Marie Curie Individual Fellowship Programme

Report
Debbie Saunders
European Funding Officer
FP7 – Marie Curie Actions
Marie Curie Fellowships Overview
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Policy Setting
Eligibility
Fellowship Options
Application Process
Budget
Key Sections Part B
Evaluation & Feedback
Top Tips for Success
Horizon 2020
MC Objectives & Policy Context
“The People Work programme 2013 has been designed to support
the implementation of the Europe 2020 Flagship Initiatives
‘Innovation Union’, ‘Youth on the Move’ and ‘An Agenda for New
Skills and Jobs’.”
(2013 People Work Programme)
Europe 2020:
• http://ec.europa.eu/eu2020/index_en.htm
Innovation Union:
• http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/index_en.cfm
Youth on the Move:
• http://ec.europa.eu/education/news/news2540_en.htm
Why Bid for MC Funding
Host Organisation
Researcher
• Prestigious - Benchmark of
Research Excellence
• Bottom up Funding
• Adds valuable Resource
capacity to research team
• Increase Expertise
• Diversity & Knowledge sharing
• Networking Opportunities
• Future Bid Development &
Collaborations
• Generous Financial Support
– 100% Researcher costs +
– Training Expenses
• Prestigious - CV & future
employment
• Professional Independence
• International Working
• All Research Disciplines
• Training Opportunities &
Knowledge Development
• Opportunity to work with key
team/ Access to key facilities
Eligibility
• Experienced
Researchers
&
Key Principles
• Excellence
– Researcher quality
– Host Reputation
– PhD
– 4 years research work • Skills & Competence Development
experience post 1st
• Enhances Career Prospects
degree
•
• Transnational Mobility
•
• Country Eligibility
• All Research
•
Disciplines*
• Any Nationality
•
International Dimension
Equal Opportunities - Appropriate
gender and work/life balance
Good working environment,
Transparent Recruitment
Strong participation from
Enterprises
Marie Curie Country Eligibility
Individual Fellowships
• ‘Experienced Researchers’
• Skills diversification and knowledge sharing
• Three categories:
– Intra-European Fellowships (IEF)
– International Incoming Fellowships (IIF)
– International Outgoing Fellowships (IOF)
• Final MC Fellowship FP7 Call Deadline: 14 August 2013
Results in 2010/2011
FP7 – Marie Curie
Scheme
Submitted
Main list
Success
rate
2010 IEF
2853
504
18%
2010 IIF
1175
137
11.7%
2010 IOF
737
120
16%
2012 IEF
3734
16%
2012 IIF
1462
13%
2012 IOF
962
16%
Deadline & Available Funding
Final Deadline 14/08/2013
• Intra- European
Fellowships (IEF)
• €134m (120 m 2012)
• International Incoming
Fellowships (IIF)
• €44.5m (40 m)
• International Outgoing
Fellowships (IOF)
• €44.5m (40m)
Intra-European Fellowships - Training
• Funds 12 – 24 month projects for advanced
research training
• Researcher applies with Host
• Mobility between EU or Associated Countries
• Training & Skill development/ diversification
• Career Development
• Professional Independence
• Resuming a career in research
International Outgoing Fellowships Training
• Advanced Researcher training in a 3rd country (through
a high level research project,) to bring skills/ knowledge
back to the EU/AS
• Funds 24 - 36 month Research & Career Development
projects – 2 Phases:Outgoing
12 - 24 months moving from EU/ AC
to a 3rd Party country e.g. USA,
Mexico, New Zealand, Japan etc.
Re-Integration
12 - 24 months Mandatory return
phase in Europe to transfer the
knowledge acquired.
NB: Researchers must be EU/ AC Nationals (or lived In EU / AC for 5 years)
International Incoming Fellowships Knowledge Transfer
• Top-class Researchers from 3rd Country’s move to EU/ AC to
work on research projects.
