1 / 7

Professor Mark Llewellyn, Director of Research

AHRC Strategic Reviewers’ Event. Professor Mark Llewellyn, Director of Research. Strategic Reviewer Group: Update. Peer Review College Members – 120 members from Jan 2011 good strategic overview of UK Arts and Humanities senior leadership role within institution

raisie
Download Presentation

Professor Mark Llewellyn, Director of Research

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. AHRC Strategic Reviewers’ Event Professor Mark Llewellyn, Director of Research

  2. Strategic Reviewer Group: Update • Peer Review College Members – 120 members from Jan 2011 • good strategic overview of UK Arts and Humanities • senior leadership role within institution • experience of large collaborative activities • breadth and/or diversity of subject knowledge • Reviews for • complex proposals • organisational level type proposals • multi-institutional/consortium model proposals

  3. Role of Strategic Reviewers • To participate in one-off, light touch decision-making panels • To be involved in decisions about the development of the AHRC’s themes and priorities • Themes • Strategy and development • To engage with the full range of peer review models employed across schemes • Large scale collaborations – consortia: BGP2 • ‘sandpits’ • To act as advocates within institutions • peer review • demand management • ROS • To comment on ‘one-off’ commissioned research proposals generated by AHRC • To support the further development of the PRC

  4. Update:Development of the PRC • Attracting and maintaining the right balance of expertise and membership to address new strategy and priorities • PRC identity • different types of membership/levels but a single college • website redevelopment and PRC online community • Demand Management and the peer review system • Recruitment drive 2011 • Target call: theme areas • Target call: disciplinary/subject areas • 330+ nominations received

  5. Changes to Fellowship Scheme Early Career Route • developing research leaders • emphasis on research leadership development (including, e.g. Knowledge exchange, public engagement, international engagement, peer review), as well as research excellence and dissemination • longer, larger and more prestigious awards • institutions will need to demonstrate how they will support career development during the leave period Standard Route • More use of highlighted calls to target areas of strategic importance, national capability or emerging priorities • Expectation that projects will be of exceptional scale and importance, but remove the development/completion divide • Leave period not spent entirely in isolation—some collaboration and/or public engagement expected • Expectation that Fellows will engage, where appropriate with AHRC

  6. BGP2: Key Items • Collaboration and capacity • Diversified training and skills development • Coherence of vision and strategy for A+H researchers within different contexts • Increased flexibility of funding profile • Enhancement of ‘partnership’ role within, between and across ROs/cultural & creative partners/the AHRC as funder

  7. Discussion GroupsPeer Review Question:How might models of peer review need to be adapted within the context of AHRC’s themes/approaches to longer and larger/consortia and partnership funding? Examples of potential issues include: • What expectations should there be in rewarding potential within partnerships/‘longer and larger’/consortium models? • What mechanisms do we need to support innovative research potential? • How can we develop peer review in the context of emerging thematic areas and longer term strategic investment?

More Related