Expert Panel Messages

Notes on Writing/Positioning your Proposal

  • Avoid jargon and technical language that is specific to your discipline/specialization. You cannot count on the committee including a scholar who knows your topic or methodology. Write specifically enough so that if there is an expert on the committee s/he is confident of your command of the area, but broadly enough so that a non-expert can easily understand your project.
  • Clarify/define new or evolving, and discipline-specific terminology.
  • State the research objectives early and clearly.
  • The summary page is critical. Applications are read thoroughly; however, in some instances a Committee Chair may limit the review to the summary. Remember this is the first impression.
  • If the beginning sections of the application are written well, the remainder of the application is read under favorable light.
  • Consistency of the proposal is key. Reviewers want to see alignment of objectives, methodology, knowledge mobilization and outputs.

Notes on Methodology

  • A detailed timeline demonstrates you have a clearly defined path. It also helps the reviewers see the feasibility of the study. One panel member recalled an impressive application included a monthly outline of research activity that showed the costs associated, the knowledge output that would come from that activity each month and an overall alignment with the research objectives. This gave the reviewer confidence that the researcher knew exactly how to proceed, how much it would cost, what would be the results/outputs of the activities in connection with the overall aims. This kind of detail can significantly impact the Feasibility score.
  • You cannot afford to be vague. Ensure the data you propose to collect are going to answer the proposed research questions.
  • Methodology is very important. Reviewers want to know the "how" of what you are proposing to study.

Notes on Theory and Literature

  • Strong research projects are theoretically informed. Justify the selection of the proposed theoretical framework, and demonstrate how the theory will be used in analysis/interpretation of data and achievement of research objectives.
  • It is worth spending time on the bibliography to ensure you demonstrate command of the discipline/field. You cannot know for certain whether an expert in your area will be on the committee.
  • The literature review must be up to date and relevant to your proposed study.

Notes on Knowledge Mobilization

  • How will you extend your research findings and learning beyond the academy? How will your research reach your target audience?
  • Strategies tend to be similar among projects-try to be innovative. A suggestion was to connect with the media relations office for creative ideas to reach public.

Notes on Student Training/Mentorship

  • Specify the role students will play in the research and what skills they will gain. How many hours will the student work on the project? What will the student be doing and how does this connect to the research objectives? What are the benefits for the student?
  • When students are part of proposed travel it is viewed more favorably.
  • Indicate if/how students will participate in academic output e.g. publishing. (Note: be aware of the expectations and culture of your discipline. In some areas, single authorship is superior and co-authoring with students is not viewed favorably)

Notes on Budget

  • Reviewers are instructed not to cut the budget, so ask for what is necessary rather than assuming a percentage is automatically decreased.
  • Budget items must be specified and justified e.g. if you are requesting funds for a computer, state exactly the kind of computer, why you need that specific computer, and the cost.
  • If reviewers find one aspect of the budget off, this makes the entire budget suspect.
  • Big ticket items on the budget are scrutinized. Again, justification is key. For example, if you are requesting funds for a project manager this will be viewed as eligible and necessary if the context in which you are conducting your research means that the project will not succeed without this support (e.g. smaller institutions without graduate programs or other personnel support).
  • The Feasibility score on an application will be low if the budget is underestimated (e.g. if the committee sees that you NEED a project manager for the project to succeed but it is not included in the budget).
  • One egregious item on your budget could taint how the rest of the budget is viewed.
  • Be aware of eligible and ineligible expenses.
  • Be judicious about budget for travel e.g. must you attend a conference in an expensive location? Must you travel abroad multiple times?

Notes on Feasibility

  • Although this accounts for a lower percentage of the overall score, it is the category under which an application can fall.
  • A reasonable timeline is critical. If the project appears too ambitious for the timeline, it will not be funded.
  • Lack of timeline will result in lower score.
  • Reviewers are looking for projects and scholars they can "count on." Reviewers consider: has the applicant held other research grants, and did the applicant publish from it? Was there significant output from other research projects? Reviewers look at track record and follow your trajectory. IF the reviewers don't feel the CV aligns with the proposed project, this will shake their confidence in the proposal. They are looking for a trustworthy application/applicant.

Notes on Research Teams and Partnerships

  • If you are proposing a team research project, ensure all team members have a role. Be specific about the roles each member will play.
  • Avoid "window dressing." Resist the temptation to add a well-known influential scholar to create celebrity status. IF that scholar has a key role in the study, then include her/him. If you want to add the influence of the scholar to your project, include her/him as a collaborator, rather than co-investigator.

