6/26: Yellow Research workshop for the Horizon 2020: Marie Sklodowska Curie Individual Fellowships Call 2014 (European Research Council) led by Lotte Jaspers.
Superb meeting. Knowledge presented here may be proprietary. Any questions on content or concerns, please contact the editor and changes will be made to respect the intellectual property of presentations.
What are the main questions?
The Horizon 2020 is a new program. What are the new instructions, criteria for quality of applicants, and evaluation procedure? What are the added values that move a proposal beyond the threshold?
Let us begin: The key issue, one of the basic developments is the question: What is the appropriate next step in a career to go to the next level?
What is the current CV, but what is missing in order to get to the next position, and how does the Marie Curie help develop the skills, knowledge, expertise to go the next step.
How does the grant benefit the PI, what is the potential to grow?
Lotte nicely positions the issue within the change in the title of the grant itself, with the addition of “Sklodowska”, suggesting the emphasis is on how it was that Marie Sklodowska Curie, a Polish scientist, moved from Poland to develop more specifically and accurately her skill set.
What is the scientific project, and what is novel? And why – is what you intend to do important for the fellow — important for the actual PI career?
What kind of training? What kind of courses are offered? How is the group run? Who are the PHD students (co-supervision), and how can the applicant use the structure of the group to mature? “Individual researcher applies jointly with host institution”.
Experienced researcher and Maturity. Who is the applicant. No age limits, but there are difficulties with expressing your growth pattern.
What kind of knowledge is required to boost a career? Looking broader for where training can be carried out, looking at other universities and setups for support. What is the new criteria? It is the introduction of secondments. What is the current CV and what are the good places to go and you have been thinking about where to get the best knowledge for a top notch career?
With an excellent track record, how does one look to the future. How does one expand knowledge? Perhaps it is your focus on aesthetics, and that you require looking at structured interests, especially in Russia, where the political structural position is still quite important in relation to cultures of expertise (or, in order to get tenure, you need to get a PI)?
Two years. A project that fits the goals of where you want to go. A vehicle for movement in a specific direction.
The twelve person group in the room today is mainly composed of research advisors at various universities in Europe, including Norway, Sweden, Turkey, Denmark, Italy, and Spain.
Looking at the project and the career candidate to benefit from the grant. (Don’t over boost, but state clearly “I’m here and need to get over there”).
The reviewer has a tough job.
Coffee Break: What a great morning Session.
Lotte was just wonderful. She provided us with a splendid beginning for a subsequent set of networking discussions over coffee that were quite illuminating.
Lies Siemons, e.g., from Tilburg University snapped up the three main issues that we all understood from the morning as fundamentally important: (1) make sure the proposal captures attention; (2) make sure there are organic components with the host organization, such as advising graduate students; (3) make sure the host organization is integrated into the project.
What is the fellow’s ambition? The majority are PIs in a research-intensive institution. And thus, what is it that you need?
Is it methodologies, techniques, knowledges? Skills, leadership — four categories: Knowledge and intellectual abilities; Personal effectiveness; Research governance and organization; Engagement, influence, and impact. Specify with the fellow, what you need, and let it provide a structure for the what areas are where you need to improve: Lay out your vision for what you want to achieve based on established tools, underpin your vision for going abroad. Wording and Analysis of vision (Pp. 3-4 third section).
E.g, co-supervision, leadership, and management skills — Organize some of the science/thematic meetings. Lotte is looking for what is missing now, given the six categories of the CV analysis. Hard skills and soft skills formal training on the job, “And that’s why I need the supervisor, and how can I explain that the training will boost the career” (Yellow research “philosophy”). What is the publication strategy to be regarded as outstanding.
Up Now is Aya van den Kroonenberg. Aya is Wonderful! – having worked with her previously on numerous occasions.
Wow. So interesting and impactful. A three percent success rate and an environment where the newly established feature of secondments become crucial.
Make sure it is “Training Through Research” — it is a training grant, and training should be addressed, not simply a research grant.
Quality, Innovation, and Credibility – likely terms that might be piled together on any other occasion, but here parsed out so precisely it is simply dizzying. Remember that objectives are tasks….
Reducing complexity in a simplified form that serves as the basis for registering quality, innovation, and credibility. For example, we are looking at a small table that addresses how the proposal compares to the current state of the art and how it will be advanced, all by a small simple table, that presents itself as a hieroglyph of expertise.
LUNCH: (“the north[ern Europe] is starving the south[ern Europe] is saying ‘already?'”)
Back from lunch: Coherence between training and research – a perfect match of programs, e.g., help with organization of conference.
Under the new Horizon 2020, the host requires input on the production of the proposal much more so than at anytime previously. A lot of discussion about the role of the supervisor — for example, a Personal Career Development Plan (PCDP), each fellow establishes a PCDP. When, Who approves? and who updates?
Wow. Just more of everything in more detail. Attempting to get over the fact that last year, out of 5000 application submissions, there were 134 grants awarded.
So, we all just had a major break out session, with participants developing comments for discussion with applicants of the Horizon 2020 MC individual fellowships Call. Here is the final product of our discussion:
• Integrate the larger picture of your career and host goals within the specific elements of a two year project as displayed in the Gantt chart – what happens after.
• Identify where you are on the continuum of early career or maturity
• Identify the crucial argument(s) for each section
• How to get your supervisor involved in the proposal
• Develop a strategy for having the host institution continually feed you with necessary knowledge for proposal integration with supervisor and specific services support
• Identify long-term and short term career goals and create coherent alignment with proposal
• Identify training targeted for post PhD independence – specific elements.
• Identify what is the Scientific excellence
Additional notes after getting together: What are the programs offered during the fellowship? First year define precisely and in the second year broadly. The need to make the evaluators excited about the project: What is the relevance of the topic? What is the scope of the project? Is it relevant?
Create coherence in the actual proposal
Final push: Impact, innovation and research component. Excellence in Science.
Non-commercial exploitation – How to communicate to peers and public your science (how do you get into contact? With whom? Ways to communicate – conferences, open science days, and story telling evenings). What is Effective? Who benefits (could there be potential for commercial exploitation and if not, that’s okay, as long as there is germane realism (communication over outreach with clear activities)?
One work package specifically for “training”.
Epilogue
Amazing.
What an Amazing Day!
We all met for wine afterward, and chatted about anecdotal comments relating to the business at hand. Aya and Lotte were so professional, and in fact, defatiguable, given the scope of the discussions they presented. Congratulations! Yellow Research! Another successful panel.
Paparazzi Ethnography 