Molecular Strategies

All big organisations love strategies, and universities are no exception. The University of Sussex had just launched its Strategy 2013-18: Making the Future.

What impressed me most was its presentation. Rather than a boring text document, Sussex have gone for a radical approach, etching aspirational and inspiring words on to the multicoloured planes of a buckminsterfullerene molecule.

For the chemically illiterate amongst us (including me), a buckminsterfullerene is a c60 carbon molecule, discovered by Sussex chemist Professor Sir Harold Kroto, who went on to earn a Nobel Prize for his labours.

As if that connection wasn't enough, the c60 is 'made up of pentagons and hexagons [and] its cage-like spherical structure allows it to withstand extreme pressure and temperature, as well as to react selectively with other molecules while retaining its shape.' Which makes perfect sense. Any strategy needs to withstand extreme pressure and (heated) debate. Its ability to react selectively with other molecules is perhaps less apparent, but we'll let that pass.

The Sussex Strategy made me think that the rest of us are missing a trick. There are plenty of molecules out there, and we should be harnessing them as metaphors. So, for anyone who is beginning to draft a strategy and needs to have a talismanic molecule in mind, here's a list of five possibilities to get you started:

• Curcurbituril: a pumpkin shaped molecule. As such, has the possibility to transform into a beautiful carriage, given the right input. It's also an efficient host molecule and has a particularly high affinity for positively charged or cationic compounds. But I don't think we need dwell on that. 
• Pterodactyladiene: a molecule shaped like a pterodactyl. Some might accuse you of being a little backward looking if you use this one, but you can counter by saying that the intense structural strain this molecule faces (due, of course, to its planar carbon rings. Do keep up) reflects the necessary and important 'strain' that your strategy will place on the arcane and antiquated systems you hope to change. Either that or you'll be wiped out be a meteorite.
• Penguinone: shaped like a penguin. Useful for your strategy, as it will help to win over your detractors. I mean who doesn't like penguins? 
• Lampane: shaped like a lampshade. Because your strategy will shine like a beacon, to lead your institution out of the darkness. Oh yes.
• Etorphine: used as an elephant tranquiliser. Make of that what you will.

Hail the Phoenix

Joni Mitchell captured it perfectly: 'you don't know what you've got til it's gone'. The repercussions of the demise of the 1994 Group will, I think, be felt for some time yet. Whilst I took plenty of sideswipes at the 1994 Group in its last, doddery years - it was such an easy target, wasn't it? - the gap that it's left is a significant one for the UK's higher education sector.

In essence, we've now got a one brand market place. The Russell Group is the Acme Corporation. It is GUM. I've heard rumours that the Russell Group was not exactly passive in the self destruction of the 94 Group last summer. If this is true, it should be ashamed of the part in played. Whilst all is fair in love, war and the feuding of mission groups, having one citadel of research is not good for the long term health of the UK's research ecosystem.

I've made no bones about believing that increasing funding concentration is a Bad Thing, and  I hope that HEFCE sticks to its guns and 'fund excellent research in all its forms wherever it is found'. I think it would be incredibly detrimental to the whole sector if we moved to a situation where we had a divide between 'research' and 'teaching' universities. It would be harmful to the early careers of many academics, but also to the experience of students. Research should inform teaching, and teaching inform research. Having a strong research ecosystem across the sector is good for the UK as a whole.

However, to ensure its survival this ecosystem needs to be protected. Someone needs to fight the corner of the non-RG universities. Someone needs to speak for the majority. I think its disingenuous - or just plain stupid - to think that individual universities can speak as loudly or be heard as widely as a collective voice.  In the weeks that have followed the closure of the 1994 Group a number of possible candidates have been suggested, such as Universities UK (UUK), University Alliance, and even the Association of Research Managers and Administrators (ARMA). 

