Insight Grants and Insight Development Grants submissions to SSHRC
29
Insight Grants and Insight Development Grants submissions to SSHRC Les MacDonald BravoChapeau.ca [email protected] September 2011
description
Insight Grants and Insight Development Grants submissions to SSHRC. Les MacDonald BravoChapeau.ca [email protected] September 2011. SRGs are gone!. C hoose the right funding route. Transfers may not be permitted after submission. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Transcript of Insight Grants and Insight Development Grants submissions to SSHRC
Insight Grantsand
Insight Development Grants
submissions to SSHRC
Les MacDonaldBravoChapeau.ca
[email protected] 2011
SRGs are gone!
Choose the right funding route. Transfers may not be permitted after submission.
• Insight Grants –(application deadline 15 October 2011): to build knowledge and understanding about people, societies and the world by supporting research excellence in all subject areas eligible for funding from SSHRC; funding up to $500K over 5 years.
OR• Insight Development Grants – (application deadline 1 February 2012): to support
research in its initial stages, development of new research questions, as well as experimentation with new methods, theoretical approaches and/or ideas; support of up to $75K over 2 years (3 years with automatic extension);
September 2011
Insight Grants (IG)
• No New Scholar category• Higher potential funding limit: up to $500K/year over 5 years• Better for team research, strong research track records, well-defined, multi-year
projects• Probably lower success rates than expected for IDG• External specialist assessment (2, or 3 if inter-disciplinary nature flagged)• Committee adjudication, but membership determined after deadline• Decisions to be announced March 2012
September 2011
Insight Development Grants (IDG)
• Best option for most New Scholars – ½ of funding reserved for them in “current competition”
• Also for experienced researchers changing their focus or proposing unconventional projects, for those seeking modest or short-duration funding.
• Application deadline Feb. 1 2012 (no LOI)• Not open to those who have applied to IG the previous Oct., unless for a different
project• Results announced in early June 2012• No external assessment• Adjudication by one of 5 or more inter-disciplinary committees• Each application is read and scored by 3 committee readers• Committee readers prepare comments on each, and, if positive, an award amount• Committee discusses applications with discrepancies in scores or where a member so
requests• Committee then reviews, finalizes scores, rankings and budgets
September 2011
IDG New / Regular Scholar categories
Like the old SRGs, IDGs retain the 2 categories of scholar:
• New Scholars: This funding supports high-quality research projects by new scholars to develop new research questions and/or approaches. A continuation of the applicant’s (or team’s) graduate work and/or overall research trajectory.
• Regular scholars: Funding for regular scholars provides support to explore new research questions and approaches that are distinct from the applicant’s previous/ongoing research. These questions and approaches may or may not lie outside the scholar’s existing area(s) of specialization.
September 2011
Are you a New Scholar?
• have not applied successfully, as principal investigator or project director, for a grant through any of SSHRC’s funding opportunities.
In addition, you must meet at least one of the following criteria:• have completed your highest degree no more than five years before the
competition deadline (first doctorate);or
• have held a tenured or tenure-track university appointment < 5 years;or
• have held a university appointment, but never a tenure-track position (in the case of institutions that offer tenure-track positions);or
• have had your career significantly interrupted or delayed for family reasons.
September 2011
Committee Structure
• Group 1: History; medieval studies; classics; literature; fine arts; philosophy; religious studies; and related fields.
• Group 2: Anthropology; archaeology; linguistics; translation; political science; public administration; law; criminology; geography; urban planning and environmental studies; and related fields.
• Group 3: Business and management; economics; and related fields.• Group 4: Sociology; demography; communication studies; journalism; media
studies; gender studies; cultural studies; library and information science; and related fields.
• Group 5: Education, psychology, social work; career guidance; and related fields.
September 2011
Priority Areas
In certain cases, priorities have been identified for either additional support, a more tailored adjudication, or both. SSHRC’s current priority areas are: • Aboriginal Research • Canadian Environmental Issues • Digital Media • Innovation, Leadership and Prosperity • Northern Communities: Towards Social and Economic Prosperity
Applicants requesting funding under one of these priority areas should identify their proposal as being related to one of SSHRC’s priority areas and complete a one-page Statement of Alignment describing the proposal’s relevance to the priority area.
September 2011
Evaluation criteria groupings
IG IDG• Challenge
– The aim and importance of the endeavour 40% 50%
• Feasibility— The plan to achieve excellence 20%
20%
• Capability— The expertise to succeed 40%
30%
September 2011
Challenge—aim and importance of the endeavour
• originality, significance and expected contribution to knowledge;• appropriateness of the theoretical approach or framework;• appropriateness of the methodologies or approaches;• quality of training and mentoring to be provided to students, emerging scholars
and other highly qualified personnel, where appropriate; and• likelihood of influence and impact within and/or beyond the social sciences and
humanities research community.