Notes Specific to Partnership Development Grant (PDG) and Partnership Grant (PG)

  • PDG committee of reviewers includes community members with research experience.
  • Tt is an advantage if you demonstrate experience working with partners and have published outside of academia.
  • Existing partnerships are acceptable for PDG as long as you propose a new direction.
  • Quality over quantity-it is WHO you include that matters, not how many. All partners must be relevant and necessary to the project.
  • PG assessment included a Skype interview with applicant and another team member. The purpose of the interview was to discern whether there was genuine partnership, rather than to glean detail of the proposed project. E.g. how did the partners interact in the interview? Did the PI allow the partners to speak?
  • Of the PGs funded, all had a project manager. In some cases, the applying institution provided this as part of in-kind support.
  • Applicants must leverage cash/in-kind support as part of application.
  • Preparing for PG requires years of collaboration and networking. The application itself is labor intensive-start well in advance!

Notes on Committees

  • Review committees have their own culture and biases. Seek out a colleague who has served on a committee to gather insights.
  • Insight Development Grant → new and developing research is part of the criteria, and one panel member reported that it was a central criterion. However, some panel members also reported newness was not necessarily an issue unless it was obvious that the researcher had been studying the area for many years.
  • Some committees continue to meet, but other committee meetings are conducting via Skype.
  • In general, consider the conditions under which reviewers work:
    • long hours (sometimes looking at each other on a computer screen for 6 hours without a break),
    • many applications to review (some, such as Partnership Grant are 100 pages in length and committee members may read 30),
    • committee members are volunteers.

Friendly Reminders

  • Adhere to SSHRC's application guidelines and instructions, and use SSHRC's language and headings for organization
  • Be consistent throughout the proposal i.e. avoid creating tangential objectives later in your proposal.
  • Quality of writing is key-error-free, clear, precise and well-articulated arguments. Remember that reviewers are reading many applications.
  • Avoid "cut 'n paste" approach-this is perceived as "lazy" rather than emphatic.

Leave white space. Resist the temptation to cover the page/section.

Q & A Session

What is the difference between the former Standard Research Grant and the new Insight Grant?

Knowledge Mobilization and Expected Outcomes sections are new. The six page of proposal detail and summary remain the same.

Expected Outcomes differs from your research objectives. Consider expectations for your field, for your research assistants, for the students you teach, and for the general public.


Among the Partnership Grant applications, were there Expected Outcomes that stood out?

Reviewers noted specific outcomes for Canada, new public policy or pedagogical structures, and the discussion of concrete outcomes. An example of project focusing on sixteenth century Europe was shared as exemplary because it demonstrated how Canada would be positioned as an international leader in this area of study (creation of a center, etc.).

For the Insight Development Grant reviewers noted inter-disciplinary contributions and discussion of how the research was useful for Canadian discourse.

What is the length of the Partnership Development Grant?

Six pages with attachments that require demonstration of legitimacy of the partnership.

Does it strengthen an application to repeat objectives?

"Repeat with a difference." One panel member reported a clearly written proposal included statements such as, "Objective 1 will be addressed by…." The research activity was directly linked to the objectives.

How do you flag to reviewers the quality of the journal?

Considering that some reviewers may not have insight into the top tier journals in an area, you can highlight this in the section with your five most important research contributions.

It was also noted that self-citation must be carefully considered-demonstrate your expertise in an area without arrogance.

Thank you to the following panel members for sharing their expertise and experience:

Dr. Karyn Ball, English & Film Studies
Insight Development Grant Committee 4V: Sociology; demography; communication studies; journalism; media studies; gender studies; cultural studies; library and information science and related fields

Dr. Sarah Moore, Alberta School of Business
Insight Development Grant Committee 3B: Business and management; economics and related fields 2

Dr. Natalie Loveless, Art & Design
Insight Development Grant Committee 1B: History, medieval studies; classics; literature; fine arts; philosophy; religion and related studies 2

Dr. Carla Peck, Elementary Education
Insight Grant Committee 5B: Education and social work 1

Dr. Ingrid Johnston, Associate Vice-President/Research, Faculty of Education
Committee Chair for Partnership Development Grant

Dr. Lesley Cormack, Dean of Arts
Committee for Partnership Grant

Download and Print Version