I don't think any of these are appropriate. Both UUK and ARMA should be looking after the interests of all in the sector, both non-RG and RG. The University Alliance has a particular mission in supporting and encouraging innovation within it member institutions. What we need instead is either to get rid of all mission groups and just have a single body speaking on behalf of the whole UK HE sector, or a body who can safeguard the smaller research intensive universities. The former is never going to happen; the RG brand has become too useful to its members. The latter isn't going to happen anytime soon either: too many fingers have been burnt, I think, in the sad end of the 1994 Group. The idea behind the Senate Group was a good one, a positive one, but it was ultimately scuppered by delays and self interest.

What we are left with, for the time being, is the RG, and a patchwork of regional groupings, from N8, M5, GW4 and Kent's own Eastern ARC. These do, I think, offer a solution for the moment. They allow the member universities to be more than the sum of their parts, and to spark interesting, interdisciplinary collaborations. They may even, in time, lead to a more 'federalised' sector. But there's always a danger that 'federalised' might lead to 'factionalised', with inter-regional scrapping and the building of walls between the groups.

Despite what some say, and despite the silly playground politics they engender, I think 'mission groups' do have their place. Or rather, in a world where some belong to a powerful mission group, the rest need to have the advocacy offered by one. Let's hope that a phoenix rises from the ashes of the 1994 Group. And soon.

ECR Network: Strategic Approaches to Getting Published

12-2pm 27 November 2013

Venue TBC

Getting published is the cornerstone of a successful and sustainable academic career. A good publication record will have an impact on your promotion, but also on your chances of getting external research funding. In this workshop, Prof Mick Tuite (Biosciences) and Prof Sally Sheldon (KLS) will be joined by Richard Hart (Hart Publishing, Oxford) to discuss some of the key issues you need to consider when seeking publication, including:

•  Choosing the right journal;
•  How articles are selected, and what makes an article attractive to an editor;
•  Responding to reviewers’ comments;
• Writing a book proposal and securing a contract;
•  Dealing with co-authors;
•  Managing your portfolio, and knowing when to say ‘no’.

The session is free, open to all staff at the University of Kent, and lunch will be provided. However, do let me know if you are planning to come along so I can make sure the room and catering are sufficient. In addition, if you could let me know what your position is (permanent or fixed term, academic or researcher, and approximate time since doctorate), that will help Mick and Sally pitch the session appropriately.

In Memoriam

So. Farewell then
1994 Group

'Sort of a bit like
the Russell Group.
Just a bit smaller and leafier'.

Yes, that could have been
your catchphrase.

But you were sat on
by an elephant.

We loved you
Even if we weren't
Entirely sure
What you stood for.

E J Thribb
(apologies to Private Eye) 

Essential Elements of a Good Application

Prof Mick Tuite began last week's Grants Factory session by outlining the essential elements of a good application. From his experience with the BBSRC, it was clear that getting a 'good' grade was not enough. Whilst in theory your proposal might be 'fundable', in reality you need to be graded either 'excellent' or 'exceptional' to be in with a chance. The same is true of all the Research Councils, and most other funders: only those in the top 10% have a realistic chance of success.

For Mick, in order to put yourself in this bracket your proposal needs to demonstrate five essential elements:

• it needs to ask an important question; 
• it needs to offer a potential solution; 
• it needs to be cost effective;
• it needs to bring together the right team;
• it needs to have a clear impact. 

Importance, success, value, competence, impact. These five essential elements are key, and Mick highlighted The Research Funding Toolkit, in which Prof Andrew Derrington and Jacqueline Aldridge had developed these concepts further. However, it is also important to structure your application so it brings these to the fore. The panellists and reviewers need to be excited by the proposal, and convinced that there is both the need for the research and a viable solution to it.

In order to do this, applicants need to understand the difference between four key terms, and use them appropriately, structuring the 'narrative' of the proposal around them.

• Aim: this is what you hope your project will achieve; 
• Objectives: these are what need to be achieved in order to achieve the aim; 
• Outputs: these are the 'deliverables' of the project; 
• Outcomes: these are the final achievements from the project. 

At the heart of the application is the Case for Support. (CfS). It is here that the applicant is given the space to set out the five essential elements.

