Delivered as a part of Research Week 2014, this workshop introduces researchers to the SSHRC scorecard, categories of adjudication and feedback from members of previous adjudication committees.

1. SSHRC: Interpreting
Results and Models for
Success

2. Criteria Weighting and the Scorecard
Partnership
Development
Grants
Partnership
Grants
Insight
Development
Grants
Insight
Grants
Challenge 50% 40% 50% 40%
Feasibility 20% 30% 20% 20%
Capability 30% 30% 30% 40%

3. IDG: Challenge criteria (50%)
Sub-criteria (No specific weighting assigned to each
sub‐criterion)
N/A Modest Good Very
Good
Excellent
Originality, significance and expected contribution to
knowledge
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
Potential influence and impact within and/or beyond
the social sciences and humanities research
community
Briefly explain the rationale for your response

4. Scoring “Challenge”
Excellent (5‐6) Highly original, at the forefront of the field. Theoretical/conceptual approach or
framework is focused, fully explained, well developed. Literature review is
reasonably complete, up‐to‐date, and linked to the proposed research.
Methodology is well described and will lead to meaningful results. Training and
likelihood of influence/impact within/beyond research community are excellent
Very good (4‐4.9) Original, meets quality standards, will contribute to the development of the field.
One or more of the following elements should have been better developed:
literature review, theoretical/conceptual framework, methodology. Training and
likelihood of influence/impact are very good.
Good (3‐3.9) A good research proposal, but lacks at least one compelling element. Committee
has concerns regarding one or more of: originality/novelty, literature review,
theoretical/conceptual framework, methodology. Training, likelihood of
influence/impact are good.
Not recommended for
funding: Below 3
Low probability of significant contribution to the field. Serious shortcomings in one
or more of: originality/novelty, literature review, theoretical/conceptual
framework, methodology. Training, likelihood of influence/impact are modest.

5. Summary:
• This can make or break an application
• Ensure that the objectives are clearly laid out
• Include student training/mentoring
• The summary should encompass the whole research
plan in brief
Tips from the adjudication
committee:

6. Student Training:
• Need meaningful training activities for students
• These should be outlined in detail
• Include opportunities for students to travel to
conferences and help with research and paper
delivery
• Undergraduate students count!
Tips from the adjudication
committee:

7. Budget:
• Everything needs to be clearly justified and specified
in detail
• Need to ask for the right amount (don’t worry about
asking for the maximum if it is justified)
• Application can be failed on the budget alone
Tips from the adjudication
committee:

8. KMB plan:
• Make it specific (in other words, be sure that all
choices are clearly explained)
• Be creative (go beyond journals and conferences)
Tips from the adjudication
committee:

9. Advice and Pet Peeves:
• Methodology has to be clearly laid out
• Ensure you have an interesting research question and
justify why it is important
• Build a trajectory of funded research – know when to
apply for what level of grant
• Build capacity and reputation
• Bring on a senior scholar, if appropriate
• Ensure you can handle the project at your
career stage
Tips from the adjudication
committee:

10. Advice and Pet Peeves:
• Avoid trying to do too much in one project
• If it is too large and therefore too vague the
committee will not score it well
• Do not apply to a priority area unless your project
CLEARLY centres on that area
Tips from the adjudication
committee:

11. 4A and responding to previous committee
feedback:
• 4A: you should always improve according to
committee feedback (check for lowest scores)
• Revising versus creating a new project – depends on
discipline and feedback
• Using the “response to previous critiques” section
• Ensure you use the right tone (never defensive
or argumentative)
Tips from the adjudication
committee:

12. Ask the
Research Office
We are here to help!
Ruth Knechtel
Humanities
rknechtel@wlu.ca
Eve Nimmo
Social Sciences
enimmo@wlu.ca
James Popham
Knowledge Mobilization
jpopham@wlu.ca