W4-Cram by wanghonghx


									ARC Research Networks
  Seed funding results
    Program details
ARC Research Networks
A new program to fill a gap in the NCGP “between”
  DP/LP (individuals, small teams) & Centres

Some networks may be a foundation for future
 Centres; others may be the “right” way to foster
 coherence & complementarity
Consultations over the period March-July
   • Over 750 people at meetings
   • Over 200 questions & suggestions
Research networks: seed funding
$2.5 million of 2003 funding available
291 Seed Funding proposals
  • seeking approximately $13.5 million
  • average requested funding: about $47,000
  • over 30 different organisations submitted applications
  • median number of participants: 27
  • median number of different organisations: 12
  • Over 4,700 different people involved
  • Over 750 different organisations
Research networks: seed funding

Outcomes announcement
  • Anticipated in early December
The ARC has established a website to
 support seed-funding activities:
  • Notice board
  • Discussion forum
Research networks: seed funding
The selection process sends some signals ….
  • Funding:
     • Approx. $40K => promising as the “core” of a network
     • Approx. $20K => strong but needs to merge; may become
     • Approx. $10K => promising component of a network
  • Linkages:
     • The ARC intends to offer some advice about perceived
       opportunities for seed-funding proposers to contact one
Research networks: seed funding

SRI & Networks
  • You don’t need SRI to apply for a network
  • Award of SRI is not necessarily an endorsement of
    the network proposal
Web site
  • Full proposals may give a URL whether or not there is
    SRI funding
  • You don’t need to wait for SRI outcomes to be
    discussing networks
Research networks: seed funding
EXAMPLES of Assessor Text for top seed funding proposals
 This is a very strong network, with good geographical and discipline, which is
   appropriate for this topic - nevertheless, could add some people from SR03xxxx,
   where there is some overlap - clearly in XXXX priority area - aims are a bit vague, but
   should be feasible - excellent link to policy - good uni support.
 Truly inter-disciplinary group that is competitive in this climate. Excellent funding depth
   and potential for research outcomes.
 Refreshingly different and inspiring proposal. Well thought through. Real and
   significant involvement of junior researchers.
 A very original proposal involving academic researchers, XXXX practitioners and
   relevant industry stakeholders.
 Good network proposal. Has elements of e-Research. A question could be asked as
   to whether other groups focussing on XXXX could be joined in with this (or visa versa!)
   given it is about mid-way in the amount of ARC funding currently awarded to
   participants in this network.
 Nice proposal involving interdisciplinary researchers spanning basic research to
   clinical practice. Have clear plan how to promote interaction and collaboration with
   international networks. Seems to be significant overlap with SR03XXXX. Would like
   to hear explanation of this as the other network proposal is very strong at the basic
   science end of spectrum and some researchers could contribute significantly to XXXX
   part of this network.
Research networks: seed funding
EXAMPLES of Assessor Text for low-ranked seed funding proposals
 The group is relatively rich in terms of grants and breadth of personnel but the aims are poorly
  formed and so the outcome is not clear. This proposal is very close to 03XXXX but the latter group
  is much more focused and well organised with a much better inclusion of IT which 03YYYY has not
  included well enough. They want a virtual archive but do not have a clear concept of how to build a
  team to provide it.
 Too specialised, no evidence of e-Research although there is a need for this. I suggest that the
  funding be cut to just travel money to enable the group to combine with other similar network
 More a single university project than a network of Australian researchers. Half the university-based
  researchers are from a single university. Nonetheless, an interesting project for DP application
 Too small to make any sense.
 The proposed research is timely and relevant but needs to obtain some ARC funding first. Suggest
  group apply for a Discovery or Linkage grant first.
 While the idea of facilitating links between YYYY and IT is certainly important and timely, it is not
  clear how this particular collection of individuals would fruitfully interact
 The proposal suffers from a lack of personnel from XXXX agencies. The tasks for the various
  collaborators are not clearly identified.
 The research is too limited in scope and areal extent to support a national network. This proposal
  could be very usefully developed into a fundable Linkage grant
 I am unimpressed with this proposal compared with others. Only 3 Australian institutions are
  involved, and the Aims are unashamedly about three existing Centres. The purpose of the Network
  is to effectively consolidate, exchange, and disseminate the research knowledge and expertise
  held in the three Centres. The case for additional ARC funding beyond the SRC funding isn't made.
  The proposal completely fails to convince that anything more will be achieved via a RN that could
  not be achieved by other (and in this case, existing) mechanisms.
Research Networks: Full Proposals

Funding Rules and GAMS form available
 November 2003
Closing date 22 March 2004
Aim is to start funding from 1 July 2004 (5 years)
Approximately $7,500,000 pa
Maximum funding approx. $500,000 pa
Network convenor may apply for salary
Research Networks: Full Proposals
Competitive proposals will:
  • Build on DP & LP foundations to form new linkages
    and critical mass in emerging fields
  • Look forward and be inclusive of researchers over a
    broad range of disciplines and institutions
  • Not duplicate existing and established co-ordination
    bodies (such as Centres of Excellence)
  • Encourage active participation of early career
  • Form linkages that are regional, national and
    international, aiming to “promote” Australian work
  • Proposed well-conceived governance; exciting and
    innovative applications of funding assistance, possibly
    in e-Research directions

To top