The Research Funding Environment
Dr Gwen Averley
Research Funding Development Manager (RFDM) FMS
gwen.averley@ncl.ac.uk
0191 222 7460
Overview
 The Dual Support System
 The Research Assessment Exercise (RAE)
 Grant funders by type and their different focus
 The costs of research: FEC, TRAC
 Grant applications
 What can you apply for?
 What do you need to be aware of?
The Dual Support System
 Basically there are two streams of research funding:

Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE)

Project funding from all other funders
 These two combined are often referred to as the
dual support system
These two streams of funding have changed over time and have
had different consequences for Universities
Dual Support System
 There are four Funding Councils in the UK (England HEFCE, Scotland SFC,
Wales HEFCW and Ireland DELNI), supported by the Department for
Education and Skills and the devolved Departments of Education
 Under the dual support system:

HEFCE provides block grant funding to institutions to support the
research infrastructure and enable institutions to undertake groundbreaking research of their choosing

Other funders, e.g. the private sector, Government Departments,
charities, the European Union and other international bodies, the
Research Councils and other funders provide grants to individuals for
specific research projects and programmes
 Funding Council support for research (Quality Related or QR funding) is
distributed on the basis of the excellence of individual departments in higher
education institutions, using the results of the Research Assessment
Exercise (RAE)
 Research Council and other bodies funds are awarded on the basis of
applications made by individual researchers, which are subject to
independent, expert peer review. Awards are made on the basis of the
research potential and are irrespective of geographical location
HEI Research income
Expenditure by FCs and other funders
2500
2000
1500
Insert the slide from the XCR
and the IiI report
1000
500
0
1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00
HEFCs
Total project funders
The RAE (Research Assessment Exercise)
 Undertaken approximately every 6 years (1986, 1989, 1992, 1996,
2001, 2008)
 Changes slightly from one time to another but in broad terms the
RAE is based on peer review of the quality of research in terms of its
academic impact
 Assessment is carried out on a broadly historic basis
 The primary drivers are research outputs primarily measured
through publications, esteem indicators, research environment,
grant income, studentships
 In RAE 2008 will be a ranking profile:

4* World-leading

3* Internationally excellent

2* Internationally recognised

1* Nationally recognised

Unclassified
The RAE continued
 Research areas are divided into Units of Assessment – broadly
discipline based
 Universities determine which units they wish to submit for
assessment
 Panels of recognised experts in the fields in that unit are
appointed and they review each university’s submission and they
form a view about the quality of their research
 The Funding Council then allocates their budget for research on
the basis of the balance between quality and volume
Issues with the RAE
 There are some concerns that as the RAE primarily works on a
historic basis that it will lead to a reinforcement of historic positions
and views of disciplines
 Issues of relevance and impact are often thought to be less than
well served by the RAE by many in industry
 There are concerns over the pressures this places upon new
academic staff (early career researchers)
 The RAE impacts on funding but you don’t know how until the
results are known
RAE effects
 It is a very good way to assess what it aims to assess
 The question is whether or not it assesses the right thing in the right
way
 Assessment of inter-disciplinary areas is challenging and probably
less than satisfactory
 Many people believe it distorts behaviour and reinforces ‘ivory
tower mentality’
 Is it really about quality or is it about creating an algorithm to
distribute resources?
RAE – the future
 RAE is to be replaced by the Research Excellence Framework
(REF)
 The ratings initially to be derived from bibliometric-based indicators
rather than by peer-review, primarily journal article citations
 Consultation on the issues currently underway
Who funds research?
 HEFCE (The Higher Education Funding Council for
England)
 Research Councils – AHRC, BBSRC, EPSRC, ESRC,
MRC, NERC, STFC
 Charities – Wellcome Trust, Cancer Research UK,
British Heart Foundation, Nuffield Foundation,
variety of organ / disease specific charities
 UK Government, local and health authorities – DoH,
FSA, DTI, NIHR, Special Trustees
 EU
 Industry
 Overseas governments and agencies
Funder aims – HEFCE
(The Higher Education Funding Council for England)
 HEFCE grant available for the 2007-08 academic year is £7,137
million

£4,510m recurrent funding for teaching (of which £354m is for widening
participation)

£1,415m for research

£ 738m for earmarked capital grants

£ 449m for special funding

£
25m for very high cost and vulnerable science subjects
 To support high quality research through provision of
core funding on basis of peer review assessments
carried out on a retrospective basis through the
research assessment exercise
Funder aims – Research Councils
 To fund research of the highest quality as determined by peer
review through project funding
 Prestigious source of funding
 Emerging pressure on taking greater account of relevance and
economic and social impact on UK plc
Charities
 Driven by the ‘objects’ of the charities
 Some have education and advancing knowledge as key drivers but
many medical charities are focussed on disease specific agendas to
seek cures or better treatments or understanding of a particular
condition
 Patient and public involvement
 Most use a peer review system but not all
Charities continued
 Charities contribute approx one third of all public expenditure on medical
and health research in the UK – a situation without parallel elsewhere in the
world
 Association of Medical Research Charities (AMRC) charities (approx 114
members) allocated £716 million in 2005/06
 Over 2,000 awards annually to institutions – of which UK universities
receive 70% of the funding awarded (they don’t pay University overheads)
 Much of this funding is delivered in partnership with other funders, and
represents a key contribution to both strategic and targeted research
programmes and facilities
 Four charities:

