SSHRC Information Session. Office of Research Services June 2010. Office of Research Services (ORS). Kathy Charters, Executive Director Mary Ferguson, Assistant Director, Institutional Initiatives Unit Sherisse Webb, Senior Grants Advisor and Acting Assistant Director, Grants Unit
Office of Research Services
Kathy Charters, Executive Director
Mary Ferguson, Assistant Director, Institutional Initiatives Unit
Sherisse Webb, Senior Grants Advisor and Acting Assistant Director, Grants Unit
Provides funding for research and training in the humanities and social sciences that adds to our understanding and knowledge of individuals, groups and societies.
Priority funding areas for 2010/2011:
Innovation, leadership and prosperity
Research/creation in the fine arts
Research is not eligible for SSHRC funding if it:
Aid to Research Workshops and Conferences (ARWC)
Workshops: Up to $25,000 for 1 year
Conferences: Up to $50,000 for 1 year
Deadline: November 1st
Standard Research Grants (SRG)
Up to $250,000 for three years (maximum of $100,000 in any one year)
Deadline: October 15th
Carefully read and follow the instructions
Review an example of a successful application
Ask colleagues to review application
Include role for graduate students
Consider collaborating with other researchers
Apply for a grant from the Arts Research Board (ARB)
Submit application to ORS for review by internal deadline (2-3 weeks prior to agency deadline)
DeGroote School of Business
Who gets to adjudicate?
How is funding allocated to the adjudication committee (the macro picture)?
How do I get the funding (the micro picture)?
On what am I adjudicated?
How am I adjudicated – the process?
What drives the outcome of this process?
What are the takeaways?
A successful grant holder
Fulfills SSHRC criteria:
Nature of institution: S, M, L & affiliated
Subject area expertise
Nominated by parent institution
Capacity for detail work
Ability to work in a team
Three year appointment
For each Committee, SSHRC calculates the average grant $ requested
This average amount is then multiplied by the number of files that would be funded with a 30% success rate
The resulting amount is cut by 30%, which becomes the funding envelope
All committees have a preliminary success rate of 30% (This changes slightly every year)
The adjudication committees rank and recommend budgets for each file recommended for funding
Funds are distributed amongst the ranked files until the envelope is exhausted. It follows that committees can fund fewer or more than 30% of the files, depending on their budget cuts.
Originality and expected contribution to knowledge of the program
Theoretical approach or framework
Plan for research training
Quantity of Publications
Quality of Publications
Other issues: Impact of contributions inside and outside academia, Contributions to student training
For each application, 2-3 external reviews are obtained
For each application 2 readers (A&B) are appointed from the committee based on their subject expertise.
The entire committee meets by teleconference to decide on bench mark files and establish a consensus for scoring
The readers independently rank the application on a 6-point scale based on the criteria for Research program and Research record, sends it to SSHRC prior to meeting (60/40 split for New Scholars)
All applications are ranked on the basis of the preliminary scores and made available at the meeting
SSHRC announces the size of the envelope and sets the macro cut offs
General discussion with privilege on the top 15% and bottom 15%
The readers present the application to the committee in alphabetical order, new scholars first, for discussion and decision and ranks can and do change. Budget tentatively determined
A running tab is maintained on the overhead excel spread sheet t guide allocation
Last day, “sur le glace” applicants, general equity issues, and policy issues are discussed and the list & budgets are finalized.
Should aim at publishing in higher quality, top tier journals
Question team’s expertise to complete the research
Inadequate or lopsided review of the literature
Underlying theory and/or conceptual framework weak or missing-proposal lacks solid theoretical underpinning
Concepts have not been well defined
Lacking in originality and contribution to knowledge
Methodology unclear or insufficiently explained? Whether the candidate had the methodological skills to carry out the research?
Methodology is flawed or inappropriate
Potential problem with access to data or research site(s)
Project proposal is an ad hoc proposal
Program is too ambitious/unrealistic
Insufficient contribution to knowledge in the field of research
Pay attention to the one page summary
Keep the budget simple and justified
Choose your referees carefully. Bad reference hurts badly.
Balance sections of your proposal.
Programs are better than projects but some confusion exists.
Provide a perspective
Justify your team.
For senior scholars, productivity matters and impact matters more
Refereed publications are more important than Conferences and Proceedings
If you are not successful, try again and again