September 2011
Documenting the challenge
Applicants should provide the following information, which will inform the evaluation of their Challenge component: • the location of the proposed research in the context of the relevant scholarly
literature; • the relationship and relevance of the proposed research to the individual's
ongoing research or to experience and insights gained from earlier research achievements;
• the importance, originality and anticipated contribution to knowledge of the proposed research;
• the theoretical approach or framework (if applicable); • research methodologies (approaches/procedures) that will be used to achieve the
stated objectives; and • specific roles and responsibilities of students and research assistants, including
how their duties will complement their academic training.
September 2011
Scoring for challenge
Top: 5 – 6 (Excellent): Highly original, at the forefront of the field. The theoretical/conceptual approach or framework is focused, fully explained and well developed. The literature review is reasonably complete, up-to-date and linked to the proposed research. The methodology is well described and will lead to meaningful results. The training, where applicable, and likelihood of influence/impact within and/or beyond the research community, are excellent.
4.0 – 4.9 (Very good): Original, meets quality standards and 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, and/or methodology. The training, where applicable, and likelihood of influence/impact within and/or beyond the research community, are very good.
September 2011
Feasibility—the plan to achieve excellence
• probability of meeting the objectives of the Insight program, the Insight Development Grants funding opportunity and, where appropriate, expected outcomes of a priority area;
• strategies and timelines for the design and conduct of the research and/or related activities;
• appropriateness of the requested budget, justification of proposed costs, and indications of other planned resources (time, human and financial); and
• quality of knowledge mobilization plans, including for effective dissemination, exchange, and engagement within, and/or, where appropriate, beyond, the research community.
September 2011
Documenting feasibility
Applicants should provide the following information, which will inform the evaluation of their Feasibility component: • the explicit objectives of the proposed research in relation to the Insight program,
the Insight (Development) Grants funding opportunity and, if appropriate, one of SSHRC’s priority areas;
• the key activities and research strategies/timelines for the proposed research; • relationship of the requested budget to the proposed research; and • plans for communicating research results within and, where appropriate, beyond
the academic community.
September 2011
Scoring for feasibility
• Top: 5 – 6 (Excellent): Objectives are explicit and clearly defined, and there is a very high probability of meeting them. The strategies/timelines for the proposed research are coherent, realistic and appropriate. All budget components are well justified, and the budget’s overall link to the proposed research is evident. The knowledge mobilization/dissemination plan, where appropriate, is effective and very likely to achieve success.
• 4.0 – 4.9 (Very good): Objectives are defined and it is likely that they will be met. One or more of the following elements should have been better developed: strategies/timelines for the proposed research, justification for the budget, and/or knowledge mobilization/dissemination plans.
September 2011
Capability—the expertise to succeed
• quality, quantity and significance of past research activity and published outputs relative to the stage of the applicant’s career;
• evidence of other contributions through, for example, publications (such as commissioned reports, etc.); professional practice; and contributions to public discourse, public policies, products and services, and the development of talent; and
• potential to make future contributions.
September 2011
Documenting capability
Applicants should provide the following information, which will inform the evaluation of their Capability component. Contributions to research may include: • refereed publications, including books, chapters of books and articles; • book reviews by the applicant/co-applicant, or published reviews of your work; • research reports, papers presented at scholarly meetings or conferences, and
other forms of written scholarly expression or participation in public discourse and debate which constitute a contribution to research;
• where appropriate, contributions to the training of future researchers, including the supervision of graduate theses and/or the involvement of students in research activities;
• research results from previous research grants, other awards from SSHRC or other sources; and/or academic awards and distinctions, especially in the case of those applying as new scholars.
September 2011
Scoring for capability – Regular Scholars (IG, IDG)
• 5 - 6 Excellent: Recognized nationally and perhaps internationally for the excellent quality and substantial impact of his or her publications within or beyond the field. The researcher has a distinguished publication record, and has published both consistently and recently. Where applicable, has had significant publications from previous funding; has made a significant contribution to the training of future researchers; and, where appropriate, has disseminated results beyond academia.
• 4 – 4.9 Very good: Recognized for the quality and impact of publications within or beyond the field. The researcher has published both consistently and recently. One or more of the following elements could have been better demonstrated: where applicable, publications from previous funding; contribution to the training of future researchers; and, where appropriate, dissemination of results beyond academia.
September 2011
Scoring for capability – New Scholars (IDG only)
• 5 – 6 Excellent: Recognized for the originality and quality of the research and publications within or beyond the field. Has demonstrated significant recent productivity. Where applicable, has made good contributions to the training of future researchers; and where appropriate, has disseminated results beyond academia.
