1 / 28

 NSERC Discovery Grant Workshop Charity Parr- Vásquez | Sept 5, 2012

 NSERC Discovery Grant Workshop Charity Parr- Vásquez | Sept 5, 2012. Eligibility. Faculty hold, or have a firm offer of, an academic appointment at a Canadian institution (minimum three-year term position) and take up the position no later than September 1 of the year of the award ;

milla
Télécharger la présentation

 NSERC Discovery Grant Workshop Charity Parr- Vásquez | Sept 5, 2012

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. NSERC Discovery Grant Workshop Charity Parr-Vásquez | Sept 5, 2012

  2. Eligibility Faculty • hold, or have a firm offer of, an academic appointment at a Canadian institution (minimum three-year term position) and take up the position no later than September 1 of the year of the award; • be in a position that requires independent research and allows supervision of highly qualified personnel (HQP); and • spend a minimum of six months per year at an eligible Canadian institution (if holding a position outside Canada). http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/NSERC-CRSNG/Eligibility-Admissibilite/faculty-corpsprof_eng.asp

  3. Eligibility Subject Matter • Discovery Grants support: • research programs in the natural sciences and engineering (NSE); and • interdisciplinary research that is predominantly in the NSE • Significance, impact, advancement of knowledge or practical applications in NSE http://www.science.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=FEE7261A-1#SSHRC1

  4. Timeline Submit Form 180 ORS proofreadingand budget ORS editing revisionassistance ORS internal deadline Results announced Submission to NSERC Mar/Apr Aug 1 Oct 21 Nov 1 Oct 14 Sept 21

  5. Review Process Two-step process 1) Merit assessment 2) Funding recommendations. The process has changed!

  6. Merit Assessment: Evaluation Group • Currently 12 evaluation groups • Each application is reviewed and voted on by 5 Evaluation Group members • depending on the proposal focus it may be reviewed my members from 1 or more Evaluation Group • Evaluation group members will also suggest external referees, who will generate referee reports 1501 Genes, Cells and Molecules 1509 Civil, Industrial and 1502 Biological Systems and Functions Systems Engineering 1503 Evolution and Ecology 1510 Electrical and Computer 1504 Chemistry Engineering 1505 Physics 1511 Materials and Chemical 1506 Geosciences Engineering 1507 Computer Science 1512 Mechanical Engineering 1508 Mathematics and Statistics

  7. Merit Assessment: Evaluation Criteria

  8. Excellence of Researcher Knowledge, expertise and experience Qualityof past or potential contributions and impact on the proposed and other areas of research Importance of contributions to- and use by- other researchers and end-users Complementarity of expertise of the members of the team and synergy (where applicable)

  9. HQP training Quality and extent of past and potential contributions to the training of HQP (e.g., post-doctoral fellows, graduate and undergraduate students, technicians) Appropriateness of the proposal for the training of HQP Enhancement of training arising from a collaborative or interdisciplinary environment (where applicable)

  10. Merit of the Proposal Originality and innovation Proposal suggests and explores novel or potentially transformative concepts and lines of inquiry Significance and expected contributions to research or potential for technological impact Clarity and scope of objectives Clarity and appropriateness of methodology Feasibility Extent to which the scope of the proposal addresses all relevant issues, including the need for varied expertise within or across disciplines Appropriateness and justification for the budget Explanation of the relationship between other sources of funding and the current proposal Extent to which it is clear, comprehensive, and convincing

  11. Merit Assessment • A=EEE • B=EEO • C=EOO • D=EOO • E=OOO • J=SSS • K=SSM • L=SMM Established researcher Early researcher

  12. A rating in any of the three categories of ‘insufficient’ will result in an unsuccessful application

  13. Funding Recommendations Quality bin determines the amount of funding an application will receive; Applications assigned to bin A receive the highest possible funding; Allotted funding is reduced for each successive bin; All applications in the same bin within an Evaluation Group receive a similar grant amount; Funding levels also vary across Evaluation Groups. $$$$$$ $$$$$ $$$$ $$$

