Applying for an ARC Discovery Grant

1
Applying for an ARC Discovery Grant

• Deborah TerrySocial, Behavioural and Economic
  Sciences College of Experts, ARC

2
Assessment process

• 3 types of reviewers - EACs, OzReaders,
  IntReaders
• Exec Director (ED) assigns each application to
  two college members (EAC1 EAC2)
• RFCD codes relevant here
• IntReaders and OzReaders assigned by EACs/ED
  using
• title, RFCD codes, keywords 100 word summaries
  A5.1 (project), A5.2 (national benefit,
  importance)
• ARC assessor database
• keywords particularly important
• they determine the assessor pool
• should not be too general or too specific
• combine words that define the broad area point
  to the specific aspect of it that is under
  consideration

3
Assessment process

• every grant is evaluated by 2 EAC members, 2
  OzReaders, and 1 - 5 IntReaders
• response rate from IntReaders is not high
• 2 EAC members 2 OzReaders - unlikely to be
  experts in your field
• two of these assessors - EAC members - will have
  no contact with you
• i.e, comments are not provided by the EAC members

4
Assessment process

• ranks (not scores) from all assessors combined
  into a single ranked list
• ranks averaged over assessors and weighted by the
  number of applications assessed
• assessors who read only a few applications
  (IntReaders) have little influence on the value
• EAC1s then consider assessments rejoinders and
  decide whether the rank should change
• final ranks determined level of funding for the
  successful grants decided upon

5
Assessment process - summary

• use key words and project summaries to increase
  the chances that the application is sent to the
  most appropriate reviewers
• IntReaders comments more important than their
  scores - but will be impactful, partic. if point
  to fundamental problems
• 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

6
Assessment process - implications

• assessors who are not experts in your field have
  the most impact on the final rank
• write the title, aims, background, significance
  sections, 100 word summaries for non-experts
• need to excite the reader - EACs are reading over
  100!
• need to have a clear strong start - what are
  you going to do why is it important - make aims
  clear early
• show evidence of capacity to do project -
  previous work
• write the approach methodology for the
  IntReaders
• evidence in their reports that you arent on top
  of the methodology may impact on the final rank
• make sure it is clear WHAT you will do that it
  is feasible

7
Fellowship score

• separate fellowship score
• assessment based on excellence of 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

8
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 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

9
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?

10
Early career researchers

• ARC allocates a specific amount of funding to
  ECR-only Discovery Projects (approx 10)
• all CIs and PIs must be ECR - PhD awarded in past
  5 yrs (check date!)
• can apply for an eligibility exemption
• 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
• ECR track records carefully assessed in terms of
  rate of publication, publication outlets, no. of
  first-author publications, evidence of an
  international reputation

11
Early career researchers

• is your track record/s strong enough for an
  ECR-only application?
• if yes
• think about the project whether it would
  benefit from a larger team
• most important issue is ensuring that you have
  the most appropriate team for the project
• demonstrate capacity to undertake the research -
  not too ambitious
• ensure that the research development goals of the
  ARC are met
• if no
• think about the project how you can best put
  together an appropriate team
• ensure that you have a strong justification for
  the team - not just boosting with senior
  researchers how will ECR benefit from the team?
• if your track record is weak
• work on publications, pilot work, think about a
  linkage application first

12
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?
• 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?

13
Project content

• approach
• are the conceptual framework, design, methods and
  analyses adequately developed, well integrated
  and appropriate to the aims of the project
• 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

14
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
• address national problems

15
Budget

• dont inflate the budget
• this may impact on scores
• 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

16
Hints

• check eligibility technical requirements
• these will be enforced
• start writing early
• success rate lower for late applications
• make sure the writing style and organisation of
  the proposal are clear - use headings etc, EDIT!
• use the same headings as recommended by ARC
• 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

17
Hints

• 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 multiple audiences?
• 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 all the application seek
  advice on key words, RFCD codes if
  cross-disciplinary
• dont recycle projects
• likely to get similar assessors
• try again - many fundable projects are not funded