Adam Golberg

I'm delighted that my #Leverhulme research project exploring the long-term impacts of student debt is live!

If you started an undergraduate degree between 2012-2015 and want to share your experiences, contact farhana.ghaffar@nottingham.ac.uk.

Please share & repost!

@uniofnottingham.bsky.social

I'm glad that bit worked!

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

My latest article for @resprofnews.bsky.social

Elevating language and layout on grant bids. (£, probably)

A few thoughts about the language and layout of research grant applications.

Our Granddad is 100 and fought in D-day and he thinks Farage is the right man to sort Britain out. He says he reminds him of one of the commanders he fought alongside with distinction. In the next few weeks he's going to auction off his medals and donate all the money to Reform. Anyone know how much an Iron Cross is worth?

Absolute perfection. #Reform

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?

As some who spent seven intensive years in speech therapy, I will forever be grateful to my therapist for giving me the confidence to do it all anyway. Still in moments of stress you will hear it in my voice. Please take a moment to check out this blog.

End The Phone Call Nightmares

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.

Today is International Stammering Awareness Day #ISAD2025 so I'm resharing my repost of my blogpost about stammering and the academy - what the rest of you need to know.

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)

Interesting post. Wellcome Leap calls are consistently run at breakneck speed which rules out those who can't drop everything else to apply. They stand or fall on the programme director's vision and then implementation. High risk high reward indeed. (1)

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.

I think there's a version of me that's a bit more confident, a bit more assertive, a bit more extroverted, a bit more charming, slightly higher energy. It's a kind of stage persona that's still me. It's a dialling up within authentic parameters, if that makes sense.

Absolutely - normalising failure is super important. And I'd argue that while following the advice you shared isn't sufficient for success, it is necessary. I reckon the success rate for competitive applications is about double the standard for most schemes

2: Managing your email storage

"Tip: Only delete emails you no longer need to keep your mailbox tidy."

(Context: changes to email/mailbox storage and archive policy)

(to be fair, the context is a reduction of availability of stores of portable furniture etc for events)

1: Events:

"we recommend that when booking locations and planning for events that careful consideration is given to the location chosen to ensure the most appropriate space is reserved for the requirement – ideally a space that closely represents what is needed. "