I'm glad that bit worked!

Here is the public-facing version (should be accessible to all):
www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-euro...

Think we used to have academic promotion procedures that actively incentivised ruthlessly self-serving behaviour through not even acknowledging the existence of collegiate, pro-social behaviour and roles, never mind rewarding them. I hope that things are changing.

Of course, I don't see much prospect of increasing funding from anywhere. Nationally, we're skint, everything is broken & crying out for investment. Pay has been eroded over decades, and even our annual pay cut isn't baling fast enough any more to keep things afloat.

I am a ray of sunshine atm :)

Think we either need to fund UG properly or more QR, which is supposed to be a dual support system. Or both. If we can't do either, sector owes it to academics not to blame them for this with insulting "hobby research" narratives. One thing saying we can't afford X, another saying X isn't valuable.

That's a big question, and how do we and how should we are different questions. Traditionally, REF ££ plus a cross subsidy from teaching and other activities. Whether "cross subsidy" is a fair characterisation I'm not sure, given the importance of research informed teaching.

Well, quite. In a sane system, researchers who can consistently produce high quality research without the jeopardy and costs of having to compete for external funding would be valued. You'd want grant-getters in a Dept too, of course. Balanced portfolio etc.

I honestly wonder how many humanities profs could even productively spend that amount, even if a funder wrote them a cheque tomorrow! I dont have a problem with group-level income targets taking FTE into account, but individualised targets are dangerous and wrong.

If I'm feeling mischievous, I ask about plans for all the extra support that's going to be put in place to support both the submission of all these applications and the administration of this new flood of grants. Can't spend an award you don't have the capacity to administer. There's never a plan.

It's bizarre... every scrap of research funding out there is already fiercely fought over. For some to win more, others need to win less. Any institution that thinks it can win substantially more needs to do something differently and better, and if that's just 'apply moar', that's not going to work.

My challenge (if it's good faith) would be to demonstrate pathway to £25k research funding per year. Which funders, which schemes. With details of success rates. With details of the support available to grant applicants and holders. I've written more about funding targets (£, probably. Ironically)

This is either madness (from people who have no idea about either competitiveness of schemes, what schemes actually exist , or both), or - as you say - just a bad faith pretext.

Seriously? Individualised targets? Or is that averaged across schools/groups?

The British Stammering Association (Stamma)'s latest campaign is called "End the Phone Call Nightmares". As I wrote, phone calls can be especially difficult for people who stammer, even mildly (like me), There's an excellent 30-second video.

I found it very painful to watch, but it's *so* good.

Agree with that. I'd expect broad consensus of the starting premises of such a programme, even if not necessarily for the particular approach, direction, focus etc that the program takes. Or its chances of full or partial success. The contrast with ARIA is obviously that WL isn't taxpayer funded.

And yet.. my colleagues have had some amazing work funded through previous Leap calls. But that meant dropping everything and working at mad speeds to get the application in. Don't understand why they don't give more notice and more time.

The short notice timescales are at odds with Wellcome Trust's commitment to research culture. Deadlines for this call in particular are nuts. I have colleagues opting out on principle. In my darker moments I regard Leap as being WT's offshore black site.

WL is the opposite of the normal peer review/funding panel process often criticised for being slow and conservative. Well folks, this is the opposite - lots of power in few hands with little oversight at breakneck speed. (2)

Sounds like it's something that's in your locker. I wonder if it's summonable, even if it doesn't manifest automatically. It might just not like meetings, of course.