CU Development Grants 2016 Information Session 482 MacOdrum Library June 2 nd, 2016

Agenda 1.Application Requirements 2.Application Process 3.Peer-Review Evaluation Process 4.Tips on Developing a Competitive Proposal 5.Questions Eligibility Funding Deadline Final Report

Application Requirements Eligibility:  All full time faculty of professional rank are eligible, with the exception of individuals hired on or after July 1, 2015 who are in receipt of start-up funds.  Only one Development Grant award will be made in support of a particular research project.  Each application must describe a single project.

Application Categories  Applications must fall within one of the following categories: Application Tip: When completing your application, only one category should be selected. New faculty members; Mid-career faculty members reorienting their research; Seed grants and bridge funding; Self-contained research that requires relatively little funding for its completion; Projects near completion when existing funds have been exhausted. Application Requirements

Funding:  Minimum funding: $5,000  Maximum funding: $10,000  1 year award  Does not provide funds for purchasing equipment, computer supplies, or conference travel  0.5 Credit Teaching Release may be eligible Deadline: Wednesday, June 15, Final Report: Brief (max. 1 page) report to be submitted within 3 months of award close out to For budgets exceeding $10,000, other funding sources should be identified in the application Application Requirements

cuResearch Supported Application Process  An application form, which can be downloaded from the CURO website:  You should include in your application: 1) Outline of the proposed research; 2) Budget justification and details; 3) CV.  Through cuResearch before the deadline  Approvals from Department Chair/ADR by June 15 Applications that have not received these approvals through cuResearch’s electronic approval process by June 15, 2016 will not be accepted. cuResearch NOT Supported What to Include How to Submit

Peer-Review Process  Applications will be evaluated based on the following criteria: The theoretical or conceptual approach of the proposed research. Scholarly significance and contribution to knowledge of proposed research. The applicant’s research and publication record or potential in the case of new staff. Soundness and appropriateness of methodology and data analysis, where applicable.

Peer-Review Process  CURO convenes multidisciplinary adjudication committees, chaired by the Vice-President (Research and International) or their delegate, to review the proposals One committee for NSERC-related subject matter One committee for SSHRC-related subject matter o Depending on the number of applications, CURO may elect to create sub-committees o Proposals from the health sciences are divided between the NSERC and SSHRC committees, based on the subject matter

 Committee members are assigned as Readers A or B for a selection of applications under review (the Chair does not score any files)  Readers A and B are expected to carefully review the proposal and assign a preliminary score in advance of the meeting  Committee members are expected to have an understanding of each file to participate in the deliberations, but they only “score” applications in their reader assignments  Following a brief discussion, the committee makes its recommendation with respect to the file, including any budget reductions  Applications are ranked and a final ranking is provided to CURO Preliminary scores are circulated at the meeting to help facilitate the discussion CURO takes minutes of the committee’s comments and final recommendation with respect to the file Peer-Review Process

How does the committee rank?  Merit of the proposed research as well as the future potential for the research  Necessity for funding Note that committee members always judge the applicant’s qualification in relation to their career stage. Demonstrate that the project is feasible within the budget requested and that the funds will have significant impacts in advancing the research plans. Application category is used to better understand the type of request being made. The category selected does not determine its funding priority. Peer-Review Process

Tips for a Competitive Proposal  Clearly articulate the research problem and activities to be undertaken  Write to a multi-disciplinary audience  Place the project within your broader program of research, describing how it will advance your ongoing research  Be open and positive about previous unsuccessful funding applications Although this funding opportunity supports research in its initial stages, the committee still wants to see a well-developed application Describe the proposed method for achieving the objectives – clarity of methodology is the most frequent issue for applications not recommended for funding Keep in mind: a committee of 4-5 people will assess all applications in NSERC or SSHRC subject matter. Do not anticipate a subject matter expert. If this is a new area for you, explain how you came to this new area of research Describe where you see the project moving in a future phase Show that you are learning from previous experiences, improving your research program throughout the process Avoid negative comments about previous challenges in your research, as it affects the current reviewer’s overall impression of the application

Tips for a Competitive Proposal  Propose expenses that have a clear value-added for advancing the project’s goals  Convince the committee that the proposed research has potential to secure external funding in a future phase Show costs breakdown to demonstrate that the expense is reasonable Avoid including equipment costs and/or travel costs for dissemination purposes without adequate justification as to how it advances the project’s objectives Committee members like to see that the investment will have a significant impact in securing additional external support for the researcher’s program of research

Questions?

Thank you! Amy Larin Assistant Director, CURO x.6621 Laura McCaffrey Research Administrator, Contracts and Agreements x.5548