1 / 16

News from the Granting Agencies / Nouvelles des agences subventionnaires NSERC/CRSNG

News from the Granting Agencies / Nouvelles des agences subventionnaires NSERC/CRSNG. CAGS / ACES 51st Annual Meeting / 51 e Congrès annuel Montréal, November 3-6, 2013. Outline / Aperçu. Program Evaluations Canada Graduate Scholarships (tri- agency ) PGS/IPS/CREATE

sibley
Télécharger la présentation

News from the Granting Agencies / Nouvelles des agences subventionnaires NSERC/CRSNG

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. News from the GrantingAgencies / Nouvelles des agences subventionnairesNSERC/CRSNG CAGS / ACES 51st Annual Meeting / 51e Congrès annuel Montréal, November 3-6, 2013

  2. Outline / Aperçu • Program Evaluations • Canada GraduateScholarships (tri-agency) • PGS/IPS/CREATE • Outcome of consultation on the Postdoctoral Fellowships Program • Évaluations de programme • Bourses d’études supérieures du Canada (tri-agence) • BES/BESII/FONCER • Résultat de la consultation concernant le programme de bourses postdoctorales

  3. Program Evaluations - Purpose • To meet the requirements of the FederalAccountabilityActand the Policy on Evaluation • Every program has to beevaluatedevery five years • To provideinsightful, actionablefindings, about program performance and relevance • To providerecommendations for future improvements

  4. Évaluation des BESC - Échéancier • Rapport d’esquisse approuvé par les comités consultatifs • Les divisions d’évaluation des agences préparent les méthodes de collecte de données • Date prévue pour compléter l’évaluation: mai 2014 • L’évaluation couvrira les années fiscales 2008-2009 à 2012-13 • Considération des résultats de l’évaluation précédente • Questions clés développées en consultation avec le personnel des agences et la collectivité • Méthodes d’évaluation multiples afin d’assurer des résultats crédibles et solides

  5. CGS Evaluation - Objectives • Assess the outcomes of CGS recipients in comparison to non-recipients • Assess the longer term impact of the CGS program through a trajectoryanalysis • The extent of the program’scontributions to arequiredsupplyof HQP • Identify « unexpected » outcomes to help determine the program’ssuitability • Informdecisions about what the « expected » outcomesshouldbe • Compare data to identifyanydifferencesacross the threeagencies

  6. Évaluation BESC – Objectifs (con’t) • Déterminer si des changements ont eu lieu dans l’expérience des récipiendaires depuis la dernière évaluation • Apprendre des différents mécanismes de livraison du programme des agences subventionnaires afin d’informer le processus d’harmonization • Coordonner la collection de données avec les autres évaluations présentement en cours • Afin de diminuer la charge des répondants

  7. CGS Evaluation – Key Questions • To whatextentis the program achievingitsexpectedimmediateoutcomes? • Incentives for enrolment in graduatestudies • Incentivesfor students to completestudies in a timelyfashion • To whatextentis the program achievingitsexpectedintermediateoutcomes? • Increasednumbers of studentscompletingstudies • High qualityresearchtraining; attractand retain • What are the outcomesachievedby recipients? • Research output, career progression, etc.

  8. CGS Evaluation – Key Questions (con’t) • Is the program delivered in a cost-effective manner? • Are thereany best practices thatcouldinform the harmonizationproject? • Does the program remain relevant? Is there a continuedneed? • Does the program alignwithroles, responsibilities and priorities of government?

  9. CGS Evaluation – Discussion/Feedback • How has the graduateeducationlandscapeevolvedin the last five years? • Are thereemerging issues in graduateeducation in Canada that have bearing on the currentevaluation? • Comment l’environnement pertinent aux études supérieurs a-t-il évolué dans les cinq dernières années? • Quels sont les enjeux qui pourraient être pertinents pour l’évaluation en cours?

  10. CREATE/PGS/IPS Evaluation • At a muchearlier stage than the CGS evaluation • Evaluationwillbecombined and expectedcompletionis for spring 2015 • Evaluation objectives are similar to that of the CGS evaluation • Especially for PGS and IPS • At the stage of determiningwhat the evaluation questions willbe • A stronger focus on CREATE • As with CGS, a mix of quantitative and qualitative data gatheringmethodswillbeused

  11. CREATE/PGS/IPS – Questions • Draft questions are similar to the CGS evaluation questions • The CREATE program does trigger different questions • To whatextent are highcaliber HQP participating in the CREATE, PGS and IPS programs? • To whatextentdoes CREATE provide a viable option for providingbothresearch and professionalskills training? • To whatextentdoes CREATE complementexistinguniversity initiatives?

  12. Postdoctoral Fellowships Issues • Following a positive evaluation of the PDF program, recommendations and focus on three issues • Value of the fellowship (currentlyat $40,000) • Timing: application deadline and announcementof results • Application pressure • Input wasrequestedfromstakeholders • CAGS and CAGS Board of Directors (C-TACC) • CAPS and CAPA • Engagement and RegionalVisits • Upcoming discussion atNSERC’sCommittee on Grants and Scholarships (COGS)

  13. PDF – Date limite et annonce des résultats • Le CRSNG s’est engagé à annoncer les résultats du concours des postdoc plus tôt • La plupart des répondants préfèrent une date limite du 1er octobre • Plus tôt qu’octobre comporte des difficultés liées au début du semestre d’autome • Le CRSNG devra être plus efficace avec le traitement des demandes ainsi qu’avec leur transmission aux comités de sélection

  14. PDF – Value of the Fellowship • PDF value iscurrently set at $40,000/yr • NSERC wasconsideringasking the university or supervisor to top up the award • Majority opinion wasthat a top-upshould not bemandatory • Averagediscoverygrant not beinghighenough • Limitingfinancialcapabilities of researchers and institutions • A top-upwouldundermine the purpose of the program, a prestigiousawardthatoffersindependenttraining • NSERC to worktowardsincreasing the value?

  15. PDF – Application Pressure • NSERC reduced, from 2 to 1, the number of applications an individualcouldsubmit • Rationalewas to ensure a more efficient use of time for applicants and reviewers • Followingunfavourable feed-back, NSERC agreed to re-consideritsdecision • There was no emerging trend in feedback received • Providing quotas to universities • Pre-screening of applications • Allowhighlyratedunsuccessfulapplicants to re-apply

  16. Questions/Comments Questions/commentaires

More Related