Pages

Wednesday 30 April 2014

Kevin and Hobbes

It feels like a while since I've troubled you all with a lookalike. Well don't fear:  a new Director of Innovation at the Technology Strategy Board has been appointed, and it's none other than the Dad out of Calvin and Hobbes.

Kevin Baughan in action

Any similarity to Calvin - I mean Kevin - Baughan is, as ever, completely coincidental. Let's just hope he's brushed up on his Theory of Relativity if he's going to be talking to academics.

Dad out of Calvin and Hobbes

Friday 25 April 2014

The Battle of the RCUK Research Ships

NERC's new polar research ship
Excitement was palpable at Death Star House this morning as NERC unveiled plans for it's new polar research ship. Painted a bold, brazen red, with 'SCIENCE' emblazoned on its side, the ship will send out a positive signal that the UK is serious about scientific research.

The CEO of NERC, Prof Duncan Wingham, purred through what the ship had to offer. 'This vessel will be equipped to support oceanographic, marine ecosystem, geophysical and other research activities.'

Not to be outdone, however, Prof Rick Rylance, head of the AHRC, spoke to a hastily convened press conference elsewhere in the building.

'I'm pleased to announce that the AHRC will be launching a Humanities 'Super Yacht,'' he said. To gasps of astonishment, Rylance held up what was clearly a badly photoshopped image of a speed boat with 'HUMANITIES' written across it.

AHRC's 'Super Yacht': Rylance's Artist's Impression
'The yacht will be fuelled with the redundant words that have been stripped out of research proposals,' claimed Rylance. 'We've built up quite a stock pile of unnecessary padding. It's completely valueless in terms of application content, but we've found that it burns very nicely'.

He went on: 'we believe we have enough 'overarching's and 'lacuna's to power us around the world fifteen times. But should we ever get through these we have reserves of 'furthermore's and 'step change's.'

It is understood that candidates for the post of ESRC Chief Executive will be asked to present at interview a model of a possible SOCIAL SCIENCES research ship. Fundermentals has spoken to one of the front runners for the job, who has spent several nights gluing together match sticks to recreate the Dunkirk 'flotilla of small boats'.


Tuesday 8 April 2014

Thoughts from an ESRC Mock Panel

Last month we held an ESRC mock panel as part of the Grants Factory. This is a really useful exercise; it gives participants a flavour of the discussions and debates that take place in a real Grant Assessment Panel (GAP), but it also gives them an idea of the tough assessment their application will have to go through.

Whilst I've posted elsewhere on this blog about what makes a good application (eg here, here, and here), a couple of points were raised at the workshop that I thought that they were worth repeating:

  • Firstly, panellists rarely read your proposal in the strict order in which its presented. The two panellists who led the workshop said that they normally read the JeS form first, to get a sense of what the project is about, then skip to the reviewers' comments and PI's response, before returning to the Case for Support. Your response, then, is crucial. This is true of all the Councils. A panellist for one of the other Research Councils said the following after returning from a panel meeting:
'The PI's responses were key and a substantial number of these were badly done (serving simply to refute or to point out disagreement between reviewers rather than rebut with argument, to clarify or to accept reviewers' suggestions).  Not all PIs made use of the whole space allowed.  Spending time reminding the panel of the positive things that reviewers had said was a waste of space if there were substantial issues to be addressed...I'm certain that I saw applications that would have received a higher final grade (and possibly funding) if the PI response had been better done.'
  • Secondly, most panellists won't have a background in your area. The GAPs are quite broad (see their disciplinary configuration here), so you need to make sure of two things: first, that you explain your research in a way that an intelligent general reader can understand; and secondly, that your methodology is watertight. Why? Because although the panellists might not understand the specifics of your project, they will all understand (or think they understand) the underlying methodology. So that is where they're going to pick holes. In particular, you need to be strong on how you analyse the data. Try and preempt any problems they might see in your methodology, and head them off at the pass. 
The final mock panel of the year will focus on the EPSRC, and will take place on 4 June. Drop me a line if you want to take part.

ESRC Changes Grant Assessment Panels

The ESRC has decided to change the configuration of its Grant Assessment Panels. These changes will take effect from November 2014.

