From The Research Impact Handbook, by Mark Reed, loc 1575:

Andrew Derrington, in The Research Funding Toolkit , tries to help by conceiving of research as a “grants factory”, in which researchers churn out proposals dispassionately on a production line, starting work on the next proposal as soon as the last one is submitted, and accepting the odds that if your work is any good, then eventually one will get funded. Whether or not you are able to detach yourself from your work to that extent (I’m not sure I can), I think that there is something to be said for just picking yourself up and carrying on, no matter how bad your failure.

The Sociological Review has launched the next round of its support scheme for unfunded PhDs and ECRs. Find out more and apply here:

We are pleased to announce our latest round of funding, supported by The Sociological Review Foundation.

Funds of up to £1000 per applicant are be available for unfunded PhD students and postdocs (within 3 years of completion) to facilitate their attendance and participation of conferences.

To apply, please first check that you meet the criteria for applying (below) and then access and fill in the form below by our deadline of 31st January 2016.

You will be informed by 28th February of the outcome of your application.

http://www.thesociologicalreview.com/early-career-researchers/conference-funding.html

The Board of The Sociological Review are pleased to announce that the journal is sponsoring a single-themed Research Seminar Series (which may consist of three or more research seminars) as well as three One Day Symposia events.  The Board hopes to make this funding available on an annual basis.

Guidelines for Applicants

The proposed Research Seminar Series and each of the three Symposia should have clear goals, bring together established and new researchers in any area of sociology and focus upon producing imaginative cutting-edge work of sociological and social significance.  We seek proposals that involve collaborations across institutions and disciplines and welcome those that connect sociology to wider communities and the arts.

An important aim of the series and symposia, is to produce papers that will result in innovative publications of interest to the readership of SR (the journal and/or the Monograph series) as well as an on-line Special Issue, the journal would have first refusal on all papers.  Papers would need to go through the usual reviewing procedures and there is no guarantee of publication.

As part of The SR’s mission to serve and enhance the future sociological community, seminars and symposia should be open to members of sociological teaching  groups in colleges and schools.  For example, a number of places could either be made available to local colleges/6th forms. or sessions could be video recorded and offered to these audiences. 

Format:

Either:

a)    a single-themed Research Seminar Series (eg three seminars each with four – six speakers presenting papers).

One grant of up to £6000 is available.

Or:

b)   a single Symposia event lasting one day.

Three separate grants of up to £2000 each are available. 

It is expected that funding will provide for room and equipment hire, consumables, hospitality, travel and accommodation expenses for speakers. It is expected that delegates will not be charged a fee for attending.

NB The funding from The Sociological Review could be match funded with other sources. For instance funding from elsewhere might facilitate and enable connections  and scholarly exchange with artists and sociologists  working with and for communities  and/or  to  support the presentation  and development of new /ongoing research projects. 

How to apply

Further details and an application form are available from The Sociological Review. Contact Mark Carrigan at mark@markcarrigan.net

Deadline for applications: 

2015-6   Open 1st November, 2015 – Close 20th December, 2015

NOTES

(i)        Organizers would consist of the nominated grant-holder (Principal Organizer) plus two additional named participants (co-applicants).  The principal organizer will liaise with a named colleague from The Sociological Review.  The Principal Organizer will organize, promote and manage all aspects of the programme (organizing seminars, dealing with expense forms, submitting claims to the office of The Sociological Review, etc).

(ii)       Topics may include any area within the field of sociology, or topics that engage with key social/sociological issues either through other disciplines or through inter-disciplinary work.

(iii)      Reasonable travel and subsistence expenses for speakers are permitted but not for delegates. Secretarial costs, consumables, hire of room and presentation facilities may also be included.

Fees will not be paid to speakers.

Delegates will not be paid expenses, but there will be no charge for attendance.

NB – Value for money will be one of the criteria used to evaluate proposals.

