Evaluation Criteria 1.Challenge—The aim and importance of the endeavour (40%) 2.Feasibility—The plan to achieve excellence (20%) 3.Capability—The expertise.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in the Seventh Framework Programme Coordination actions ICT Calls Jan- March 2012.
Advertisements

1 NEST New and emerging science and technology EUROPEAN COMMISSION - 6th Framework programme : Anticipating Scientific and Technological Needs.
Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in the Seventh Framework Programme Support actions.
How to Document Your Role in Teaching/Education Shiphra Ginsburg MD, MEd, FRCPC Mount Sinai Hospital Department of Medicine Wilson Centre for Research.
Demonstration of sustained effective leadership in academic practice and academic development Evidence of impact on high quality student learning Draw.
Beyond the Program Guide: Empowering Researchers to Succeed in the new SSHRC Architecture.
Counting Down the Top Ten List for Proposal Writing Royal Roads University Office of Research February 26, 2010.
Promotion and Tenure Workshop May 2005 PURPOSE CRITERIA Lou Malcomb 5/2005
Guidelines for completing a proposal Leaders Opportunity Fund.
Research Office Josephine Adda Proposal Support Officer Insight Grants Funding Workshop August 25, 2011.
Faculty Mentor Workshop Session 2: Preparing SSHRC Applications June 29, 2009.
The IGERT Program Preliminary Proposals June 2008 Carol Van Hartesveldt IGERT Program Director IGERT Program Director.
1 Exploring NSF Funding Opportunities in DUE Tim Fossum Division of Undergraduate Education Vermont EPSCoR NSF Research Day May 6, 2008.
Challenge Questions How good is our strategic leadership?
ICT Graduate Schools stakeholder workshops Background and Preview July 2014.
What do reviewers look for in a research proposal? Research Councils’ review criteria Dimitra Koutsantoni Research & Knowledge Transfer Manager.
Michele Dupuis, Senior Officer Knowledge Integration SSHRC Knowledge Mobilization: An Overview of SSHRC’s policies and practices March 31, 2014.
YMCA Proposal Writing Successful Strategies for Financial Development.
National Public Health Performance Standards Local Assessment Instrument Essential Service:5 Develop Policies and Plans that Support Individual and Community.
NSERC has an overview of the discovery grant program on their website:
New York State Professional Development Standards S/CDN 2010.
 NSF Merit Review Criteria Intellectual Merit Broader Impacts  Additional Considerations Integration of Research & Education Integrating Diversity into.
Preparing a Successful SHRM Foundation Grant Application Lynn McFarland, Ph.D. August 23, 2012.
Final evaluation of the Research Programme on Social Capital and Networks of Trust (SoCa) 2004 – 2007: What should the Academy of Finland learn.
Work Programme for the specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration "Integrating and strengthening the European Research.
SSHRC Insight Grant Workshop September 10, 2015 Andrew Hacquoil, MA Research Grants Officer, Research Services Tamara Varney, PhD Department of Anthropology.
SSHRC Partnership and Partnership Development Grants Rosemary Ommer 1.
By Bankole Ebisemiju At an Intensive & Interactive workshop on Techniques for Effective & Result Oriented Annual Operation Plan November 24th 2010 Annual.
Technology Strategy Board Driving Innovation Participation in Framework Programme 7 Octavio Pernas, UK NCP for Health (Industry) 11 th April 2012.
Teaching and Learning Research Programme CREATING KNOWLEDGE TOGETHER IN THE CONTEXT OF RESEARCH ASSESSMENT.
 This prepares educators to work in P-12 schools (1)  It provides direction (1)  It is knowledge-based, articulated, shared, coherent, consistent with.
1 NEST New and emerging science and technology EUROPEAN COMMISSION - 6th Framework programme : Anticipating Scientific and Technological Needs.
1 Analysing the contributions of fellowships to industrial development November 2010 Johannes Dobinger, UNIDO Evaluation Group.
“Thematic Priority 3” Draft Evaluation of IP + NoE.
NSF IGERT proposals Yang Zhao Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering Wayne State University.
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Conseil de recherches en sciences humaines du Canada SSHRC’s Program Architecture Éric Bastien,
WHAT YOU SHOULD EXPECT FROM YOUR EVALUATOR: PROMISING PRACTICAL PRACTICES July 28, 2011 Hi-TEC Conference, San Francisco.
Rejoinders for ARC DP Assessment Reports: Your last chance for influencing the CoE members Zhihong Xu Griffith University.
From policy to practice and back to policy 3 March 2015 Children in Wales Conference Gail Bennett, Parenting Network Chair Flintshire Early Years and Family.
 NSF Merit Review Criteria Intellectual Merit Broader Impacts  Additional Considerations Integration of Research & Education Broadening Participation.
1 RESPONSE TO INSTRUCTION ________________________________ RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION New Opportunities for Students and Reading Professionals.
1 Click to edit Master text styles Second level Third level Fourth level Fifth level Administrative Support for Large- Scale Funding Applications – Session.
Committee Meeting, June 9, 2008 Strategic Institutional Research Plan.
The Elements of a Successful Proposal. # 1:The title Choose a title that conveys information about your project. Avoid acronyms that have negative connotations.
College of Agriculture and Life Sciences WELCOME Assistant Professor P&T Workshop Defining Scholarship and P&T Portfolio Development April 22, 2015.
SSHRC Insight and Insight Development Grants Workshop | July 2013.
Developing people, improving young lives The QTS* Standards Bath Spa University 8 September 2009 Sheila Steer Training and Development Agency for Schools.
Planning for School Implementation. Choice Programs Requires both district and school level coordination roles The district office establishes guidelines,
FET OPEN - RIA. 2 3 FET-OPEN RIA Reseach projects Proposal evaluation: Only one phase but still short proposal (15 pages) Remote review by experts -
How is a grant reviewed? Prepared by Professor Bob Bortolussi, Dalhousie University
Proposal Writing. # 1:The title Choose a title that conveys information about your project. Avoid acronyms that have negative connotations. Make it Brief.
SCHOLARSHIP Teaching Faculty members are responsible for teaching effectively by employing useful methods and approaches that facilitate learning. Faculty.
Key Messages from the National Parenting Coordinators’ Network 10 September 2014 Gail Bennett, Parenting Network Chair Flintshire Parenting Strategy Coordinator.
Research Grant Writing Brad Whittaker Director, Research Services and Industry Liaison May 10, 2016.
Learning for All & LTFS UWE LTFS Aims: Enhance student learning Recognise and promote excellence in learning and teaching Identify, showcase and disseminate.
NIH R03 Program Review Ning Jackie Zhang, MD, PhD, MPH College of Health and Public Affairs 04/17/2013.
SSHRC Insight Grant Information Session September 6,
SSHRC Partnership Funding Wednesday, September 7th, 2016
Intellectual Merit & Broader Impact Statements August 2016
– a view from the Trenches
Cybersecurity fintech
Strengthening Capacity for Research and Innovation
WP2. Excellent university for the researchers
How to Apply to SSHRC’s New Partnerships Funding Opportunities
Writing that First Research Grant
Intellectual Merit & Broader Impact Statements August 2018
Training and Development Agency for Schools (TDA)
Intellectual Merit & Broader Impact Statements August 2017
Understanding Impact Stephanie Seavers, Impact Manager.
Intellectual Merit & Broader Impact Statements August 2019
Presentation transcript:

Evaluation Criteria 1.Challenge—The aim and importance of the endeavour (40%) 2.Feasibility—The plan to achieve excellence (20%) 3.Capability—The expertise to succeed (40%)

Evaluation Criteria 1.Challenge—The aim and importance of the endeavour (40%): – originality, significance and expected contribution to knowledge; – appropriateness of the literature review; – 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; and – potential influence and impact within and/or beyond the social sciences and humanities research community. 2.Feasibility—The plan to achieve excellence (20%): 3.Capability—The expertise to succeed (40%):

Evaluation Criteria 1.Challenge—The aim and importance of the endeavour (40%) 2.Feasibility—The plan to achieve excellence (20%): – probability of effective and timely attainment of the research objectives; – appropriateness of the requested budget, and justification of proposed costs; – indications of financial and in-kind contributions from other sources, where appropriate; – quality of knowledge mobilization plans, including for effective knowledge dissemination, knowledge exchange and engagement within and/or beyond the research community; and – strategies and timelines for the design and conduct of the activity/activities proposed. 3.Capability—The expertise to succeed (40%)

Evaluation Criteria 1.Challenge—The aim and importance of the endeavour (40%): 2.Feasibility—The plan to achieve excellence (20%): 3.Capability—The expertise to succeed (40%): – quality, quantity and significance of past experience and published outputs of the applicant and any team members relative to their roles in the project and their respective stages of career; – evidence of contributions such as commissioned reports, professional practice, public discourse, public policies, products and services, development of talent, experience in collaboration, etc.; and – potential to make future contributions.