Collaborative Research Grants Impact Report

Transcription

1 Collaborative Research Grants Impact Report Andy Walker, Patricia Krus, Diane Stewart Review of Carnegie Collaborative Research Grant Scheme Background and funding Collaborative Research Grants (CRGs) provide support for research projects with the joint participation of a minimum of two Scottish universities. The principal criteria for the award of a Collaborative Research Grant are that the project is genuinely collaborative, the planned research is of excellent quality, and the research is likely to be of benefit to the universities of Scotland. The current version of the scheme was introduced following a comprehensive review of the Trust's research funding in 2013 and replaced the Larger Grants scheme. The biggest differences from the previous scheme were the increase in the maximum value grant available going from 40,000 to 50,000 and the introduction of an extensive peer-review scheme. The move away from self-nominated referees to Trust-selected research assessors reflected the highly competitive nature of the scheme. In addition, some additional flexibility was permitted with the categories of costs the grants could be used to cover. The review also recommended that the CRG scheme should favour, where practicable, the award of grants for projects involving early career researchers. Two years of this revised scheme have now been completed: 2014/15 and 2015/16, in each of which it was allocated a budget of 400,000. The actual total of grants awarded in the first year was 414k and 416k in the second year. As a consequence of the very large numbers of applications received in 2014/15 (see below), and the consequent low success rate, the universities were asked in 2016 to focus on projects matching a number of strategic priorities: i. A strong collaborative aspect to the proposal (e.g. balanced contributions, clear synergy, new partnership, etc.); ii. Participation of early career researchers (as co-investigators, principal investigators or lead applicant); iii. An interdisciplinary element to the project; and iv. A significant impact on the partner institutions (developing research programme, new direction, building on strength, etc.). These criteria are now used in the office to select a sub-set of CRG applications prior to proceeding with the peer review. 1 P a g e

2 2. Profile of the Scheme 2.1 Applications and success rates A single Collaborative Research Grant round is run each year, with a submission deadline of the 31 st January. Fig.1 shows both data for the previous Larger Grants scheme, from 2012, and that for the CRG scheme. It can be seen that the launch of the revised scheme in 2015 attracted a peak of 180 applications. With nine CRG awards being made, that year s success rate was exceptionally low 5%. Having publicised the strategic priorities for the scheme in 2016 (see above), fewer applications were received and the success rate increased to 11% Applications Awards Fig.1 Larger Grants ( ) and Collaborative Research Grants application and grant award numbers 2 P a g e

3 2.2 Career Stage The Larger Grants and CRGs schemes have proven attractive to a range of academics. In 2016 it was agreed by the Trustees that the CRG scheme, while not excluding any academics, should prioritise, where possible, early career researchers (ECR) i.e. academics within 5 years of starting an independent research career. In practice collaborative projects can involve ECRs in a number of ways as the lead investigator (coordinating the joint project), as the principal investigator in one of the collaborating universities, or as a named co-investigator. Fig.2 shows the data for the two years of the CRG scheme in terms of the career stage of the lead investigator. Whereas in the first year ECR applicants were already somewhat favoured, the explicit prioritisation of ECR academics that was introduced in 2016 is clearly apparent. It can be seen that in the most recent (2016) round, all of the award recipients were within 10 years of starting their independent research career. 100% Career Stage 3% 0% 2% 7% 11% 7% 0% 11% 80% 7% 14% 11% 7% 8% 22% 10% 60% 17% 19% No Data Over 25 years 11% years 40% 19% 89% years years 6-10 years 0-5 years 20% 33% 44% 46% 0% Applied Awarded Applied Awarded Fig.2 Collaborative Research Grant applications and awards career-stage breakdown 3 P a g e

