SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES AND TECHNIQUES Unit 14.d: PROJECT PROPOSAL PREPARATION - EXAMPLES = Marie Curie Action example = Alfredo Pereira alfredo.pereira@psi.uminho.pt PhD PROGRAM IN ELECTRICAL AND COMPUTER ENGINEERING 1 A bit about me (2012) Marie Curie Fellow, Mobile and Anthropomorphic Robotics laboratory, Universidade do Minho (2009) PhD. in Developmental Psychology and Cognitive Science, Indiana University, USA Experience in managing research projects (and getting funding for them) 2 1
A personal view Its easier to extract money from bureaucrats than it is do Science or develop advanced Technology. (Pereira, 2012) 3 You are smart enough for this 4 2
The rat race: seeing the big picture Science 9 th December 2011 5 6 3
Today s talk The rat maze of Marie Curie actions This GPS eliminates all the guesswork 7 A 50 billion euros big picture 8 4
What are the Marie Curie Actions? [ ] make Europe more attractive for researchers. [ ] by stimulating people to take up the profession of a researcher, encouraging European researchers to stay in Europe, and attracting to Europe the best researchers from the entire world. 9 What are the Marie Curie Actions? They fund many types of mobility 10 5
THE RIGHT ACTION FOR YOU AN OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH FUNDING IN THE MARIE CURIE ACTIONS Aims Profile of the researchers IEF Intra-European Fellowships for Career Development Helping experienced researchers at various career stages to acquire new research skills or undertake intersectoral experiences. Experienced researchers based in EU or Associated Countries. MARIE CURIE ACTIONS INDIVIDUALS APPLY IIF International Incoming Fellowships Encouraging top- class researchers moving from Third Countries to work on projects in Europe. Promoting mutually beneficial research cooperation. Experienced researchers based in a Third Country. IOF International Outgoing Fellowships for Career Development CIG Career Integration Grants Enabling European Encouraging researchers to be trained researchers and acquire new knowledge in a high-level research organisation in a Third Country. Experienced researchers from EU or Associated Countries. to establish themselves in Europe or in an Associated Country. Experienced researchers from any nationality after a period of mobility. ITN Initial Training Networks MARIE CURIE ACTIONS HOST APPLIES IAPP Industry-Academia Partnerships and Pathways Initial training Promoting of researchers in order to improve their skills, help them join established research teams and enhance their career prospects. Researchers within the first five years of their research career. commercial and non-commercial partnerships through joint research projects. Exchange of skills and human resources. Crossborder cooperation. Experienced researchers may be recruited to the contract; seconded researchers can be of all levels of experience. COFUND Co-Funding of Regional, National and International Programmes Reinforcing international programmes and supporting new or existing regional and national programmes to provide for transnational mobility. COFUND provides support for regional and national fellowship programmes for experienced researchers. IRSES International Staff Exchange Scheme Assisting research organisations to set up or strengthen long-term cooperation with others, through a coordinated staff exchange programme. All research staff of the participating organisations. Profile of the hosts How does it work? Universities, research centres or enterprises established and located in EU or an Associated Country. Proposal submitted by researcher in liaison with host. Successful proposals receive up to 2 years support for the researcher s salary and a contribution to research expenses. Universities, research centres or enterprises established and located in EU or an Associated Country (and certain Third Countries if return phase is applicable). Proposal submitted by researcher in liaison with host. Successful proposals receive up to 2 years support (+ oneyear return phase if applicable). Universities, research Universities, centres or enterprises established and located in a Third Country (outgoing phase) and in EU or Associated Country (obligatory return phase). Proposal submitted by researcher in liaison with return host (in EU or Associated Country). Successful proposals receive up to 3 years support covering the outgoing and return phases. research centres or enterprises established and located in EU or an Associated Country. Researchers apply jointly with host institution. Successful proposals get a flat rate contribution for 2 to 4 years and a grant agreement is signed with the host with a view to a lasting professional integration. Universities, research centres, companies, SMEs. Successful proposals from a network receive funding for up to 4 years to cover costs of the researchers and for network activities including conferences and workshops. Partnerships of commercial and non-commercial research organisations (universities, companies, SMEs etc.). Successful proposals receive funding for up to 4 years to cover the costs of the seconded and recruited researchers and for network activities