strategies for writing your arc linkage application in writing your ar… · strategies for writing...

STRATEGIES FOR WRITING YOUR ARC LINKAGE APPLICATION

James Walsh, Research Strategy Office DIVISION OF RESEARCH

STRATEGIES FOR WRITING YOUR ARC LINKAGE

WHAT WE WILL COVER TODAY: - Who you are writing this for? THE CULTURAL UNDERSTANDING OR

UNWRITTEN RULES

- Addressing the application strategically? THE LITERAL UNDERSTANDING OR ADDRESSING THE WRITTEN RULES

Philosophy – from “expert review informed by peers” to ‘peer review informed by experts’

ARC Assessor ARC Panel

OUTCOME

YOU

Rejoinder Process

STRATEGIES FOR WRITING YOUR ARC LINKAGE ASSESSMENT PROCESS:

ARC


THE WORD CLOUD SELECTS YOUR REVIEWERS BASED ON SIMILAR FROM DP AND LP FOR LAST 5 YEARS

RMS generates a “word cloud” of a proposal based on: –Proposal summary –Proposal title –Impact statement –FoR codes –SEO codes •RMS generates assessor suggestions based on assessor codes, expertise and history—make sure

your RMS profile is up to date •No assignments are made ‘automatically’. This information is provided to ARC Executive Directors

and College of Experts/SAC members to inform their judgment.

CONTINUOUS ARC LINKAGE 2017 ASSESSMENT PROCESS:


CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR APPLICANTS TO ARC LINKAGE: What the previous slide indicates is that its critical that you get good assessments to begin with.

Assessments that generally agree across most assessors and that agree between the comments and the scores which you do not see.

There are ways of dealing with this: http://www.arc.gov.au/grants-dataset With the new ARC Grants Dataset you have a lot more intelligence than you ever have on how to

strategically prepare what you write to ensure the best possible outcome for your application.

http://www.arc.gov.au/grants-dataset




IF YOU SEARCHED 090502 CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING THIS IS PART OF THE LIST FOR

2016 GRANTS THE DATA BASE GENERATES; Lead Investigator

Name Project Id Administering Organisation Project Summary

Total Funding Amount ($)

Funding Commencement

Year Scheme

Xiangyu Wang LP140100873 Curtin University of Technology

Scaffolding management can be critical to construction industries across oil and gas, building, and …

428,000 2014 Linkage Projects

Xiangyu Wang LP130100451 Curtin University of Technology

Australia's liquefied natural gas (LNG) construction industry is plagued by major cost blowouts. …


Mathew Aitchison LP130100941 The University of Queensland

Historically, industrialised construction has resulted in an industrialisation of the parts, rather …


Stephen Fityus LP120100680 The University of Newcastle

This project will investigate the use of soil scarification, in combination with screw piles, as a …


https://rms.arc.gov.au/RMS/Report/Download/Report/d6b15b2b-3a50-4021-8e6f-6c7ef1cba553/0















STRATEGIES FOR WRITING YOUR ARC LINKAGE Project ID: LP130100941 Lead Investigator Name: Mathew Aitchison Investigators: Mathew Aitchison; Jose Torero Cullen; John Macarthur; Toby Lewis; Russell Fryer; Lyndon Christian;

Brian Donovan; Chris Gildersleeve <WHO ELSE IS INVOLVED AND POSSIBLY AN ASSESSOR

Total Funding Amount: $675,000 Scheme: Linkage Projects Funding Commencement Year: 2013 Number of Years Funded: 3 Administering Organisation: The University of Queensland State/Territory: QLD


Participating Organisations: Happy Haus Pty Ltd; Hutchinson Builders ; BVN Donovan Hill; Arup Pty Ltd Fields of Research: 120101 - Architectural Design; 090502 - Construction Engineering; 120404 - Engineering Systems

Design < FORC AND NOTE IT’S A SECONDARY ONE Socio-Economic Objective: 870204 - Residential Construction Design; 870399 - Construction Materials Performance and

Processes not elsewhere classified; 970112 - Expanding Knowledge in Built Environment and Design

Fellowship Recipient: Project Summary The design and construction of quality, sustainable and affordable pre-made housing in Australia -

optimisation and integration. Historically, industrialised construction has resulted in an industrialisation of the parts, rather than an industrialisation of the ensemble. In contrast, this project will integrate architecture and engineering, as well as construction and development to optimise the ensemble, and deliver architectural quality in industrially produced affordable housing


Having a rough idea of who might be assessing your proposal can do many things: - 1st of all it might tell you if you are targeting the right FORC. Look see what has

been funded recently, are these people that are likely to support your research. - Within this exercise you should use google and google scholar to help you

research your audience. - Do they publish in similar Journals to me? Would they support and value my

track record? Are any of my ideas or approaches likely to be new to them in which case do I need to adjust the articulation of my application.

