Debbie Saunders European Funding Officer

1. Debbie Saunders European Funding Officer

2. Marie Curie Fellowships Overview • Policy Setting • Eligibility • Fellowship Options • Application Process • Budget • Key Sections Part B • Evaluation & Feedback • Top Tips for Success • Horizon 2020 FP7 – Marie Curie Actions

3. MC Objectives & Policy Context “The People Work programme 2013 has been designed to support the implementation of the Europe 2020 Flagship Initiatives ‘Innovation Union’, ‘Youth on the Move’ and ‘An Agenda for New Skills and Jobs’.” (2013 People Work Programme) Europe 2020: • http://ec.europa.eu/eu2020/index_en.htm Innovation Union: • http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/index_en.cfm Youth on the Move: • http://ec.europa.eu/education/news/news2540_en.htm

4. Why Bid for MC Funding Host Organisation • Prestigious - Benchmark of Research Excellence • Bottom up Funding • Adds valuable Resource capacity to research team • Increase Expertise • Diversity & Knowledge sharing • Networking Opportunities • Future Bid Development & Collaborations Researcher • Generous Financial Support • 100% Researcher costs + • Training Expenses • Prestigious - CV & future employment • Professional Independence • International Working • All Research Disciplines • Training Opportunities & Knowledge Development • Opportunity to work with key team/ Access to key facilities

5. Eligibility & Key Principles • Experienced Researchers • PhD • 4 years research work experience post 1st degree • Transnational Mobility • Country Eligibility • All Research Disciplines* • Any Nationality • Excellence • Researcher quality • Host Reputation • Skills & Competence Development • Enhances Career Prospects • International Dimension • Equal Opportunities - Appropriate gender and work/life balance • Good working environment, Transparent Recruitment • Strong participation from Enterprises

6. Marie Curie Country Eligibility

7. Individual Fellowships • ‘Experienced Researchers’ • Skills diversification and knowledge sharing • Three categories: • Intra-European Fellowships (IEF) • International Incoming Fellowships (IIF) • International Outgoing Fellowships (IOF) • Final MC Fellowship FP7 Call Deadline: 14 August 2013

8. Results in 2010/2011 FP7 – Marie Curie

9. Deadline & Available Funding Final Deadline 14/08/2013 • Intra- European Fellowships (IEF) • International Incoming Fellowships (IIF) • International Outgoing Fellowships (IOF) • €134m (120 m 2012) • €44.5m (40 m) • €44.5m (40m)

10. Intra-European Fellowships - Training • Funds 12 – 24 month projects for advanced research training • Researcher applies with Host • Mobility between EU or Associated Countries • Training & Skill development/ diversification • Career Development • Professional Independence • Resuming a career in research

11. International Outgoing Fellowships - Training • Advanced Researcher training in a 3rd country (through a high level research project,) to bring skills/ knowledge back to the EU/AS • Funds 24 - 36 month Research & Career Development projects – 2 Phases:- Outgoing 12 - 24 months moving from EU/ AC to a 3rd Party country e.g. USA, Mexico, New Zealand, Japan etc. Re-Integration 12 - 24 months Mandatory return phase in Europe to transfer the knowledge acquired. NB: Researchers must be EU/ AC Nationals (or lived In EU / AC for 5 years)

12. International Incoming Fellowships - Knowledge Transfer • Top-class Researchers from 3rd Country’s move to EU/ AC to work on research projects. • Knowledge Sharing / Transfer from a 3rd Country to EU/AC Host Organisation – builds collaborations between EU/AC & the rest of the world Incoming 12 – 24 months in EU/AS Country Reintegration 12 months for International Cooperation (Optional) Partner Countries (fixed budget €15,000) • Mutually-beneficial research co-operation - between Europe and other parts of the world • Researcher Career Advancement

13. Getting Started • Identify Researcher • Participant Portal • Guidance • 2 Part Application • Part B is Science/ Art • Upload final Part B as PDF • Referees Invited • Submit to EU

17. Application • Identify – Type of Fellowship • Researcher • Host institution & Supervisor/ Scientist in charge • Research Project Idea • Read carefully the Guide for Applicants • Set Up EPSS Account & Register an Application • Develop Application Jointly Host Institution/ Supervisor & Researcher • Contact future host institution/ DRI for Supporting Information • Start writing your proposal early - DRI & the UKRO NCP can provide some "pre screening“ & give feedback • Link proposal to the Key EU Strategic documents – slide 3 • Book Mark Call 14th August deadline N.B. No extenuating circumstances will be considered if missed

18. Application Form Part A Part A (completed online via the PPSS system) • A1 Information on the Proposal • A2 Information on the Host organisation – including information about Supervisors & administration* • A3 Information on the Researcher • A4 Funding Request *Contact DRI

