While scientific excellence remains the sole criterion of evaluation in ERC, evaluators are requested to assess specific elements in the proposal and how they contribute to its so-called excellence. When evaluating the research project, the scientific approach is one of those elements to be assessed. The scientific approach is evaluated in both stages of evaluation and thus should be reflected in both the extended synopsis in Part B1 as well as the full proposal in B2. The scientific approach is a comprehensive concept that encompasses many aspects of the proposal, but importantly, it includes the chosen methodology, which is the subject of this article.
The discussion about the methodology is a central part of any ERC application. There is no correct length for the methodology discussion, yet it typically takes up half of it and more (in both the extended synopsis and B2), depending on the nature of the project and the scientific domain. The methodology discussion is essential in order to present the project’s feasibility from a scientific perspective and the PI’s ability to lead it. In many cases, it would also reflect the risk of the project and its novelty. Crucial to ERC, and unlike many other European grants, there is no single formula for a good methodology discussion. This is true in almost every aspect of the methodology and workplan: methods to be used, the number of tasks and subtasks to be taken, their duration, the size and structure of the team, and more. The discussion should be tailored to the project’s needs as the PI best understands them.
When approaching the methodology discussion in your ERC proposal, a good starting point is getting to know the evaluation questions that refer to the scientific approach and methodology specifically:
- To what extent is the outlined scientific approach feasible bearing in mind the ground-breaking nature and ambition of the proposed research (based on the Extended Synopsis)?
- To what extent are the proposed research methodology and working arrangements appropriate to achieve the goals of the project (based on the research proposal)?
- To what extent are the proposed timescales, resources, and PI’s commitment adequate and properly justified (based on the research proposal)?
The differences between the extended synopsis (B1) and full proposal (B2)
One should note that the first evaluation question refers to the extended synopsis, asking about the scientific approach and its feasibility, while the other two refer to the full research proposal (B2) and go into more specific aspects of the methodology. We can deduce from this that evaluators will evaluate slightly different aspects of the proposal in each document. In other words, while the discussion about the methodology in both parts of the application should tell the same story, they are not identical.
Methodology in the extended synopsis
In the extended synopsis, the discussion should remain conceptual, outlining the overall approach and its feasibility. The discussion should be done in the context of the ground-breaking nature and ambition of the proposed research. When discussing the scientific approach, one must keep in mind the balance between the conceptual risk which stems from the level of ambition and groundbreaking nature of the project, and operational feasibility of the chosen approach which should be evident from the extended synopsis.
While the division of the project into its main tasks should be presented, there is no need to go down to the fine details of the experiments to be done, the simulations to be conducted, etc. This is in line with the 5-page limit of the extended synopsis. Additionally, the time management and the equipment available to the PI are not evaluated in this stage. Accordingly, such information may be excluded from the synopsis. Still, there are some cases where it might be a good idea to present such information. For example, if the PI has a measurement device of exceptional resolution, mentioning such an instrument would help demonstrate the feasibility of the project. A similar case, that might be even more important, is when the PI has developed such an instrument. In that case, the developed instrument is much more than a technical aspect of the methodology, it is rather a core part of the project’s concept. Furthermore, mentioning it would serve to demonstrate the PI’s unique position, in terms of skills and knowledge, to lead such a project (and thus, also support the project’s feasibility). Of course, such unique equipment available to the PI should be discussed in the full research proposal in B2 as well.
Methodology in the full proposal (B2)
As mentioned above, the methodology discussion in this part should be more specific about the scientific approach and the execution of the project. This includes aspects such as specific experiments to be done, materials to be used, fine details of the models to be used in simulations, key questions to be directed at participants, as well as working arrangements, timeline, resources etc. Providing a detailed description of the methodology serves three purposes: First, it allows reviewers to understand the project well and does not leave room for assumptions or misinterpretation. Second, it showcases the PI’s expertise in the field, how knowledgeable they are about state-of-the-art methods and their ability to anticipate challenges and plan accordingly; Third, it alleviates concerns regarding operational feasibility and shows that the PI has meticulously planned a research project which will not fail on operational grounds.
To achieve these purposes effectively, make sure to follow the guidelines below:
- Divide the work into tasks and subtasks. True to the nature of ERC, the PI is at liberty of deciding how many tasks there should be, what their content would be, and how they should be labelled (tasks, work packages, objectives, etc.). The division into specific tasks should serve as a tool to break-down the project into manageable problems, each is clearly defined and, when possible, further divided into more specific tasks such as experiments, analyses etc. Keeping the discussion organised would help the evaluator follow your logic while designing the project and assess the validity of each task as well as the feasibility of the project as a whole.