4 2.3 Gender split Fig.3 shows the split between female and male applicants and awardees. Review of Carnegie Collaborative Research Grant Scheme 2016 Gender of Lead Investigator 100% 80% 29% 14% 22% 13% 6% 3% 35% 36% 60% 33% 39% 44% 60% No Data 40% 71% 86% 78% 88% 59% 61% 67% 61% 56% Female Male 20% 40% 0% Applied Awarded Applied Awarded Applied Awarded Applied Awarded Applied Awarded Fig.3 Larger Grants ( ) and Collaborative Research Grants ( ) gender breakdown It can be noted that, over this period, the Trust has seen increasing numbers of proposals led by women. It can also be seen that there has been a significant increase in the success rates for projects with female lead applicants. Nonetheless, there remains a greater preponderance of proposals being submitted with male lead applicants. 2.4 Academic fields The CRG projects are often quite multi-disciplinary in nature (and are encouraged to be so). In general, they can be split between: Science, Engineering & Technology (SET), and Arts, Humanities & Social Sciences (AHSS). Even on this basis the Trust sometimes receives proposals spanning this division. Fig.4 shows the general breakdown. 100% Field category 80% 29% 33% 60% 71% 63% 52% 70% 59% 67% 54% 78% SET 40% 71% 67% AHSS 20% 29% 38% 48% 30% 41% 33% 46% 22% 0% Applied Awarded Applied Awarded Applied Awarded Applied Awarded Applied Awarded Fig.4 Larger Grants ( ) and Collaborative Research Grants ( ) academic field breakdown (SST Science, Engineering & Technology, and AHSS Arts, Humanities & Social Sciences) 4 P a g e

5 In contrast to the RIGs scheme, over half the CRG applications come from the SET areas. Proposals in this area have also been consistently more successful. 2.5 Split across the universities Over the five year period 2012 to 2016, eleven of the fifteen Scottish universities have been awarded at least one Larger Grant or Collaborative Research Grant. Fig.5 shows the distribution of applications and awards, according to the affiliation of the Lead Applicant. University Applications Awards Success Rate Aberdeen % Abertay % Dundee % Edinburgh % Edinburgh Napier % Glasgow % Glasgow Caledonian % Heriot-Watt % UHI % Queen Margaret 3 0 0% Robert Gordon 7 0 0% St Andrews % Stirling % Strathclyde % UWS % Total % Fig.5 Larger Grants ( ) and Collaborative Research Grants ( ) by university With the average success rate over this period sitting at around 10% it can be expected that those universities that submitted around 10 or fewer applications had a high probability of receiving no awards. Once again the research strength of the older universities is apparent. 5 P a g e

6 Proportion of Awards 5% 7% 7% 5% Aberdeen Dundee 9% Edinburgh Edinburgh Napier 9% 2% 30% Glasgow Heriot-Watt UHI St Andrews 5% Stirling 16% 5% Strathclyde UWS Fig.6 Distribution of Larger Grants and CRG awards across the universities 2012 to Expenditure profile The Collaborative Research Grants scheme recognises all direct research costs as eligible. Excluded are the employment costs of the academic themselves and associated overheads. The fraction of the grant that can be spent on dissemination such as publication costs and conference attendance is limited to 10%. The average breakdown of expenditure for CRG projects approved over the two years is as follows: Salaries 62.7% Travel 3.2% Accommodation and Subsistence 2.1% Equipment 6.6% Computing 0.1% Consultancy, specialist service fees 3.4% Fieldwork 1.5% Subject and volunteer expenses 0.1% Other (e.g. consumables, etc) 18.6% Publication/dissemination activities 1.8% Fig.7 Overall distribution of CRG awards across cost categories 2015 and P a g e

7 3. Results from Survey 56 Lead Applicants, who had been successful in getting their joint proposals funded, were approached to participate in the survey. Responses were received from 27. Of these, 14 had been awarded grants under the former Larger Grants schemes and 13 from the new CRG scheme. 63% of those responding were within 10 years of commencing their independent academic careers. W ha t is yo ur sub je ct/d iscip line? History 3 English Literature 2 Modern Languages 1 Archaeology 1 Education 1 International Relations 1 Psychology & Neuroscience 3 Computer Science 1 Computational Biology 1 Chemistry & Biogeochemistry 2 Forensic science 1 Ecology & Environmental Sci 2 Earth & Geo Science 3 Total 22 How many other Scottish universities were listed as research partners in the original application? How many of these Scottish universities actually contributed to the project? 3.7% 11.1% 3.7% 7.4% 29.6% 44.4% Other (please specify) 3.8% 7.7% 11.5% 34.6% 42.3% Early Career Researchers (ECR): Of the 22 projects being reported in the survey, half involved the participation of academics that could be classed as ECR (less than five years into an independent academic career). In addition, many of the projects included employment of postdoctoral workers and/or PhD student contributions. As indicated in 2.2 above, with the implementation of the strategic priorities a much higher proportion of the most recent Collaborative Grants involve ECR participants. 7 P a g e