• Knowledge Sharing / Transfer from a 3rd Country to EU/AC Host
Organisation – builds collaborations between EU/AC & the rest
of the world
Incoming
12 – 24 months in EU/AS Country
Reintegration 12 months for International Cooperation
(Optional)
Partner Countries (fixed budget €15,000)
• Mutually-beneficial research co-operation - between Europe
and other parts of the world
• Researcher Career Advancement
Getting Started
•
•
•
•
•
•
Identify Researcher
Participant Portal
Guidance
2 Part Application
Part B is Science/ Art
Upload final Part B as
PDF
• Referees Invited
• Submit to EU
Application
• Identify
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
– Type of Fellowship
- Researcher
- Host institution & Supervisor/ Scientist in charge
- Research Project Idea
Read carefully the Guide for Applicants
Set Up EPSS Account & Register an Application
Develop Application Jointly
Host Institution/ Supervisor & Researcher
Contact future host institution/ DRI for Supporting Information
Start writing your proposal early - DRI & the UKRO NCP can provide
some "pre screening“ & give feedback
Link proposal to the Key EU Strategic documents – slide 3
Book Mark Call 14th August deadline
N.B. No extenuating circumstances will be considered if missed
Application Form Part A
Part A (completed online via the PPSS system)
• A1 Information on the Proposal
• A2 Information on the Host organisation – including
information about Supervisors & administration*
• A3 Information on the Researcher
• A4 Funding Request
*Contact DRI
Budget
Category 1*: Living allowance €58,500 pa (€78,500)
Category 2*: Mobility allowance €700 pm (Dependants - €1000)
Category 3 : Training Expenses €800 pm
Category 5* : Overheads pm €700
Category 6: Other - IIF only; flat rate for one year of €15,000 if
returning to ICPC country
*multiplied by Country Correction Coefficient
(UK Coefficient = 134.4%)
Application Form – Part B
Part B (maximum length is 27 pages, (exc table of contents,
ethics issues section and start and end pages)
•
•
•
•
•
•
B1
B2
B3
B4
B5
B6
Research and technological quality (max 8 pages)
Training / Transfer of Knowledge (max 2 pages)
Researcher (maximum 7 pages)
Implementation (maximum 6 pages)
Impact (maximum 4 pages)
Ethics issues (no page limit)
Draft your
Proposal for an
easy Evaluation
• Write exactly what is asked for – no more/ no less!
• Stick to the scope of the call IEF & IOF =
Training;
IIF =
Knowledge Transfer
• Logical flow - Project/ Host Expertise/ Host Infrastructure/
Researcher Profile/ Researcher Ambitions; Cooperation: objectives/
work plan/ expertise / Impact
• Use ’Cross-references’ – page nos.in proposal, not ”as mentioned
above”
• Be strong in all aspects - no weaknesses!
• Be clear, concise, consistent!
The key for writing a successful proposal:
experience with proposal evaluation!
Training Tips – B2
Training – IEF / IOF
• APECS - Generic training
• Individual training – list courses
– how many/ how long?
• Monitoring training – How?
• Meetings?
• Any formal monitoring at Grad
School level?
• Match of Training to Research?
• Role of Scientist in charge –
experience in mentoring
• Role of larger SU research
community
Transfer of Knowledge - IIF
• What knowledge will be
transferred?
• Researcher’s unique
skills/knowledge
• Dissemination of knowledge?
• Seminars?
• Supervision of PhD students?
• Teaching?
• Conferences?
