WRITING SUCCESSFUL ARC-DISCOVERY PROPOSALS
Emeritus Professor Peter Baverstock
January 2014
Contents
Introduction
The objectives of the ARC-Discovery scheme include “support excellent basic and applied research by individuals and teams.”
However the Discovery Projects scheme does not support medical or dental research
The average grant is around $100,000 per annum, usually over three years. The success rate is usually around 20%. The scheme is highly competitive, and each year many worthy projects are not funded simply because they do not survive the very tough competition. It is not good enough to have an excellent team with an excellent proposal. In addition, the proponents must successfully present their case.
The purpose of this document is to provide a detailed guide on preparing a Discovery Project application that has the highest chances of success.
It consists of two sections.
Section 1 is an overview of the ARC-Discovery scheme, and in particular the process by which successful proposals are selected.
Section 2gives very specific advice on preparing a successful grant proposal.
This document is a guide only. Applicants should also read the ARC’s “Funding Rules for schemes under the Discovery Program for the years 2014 and 2015.” and “Discovery Projects Instructions to Applicants”, “Sample Application Form”, and “FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS For schemes under the Discovery Program for 2014 and 2015.” all available on the ARC website -
It should be noted that the Rules and Application forms may change with each funding Round. The current document applies specifically to applications for funding commencing in January 2015.
This document will therefore need to be updated for each Round.
SECTION 1 – OVERVIEW OF THE ARC-DISCOVERY SCHEME.
1.1Features of the scheme
The average ARC-Discovery grant is around $100,000 pa for 3 years. Larger grants are possible, as are grants for up to 5 years, but they are not common.
An application must include at least one investigator from an Australian University. Investigatorsfrom Australian Universities are known as Chief Investigators (CI). Other investigators(eg from CSIRO or from overseas Universities) are known as Partner Investigators (PI).
A University academic can be a CI on up two ARC-Discovery grants, and a sole CI on both. Moreover, proposals may be submitted only to the extent that, if all were successful, the CIs would not be involved in more than this maximum. Special restrictions apply to Fellows and DECRA applicants/recipients.
There is a single round per annum – usually closing in early March. (For funding commencing in 2015, the closing date is March 19th 2014.)
1.2Why ARC Grants?
ARC grants are among the most highly prestigious grants that an Australian University can receive. They therefore contribute to the status of the University. They are important in determining global rankings of Australian Universities. And they are an important indicator of the research strength of a particular research area of the University in the “ERA” (Excellence in Research in Australia) exercise.
And while all research grants generate “Block Funding” to Australian Universities, ARC grants belong to a special group of grants that also generate “RIBG” (Research Infrastructure Block Grants) as cash grants to Australian Universities –currently around 30c in the $.
As a consequence, ARC grants are important indicators of an individual academic’s standing, at least in the eyes of the powers that be such as Vice Chancellors and Deputy Vice Chancellors. They are therefore valuable for gaining a position, tenure, or promotion.
1.3Selection Criteria
The Selection Criteria are:
a)Investigator Track Record – 40%
b)Project Quality and Innovation – 25%
c)Feasibility and Benefit – 20%
d)Research Environment – 15%
Note that these weightings are not just notional – they are arithmetic. Thus the CI team will receive a score out of 40 for Track Record, etc
1.4Track Record (40%)
For CIs, Track Record in most disciplines is focused on publications in refereed journals, especially ERA Aand A* journals, and with some emphasis on first-authored papers. Books and book chapters as well as granting history are also important, especially past ARC or NHMRC grants. Prestigious awards, prizes, and medals are especially important.
The Assessment process takes due account of Research Record Relative to Opportunity. Thus it takes account of periods of parental care, time in a commercial environment, absences due to health, and to a minor extent excessive teaching loads.
Note that in the ARC scheme of things, Track Records tend to be averaged, not summed. So it can be terminal to include a co-CI with a weak Track Record. Therefore it is unwise to include a co-CI with a Track Record weaker than yours – they will drag you down. Conversely, one should make every effort to include relevant stellar co-CIs on a proposal.
1.5Project Quality and Innovation (25%)
“Project Quality” focuses on the significance of the research while Innovation focuses on the innovation in the approach and methodology.
Because the scheme focuses on fundamental knowledge Discovery, having a proposal that is highly significant and innovative is paramount.
For the ARC, “Significance” has a very specific meaning – namely “How will the research address an important problem in the discipline? How will the research advance the knowledge base in thediscipline?”
Note that it does NOT mean how many lives will you save, or how much money you will save, or how much of the environment you will save. These are the BENEFITS of the research, and are best described as such.
Thus it is important that your proposal will have a demonstrable impact in your discipline. Put crudely, it should be clear that the outcomes will be so important that they will be published in very high impact journals - ie in A or A* journals.
