Paparazzi Ethnography

10/23: European Research Council (ERC) proposal workshop, Consolidator Grant:


YR_Leaflet_ERC_Consolidator_Grant_OSLO.

Binder ERC StG chapter 5 and 6 incl 2012.

Here I am, sitting in Auditorium 2, Georg Sverdrups Building, University of Oslo, attending a workshop to prepare a European Research Council (ERC) proposal.

Workshop begins:

Mette Skraastad. A great workshop convenor.


The workshop begins with C. H. commenting on his successful proposal on emergence and decline of constructive memory:

Proposal needs to be enthusiastic, stand out from the crowd. Imagine a friendly reviewer and write a proposal. Success rate is 10 percent. Do not make it complicated. Follow the guide application closely. High gain but low risk. Point to possible challenges but point to solutions. Identify novelty. Why is it ground breaking? Demonstrate how it can happen. Discuss the proposal with previous panel reviewers. A substantial proportion of “luck or unluck”.

Find a paradox in the field in order to create novelty.
How can we unite different aspects of a field?


Per: Have the proposal ready before Christmas.

Mette Skraastad: Look for great research questions. All about being original. That is why you need time. What will the panel find that is interesting?

Wow! This person is tough.

An entire university is behind these projects. Plenty of time to edit and review. Write the project, discuss it with ERC members, previous reviewers, etc. Put the effort into each project proposal and get it on paper as soon as possible. Must be consistent — all throughout. Everything throughout the proposal should be consistent.

The entire point of the ERC is to select European Scientific leaders.

There were 4800 project proposals on the last call. For this reason they split the Starting proposal from the Consolidating proposal. FP7 Activities and Themes. A lot of proposals will be submitted for the Consolidator.

High risk research is best. But demonstrate that it is low risk by providing preliminary results — there must be high risk research elements. They assume that you have a team, because it is a consolidating. Explain how this will contribute to your career. Independent: you need to have several publications without your advisor.

It is 10:15AM and my brain hurts. A need to create new knowledge.

If I have a team, I need to justify all activities of members. What is their specific value added activity. Clarify what kind of people I need and why (for what kinds of specific tasks). Look at my strengths and weaknesses. How do I deal with my weaknesses, clarify how I plan to deal with it.

There are two steps. If I get lucky and get past the first step, then there is an actual interview process in Brussels for the second part.

Template is available Nov. 7.


Now, Mette is mentioning the importance of “Keywords” — what keywords you choose will determine how referees will be selected. Keywords based on research field.

Select potential external referees. Go to their website and identify key words about their research. Identify potential external referees for the ERC, help them out.

Mette is going through the process of review. Nothing new here. I know this process. Basically a fight over who is getting what.

This is the EGG of the proposal. Where is the novelty. In the approach?

If it is incremental, it is not ground breaking.


There needs to be an analysis of why it is high risk, and an analysis of why it is high gain.
There needs to be a description of methods. High quality methods, high quality results.


“To my knowledge, this is novel, and for these reasons”. Then, I need to identify where others are around the world when talking about this research.

Need objectives. Each part of the project is mandatory to achieve the overall mission of the project. Explain how I will achieve objectives. Objectives + Hypothesis must lead to Insight. Wow. Page 21, make note of the “focused project” over “open project”, the latter disregarded.

There must be a clear indication of what I can create as objectives. And there must be time to obtain data.

Do I have access to data? Where will it be coming from? What is the larger integration of activities and approaches that make it reasonable to go after the ERC, and that it is the human mind that is selecting the empirical evidence.

Wow.

I just had an insightful lunch conversation with the workshop convener, Mette.

She says that I need to use the North American case study as an example of why my project is Feasible in Europe, and to show the exciting findings of the previous project etc. And then, use that work to show that I am the ONLY person who can do this work in Europe. That is something I have not yet done, lead off with my previous research, how I did it, the findings, and then describe what the differences are in Europe, the different languages, culture, etc. And how I plan to go about it.

It was quite funny. When I told her “I’m the only person who can do this”, I actually raised on tippy toes with my nose in the air, to which she immediately responded, “And that is how you have to present it to the ERC!”

Okay, we are now dealing with Methodology in Detail, with Key Intermediary Goals (to measure whether we are progressing toward the objectives at intermediary stages).

In overall activities, explain generally and give the feeling as well as provide back up plans, when you are not achieving the specific goal (p. 23).

Everything novel has high gain, what is the risk, is it feasible, yes or no.

Break the project down into WPs/ Strands/ streams/ subprojects with activities/tasks, milestones and a Gantt chart (what is a Gantt chart?). Good grief, how could I get so far in my funded research without ever using a Gantt chart?

Show that I have experience in handling data., etc, to explain to the panel members that I know what I am doing. Also, present thoroughly that I have access to specific data. Provide actual names, and justify why I am selecting certain houses. Is the institute the right environment to carry out the research.

They do not like to see collaborators. They want to see experts who can help out [This is really important]. Clear about the well defined objectives — AND come up with a hypothesis. what am I expecting?

On team members: “Mr. Smith with one paper is out. Mr. Jones with a lot of publications is in”. Make sure you include people who are worthy in your project. You have to select specialists.

There is one panel member that is going through all the references. As soon as there is one that is not there – they know that the project cannot be trusted.

Make sure that I am using an appropriate template, what is more convincing, a table, or what- Page 25. What is up and running at my institute that demonstrates that I am carrying out top quality research.

Well that just tops all. Mette is amazing. She has been talking for over 4 hours, and everyone in the room is exhausted, but she continues, and will continue for another 3 hours.
Must have citations to my own work.


I have to select the panel for whom this work will make the biggest impact.
How much data am I generation, and am I creating results.
Create a table, on B2b – Example of Challenge Analysis (page 27). Create a table for the grant. What are the milestones/outcomes, what are the risks, where are they located, what is the backup plan(s)?

Last year would be used to write a monograph. Year 5. Make sure they can assess what is novel, what is interesting, where the cutting edge is. What do I have that I bring into the project and what am I asking for from the ERC. Mostly salaries.

Explain why I want a workshop and who I plan to invite. I need to explain why I need a certain amount of money.