Presenting your ARC Track Record
Some issues to consider when preparing your application
National Competitive Grants – Australian Research Council
-Proposal is written like a top journal article from Introduction to
the end of the Methodology section (including method of analysis)
- A Discovery application is an academic “argument” on how to
advance the academic field/knowledge to prove this is a
significant idea
- Has specific, consistent, meaningful research objectives;
Research Questions/hypotheses derived from a critical literature
review; research questions are matched to studies proposed in
the Approach
- The proposal is written consistent with how the selection criteria
is scored:
ARC continued –
-Track Record or Research Record Relative to Opportunities
(Discovery: 40% of the selection criteria; 20% for Linkage) of the
research team/sole chief investigator
- Significance and innovation (Discovery: 30% of the selection
criteria; Linkage 25%) of the proposed research. Critical literature
review an integral part of the application
- Approach (DP and LP:20%): For example, must be specific and
matched to research questions/hypotheses)
- National Benefit: (DP & LP: 10%) Application of results matched to
the published national benefits (can be more than one)
- Industry Partner Commitment for Linkage (only): 25%
- Do multiple drafts, get critical feedback from colleagues, do a pilot
study to demonstrate feasibility
- Funding rules and the guidelines to applicants must be read
thoroughly, boring though they are. They describe changes from
previous year’s round
Track Record (or Research Record Relative to Opportunities,
Section F12, 2011 Linkage application) in detail
-Track record of ALL chief investigators, partner investigators (e.g.
overseas universities), Australian Postdoctoral Fellows (plus QE II
and APD Industry if a Linkage proposal) candidates relative to
opportunities and, where relevant, suitability to supervise
postgraduate students
- Capacity to undertake and manage the proposed research
- What is assessed?
- Impact (quality) of research outcomes and productivity of
individuals and teams is assessed
- “Productivity” in terms of numbers of publications, numbers
of HDR supervision and completions, etc.
- The “impact” of academic research outcomes is assessed
particularly by qualitative comments provided in the
application (both for Discovery and Linkage) and looking at
where an individual has published and how frequently their
publications are cited.
Track record/research record relative to opportunities cont.
-Broader impact of research outcomes is assessed particularly by
qualitative comments provided in your application with the key
question being asked, “How have your research outcomes made a
difference to the world?”
- Suitability to supervise higher degree research students where
you are requesting financial support for a scholarship. Judged
primarily on numbers of HDR students an individual has
supervised and completed.
- Capacity: readers are looking for demonstrated evidence that –
- the skills of the research team match those required for the
project (evidenced mainly through publication track record)
- where there is a team, that it can work together (evidence of
prior history of collaboration)
Assessment of Capacity continued:
- For Linkage proposals, a track record of collaboration with
“industry” partner organisations
- If a medium sized grant is being sought (~$150,000 to
<$500,000 p.a.), then your track record in managing and
successfully completing large projects is important
(especially ARC projects)
What is meant by track record relative to opportunity?
-Track records are assessed relative to the opportunity an individual
has had to undertake research and produce research outcomes
- In theory, an early career researcher with a short but excellent
research track record should rank higher than a professor whose
recent research track record has not been productive in terms of
research outcomes
Track record relative to opportunity continued
-Periods of disruption to research careers are also taken into account
in assessing track record
- Assessment of track record relative to opportunity will not
advantage applicants with very poor (or no) research track records,
regardless of the reasons for poor research output
- For Linkage applications, it is not uncommon to include partner
investigators on the research team who do not have “traditional”
academic research track records. Although the reasons for the lack
of research outputs will be taken into account, there is nonetheless
an expectation of an equivalent track record from such investigators
Team Applications
For Linkage – Should we include Partner Investigators from Partner
Organisations
If a potential Partner Investigator (PI) brings special skills (that can
be demonstrated in the application) to the project that will add
value and would not otherwise be available to the project, and they
can make a significant intellectual contribution, then it is worth
including them as a PI.
Should you include early career researchers as Chief Investigators?
If an early career researcher has a good track record relative to
opportunity and has the demonstrated skills capacity (especially
demonstrated through peer-reviewed publications) to make a
significant contribution to the project, then yes.