19. Budget Category 1*: Living allowance €58,500 pa (€78,500) Category 2*: Mobility allowance €700 pm (Dependants - €1000) Category 3 : Training Expenses €800 pm Category 5* : Overheads pm €700 Category 6: Other - IIF only; flat rate for one year of €15,000 if returning to ICPC country *multiplied by Country Correction Coefficient (UK Coefficient = 134.4%)

20. Application Form – Part B Part B (maximum length is 27 pages, (exc table of contents, ethics issues section and start and end pages) • B1 Research and technological quality (max 8 pages) • B2 Training / Transfer of Knowledge (max 2 pages) • B3 Researcher (maximum 7 pages) • B4 Implementation (maximum 6 pages) • B5 Impact (maximum 4 pages) • B6 Ethics issues (no page limit)

21. Draft your Proposal for an easy Evaluation • Write exactly what is asked for – no more/ no less! • Stick to the scope of the call IEF & IOF = Training; • IIF = Knowledge Transfer • Logical flow - Project/ Host Expertise/ Host Infrastructure/ Researcher Profile/ Researcher Ambitions; Cooperation: objectives/ work plan/ expertise / Impact • Use ’Cross-references’ – page nos.in proposal, not ”as mentioned above” • Be strong in all aspects - no weaknesses! • Be clear, concise, consistent! The key for writing a successful proposal: experience with proposal evaluation!

22. Training Tips – B2 Training – IEF / IOF • APECS - Generic training • Individual training – list courses – how many/ how long? • Monitoring training – How? • Meetings? • Any formal monitoring at Grad School level? • Match of Training to Research? • Role of Scientist in charge – experience in mentoring • Role of larger SU research community Transfer of Knowledge - IIF • What knowledge will be transferred? • Researcher’s unique skills/knowledge • Dissemination of knowledge? • Seminars? • Supervision of PhD students? • Teaching? • Conferences?

23. Training TIPS Methods for Skills & Expertise Acquisition:- • Training-through-Research • Hands-on Training • Knowledge Transfer • Building Collaborations • Scientific and Financial management • Organisational Skills

24. Researcher Tips – B3 • Work experience (in research) • Industrial experience and expertise • Transferable skills • Prizes, Awards, Lectures etc • Research potential • Independent thinking and leadership qualities • Match between fellow’s profile and project • Cross and multi-disciplinary experience Give evidence of statements • Referee assessment

25. Implementation – B4 Contact DRI for Assistance B 4.1 Quality of infrastructure/facilities and international collaboration of host B 4.2 Practical arrangements for the implementation and management of the research project B 4.3 Feasibility and credibility of the project, including work plan B 4.4 Practical and administrative arrangements and support for the hosting of the fellow Also ’Academic & Professional Enhancement Centre’ (APECs) can provide advice, guidance and generic material – Rebecca Williams

26. B 4.4 Practical and administrative arrangements and support for the hosting of the fellow Describe what practical arrangements are in place to host a researcher coming from another country. What support will be given to him/her to settle into their new host country (in terms of language teaching, help with local administration, obtaining permits, accommodation, schools, childcare etc.) Example for a STRONG proposal: “Joint support from the Human Resources, Internationalisation Office, Academic and Professional Enhancement Centre and Student Support Services, ensures the researcher is able to settle quickly at Swansea University. They provide practical assistance with personal I.D., VISA/permits, health services, banking, tax issues, language courses, and up-to-date local Information. Guest researchers either stay in a room in the University’s residences or guest house accommodation is arranged. Residential Services provide support in finding suitable accomodation for guest researchers coming with their family. They are guaranteed a place in the University’s Nursery/ Childcare Scheme.”

27. B 4.4 Practical and administrative arrangements and support for the hosting of the fellow Describe what practical arrangements are in place to host a researcher coming from another country. What support will be given to him/her to settle into their new host country (in terms of language teaching, help with local administration, obtaining permits, accommodation, schools, childcare etc.) Example for a WEAK proposal: “Assistance in finding an apartment and in administrative issues will be provided by colleagues.” “The institutes’ secretaries will help the researcher with the administrative issues and practical arrangements”

28. College Support for MC Fellows • Develop Supportive Infrastructure for International Researchers • Welcome events - designated personel for practical help • Procedures for hosting international researchers • PreArrival Support • Arrival Checklist – meet from airport/ station • Useful Contact Numbers • Familiarisation activities / meeting key staff in 1st week • Introduction to local area etc • Researcher Responsibilities Handbook & academic contacts • Plan each fellowship individually with respect to specific needs (work permit, visa, childcare etc.) • Communicate this Infrastructure /Procedures to the researcher at the Proposal Writing stage & assist them to develop the Bid • Strong proposal with high chance to get funded • Successful experience & good feedback

29. Impact Tips B5 Impact on Researcher:- • Career and Skills development • Improves career prospects - How? • Mobility • Benefits of working in a different country? • Linguistic skills? Specialisation? Facilities? • Will they have exposure to the commercial sector? Impact of:- • Societal, Economic, Academic impacts of the research • How research meets EU priorities ? • Innovation Union, • Youth on the Move • Dissemination/public engagement plans? • Host organisation - List any lasting collaborations • How will the host/ country/ EU benefit from researcher’s stay?