-2nd the search might suggest people you don’t want to have assess your

application. - Within this you have the option two weeks before submission of putting in a

request not to assess. -Alternately you might ‘code’ your application so it doesn’t go near them by

using vastly different language in your A4 impact statement or a different FORC.

STRATEGIES FOR WRITING YOUR ARC LINKAGE WHAT’S BEEN HAPPENING TO LINKAGE AT UNSW IN 2016:

AVERAGE AWARD

AVERAGE ASK OF SUCCESSFULS

AVERAGE/ SUCCESS RATE

AVERAGE PLEDGED CASH

% OF CASH YOU NEEDED

AVERAGE % FUNDING VS ASK

NATIONAL $351,594 $489,732 31.1% $214,863 43% 71.8%

UNSW TOTAL

$304,398 $384,582 30.9% $90,958 30% 76%

UNSW BEM $304,398 $384,582 $94,033** 30%** 74.8%

UNSW HSE $283,783 $344,845 $114,526 33.2% 83.4%

UNSW PMI $330,378 $360,568 $150,000 41% 91%

UNSW ET $312,629 $426,790 $216,135 50.6% 73.2%

*BEM = Biological Sciences, Biotechnology, Environmental, Medical and Health Sciences; ET = Engineering and Technology; HSE = Humanities and Creative Arts, Social, Behavioural and Economic Sciences; PMI = Physical, Mathematical and Information Sciences ** Cashless Linkage affected succesful averages.

STRATEGIES FOR WRITING YOUR ARC LINKAGE What has happened to the disciplines?

2013 2016

PANEL Proposals

Considered Proposals Approved Success Rate Amount

Proposals Considered

Proposals Approved Success Rate Amount

BEM 242 85 35.1% $34,861,848 165 54 32.7% $20,140,574

HSE 257 101 39.3% $29,807,174 184 57 31% $17,519,510

PME 286 120 42% $37,140,323 393 120 30.5% $43,558,354

†BEM = Biological Sciences, Biotechnology, Environmental, Medical and Health Sciences; HSE = Humanities and Creative Arts, Social, Behavioural and Economic Sciences; PME = Physical, Mathematical and Information Sciences and Engineering


THE FUNDAMENTALS

• The Selection Criteria for the scheme are: Investigator(s) (25%) Project & Innovation (25%) comprising

– Significance and Innovation – Approach and Training

Feasibility (20%) Benefit (30%) THESE HAVE CHANGED SINCE LAST YEAR

(Source: 2017 Funding Rules D.6.1)


Last Year POST 1 JANUARY 2017 CHANGES

Investigator(s) 20% Investigator(s) 25% WEIGHTING INCREASES 5%

Proposed Project 50% Project Quality and Innovation 25% WEIGHTING DECREASES TO 25%

Project Research Environment 10% Was part of above Proposed Project Broad criterion.

Feasibility 20% INCREASED TO 20%

Commitment from Partner Organisation(s) (30%)

Benefit (30%)


SO WHAT DO THE CHANGES IN SELECTION CRITERION MEAN?

- It is much more about the Partner Organisation! What is in it for them? How does it change them? How does their involvement help make the research happen?

- Innovation is now only 25% not nearly 50%. How you will do the project and what is new in it is a minor, but important part, of the selection criterion.

- You must identify in the narrative of your grant application much more about what the legacy of the research will be.


