Dr Mathew Creighton is an Associate Professor at UCD School of Sociology. He is PI for the Horizon Europe project EqualStrength, which is housed in the UCD Geary Institute for Public Policy. He is Co-PI of the European Social Survey Ireland and recently served as Editor-in-Chief of the Irish Journal of Sociology.
EqualStrength is a consortium of 10 European institutions, investigating the cumulative and structural forms of discrimination, outgroup prejudice and hate crimes against ethnic, racial and religious minorities from a cross-setting and intersectional perspective.
Developing the Project
How did the EqualStrength project come about?
EqualStrength came from a real concern with the barriers that confront many Europeans in acquiring quality housing, childcare and employment. The academic literature is often speculative and we wanted to develop an approach that leveraged the ability of experimental design to isolate the mechanisms that drive discriminatory outcomes. Starting with a colleague at Oxford, Mariña Fernández-Reino, a consortium emerged that resulted in a theoretically and methodologically driven proposal. Underpinning this academic focus was a commitment from the research community at UCD, this created a long-term pathway toward viability as a lead on a project of this scale.
Justin Synnott, the Research Partner for Empowering Humanity in the UCD Research Office, pushed me since 2016 to develop a step-by-step approach. He has been a steady figure in UCD’s social science research community. As a result, I started with IRC postgraduate support funding and moved toward a mid-size project as a coordinator of the IRC-funded European Social Survey in Ireland, which turned out to be a long-term project that is ongoing. As UCD School of Sociology’s Research Director, I observed first-hand that resources in the College were improving. I mention this to highlight that a clear understanding of the somewhat byzantine supports available at UCD can take time. It was only after finding my footing that I could start to take myself seriously enough to propose a project of this scale.
How did you find out about the call topic?
I try not to match my research interests to funding options, but vice versa. I firmly believe that the reason this proposal was successful and scored so well – it came in first overall – was the fact that we were very focused on the research itself. We were fortunate that Horizon Europe funded research in our area of interest at this level. I think Mariña Fernández-Reino, who developed some of the core ideas in the proposal, was the first to identify the specific call we pursued.
Why did you look to European funding?
I strongly believe that it is not helpful to focus on the specific sources of funding and, in some cases, it can be counterproductive in terms of generating high-quality research. However, there is a need to collaborate with other institutions that often necessitates funding facilitated by the European Commission. What European funding implies – except perhaps some single-PI options like the ERC – is a strong collaborative and international approach. A project that wants to understand the multiple forms of discrimination requires this. So, it was more of a fortuitous match than a target.
Tell me about your experience developing and writing the proposal.
In a word, painful. A project of this scale requires soft skills that for some, myself included, do not come naturally. My key partner in UCD was the UCD Geary Institute for Public Policy. At an early stage in the development of the proposal, I wrote to the current Director, Michelle Norris, who facilitated my partnership with the Institute’s now-Manager, Emma Barron. This was a critical component of the proposal development for a researcher like me. As a PI on the European Social Survey, which has been housed at Geary since about 2018, I was familiar with the general supports, but I had never developed a proposal in the Institute and I could not recommend it more.
I do well with direct collaboration and I was stymied by institutional emails and generic templates to develop things like budgets at first. Emma worked with me to navigate the myriad deadlines that a Horizon Europe proposal requires. She saw us through the intense period of negotiation that goes with setting the budget and defining each consortium partner’s role. Add Brexit to the mix, which had a measurably negative impact on UK partners’ participation and required applying new protocols to the agreements. It could have been a recipe for failure. Instead, the experience was rewarding, often fun and demonstrably successful. The Geary Institute is a key resource for a proposal like EqualStrength.
What EU networks formed the building blocks for this consortium, how did you develop these networks?
I worked in a number of institutions in other countries before UCD and my first appointment was as an Assistant Professor at Universitat Pompeu Fabra in Barcelona. It was there that I developed a working relationship with Mariña Fernández-Reino, this was the keystone for the proposal.
How did you develop the consortium for the project?
The consortium was developed based on expertise. That meant that some – but not all – had worked together on other projects. The end result is a strong and geographically varied consortium that includes the University of Oxford, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Universiteit Utrecht, University of Lausanne, DeZIM, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Budapest Intézet, CSIC (Spain) and Univerzita Karlova. UCD provides the overall coordination, but each member is viewed as an equal partner and valued as such. To the extent possible, we avoid embracing hierarchy in systems we use to manage the project. Emma Barron remains the Project Manager and we have two postdocs – one of which is the indefatigable Daniel Capistrano and the other will be recruited in a year.
Resources and Support
What role did national funding play in the success of the proposal?
As I mentioned, Justin Synnott in the UCD Research Office advised me to develop a track record of experience in managing projects via the IRC, this resulted in a number of small and mid-size grants. I did not use any direct support for the proposal development, but the IRC offered stepping stones that instilled confidence and experience. I sincerely do not believe that I would have been a credible applicant 3 or 4 years ago.
What supports did you receive from the UCD EU Research Office?
The bulk of the heavy lifting was done by Emma Barron in the Geary Institute. I met once with the UCD EU Research Office to go over the development of a budget, which involved familiarising me with the standardised template. Subsequently, the development of the budget, facilitation of approval, navigation of the European Commission’s online portal, collaborative writing and the steps required to submit were navigated via my partnership with the Geary Institute. Post-award support from UCD Research has involved the development of the DESCA, which is the contract between participant institutions, but Emma has remained involved in much of the communication to solicit input from each partner institution’s legal department.
Advice for Researchers
Is there anything that you would / wouldn't do again?
I would definitely be more focused on some aspects of the budget. This is the key detail to hammer out at the proposal phase and it is closely linked to a large number of deliverables. I now understand how to balance and allocate these details better. Hindsight is 20/20. Also, never underestimate the mess that is Brexit. In our case, the continued support for Oxford’s participation was clear due to the initiation of the proposal, but I would hesitate to include a UK partner in the future unless some coherent and stable agreement is reached for research funding.
I would also try to enjoy the process of writing the proposal a bit more. I would set out to be better about keeping my eye on the academic part of the writing, which was a bit lost under the cascade of budgetary and administrative decisions. Now that this is clearer to me, I think I could enjoy the intellectual experience of developing a unique research design in a more pure way.
What advice would you give to others on how to become networked in the EU?
Focus on the academic part of the proposal, the network will follow. This is better advice if you intend to lead the proposal as you are in the position of extending invitations. I think the best way to get an invitation is to publish work that is good, thoughtful and relevant. At no point in the process did we peruse tweets or rely on search engine optimisation. We simply looked for people who were driving the peer-reviewed literature and extended an invitation to participate. A network snowballs quickly and we were more likely to hesitate to bring in new partners than struggle to find them.
What advice would you give to others interested in H2020/HE collaborative bids?
Read, publish and ask sincere questions. I knew nothing but with support from key members of the UCD community, a notably successful proposal emerged. However, I think if I focused just on the funding aspect of it, there would be little satisfaction in the process. Although this bid was successful, most aren’t, but the intellectual growth that can accompany the development of a proposal, even one that is unsuccessful, can be a reward in itself.
This is a very topical subject area, where to next?
We have an arduous period of data collection ahead over the next 24 months, followed by an ambitious publication phase. I think the answer to this question will emerge in a few years. I always try to keep a few projects going on the side. It is likely that one of these will emerge as the motive for something larger down the road. For now, the experience of EqualStrength will be all-consuming… in a good way.