Training TIPS
Methods for Skills & Expertise Acquisition:•
•
•
•
•
•
Training-through-Research
Hands-on Training
Knowledge Transfer
Building Collaborations
Scientific and Financial management
Organisational Skills
Researcher Tips – B3
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Work experience (in research)
Industrial experience and expertise
Transferable skills
Prizes, Awards, Lectures etc
Research potential
Independent thinking and leadership qualities
Match between fellow’s profile and project
Cross and multi-disciplinary experience
Give evidence of statements
• Referee assessment
Implementation – B4
Contact DRI for Assistance
B 4.1
Quality of infrastructure/facilities and international
collaboration of host
B 4.2 Practical arrangements for the implementation and
management of the research project
B 4.3 Feasibility and credibility of the project, including work
plan
B 4.4 Practical and administrative arrangements and support for
the hosting of the fellow
Also ’Academic & Professional Enhancement Centre’ (APECs)
can provide advice, guidance and generic material – Rebecca
Williams
B 4.4 Practical and administrative arrangements and support for the hosting
of the fellow
Describe what practical arrangements are in place to host a researcher coming
from another country. What support will be given to him/her to settle into their new
host country (in terms of language teaching, help with local administration,
obtaining permits, accommodation, schools, childcare etc.)
Example for a STRONG proposal:
“Joint support from the Human Resources, Internationalisation Office,
Academic and Professional Enhancement Centre and Student Support
Services, ensures the researcher is able to settle quickly at Swansea
University. They provide practical assistance with personal I.D.,
VISA/permits, health services, banking, tax issues, language courses,
and up-to-date local Information.
Guest researchers either stay in a room in the University’s residences or
guest house accommodation is arranged. Residential Services provide
support in finding suitable accomodation for guest researchers coming
with their family. They are guaranteed a place in the University’s Nursery/
Childcare Scheme.”
B 4.4 Practical and administrative arrangements and support for the
hosting of the fellow
Describe what practical arrangements are in place to host a researcher coming
from another country. What support will be given to him/her to settle into their new
host country (in terms of language teaching, help with local administration,
obtaining permits, accommodation, schools, childcare etc.)
Example for a WEAK proposal:
“Assistance
in finding an apartment and in administrative
issues will be provided by colleagues.”
“The institutes’ secretaries will help the researcher with the
administrative issues and practical arrangements”
College Support for MC Fellows
• Develop Supportive Infrastructure for International Researchers
Welcome events - designated personel for practical help
Procedures for hosting international researchers
PreArrival Support
Arrival Checklist – meet from airport/ station
Useful Contact Numbers
Familiarisation activities / meeting key staff in 1st week
Introduction to local area etc
Researcher Responsibilities Handbook & academic contacts
• Plan each fellowship individually with respect to specific needs (work
permit, visa, childcare etc.)
• Communicate this Infrastructure /Procedures to the researcher at the
Proposal Writing stage & assist them to develop the Bid
 Strong proposal with high chance to get funded
 Successful experience & good feedback
Impact Tips B5
Impact on Researcher:• Career and Skills
development
• Improves career prospects How?
• Mobility
– Benefits of working in a
different country?
– Linguistic skills?
Specialisation? Facilities?
• Will they have exposure to
the commercial sector?
Impact of:• Societal, Economic,
Academic impacts of the
research
• How research meets EU
priorities ?
– Innovation Union,
– Youth on the Move
• Dissemination/public
engagement plans?
• Host organisation - List any
lasting collaborations
• How will the host/ country/
EU benefit from
researcher’s stay?
Impact Outreach
•
•
•
•
•
Marie Curie Ambassador
Workshop Day
Summer-School
Marie Curie Project Open Day
Public talks, TV-Talks, podcasts and articles in
newspapers
• e-Newsletters
• Multimedia releases
Evaluation
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Experts in the field
Need to address all of the issues to maximise scores
Total score = 100%
Overall threshold (70% or 3.5/5)
Most Criteria - have a threshold
Each area is weighted
When developing the Proposal, focus on the objectives
of the activity, to be successful
Proposal Evaluation
• Evaluation criteria for each chapter and sub-chapter is listed
in the Guide for Applicants
• Experts use guiding questions to measure & check the
evaluation criteria for each chapter
• A list of strengths and weaknesses is made for each chapter
• Based on the strengths/weaknesses: marks from 0 - 5 are
given with justifications
Evaluation criteria - Marie Curie - IEF
Evaluation process: Marie Curie
Remote phase:
• 3 evaluators/proposal
• 4-24 proposals/evaluator (!!!)