including conferences and workshops. Public or private bodies responsible for funding and managing fellowship programmes. Programme with at least one type of transnational mobility submits proposal for cofunding. Successful proposals receive up to 40 % of full total costs. At least two research organisations in different EU or Associated Countries and one or more organisations in countries with which the EU has an S&T agreement or which are covered by the Neighbourhood Policy. Individual staff exchanges last 12 months maximum. Staff sec onded by their organisations and return after the mobility period. Staff exchange programmes receive IRSES support for 24-48 months. For further information http://ec.europa.eu/mariecurieactions 11 I said this would be easier than research not easy Which actions to apply? How to apply? When to apply? 12 6
Do some reading; ask for help; repeat Which actions to apply? You want to go work where? How to apply? Well, write and submit a proposal When to apply? You can find out what s going to happen in the next 2-3 years 13 An example of a successfull grant application to a MC Fellowship 14 7
Get It Done Which actions to apply? I wanted to return from the USA into Portugal: IIF or CIG How to apply? Well, I proposed a collaboration to the labs I would like to go work at and I wrote a not so easy to write proposal When to apply? I found out the IIF only opens 1x a year and CIG 2x a year 15 I said this would be easier than research not easy Funding will run out Decide to apply for a post-doc grant from FCT and a Marie Curie action Early 2010 8
I said this would be easier than research not easy I go to a conference so I can talk to people from U.Minho that I am interested in working with I decide on a particular idea and start writing a proposal Early 2010 March 2010 I said this would be easier than research not easy I submit an application to the post-doc grant call of FCT and I start working on a larger version for Marie Curie I ask to collaborate with another lab in U.Minho Early 2010 March 2010 June 2010 9
I said this would be easier than research not easy I quickly realize the grant will not be competitive for MC and change from sending it to Psychology panel to sending it to Robotics panel Rewrite the entire proposal Early 2010 March 2010 June 2010 July 2010 I said this would be easier than research not easy Learn there will be a Marie Curie action only for Portugal Realize I am not going to pull off the Marie Curie proposal Quit and decide to apply next year I win the FCT post-doc grant Early 2010 March 2010 June 2010 August 2010 10
I said this would be easier than research not easy I start working in Portugal Early 2010 March 2010 June 2010 August 2010 October 2010 I said this would be easier than research not easy I continue working on the proposal now for the Welcome-II in Portugal I learn FCT changed the format Compress and rewrite everything January 2011 11
I said this would be easier than research not easy I apply to the Welcome-II program, a Marie Curie COFUND action January 2011 March 2011 I said this would be easier than research not easy Confident I have a good chance in the Welcome- II (67 applicants for 54 positions) I get rejected Scrambling, I rewrite and expand the proposal to meet the MC format. I appeal the rejection decision January 2011 March 2011 August 2011 12
I said this would be easier than research not easy I am awarded the Marie Curie International Incoming Fellowship and the Welcome-II grant January 2011 March 2011 August 2011 December 2011 What to take from this example? The Glass Maze, The Zork Library 13
The rat race: aim first for the big picture 27 7 habits of people who-seem-to-get- -a-lot-of-funding 1. Proactive: find and get funding yourself 2. Think of the big picture: long-term research goals 3. Choose well where to put effort: important before urgent 4. Collaborate: mutually beneficial collaborations in the service of great research 5. Know the unwritten rules of the game 6. Active players in the game 7. Do all of the above a lot, becoming better and better at it, and make this a 7-point list 28 14
Marie Curie Actions Now finally some details Relatively simpler type of funding You apply by yourself Flat-rate funding A tentative algorithm 1. Can you answer these really well? a. Why should anyone care about your project? b. How good are you in your field? c. How good is the lab you want to work at? 2. Find the kind of action you should apply and deadlines 3. Read the manual; read all the fine print (do you qualify for that action?) 4. Ask around; find people that can help you with the details and the unwritten rules of the game 15
A tentative algorithm 5. Write the scientific proposal a. Allocate a large amount of time to this b. Aim for incremental drafts, not the add water and get instant magnum opus approach c. Get feedback as you go along your future host should be helping you at this point 6. Write what s left (easy for this kind of funding) 7. Upload proposal on the website 8. Click submit way before the deadline Understanding the process Basic process There is a set of admissibility criteria Reviewers rate each proposal using a predefined multicriteria model You write a proposal following a pre-defined format and show how your project satisfies all criteria Simple? 16
