On the time spent preparing grant proposals : an observational study of Australian researchers

Objective: To estimate the time spent by the researchers for preparing grant proposals, and to examine whether spending more time increase the chances of success. Design: Observational study. Setting: The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia. Participants: Researchers who submitted one or more NHMRC Project Grant proposals in March 2012. Main outcome measures: Total researcher time spent preparing proposals; funding success as predicted by the time spent. Results: The NHMRC received 3727 proposals of which 3570 were reviewed and 731 (21%) were funded. Among our 285 participants who submitted 632 proposals, 21% were successful. Preparing a new proposal took an average of 38 working days of researcher time and a resubmitted proposal took 28 working days, an overall average of 34 days per proposal. An estimated 550 working years of researchers' time (95% CI 513 to 589) was spent preparing the 3727 proposals, which translates into annual salary costs of AU$66 million. More time spent preparing a proposal did not increase the chances of success for the lead researcher (prevalence ratio (PR) of success for 10 day increase=0.91, 95% credible interval 0.78 to 1.04) or other researchers (PR=0.89, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.17). Conclusions: Considerable time is spent preparing NHMRC Project Grant proposals. As success rates are historically 20–25%, much of this time has no immediate benefit to either the researcher or society, and there are large opportunity costs in lost research output. The application process could be shortened so that only information relevant for peer review, not administration, is collected. This would have little impact on the quality of peer review and the time saved could be reinvested into research.

Wasted efforts : centuries wasted on unsuccessful grant applications : new study

New Australian research has found scientists spent the equivalent of 550 working years applying for grants from the country's largest health and medical research grants scheme in 2012, and that around 75% of this time was spent on unsuccessful applications. The Queensland University of Technology (QUT) study also found that spending more time on a funding proposal did not equate to a greater chance of success.

The research lottery : the pressures on the Australian grant system

NHMRC Project Grants and ARC Discovery Grants are two of the major sources of funding for new ideas in Australian science. Many scientists rely on them for their job or the jobs of their staff. They are highly competitive with only around 1 in 5 applications winning funding. To increase the chances of winning funding, scientists spend a long time writing carefully crafted applications, generally at the sacrifice of their research output. And the pressures on the system and our scientists are only going to get worse.

Communication : use multimedia in grant applications

The format of grant applications should be updated to incorporate multimedia video. This would help researchers to convey complex topics to grant-review panels. If time-poor research panels cannot quickly grasp the scientific ideas presented in a paper application, other factors, such as author affiliations and track records, may disproportionately influence project rankings...

Reducing grant application numbers : the shame stick or prize carrot?

Researchers spend an average of 38 working days preparing an NHMRC Project Grant proposal, but with success rates of just 15% then over 500 years of researcher went into failed applications in 2014. This time would likely have been better spent on actual research. Many applications are non-competitive and could possibly be culled early, saving time for both researchers and funding agencies. Our analysis of the major health and medical scheme in Australia estimated that 61% of applications were never likely to be funded...

Grant application: QUT Learning and Teaching scheme 2012 Cracking the Code - A checklist to complement CRAs for first year Justice students.

Widening participation brings with it increasing diversity, increased variation in the level of academic preparedness (Clarke, 2011; Nelson, Clarke, & Kift 2010). Cultural capital coupled with negotiating the academic culture creates an environment based on many assumptions about academic writing and university culture. Variations in staff and student expectations relating to the teaching and learning experience is captured in a range of national and institutional data (AUSSE, CEQ, LEX). Nationally, AUSSE data (2009) indicates that communication, writing, speaking and analytic skills, staff expectations are quite a bit higher than students. The research team noted a recognisable shift in the changing cohort of students and their understanding and engagement with feedback and CRAs, as well as variations in teaching staff and student expectations. The current reality of tutor and student roles is that: - Students self select when/how they access lectures and tutorials. - Shorter tutorial times result in reduced opportunity to develop rapport with students. - CRAs are not always used consistently by staff (different marking styles and levels of feedback). - Marking is not always undertaken by the student’s tutor/lecturer. - Student support services might be recommended to students once a poor grade has been given. Students can perceive this as remedial and a further sense of failure. - CRA sheet has a mark /grade attached to it. Stigma attached to low mark. Hard to focus on the CRA feedback with a poor mark etched next to it. - Limited opportunities for sessionals to access professional development to assist with engaging students and feedback. - FYE resources exist, however academic time is a factor in exploring and embedding these resources. Feedback is another area with differing expectations and understandings. Sadler (2009) contends that students are not equipped to decode the statements properly. For students to be able to apply feedback, they need to understand the meaning of the feedback statement. They also need to identify, the particular aspects of their work that need attention. The proposed Checklist/guide would be one page and submitted with each assessment piece thereby providing an interface to engage students and tutors in managing first year understandings and expectations around CRAs, feedback, and academic practice.