• The opening lines (5%) - like the lay summary - are crucial to this. Within the first two sentences the reader should understand the question, why it's important and how it will deliver a 'step change' in the discipline. This is not the moment to be a shrinking violet; this should not be a 'slow build'. It's the time to offer an accessible, simple message that conveys both the excitement and the timeliness of the project. 
• The background (30%): this summarises what is known and what is not known about the subject. Just as important, it's the opportunity to set out what we must now, why we must know it now, and why you, as the principal investigator, are the person to discover it. However, whilst you should demonstrate an understanding of the literature, you should avoid self-citation. There is more and more expectation that preliminary data or pilot work has already been done, and this is your chance to make clear what has already been achieved. 
• Aims & objectives (5%): Realistically, you shouldn't have any more than one aim and five objectives. Any more and things become a little confused. There should be a logical flow between them, and you should avoid interdependency, which could act as a potential weakness. 
• Work plan or methodology (50%): this is the most crucial part of the CfS: what are you actually going to do? How are you going to achieve the objectives? The methodology should be 'appropriate' to the goals, and you should offer sufficient (but not overwhelming) technical detail. Your work plan should be clearly set out, and achieve that difficult balancing act of being both ambitious and realistic. 
• Management, dissemination etc (10%): important, but not crucial. These need to make sense, and be appropriate, matching the scale and ambition of the project. 

As well as this, you can help your case in two ways:

• firstly, presentation. Use a simple font, of at least 12pt, and don't overcrowd the margins or paragraph breaks. Break up the text, if possible, with images and diagrams. Proof read the application, and show it to others to do likewise. 
• secondly, make sure you're known. Get out there. Go to conferences. Give papers, lead seminars. Get involved. Whilst applications from unknowns are funded, there is an inherent nervousness amongst panel members if you're an unknown quantity. Reassure with familiarity. 

After a short break for lunch, Mick was joined by three other academics with extensive experience of reviewing and ranking proposals: Prof Simon Thompson has had experience with the EPSRC; Prof Gordon Lynch with the AHRC; and Prof Sarah Vickerstaff with the ESRC.

Simon began by stressing the importance of the opening sentence. The panel 'want to be convinced'. One way that he had found of doing this was beginning the process of drafting an application by putting together a one page summary. This offered the bare bones of the project, but gave peer reviewers an opportunity to give advice when there was still the chance to make substantive changes. When a full application has been drafted, this chance is lost.

He noted a significant difference between the BBSRC and the EPSRC: whereas the BBSRC panel reads the full applications and can have a view on what is proposed, EPSRC panellists should only be 'moderating the reviews'. In other words, they should be basing their decisions on the referees comments, and shouldn't be re-reviewing the application.

The rest of the session became more of a discussion between the panel and the audience, with the former responding to questions from the former, and chipping in with additional thoughts on the idiosyncrasies of different funders. Issues raised included:

• striking the right balance between being overambitious and incremental; 
• that a knowledgable reviewer who can convincingly show that the work has been done before is 'the kiss of death' at ESRC panels; 
• that, whilst Research Councils don't negotiate over elements of the project, they can set conditions which need to be met (such better ethical oversight); 
• the need for collaborators, if you don't have sufficient experience in certain areas that are crucial to the successful completion of the project; 
• the 'increasing importance' of management committees or advisory groups; 
• large projects: there is an inherent conservancy amongst reviewers, and you need to make a strong case if you are asking for more than one RA for three years; 
• the importance of methodology, and the right terminology, in the Case for Support.

This session was the first of the 'Writing Group' programme. This will offer applicants an opportunity to take time out from teaching and administrative duties to work on their applications with support from experienced mentors and Funding Officers, as well as feedback from other applicants. If you want to take part in these, drop me a line. Mick's slides from the session will be available on the Research Services website shortly; thanks to all four panellists for their time, their openness and their humour in sharing their thoughts.