• 4 – 4.9 Very good: Research and publications are considered to be fairly original and of very good quality. Has demonstrated good recent productivity. One or both of the following elements could have been better demonstrated: where applicable, some contribution to the training of future researchers; and, where appropriate, dissemination of results beyond academia.
September 2011
6-year period for contributions
• Committees base their evaluation of capability primarily on the contributions to research the applicant has made within the last six years or, if the applicant's research career has been interrupted, their most recent period of research activity.
• In evaluating the record of regular scholars, committees also take into account the applicant’s five most significant contributions, where indicated. These will help to accurately situate the most recent six years in the context of the applicant’s overall career.
• The overall contribution to research in relation to, or measured against, the stage of the applicant's research career.
• Committees also take into consideration any special circumstances or career interruptions that may have delayed or interrupted an applicant’s research career
September 2011
Project Summary
1. Do this first and revise last.2. What will the research accomplish?3. Why does it matter? What do you expect to change as a result?4. Journalistic language to seize the attention of the non-specialist reader5. Brief description of how the research will be conducted (no jargon)6. What concrete outputs (books, articles, conferences, etc.) will result?7. It is better not to repeat text verbatim from the Detailed Description.
September 2011
Detailed description - Objectives
• Stated briefly in terms of the scholarly result – what will change in terms of knowledge?
• Try to avoid expressing the objectives in process language (e.g., “to examine…”)• Not just the physical form that the product of the research will take (a book,
articles, etc.)
September 2011
Detailed description - Context
• Should enable the reader to appreciate the originality and importance of the expected contribution.
• Describe the intellectual terriorty leading up to the knowledge gap which the proposed research will fill.
• Include your previous contributions to the area.• A theoretical approach should emerge out of the review of the literture.• It is best to conclude with one or more clearly stated research questions.
September 2011
Detailed description - Methodology
• How the research questions will be answered.• Should reassure the reader that you have selected the most appropriate method(s)
and that you are well qualified to apply those methods.• If there is some discussion in the relevant literature regarding alternative
methodologies it may be useful to refer to it.
September 2011
Research team, previous output, student training
• Max. 4 pages in total for the 3 items• Make the best overall use of the 4 pages, expanding the section which is to your
advantage• Research team: role of each member (excluding students) in the research; relative
proportion of the time of each, proportion of the time of each on this project: use to complement the respective CV & research contributions sections, to show that the team has the appropriate qualifications and experience
• Previous output: (from previous funded research) to reassure the reader that the team has been productive; and to reinforce the description of the team’s qualifications
• Student training: explain how the students will benefit professionally from their work on the project; also an opportunity to say once again, but from a different perspective, what tasks they will be undertaking.
September 2011
Budget and budget justification
• How much to ask for? • The Mozart approach: exactly what is required to achieve the stated objectives.• Budget justification (2 pages) should link major costs to the methodology and
objectives.• Followed by a calculation of how the figures in the budget were obtained• Prioritize use of space according to cost• Average SRG grant in 2010 was $73,337 (approx. $24,445 / yr.)
September 2011
Knowledge mobilization plan
• The new SSHRC buzzword for Dissemination plan• How different?• 1 page• Link to project objectives• Consistent with Summary• And with SSHRC’s “Knowledge Mobilization Strategy”• Funds should be requested in Budget
September 2011
Intended outcomes
• SSHRC is interested in capturing information on research outcomes at the application stage in order to gain a greater understanding of the intellectual, cultural, societal and economic contributions of social sciences and humanities research, and of how outcomes evolve throughout the lifespan of a research project. This outcome information, along with the information provided on research outputs (e.g., scholarly journal articles, conferences, books, workshops, etc.) in follow-up research reporting, will enable SSHRC, scholars and institutions to communicate the contributions of social sciences and humanities research to various audiences.
• applicants are asked to identify intended research outcomes, such as the development of enhanced curriculum and teaching materials, graduate student supervision, enriched public discourse, improved public policies, enhanced business strategies, and, indeed, innovations in every sector of society. Applicants are also asked to identify scholarly benefits, social benefits and target audiences related to their intended research outcomes.
• Be sure the intented outcomes are featured in your Summary and Objectives section of the Detailed Description.
September 2011
What do I do next?
1. Read all the instructions (“when all else fails…”).2. Create/update your SSHRC CV.3. Consider which is best for you, IDG or IG.4. Seek advice from SSHRC staff where in doubt.5. Map your planned research trajectory into the IG or IDG parameters.6. Know and follow your own institution’s timelines and procedures.7. 1st draft of proposal in the format of the program you have chosen.8. Circulate for comment and advice, from at least one colleague in your discipline,
plus another reader where identified by your institution. 9. Revise proposal in light of comments received.10. Check your target committee membership for potential conflicts of interest,
alerting SSHRC program officer by phone and email if any found.11. Complete on-line application form before your internal deadline.
September 2011
