Download
faculty mentor workshop n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Faculty Mentor Workshop PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Faculty Mentor Workshop

Faculty Mentor Workshop

151 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

Faculty Mentor Workshop

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Faculty Mentor Workshop Session 2: Preparing SSHRC Applications June 29, 2009

  2. Stages in the Process • Get started as soon as possible; • Confirm your eligibility; • Register online; • Review guidelines; • Obtain forms and instructions; • SSHRC NOI due August 17th/09; • Get feedback from peers (disciplinary/other); • Respect AU internal submission deadlines.

  3. SSHRC’s Expectations • Evaluation • written assessments from national and international experts are obtained prior to review by committee • Committees are given specific evaluation criteria • Scoring • Regular scholar or new scholar?

  4. Record of Research Achievement • Tangible contributions • Last six year period of activity or the five most significant research contributions from any period.

  5. Evaluation Criteria • Quality and significance of published work; • Originality of previous research and its impact; • Quantity of research activity relative to the stage of the applicant’s career; • Demonstrated importance of other scholarly activities and contributions;

  6. Recentness of output; • Importance and relevance of dissemination or research results directed to non-academic audiences; • Significance of any previous research supported by SSHRC or any other agency; • Where applicable, the contribution to the training of future researchers; and • Where appropriate, efforts made to develop research partnerships

  7. Scoring Grid • 5.0 – 6.0  Excellent • 4.0 – 4.9  Very Good • 3.0 – 3.9  Good • Below 3.0 Modest • Emphasis placed on applicant’s overall contribution to research measure against the stage of his or her career stage; • Allowances made for applicants who do not have the opportunity to supervise grad students.

  8. Program of Research • Evaluated using the following criteria: • Degree of originality and expected contribution; • Scholarly, intellectual, social and cultural significance; • Appropriateness of theoretical approach or framework; • Appropriateness and expected effectiveness of the strategies or methodologies;

  9. Feasibility of successfully competing the program of research and appropriateness of schedule of research; • Suitability and expected effectiveness of plans to communicate research results both within and outside of the academic community; • Where appropriate, the nature and extent of research training; and • Contribution to interdisciplinary research (Committee 15 only)

  10. Characteristics of the Program of Research • Score Range • 5.0 – 6.0  Strongly recommended for funding • 4.0 – 4.9  Recommended for funding • 3.0 -3.9  Fund if funds are available • Below 3.0  Not recommended for funding • Note: if the committee determines that the PI is not responsible for, or equipped to exercise the leadership, the score assigned to the program of research may be lowered.

  11. Advice • Title – ensure it is clear, accurate and free of jargon and acronyms • Summary – key piece, as it may be the only part of the application that most of the reviewers read • Organization of the Description • Key themes in description • Technical issues • Attachments = Opportunity

  12. Websites SSHRC’s Expectations & Scoring Scheme: Refer to: “Apply for Funding—Standard Research Grants” statement at http://www.sshrc.ca/site/apply-demande/program_descriptions-descriptions_de_programmes/standard_grants_subventions_ordinaires-eng.aspx

  13. Questions or concerns?? • Please contact the Research Office with any questions or concerns you may have as you work through the application process: • Jill Calliou @ jillc@athabascau.ca or ext 6102 • Rebecca Heartt @ rebeccah@athabascau.ca or ext 6275