Session 1C from City University London's Researchers' Development Day, held on Friday 4th May 2012.

1. A. Tinson and S. Wilson, 2012

2. Writing a Successful
Research Funding Bid
A. Tinson and S. Wilson, 2012
Andrea Tinson Stephanie Wilson
Research Development Mgr Centre for HCI Design
School of Social Sciences School of Informatics

3. Focusing on the Research Proposal
 The case for support
(the technical part)
A. Tinson and S. Wilson, 2012
 All the other important things
(impact, pathway to impact,
costings, ethics etc)

4. Where to Start?
 You are unlikely to be awarded a substantial grant
without evidence of a track record
 So, start modestly
A. Tinson and S. Wilson, 2012
 Look at pump-priming, seed corn and first grant
schemes
 Collaborate with more experienced colleagues

5. The Funding Process
 Bright idea!
 Write and submit proposal
A. Tinson and S. Wilson, 2012
 Peer review
 Your response
 Panel and decision

6. The Message You Need to Convey
 This research is original and important
 You can deliver it
A. Tinson and S. Wilson, 2012
 It fits with the funder’s remit

7. Case for Support
 Applicant’s previous track record
 Proposed research and its context
A. Tinson and S. Wilson, 2012
− Background
− Research hypotheses and objectives
− Research methodology
− National importance
− Academic impact

8. Case for Support: General Guidance
 Respond to the call (if there is one)
 Give yourself plenty of time and seek lots of feedback
A. Tinson and S. Wilson, 2012
 Check the review criteria
 Get the balance right: make sure you explain what you
will do
 Stake your claim for what is important and novel
 Be fussy, very fussy, about everything…

9. Case For Support contd
 Previous track record
− your track record in the area (citing evidence)
− more general research and research management
A. Tinson and S. Wilson, 2012
experience
− organisational strengths
 Background
− demonstrate your (up-to-date) knowledge of the subject
− identify gaps and the problem
− explain the importance

10. Case For Support contd
 Objectives and research questions
− not too speculative, not too applied
− specific and generic
A. Tinson and S. Wilson, 2012
− can you state in one sentence what you want to do??
 Research methodology
− appropriate and justified
− specific and detailed (“will do”)
− organised as a set of activities
− will deliver the objectives, answer the research questions

11. State What You Are Going To Do
And state it early on
Our very first sentence in a recent (successful!) proposal:
A. Tinson and S. Wilson, 2012
This project will investigate an innovative adaptation of gesture
recognition technology to create a resource for training
aphasic people to communicate through gesture.

12. From the ESRC:
“Write in plain English. Your proposal is likely to be seen by
many people, including some who will not be familiar with your
particular specialisation.”
A. Tinson and S. Wilson, 2012
“By the same token, do take the trouble to check spelling,
grammar and punctuation. These are all part of the quality of
presentation and presentation matters! "
http://www.esrc.ac.uk/funding-and-
guidance/guidance/applicants/application2.aspx

13. Review criteria
EPSRC: ESRC:
Quality Originality, potential contribution
to knowledge
A. Tinson and S. Wilson, 2012
Importance Research design and methods
Impact Value for money
Applicant Outputs, dissemination, impact
Resources and
management
 Proposals graded 1 - 6

14. Potential Downfalls
 Not a research proposal
 Not clear what the idea or problem is
A. Tinson and S. Wilson, 2012
 Not clear that it is an important problem
 Insufficient detail about what will actually be done
 Lack of awareness of prior work
 Requested resources are insufficient or excessive
 Proposal is incomprehensible or badly written

15. Be Aware…
 Some funding bodies have sanctions against unsuccessful
applicants
 EPSRC: “12-month cooling-off period for repeatedly
A. Tinson and S. Wilson, 2012
unsuccessful applicants”
 ESRC: “demand management”

16. Other aspects to consider……
 Costings (salary and other costs)
 Justification of resources
A. Tinson and S. Wilson, 2012
 Impact statements
 General statement
 Ethical statement

17. Costings
 Look at what you want to do
 Cost for what you require – do not be afraid to ask
A. Tinson and S. Wilson, 2012
 If you have said that you would run seminars then cost for
them
 Question to ask yourself “Have I costed for everything I
need to run this project?”

18. Justification of resources (JOR)
 Staff – why researcher needed for work, why proposed time
is necessary
 PI and Co-Is – is time costed necessary
A. Tinson and S. Wilson, 2012
 Travel and subsistence – give full breakdown, why and who
you are you visiting, how will they contribute
 Other directly incurred costs – give full description and state
why you require them
 Impact – full breakdown required

19. Impact statements
Three statements to consider
 Impact summary
A. Tinson and S. Wilson, 2012
 Pathways to excellence
 Academic impact

20. Impact summary
Two questions to answer:
 Who will benefit from this research?
A. Tinson and S. Wilson, 2012
− List who will benefit, who would be interested, short term
as well as long term
− How will they benefit?
• Relevance of your research to them

21. Pathways to excellence
 Detail the activities which will help develop potential
economic and societal impacts.
 Address following question: What will be done to ensure that
A. Tinson and S. Wilson, 2012
potential beneficiaries have the opportunity to engage with
this research?
 Following need to be considered:
 Communications and Engagement - describe
engagement with the identified beneficiaries

22. Pathways to excellence contd.
 Collaboration and Co-production - explain how
collaborations and partnerships within the proposed project
or research will be managed
A. Tinson and S. Wilson, 2012
 Exploitation and Application - identify the mechanisms in
place for potential exploitation, both commercially and non-
commercially
 Capacity and Involvement - who is likely to be undertaking
the impact activities
 Impact Activity Deliverables and Milestones
 Resource for the activity

23. Academic beneficiaries
 How will the research benefit others in the field or carrying
out similar related research
 Will the research benefit any other academics in other fields
A. Tinson and S. Wilson, 2012
 Describe the relevance of the research
− Potential academic impact
− How will your research be made available
− Collaboration

24. General statement
 Has to be written for a general audience
 If you use technical terms explain them
A. Tinson and S. Wilson, 2012
 Make it interesting
 Don’t waffle

25. Ethical issues
 Please indicate whether there are any ethical implications
arising from the proposed research activities.
 If there are ethical implications, you should give brief details
A. Tinson and S. Wilson, 2012
of what they are and how you intend to address them.
 You are also asked to indicate whether your HEI has a
policy on good conduct in research, in line with the
requirements of the Research Councils.

26. Useful web addresses
 https://je-s.rcuk.ac.uk/jesHandBook/jesHelp.aspx?m=s&s=570&q=ethi
 http://royalsociety.org/Funding-scientists/
A. Tinson and S. Wilson, 2012
 http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/Pages/default.aspx
 http://www.esrc.ac.uk/Pages/default.aspx

27. Useful web addresses contd.
 http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/Pages/default.aspx
A. Tinson and S. Wilson, 2012
 http://mrc.ac.uk
 http://www.leverhulme.ac.uk/
 http://www.britac.ac.uk/
 https://intranet.city.ac.uk/staff/research_support/research_support/rese