Minutes on special HERA JRP Management Meeting. European Science Foundation (ESF)

Transcription

1 HERA website: Deliverable number Title HERA D9.3.5/9.4.5 Minutes on special HERA JRP Management Meeting Work Package WP9 Actual submission date (contractual date) Organisation name(s) of lead contractor for this deliverable Author(s) November 10, 2008 European Science Foundation (ESF) Rüdiger Klein With the help of all HERA (JRP) partners Nature Status Dissemination level Abstract Report Final version Public These are the minutes of the special meeting for managers of HERA JRP funding agencies in which all kinds of eligible cost issues were discussed. Contract no: ERAC-CT

2

3 HERA JRP programme management structure and procedures November 2008 European Science Foundation work package 9 task 9.3

4

5 Special HERA MT workshop (Preparation of the Joint Calls) The Hague (NWO), 10 Nov 2008, 09:00-16:00 country name present Austria Monika Maruska FWF yes Croatia Jelena Dukic HAZU yes Denmark Inger Schow DASTI yes Estland Kati Kio EstSF yes Finland Kustaa Multamäki AKA yes Ireland Sorcha Carthy IRCHSS yes Netherlands Alice Dijkstra, Rosemary van Kempen NWO yes Norway Solbjørg Rauset RCN yes Slovenia Davor Kozmus MHEST yes Sweden Lena Johansson de Château, Sung Za Ödelycke VR yes United Kingdom Christelle Pellecuer AHRC yes ESF Rüdiger Klein (chair_ HA yes ESF Julia Boman HA no Iceland Magnus Magnusson RANNIS no Luxembourg Susanne Rick FNR no Minutes special HERA (JRP) MT meeting, November p. 1

6 1. Welcome and agreement on the agenda 2. Purpose of the workshop The workshop was convened following a suggestion made by VR during the last MT/NB meeting: its objective was to clarify outstanding issues with the practical management of the Call, and, notably, in order to agree on common responses questions by applicants likely to emerge (or already collected) regarding issues not spelled out clearly in the Call text and the FAQ pages. The WS was also to discuss the respective national eligibility texts, to be published jointly with the Call, and to highlight (and, wherever possible, eliminate) inconsistencies. Participants had been asked to prepare questions, and to bring issues to the meeting. 3. National eligibility requirements: It had been agreed that national rules apply. In rare cases, national rules needed to be modified in order for a given national competition practice to be adjusted to the HERA JRP Call. In this session, NER s were examined in view of compatibility with the Call, in view of clarity of the instructions, and in view of extracting issues of interest for partner councils. It was agreed that the main elements of the NER documents would be: who can be apply? what can they apply for? It was agreed that HERA JRP application rules will include a request to submit information about past and currently funded projects, as well as pending funding applications submitted. It was agreed that wherever standard and generally known national rules had to be suspended in view of overriding HERA JRP rules such differences need to spelled out, and a reference (preferably: link) t the relevant section of the HERA JRP rules should be included in the text. By the same token it was agreed that efforts need to be made to have as much relevant documentation (on NER s) as possible available in English for all project members to understand. It was agreed that one HERA JRP web-page will be set up, listing the name and contact details of the national contact person and linking to country specific pages with separate documents (carrying name and logo of the organization) ). NL: Definition of the PL (to be included at the general HERA JRP guidelines level) should have elements as follows: responsibility for the administrative and financial management, for the intellectual agenda and coherence of the Number of PI s per CRP: maximum 1 per institution; maximum 2 per country; After some discussion agreement was reached on maximum rate for intra- CRP, however it may be favourable for centrally located countries such as the Netherland and infavourable for Icelandic researchers. Minutes special HERA (JRP) MT meeting, November p. 2

7 UK: Text submitted had been taken from the general guidelines for individual research grants: standard route ; terminology etc will be adjusted (PL = leader of the CRP; PI = leader of the national project) Staff who are employed on research contracts at the time of application must provide proof that they will not employed on those contracts at the time of taking up a HERA JRP funded position; Reference to contractual arrangements with research organization after the end of the award must be taken out (incompatible with likely HERA JRP reporting practice); SI: Text must be more detailed and spell out some of the ground rules in HERA JRP language (PL: required xx pts.; PI required xx pts); fulfillment of these requirements according to SI rules will be verified by SI national contact point; the strict classification of the SI partner may not do justice to and may need to be brought in line with overriding HERA JRP definition: projects are Humanities-driven, but do not exclude etc etc ; HR: - artistic institution refers to institutions outside the HE sector that are eligible for funding, e.g. museums - collaborators to be replaced with project members EE: it was recommended not to include into the eligibility rules elements that apply in regular domestic applications (e.g.: journal publications in ISI, ERIH etc.) IE: #2: specify how this requirements differs from the documentation to be submitted as part of the CRP proposal to the handling agency AT: Text submitted was meant to be an example of typical instruction sheets in domestic applications; will be adjusted by FWF. Text must carefully avoid contradictions with spirit of EU evaluation criteria; text should preferably not make any comments on evaluation criteria; If the incrementals (inflation costs, salary ranges) are to be maintained under HERA JRP for Austrian applicants, FWF will have to be able to provide exact figures to PL. Minutes special HERA (JRP) MT meeting, November p. 3

