The ESRC Business and Local Government Data Research Centre is based at Essex, and is a collaboration with its Eastern ARC partners Kent and UEA. As part of its programme it is running a free lecture series on big data, and this year these will take place at Kent. They are open to both University staff, undergraduate and postgraduate students, and the general public. It is an opportunity to hear about big data, how it affects you and the decisions you make, the services you receive and the environment you live in.

The lectures are free and take place as follows:

• 28 Sept, 5:30pm: Canterbury Campus (Darwin Conference Suite)
• 19 Oct, 5:30pm: Medway Campus (Dockyard Church)
• 7 Nov, 5:30pm: Canterbury Campus (Darwin Conference Suite)

To take part go to www.blgdataresearch.org/bigdatacan.

Phil Ward is currently preparing a University response to the survey by Universities UK (UUK) on the European Union’s next Framework Programme, FP9.

As many of you know, the Framework Programme is a set of schemes (or ‘actions’) by which the EU gives out most of its research and innovation funding. In the past the UK has done very well out of it, being second only to Germany in terms of the amount of funding it gets. The budget for FP9 is currently being negotiated, and the EU is starting to give some thought to what should replace Horizon 2020, which is the current Framework Programme.

Although there is some uncertainty about the UK’s involvement after Brexit, the Government is due to issue a position paper on this tomorrow, and the rumours are currently positive, as reported in Research Professional.

Thus, it’s important that the University’s voice – and that of the sector more broadly – is heard. If you’ve had European funding, have applied for it without success, or have, perhaps, been put off by the complexity, let me know your thoughts.

The specific questions are below, but feel free to give a broader response. Please could you let me have your thoughts by Mon 18 Sept, to allow me time to prepare an institutional response?

I appreciate any time you can give to this. If you want to talk in person, I’m happy to come and chat.

_______________________

Specific Questions

1. What are the most important advantages of European funding for you?

These might include researcher mobility, international partnerships, prestige, or access to pan-European research infrastructures, for example.

2. What are the most significant disadvantages?

For example admin, auditing, complexity of application and choice of funding, the time it takes to hear back, or the lack of opportunity for humanities or social sciences.

3. How do these advantages/disadvantages compare to other international funding, such as bilateral agreements?
4. Is there anything that EU funding can achieve that domestic funding cannot?
5. Can you give specific examples of significant impact arising from EU funding?

These might include major breakthroughs, the establishment of labs or groups, significant mobility opportunities, or new collaborations.

6. What would be the most important elements in FP9 for you?

For example: mobility, long term stable funding for excellent research, simplification, light touch admin, support for multidisciplinary research, collaboration, the chance to tackle global challenges beyond the national, access to research infrastructures, a balance of top-down and bottom-up support.

7. What are the three most pressing challenges or issues in FP9?
8. How can the EU ensure the development of capacity in lower-performing member states whilst retaining support for excellent research?
9. How can the EU support and develop social and economic impact?
10. Is the balance between fundamental and applied research right? If not, what should change?
11. Should the public be more involved in the development of FP9? If so, how?
12. How can FP9:
    1. Better support non-science research?
    2. Address gender disparities?
    3. Facilitate more collaboration outside the EU?
    4. Better support the Open Science agenda?

The Leverhulme Trust has recently announced a Research Centres call, due to launch on 4 Sept. They are only allowing one application per university, so we will have to run an internal competition to decide on our nomination. As ever, I will try to make it as fair, transparent and light touch as possible. Thus, can anyone with an interest in being the University’s nomination provide the following by Fri 8 Sept:

• Case for support (max 1000 words), setting out:
  • The name of the centre;
  • The director of the proposed centre, and other key staff involved. Their expertise with regard to the centre should be made clear, and short CVs (see below) should be included for them;
  • Collaborators outside the University (including international partners);
  • Description of the centre, including the rationale underlying its creation, its structure, its management and its proposed activities;
  • Potential impact of the centre. Whilst Leverhulme don’t take into account ‘impact’ (as defined by the Research Councils), they are seeking an ‘outstanding’ centre that will lead to ‘a significant step-change in scholarship’. ‘The Trust’s aim is to encourage new approaches that may establish or reshape a field of study and so transform our understanding of a significant contemporary topic.’ Moreover, they are particularly keen on Social Sciences and Humanities involvement this time, and this will be factored into the decision making of the internal panel.
• Estimated and approximate costs (max 1 side of A4), including University commitment required (financial, infrastructural etc).
• Short CVs for all investigators (max 2 sides of A4 each, min pt 10), which should include notable publications and grants in the last five years, and groups, centres or projects which the director has been involved in leading.

These will be assessed by a panel led by the DVC Research & Innovation, and it is hoped that we will tell all applicants of the outcome shortly after, allowing the successful candidate most of the call period (deadline 9 Jan) to fully work up the proposal.

EPSRC announced earlier this week that their First Grants scheme would, from Monday, become New Investigator Awards. They have said that the new scheme ‘will remove some of the current restrictions and will help improve the quality and ambition of research proposals submitted, recognising that different projects and new investigators have different needs.’

Changes include:

• The removal of the upper value and duration limit
• The removal of time-based eligibility
• A requirement for more evidence of university support for career development
• Increased use of ‘invited resubmissions’ and useful feedback.

More details are available here, including FAQs. Dr Helen Leech, the Faculty Funding Officer for the Sciences, is currently on leave, but don’t hesitate to get in touch with Phil Ward in the meantime if you have specific questions about the changes.

2-4pm, Wednesday 10 May 2017

Venue: TBC

The next call is due to open in the autumn with a deadline early in the New Year. Despite the triggering of Article 50 UK universities can still apply, and the Treasury has agreed to underwrite any grants that have been approved at the point the UK leaves the EU in March 2019. Richard has kindly agreed to talk about his experience of applying for these complex grants, what worked for him, what he would have done differently, and what people should bear in mind when starting to develop the collaborations.
Dr Richard GuestMarie Curie Innovative Training Networks (ITNs) provide funding for doctoral training programmes run jointly between a number of institutions across Europe. They run for up to 4 years and are worth up to €4.5m. There is no limit to the disciplines which can apply, and the University currently has six ITNs running. One of these is Enhanced Mobile Biometrics (AMBER) in EDA, led by Dr Richard Guest.

The session is free and open to all, and tea and coffee will be provided. However, do drop me a line to let me know that you plan to come.