research week 2014: sshrc part one: opportunities, timelines, and writing strategies

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 rknechtel@wlu.ca Eve Nimmo Social Sciences enimmo@wlu.ca James Popham Knowledge Mobilization jpopham@wlu.ca