Subject: Improving
the quality of research applications
Author: Professor N A Halliwell PVC(R)
Introduction
We now have
reliable data from Research Office records concerning the success rate of the
applications which are made across all three faculties and I particularly want
to concentrate on the quality of applications which are made to the Research
Councils since these are peer-reviewed.
A poor quality application creates a lasting impression with our peers
which has knock-on effects regarding other peer-review functions such as the
RAE, etc. The results to date are shown
in the table below.
|
Research Council |
Number of successful applications |
Number of unsuccessful applications |
Total number of applications |
% Success rate |
|
AHRB |
9 |
22 |
31 |
29 |
|
BBSRC |
- |
2 |
2 |
0 |
|
EPSRC |
48 |
117 |
165 |
29 |
|
ESRC |
4 |
27 |
31 |
13 |
|
NERC |
2 |
6 |
8 |
25 |
Ignoring statistics of small quantities and with the exception of ESRC
these results are encouraging. That
said we must remember that a portion of the EPSRC figure is due to “guaranteed”
success of applications made through IMRC.
Importantly, underlying these figures there is a wide variation in
success rate across departments.
The purpose of this paper is to ask Senate to debate how best practice
might be established across the University.
For consideration by Senate
Some departments already have a light-touch “mentoring” system in place
whereby the case for support is revised in the light of comments from
experienced colleagues. The best
success rate with EPSRC is demonstrated by Chemical Engineering who use this
system.
1.
Is this the best system or are there alternatives?
2.
Should we formalise a mentoring system at
departmental level? If not, how do we
ensure the system is operating?
3.
Should a library of successful applications be established
at departmental level and/or centrally?
4.
How can we best enhance the course “Composing a Bid
for Funding”