Research Office Josephine Adda Proposal Support Officer

1. Insight Grants Funding Workshop August 25, 2011 Research OfficeJosephine Adda Proposal Support Officer

2. Topics • Overview of the Insight Grants & Program • Key objectives of Insight Grants (IGs) vs Standard Research Grants (SRGs) • Highlight of Differences in the IG & SRG • Insight Grant vs Insight Development Grant • Multiple Applications • Evaluation Committees • Criteria and Scoring • TIPs • Questions ??? • Manipulating the On-line Forms (Based on Interest)

3. Overview The IG (of the Insight Program) succeeds the SRG • The broad purpose of both grants is the same namely “to support research and develop excellence in research activities in the social sciences and humanities”

4. Specific Objectives

5. Highlights of Differences (IG vs SRG)Program Description

6. Highlights of Differences (IG vs SRG)Web Instructions and Forms

7. Insight vs Insight Development GrantThe Insight Program offers 2 Grants: The Insight (aka SRG) and the Insight Development Grants

8. Multiple Applications • Researchers may not apply, as applicant, for an Insight Grant and an Insight Development Grant within the same calendar year. • Researchers may apply, as applicant, for only one Insight Grant at a time. An applicant may not hold a Standard Research Grant (no longer offered and an Insight Grant simultaneously. • There is no limit to the number of SSHRC applications on which a researcher may be listed as a co-applicant or collaborator.

9. Evaluation Committees Committees are drawn from academics and other experts in the following fields • Group 1: History; medieval studies; classics; literature; fine arts; philosophy; religious studies and related fields. • Group 2: Anthropology; archaeology; linguistics; translation; political science; public administration; law; criminology, geography; urban planning and environmental studies; and related fields. • Group 3: Business and management; economics; and related fields. • Group 4: Sociology; demography; communication studies; journalism; media studies; gender studies; cultural studies; library and information science; and related fields. • Group 5: Education; psychology; social work; and related fields

10. Evaluation Committees cont’d • Applicants will be asked to indicate which of the five groups they consider most appropriate for their proposal, and to select primary discipline and areas of research from a detailed list available on the application form. Adjudication committees will be created based on these groups, according to the number and nature of applications received

11. Criteria & Scoring • Challenge – The aim and importance of the endeavour (40%) • originality, significant 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.

12. Criteria & Scoring cont’d • 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.

13. Criteria & Scoring cont’d • 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.

14. Research Office How can the RO not help you? • We do not critique the research itself: e.g. Objectives, literature review, theory and methodology. • No substitute for peer review by colleagues or mentors. • Do not seek approval on your behalf for other university commitments (but require email confirmation from appropriate authority)

15. TIPs for the Fall • Look over the Research Office websites for useful resources (updates in progress) • Refer to and follow your ‘First Steps Checklist’ • Seek peer review as early as you can • Save your ‘Web Instructions’ for reference • Call ext. 621 or email your questions to josadda@stu.ca • Follow your ‘Next Steps Checklist’ once you receive feedback from the RO • Internal Deadline noon September 23 Good luck

16. On our Website SSHRC Grant Preparation Tools and Templates (click link to view) 1) Fillable Templates                a) CV Contributions                b) Budget Justification                c) Detailed Description                d) Knowledge Mobilization Plan                e) References                 f) Statement of Alignment                g) Team Output Training 2) Tools and References                a) Grant Preparation Timeline                b) Insight Grants vs. Standard Research Grants                c) Insight Grant Webinar                d) Online FormsLocated in the NEWS section of the Research website: http://w3.stu.ca/stu/research/ top article“SSHRC Insight Grants Tools and Templates” (documents are also available via email) The Tools and Templates documents linked above were originally developed by the Office of Research Services at UNB. They have been adapted where necessary for use internally by STU.

17. New Brunswick Social Policy Research Network(Eric Gionet)

18. Questions?

19. SSHRC – Online SystemsDemo