Understanding the process An example: IIF 2011 criteria S&T Quality (award) Research/technological quality, including any interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary aspects of the proposal Appropriateness of research methodology and approach Originality and innovative nature of the project, and relationship to the 'state of the art' of research in the field Timeliness and relevance of the project Transfer of knowledge (award) Potential of transferring knowledge to European host and/or bringing knowledge to Europe Clarity and quality of the transfer of knowledge objectives Researcher (award) Research experience Research results including patents, publications, teaching etc. Independent thinking, leadership qualities, and capacity to transfer knowledge Match between the fellow's profile and project. Implementation (selection) Quality of infrastructure / facilities and International collaborations of host Practical arrangements for the implementation and management of the research project * Feasibility and credibility of the project, including work plan Practical and administrative arrangements, and support for the hosting of the fellow * Impact (award) Potential for creating long term collaborations and mutually beneficial co-operation between Europe and the other third country Contribution to European excellence and European competitiveness Benefit of the mobility to the European Research Area Impact of the proposed outreach activities * Host research expertise in the field Quality of the group/researchers in charge * Sub-criteria to be evaluated in the light of the principles of the 'European Charter for Researchers and the Code of Conduct for the 17
Understanding the process The rating scale 35 Understanding the process An example: IIF 2011 criteria weights 36 18
37 Understanding the process Unwritten rules of the game Most important rule: assume first that reviewer s are Smart Know about the field in general but not about your specific area Evaluate without biases Conservative (risk averse) Have better things to do in life than sit around reading bad proposals Respect people s time and intelligence! 19
Understanding the process Unwritten rules of the game Equally most important rule: reviewer s have biases so they may Not understand the relevance of your approach Make inferences not based on what is on the proposal ( this sounds like people that don t know what they re doing ) Peer-review fails! (and don t take it personally) In this case, you can use the process to partially protect your proposal But quality and clarity of argumentation is your job Understanding the process More unwritten rules of the game Some key cross-cultural differences (hello PT ) A deadline is a deadline; unless the server crashes you re out of luck It says 2 pages its two pages Evaluation criteria has n criteria then it has to be evaluated on n criteria by the reviewers So it better be really easy to find in the proposal your arguments for each of the n criteria Everything counts! 20
Understanding the process More unwritten rules of the game Everything counts means everything All forms filled out correctly: everything where it belongs Project management is serious (i.e. convincing and detailed) Ethics (if your project requires ethics review this is a major task to address in the proposal) Intellectual Property Rights Any new thing the EU Commission will come up with Understanding the process More unwritten rules of the game Writing your proposal Main mistakes/weak points Fellow s skills to carry out the project are not convincing Referee s assessment is not positive for the applicant Publication record is low, no peer reviewed journals Poor explanation and justification of the state-of-the-art Project is too ambitious (time frame of the project!) Training objectives are unclear in relation to the capacities of the researcher Practical arrangements for the fellow are not mentioned in Doutor David Pina, DG Investigação, Comissão Europeia As Bolsas individuais Marie Curie 21
Understanding the process More unwritten rules of the game A cautionary tale of the unwritten rules problem Show independence in the writing tone; use the 1 st person. I wrote everything in the first person (in my mind sometimes showing great arrogance) Understanding the process Evaluation Report: The writing style of the proposal indicates proactiveness of the candidate and enthusiasm for the project. His profile is a very good match to the project. 22
1/25/12 Back to the big picture Turn-Taking in Human-Robot Interactions: a Developmental Robotics Approach (Pereira, Yu & Smith, Connection Science, 2008) (Yu et al., IEEE T.Autonomous Mental Development 2010) (Smith, Yu & Pereira, Developmental Science 2010) (Pereira, Smith & Yu, under review) 45 Back to the big picture Turn-Taking in Human-Robot Interactions: a Developmental Robotics Approach C Bicho, E., L.Louro, and W. Erlhagen, Integrating verbal and non-verbal communication in a dynamic neural field architecture for human-robot interaction. Frontiers in Neurobotics, 2010. 4. 46 23
Thank you! 47 24