er mit projekt vigtigt? Metode Hvordan vil jeg opnå ovenstående? Tidsramme Hvor langt er jeg nu? Medmindre det er et helt nyt projekt. Hvor lang tid tager projektet? Ressourcer Hvor mange penge skal jeg bruge? Hvilke typer af udgifter vil jeg få? Hvor stort anslår jeg mit materiale/driftsforbrug til? Hvor mange medarbejdere skal jeg bruge? Hvilke ressourcer er allerede til min disposition? Samarbejdspartnere Hvem samarbejder/bør jeg samarbejde med? Resultater Hvilke resultater forventer jeg af projektet Interessenter Hvem er mit projekt vigtigt for? Samfund, dyr, mennesker etc. Betingelser Hvilke krav/betingelser kan jeg acceptere i forbindelse med tildeling af midler? TLHA 2010 TLHA 2010 24

  25. Chekliste – undersøgelse af fonde I • Har du komplette og korrekte kontaktinformationer om fonden? • Støtter fonden det specifikke faglige område, du søger ressourcer til? • Indikerer fonden interesse i dit land, geografiske område (eks. EU), institution eller lign. • Kan fonden søges? Vær opmærksom på at nogle fonde ikke modtager ansøgninger. • Støtter fonden den type midler, du ønsker at ansøge om? Eksempelvis støtter nogle fonde ikke konferencer og seminarer. • Har fonden tidligere støttet et projekt af samme karakter som dit? Dette kan både være en fordel og en ulempe afhængigt af fondens holdning hertil. Nogle fonde støtter en type projekt én gang for at gå foran med et godt eksempel. Andre fonde støtter et område generelt. Få afklaret hvilken type den pågældende fond er. TLHA 2010 TLHA 2010 25

  26. Chekliste – undersøgelse af fonde II • Støtter fonden større projekter som involverer et antal af organisationer, evt. inkl. offentlige partnere? Vurder hvorvidt dit eget projekt falder i denne kategori, og hvorvidt fonden bør søges på basis heraf. • Uddeler fonden midler i det omfang du vil ansøge om? Søg ikke en fond om kr. 500.000, hvis de aldrig har givet mere end kr. 100.000 til en ansøger. Og modsat søg ikke en fond om kr. 10.000, hvis de har en minimumsgrænse på kr. 50.000 i bevilling. • Stiller fonden krav om ”matchingfunding” eller enedonator? Undersøg hvorvidt fonden ønsker ”matchingfunding”, dvs. at andre fonde skal give lige så meget til projektet. Hvis ja, skal du naturligvis ikke ansøge netop denne fond om det totale budget for dit projekt. Modsat kan nogle fonde have præferencer for at være ”ene-donator”. • Accepterer fonden hele projektbeskrivelser eller foretrækker de korte brevforslag? Bør du sende en forespørgsel før en hel ansøgning? Måske har fonden præferencer på dette område. • Hvem sidder i bestyrelsen/fagligt udvalg? Er der habilitetsproblemer? Eller hvis der sidder et medlem, som har godt kendskab til dit fag- og projektområde, vil det nok være positivt. TLHA 2010 TLHA 2010 26

  27. Steder at søge ekstern finansiering Kraks Fonde & Legater 2004-2005, Bog: ca. Kr. 960,00, kan lånes på alle folkebiblioteker og på KU-LIFEs bibliotek http://kraksbutik.krak.dk Vejviser til legater og fonde, 10. udgave, Billesø og Baltzer, Bog: ca. Kr. 845,00, udgives også på CD-Rom, kan lånes på folkebiblioteker http://www.e-boghandel.dk/shop/item.asp?id=549877 I Statstidende offentliggøres alle offentlige støtteordninger. Forskerstøtte Enheden RegionH, FIE har også en database. Som KU ansatte har I alle adgang til denne TLHA 2010 TLHA 2010 27

  28. Databaseguide til FIEs forskningsdatabase • Om Forsknings- og Innovationsstøtteenhedens finansieringsdatabase • Som ansat på KU har du nu muligheden for at få adgang til finansieringsdatabasen, som er oprettet af Region Hovedstadens Forsknings- og Innovationsstøtteenhed (FIE). Databasen indeholder opslag om finansieringskilder, danske såvel som udenlandske, der støtter sundhedsvidenskabelige forskningsprojekter.Under hvert opslag kan du få viden om opslagets formål, støtteområder, typisk bevillingsstørrelse, krav til ansøgningen, kontaktoplysninger samt ansøgningsfrist.I et specielt felt kaldet FIEs note er der tilføjet en ekstra information, der kan være med til at kvalificere din ansøgning yderligere. Det kan f.eks. være information om specielle krav og særlige forhold, som du bør være opmærksom på. Det kan også være oplysninger om bedømmelsesudvalget og erfaringer med tidligere bevillinger. • Ny bruger • Gå til www.finansieringsdatabasen.dk • Klik på ”Ny bruger?” • Indtast dit navn, din arbejdsmail og vælg et kodeord på mindst seks tegn • Klik på ”Opret bruger” • Klik på linket i den aktiveringsmail du får tilsendt umiddelbart herefter • Fremover kan du logge ind via www.finansieringsdatabasen.dk med din arbejdsmail og det valgte kodeord • Ved spørgsmål eller tekniske problemer • Kontaktperson for KU LIFE • Theresa Larriba Harboe • Tlf.: 353 32044 • Mail: tlha@life.ku.dk TLHA 2010

  29. More information • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfgzdLe92c0 • A video showing the review process at NIH. Shows how the evaluators discuss • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAOGtr0pM6Q • - NIH tips for applicants TLHA 2010

  30. Eksempel på bedømmelsesskema Qualifications of the members of the research group Please assess the scientific qualifications of the participating scientists in relation to this project. Composition of the research group Please evaluate if the composition of the participating institutions and research groups is appropriate as regards the implementation of the project and utilisation of the potential results. Objective Please assess the scientific objective of the project. Originality Please assess the originality of the project in relation to International research in the relevant area Fundamental research and research value/impact It is the aim of the Research Council to promote fundamental Research within the agricultural and veterinary research area. Scientific method Please assess if the proposed methods are the best available and if the research group has access to the necessary facilities. Scientific disciplines of importance to the project Please assess if all relevant aspects of scientific disciplines important to the project are adequately addressed. Project / work plan Please assess if the work plan is realistic and coherent. Collaboration Please assess if the proposed collaboration incl. the management, organisation and co-operative commitment provides the necessary interaction and synergy between the participants. Innovative value Please assess the innovative value of the project Opportunities for young scientists Please assess whether the project provides opportunities and Scientific challenges for young scientists and if the project is suitable for the proposed educational aspects. Overall grade of the project Please give the project an overall grade between 1 (inadequate) and 5 (excellent). Overall scientific assessment Please fill in any detailed comments on the subjects you have ticked off in the assessment form and please indicate if you find that any important aspects are missing from the proposed project. TLHA 2010 TLHA 2010 30

More Related