Comunicación y Gerencia
Gaining the Grail
External Research Funding
Karen Mow Research Development Advisor
University of Canberra
Karen Mow - University of Canberra
It is a
journey much more
than grant
writing
Karen Mow - University of Canberra
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
Publish
Build track record
1-5
years
out
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
Karen Mow - University of Canberra
Profile - who knows you?
Locate leaders in your discipline. Talk to
Begin
them. Help them*. Spin your work in their
direction. Publish with them.
Go to high level conferences – present
Every
year
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
Karen Mow - University of Canberra
Collaborate
Build a network of collaborators
1-3
years
out
- 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.
Karen Mow - University of Canberra
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
Partners
1-2
years
out
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
Karen Mow - University of Canberra
Funding sources
Identify the best funding source
1-2
years
out
and 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,
Karen Mow - University of Canberra
Project Building
On
Going
Good question
Build a team with right skills
Sequence of tasks
Communication
Confidence
Focus
Passion
Karen Mow - University of Canberra
Team and Question
Form the team for the task – get
commitment
6-12
months
out
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.
Karen Mow - University of Canberra
Research Council Funding
The Text
6
months
out
3-4
months
out
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.
Karen Mow - University of Canberra
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
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
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
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
ARC DP Process
Karen Mow - University of Canberra
NHMRC Project Grants Process
Karen Mow - University of Canberra
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
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 nonexpert
Karen Mow - University of Canberra
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
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
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 consultancy than genuine research
that is innovative and challenging.
Karen Mow - University of Canberra
Uncompetitive applications
Seem largely university/academic-led,
and in style 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
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 convince
that this study needs to be
funded now, in the (Australian) National Interest
Look like they have been rushed
Karen Mow - University of Canberra
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