• > 100 evaluators for > 700
proposals (ENV)
• 3 weeks remote evaluation
Individual Assessment
Reports:
• Submitted online
• Visible to other
experts after they
submitted
Consensus meeting:
• Experts meet in
Brussels
• Consensus report
(CR)
Remote
Proposal X
copy 1
Proposal X
copy 2
Proposal X
copy 3
IAR
expert 1
IAR
CR
expert 2
3 experts
IAR
expert 3
Marie Curie Consensus Meeting - Brussels
Experts discuss their IARs:
30 min pr proposal!
Agree on strengths/
weaknesses and marks
Rapporteur drafts
Consensus Report (CR)
A commission member
quality-controls the CR
No
Clear, consistent, detailed?
Match marks and comments?
Yes
Checked + approved
CRs delivered to
commission
Evaluation Criteria
S & T Quality
Training
Researcher
Implementation
Impact
Threshold
3/5
3/5
4/5
NA
3.5/5
Weighting
25%
15%
25%
15%
20%
S & T Quality
Assessment Criteria
Threshold
Weighting
3/5
25%
• Scientific/technological quality, including any
interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary aspects of the
proposal
• Appropriateness of research methodology and
approach
• Originality & innovative nature of project, and
relationship to ‘state of the art’ of research in the field
• Timeliness and relevance of project
• Host scientific expertise in the field
• Quality of the group / scientist in charge
S & T Quality Feedback
Positive Feedback
• Research is timely with number of innovations beyond
‘state of the art’
• Research methodology is detailed and clearly
• Explained
Negative Feedback
• Techniques to be used are well known in the field so not
very innovative
• Research methodology not given in full detail
Training / Knowledge Transfer
Assessment Criteria
Threshold
3/5
Weighting
15%
IEF/ IOF –
Training
• Clarity and quality of the research training objectives
for the researcher
IEF/ IOF
Training
IEF/ IOF Training
• Relevance & quality of the additional scientific training
& complementary skills offered, with special attention to
exposure to the industry sector, where appropriate
• Measures taken by the host for quantitative and
qualitative mentoring and tutoring
IIF – Knowl’dge
Transfer
IIF – Knowl’dge
Transfer
•Clarity and quality of the transfer of knowledge
objectives
• Potential of transferring knowledge to European host
and/or bringing knowledge to Europe
Training/ Knowledge Transfer
Assessor Feedback
Positive feedback
• Contemplates training courses specifically designed for
postdoctoral fellows
• Research training objectives are clearly identified,
described, and planned
• Both participants will benefit from their mutual
collaboration, not only through direct joint work, but also
through the interaction with the whole research group
• Fellow has range of relevant knowledge and expertise to
be brought to the project
Training/ Knowledge Transfer Assessor
Feedback
Negative Feedback
• A research project with no training element
• The host asserts skills without presenting convincing
• evidence of competence
• Techniques described will clearly be valuable to the
researcher, but the lack of detailed description doesn’t
inspire confidence in the quality of training available
• Objective are research objectives with out specifying the
unique knowledge the fellow will bring
Researcher Assessment Criteria
Threshold
Weighting
4/5
25%
• Research experience
• Results including patents/ publications/ teaching
• Independent thinking & leadership qualities (and
capacity to transfer knowledge (IIF))
• Match between the fellow’s profile and research
• IEF and IOF: Potential for reaching a position of
professional maturity
• IEF and IOF: Potential to acquire new knowledge
Researcher Feedback
Positive Feedback
• Clear proof of independent thinking during PhD and the
possibility to progress and develop
• Clear evidence of leadership qualities
• Potential to acquire new knowledge is high
• Good references and clear list of Prizes, Awards, Lectures, etc
Negative Feedback
• CV lacks data on record
• Continuation of previous research so exposure to new
approaches is lacking
• References were similar and from one institution
Implementation Assessment Criteria
Threshold
Weighting
N/A
15%
• Quality of infrastructure / facilities & international
collaborations of host
• Practical arrangements for implementation &
management of scientific projects
• Independent thinking & leadership qualities (and
capacity to transfer knowledge (IIF))
• Feasibility & credibility of project, including work plan
• Practical & administrative arrangements & support for
the hosting of the fellow
Impact Assessment Criteria
Threshold
3.5/5
Weighting
20%
All
• Potential for creating long term collaborations and mutually
beneficial co-operation with other countries (IEF) / between
Europe and the other third country (IIF/IOF)
All
• Contribution to European excellence and European
Competitiveness regarding the expected research results (IEF) /