- The overall picture of the project should be clear. To complement the above, the overall logic of the project should be clear. For this, discussing the information flow between tasks is important (e.g., how the results from the experiments in one task will be used to update a model in a different one). In addition, providing a schematic overview, or a flowchart (i.e., Pert chart) for the project can be helpful.
- Don’t hesitate to show the risks in the project. While this is not explicitly mentioned in the evaluation questions related to the methodology, the ambitious and groundbreaking nature of the project should be apparent in the methodology discussion. We recommend doing this in the most direct way: When a task is particularly challenging or novel – explicitly state it. This statement should be informative, it should explain why the task is challenging and why the scientific approach is appropriate for addressing it, as well as how, if successful, it would provide groundbreaking results that will influence the scientific community.
- Be clear about the needed resources. Discuss the needed personnel, equipment and time management. The point of view of this discussion though, is not the requested budget, but rather the needs of the project and how the existing and requested resources support it. For each major task, an estimation of the time needed and personnel to be assigned to it will help the reviewers evaluate your plan. Resources such as equipment or infrastructure should be discussed as well. The discussion about a specific instrument should describe the needed features (or limitations) in the context of the relevant task. There is no need to add a dedicated resources discussion to the research proposal (or the Extended Synopsis). This discussion is done in a dedicated part of the online form in the submission system.
- Highlight the PI’s unique position to lead the project. When possible and relevant, mention your past work that will contribute to the project. This may include articles, unpublished preliminary results, patents, and other activity. It is important to note that the objective of such a discussion is not to highlight the PI’s overall academic track record (which is detailed in B1), but rather their unique set of skills that is crucial to the project. While some (and maybe even most) of this information may be presented in the discussion about the state-of-the-art in section a (State-of-the-art and objectives), some of this information can be mentioned in the context of the suggested methodology to support the PI’s expertise. When relevant, please consider the discussion on collaborators that might be needed for the project. As we discuss in length in our dedicated article, the issue of collaborators in ERC is subtle. In short: It is natural that the PI would not be able to execute every task of the project, and that some tasks should be done by a collaborator. However, when collaborators are needed for a task that is at the core of the project, this can be an issue. When writing the methodology of the project, if a task calls for a collaborator, we recommend for the discussion about them to be short, factual, and focus on the specific task. We recommend not to discuss the collaborator’s skills and success beyond the specific task that is mentioned.
To illustrate the points above, consider, for example, a project that is planning to develop a theory based on interviews with a certain population. The methodology discussion should show the ability to reach the needed number of interviewees and conduct the interviews in a reasonable time. The discussion should also show how the interview will be managed, and how the information from these interviews will be used in other parts of the project. If the target population is difficult to recruit, then the discussion about how candidates will be approached should be added. In line with that, the PI’s ability to lead the project should be apparent through the methodology discussion. Past relevant works of the PI’s (e.g. conducting interviews with unique populations, developing groundbreaking theories) are a good way to demonstrate the PI’s ability to lead the project. Another good way is the presentation of preliminary data. In this example, a collaborator might be needed for highly specific statistical analysis. The collaborator and their unique complementary contribution would be described in the relevant task.
Maintaining an open-end and allowing scientific flexibility
As we discuss here, the work plan in ERC should accommodate the nature of frontier research. That is, ERC funds projects that are by nature hard to accurately anticipate. In line with this, there is no expectation to commit to a strict timeline and specific tangible outcomes at given timepoints throughout the project. The resolution of discussing the workplan should consider the scientific flexibility and agility needed for such a project.
Aspects such as deliverables and milestones are not mentioned in the evaluation questions. Indeed, the timescales of the project are evaluated, however, this does not necessitate the indication of milestones but rather a discussion (and typically also a Gantt chart) about the estimated time and personnel division between tasks at a relatively high level. Committing to tangible results and outcomes such as deliverables may either indicate to the reviewers that the described project is too predictable and perhaps not ambitious enough, or may seem non-realistic if indeed the project is of high risk and ambitious.
Conclusion
The methodology and scientific approach are at the core of any ERC project. Illustrating them in a convincing and clear manner is no easy task. In this article, we have discussed some essential tools and take-home messages, hopefully assisting you in formulating this part of your ERC proposal.
If you have any questions or would like us to assist you with your ERC application, do not hesitate to contact us.