Thinking Imaginatively about Impact: Transistors, Mini-Skirts & Global Warming

Parker: yes, m'lady

Whilst 'impact' has been part of the funding landscape for some time now, it is still something that we get a lot of confused (or bemused) enquiries about. Many see it as a ridiculous demand: their work is so theoretical as to have no real word impact and, even if it did, how can they possibly predict what it will be?

Last week Kevin Parker of KKI Consulting gave a talk to try to demystify impact. Usefully, he encouraged the audience to distinguish the 'features' of their research from its 'benefits'. He gave the example of Exxon's development, in the early 1980s, of credit card payment systems at petrol pumps. In order to make this happen, Exxon needed to do a huge amount of research and development, including electronic systems to read credit cards that would not create a current or a spark that could ignite the petrol fumes. Did they dwell on all this cutting edge technology when talking to the public about it? No. They talked about the fact that the new system would allow stressed out parents to get home in time for their children to watch Barney the Dinosaur. That was the real world impact of their research.

For Parker, there were essentially four possible benefits that academics could identify:

• It allows us to do new things: for instance, when the first transistor radio was developed it stuck rigidly to the valve radio template: large, lumpy, mains powered. It was only when Sony miniaturised it and made it battery powered and affordable that it really took off, giving teenagers the chance to listen to their own music wherever they wanted. 
• It saves us money: in the past Parker had worked with someone who had developed a new lathe. The lathe had many 'features', including hydraulics, but what sold it to car manufacturers was that it would save them money by cutting out one part of the production process.
• It makes life easier: Are people doing something difficult, dirty or unpleasant, can you help them out? For instance a scanner that allows doctors to better diagnose cancer, and avoids unnecessary interventions, or architecture that is designed to make a working environment more efficient. 
• It makes us think differently about ourselves: whether it be Darwin changing how we understand our position in the natural world, Einstein our place in the universe, or historians our place in time, the public is genuinely interested in understanding how we fit with our environment, and how we view ourselves. Another example was the miniskirt and original Mini: both were adopted more because they made people feel good - or differently - about themselves rather than because they were practical, or even because they were innovative products.

The ultimate test of a successful impact claim is whether it can be delivered as an 'elevator pitch'. Could you say, in a couple of minutes, what makes your research special and why people should care? 

We're hoping to get Kevin back to talk again in the new year, but in the meantime a version of Kevin's talk is available on his website, here.

Grants Factory - 'Recycling your Proposal'

The penultimate workshop in this year’s Grants Factory programme will look at how to recycle your proposal.

Preparing a research funding proposal takes a huge amount of time and work. Having prepared and submitted an application, it makes sense to make the most of it by reusing your work for alternative funders. But is this possible? If so, what is involved in doing so? 

This workshop will be led by Professors Ray Laurence (SECL) and Peter Taylor-Gooby (SSPSSR). Both have had considerable experience in drafting applications, and reusing them in part or whole with a range of funders. They will be talking about their experiences, identifying what they had to do in each case, and in what finally worked. Attendees are encouraged to bring along their proposals – at whatever stage – so that the group can look at what potential they have to be developed for alternative funders.

Please note the change of date from that advertised: it will take place on 29 May, not 22nd.

Places are free and all are welcome, but do let me know if you intend to come. Tea and coffee will be provided.

Changes to NERC Peer Review

NERC is introducing changes to its peer review process to improve 'consistency, quality and transparency'. In an email to peer review college (PRC) members, the Council set out what will stay the same and what will change.

What will stay the same? 

The central role and importance of the PRC will remain. However, it wants to allow for more 'inclusivity and flexibility', whilst recognising the need for 'consistency, particularly in panel membership.'

What will change? 

