Breaking the Ice with International Research Mobility
Mobility and collaboration are an essential part of today’s research landscape. International mobility – researchers travelling to other countries as part of their research – continues to increase our global knowledge.
The European green deal so far
Research mobility in action
In a prime example of international research mobility in action, 15 partners from 13 countries, including two North American partners from USA and Canada, joined forces to improve the capacities for marine-based research in the ice-covered Arctic Ocean.
Running from January 2018 until December 2021, the Arctic Research Icebreaker Consortium (ARICE) project aims to better coordinate the existing polar research fleet, offer scientists access to six research icebreakers and collaborate closely with the maritime industry. ‘Research icebreakers are a crucial infrastructure and tool for conducting scientific investigations in the ice-covered areas of the Arctic Ocean – those regions that urgently need to be explored before they disappear,’ said Dr Veronica Willmott, Project Manager of ARICE, International Cooperation Unit at the Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research (AWI), in Germany.
‘The lack of availability of icebreakers in Europe and beyond and a weakly coordinated polar research fleet impedes Europe’s capacity to investigate this region. There is thus an urgent need for providing polar scientists with better research icebreaker capacities for the Arctic.’
Given the strategic importance of ARICE, the European Commission (EC) funded the project through the Horizon 2020 Work Programme. Over a project lifespan of four years, the EC committed €6 million of investment in the consortium, of which 50% was allocated to giving researchers access to the research icebreakers.
‘Arctic marine research is technologically challenging and cost intensive, so it is often beyond the capacities of one single nation,’ Willmott told ResearchConnect ‘Science in the ice-covered parts of the Arctic Ocean can thus only be carried out in close scientific and operational international cooperation.’
According to Willmott, retreating sea ice and warming waters create opportunities and challenges that have given rise to an unprecedented political and economic interest in the Arctic Ocean over the past decade, necessitating a project of this nature even more.
‘The recent changes and the resulting increased economic activity in the region have triggered a societal demand for accurate sea-ice and weather predictions, information on the status of the Arctic Ocean and its marine life, and complex predictions of future scenarios,’ Willmott explained. ‘Even if European Arctic research has contributed critical knowledge to identifying the processes behind these rapid changes, datasets from the Arctic Ocean are still insufficient to fully understand and more effectively predict the effects of climate change.’
The largest gaps in research knowledge and understanding of the Arctic system processes are outside the summer season, when the Arctic Ocean is logistically and technologically extremely difficult to reach.
To address these knowledge gaps and to develop policy recommendations for a sustainable usage of the Arctic Ocean and its resources, it is imperative that the international Arctic science community has access to world-class research icebreakers to study the Arctic Ocean.
Keeping excellent research afloat
The project aimed to make an impact on various levels by making the Arctic Ocean more accessible to excellent research through international research mobility.
‘The project will significantly increase the urgently needed ship-time for Arctic research through an improved coordination of Polar Research Vessel (PRV) operations, a merging of scientific priorities and a better networking/coordination of heavy research icebreakers with ice-strengthened vessels,’ said Willmott. ‘This will avoid duplication, minimise fragmentation and foster international cooperation, ensuring a coherent and more cost-effective use of these infrastructures.’
Willmott added that by providing research opportunities outside the summer season, ARICE would also deliver key data for understanding climate change, fostering Europe’s intellectual capacity to investigate the urgent scientific questions that are critical for understanding the Earth’s system.
‘ARICE will also help stimulate the involvement of industry representatives in appropriate Arctic research, facilitating cross-disciplinary cooperation and development of new technologies,’ Willmott explained.
A long-term aim of ARICE is to implement a sustained International Arctic Research Icebreaker Consortium, which jointly manages and funds ship-time in the Arctic. This would ensure cost-effective use of the existing research icebreakers and streamline polar research programmes across national borders to jointly address the global challenges imposed by Arctic change.
Things to consider when setting up and international research project
Navigating the international mobility funding landscape
Arctic change is one of many global challenges currently being tackled by international researchers. Today’s international funding landscape is increasingly driven by topics that are setting the policy agenda.
Speaking to ResearchConnect, Dr Chris Coey, author of the article, International researcher mobility and knowledge transfer in the social sciences and humanities (2017), said, ‘International funding, through the European Commission for example, tends, with exceptions, to be very directed towards specific themes and problems identified as priorities by policy makers. So rather than researchers pursuing their research in that “pure” sense, they are required to be more flexible and agile.’
Coey stated that when setting up an international research mobility project, the starting point should be the networking and relationship building between researchers.
‘Funders like to see evidence of existing collaboration in many cases,’ he told ResearchConnect.
‘Networks are established across a career and can be enduring, if dormant, for many years. Beyond this, there is the notion of “weak ties”, of extended networks and potential collaborators who may be known only vaguely or by proxy. Trust and networks are really important.’
Coey added that going from a relationship to a project requires a lot of work and patience on the part of the collaborators.