through valuable transfer of knowledge (IIF/IOF)
All
• Impact of the proposed outreach activities
IEF &
IOF
• Impact of competencies acquired during the fellowship on the
future career prospects of the researcher, in particular through
exposure to transferable skills training (IEF only: with special
attention to exposure to the industrial sector, where appropriate)
IEF &
IOF
• Contribution to the career development, or re-establishment
where relevant
IEF
• Benefit of the mobility to the European Research Area
Impact Assessor Feedback
Positive Feedback
• Contribution to European excellence and competitiveness
is well presented
• Skill acquired during the project will greatly contribute to
the fellow’s career development
Negative Feedback
• Lack of career development plan for the applicant
• Lack of details means it is difficult to judge whether a
independent position is achievable
Major pitfalls
• Too much focus on the research
project, too little on all other aspects
• Host not sufficiently involved in
proposal writing (= weak
implementation and training chapter)
• Imbalance between ”fellow profile
and project match” and ”Benefit from
training” (candidate not qualified / too
experienced)
• Instructions in GFA not followed
word by word; information insufficient
or lacking
TOP TIPS for SUCCESS
•
•
•
•
Find Successful Researcher
Develop Excellent Project
Allow sufficient time
Key Categories
– Impact *
– Training *
* Get help from DRI / APECs
SCoRE Cymru –
Supporting Collaborative
Research and innovation in Europe
• Replaces WECF - Wales European Collaboration Fund
• Provides 50% towards travel & subsistence for FP7
application development.
• SCoRE can part cover a visit to an EU HEI/ Meeting/
Conference to discuss a potential Fellowship
• UK researcher interested in IOF could visit 3rd country to
scope out application & meet non EU host.
Proposed Horizon 2020 Structure
Excellent Science Base
•
•
•
•
European Research Council (ERC)
Future and Emerging Technologies (FET)
Marie Curie Actions
Research Infrastructures
Industrial Leadership and Competitive Frameworks
•
•
•
Leadership in enabling and industrial technologies:
• ICT; Nanotechnologies; Advanced Materials; Biotechnology;
• Advanced Manufacturing and Processing; and Space
Access to risk finance
Innovation in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs)
Development of Horizon 2020
Development of Horizon 2020
Tackling Societal Challenges
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Health, demographics changes and well being
Food security, sustainable agriculture marine and maritime research
and the bio-economy
Secure, clean and efficient energy
Smart, green and integrated transport
Climate action and resource efficiency including raw materials
Inclusive, innovative and secure societies
European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT)
Joint Research Centre (JRC)
Euratom (2014-2018)
Horizon 2020
• Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions – MSCA
• 4 Broader Actions
– Individual Fellowships (IF)
– Innovative Training Networks (ITN)
– Research & Innovation Staff Exchange (RISE)
– Cofund
Excellent Science
Overarching objective:
“to ensure optimum development and dynamic use of
Europe’s intellectual capital in order to generate new
skills and innovation and, thus, to realise its full potential
across all sectors and regions”
Goes from 9 actions to 4 broader lines of activity:
Horizon 2020
•
Fostering new skills by means of excellent initial training
of researchers
• Doctoral level training: innovative, intersectoral,
interdisciplinary, international
• Follows on from ITN scheme (including new
European Industrial Doctorate and Innovative
Doctoral Programme strands)
Horizon 2020
Excellent Science
•
Nurturing excellence by means of cross-border and
cross-sector mobility
• Opportunities for researchers at all career levels
• Supports cross-border and cross-sector mobility
• Follows on from FP7 individual fellowships
•
Stimulating innovation by means of cross-fertilisation of
knowledge
• Staff exchange – international cross-border and/or
inter-sectoral
• Follows on from IAPP/IRSES schemes
•
Co-funding of activities across other three strands
•
Aims to “leverage additional funds to increase
the numerical and structural impact of MCA”
UK Research Office
Swansea University UKRO contact
Edward Heelas
UKRO
Rue du Trône 4
B-1000 Brussels, Belgium
Tel.: 0032 2 230 5275 / 1535
Fax: 0032 2 230 4803
Email: [email protected]
URL: http://www.ukro.ac.uk
EURAXESS UK
•
•
•
•
Resource for Recruitment and International Mobility of
researchers/PhD to Europe and inside Europe Consists of 4
web portals:
Jobs
Services - mobile researchers and their families going abroad
Rights & duties for employers and employees - regarding
recruitment and hiring of researchers and PhD’s.
