RPN Live: Advice on approaching the Gates Foundation, the Wellcome Trust and more
One of the dominant trends in funding over the past decade is the move by major funders towards international collaborations. The merits and demerits of this trend are hotly debated, but one thing is certain—to do exciting work in many fields it pays to engage with overseas peers.
In line with this, our Research Professional News Live webinar on 14 June focused on the thorny issues that can arise when institutions join forces to respond to global funding opportunities.
Here are six tips on that subject from panellists Lorna Wilson, director of research development and operations at Durham University and chair-elect of the Association of Research Managers and Administrators, and Adam Golberg, research development manager at the University of Nottingham and Funding Insight columnist.
1. Don’t expect blue skies with Gates
Starting out with some funder-specific advice, Wilson drew on her own experiences with the Gates Foundation. Working with the foundation had been rewarding, she said, but it was not a funder that would suit all researchers.
“They are a very directive funder,” she said. “If you are somebody who is used to receiving support for your research that’s quite blue skies—you apply for your funding and if you win it, then off you go [without further input from the funder]—you need to be prepared to be given quite the steer from Gates regarding what they’d like to see. That in itself is not necessarily a challenge, but you need to be prepared. It might mean they’re not the funder for you, depending on your project.”
2. Now’s the time for Wellcome
Golberg, meanwhile, reflected on his experience with the Wellcome Trust. His advice was that for researchers in health and wellbeing, particularly those doing fundamental work, “there has never been a better time to engage with the Wellcome Trust”.
Wellcome’s previous reputation for concentrating its attention (and funding) on a few institutions in the UK was not unjustified, Golberg said, but now the trust was reaching out. Golberg spoke of regional events organised by the trust “where they made it clear they’re looking for applications from outside the three or four institutions who would normally apply to them”.
Internationally, too, the charity had planned ongoing webinars for researchers and institutions in Latin America, Africa and Asia, with local language translation and time-zone-sensitive scheduling. “Wellcome don’t have to do this,” said Golberg. “They could just tell people [in UK regions or internationally], ‘Oh, you’re eligible’. They’re really going out and informing people of the opportunities.”
3. Delivery is key
Speaking more generally about collaborative funding, Wilson said that most big international bids were not rejected because the idea behind them was lacking. “The main reason that international bids are not successful is in how they’re going to be delivered,” she said. “It’s usually because they don’t have enough of a structure or governance system built into them and the team hasn’t thought through in detail how they’re going to deliver the research.”
Her top tip for big, international bids? “Make sure when you’re putting together your bid that you spend as much time as possible thinking about delivery.”
4. Build your network, call or no call
Wilson’s second tip was to appreciate the value of a strong network, without having any particular call in mind. “It’s not just about finding the people that work in areas [relevant to your research]”, she advised. “You need to be able to build relationships with these people” for any subsequent funding bid involving such partnerships to be effective.
She acknowledged that this was often easier said than done. “Time is the most valuable asset that most people have in research; sadly that’s what it takes to build the strongest networks.”
Yet, strong networks were more important than ever on international bids. The fact that major funders had shifted their research spending towards big, international projects in recent years meant that many more teams had experience submitting such bids and already had their networks together, she said. In addition, funders and assessors had become more adept at “unpicking relationships and collaborations” when assessing bids, she noted, and more exacting when asking questions around collaborative track record and delivery competence.
When it came to building international networks, Golberg advised that approaching things from the point of view of looking for helpful skills or experience in others was often the wrong way to go about things.
He said: “A really good first step in building international networks is asking [yourself] what you have to offer. What can you provide partners that they might need. In some cases that might be expertise, facilities, equipment; in others it might be connections to civil society, to the public sector, to government. Try starting these conversations by being clear about what you have in your back pocket as well as what you’re looking for.”
5. Teams should talk early
Golberg’s top tip for international collaboration? “Get your institutions’ administrative teams and research development teams involved as early as possible and talking to each other.”
With any international bids “you are dealing with two different systems of research funding that may or may not be compatible”,he said, adding that he had felt perplexed himself when he first encountered the US concept of a summer salary in costings.
Golberg continued: “It’s a bit like being able to explain the rules of your national sport—Aussie Rules football, Kabaddi, soccer, baseball, whatever it is—you need to be able to find someone in your team who can explain that to your opposite number. The sooner those people start talking to each other, the easier the process gets. When that happens there’s less friction, [less] taking up investigator time, which should be spent thinking about the idea and about the level of execution.”
Wilson built on this, stressing that the whole research support team should be included when collaborations were forming. She highlighted the importance of the post-award team being involved early, “because one of the biggest hurdles with international funding is the actual processing of the grant itself”.
Today there is a lot more regulation and there are greater compliance requirements when delivering research projects, she said. Strong communication could help ensure that everyone was aware of the relevant items.
6. Destroy your monsters (gently)
Finally, Golberg built on his April 2019 article published in Funding Insight: ‘The monsters and zombies that can kill your major bid’.
In that article, and drawing on Mary Shelley’s classic novel Frankenstein, Golberg wrote of a danger that arose when putting together major bids. “They end up ill-formed, with bits and pieces of other projects and ideas thrown in and sewn together. They might technically tick all the boxes for the requirements of the funding call, in addressing the core remit and outcomes, but without ever convincing assessors. The pearly teeth and lustrous hair may attract favourable mention from the reviewers, but overall, we have something that is less than the sum of its parts.”
What to do when you become aware that you are working on such a monster? You need to be prepared to kill it, warned Golberg, but he counselled against those in senior positions acting heavy-handedly. Happily, such an approach would rarely be necessary.
“It’s almost always possible to persuade those people involved that the bid is not going to work and it’s not competitive. Many of them, in their heart of hearts, know this, but they’ve started and [have succumbed to] the sunk cost fallacy whereby a lot of effort has been put in and [people feel compelled] to continue so it’s not wasted.”
Golberg said it was important to acknowledge the bid’s stronger elements in such a scenario: “It’s often a case of saying, ‘We’ve got several bits that are really good here, how about we go to other partners to see if we could join their proposal?’ Or, if it’s a recurring call, admitting we’re not ready this time and leave it another year, or whenever the next call is.”