Research strategy The current landscape EU research political agenda The Sustainable Development Goals The Norwegian research political agenda The White paper on ID: 586790
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Son May 2017" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Son May 2017
Research
strategySlide2
The current landscape
EU
research
political
agenda
The
Sustainable
Development Goals
The Norwegian
research
political
agenda
The White
paper
on
Humanities
UiO,
faculty
and IMK
strategies
ImpactSlide3
Better and more targeted
applications
to
external financing schemesSlide4
Active follow
-up and
development
of the Phd-program to ensure
completionSlide5
Group discusion
scheme
Groups
discus
the
2 propositions/
applications
and
nominate
one
group
leader putting
comments
into
writing
for hand over
afterwards
to
applicant
responsibles
/teams
Groups
can
chose
where
to
discus
Groups
should
focus
on
«
what
would
make
the
proposition
even
better
and more
likely
to be
selected
» in
relation
to
the
call
Groups
should
be back for
plenary
session
at 10.45
In
plenary
session
: Group leaders present 1-2
key
findings
/
comment
and
can
pose 1
question
to
applicant
responsibles
/teams
Group leaders hand over all
the
writen
comments
to
applicant
responsibles
/teams Slide6
GroupsSlide7
Norwegian Research Council Fripro
Scheme
Panel
members
read
25 applications
each
All
applications
get
a «first» and «
second
»
reader
:
o
Firs
reader
:
detailed
feedback and grade all
review
categories
o
Second
reader
:
reads
first
reader´s
feedback and
give
overall feedback
o
Panel
meet
in September: NFR
informs
on
re-
submitted
applications
. First
reader
introduces
the
projects
/
applications
,
then
20 min
discusion
per
application
,
then
agreement
on
feedback and grade
o
Feedback is
short
(
requirement
from NFR); i.e.:
«
flawed
methodology
»
but
not «
what
the
flaws
are
».
o Feedback to «
justify
grade»,
rather
than
«
what
to
change
before
next
submission
»
o F
inal
comparison
of
all
projects
and ranking
of
the
high-rated
projects
Scientific
quality
/
merit
most
important
«
Originality
and
risky
» over «safe and
unexciting
»
«
Why
it is
important
?»
«
Timely
» and «
urgency
» to make NFR understand
they
should
not «miss»
this
research
innovation
«
Wider
significance
and
the
ability
to
communicated
to
the
wider
non-
academic
audience
»:
crucial
;
without
this
it is
easily
a C-grade and
one
C-grade
could
lead to not
funded
Deliverables
/
milestones
;
can
be
internal
to
the
project
and/or
external
(
conferences
,
publications
)