THE FUNDAMENTALS

• The New Selection Criteria:

– Investigator(s) 25% (SECT C, D, F AND G) • Research Opportunity and Performance Evidence (ROPE) • potential to engage in collaborative research with end-users < Sect C, D 3 &4, G • time and capacity to undertake and manage the proposed research in

collaboration with the Partner Organisation(s)


THE FUNDAMENTALS

• The New Selection Criteria: Project Quality and Innovation 25% • Significance and Innovation • Will new methods or technologies be developed that address a specific market opportunity? • How will the anticipated outcomes advance the knowledge base and/or provide an end-user

and/or industry advantage? < INNOVATION Sect C • Does the Project plan provide a business model for implementation? < METHOD Sect C • Does the Project address the Science and Research Priorities? • Are the Project aims and concepts novel and innovative? < INNOVATION Sect C


THE FUNDAMENTALS

• The New Selection Criteria: Project Quality and Innovation 25% Approach and Training • Are the conceptual framework, design, methods and analyses adequately developed, well

integrated and appropriate to the aims of the Project? < METHOD Sect C • Where relevant, is the intellectual content and scale of the work proposed appropriate to a higher

degree by research? • How appropriate is the proposed budget? < METHOD Sect C


THE FUNDAMENTALS

• The New Selection Criteria: Feasibility 20% • Is there an existing, or developing, supportive and high-quality environment for this research both

within the Administering Organisation and in the Partner Organisation(s)? < METHOD Sect C • Are the necessary facilities available to conduct the proposed research? < METHOD Sect C • Is there evidence that each of the Partner Organisation(s) is genuinely committed to, and

prepared to collaborate in, the research Project? <ALL THAT IS LEFT OF OLD CRITERION COLLABORATION Sect C

• Is the budget justification for Cash and in-kind Contributions adequate?


THE FUNDAMENTALS

• The completely new Selection Criteria: Benefit 30% • Will the proposed research encourage and develop strategic research alliances between the

higher education organisation(s) and other organisation(s)? • Will the proposed research maximise economic, commercial, environmental and/or social benefit

to Australia? Are there adequate strategies to encourage dissemination, commercialisation, if appropriate, and promotion of research outcomes?

• Is it demonstrated that, where relevant, the applicants have identified the freedom to operate in the Intellectual Property and patent landscape to enable future benefits to end-users and/or industry?

• Does the Project represent value for money? < BANG FOR BUCK NOT THAT IT IS CHEAP


STRATEGY IN THE APPLICATION – KEY MESSAGES SECTION A - Make sure your A4 Summary and A5 Impact statement uses words that will

ensure your application is driven to the best assessors after ascertaining this on the grants dataset.

- Don’t repeat words that might drive it to the wrong people. Reinforcing a word that is about the application of your research or its method will send it to the wrong people.

- For A4 there is a simple formula; State the problem, State the approach and State the contribution in three shorts sentences that suggest collaboration and innovation.


STRATEGY IN THE APPLICATION – KEY MESSAGES SECTION B - Go shopping on the Grants Dataset. If there are too few applicants in your

FORC then realise they will go outside it. - We are advised that interdisciplinary research is difficult so think about it

carefully and try give it a home. - We are advised that its best to not have more than 2 FORC and to ensure

that one is dominant, i.e. more than 50%. - Don’t use FORC ending in 99 as they are a real grab bag of people and

invite non expert reviews of your application.


STRATEGY IN THE APPLICATION – KEY MESSAGES SECTION C – OPENING PARAGRAPH Your opening paragraph should stress the problem you wish to address, the

problems within the discipline that need to be resolved in order to address the broader problem, why it is important to address this problem and the impact this is likely to have for your discipline. You want to try in your opening statement to summarise your project in a way that addresses many of the selection criteria but more importantly contextualises how you wish what follows to be perceived by your reviewers. It almost needs to be something that controls the impression you want to have of your project..


STRATEGY IN THE APPLICATION – KEY MESSAGES SECTION C – AIMS AND BACKGROUND The Instructions ask: ‘Include information about national/international progress in this field of

research and its relationship to this proposal. ‘ You need to begin a narrative that starts wide and introduces what you are

addressing but finishes narrow with clearly defined aims. You should try conclude each paragraph with a summary statement as to what

it is in the gaps in the filed you will advance with this project.


STRATEGY IN THE APPLICATION – KEY MESSAGES SECTION C – AIMS AND BACKGROUND - You need to address in this section why your Partner Organisation is

interested in this research. Why it is a priority for them? What their background in this area is? < Hint cross reference D3 and D4 where they can elaborate and also make sure they have more info on this on their website.

