Applying for an ARC Discovery Grant

1
Applying for an ARC Discovery Grant

• Deborah TerrySocial, Behavioural and Economic
  Sciences College of Experts (2004 2006), ARC

2
Objectives

• for both discovery linkage programs, a key goal
  is to
• enhance the scale and focus of research in
  designated priority areas of research
• programs fund
• excellent fundamental research (Discovery)
• collaborative research between universities and
  industry - across the innovation system
  (Linkage)
• both schemes have research training in high
  quality research environments as a clear
  objective (APAI in linkage)
• fellowships also available
• all levels in Discovery APDI Industry Fships
  in Linkage

3
Overview - Discovery

• 20k to 500k pa for 1 to 5 years
• small at higher end of funding length of time
  
• projects usually 3 yrs, can be shorter APD, 3
  or 4 yrs APF QEII/ARF, 5 yrs
• success rates for Discovery Projects commencing
  in 2004 - 2008
• 2004 27
• 2005 31.3
• 2006 24.5
• 2007 20.4
• 2008 21.4
• Fellowship success rates (commencing 2008)
• APD 17.3, 100 19.8, 7525
• ARF/QEII 13.7, 100 21.6, 5050
• APF 6.7, 100 20.0, 5050

4
Eligibility

• eligibility requirements taken very seriously
• read the guidelines, FAQs, common eligibility
  issues (ARC website)
• research office cannot pick everything up
• they will be enforced
• watch out for
• CI holds too many grants (sole vs team)
• CI not employed at least 50 at eligible instit.
• if you a specified personnel for an ARC Centre,
  restricted to one DP project
• research with a significant focus on clinical
  medical (including dental) outcomes will not be
  funded by ARC
• eligibility ruling request should be submitted if
  unsure on this point
• if a proposal for the 2008 round was ranked in
  group E (remainder of unsuccessful proposals), it
  cannot be resubmitted

5
Assessment process

• every grant is evaluated by
• 2 members of the College of Experts (EACs)
• assigned by the Exec Director (ED)
• RFCD codes particularly relevant here
• read around 120 applications each
• unlikely to be specialists in your field read
  very broadly within discipline and across related
  disciplines
• provide only scores no comments
• 2 Oz Readers
• assigned by ED/EACs using title, RFCD codes,
  keywords 100 word summaries A5.1 (project), A5.2
  (national benefit, importance)
• read around 20 applications each
• unlikely to be specialists in your field but read
  less broadly than EACS (usually reading within a
  sub-discipline)

6
Assessment process

• every grant is also evaluated by
• 0 4 Int readers
• specialists in your field chosen primarily on the
  basis of YOUR keywords, but also 100 word
  summaries
• read 1 5 grants each
• probably spend more time on each grant than the
  other reviewers
• response rate not high
• across all types of reviewers, keywords very
  important
• they determine the assessor pool
• should not be too general or too specific
• need to combine words that define the broad area
  point to the specific aspect of it that is
  under consideration

7
Assessment process

• grants are scored against selection criteria by
  all assessors, then combined into a total score
  based on weight of each criterion
• each assessors total scores converted to ranks
• draft overall score for each grant computed as
  the average overall rank across assessors,
  weighted by the number of applications assessed,
  CoE members capped at 25
• therefore, assessors who read only a few
  applications (IntReaders) have little influence
  on the overall score
• EACs then consider assessments rejoinders and
  decide whether the rank should change
• final ranks determined level of funding for the
  successful grants decided upon

8
Assessment process summary

• use RFCD codes, key words and project summaries
  to increase the chances that the application is
  sent to the most appropriate reviewers
• final scores based on rankings - remember,
  assessors who are not experts in your field have
  the most impact on the final rank
• keep the nature of the readership in mind
• need to ensure that the application is accessible
  at the same time as showing that you are on top
  of the technical aspects of the project
• write the title, aims, background, significance
  sections, 100 word summaries for non-experts
• need to excite the reader - EACs are reading over
  100!
• write the approach methodology for the
  IntReaders
• their comments more important than their scores
• evidence that you arent on top of the
  methodology may impact on the final rank

9
Criteria - Discovery

• investigator(s) 40
• project 60
• significance innovation 30
• approach methodology 20
• national benefit 10
• too little attention typically paid to
  significance innovation and national benefit
  too much to approach methodology

10
Fellowship score

• separate fellowship score
• assessment based on excellence of the applicants
  track record and excellence of project
• additional information provided in section B10.6
  is important
• fellows contribution to the project
• research environment of the host institution
• facilities, support, intellectual environment
• reasons for not moving to another institution if
  you intend to remain at UQ