(iv)      The events will be promoted by the grant-holder/core members through their research networks and through their own departments and institutions. All communications with participants and publicity of events will acknowledge sponsorship by The Sociological Review (eg The University of X in association with The Sociological Review) and the seminars will be promoted as The Sociological Review Seminar Series with the Programme and Abstracts circulated in advance. The help of Wiley-Blackwell will be sought in matters of ‘branding’. Events should be advertised on the websites of participating institutions. The Programme would also be advertised by The Sociological Review and Wiley Blackwell.

(v) Applications will be assessed by a Committee drawn from the Board of The Sociological Review.  The criteria for assessment will include:

1. Sociological innovation.

2. Relevance to The Sociological Review journal

3. Relevance as appropriate topics for Monographs

4. General contribution to sociological analysis.

From The New Prophets of Capital by Nicole Aschoff, loc 730-744:

At the same time, society’s greatest inventions and innovations of the past two hundred years— rockets to the moon, penicillin, computers, the internet— were not bestowed upon us by lone entrepreneurs and firms operating in free markets under conditions of healthy competition. They were the work of institutions: CERN and the Department of Defense created the internet, while Bell Labs— a subdivision of AT&T, freed from market competition by federally granted monopoly rights— generated transistors, radar, information theory, “quality control,” and dozens of other innovations central to our epoch. 25 Nearly every advance in science, technology, and mathematics emerged from people working together at universities supported by government funding. Creativity and innovation come from many places. Companies produce influential innovations, but so do other institutions that operate outside the confines of the profit motive, competitive markets, and the bottom line.

Well this is profoundly worrying. Even if it doesn’t come to fruition, it risks moving the Overton window in a direction that imperils the social sciences as a whole. What interests me though is the existing grant economy as tragedy of the commons this will further intensify. If the overall supply of funding shrinks, it’s rational for institutions to increase the pressure on departments and individuals to bring in grants (i.e. the process is becoming more competitive so our employees need to work harder) and it’s rational for those departments and individuals to apply for more grants in order to increase their chances of success and placate their ever more demanding employers. What does this mean for the social sciences as a whole? Ever greater tracts of time being spent making grant applications with ever decreasing prospects of success.

The 189-page “America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015’’ unveiled by the House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology Wednesday sets specific budgets for the various research-funding directorates in the National Science Foundation. Traditionally, the foundation has set its own spending priorities for those directorates, but failed efforts last year by Republican legislators both set to establish Congressional control of those sub-budgets and set the budget for the Director of social Behavioral and Economic Science at more than $100 million less than usual.

This version of COMPETES renews that approach, calling for “$150,000,000 for the Social, Behavioral, and Economics Directorate, of which $50,000,000 shall be for the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics” in both fiscal years 2016 and 2017. Given that NSF allocated $272 million to the directorate in the current fiscal year (with NCES funding in that amount), this represents a 45 percent reduction. The statistics center had a budget of roughly $50 million in the current fiscal year, and so the mandate means the directorate couldn’t share the pain evenly from the reduction.

Opposition to the current bill, such as from the Consortium of Social Science Associations (a Social Science Space partner), has focused on the perceived political management of expert peer-review and the message that social science isn’t worthy of federal funding. “SBE, the smallest of NSF’s directorates, accounts for less than 5 percent of the entire NSF budget,” COSSA argues in a statement. “However, the SBE directorate funds approximately 55 percent of all university-based basic social and behavioral science research in the United States. Its impact is profound.”

The bill is expected to be “marked up” — which can dramatically alter the composition of legislation — on April 22. Because both houses of Congress are controlled by Republicans, this bill likely will set the agenda for debates on science spending, even if the Democratic minority introduces its own version. Ultimately, the key fight will be over appropriations for the agency in the two-part federal budgeting dance — asking for the money (authorization) and actually getting the money (appropriations).

http://www.socialsciencespace.com/2015/04/nsfs-social-science-funding-cut-by-two-fifths-in-draft-bill/