“Innovation” also has a specific meaning. Namely “Are the aims and concepts novel? Will new methods or technologies be developed? Are the new methods and approaches a significant improvement?” Note that it does NOT mean “Will the outcomes of the research be innovative?”
1.6 Feasibility and Benefit (20%)
It is important that you have what is called a “mature” research proposal ie one for which the entire research plan has been fully worked out. It is a characteristic of ARC proposals that you must provide a very detailed account of your proposed methodology.
It is important to JUSTIFY every aspect of the proposal. In contrast to a paper, where you say WHAT you did without an explanation for WHY you did it that way, in an ARC proposal you must describe not only WHAT you will do, but WHY you intend doing it that way.
In particular, all SAMPLE SIZES must be justified. Power analyses should be used to justify sample sizes. You are strongly urged to meet with the University statistician early in the project planning phase to assist with the sampling design and power analysis.
Benefit means how will the project produce innovative economic, environmental, social, and/or cultural benefit to Australia.
1.6Research Environment (15%)
“Research Environment” refers to both the intellectual and physical environment surrounding the CI(s). These include the immediate environment of the CIs, the School/Centre environment, and the Faculty environment. “Intellectual Environment” means the status of the people in the team and around the team. “Physical Environment” where relevant means what cutting-edge equipment do you have access to. Where the research aligns with a highly ranked ERA Field of Research for the University, this should be emphasized.
SECTION 2 – WRITING THE PROPOSAL
It’s a competition!
The ARC hasa sufficient budget to fund only 20% of the proposals.
Therefore having a very good proposal is not in itself good enough – each year many very good proposals do not get funded because other proposals were deemed to be more outstanding.
So it is important that your proposal stands out from the crowd.
This section provides hints on how to do this.
2.1 The ARC Assessment Process
It is absolutely imperative that applicants understand the process used by the ARC to assess proposals and decide which ones to fund.
i) The proposal goes to a “Panel of Experts” determined mainly by the FOR (Field of Research) codes you chose. There are just 5 Panels across the entire spectrum of University research activities, and each Panel consists of around 15 “experts”. One Panel for example is the SBE (Social, Behavioural, and Economic) Panel. This one Panel covers all of Social Science, Psychology, Business, Economics, Tourism, etc. The actual members of each Panel are listed at
ii)Your application is given to the two members of the Panel who are CLOSEST to your area. But given the breadth of the Panel expertise, it is most unlikely that either of the members will have ANY expertise specifically in your field!
iii)These two members then score and rank your proposal relative to the other 150 or so proposals they have received to rank.
iv)At the same time, your proposal goes to up to five Assessors, based primarily on your listed key words. Assessors ARE experts in your area.
v)The Assessors’ reports are provided to you, and you have the opportunity to submit a Rejoinder.
vi)The Assessor Reports and your Rejoinder then go back to the Panel.
vii)The proposal is then given a score based approximately 50% on the Assessors’ scores and 50% on the Panel Members’ scores.
viii) Finally proposals across the entire Panel are ranked according to score.
Note that the two Panel Members will be reading and ranking up to 150 proposals – AND they all have day jobs (mostly very important time consuming day jobs). So your proposal probably gets 20 minutes of their time, possibly at 2.30 AM!
2.2 The Pitch
The proposal must be pitched to two audiences – the Assessors (who are expert in your area), and Panel Members (who are not experts in your area).
Essentially, Approach and Methodology should be pitched primarily at world experts in your area.
BUT THE ENTIRE REST OF THE PROPOSAL SHOULD BE PITCHED TO NON-EXPERTS IN YOUR AREA.
Because Panel Members will be non-experts, AND will be reading your proposal rather quickly, your proposal needs to be very clearly set out. It must contain no jargon. And minimal acronyms.
Panel Members will consistently advise applicants - “TELL A STORY!”. In simple terms, what is the problem being addressed? (The Aim); why is it an important problem? (the significance); and why can we resolve this important problem where others have failed? (the innovation).
Keep paragraphs short. At 2.30 AM, long paragraphs simply become indigestible.
NO PARAGRAPH SHOULD EXCEED 6 LINES!!!!
Remember, in good writing, it is one paragraph per idea.
2.3 A2 The Title
The title is the FIRST thing the Panel Member reads.
It should be more than just a description of the project – it should give some hint of excitement; some hint of being “at the cutting edge”. Words such as “new” or “novel” are useful. It can also be useful to phrase the title as a question, particularly a provocative question, because that immediately sets up the question to be addressed by the proposal.
2.4 A5 Summary of Proposal
A5 is limited to 750 characters. It is the SECOND thing the Panel Member reads. It needs to grab their attention. It needs to scream out “This is a really SIGNIFICANT project.”