11
Investigator(s)

• two components
• track record relative to opportunity
• capacity to undertake the project
• relative to opportunity is taken seriously
• provide the information in the relevant section
  that assessors need to make this judgement
• make use of the section on other evidence of
  impact (e.g., keynote addresses, editorial
  responsibilities, p/grad supervision, citations,
  professional exp, roles in societies etc)
• increasingly journal quality citations taken
  into account
• highlight evidence of an international research
  reputation - i.e., being linked into to an
  international network
• use evidence to back up claims about impact

12
Investigator(s)

• if track record is pulling you down, think about
  how to put together a stronger team for the
  project
• needs to include one or more members who have
  very strong internationally competitive track
  records
• teams need to make a case for why they are the
  best team for the project
• do they have a track record of working together?
• do they bring complementary skills?
• is the team appropriately constituted given the
  project?
• are PIs (incs international) contributions
  genuine - are they committing funds or material
  resources?
• are all the CIs/PIs needed?
• does the project come across as being cohesive?

13
Early career researchers

• ARC allocates a specific amount of funding to
  ECR-only Discovery Projects (approx 10)
• target met across all the panels, so may get
  across-panel variation
• all CIs and PIs must be ECR - PhD awarded in past
  5 yrs (check date!)
• can apply for an eligibility exemption
• assessment criteria the same as for other
  Discovery Projects but cutoff for funding may be
  lower for ECRs
• still need strong project and very good record
  (for ECR)
• decision as to whether to go with ECR-only
  critically dependent on track record/s
• ECRs carefully assessed in terms of rate of
  publication, publication outlets, no. of
  1st-author pubs, evidence of an international
  reputation
• success rates higher for teams including ECR/s
  than for ECR-only applications
• in line with the ARCs goal of building scale and
  focus

14
Project content

• significance innovation
• does it address an important problem?
• how will the anticipated outcomes advance the
  knowledge base of the discipline?
• how does the research address a Designated
  National Research Priority (if appropriate)?
• are the project aims and concepts novel and
  innovative?
• will new methods or technologies be developed?
• critically important 30 - why is the research
  important and how is it novel? whats new? whats
  the WOW factor?
• you need to build the case for significance
  innovation - remember 4 of the assessors are not
  experts
• show how project fits into the current
  international state of the field - how will it
  contribute to current debates? why is it at the
  cutting edge of the field?

15
Project content

• approach
• are the conceptual framework, design, methods and
  analyses adequately developed, well integrated
  and appropriate to the aims of the project
• how appropriate is the proposed budget?
• need to convince assessors that you are using the
  appropriate methods and that the team has the
  skills to undertake the research
• show that you on top of technical aspects of the
  methodology without relying on jargon
• methods need to be consistent with aims
  feasible
• project needs to fit the proposed timeframe - 1
  2 year projects are supported 5 year projects
  need to be very strong - for teams with
  outstanding records
• dissemination of the results - be creative

16
Project content

• national benefit
• what is the potential of the research project to
  result in economic and/or social benefits for
  Australia?
• what is the potential for the research to
  contribute to the designated National Research
  Priorities?
• may be the critical 10 that gets you over the
  line
• think about it dont exaggerate
• not the same as significance innovation
• avoid glib comments that are not convincing
• look at the specific goals specified in each of
  the priority areas
• national benefit can be argued in many ways
• contribute nationally to cutting-edge research
  programs
• strengthen international position build
  international links
• create research training opportunities build
  research capacity
• address national problems

17
Success rates across national research priorities
18
Budget

• dont inflate the budget
• this may impact on scores
• appropriateness of budget contributes to the
  approach score
• budget items will be scrutinised
• need strong case for higher level staff (or
  postdoc) - what will CIs be doing?
• travel - is it necessary - what is the uni
  funding?
• teaching relief - is approved if argued well -
  argue in terms of the needs of the project
• expensive methodologies (fMRI, survey costs) need
  to be justified appropriately costed
• show value for money

19
Where to from here?

• plan
• both team project
• prepare
• check eligibility technical requirements, FAQs
• model from successful ARC grants
• attend RRTD/Faculty wshops
• write the application
• start writing early - success rate lower for late
  applications
• make sure the writing style and organisation of
  the proposal are clear - use headings as
  recommended by ARC, adhere to format requirmens
• write
• in simplest language possible
• to assessment criteria
• with an understanding of the assessment process

20
Where to from here?

• think about how specialist non-specialist
  assessors would react to the proposal
• think about the likely type/range of assessors
• will it be accessible to a range of assessors?
• think big (in line with ARCs goal of building
  scale focus) but ensure sufficient attention to
  detail
• significance innovation (SI) must be clear
• must show that you are on top of the methodology
  project is feasible
• need a strong compelling start - ensure SI
  overall aims clear
• seek feedback at different stages of the process
• from reader schemes (success higher), colleagues,
  successful grant holders, researchers in related
  areas
• make sure they read the entire application seek
  advice on key words, RFCD codes if
  cross-disciplinary
• dont recycle projects
• likely to get similar assessors
• pay close attention to the feedback provided
  re-work application