Research Week 2014: SSHRC Part Two: Interpreting Results, Adjudication Committee Advice, and Models for Success
1 like531 views
This document provides guidance on evaluation criteria for grant applications in the social sciences and humanities, focusing on originality, methodology, and training quality. It emphasizes the importance of clear objectives, detailed budgeting, and meaningful student involvement in research activities. Additionally, tips are provided for addressing committee feedback and ensuring proposals meet criteria to increase chances of funding success.
Research Week 2014: SSHRC Part Two: Interpreting Results, Adjudication Committee Advice, and Models for Success
- 1. SSHRC: Interpreting Results and Models for Success
- 2. Criteria Weighting and the Scorecard Partnership Development Grants Partnership Grants Insight Development Grants Insight Grants Challenge 50% 40% 50% 40% Feasibility 20% 30% 20% 20% Capability 30% 30% 30% 40%
- 3. IDG: Challenge criteria (50%) Sub-criteria (No specific weighting assigned to each sub‐criterion) N/A Modest Good Very Good Excellent Originality, significance and expected contribution to knowledge Appropriateness of the theoretical approach or framework Appropriateness of the methods/approach Quality of training and mentoring to be provided to students, emerging scholars and other highly qualified personnel, and opportunities for them to contribute Potential influence and impact within and/or beyond the social sciences and humanities research community Briefly explain the rationale for your response
- 4. Scoring “Challenge” Excellent (5‐6) Highly original, at the forefront of the field. Theoretical/conceptual approach or framework is focused, fully explained, well developed. Literature review is reasonably complete, up‐to‐date, and linked to the proposed research. Methodology is well described and will lead to meaningful results. Training and likelihood of influence/impact within/beyond research community are excellent Very good (4‐4.9) Original, meets quality standards, will contribute to the development of the field. One or more of the following elements should have been better developed: literature review, theoretical/conceptual framework, methodology. Training and likelihood of influence/impact are very good. Good (3‐3.9) A good research proposal, but lacks at least one compelling element. Committee has concerns regarding one or more of: originality/novelty, literature review, theoretical/conceptual framework, methodology. Training, likelihood of influence/impact are good. Not recommended for funding: Below 3 Low probability of significant contribution to the field. Serious shortcomings in one or more of: originality/novelty, literature review, theoretical/conceptual framework, methodology. Training, likelihood of influence/impact are modest.
- 5. Summary: • This can make or break an application • Ensure that the objectives are clearly laid out • Include student training/mentoring • The summary should encompass the whole research plan in brief Tips from the adjudication committee:
- 6. Student Training: • Need meaningful training activities for students • These should be outlined in detail • Include opportunities for students to travel to conferences and help with research and paper delivery • Undergraduate students count! Tips from the adjudication committee:
- 7. Budget: • Everything needs to be clearly justified and specified in detail • Need to ask for the right amount (don’t worry about asking for the maximum if it is justified) • Application can be failed on the budget alone Tips from the adjudication committee:
- 8. KMB plan: • Make it specific (in other words, be sure that all choices are clearly explained) • Be creative (go beyond journals and conferences) Tips from the adjudication committee:
- 9. Advice and Pet Peeves: • Methodology has to be clearly laid out • Ensure you have an interesting research question and justify why it is important • Build a trajectory of funded research – know when to apply for what level of grant • Build capacity and reputation • Bring on a senior scholar, if appropriate • Ensure you can handle the project at your career stage Tips from the adjudication committee:
- 10. Advice and Pet Peeves: • Avoid trying to do too much in one project • If it is too large and therefore too vague the committee will not score it well • Do not apply to a priority area unless your project CLEARLY centres on that area Tips from the adjudication committee:
- 11. 4A and responding to previous committee feedback: • 4A: you should always improve according to committee feedback (check for lowest scores) • Revising versus creating a new project – depends on discipline and feedback • Using the “response to previous critiques” section • Ensure you use the right tone (never defensive or argumentative) Tips from the adjudication committee:
- 12. Ask the Research Office We are here to help! Ruth Knechtel Humanities rknechtel@wlu.ca Eve Nimmo Social Sciences enimmo@wlu.ca James Popham Knowledge Mobilization jpopham@wlu.ca