ECRs as Cis continued:
Options for ECRs –
-If modest track record (or no track record):
-Include the ECR as an associate on the project (that is, they
will not have the status of a CI and their role will need to be
explained in the “Role of Personnel” section – no salary is being
paid from the project budget)
- Seek a salary for, say, a Research Associate so that their time
may be bought out to allow involvement in the project (need to
be named in the budget costing and budget justification
sections, otherwise ACU HR may require the position to be
advertised if it is greater than two years)
Presentation of Application that is directly relevant to track record
assessment
Role of Personnel – This section gives readers an outline of the roles
and contributions of the whole research team (Chief Investigators,
post docs, as well as associates and personnel whose salary or
stipend is being sought in the budget). A few sentences to describe
the role of each person involved in the project.
Note: A senior CI or PI given only a minor role such as
mentoring of an early career researcher may be considered ineligible
due to the eligibility criteria that a CI must make a significant
intellectual contribution and time commitment to the project. An
assessor/ARC panel may also determine that such a person has been
added primarily to boost overall team track record, especially where
other named investigators’ track records are poor to moderately
good.
Role of Personnel cont.
Note 2: Be careful that the roles described are consistent with the
time commitments described elsewhere in your application (e.g.
Approach and Training)
Project Cost – The budget section must include detail about the
time commitments of personnel on the project who are either
named personnel (CIs, PIs, Aust.Postdoc.Fellowships) or personnel
whose salaries or stipends have been requested.
The salaries and time commitments of Chief Investigators are
entered under (a) Administering Organisation Contributions and/or
(b) Other Organisation Contributions.
(The salaries and time commitments of Partner Investigators from Partner Organisations
for a Linkage application are entered under Partner Organisation Contributions. The
salaries and time commitments or Partner Investigators who are not from Partner
Organisations are detailed in the Justifications of Partner Organisation and other non-ARC
contributions. A 100% FTE contribution is detailed automatically under the ARC budget for
any APDI Fellowships requested in Linkage. At Project Cost section of the proposal,
describe Chief Investigator or Partner Investigator salaries (as relevant) in the following
way: CI1 Professor ...., Level E2 @ FTE + 28% salary costs.)
Tip: Readers usually cross-reference the time commitment with the Role of Personnel
section to see if the role of a person appears to be consistent with their time
commitment.
Tip: A time commitment of less than 0.15 will often be looked at very closely with a view
to verifying whether the role of the person comprises a “significant intellectual
contribution”. If it is deemed not be a significant contribution, then the application could
be ruled ineligible or the track record assessment will suffer.
Details on your career and research opportunities over the last five
years
Detail to include:
A summary of research publications track record including a focus on
impact (CI 1 has published 50 journal articles including 35 in the last
five years, of which 20 were published in journals with an ERA ranking
of A or A* and are directly relevant to this project). ERA rankings will
be recognised by Australian assessors but not by international
assessors. You could also add the number of articles published in
international journals in the given field(s) of research.
A summary of higher degree research supervision track record (Dr
John Doe currently supervises 3 PhD and 3 Research Masters scholars,
and during his career has supervised 11 PhDs and 9 Research Masters
scholars to completion. Many of his students have gone on to highly
successful careers, including to academic appointments at University
College London, MIT and Carnegie-Mellon University and high level
positions in government and industry.
Career and Research Opportunities cont.
A summary of research grant, contract research and consulting track
record. Collaboration with your CIs and Partner Investigators to be
highlighted.
Tip: Be up to date on the key research performance indicators in your
area of research and in particular the benchmarks that are
considered indicators of excellence. Where your track record meets
or exceeds “excellence”, press the point in your application.
Tip: Benchmarks for “excellence” (that can be demonstrated) vary
considerably between disciplines, so don’t assume that the
assessor/panel will know your benchmarks – tell them – back up your
claim of excellence with evidence.
Scholarly impact – ask yourself what positive difference has my
research made to my field? Think of the national and international
impact of your research as the latter is an important indicator of
excellence.
Scale of impact – greater and more enduring the better. Justify and
demonstrate. In 2008 (name of CI) developed a new survey
instrument for the testing of ..... ability that is now used in more
than 12 OECD countries, including Australia. This research has been
cited 120 times in international journals with high impact (provide
example). This research is at the cutting edge of innovative
educational research and has had a substantial impact across a
number of developed countries.
Tips
- Don’t use the same “Research record relative to
opportunities” section (F 13) of your application for every ARC
application you prepare. Re-draft the section/sub-sections relevant tot
he project being applied for.
- For Linkage, highlighting your track record of collaboration
with partner organisations is important, particularly if you can
demonstrate a history of collaboration with the same sector as the
partner organisation on the proposal.
- Highlight your track record of working with other named
investigators on the application. Many ARC expert panel members do
not rate team track records highly if a team has no history of
successful prior collaboration.
Tips cont.