30. Impact Outreach • Marie Curie Ambassador • Workshop Day • Summer-School • Marie Curie Project Open Day • Public talks, TV-Talks, podcasts and articles in newspapers • e-Newsletters • Multimedia releases

31. Evaluation • Experts in the field • Need to address all of the issues to maximise scores • Total score = 100% • Overall threshold (70% or 3.5/5) • Most Criteria - have a threshold • Each area is weighted • When developing the Proposal, focus on the objectives of the activity, to be successful

33. Proposal Evaluation • Evaluation criteria for each chapter and sub-chapter is listed in the Guide for Applicants • Experts use guiding questions to measure & check the evaluation criteria for each chapter • A list of strengths and weaknesses is made for each chapter • Based on the strengths/weaknesses: marks from 0 - 5 are given with justifications

34. Evaluation criteria - Marie Curie - IEF

35. Evaluation process: Marie Curie • Remote phase: • 3 evaluators/proposal • 4-24 proposals/evaluator (!!!) • > 100 evaluators for > 700 proposals (ENV) • 3 weeks remote evaluation • IndividualAssessment Reports: • Submitted online • Visible to otherexpertsaftertheysubmitted • Consensus meeting: • Experts meet in Brussels • Consensus report (CR) Remote Proposal X copy 1 IAR expert 1 Proposal X copy 2 CR 3 experts IAR expert 2 Proposal X copy 3 IAR expert 3

36. Marie Curie Consensus Meeting - Brussels Experts discuss their IARs: 30 min pr proposal! Agree on strengths/ weaknesses and marks Rapporteur drafts Consensus Report (CR) No Clear, consistent, detailed? Match marks and comments? A commission member quality-controls the CR Yes Checked + approved CRs delivered to commission

37. Evaluation Criteria

38. S & T Quality Assessment Criteria

39. S & T Quality Feedback Positive Feedback • Research is timely with number of innovations beyond ‘state of the art’ • Research methodology is detailed and clearly • Explained Negative Feedback • Techniques to be used are well known in the field so not very innovative • Research methodology not given in full detail

40. Training / Knowledge Transfer Assessment Criteria

41. Training/ Knowledge Transfer Assessor Feedback Positive feedback • Contemplates training courses specifically designed for postdoctoral fellows • Research training objectives are clearly identified, described, and planned • Both participants will benefit from their mutual collaboration, not only through direct joint work, but also through the interaction with the whole research group • Fellow has range of relevant knowledge and expertise to be brought to the project

42. Training/ Knowledge Transfer Assessor Feedback Negative Feedback • A research project with no training element • The host asserts skills without presenting convincing • evidence of competence • Techniques described will clearly be valuable to the researcher, but the lack of detailed description doesn’t inspire confidence in the quality of training available • Objective are research objectives with out specifying the unique knowledge the fellow will bring

43. Researcher Assessment Criteria

44. Researcher Feedback Positive Feedback • Clear proof of independent thinking during PhD and the possibility to progress and develop • Clear evidence of leadership qualities • Potential to acquire new knowledge is high • Good references and clear list of Prizes, Awards, Lectures, etc Negative Feedback • CV lacks data on record • Continuation of previous research so exposure to new approaches is lacking • References were similar and from one institution

45. Implementation Assessment Criteria

46. Impact Assessment Criteria

47. Impact Assessor Feedback Positive Feedback • Contribution to European excellence and competitiveness is well presented • Skill acquired during the project will greatly contribute to the fellow’s career development Negative Feedback • Lack of career development plan for the applicant • Lack of details means it is difficult to judge whether a independent position is achievable

48. Major pitfalls • Too much focus on the research project, too little on all other aspects • Host not sufficiently involved in proposal writing (= weak implementation and training chapter) • Imbalance between ”fellow profile and project match” and ”Benefit from training” (candidate not qualified / too experienced) • Instructions in GFA not followed word by word; information insufficient or lacking

49. TOP TIPS for SUCCESS • Find Successful Researcher • Develop Excellent Project • Allow sufficient time • Key Categories • Impact * • Training * * Get help from DRI / APECs

50. SCoRE Cymru – Supporting Collaborative Research and innovation in Europe • Replaces WECF - Wales European Collaboration Fund • Provides 50% towards travel & subsistence for FP7 application development. • SCoRE can part cover a visit to an EU HEI/ Meeting/ Conference to discuss a potential Fellowship • UK researcher interested in IOF could visit 3rd country to scope out application & meet non EU host.