Irish Research Council 2014/2015

andweneverdid

To be fair I think that that is a difficulty people from every discipline will encounter, not just science!

fifa3000

andweneverdid wrote: »

To be fair I think that that is a difficulty people from every discipline will encounter, not just science!

Oh definitely, it will be hard for everyone. I just meant in terms of the specialist terms, which are not specific to science of course. If you were doing a history project on something to do with archiving, for example, most people will at least be familiar with the general area and the procedure of archiving, so you can state that and then move into a description. Whereas when your project is in an area few academics will have heard of outside the discipline, and researching a highly advanced concept that is not easily explained in non-specialist terms, just introducing it briefly will take up half your word limit.

andweneverdid

Yes I suppose it may be easier for some than others, but when someone is researching at PhD level it can be difficult for those outside the discipline to fully understand the significance or nuances of concepts which, on the face of it, sound straight forward. However I understand that they do do their best to have at least one of the international assessors be from either your exact discipline or something directly related. But it is hard to judge how technical or specific you ought to be. For example, some of the assessors may not even have English as a first language, which poses its own risks!

fifa3000

Yeah you're right, it's so difficult to know!

andweneverdid

Actually a colleague of mine just emailed me to say that, according to UCD Research, they will be raising some of the word limits to 300. Obviously can't be sure if this is the case until the online form goes live, but would be great if they did. Even 100 extra words does make things a bit easier.

Cflmo

Here's hoping that's true. I guess we'll all just have to go with the excitement factor as opposed to focusing on detail, which is a bummer. It does affect everyone evenly, though, so can't complain too much.

nialljf

No sign of this guidelines document. It was promised nearly 2 weeks ago!

Edit: it's finally online
http://www.research.ie/sites/default/files/pg_2014__guide_for_applicants.pdf

nialljf

How are your applications coming along? Started working on mine again today after an extended Christmas break. Not too long now!

andweneverdid

Yes starting back up on mine today too. Glad to see the word limits have been increased to 300, bit more reasonable than 200 I think!

Just emailed my two prospective referees; getting down to business now!

nialljf

Any ideas on the financial justification section? Where would you put necessary books/articles in it?

Mahatma Geansai

Does anyone know if it is possible to change the postgraduate type you select at the beginning of the draft application? I initially selected the standard postgraduate application when I started my application, but I've since been in contact with a business, and I'm looking to apply for the enterprise partnership scheme.

I might just be blind or stupid, but it seems like the only way of doing so is to sign up again, or submit an incomplete application and start a new draft.

candle_wax

Does anyone know if the IRC funding has any terms and conditions about working on the side? IE do you have to sign anything/agree not to do any external paid work?

I have funding for three years (started in September) through my institution, and have had no problems re: work. I'm obliged to apply for the IRC funding too though.

Any ideas?

andweneverdid

Ya as far as I know you are not allowed to work while in receipt of the funding. I think I read that in the T&Cs. Not exactly sure how they would monitor this but best not to tempt faith!

candle_wax

andweneverdid wrote: »

Ya as far as I know you are not allowed to work while in receipt of the funding. I think I read that in the T&Cs. Not exactly sure how they would monitor this but best not to tempt faith!

Thanks, that what I feared! Hhhmmm. Will have another look and see what I can find.

fifa3000

candle_wax wrote: »

Thanks, that what I feared! Hhhmmm. Will have another look and see what I can find.

As far as I know it's usually only in first year that they prohibit employment - after that they usually allow it (as long as they approve it).

SNiB

Just wondering about the section 'Description of topic' - last year it had a limit of 1,000 words and this year, according to the indicative application form, it has been reduced to 200, which is a huge jump. This is on the FAQ page on the IRC website also, where someone enquired if it was a mistake. Has anyone got to that stage on the online application (I'm working on a Microsoft Word draft so far), and if so, could you clarify the word limit? Thanks.

fifa3000

SNiB wrote: »

Just wondering about the section 'Description of topic' - last year it had a limit of 1,000 words and this year, according to the indicative application form, it has been reduced to 200, which is a huge jump. This is on the FAQ page on the IRC website also, where someone enquired if it was a mistake. Has anyone got to that stage on the online application (I'm working on a Microsoft Word draft so far), and if so, could you clarify the word limit? Thanks.

On the online system they've been increased from 200 to 300, but yeah they have been reduced substantially from last year.

SNiB

fifa3000 wrote: »

On the online system they've been increased from 200 to 300, but yeah they have been reduced substantially from last year.

Thanks for this. Onwards with the struggle!

candle_wax

SNiB wrote: »

Just wondering about the section 'Description of topic' - last year it had a limit of 1,000 words and this year, according to the indicative application form, it has been reduced to 200, which is a huge jump. This is on the FAQ page on the IRC website also, where someone enquired if it was a mistake. Has anyone got to that stage on the online application (I'm working on a Microsoft Word draft so far), and if so, could you clarify the word limit? Thanks.