Metsäpirulainen : Liikemies Erik Johan Längman (1799-1863) talousjärjestelmän murroksessa

The Forest devil. Businessman Erik Johan Längman (1799 1863) in the transition of economic system In Finnish historiography, Erik Johan Längman (1799-1863) bears a bad reputation of his own level: a mean, profit-seeking businessman who did not care too much about methods in his operations. Although little known, Längman has been praised as one of the pioneers of modern industry in the Grand Duchy of Finland, which belonged to the Russian Empire. From the mid 1830s Längman owned iron mill and several sawmills around the country. The growing demand of the markets in the 1830s, especially in Great Britain, marked a strong stimulus to Finnish lumber industry. At the same time claims for stricter rule over the sawmill industry were raised by high officials. The momentum of the conflict, the Forest Act of 1851, brought an end to illegal overproduction. In this biography, particular emphasis is laid on the entrepreneurial behaviour of Längman, but also on the effect the entrepreneurs had on the Crown s policies. On the other hand, how did the limitations imposed by the Crown guide the actions of the sawmill owners? The solutions adopted by the sawmill owners and the manoeuvring of the government are in a constant dialogue in this study. The Finnish sawmill industry experienced a major change in its techniques and methods of acquiring timber during the 1830s. Längman particularly, with his acquisition organisation, was able to find and reach faraway forests with unexpected results. The official regulating system with its strict producing quotas couldn t follow the changes. When the battle against the sawmill industry really started on, in 1840, it didn t happen for the benefit of iron industry, as argued previously, but to save Crown forests from depletion. After the mid 1840s Längman and the leader of the Finnish nationalistic movement, J. V. Snellman questioned the rationality of the entire regulation system and in doing so they also posed a threat against the aristocratic power. The influential but now also badly provoked chairman of the economic division of senate, Lars Gabriel von Haartman, accused the sawmill-owners harder than ever and took the advantage of the reactionary spirit of imperial Russia to launch the state forest administration. Längman circumvented the conditions of privileges, felled Crown forests illegally and accusations were brought against him for destroying his competitors. The repeated conflicts spoke primarily about a superior business idea and organisational ability. Although Längman spent his last years mostly abroad he still had interests in Finnish timber business when the liberation of sawmill-industry was established, in 1861. Surprisingly, the antagonism around the Crown forests continued, probably even more heated.

Portrait of Samuel Mayer Ehrenberg ( 1773 - 1853 ).

This painting is in dedication " in honor of Meyer Ehrenberg by his students" as stated on a scroll held by the sitter. The scroll is dated October 7, 1820 and is followed by a list of names in two columns: (M.Ehrenberg, P.Ehrenberg, B. Ehrenberg, M.Imanuel M.Balke, B.Meier, L.Franck, M. Cohen, W.Fraenkel, M. Chohns, P.Goldschmidt, J.Lippoa, A. Nathan, M.Kramer, J.Fraenkel, M.Goldschmidt.) Ehrenberg was the founder of the first modern Jewish Day School in Germany, at Wolfenbuettel. Ehrenberg was the great-grandfather of the Jewish Theologian Franz Rosenzweig.

Program of special service on the emancipation of the slaves in Surinam

Digital image

Petition of Michael Jacobs for assistance

Digital image

Letters to Reverend Peixotto announcing election of Naphtali Phillips as Parnas

Digital image

Eulogy on Gershom Seixas by Naphtali Phillips

Digital image

Copy of resolution regarding donation of N. Judah, H. Henricks and A. Touro to building of shul

Digital image

Sermon by Jacques Judah Lyons on the death of President William Henry Harrison

Digital image

Basic Income Grant in Namibia, a Viewpoint on the Proposal and on the Work of the BIG Coalition

This thesis studies the basic income grant proposal in Namibia. The proposal suggests a monthly grant of N$100 (approximately 10€) to all those Namibian citizens who do not receive the state pension. This thesis concentrates on the Basic Income Grant (BIG) Coalition and on its work. The formation and transformation of the coalition during the time period between 2003 and 2009 is analyzed with the help of data collected during two field work periods in 2008 and 2009. The data includes interviews, newspaper articles, observations and other background material. The analysis of this material is mainly conducted from organizational viewpoint. The final part of the thesis applies the results to the theory of Mosse, whose propositions about policy and practice will be discussed in relation to the basic income grant pilot project. The thesis argues that social legitimacy has been a vital resource for the work of the BIG Coalition and it has sought for it in various ways. The concept of social legitimacy originates from the resource dependence perspective of Pfeffer and Salancik, who propose that organizations are dependent on their environments, and on the resources provided by the surrounding environment. This thesis studies the concept of social legitimacy in the context of resource dependence theory. Social legitimacy is analyzed in the relations between the coalition and its environment, in the formation of the coalition, in the responses towards criticism, and finally in relation to the propositions concerning policy and practice. The work of the coalition in the pilot project will be analyzed through the propositions of Mosse concerning policy and practice. The results will describe and analyze key events in the formation of the BIG Coalition from the South African proposal until the end of the basic income pilot project. This BIG pilot project conducted in 2008-2009 is one of the most well-known activities of the coalition. The clashes between the coalition and its environment will be analyzed through four case studies. It will be shown that the project has been conducted in order to gain more legitimacy to the basic income grant proposal. The conclusion questions the legitimacy of the BIG Coalition as a research and development organization, and requests for more transparent research on the basic income proposal in Namibia.