Previously, the three panels covered the ESRC's remit as follows:


From November they will be:


My understanding is that these changes came about partly to balance out disproportionate workloads, but partly because (to quote my source) 'panels were getting set in their ways'.

This makes sense. I wouldn't want the panels to ossify (to borrow the ESRC's own term). Nevertheless, this does seem like an odd mix, and there are some strange divisions, such as 'economics' and 'economic and social history' being in separate panels. Similarly, I would have thought that 'Social Policy' had more in common with 'Sociology' and 'Socio-Legal Studies' than, say, international relations.

But the ESRC's task was a thankless one. They were never going to please everyone. I wish them well with this, and I do hope - for all our sakes - that the new arrangement works. For those who might be nervous about how their application might be viewed under the new system, there's still time to get your proposal in to be viewed in July under the final meeting of the old panels.


Monday 7 April 2014

'The Sower of Discord'

Somewhere in Turkmenistan
Last week David Willetts suggested that the Government was considering 'franchising' the REF to countries overseas. Now read on.

A terrorist arms bazaar, somewhere in Afghan/Turkmenistan border, a la Tomorrow Never Dies. Amidst all the hardware is a small stall piled high with A4 brochures. A bald man in rimless glasses stands behind the stall. He's wearing a Life of Brian style beard.

Willetts (for it is he): Pssst!
Terrorist (points to himself): Who, me?
Willetts: Yes! Are you interested in causing (looks to left and right) chaos and confusion?
Terrorist: Well...
Willetts: Do you want to blow apart civilisation? Destroy social conventions? Do you want to strike  at the heart of the intelligensia?
Terrorist (suspiciously): Maybe...
Willetts: Ah! Come! I have a wondrous weapon! More powerful than any nuclear warhead! More dangerous than a box of hand grenades without their pins!
Terrorist (looking at the stall, and picking up a brochure entitled 'Panel Criteria and Working Methods'): But this is just a...
Willetts: (waving his arms) Don't be fooled my friend! This has the potential to return society to a prehistoric struggle for survival! (Grabs the brochure and stabs his fingers at its cover) This has the power to make 'civilised' people claw each other's eyes out, and trample each other into the dirt! Not only that, but you can force the smartest people in your country to spend hours - weeks! - years! in futile bureaucracy!
Terrorist (shaking his head): That will never happen.
Willetts: It will! I have tried it and I know it works! You don't need guns, you don't need tanks. All you need is 'The Sower of Discord'!
Terrorist: 'Sower of Discord'? Is that its name?
Willetts: Yes! It is the Armageddon Machine! But we must move stealthily. In my country it has been codenamed (whispers): 'The Research Excellence Framework'.
Terrorist: So how does it work, this Sower of Discord?
Willetts: Ah! That is the clever part! This is the - mwhahahah! - genius of my plan! These intelligent infidels are the creators of their own destruction! See, I give them a pile of money and say that they have divide it up amongst themselves. But they mustn't do it equitably! Oh no! They must work out who is the 'cleverest' amongst them.
Terrorist: That doesn't sound too hard.
Willetts: Oh but it is! How do you measure 'clever', eh? Eh?
Terrorist: Hmm.
Willetts: Yes! They tear themselves apart with H Indexes, and impact factors, and all sorts of crazy bibliometrics! But my friend, I've not got to the best bit. Not only do they have to work out who is the cleverest, but also who is the most - heh! heh! -  'impactful'.
Terrorist: What does that mean?
Willetts (eyes gleaming): Ah - ha! That is the genius! No one knows! And we do not tell them! We just say, 'work it out for yourselves!' Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha! It creates institutional and personal madness! Madness!
Terrorist (with disgust): But that is...monstrous. What kind of sick individual are you? I may be a terrorist, but I do have some standards. You keep your, your...so-called 'Research Framework Excellence'. I'm off to buy some canisters of sarin gas.

Schizophrenia and the Funding of Regional Universities

Hull: one of 'Wave 2 Growth Hubs'
In February the Government announced that it was offering £32m to 20 regional cities in the UK to support economic growth and development. The cities, which included areas as diverse as Milton Keynes, Hull, Stoke and Sunderland, were offered the funding in return for a promise to 'improve a serious local economic problem'.