8 Scottish partner universities Scottish research organisation (non-university) Universities outside of Scotland Research organisation outside of Scotland Industry Third / Voluntary Sector Public Sector Other type of Partner Review of Carnegie Collaborative Research Grant Scheme 2016 Please rate the contribution and strength of support received from your collaborating organisations on a scale 1(low) to 5(high) (high) (low) 0 The total height of each column in this chart represents the number of those projects being reported upon that had this type of partner in the consortium. The coloured breakdown indicates the project leader s perception of the strength of these contributions. It is interesting to note that, for the 27 projects being reported on, 5 of the Scottish university partners were not highly rated. Where inputs were included from industrial, voluntary, and public sector organisations, these were somewhat variable in perceived quality. Did the project establish a new, longer term, research collaboration? 89% of the respondees answered YES to this question. About the project Yes 27 respondees in total Was this your first research grant? 8 Did the project initiate a new line of enquiry? 27 Did the project lead to research results along the lines expected? 26 Did the project lead to unexpected research results? 19 Did the project run into difficulties and yield no significant results? 0 8 P a g e

9 Specify number of outputs that have been published or confirmed as accepted for publication, according to the following categories: Peer reviewed articles in learned journals Peer reviewed letters/ correspondence in learned journals Peer reviewed papers in Conference Proceedings Peer reviewed collection of essays Peer reviewed chapter in edited volume of essays Specify number of conference papers presented, according to the following categories: Invited/Keynote presentations at international conferences Invited/Keynote presentations at a UK conferences Contributed (peerreviewed) presentations at international conferences Contributed (peerreviewed) presentations at national conferences 9 P a g e

10 Indicate the number of other outputs that arose from the project: Patents Commercialisation activites Exhibitions Policy briefings Stakeholder events or training Knowledge exchange activities Public engagement Specify any other outputs not listed above: Selected response: United Nations Environment Programme AEWA Conservation Guidelines No. 5 - Guidelines on Sustainable Harvest of Migratory Waterbirds (TS No. 62) Project Inauguration at the Scottish Parliament followed by Public Debate Because of the nature of the programme it is difficult to say how many papers and conference presentations came out. A conservative estimate would be somewhere around 30 peer reviewed papers. Many of these outputs are still in development - there will be at least two more papers published. It is expected that there will be substantially more outputs - as well as further publications in due course. Our Carnegie sponsored research was showcased to HM the Queen and HRH Prince Philip at the opening of the Leverhulme research centre for Forensic Science. 10 P a g e

11 Further funding linked to project - awarded or applied for out of 27 responses indicated that at least one funding application had been made to another body relating to their Carnegie-CRG project. Of these, 9 reported their applications had successfully led to a further grant award. Has this project led to: 26 respondees in total Yes Development of a new collaboration 22 New network beyond the project partners 18 Creation of a new research programme 18 Development of a new methodology/protocol 19 Establishment of a new database 12 New government/industry policies or practice 1 Development of new teaching materials or approach P a g e

12 Transparency of the selection process Rate the following aspects on the process of applying for the grant: 1 (poor) - 5 (excellent) Time between application and decision Length and flexibility of the application form Wording/style of the application form: Clarity of the guidelines and regulations Ease of accessing information about the scheme Average rating How appropriate did you find the Conditions of Grant and other aspects of the grant management processes? 1 (poor ) - 5 (excellent) Trust response to project delays, extensions or changes Flexibility in the use of funds Scientific reporting Financial reporting Average rating 12 P a g e