A5 actually specifically asks for “Aims, Significance, and Expected Outcomes”
A useful framework around which to structure A5 is:
i)An opening sentence stating the problem
ii)Followed by the Aim (to solve the problem) – “The Aim is ..”
iii)Then “The project is significant because …
iv)“Innovatively it will …
v)“The expected outcomes include ..”
Note that as previously explained, “significance” here does not mean “benefit” (which more appropriately belongs in A6).
Thus if Gregor Mendel was writing an application to the ARC for his pea breeding experiments, his third sentence of A5 would read:
“This study is significant because if these experiments work out the way I predict, then it will revolutionize our understanding of inheritance in plants, animals, and even humans.”
He would not say “The study is significant because it will help pea breeders to grow round and wrinkly peas.”
2.5 A6 Impact statement.
This should explicate the potential social, economic, and/or environmental impact/benefit of the research. It should be in simple lay language. But it should also be exciting!
2.6 B2 Field of Research (FOR)
The FOR code will be a primary determinant of which of the 5 ARC Panels your proposal goes to. So use codes that ensure your proposal goes to the Panel of your choice.
Importantly, do NOT use FOR codes that split the proposal across two Panels – that is a kiss of death!
2.7 B4 Keywords
These are used primarily to allocate your proposal to Assessors – by matching key-words. So choose key words/phrases that specifically align with the expertise of the Assessors you would like.
Try not to use generic key words such as “sustainability” – that could go anywhere! It is acceptable to use multiword phrases here.
2.8 C Project Description
This section is strictly limited to 10 pages.
Applicants MUST use the headings provided in the Instructions to Applicants, and the information provided MUST address the selection criteria.
The suggested page allocation (based upon importance of each selection criterion) are:
i)PROJECT TITLE
ii)AIMS AND BACKGROUND – 1.5 pages
iii)RESEARCH PROJECT
Use the following subheadings:
Significance – 1 page
Innovation – 1 page
Approach and Methodology – 4.1 pages
National Benefit – 0.4 pages
iv)ROLE OF PERSONNEL – 0.3 pages
v)RESEARCH ENVIRONMENT – 1 page
vi)COMMUNICATION OF RESULTS – 0.1 page
vii)MANAGEMENT OF DATA – 0.1 page
viii)REFERENCES – 0.5 pages
Section C, especially AIMS AND BACKGROUND, should have lots of self-citations – to emphasize that the CIs are among THE world experts in the area. Avoid using the numbering system for citations - sure it saves space, but self-citations get lost – and remember - Track Record is worth a whopping 40%. So use the author-date system. And do not lose CIs in “et al.” Consider bolding CI names where they appear.
2.8.1PROJECT TITLE
This title may differ from that in A2 and may exceed 10 words.
It should nevertheless be comprehensible to a non-expert, and give some indication of being “at the cutting edge”.
2.8.2 AIMS AND BACKGROUND(1.5 pages)
This section is non-assessable. It should be the equivalent to the introduction to a paper – ie set the scene. It will include references to review articles in the discipline area.
This section will include the Aim. Sometimes the Aim works best placed first in this section, sometimes partway through, sometimes at the end. See what works best.
Wherever it is placed, there should be just one single clearly articulated Aim in a single sentence.
Moreover, the Aim should be to SOLVE a problem – ie the Aim should NOT be “to investigate” or “to study”. Such terms are much too vague for an ARC proposal.
2.8.3 RESEARCH PROJECT:-
This section includes Significance, Innovation, Approach and Methodology, National Benefit, and fit to National Research Priorities.
It is recommended that you use four subheadings as follows:
i) Significance(1 page)
In ARC terms, “significance” has a specific meaning. It means “How will the research solve an important problem in the discipline?” and “How will the research advance the knowledge base in the discipline?”
Note that there is no mention here about how many lives it will save, how much money it will save, or how it will save the Great Barrier Reef! These are “benefits” of the research, and belong in “National Benefits”.
Put crudely, in “Significance”, you need to make the case that the research will lead to publications in the highest quality journals.
So you need to ARGUE THE CASE for Significance. The argument will involve considerable literature referencing. (Indeed at least 50% of the Literature Cited should be in the “Significance and Innovation” section!)
Be very explicit about the claims you are making. Remember, you are trying to convince a person who is not an expert in your area that the research will make a more significant contribution than the other 149 proposals he/she has read!. Use phrases such as “The proposal is therefore significant because …” – and bold this sentence.
ii) Innovation (1 page)
Are the Aims and concepts novel? Will it lead to new methodologies or techniques?
Remember, you need to convince a non-expert that your proposal is innovative. So you need to present a logically argued CASE for innovation. What have people done in the past? Why has it been found wanting? What will this proposal do that is better? How do we know it will work?
Again lots of references in this section.
Again be very explicit about the claims being made – “This study is therefore innovative because…..” – and bold this sentence.
iii)Approach and Methodology (4.4 pages)
Provide details of the approach and methods.