• Timing of peer review periods, to try and avoid overlap with each other and major university holidays. They will also confirm membership and dates earlier in the process. 
• More consistent panel membership and more stable panel portfolios. There will be a new role of ‘core’ member, and they will have a primary responsibility for attending moderating panel meetings in a particular panel area, forming half of the panel membership. Other PRC members will be invited on an ad hoc basis. All current PRC members will be considered for 'core' membership, which will be fixed term.  
• More consistent review levels and the removal of the ‘sift’ process.  Reviewers will no longer be asked to complete reviews where they judge that they have low expertise. In addition, moderating panels will consider all proposals submitted to a call, so meetings will be longer (held over two days) and the role of panel member even more central to the funding and assessment process. 
• A pre-score process will be introduced to allow panels to prioritise proposals for discussion. Pre-scores for excellence will be required from panel members at least 1 week before meetings. 
• Better Performance monitoring and management. Performance standards will be introduced and more closely monitored on a PRC and individual level. There will also be on-line training for all members to ensure that members continue to be aware of what is expected of them and any changes to policy;

When will these changes happen? 

From January 2014. The PRC year will start from January rather than July from that point onwards. In the meantime there will be a call for new membership in June 2013.

'Frog One' to Head Science at NERC

It's been a while, hasn't it? And hey, it is (nearly) the end of the week. So here's another in our sporadic series of lookalikes. This time NERC has taken the brave move to appoint the baddie from 1971 thriller The French Connection as its Director of Science.
Iain Gilliespie, AKA Alan Charnier, AKA 'Frog One', was previously Head of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)'s Science and Technology Policy Division. As far as Fundermentals is aware, he has never tried to smuggle anything, from Marseilles or elsewhere, in the boot of an unsuspecting French TV personality. However, if anyone has information to the contrary...

Charnier

Gillespie

The Witty Review

Tarzan

When I first heard about the Witty Review I had images of a Wildean salon, with epigrams tinkling like a chandelier swaying in a light summer breeze.

At the very least I hoped for Laurel and Hardy slipping on a banana skin.

Imagine my disappointment when I found out it was a government-sponsored response to the Heseltine Review, looking at how universities could work with Local Enterprise Partners (LEPs) to support growth.

Where's the fun in that?

So, to make amends, I thought I'd go with my original vision, courtesy of (or apologies to) Oscar Wilde. And Monty Python.

THE PRINCE OF WALES: Ah, my congratulations, Heseltine. Your review is a great success. The whole of London's talking about you.
MICHAEL HESELTINE: Your highness, there is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.
(restrained and sycophantic laughter) 
THE PRINCE OF WALES: Oh, very witty, Heseltine ..... very, very witty.
HESELTINE:: There is only one thing in the world worse than being witty, and that is not being witty.
(Fifteeen more seconds of the same) 
SIR ANDREW WITTY: (keen to join in) No, no: there is only one thing in the world worse than being Witty, and that is being Heseltine.
(Silence)
WALES: (perplexed) No, not with you, Witty.
WITTY: I was being witty.
WALES: Yes? And?
WITTY: No, see, my name is Witty. And I was being witty. Witty Witty. See?
(Silence)
WITTY: (red faced): Look, you dullards! My name is Witty! It was a pun! A play on words!
HESELTINE: I can resist nothing but temptation. And Witty.

(laughter)

WITTY: Ach! Never mind. Now, listen Heseltine, I hear I am to review your review.
HESELTINE: I never read a book I need to review. It prejudices me so.
WITTY: Can't you talk normally? I'm talking about your review of UK growth. You know, the one with the inappropriate cover.
HESELTINE: You mean the hilarious caricature of me searching beneath a rock? Ah! How John Tenniel and I chortled at that.
WITTY: Yes, I am sure. So I am to look in particular at universities and growth.
HESELTINE: Ha! You won't find much growth there. The exquisite art of idleness, one of the most important things that any university can teach. So which university will you be looking at? Oxford or Cambridge?
WITTY: Both. And I believe idleness in universities is a thing of the past. Universities are the vital crucibles for growth.
(general laughter)
WALES: Ah Witty! Very good.
WITTY: No! I'm serious.
WALES: Honestly, Witty! Do you take me for a fool? What did the Fellows of All Souls do for the Industrial Revolution? Did Telford and Stephenson get inspiration on Parker's Piece?
WITTY: Well no...
WALES: Was the Spinning Jenny borne on Christ Church Meadow? Is Brunel a Professor of Engineering at Kings College? No Witty, universities will never be anything but nurseries of idle dreams. Imagine, sir, if we were to force our academics to explain the relevance of their research to society!
(unrestrained laughter)
WALES: Yes! And we set them against each other as in a race, and compiled the results in tabular form! We could give them a certain number of stars: the higher number, the better their research! Ha! What do you think of that, Witty?
WITTY: Well that's patently ludicrous, your highness...
WALES: Or, better still, we consult their students and let them decide which university is best based on what they thought of their tutors or beer halls! We would then publish the findings in national periodicals!
(sustained laughter)
HESELTINE:  (puts an arm around Witty's shoulder) Yes, Witty, education is an admirable thing, but it is well to remember from time to time that nothing worth knowing can be taught. 