  14. The Grant Application A full Discovery Grant application includes: • an Application for a Grant (Form 101), with supporting documentation; • a Personal Data Form (Form 100) for the applicant and all co-applicants, with supporting documentation

  15. Forms Form 100 Form 101

  16. Form 100- Checklist • Personal information (person profile, current employment, address, academic background) • Professional Experience • Areas of Expertise • Research Support (held in past 4 years, hold, applied) • Contributions attachment- 5 pages to describe impact from past 6 years (10-years for non-university training) • HQP (HQP Summary and HQP Personal Data) • Appendices if applicable (Appendix D-HQP consent forms must be retained by applicant and made available upon request)

  17. Contributions attachment This is used primarily to evaluate the quality of the applicant 5 significant research contributions that demonstrate impact List of research contribution Other evidence of impact and contributions Delays Contribution to HQP Follow presentation instructions carefully (i.e. boldface to indicate students on publications, list sources of funding after publications, clarify role on multi-author papers) • Focus on impact • Provide success stories and examples • Indicate uniqueness • Do not be humble

  18. Form 101 • Application profile (including areas of research, certification requirements) • Co-applicants (if team application) • Summary of proposal • Proposed expenditures • Budget Justification (2 page attachment) • Relationship to other support (unlimited attachment) • Proposal (5 page attachment (8 pages for team)) • Contribution to training HQP (1 page attachment (2 pages for teams)) • References (2 page attachment) • Research contributions (up to 4 from last 6 years (10 years if from industry)) • Appendices if applicable

  19. The Proposal Program vs. Project “The Discovery Grants Program supports ongoing programs of research (with long-term goals) rather than a single short-term project or collection of projects.”

  20. The 5-Page Proposal Recent research progress related to the proposal (or attributable to your previous DG) Objectives–short-AND long-term Pertinent literature–put your research into context Methods and proposed approach Anticipated significance • Original, innovative and • feasible • Clear and concise • Do not underestimate • presentation and style • Use headlines from • the guidelines • Proofread! • Write for both experts and non-experts

  21. Suggested approximate page breakdown The 5-page proposal progress report/ lit. review object- ives methods & approach benefit to field and Canada

  22. Team Grants • 8 pages • Same requirements as Individual, but additional details required: • Description of expertise, expected roles & contributions • Discussion of collaboration among members • Details of team management and structure

  23. HQP training plan • Be explicit- Who, why, what, how • Highlight unique aspects of your training program- Collaborations, mentorship, interdisciplinary training, ‘soft skills training’ • Highlight the successes of past students • Highlight unique-to-WLU experiences

  24. Budget Justification Include costs for: Salaries Dissemination Travel Materials and Supplies Equipment (not encouraged, but allowed) Do not inflate your budget Be specific and justify all requests Only request direct costs of research

  25. Relationship to other research support • Very important section that is often overlooked • Provide: Main objectives, methodology, budget details, and HQP info of related work • Must provide details on conceptual and budgetary relationships • “applicants who currently hold, or have applied for, research support from CIHR or SSHRC must provide the summary and budget page”

  26. “Discovery Grants Information Centre” Peer Review Manual Videos: “Tips on applying for an NSERC Discovery Grant” “Demystifying the review process for NSERC Discovery Grants” Use of Grant Funds Discovery Grant Information Session Form 100, 101, and 180 instructions Application Resources

  27. All forms and attachments must be submitted to NSERC electronically by Laurier internal deadline of Oct 21 Once you have submitted the grant through the e-console, the Laurier ORS must authorize it and do the final submission this is equal to the “institutional signature” In addition, submit to the Research Office: the External Grant and Contract Cover Sheet, with signatures by your department chair and dean. Final Steps

  28. Proposal writing, editing, proofreading, budgets, technical assistance with forms and on-line system Charity Parr-Vasquez, Research Facilitator for the Natural Sciences – cparrvasquez@wlu.ca, x4462 Research Office Application Assistance

More Related