Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

ARC Linkage Projects Workshop August 23 rd, 2012 Jean Martin Room, Beryl Rawson Building Organised by CASS Research Office.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "ARC Linkage Projects Workshop August 23 rd, 2012 Jean Martin Room, Beryl Rawson Building Organised by CASS Research Office."— Presentation transcript:

1 ARC Linkage Projects Workshop August 23 rd, 2012 Jean Martin Room, Beryl Rawson Building Organised by CASS Research Office

2 2 Linkage Projects Workshop Speakers: Louise Knox, CASS Research Office Professor Nicolas Peterson, Archeology & Anthropology Associate Professor Bruce Smyth, Australian Demographic & Social Research Institute Dr Diana James, Institute for Professional Practice in Heritage & the Arts

3 3 Linkage Projects Workshop 1.What is a Linkage? 2.What makes a successful application? 3. What do successful applicants say? 4. Q & A

4 4 1. What is a Linkage? Linkage = partnership

5 5 1. What is a Linkage? Objectives of Linkage Projects long-term strategic research alliances between higher education organisations and other organisations training (HDR students, postdocs)

6 Attractions of Linkage Projects kudos of ARC grants in general larger budgets than for Discovery track record counts for less (20%) financial leverage from both sides: a way for cash-strapped organisations to get important research work done higher success rates 1. What is a Linkage?

7 7 Selection Criteria for Linkage Projects 20% investigator track record 40% project quality 25% Significance and innovation 15% Approach and training 10% research environment 30% nature of the alliance with and commitment from partner organisation(s)

8 8 2. What makes a successful application? strong, coherent and persuasive story about the fit between PROJECT – TEAM – INSTITUTIONS (incl. partner organisations) Is the What, Why and How of the project clear?

9 Assessing Partner Organisation Contribution Requirements Identify Partner/Eligible Organisations Educational Institutions, Commonwealth and State Governments, Industry, Charitable Organisations, International partners Identify Partner Investigator Who within the Partner/Eligible Organisation has the capacity to make a commitment to carrying out the project? Determine Organisation Type Eligible Organisation, Partner Organisation, Not-for-Profit, Registered Charity 9

10 Assessing Partner Organisation Contribution Requirements Identify funding sources Will the Partner cash contributions come from funding already allocated to research activities? Consider your PI as a valuable resource in determining Organisation type and Organisation funding sources Determine requirements for cash and/or in-kind contributions If there are multiple partners, how much will each contibute? Remember the cash contribution is a combined total of 25% of the ARC requested funding amount – one partner may contribute more cash and less in-kind 10

11 Budget Considerations The budget will be framed by 1. ARC funding rules, and 2. size of combined partner contributions ARC formula: $100 from ARC$25 cash from PO $75 in-kind from PO

12 12 2. What makes a successful application? budget example from a small project: ARCPO No. 1PO No.2 $86,000 x 3 years In each year: 77,683 for post-doc 8,317 for travel 45,000 cash total (15,000 x 3) paying for research assistants 16,500 cash total (5,500 x 3) additional travel for post-doc 101,340 in kind staff time; PO’s vehicles 108,267 in kind staff time of archivist; IT support for digitisation; logistical support (office/admin) 258,000271,107 in PO contribution

13 13 2. What makes a successful application? What you want assessors to say: “a convincing case”; “an exciting project” “specific research questions and their importance are explicitly presented” “the various methods and analyses are clearly described and appropriate to the aims” “team has a demonstrated and very strong capacity to carry out the research, with each person having complementary skills”

14 14 2. What makes a successful application? “There is strong evidence for commitment by the Partner Organisations… thousands of dollars … as well as … personnel during the fieldwork. The project will apply advanced knowledge to practical problems of shipwreck heritage documentation and assessment, and provide research training... The specific contributions of Partner Organisation’s expertise and infrastructure support are clearly laid out”.

15 15 2. What makes a successful application? Commitment visible in: description of project and (where appropriate) team budgets and budget justifications partner letters of support Application is already a joint effort and requires careful planning and co-ordination excellent communication

16 16 2. What makes a successful application? What to look for in a Partner letter of support: specific format content: background on Partner Organisation Partner Organisation’s interest in project details of contributions: cash plus in-kind

17 17 2. What makes a successful application? Research Office support for applications: organise workshops/one-on-one briefings take part in negotiations if required assist with budgeting in consultation with the Finance Office provide tools and resources such as previously successful applications assist with peer review review applications

18 Important changes from previous round Every Partner Organisation must nominate a Partner Investigator In-Kind Contributions are calculated based on the current market rates/valuations/rentals/charges in the financial year of the Proposal’s submission – these calculations should be documented by the Administering Organisation (ANU) and they may be audited Greater emphasis on project benefits for Partner Organisations and other relevant end-users Total funding provided will be a minimum of $50,000 per year to a maximum of $300,000 per year, per project (this represents a decrease in overall LP funding) 18

19 Important changes from previous round A project may be applied for and awarded funding for a minimum of two years to maximum of three consecutive years Teaching relief is now up to a total value of $40,000 per year Additional costs not supported (and should not be applied for): Professional membership fees, fees for patent application and holding, relocation costs Australian Post-Doctoral Industry Fellowships (APDI) and Linkage Industry Fellowships (LIF) are not available in the LP13 round 19

20 20 3. What do successful applicants say? Professor Nicolas Peterson Rescuing Carl Strehlow’s Indigenous cultural heritage legacy: the neglected German tradition of Arandic ethnography

21 21 3. What do successful applicants say? Associate Professor Bruce Smyth Changes in payments, family dynamics and wellbeing following major child support reform: a longitudinal investigation of behavourial and attitudinal responses

22 Child Support Reform Study: Longitudinal lens years post-reform 3 years post- reform Pre-reform baseline

23 Child Support Reform Study: Sequential lens years post-reform 3 years post- reform Pre-reform baseline

24 In-kind contributions Current economic climate  cash vs in-kind Need long lead time to respond to administrative delays Need to be clear about which in-kind contributions are not negotiable (eg sampling frame; weights; benchmarking; meetings); need to be clear expect to deliver – not just token NB in-kind not budgeted for; if political priorities change  in-kind gets lost. 24

25 Challenges Change of govt might mean a change of priorities Multiple partners has its own risks CPS is not a university – work isn’t attached to a person; if person moves, work stays with position. But new person not know anything and with high turnover over a long project you might have 4-5 PIs. If a PI changes, might not have a replacement for a long-time  and no conduit into the partner organisation Senior people change  not understand project = low priority Political landscape – if project on the nose, resources get pulled (esp in-kind); If PI is a political animal  lines blurry between research and contract = some try to exercise control; timelines affected by PI clearance requirements 25

26 The benefits… “Together, we’re stronger”: the power of collaborations Wealth of data, knowledge and materials available in govt – hard to access otherwise (eg sampling, dyads, knowledge) Ability to push a policy agenda (plug in to political process) Can lead to flow-on research projects Looks good on cv 26

27 27 3. What do successful applicants say? Dr Diana James Alive with the Dreaming! Songlines of the Western Desert

28 28 4. Q & A


Download ppt "ARC Linkage Projects Workshop August 23 rd, 2012 Jean Martin Room, Beryl Rawson Building Organised by CASS Research Office."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google