ECRs: Planning your Career

Prof Sally Sheldon

Prof Sally Sheldon and Dr Simon Black led the first of this year's Early Career Research Network meetings by considering how to 'plan your career'. This isn't necessarily as straightforward as it sounds: in any area of work we're restricted by the opportunities we're given, and however strategic we mean to be, life has a tendency to offer up alternatives paths.

 However, the session was a useful opportunity for those attending to take a step back and think about both the aspirations they had for their careers, and the challenges they faced. After a brief discussion, the audience offered a variety of career aims, ranging from the fairly straightforward (completing probation) to the more ambitious (establishing a research centre), and all points in between: writing a successful funding bid, publishing a book, and hosting a conference. Their 'challenges' were all too familiar: managing workloads, short term contracts, working to someone else's agenda and fierce competition for both permanent positions and research funding. 

Dr Simon Black

Although many of the opportunities in Sally's career had been serendipitous, its overall progress had followed a fairly straightforward academic path. Simon, however, had followed a more varied route. He had got a PhD in Management, continuing to publish whilst working in a large corporation, before deciding to move in a different direction and taking an MSc in Wildlife Conservation. He now split his time between publishing and working as a researcher, and working in Human Resources.

 Both Sally and Simon demonstrated that there was no single path that was appropriate - or available - to all. Simon suggested that ECRs should see the totality of their role and the skills they had developed. Most had four distinct aspects to their working life:

• Teaching/professional: perhaps the most obvious aspect, and is often what comes to mind when we think about work; 
• Individual skills: all of us have developed these over our working lives, from time management and decision making to planning and networking. 
• Organisational knowledge: such as an understanding of the School, the University and the sector, and could include a knowledge of (say) course development and finances;
• Leadership/Teamwork: experience of collaboration, group decision making, or managing meetings. 

Thinking in these terms may make you recognise that you have many more skills, and much more knowledge, than that just that gained within your discpline. However, in considering how to plan your career you should:

• make sure that you've got an appropriate and supportive mentor. Good mentoring is crucial in helping you to understand your options and make the most of your opportunities. If this is not being offered, you need to think where you can get the necessary support. Consider approaching alternative senior staff, who may be more supportive, or discuss issues with both peers (to get an understanding of what you should expect), and with HR. 
• be open to opportunities. These may come from colleagues or students, or from completely unexpected sources. Simon highlighted how he had expanded his network globally, and being open to opportunities had led to him developing new courses or new ways of teaching, new methods or new responsibilities. 
• be aware of what's expected. Sally gave an insight into the work of both appointment and promotions committees, and highlighted the importance of a strong publication record. Knowing what the expectations are will help to prepare you in meeting them. 
• offer solutions. If your current situation is not ideal, think of what is needed to improve it. Less teaching? More research time? An opportunity to be a lead author? With this goal in mind, consider what needs to change in order to make it happen, and approach your Head of School or Group Leader with a solution. People are more likely to respond favourably if they are presented with a solution rather than a problem. 

Simon finished the session by highlighting Steven Covey's seven habits. Whilst some may resist the 'self-help-ism' of this list, it does offer a useful framework in which to think about planning your career.The full list is available in the book and on the website, but includes:

• Be proactive. It's easy to be reactive and wait for change, but it's more productive to instigate change yourself; 
• Begin with the end in mind. What's your vision? What are your values? How do you want to work? Think about what you want, and keep that vision in mind; 
• Plan. Understand what your commitments are, and fit your ideas around these. This might mean 'blending' teaching and research. There's no perfect plan and of course your plan might change, but think methodically about what needs to be done, and what you can do within your limits; 
• Work with others. Listen, understand, collaborate, and don't burn bridges. 
• Balance your life. It's easy to be focussed to the point of insanity. Sometimes you need to take a step back and, in doing so, you become a more effective academic. 

Simon and Sally's slides will be made available on the Research Services website shortly. The ECR Network will continue with a programme of workshops and more informal social events throughout the year. If you want to join the ECR mailing list, drop me a line.