It's 300 words on the form.

Also if you've even just set up your initial application, you can just click through the tabs at the top and see each section/word counts. So I'm working off a Word doc at the moment, but can see each section on the website too.

lauras91

I'm working off the work doc at the mo, haven't settled on a project title yet, just have a 'working' for the time being. This needs to be entered to start the application though, just wondering if it can be changed after?

lauras91

lauras91 wrote: »

I'm working off the work doc at the mo, haven't settled on a project title yet, just have a 'working' for the time being. This needs to be entered to start the application though, just wondering if it can be changed after?

I haven't entered mine yet! So I assume it can be changed, or at the least you don't have to enter it until you're sure of it.

nialljf

Yeah, I have changed mine already.

candle_wax

nialljf wrote: »

Yeah, I have changed mine already.

Yeah I've changed mine too, so don't worry about it.


I'm wondering who exactly makes a valid referee (oh which we need two), as the guidelines are quite confusing about who exactly we should have.

(p9 of the guidelines)
"Two nominated referees who know you sufficiently well enough to provide you with a character reference"

(on the sample Word doc form)
You must associate two referees with your application, neither of whom may be your named Academic Supervisor (or Enterprise Mentor, where relevant).
A suitable referee is an individual who knows you sufficiently well to provide you with a reference, e.g. a principal investigator, a mentor from any time in your career or education or a leader or member of a research team where you have worked. Each referee will be required to provide an online reference as part of your application.

(on the online form)
"Referees must be a qualified researcher (from academia or enterprise)"


Based on the sample form and guidelines I was planning to have one reference from an academic professor, and one from my professional working career ("a mentor from any time in your career"). But if it has to be two "qualified researchers" then that makes things a bit more difficult, for me at least. Hhhmm.

There's a IRC rep meeting next week which I'll go to and ask, but just wondering if anyone else here had any thoughts.

OpenYourEyes

candle_wax wrote: »

There's a IRC rep meeting next week which I'll go to and ask, but just wondering if anyone else here had any thoughts.

Let us know if you find out please!
I was going to go with an academic and work/research reference too.

Censorsh!t

I'm filling mine out now, and I'm wondering about the sex/gender part.

My thesis will be dealing with gender in fictional characters, so I'm just wondering about this section. It seems very scientific in the application.

Ravelleman

Censorsh!t wrote: »

I'm filling mine out now, and I'm wondering about the sex/gender part.

My thesis will be dealing with gender in fictional characters, so I'm just wondering about this section. It seems very scientific in the application.

It's an absolute joke but these days these things have to be included. If it's any help to you, I wrote that section on the day I sent in my (successful) application and put down the first thing that came to my mind. Surely it should be easy enough for you as your work already involves gender.

SNiB

candle_wax wrote: »

Yeah I've changed mine too, so don't worry about it.


I'm wondering who exactly makes a valid referee (oh which we need two), as the guidelines are quite confusing about who exactly we should have.

(p9 of the guidelines)
"Two nominated referees who know you sufficiently well enough to provide you with a character reference"

(on the sample Word doc form)
You must associate two referees with your application, neither of whom may be your named Academic Supervisor (or Enterprise Mentor, where relevant).
A suitable referee is an individual who knows you sufficiently well to provide you with a reference, e.g. a principal investigator, a mentor from any time in your career or education or a leader or member of a research team where you have worked. Each referee will be required to provide an online reference as part of your application.

(on the online form)
"Referees must be a qualified researcher (from academia or enterprise)"


Based on the sample form and guidelines I was planning to have one reference from an academic professor, and one from my professional working career ("a mentor from any time in your career"). But if it has to be two "qualified researchers" then that makes things a bit more difficult, for me at least. Hhhmm.

There's a IRC rep meeting next week which I'll go to and ask, but just wondering if anyone else here had any thoughts.

I was wondering about this as well. I'm working as a research assistant in a healthcare setting, so my supervisor there isn't associated with any university/institution. She is a "qualified researcher" but I've read somewhere (perhaps on a thread from past years) that an academic referee is optimal, so I don't know if she will count as "academic".

Guillelligan

Hi. Maybe this has already been asked but has anyone received feedback for an unsuccessful post-doc application. I want to apply again this year but it's hard to know what to change when they haven't given out feedback. I've emailed them a few times and they keep saying 'next week' 'next week'. Very frustrating.

SNiB

Also - when you select 'Yes' where it asks if you have "already commenced the course of research for which you are applying" - it brings up a new section "Please outline the source and duration of your funding (start/finish dates), and outline the progress made to date and include completed tasks, chapters etc." - do you think they mean to actually attach the chapters etc. as word files? I hope not!