- Don’t provide half a page of dense text. Break it down in to
dot-points or a least 2 to 3 paragraphs.
- Don’t just provide a list of research key performance
indicators (KPIs). KPIs are not interesting and don’t on their own do
enough to differentiate you from other applicants. You need to
explain what is interesting and unique about your research
contributions, so don’t be demure but don’t make claims which
cannot be verified.
Recent and Significant Publications (section F13.2)
- Ensure you follow the instructions for this section. Some common
errors are:
- Incomplete referencing, to the extent that the reader
cannot verify that the article is published
Recent publications continued
-Including journal articles and conference papers that have
undergone an acceptable peer review process
-Including publications that have not been either accepted or
published and are not in-press
- Including publications that are older than the specified period
(last five years)
- Including publications that the reader does not consider
“significant”
Tips
- Add ERA journal rank, journal impact factor or citations data in
square brackets that can be benckmarked as excellent.
Tips cont. Recent significant publications
-Is you publication track record lacking numbers of publications in
high impact international journals? Are most of your publications in
refereed conference proceedings, or perhaps published as reports
to government? Is the reason for this stated as a preamble to the
“Recent significant publications” section of your application.
- Be cautious how you define “significant”.
- Asterisk publications relevant to the proposal in a way that the
asterisks can be easily seen.
- For Linkage: Partner investigators from Partner Organisations:
Partner Investigators may have only a minimal publication track
record or possibly none at all.
Ten Best Career Publications (sec. 13.3 in Discovery)
-Ensure you include recent (past five years) publications in this list as
well as older ones (if your career has been longer). If no recent
publications have been included, the impression is given of a
downward trajectory.
- As explained earlier, add ERA journal rank, journal impact factor or
citations data in square brackets after journal articles that can be
benchmarked as excellent.
- You can also add a brief sentence or so after each publication
explaining why you have selected it for inclusion in this section.
Further Evidence in relation to research impact and contributions
to the field over the last 10 years (section F13.4 in DP,F12.4 in LP)
-Use dot points or short paragraphs covering one topic per block.
- Long lists (e.g. Keynote addresses) will typically not be read.
- Chief Investigators with limited academic research track records.
- Linkage Partner Investigators: Relevant experience in industry and
other professional activities should be added.
Interruptions to career or other circumstances that may have
slowed down research and publications (covered in F13.1 DP or
F12.1 LP)
-Heavy teaching responsibilities are not normally considered to be
a reasonable excuse for an average or poor research track record
because heavy teaching responsibilities are common among
applicants.
- Balance discussion of disruption with positive statements to
demonstrate that your research is now forging ahead.
- Early Career Researchers: let the reader know that you are an ECR
(i.e. Someone with no more than 5 years of research experience
since award of your PhD).
Fellowship applicants (F 13.6 DP & F12.6 LP)
-If a team based application, be careful to differentiate the fellow’s
role in the project, providing greater detail than would be provided
on this under Role of Personnel (Part C – Project Description)
- When describing the research environment, as well as mentioning
standard infrastructure and specialised facilities/expertise available,
discuss how the fellow and the project fall within an identified area
of research strength of the University
- Identify a mentor and supervisor even if they are not named Cis
on the application. If the fellowship will require the APD to learn
new techniques and methods, ensure that appropriate intellectual
expertise will be provided for training and mentoring.
Statement on Progress
Tips:
-Only report positive progress;
- List publication outcomes to date;
-If there are no published outcomes to date but there are
publications submitted or in preparation, discuss those to
demonstrate that progress has been made.
Presentation of Application
- The whole application is important.
Presentation continued.
- A poorly developed, written and presented application will
reflect poorly on your track record
-A well prepared and presented application will not fare well if it
requires skills outside of the teams’ demonstrated expertise
Aims & Background (Part C)
-Background should include reference to work of the team
(especially published work and also unpublished pilot work) to
help demonstrate capacity and in-depth understanding of the
research problem/s being addressed
- Approach and Training: Demonstrate through reference to your
published work and iterate that the team has the capacity to
undertake the project using the approach described.
Aims and Background cont.
National Benefit: Consider how the team track record can help to
demonstrate higher likelihood of achieving the stated national benefit
(e.g. Investigator history of research outcomes leading to government
policy change, new survey instrument being used by peers)
Collaboration with partners (particularly important for Linkage):
Discussion of prior successful collaborations with similar kinds of
partners can help to demonstrate a higher likelihood of a successful
collaboration on this project.
Communication of results: how does your track record of publications
and public communication and dissemination give confidence of
disseminating high quality output from this project?