Arthritis Research Campaign

British Heart Foundation

Cancer Research UK

The Wellcome Trust
 spent £615 million in 2005/06
 The Wellcome Trust spent £2.5 billion over the last 5 years, plans to spend
£4 billion over the next 5 years
Government departments
 To scope a problem
 To provide evidence for the effect of policy and regulation
 For example, Research in the NHS is crucial to supporting the Government’s health
modernisation agenda, and to delivering better, more personalised services to
patients. Over many years, the NHS has provided an authoritative and expert
resource for the conduct of both national and international clinical studies
 New publication Best research for best health is changing the landscape for clinical
research with the NHS potentially beyond all recognition
 NHS – Cooksey Review
 NHS – National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)
 Health funding: NIHR and Medical Research Council (MRC)
European Union
 Maintain competitiveness of the EU
 Tackle major problems faced by the EU
 Improve EU integration
 Develop skills and competencies within the EU
 Improve quality of life of EU citizens
Industry

Variety of motives
 to find out answers to problems they face
 to create technology of commercial worth
 to provide information to support applications for regulatory
approval
 to support an understanding of their marketplace, etc.
Conclusion – funder types
 A variety of organisations and agencies fund research for different
reasons
 At Newcastle we have over 1,800 live projects with a total value
in excess of £200m
 The style and goal of research funding varies by funder
 All funders have terms of reference and methods of assessment
 In preparing a proposal the researcher must aim to create
alignment between what research they wish to undertake and the
research that the funder wishes to fund – agile strategies are
required
 Know your funder – understand the game
Identifying the costs of research
 Costing and pricing (pFACT)

Directly incurred costs

Directly allocated costs

Indirect costs
 Full economic costs (FEC)

Industry 100% FEC

Research Councils 80% FEC

Charities 0% FEC
 Sustainability
 The Transparency Review (TRAC)
 Audit / assurance
 Value / quality
Subsidy
 Research in higher education is not sustainable on its own
 The level of subsidy of research nationally from other
University activities is of the order of in excess of £1bn plus
recurrent
 Research has been sustained by additional one-off capital
streams (e.g. SRIF), by under-investment in infrastructure and
by revenues from other sources (e.g. international student
revenue)
 At Newcastle a further £40m would be required if we were to
support research independently
Conclusion
 A University is a business – The University of Newcastle
turns over a quarter of a billion pounds
 Research is an expensive activity
 The sector keeps having to undertake more analyses and
justify its costs
Research and its impact
 Increasing tendency to look at securing value for money
from research
 Academic outputs - UK excels
 In innovation and translating research into impact on
people, UK plc, etc. the UK lags behind many nations
 Many research funders are turning their attention to high
quality research with impact – challenge is long and short
term balance
Overall conclusions
 Research is a resource intensive activity
 The research environment is receiving additional investment but still
playing catch up
 Universities are substantial businesses
 Universities must increasingly act in a businesslike fashion but will
always depend on the drive and enthusiasm of individual
researchers
 There are difficult decisions to be made
 A university must have a strategy which endeavours to be true to its
mission whilst at the same time balancing the requirements of
different sponsors
as postgraduate researchers
what can you apply for
now and in the near future?







Travel
Training
Prizes
Vacation studentships
Small grants from some funders
Fellowships
Named researcher on someone else’s
application
differing degrees of complexity and effort involved
How do you find out about funding calls?

grant alert websites
 funders’ own websites
 sign up for funder newsletters
 join learned societies
 University emails and website

http://www.ncl.ac.uk/business-directorate/funding/ Coming
soon
Grant alert websites 1:
http://www.rdfunding.org.uk/
Grant alert websites 2:
http://www.researchresearch.com
Assessment criteria
 Track record
 Grant application
 Assessment by referees
 Assessment by Research Boards
 Explain scoring system

Travel
 Training
 Prizes
 Vacation studentships
 Small grants from some funders
 Fellowships
 Named researcher on someone else’s application
The sponsor wants to know how good you
are AND why this matters
 Research record (first and subsequent
applications)
Do not simply state how good you are – look at
what is required and align your track record to
the grant proposal and its content and focus,
typically this might be related to ‘how well and
what you have delivered on other projects.’
The Sponsor wants to make a decision for them
not for you
 Research Council Panel Assessment