Notes from ESRC Regional Meeting, April 2013

Prof Paul Boyle

The ESRC held a Regional Meeting at the LSE on Tuesday.

Introduction 

 Prof Paul Boyle (CEO, ESRC) started by giving a ‘state of the union’ summary of the position of the ESRC. It currently gave out £200m in funding, of which £180m came from BIS, and £20m from cofunding. It was distributed as follows:

• Training & Skills £53m (26%) 
• Strategic/Collaborative £51m (22%) 
• Responsive Mode £45m (22%) 
• Methods & Infrastructure £33m (16%) 
• Other £23m (11%) 

Following publication of its Delivery Plan (2009-15), it had cut Small Grants, but still provided small scale funding (such as for the Secondary Data Analysis initiative). It firmly believed in international collaboration (providing up to 30% funding for overseas Co-Is), and was embedded in all six of RCUK’s cross-council programmes (global food security; energy; global uncertainties; lifelong health and wellbeing; digital economy; living with environmental change). It saw engagement with the private sector as a key priority for the future, particularly in financial services, green business and retail (see Strategic Priorities, below). It had also acted quickly on ad hoc priorities recently, such as initiatives on the Future of UK and Scotland, and Transformative Research.

Strategic Priorities 

ESRC had recently reviewed its three strategic priorities (economic performance and sustainable growth; influencing behaviour and informing interventions; vibrant and fair society), but had decided not to change them. However, they had recognised that there were gaps within these, and that further ‘urgent but predictable scientific opportunities’ had arisen since the priorities were first formed. Moreover, looking at the funding trend towards 2016/17, there was ‘investment headroom’ as current grants tailed off. Thus, the ESRC would be looking to provide more funding, or facilitate further networks, frameworks and events, in the following areas:

Evidence:

• ‘Big data’ 
• ‘What Works’ (in which the ESRC aims to embed the use of evidence in policy and practice. Whilst on a different scale, Boyle likened this to NICE – i.e. to synthesise evidence robustly, recommend interventions and monitor their success) 
• Macroeconomics 

Economic Performance:

• Business innovation 
• Financial markets 
• Cities (ESRC had looked at what sister social science funders globally were focusing on, and recognised cities as a major area of interest. Will possibly hold a town hall meeting about this) 
• Green economy 

Influencing Behaviour:

• Epigenetics and educational neuroscience (Boyle described this as ‘frontier science’. It’s a small but growing area looking at how genes can be influenced by environment) 
• Innovation in health and social care (ESRC would look to cofund with other health sponsors) 
• Higher education (there’s a sense that, despite the recent big upheavals, there hasn’t been enough work done on HE recently. Might also cofund with DFID on primary/secondary education in developing countries) 

Fair & Vibrant Society:

• Civil society and social innovation 
• Social media 
• Work (such as the impact of recession. There might be a new call around this, but would examine what work had already been done in this area first). 

