Upload
wilfrid-laurier-university
View
185
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
SSHRC: Opportunities, Timelines, and Writing Strategies
Dr. Eve Nimmo, Research Facilitator, Social Sciences Dr. Ruth Knechtel, Research Facilitator, Humanities
• Insight • Insight Grant, Insight Development Grant
• Connection • Partnership Grant, Partnership Development
Grant, Connection Grant, Leaders Opportunity Fund (joint with CFI)
Opportunities
Insight Grant • The maximum value of an Insight Grant is $500,000 over
three to five years. A minimum request of $7,000 is required in at least one of the years. A maximum of $200,000 is available in a single year.
Insight Program
Insight Development Grant • Enable the development of new
research questions, as well as experimentation with new methods, theoretical approaches and/or ideas
• Grants are valued at between $7,000 and $75,000 over one to two years
• Emerging versus Established scholars
Insight Program cont…
Adjudication
Insight Development Grant • Challenge: 50% • Feasibility: 20% • Capability: 30% Insight Grant • Challenge: 40% • Feasibility: 20% • Capability: 40%
• Insight Development Grant • February 2015
• Insight Grant Stage 1: Notice of Intent • August 2014 Stage 2: Application • October 2014
Insight Program Deadlines
• Partnership Development Grant • To foster new research and/or related activities with new or
existing partners; and to design and test new partnership approaches for research and/or related activities.
• $75,000 to $200,000 over one to three years
• Partnership Grant • Support for new or existing formal partnerships for
initiatives that advance research, research training and/or knowledge mobilization in the social sciences and humanities.
• $500,000 to $2.5 million over four to seven years.
SSHRC Connection Program
Matching Funds
Partnership Development Grant: • Applicants must have matching
funds (cash and/or in-kind) • No minimum Partnership Grant: • 35% matching funds from
sources other than SSHRC
Adjudication
Partnership Development Grant • Challenge: 50% • Feasibility: 20% • Capability: 30% Partnership Grant • Challenge: 40% • Feasibility: 30% • Capability: 30%
• Partnership Development Grant • November 2014
• Partnership Grant Stage 1: Letter of Intent Up to $20,000 • February 2015 Stage 2: Formal Application (by invitation)
Partnership Program Deadlines
• Supports: • short-term targeted knowledge
mobilization activities (most often conferences and workshops)
• outreach activities such as artistic activities, development of interactive technologies, media events, adaptations, software etc…
• emphasis is on connecting Post-Secondary research and the community
SSHRC Connection Grant
Value
• Connection grants range from $7,000 to $25,000 for an event and up to $50,000 for an outreach activity
• There are four adjudications per year • December, March, June, September
Deadlines
Eligibility
• There are Individual and Institutional versions of the Connection grant
• Researchers should submit the Individual version (even if the event involves a large team)
• The focus should be on mobilizing Canadian research, especially if the event is outside Canada
Matching Funds
• Applicants must have 50% matching funds (cash and/or in-kind, excluding registration fees for event)
• For example, if you are requesting $15,000 from SSHRC, you must have $7,500 from elsewhere
• The matching funds cannot be from another SSHRC grant (although you may use SSHRC funds for the event provided there is no duplication of support)
Matching Funds cont…
• Applicants should approach their departments and faculties for financial assistance
• Applicants may have funds from another grant (other than SSHRC)
• Some examples of relevant in-kind contributions include:
• Conference space • Administrative support • Technical support • Communications and Knowledge Mobilization support
Adjudication
• Challenge: 40% • Feasibility: 30% • Capability: 30%
• The Insight Development Grant is the first of SSHRC’s grants to use the new Research Portal at
• https://portal-portail.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/s/login.aspx
Insight Development Grant – new system
• The Insight Development Grant is the first of SSHRC’s grants to use the Canadian Common CV
• https://ccv-cvc.ca/indexresearcher-eng.frm • Instructions: http://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/funding-
financement/forms-formulaires/instructions/ccv-eng.aspx
Insight Development Grant – Canadian Common CV
• Open Access • SSHRC has been consulting with
the research community on OA policies for research outputs
• It is expected that they will be implementing an OA requirement on all SSHRC-funded research
• OA fees are an eligible budget expense ($2-4K/ article)
• WLU’s Institutional Repository • Contact Charlotte Innerd
SSHRC: New Development
• Data Management Plans • SSHRC will likely be requiring that all researchers include Data
Management Plans in their applications
SSHRC New Development
• What data will be created or used? • How the data will be described (i.e., which metadata
standards are used)? • Who owns and who can access the data? • Who is responsible for data management and integrity? • How long the data will be preserved? • What resources are required to maintain, access and
preserve the data? • Contact Michael Steeleworthy • (https://library.wlu.ca/services/research-data-management/plans)
SSHRC New Development
Writing for SSHRC Grants 10 tips for success
• Is this the right SSHRC program for the project?