- This part of section C is where you provide preliminary data or updates on pilot studies not yet published.


STRATEGY IN THE APPLICATION – KEY MESSAGES SECTION C – AIMS AND BACKGROUND - Have aims that look collaborative i.e are expressed to suggest the need for

collaboration to achieve them. - And have aims that are actual goals not mechanistic statements. That you

are going to ascertain stress in construction pylons is not an aim it is describing something you will do. The aim would be the stress levels that pylons can endure.

- Finally there should be a section on what this research is not. Its insurance for the rejoinder.


STRATEGY IN THE APPLICATION – KEY MESSAGES SECTION C – SIGNIFICANCE AND INNOVATION Remember this is now two dot points out of 11 that assessors are asked on the

Project Quality and Innovation Criterion worth 25%. Its not worth 50% anymore so be careful.

If you have developed a good narrative on the gaps to be addressed and the

importance of this research for your Partners then this should segue nicely into this section.


STRATEGY IN THE APPLICATION – KEY MESSAGES SECTION C – SIGNIFICANCE AND INNOVATION Remember to say why this is new and important for your Partners. Stress why

it’s a priority for them. Cross reference D3 and D4 where you can elaborate on these points. Talk about how this will enhance collaboration with your Partner and their stakeholders

Remember in discussing the significance and innovation to actually discuss

why its important for the discipline to be doing this. Describe what will be new in the discipline from doing this. In doing both of these things its ok to be narrow in your scope.


STRATEGY IN THE APPLICATION – KEY MESSAGES SECTION C – APPROACH AND TRAINING Put yourself in the picture? Make sure, to enhance the score on Feasibility

(20%) and on Project Quality and Innovation (25%) that you suggest in describing your experiments that you can do this. You should therefore reference where you have done similar work before and in G14 use the same language as here to summarise the work you have done and its impact. Sect G should reinforce you and the members of your team can do all this.


STRATEGY IN THE APPLICATION – KEY MESSAGES SECTION C – APPROACH AND TRAINING Remember the word cloud! The people reading your Sect C and advocating on it will not be more than

probably 50% relevant to your topic. Make sure you don’t use speculative language and ensure that you articulate your method so that it doesn’t leave any questions. When you finish writing it ask yourself and ask colleagues would another third person understand this? would they want more information?


STRATEGY IN THE APPLICATION – KEY MESSAGES SECTION C – APPROACH AND TRAINING It’s perfectly okay to argue you are using stock standard techniques to deliver a

new an innovative outcome. But remember to argue the feasibility or applicability of that technique to the outcome.

Remember the google search on the people you think might be assessors? Are

any of these techniques really new, only just published, or adapted? Then they might need greater explanation even if only be referencing the technique. Don’t take your assessors for granted.


STRATEGY IN THE APPLICATION – KEY MESSAGES SECTION C – APPROACH AND TRAINING Remember your Aims and Objectives – You’d be surprised how many times

people don’t say how their method relates to their aims. Don’t develop a method that is broader than your aims! Again you’d be

surprised at how often this happens. Remember your Partner in all of this. They should somehow be built into the

execution of the project. The new section on Feasibility (20%) demands this.


STRATEGY IN THE APPLICATION – KEY MESSAGES SECTION C – APPROACH AND TRAINING Remember to justify everything. Explain the numbers in your sample. Explain your preference for one method of

an alternate. Explain the applicability of what you are going to do to your problem especially if any of it is new.

Reference where you can to suggest its feasible and if at all possible done

before.


STRATEGY IN THE APPLICATION – KEY MESSAGES SECTION C – APPROACH AND TRAINING Finally remember if you put in a Graduate student give them an actual role.

Describe it at the end of the section and elaborate in Section F. BUT: Make sure that its not critical to the successful outcome of your study and

that the project is amenable to your Partners and the context of the study. I.E you wouldn’t have a project that involves a Grad Student where there was significant IP to commercialise or where the project content was sensitive. Research your discipline through Google to see if people are putting Graduate Students in their projects in your FORC.


STRATEGY IN THE APPLICATION – KEY MESSAGES SECTION C – PARTNER COMMITMENT This should be about 3/4s to one page and discuss the Partner’s Commitment

to the project. Briefly discuss the priority it has for them, in broad terms what they will bring to it including cash, in kind and environment.