Demand Management 

The ESRC had consulted the sector a couple of years ago following a 33% increase in applications with no rise in funding between 2006-11. Following this, it had cut the Small Grants scheme, and had encouraged universities to implement internal peer review. As a result there had been a 37% decrease in application volume, and success rates had risen from 17% to 24% across its schemes. The decrease in volume had also led to a 20% decrease in peer review activity. Boyle encouraged individual institutions to mirror the kind of activity that the ESRC undertook: for example, using anonymous reviews, as it had done for the Transformative Research scheme.

Was he still considering introducing tougher measures for demand management? It was still under review, he said, and he had the options ‘in his back pocket’ if needed. However, he thought that any measures would be more nuanced. If a university was not considered to be ‘playing the game’ there may be specific sanctions that would not affect the rest of the sector. He suggested that universities should test the effectiveness of an internal peer review system by questioning how many projects had actually been rejected as a result of it. This was not black and white, however: he clarified that by ‘rejected’ he meant ‘rejected in its current state’, i.e. that they had been encouraged to reframe and redraft their application following feedback.

Doctoral Training Centres 

ESRC was currently assessing the lessons to be learnt from the DTC programme. They had used data from RAE to help in the assessment of it; as similar data from the REF would not be available when the current programme came to an end the ESRC would probably delay a new round by a year. They wanted to encourage:

• A good balance between 3+ and 3+1 , and didn’t like universities trying to get more for less by only advertising for 3+. 
• Cofunding with external partners. 

There was a move to harmonise DTCs across the Research Councils, and ESRC was considering whether it should expand or contract its DTC provision. However, it would always want to fund excellence, and would therefore wish to avoid quotas.

Tips on Applying to the NIHR

Dr Gail Gilchrist

One of the highlights - for me - of last week's NIHR Information Day was the talk given by the University of Greenwich's Dr Gail Gilchrist. She was refreshingly frank about her experience of applying to the Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) scheme, and gave us a really useful overview of the benefits, the essential elements of a good application, the issues faced, and the differences between RfPB and other research programmes.

Benefits of RfPB

For Gilchrist, the benefits of RfPB were that it was 'responsive mode', i.e. it wasn't restricted to specific topics, unlike some other areas of NIHR funding. Moreover, it encouraged proposals for a wide range of areas, including social care and new interventions. She also thought - anecdotally - that it was a necessary first step to getting larger funding from the NIHR.

Essential Elements of a Good Application

Gilchrist prefaced this by stating that she was still waiting to hear back on the outcome of her application, so that whilst she believed that her application had the essential elements, there was no guarantee of success. She deferred to Prof Chris Salisbury (Bristol) who clearly set out the three key factors of good NIHR applications:



As with many other funders, applicants need to make sure:

• That the research question is important;
• That getting an answer is feasible;
• That the methodology for answering the question is sound and appropriate;
• That it can be understood by both clinicians, methodologists, patients and the public;
• That the team is appropriate, multidisciplinary, and sufficiently experienced.

Issues

Gilchrist made it clear that applying to the RfPB was no walk in the park. She had faced a number of issues, including:

• The challenge of building an appropriate, multidisciplinary team;
• Ensuring access to NHS sites;
• Meaningfully engaging with service users;
• Developing local partnerships/steering committees/advisory groups;
• Estimating the numbers of participants necessary;
• Deciding on the most appropriate form of dissemination.

Lessons Learnt

She came out of the process older and wiser. For those about to start, she suggested the following:

• Get all relevant people on board before writing. It takes time to get all the people registered, with the necessary CVs uploaded and approved. Remember, public and patient involvement (PPI) is crucial, but it can be time consuming. In addition, working with large NHS organisations isn't always straightforward, which leads on to the second point:
• Don't leave it until the last minute. 
• Be aware of word count, and make sure to save your draft application regularly.
• Review and revise. Peer and lay review is incredibly helpful. 

Differences between NIHR and other Funders

Finally, she rounded off her session by highlighting some key differences between NIHR and other forms of funding:

• PPI is crucial;
• Research should have strong impact or translation potential;
• Awards are made to the NHS, not the university;
• NIHR Networks need to be involved.