13 How would you rate this scheme in comparison to other similar schemes? 1 (poor ) - 5 (excellent) Ease of grant management Ease of accessing the funds Flexibility and relevance of funded research activities Funding level Average rating I think the scheme fills a really valuable role for starting new initiatives. The level of funding is not that of a major RCUK/EU grant but is sufficient to do substantive research. There are very few alternative schemes which fill this role, in my research area at least. The administration of the scheme worked well and Carnegie staff were always helpful and efficient. It provides a source of seed money for researchers at a level at which one can actually 'do' something very useful with the funds. This really opens up opportunities to start a research programme- larger grants generally require groundwork that has already been done to prove the viability of projects, this schemes fills that gap. Rapid response, light touch, flexibility. The sums of money available (my grant was for 20,000) - there are very few avenues for this kind of 'medium sized' grant - most other schemes provide for funds below a couple of thousand pounds or for several tens of thousands. This scheme fills a gap. Giving early career researchers a decent chance to get a medium sized grant. Collaboration between Universities and external partners Supporting potential new collaborations. The fund not only enables collaboration but is excellent for high risk/high reward proposals. At the moment RCUK bodies are risk-averse (in my opinion) and are more likely to fund incremental work. Carnegie is an excellent way to fund high risk research that could potentially be transformative. Offering access to funding for the Arts and Humanities. Scottish focus within an international agenda; no forced fit to grant scheme priorities; scope for appointing salaried support. Available to Scottish Universities only. Wide range of projects can be submitted - not restrictive in this sense. Straightforward application, rapid processing, concise reporting. This scheme allows for excellent development of research opportunities and collaboration that is not matched by other funding sources. The funding level is not high but the potential return goes beyond the value of the project outputs as it fosters further collaboration and opens opportunities for further funding from other sources that might not otherwise materialise. Excellent administration and organisation by the Carnegie Trust, broad scope to encourage and support collaborative research in Scotland. The process of application is an excellent introduction to developing funding proposals for early career researchers. Simplicity and straightforwardness; much more user-friendly than the research councils. Straightforward and quick application process. Flexibility in terms of use of grant and reporting results. Flexibility of support for ECRs to establish an independent research programme with supportive collaborative network. Flexibility. Flexibility and lack of micro-management 13 P a g e

14 Flexibility of the funding and very good communication from the Trust. Encouragement for collaborations within Scotland. Flexible and good turnaround. Enables research rather than hinders it. Collaborative and flexible. What do you perceive as areas for improvement? I think little improvement is needed, the current scheme works well from my viewpoint. The 12 month timeline was very difficult although this has now been extended. Peer-Review and interdisciplinary research More funding to be made available Level of funding on a 12 month grant, to be able to afford a 100% salaried early career position and still have some funding for project activities would have been highly desirable. On 2012 levels of funding we were able to afford an 80% postdoc. Sum awarded could be increased (perhaps at the cost of number of grants awarded) to allow for some of the costs other than just personnel to have been covered Possible increase in the funds available. I appreciate this would mean less grants funded each round though Larger individual grants would be nice - say up to 100K, but I appreciate the restrictions on funding. Do you have any other general points about the Collaborative Research Grants scheme that you would like to bring to the attention of the Trust? Please keep things as they have been. Carnegie is a very useful niche in the grant environment. please don't turn it into a replica of the user-unfriendly research councils. The support provided by the staff at The Carnegie Trust was excellent. It was a great experience, from start to finish one that has led to very many positive outcomes. In external funding terms these are very tough and very frustrating times. In the current scenario, the Trust can play the all-important turning-point sponsor in the funding career of many Scottish scholars. All in all, there is no reason to complain and many reasons to praise. Carnegie continues to be the only organisation that has taken a risk, where others are uncomfortable funding multi-disciplinary work. Thousands have benefitted as a direct result. We only wish there were more opportunities with Carnegie. I am extremely supportive of the scheme and very grateful for the funding awarded. I think the award of this grant has made a big difference to my career. I think the Scheme needs to be very careful as to who it selects for the adjudication panels. I have a feeling (shared by many) that it has been captured by engineers and scientists who are actively hostile to Arts and Humanities research. November P a g e