‘It can be really difficult working across languages and cultures, not to mention disciplinary, professional and personal agendas,’ said Coey. ‘Some institutions will provide funding to allow an element of travel to gather potential collaborators together. This is probably a resource-heavy approach but I suspect it is well worth it.’
Post-Brexit, Coey points to UK sources providing a possible alternative to EU funding for international activity, whether it is for outgoing or incoming fellowships or for the inclusion of international partners.
‘In the UK, this is not just the research councils but also the larger and more prestigious charitable sources such as Wellcome Trust and the British Academy,’ Coey said. ‘The research councils themselves do make it easy to incorporate an international dimension to their funding.’
Coey also noted that recent channelling of the UK’s international aid budget into research (Global Challenges Research Fund and Newton Fund) has provided further opportunities, with compliance with Official Development Assistance (ODA) requirements key.
Outside the UK, the Worldwide Universities Network is a notable international funder in this space, with national funders such as the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD), Nuffic in The Netherlands, the Swedish Institute and Campus France supporting researcher mobility to and from these countries.
Sailing into successful waters
One thing that remains clear is the fact that international research mobility provides projects with numerous benefits and a greater chance of success.
‘The advantages of international mobility are, for researchers, access to prestige networks, resources and infrastructure not available at home,’ said Coey. ‘Reputations are burnished, arguably in part through mobility itself, collaborations are established or reinforced, and publications and other outputs are achieved. Metrics show that these international collaborations are higher profile and higher quality.’
Coey pointed out that policy makers see the link between international mobility and the competitiveness of a country’s (or region/city) research base, and the way this feeds into innovation and development.
‘I would say that there’s also a kind of halo effect of international mobility for hosts and researchers,’ stated Coey. ‘It is understood, explicitly in some metrics and rankings, to correlate with prestige and excellence. If a researcher is internationally mobile or an institution a host, it speaks to a kind of meritocracy in global science, and this leads to further internationalisation via mobility or networks.’
International research mobility will continue to shape the way forward and play a vital role in the world of research, in the Arctic and beyond.
All on board a UK perspective
Overseas researchers and PhD students help refresh the UK’s research base, facilitating the exchange of ideas and expertise.
It is no coincidence that our universities, which attract a high proportion of international academics, are the driving force behind UK’s world-leading research performance. These academics are at the forefront of research in their own fields, as shown by their success in winning highly competitive research funding.
- Overall, around 45% of European Research Council (ERC) grantees at UK institutions during FP7
(2007-13) were of non UK nationality - More than 50% of the prestigious ERC Consolidator Grants awarded to UK universities, worth upto£2 million each, were won by EAA academics working in the UK
- Selection rates for the Research Excellence Framework 2014 were highest for EU staff at UK universities, a clear indication of the high-quality research they produce and their value to UK universities
Keep your funding proposal watertight – five top tips to bear in mind when writing it
- Read all the guidance (every time – it may change from one call to another): Whether you are instructed to use a specific font, stick to a particular page limit or include/not include a CV, make sure you follow the directions given. At best, it can lead to a delay in your proposal being sent for peer review if it has to be returned to you first. At worst, your proposal might be rejected.
- Understand the assessment criteria/process: Review any assessment criteria and the reviewer’s form(s) to help you understand what your proposal will be evaluated against. Likewise, familiarise yourself with the assessment process so you can take the reader into account. Be understandable and clear to all audiences.
- Ask for help: Proposals do not have to be created in isolation and there are a number of places you can turn to for assistance, including your university’s research office. Colleagues can provide their opinion based on their experience as reviewers or as successful applicants. If you are uncertain about whether your project will be within the scope of a call or funding scheme, always ask the funding body before writing the proposal to avoid disappointment.
- Have someone read your document: Following on from this, make sure that at least two people have read through your proposal before submission. Proofreading is always useful, but just as important is having a colleague or two provide a critical assessment. Does the proposal make sense to both sets of people? Is the methodology clear – will a reviewer or panel be able to understand what it is you are going to do and how? Are the Pathways to Impact appropriate? How would your colleague review it? Use this opportunity to find any weaknesses in your proposal and strengthen it before submission.
- Write a good PI response: This final part of the application process is incredibly important: it is your opportunity to answer reviewer questions and rebut any points they have raised. When doing this, make sure your comments are backed up by facts. There are also a number of things to avoid: do not criticise the reviewer or ignore certain questions or criticisms; do not use positive comments from one reviewer to counter negative comments from another; do not repeat all the positive feedback; do not repeat what is in your proposal; and do not try to guess who the reviewer is. As above, have someone read the PI response before you submit it. Does it strike the right tone? PI responses that could be described as angry, arrogant or dismissive should be avoided at all costs! Likewise, ‘Trust me, I know what I am doing’ or ‘Trust me, I’ve been doing this for xx-number of years’ will not be considered an appropriate response by the panel.