Dear SLICE friends

I am sorry to have to inform you that our invited Full Proposal in response to the HERA Joint Research Program (JRP) Call 'Cultural Encounters' (CE) ended as a loser at the end of the long road.

We came very close. As you may remember, we were among the 89 Outline Proposals (out of 593 received) that in the first selection stage were invited to submit a Full Proposal. In the second selection stage, our proposal was among the 31 Full Proposals (out of 88 received) which were recommended for funding by the HERA JRP Review Panel. But it could not be funded by the HERA JRP CE Board due to the limited budget of the Call.

I think the Review Panel’s evaluation has messages for us that will be of importance to our thinking about how we best can take care of our common ambitions and aims in the future. I point these out in the following (and reproduce the evaluation in its entirety at the end):

1) Firstly, and most importantly, what we are doing “is innovative and ambitious, and promises to take the discussion of standardization in languages into new territory”.

– Let’s take this assessment as an encouragement to see the HERA failure as a temporary knockout.

2) Secondly, despite our efforts to argue for the scale of SLICE as a strength and resource, it is clear that the total size of it – a broad network (15+ communities) with common research interests organized into 2 strands (‘experimental’ and ‘media’) – is perceived and assessed as a problem.

– As we begin recovering from the knockout, I think we need to consider whether the scale of our endeavour will always be a problem if conceived of as one project.

(It would be good to hear opinions about this; you may either send messages to me personally, or for distribution through SLICE News, or please feel free to use the SLICE mailing list to share your views).

3) Thirdly, the documented amount of interest that our proposal gave rise to among non-academic language professionals was a true asset. The “range and quality” of the non-academic partners who provided us with letters of commitment was seen as a “particularly strong” aspect of the proposal.

– Thus, while stressing that the referees were “unanimously impressed” by the potential impact of our research, as testified by the many letters of commitment, I want to express here, on behalf of the whole SLICE network, deep gratitude for the interest and support we received.

– Also, as the proposal’s PL, I’d like to thank all SLICE members who were active in contacting external partners. I suggest that you (if you feel this is appropriate) forward this issue of SLICE News to your partners to tell them that the HERA reviewers were strongly appreciative of the interest and support they offered.

Best wishes

Tore

------------------------------

The Review Panel’s discussions of our proposal – which were based on the proposal itself and the related documents, i.e. the assessments given by the referees and our response to these, are summarized in a ‘consensus statement’ which contains evaluations according to three selection criteria in terms of a mark and a short text:

As to Research excellence, we got the top mark of 5 (=excellent) and the following evaluation in prose:

“The proposal is innovative and ambitious and promises to take the discussion of standardization in languages into new territory. It is based on earlier research in the field and could move this particular field forward. The research methodology is thorough and wide-ranging. Though it is unclear what the role of unfunded network participants will be in data collection.”

As to Quality and efficiency of the implementation and management we got the mark 4 (=good) and the following evaluation in prose:

“The management is coherent and well organized, though complex. The PIs are of the highest calibre. The PL and PIs are very qualified within their field. Given the salience of mediatisation and globalization, it is not certain that there is enough research expertise in these aspects. The consortium is part of a large existing network. The structure and work plan are not wholly clear. The allocation of resources is well justified.”

As to Potential impact we got the mark 5 (=excellent) and the following evaluation in prose:

“Referees were unanimously impressed by these aspects. The proposal is highly relevant to the Call for Proposals and its outcomes are likely to be of considerable value to non-academic language professionals, who are well represented among the participants. The theme and the findings would be of relevance to a broader audience and letters of commitment have been collected from a range of interested partners.”

A final summary of the Main strengths and/or weaknesses of the proposal say:

“The proposal is particularly strong in the expected impact it would have, and in the range and quality of research partners and non-academic partners involved. Perhaps, the precise relationships to this wider community could be better explained and the resulting complexities need further reflection. The Review Panel also recognize the quality and experience of the PIs.”