Two panel members assigned to speak to proposal (an expert
and lay person)
 They do not re-referee the proposal
 They focus on the referees comments and the applicants
response.
 They provide a ‘score’ which assists in the determination
of the ranking of the proposal

This stage is not a lottery, it is based on a clear and fair
judgement in terms of quality
Panel members are not allowed to say such things as ‘I would
have done it differently and therefore the research is not
appropriate’

What criteria are used to assess applications?
EPSRC Advanced Research Fellowships
The criteria used as part of the overall assessment process include:

Intellectual ability of the candidate

Quality and originality of the research proposed

Qualities of the individual as an independent researcher

Awareness of the broader context surrounding the proposed research

Current standing within the international community

Timeliness of the Fellowship

Ability to plan and manage resources

Ability to communicate to a generalist audience
Referee Prompts
BBSRC
Scientific excellence
Clarity of hypothesis or aims and objectives
Strengths and weaknesses of the experimental design
Feasibility (as related to both the work programme and the
relevant track-record of the applicant)
Strategic Relevance
Timeliness and promise
Prosperity and Quality of Life
Cost Effectiveness
Competitiveness
Internationally competitive
Nationally competitive
Not competitive
What criteria are used to assess applications?
 MRC Reviewers Handbook











Importance
Scientific potential
Environment and people
Research plans
Justification of resources requested
Ethics and Research Governance
Risks of research misuse
Public understanding of science
Preservation, sharing and re-use of research data
Commercial exploitation
Dissemination of research results
Research Council harmonisation

Research Councils' core harmonised t&c to grants announced from 1 March 2008

Each Research Council has its own version of the grants handbook with their own grant call
additional t&c



AHRC
http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/apply/research.asp
http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/files/applicants_files/research_files/research_funding_guide_dec_2007.asp
?SourcePageID=96009&popup=1#1


BBSRC
http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/funding/apply/grants_guide.html


EPSRC
http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/ResearchFunding/HowToApply/FundingGuide.htm


ESRC
http://www.esrc.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/opportunities/research_funding/index.aspx?ComponentId=
4924&SourcePageId=5964#0


MRC
http://www.mrc.ac.uk/ApplyingforaGrant/ApplicantsHandbook/index.htm


NERC
http://www.nerc.ac.uk/funding/application/researchgrants/
Is the sponsor right for you?
 Do both you and your proposed project meet the eligibility criteria?
 Is the sponsor likely to offer funding at a sufficient level, and for
long enough?
 Can you meet the application deadlines and are you certain of the
application procedures?
 Will you have freedom to publish or are there likely to be
confidentiality restrictions?
 How far are you prepared to tailor your research to a sponsor’s
requirements?
 Is the sponsor compatible with your own conscience and the
mission of your department/institution?
 Are the sponsor’s interests likely to conflict with any other work
that you or your immediate colleagues are undertaking?
Do not distort the scheme to fit your needs
 Proposals are often unsuccessful because they have been
submitted to the wrong funding scheme.
 If you’re going to take the trouble to write a proposal it is
important to submit it to the right scheme.
 Too often, too much time is spent writing the proposal and not
enough time is spent analyzing the key features of a given
funding program
Know your audience
 When making any presentation, the best advice that is usually
given is to know your audience. This is also true when
submitting research proposals.
 Think at the outset: who is actually going to read my proposal?
 What are they looking for?
 What will make them warm to my ideas and produce a positive
response to the funds that I need
Analyse your sponsor
 One of the most important things to remember is to read and
inwardly digest any information that is sent to you from the funder this will ensure that your project falls within their areas of interest
saving a lot of time for everyone
 Consider, seriously, whether your project is innovative, of sufficient
interest and importance to merit funding
 Ask yourself if the project is feasible in the given time periods. If not,
be realistic, - you will be in with a greater chance of funding if you
are genuine
 Strictly follow the guidelines of the organisation to which you are
applying - there is nothing more annoying than receiving
uncompleted quality proposals
 Finally, and it may sound obvious, do tell us how to contact you
The Sponsor wants to fund the right idea
 There is nothing more difficult to do in life than to write a proposal
on a bad idea
 Before proceeding with any proposal researchers must really
convince themselves (and their bosses) that the idea is good
 Also remember that the idea must be good in the eyes of the
researchers AND the funding agency
The why?
 In most proposals the writer spends considerable time
explaining how the research will be undertaken
 Before you do this you must first educate the evaluator as to
why the research should be undertaken
 This education should be written in simple and clear language
and most importantly it should be interesting
What do you need to do?
 Plan ahead
 Ask for help from:






Your PI
Your Research Support Officer / Administrator
Grants & Contracts Office
RFDM (that’s me)
Staff Development Unit (SDU)
Graduate School / Contract Researchers Support team
 Why ask?





Can direct you to suitable funding calls
Can help improve your application
There may be internal approval processes, ethical, research
governance, IP issues
Provide accurate costings for you
Training courses