Getting Research Funded
Jim Watson, Director, Sussex Energy Group
DSkills Day, 23rd May 2011
Sussex Energy Group
SPRU - Science and Technology Policy Research
Overview
1. Three case studies
2. Some general issues and lessons
3. Key points
Sussex Energy Group
SPRU - Science and Technology Policy Research
Case study 1
Technology transfer to China (1999)
• Started with some good luck – approach from China Council
(via former SPRU Director). But no funding for UK study
• Approached UK government (Dept of Trade and Industry).
Non committal at first – many conversations / negotiations
• Finally got a conditional offer: needed industrial co-funding
• Small contributions from 3 firms got us the main grant from
DTI (£82,000 in all). What made the difference?
– Link to the China Council valuable but not enough
– Addressing UK policy concerns (trade promotion)
– Lots of patience, flexibility and negotiation
– Leverage of contacts with industry – first one most difficult.
Sussex Energy Group
SPRU - Science and Technology Policy Research
Case study 2
Household micro-generation (2003)
• Started work before I had funding (while employed on other
projects) – e.g. conference paper to scope out the research
• First attempt at funding failed: EPSRC consortium building
process in which I had no idea how to play the game
• Second attempt succeeded (£138,000): ESRC programme on
sustainable technologies. What made the difference?
– Strong team. Not just SPRU but collaborations with engineers
and buildings specialists
– Grounded in / adding to theory with clear research questions
to address Call and gaps in knowledge. Crucial for ESRC
– Clear work programme. What we would do and why
– Relevance. Letters of support from stakeholders
Sussex Energy Group
SPRU - Science and Technology Policy Research
Case study 3
Community Innovation in Energy (2010)
• A specific EPSRC call in partnership with EdF (France)
• Prior relationship with EdF through previous research
• Outline call text was vague (e.g. possibility that we had to
form consortia). Submitted a ‘menu’ of possible projects
• Successful outline bid led to meeting with EdF. Took
feedback seriously - picked ‘Community Innovation’
• Successfully funded (£688,000). What made the difference?
– Listened to feedback and changed PI
– Clear theories, methods, roles, responsibilities, tasks
– Worked out relationship with EdF and brought in UEA
– Very good reviews, but still asked to rewrite ‘impact plan’
Sussex Energy Group
SPRU - Science and Technology Policy Research
General issues
Funder pros and cons
• ESRC often the first port of call: SPRU’s ‘home territory’ with
lots of funding schemes, but competitive / oversubscribed
• EPSRC also important: often interprets ‘engineering’ very
broadly, and is well funded. Need to fit with programmes
• EU funding: Lots of relevant calls, but complex to manage and
require lots of partnerships. Can be onerous to lead
• Government: Quick turnaround with direct policy link. But
research often fulfils very specific, immediate need
• NGOs: Opportunity to do immediate and focused research with
impact – but contracts often understandably small
• Industry: Can be significant funders, but less independence (esp
for social science?). Requires lots of negotiation and time
Sussex Energy Group
SPRU - Science and Technology Policy Research
General Issues
Partnerships and consortia
• Partnerships and consortia are increasingly important (at
least for SPRU energy research)
• EU projects require partnerships, but they are often a
strategic advantage (or requirement) for other funders
• Important to choose partners carefully – I’ve had many failed
bids following approaches from people I didn’t know
• Some funders like throw potential partners together to see
what happens (e.g. EPSRC ‘sandpits’). Can be confusing –
but rewarding if you’re a good strategist
• Don’t be afraid to take the lead if you’re confident – more
work but more reward if you’re successful
Sussex Energy Group
SPRU - Science and Technology Policy Research
Key points
• Get a head start – pilot the research before seeking funding
• Read the call text if a specific call, or funder strategies and
plans if more generic. Surprising how many fail to do this
• Talk to the funder and get informal feedback early on
• Balance of theory / relevance / empirics depends on funder
• Choose partnerships carefully - poor choices create work
• Letters of support often help – but are not compulsory
• Leave enough time for all the paperwork (especially
budgets, and supplementary documents)
• If invited to respond to review comments, be measured but
robust – there is often one reviewer who doesn’t get it!
Sussex Energy Group
SPRU - Science and Technology Policy Research