They should briefly indicate how the project will benefit their stakeholders and

change them as a partner with a cross reference to D3 and D4 where this can be elaborated.

They should indicate any past Linkages or collaborations with you.


STRATEGY IN THE APPLICATION – KEY MESSAGES SECTION C – ROLE OF PERSONNEL This should be brief and succinct and refer to what exactly each CI and PI and

any other person associated with the grant will do. In this you should for each CI discuss how you will manage time within your

research loading to make this happen taking account of other grants you hold. Make sure the loading you talk about here correlates with that nominated at G 11 iii).

You can elaborate on roles and cross reference Sect F2 the Non ARC Budget

Justification if you are running out of space.


STRATEGY IN THE APPLICATION – KEY MESSAGES SECTION D 3 – EVIDENCE OF COLLABORATION Expand here on the matters touched on in Sect C. Suggest the priority of this research for the Partner, how it fits with the Strategic

Plan, what it will do for stakeholders/customers/reputation etc Talk about the reach of the Partner Organisation and therefore the potential

value of this beyond the immediate relationship. Talk about the environment at the Partner and any Partner Investigators and

how they will make this research happen.


STRATEGY IN THE APPLICATION – KEY MESSAGES SECTION D4 – LETTER OF SUPPORT Use our template. Available from me. Must discuss matters in D3 and also suggest what the cash and in kid should

be used for. MUST credential your team as why they want the Collaboration. Suggest how

collaboration came about. Seek our advice on this document and only get it signed one or two days

before you submit.


STRATEGY IN THE APPLICATION – KEY MESSAGES SECTION D4 – LETTER OF SUPPORT Ensure that this Letter narrowly defines the research just as we argue in Sect

C. Make sure similar language is used. If only in kind is being provided but cash is provided elsewhere, or they could

give cash, they should explain this and suggest its just for one narrow part of the broader research.

If its for a cashless Linkage indicate how they feel they are an eligible institution

for this.


STRATEGY IN THE APPLICATION – KEY MESSAGES SECTION F – BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS A gift to expand on Sect C but make sure you cross reference. Use it to expand on named Research Post Docs or Assistants. Use it to expand on Graduate Student Requests. Use it to expand on the method by suggesting what in the environment at

UNSW or the Partner Organisation might actually facilitate the method.


STRATEGY IN THE APPLICATION – KEY MESSAGES SECTION G – ROPE OR TRACK RECORD. G11 – Absolutely critical. Take it seriously it sets the age and stage for you as a

researcher. - Make sure that when characterising your experiences at G11 ii that this

privileges your claims as having a background for this research project by emphasising relevant roles.

- Make sure time available for research correlates with Sect C where you talk about the Role of Personnel.


STRATEGY IN THE APPLICATION – KEY MESSAGES SECTION G – ROPE OR TRACK RECORD. G11 – If you have had a break talk about it positively at G11 iv. - Talk up your environment at G11 v. Expand on anything that you call upon to

leverage your research.


STRATEGY IN THE APPLICATION – KEY MESSAGES SECTION G – ROPE OR TRACK RECORD. G12 – Preface this with your corresponding author policy. Especially if you

publish in very large teams.


STRATEGY IN THE APPLICATION – KEY MESSAGES SECTION G – ROPE OR TRACK RECORD. G13 – 10 BEST PUBLICATIONS Make sure more than half are relevant. Otherwise you are declaring that you

have an irrelevant background. Relevance doesn’t need to be the topic at hand but could be the methods to be used.

Make sure that you use citations here as they are king. Make sure the 30 word summaries use similar language to Section C and

develop the claim for you as ideal for your role in this research.


STRATEGY IN THE APPLICATION – KEY MESSAGES SECTION G – ROPE OR TRACK RECORD. G14 ROPE IMPACT STATEMENT Use this as insurance. Often assessors don’t read this section but if you

discuss your research here and the skills, abilities and impact you have acquired all with language that comes from Section C you can build a case to suggest you are an ideal researcher in this space.


FINAL THOUGHTS: - Higher success rate than Discovery

- The success rate remains better than Discovery overall.

- Success rate is 39% in ARC Linkage where as in Discovery it is 18.1%

- At UNSW its still a 1 in 2 chance.

strategies for writing your arc linkage application in writing your ar… · strategies for writing...

Documents