Charter & Code documents
Links and resources in specific countries around the world,
currently USA, China, India, Japan and Singapore).
EURAXESS LCP – Rebecca Williams APECs
Tel 602390 [email protected]
Recap
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Fellowship Options
Eligibility
Application Process
Budgets
Key Sections Part B
Evaluation & Feedback
Top Tips for Success
Horizon 2020
Career Integration Grant
• Research project funding to supports a fellow integrating back
into research career in Europe
• Fixed amount €25 000 pa flat rate funding - for 2- 4 years, used
for:
Part of researchers salary (or other staff on project);
Equipment, Consumables, Travel; &
Overheads/ Management costs.
• Host contributes to research costs
• Researcher applies with Host Institution
• Gives Fellow stability to do own research/ have own budget
• Mobility Rule applies
• Enables Transfer of Knowledge & Links with original Country
• Deadline 18th September 2013
Good Luck with your
Application
&
Thank you for
Attending
Debbie Saunders
European Funding Officer
Room 709, Faraday Building
Tel 602094
[email protected]
DRI PreAward Team
•
Debbie Saunders
European Funding Officer
ext 2094
[email protected]
 Co-ordination & Support Actions; Convergence & Non research EU Funding
•
Julie Williams
Head of Pre Award & Senior External Funding Officer
ext 5824
[email protected]
 European Projects
Chris Beynon
External Funding Officer
ext 5015
[email protected]
 College of Business, Economics & Law; College of Science
•
•
Bethan Lewis
External Funding Officer
ext 6895
[email protected]
 College of Arts & Humanities; College of Medicine
•
Adrian Walters
External Funding Officer
ext 3724
[email protected]
 College of Engineering; College of Human & Health Sciences
Member States - 27
Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Croatia,
Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland,
France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland,
Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta,
Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania,
Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and United
Kingdom.
Associated Countries
Albania, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Croatia, Faroe
Islands, Iceland, Israel, Liechtenstein, the
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,
Montenegro, Moldova, Norway, Serbia,
Switzerland and Turkey
3rd Country Participants
• International Cooperation Partner Countries (ICPCs)
ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp7/docs/icpc-list.pdf
• High-income countries
USA, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, Australia
and New Zealand, Taiwan, Hong Kong & Macao, Vatican, San
Marino, Monaco and Andorra
Interpretation of the scores
0: Fail -The proposal fails to address the criterion under
examination or cannot be judged due to missing or
incomplete information
1: Poor - The criterion is addressed in an inadequate
manner, or there are serious inherent weaknesses
2: Fair- While the proposal broadly addresses the
criterion, there are significant weaknesses
3: Good - The proposal addresses the criterion well,
although improvements would be necessary
4: Very Good - The proposal addresses the criterion very
well, although certain improvements are still possible
5: Excellent - The proposal successfully addresses all
relevant aspects of the criterion in question. Any
shortcomings are minor.

similar documents