8 NO: Text submitted was meant to be an example of typical instruction sheets in domestic applications; will be adjusted by RCN. NO-language applications will not be necessary under the HERA JRP Call; RCN will not interfere with Review Panel decisions (e.g. on gender issues); FI ( sent to ESF too late to be incorporated into the meeting documents): Language of the text must e clarified to be more easily understood also by applicants (notably PL s) not familiar with the Finnish original rules; Replacement of Finnish PI must be governed through the consortium agreement (CRP); rules on replacement (by the university concerned) need to be known to PL; PL must be able to comment on the possible replacement; only in the unlikely case of serious conflict a higher authority of the HERA JRP Board may need to intervene. DK: No text had been received; all issues communicated orally had been clarified during the discussion; 4. Issues to be discussed The meeting discussed the meaning of the phrase Associated Partner ; it refers only to non-academic partners who can be included in an application, provided they give added value to the proposal. And added value must be explained. Collaborators, on the other hand, would be all others, who may be mentioned in the application, but without this mention being taken into account by the Review Panel (danger of name-dropping ). The proposal should be strong enough not to depend on the input from other outsiders. NL: Statement unchanged: projects are Humanities-led, but do not exclude participation fro mother disciplines PL only in one proposal; NB also decided that PI can apply only in one proposal; coordinator will report to Chair that it might be politically appropriate to allow PIs to participate in two proposals (provided the proposed workplans allow them to do so in case both applications are successful). Provided the NB reverses their decision on the issue, PIs will have to include, in such cases, a signed document that testifies to the fact that they have notified the respective PLs of their intention to join more than one CRP. Addition to Call: European added-value text be taken from Call (in addition to the official EU explanation): value added to the research conducted from the novel transnational European research collaboration. European added value is not about European (vs. local or global) topics, but about the expected better research that emerges from European HERA research collaboration. Minutes special HERA (JRP) MT meeting, November p. 4

9 Addition to guidelines / budget instructions: PL should apply for travel costs for the entire CRP, aimed at ensuring the coherence of the CRP through regular contact and exchanges; Addition to guidelines / budget instructions: support for joint publications (notably if in OA formats; also: translations) can be provided, but must be applied for from the beginning as part of the dissemination / publication plan; Template for standard contract still to be elaborated; then to be circulated Partners need to find creative ways to reach out with the Call to as wide as possible a constituency. As for film making as part of a proposal, national rules should be followed. Apparently the UK has some. NO: National funding agencies must verify eligibility of the applicants in the first round, and then verify again the detailed budget items (and documentation provided); it may be useful to develop a template for the responses. Project applications that ask for more than 1 Mio. and for a period longer than 36 months are ineligible; this must be spelled out in the Call / guidelines text; Replace: maternity leave, with: parental leave ; responsibility for assuring the continuity of the collaborative research rests with the institution / with the PL; As simple as possible a set of templates for applicants would be welcome; Upper limits of Pages / Word-count for application texts (or sections) meay need to spelled out more clearly in the instructions documents; PL In control of overall budget; additional funding needs to be included in the budget proposed only if secured; As regards the naming of PhD candidates, this depends on the respective proposal (and differs from country to country); it cannot be made obligatory UK: Q1: only one applicant per institution in one proposal; Q2: proposal must specify other sources of support; double funding is not eligible; Q3: only broad themes have been described; proposals based on relevant ideas that go beyond or even challenge the basic ideas in the Call are admissible; Q4: the institution must be eligible under national funding rules; such documentation must be provided by applicants that the national eligibility check can be passed; this may differ from country to country. Minutes special HERA (JRP) MT meeting, November p. 5

10 5. Website structure It was agreed that the HERA website will have section per country / HERA partner, which will carry precise links to the eligibility pages of the national HERA partners [from those pages here should be a link back to the HERA website]; the links should ideally be to texts in English, so that also partners of the national applicants (notably: Project Leaders) can understand the requirements. Wherever possible, specific HERA eligibility documents should be prepared, possibly under a title [Name of agency] special eligibility requirements for researchers under HERA JRP Call Such documents would be placed on the HERA website, together with the links to the broader, general eligibility texts and pages; HERA partners will have to state that for the HERA competition these texts overrule eligibility requirements in other, national competitions of the agency concerned (which may on occasions contradict the specific HERA requirements). 6. Language Having been alerted by the H.A. all participants confirmed that they do not expect problems in terms of applicants requesting a language of application other than English; even in those countries where the law prescribes the use of national languages in domestic competitions, the meeting heard that applicants are used to write applications in English for international competitions. 7. Any other business H.A. was reassured that most meeting participants had sent in their candidatures for seats on the two main HERA committees, QAC and KTAC. All meeting participants also said they had sent in candidates for the Review Panels. Not all participants had sent in the compiled templates for the MoU. DK reported that the HERA website does not yet provide opportunities for virtual matchmaking; this is due to changes in the personnel structure of the contractor. DK promises that efforts will be made is to ensure the website is updated and operational as soon as possible. NO had submitted suggestions for changes to the call text which were discussed; the suggested changes have been partly incorporated ( from coordinator): P.1, the last sentence in the first paragraph need not be removed ( In consultation with their national researcher communities. ) P.1, beneficiaries of this Call are eligible scholars whose status various from country to country; a uniformed formula would be problematic. P.1, questions can be foreseen from researchers asking when the next call is expected; the current text can be left, but a statement should be added to FAQ that issuing of a next call is still unsure and that it would definitely not occur before the entire text need to be carefully for proper and consistent use of the words theme and topic. Minutes special HERA (JRP) MT meeting, November p. 6