• Are you at the right stage in your career for what you are proposing? (emerging scholar vs. new scholar)
• Is your CV competitive?
1. Be strategic
Weighting criteria 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%
2. Consider the criteria
IDG Scorecard: Challenge 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
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.
Partnership
Development Grants
Partnership Grants
Insight Development
Grants
Insight Grants
Type of Adjudication Committee
Multi-disciplinary / multi-sectoral
Multi-disciplinary / multi-sectoral
Thematic and/or Multi-disciplinary
and/or Disciplinary
Thematic and/or Multi-disciplinary
and/or Disciplinary
Number of Readers
3 3 3 2 - 3
Use of External Assessors
NO NO-LOI YES-Formal
(3-6)
NO 2 -3
3. Who is your audience?
How are the committees decided? For IG in 2013 – 5 Groups and Priority Areas were split into 26 committees, according to nature and number of proposals submitted
Priority Areas Aboriginal Research Canadian Environmental Issues Innovation and Prosperity 1 and 2 Digital Economy 1 and 2
Group 1
History Medieval, classics and religious studies Philosophy Fine arts Literature 1 and 2
http://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/funding-financement/merit_review-evaluation_du_merite/selection_committees-comites_selection/index-eng.aspx
Group 2: Anthropology and archaeology Linguistics and translation Political science and public administration Geography, urban planning and related fields Law and criminology
Group 3: Business, management and related fields 1 and 2 Economics
Group 4: Sociology, demography and related fields Communication, media studies, library and information science, related fields
Group 5: Psychology 1 and 2 Education and social work 1 and 2
Requesting a multi-disciplinary adjudication • Identify the disciplines that you wish to be
evaluated by • Provide a justification
for your request • Priority areas likely
already in a multi- disciplinary committee
• Write clearly and concisely • Use the space provided wisely • Use headings to break up the text AND
highlight the adjudication criteria
4. Be direct
IDG Scorecard: Challenge 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
Example: IDG Project Description • Objectives - explicitly state the objectives of the
research • Context - place the research in appropriate scholarly
context • Literature review • Relationship to ongoing research • Theoretical approach • Importance and originality of the research
• Methodology – specifically discuss what you are going to do
• Why are you the researcher to do this project and why now?
• Team approach? • Emerging scholar
vs. established
5. Who are the applicants?
• What is your training strategy? • How will the student/HQP benefit
and how will the project benefit?
6. Student and HQP Training
• How will you ensure your research will have an impact beyond your discipline?
• How do you intend to get your results out there?
7. Knowledge Mobilization
Your budget is important!
• Budgets are scrutinized by the committee
• Your budget must be consistent with the project
• Justify your budget!
8. Budget
• What is the significance of the project within and beyond your discipline?
• Use the ‘Outcomes’ section to supplement the Detailed Description
9. Impact and Outcomes
• Excellent throughout • Demonstrates the impact • Consistent across the proposal Lit review supports methods Methods justify student training Student training supported by CV Training consistent with methods and justifies budget Budget justification, plan of work, etc. are all consistent KMb Plan and outcomes are appropriate and clear
10. A great application is:
• Your Summary is the same as the introduction to your Detailed Description
• Burying your objectives throughout the document
Common Mistakes
• Leaving the CCV or CV and
Research Contributions to the last minute • The CV is an important part of your
proposal • Transitioning to the CCV is very
time consuming
Common Mistakes
• IDG for regular scholars: Not clearly defining
how this project is a ‘new direction’ of research
• Not including meaningful student training opportunities
Common Mistakes
• Making assumptions about the significance of
your project
• Poorly justified budget
• Getting ‘hung up’ on priority areas and the justification
Common Mistakes
• Writing to the wrong audience
• Using jargon/acronyms extensively
• Using passive or uncertain language
× This project will attempt to… × Our team would like to… × If funded, we will try to…
Common Mistakes
• Suggesting assessors who will not provide a
thorough (and positive!) review • Not paying attention to rules, regulations
• i.e. 5 year window for emerging scholars – can be extended up to 6 years if a leave was taken BUT leave must have been 1 year long, etc.
Common Mistakes
• Not following the instructions
• Leaving everything
to the last minute
Common Mistakes
Ask the Research Office
We are here to help!
Ruth Knechtel Humanities [email protected] Eve Nimmo Social Sciences [email protected] James Popham Knowledge Mobilization [email protected]