The Tragedies of the Canadian Common CV and CIHR Reforms

Context
• The rationale for the Common CV is easy to grasp
In the United Kingdom, most Commonwealth countries, and Ireland, a CV
is short (usually a maximum of two sides of A4 paper), and therefore
contains only a summary of the job seeker's employment history,
qualifications, education, and some personal information.
In the United States, Canada, Australia and India, a CV is a
comprehensive document used in academic circles and medical careers
that elaborate on education, publications, and other achievements. A CV
contains greater detail than a résumé, a shorter summary which is more
often used in applications for jobs, but it is often expected that
professionals use a short CV that highlights the current focus of their
academic lives and not necessarily their full history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curriculum_vitae

The Genesis of the CCV (circa April 2004)
CCV was launched in July 2002 but this was the first web archive capture

Nothing is New
8 members (increased to 17)

Beware….
Original CCV site (www.commoncv.net) now owned by someone else.

The Modern CCV
Alzheimer Soc
Canadian Council for Arts
Canadian Diabetes Assoc
CFI
CGS
CIHR
Compute Canada
CRC
FRQS
Heart & Stroke Fdn
IMHR
Michael Smith Fdn HR
Multiple Sclerosis Society
New Brunswick HRF
NSERC
Nova Scotia HRF
OHTN
OICR
Ont Mental Health Fdn
Research Manitoba
St Josephs Hamilton
Saskatchewan HRF
SSHRC
U de Sherbrooke
Vanier/Banting
Vancouver Coastal HRI
Dropped CCV
Arthritis Soc
Canadian Cancer Soc
Genome Canada
Lawson HRI
Lung Assoc
26 members

The Tragedy of the Canadian Common CV
https://medium.com/@jwoodgett/the-tragedy-of-the-canadian-common-cv-
68063c4a8a3c#.k7gk80a2o

1. Reliability of site - downtime
2. Useability/Design - user experience
3. Members ever changing fields
4. Data import/maintenance
Core Problems
grant deadlines
downtimes
Hosted by Shared Services Canada

On cue, 2 days before CIHR Project grant deadline last week….
As an aside, due to internal institutional deadlines, this
penalizes those who submitted on time

2. Useability/Design
• More difficult issue as reflects core database structure
• Should not have to: navigate/field/enter/save/repeat
• For sanity
• For efficiency
• For RSI
• #FFS
• Has had clear deleterious effect on collaborative science

3. The Members Role
Notice of changes 1 day after 1st Foundation grant stage 1 deadline.
Likewise, 1 day after stage 2 deadline.

4. Data import/Maintenance
The core issue - fragmentation of requests by members
(too involved in website design?)
This problem was recognized relatively early in the
development of web standards (JPEG, MPEG, HTML, etc)
Agree on shared components for wide compatibility, agree
on rules/syntax, allow programmers to implement

Monopolistic Tendencies
If applicants are required to use a common process, make it
easy to use and/or open it up for others to improve upon.
Encourage compatible alternatives. Instead….
Captcha is implemented AFTER log in. Why?
Why isn’t CCV open source or, at least, open to compatibility to
outside developers (e.g. Proximify Uniweb)
Embrace ORCID!

• The “Reforms” refer to the comprehensive series of changes to
CIHR investigator-intiated programs AND how they are adjudicated
• CIHR itself traces the beginning to their 2009 strategic plan “Health
Research Roadmap” which makes no mention of what happened
next.

But weren’t the reforms brought in due to
application pressure and lack of funding?
True - that funding (in real terms) had begun to flatline
but $ directed to strategic initiatives

But cancellation of two open competitions
led to real crisis in applications
You Are
Here
$
Delayed Project

Decreasing success rate/increased application pressure
13%
http://www.acechr.ca

Issues: inequality
Gender inequality
Funding inequality
Career inequality
(Michael Hendricks)
https://medium.com/@MHendr1cks/the-impact-of-cihr-reforms-on-early-
career-biomedical-scientists-in-canada-6aef2f14bb12#.2witwodj6

Virtual Review
Scientists are human. They will look for shortcuts.
They will review at the last minute (possibly naked).
They, like everyone else, need peer pressure.

• Execution of the inaugural Project grant competition was disastrous
• 3800 applications - 3000 applicants deemed ineligible to review
(later rescinded - but too late)
• Expertise matching algorithm ($1.7 million) failed, resulting in
manual matching…
• Resulting in delay of sending apps to reviewers….
• Resulting in reviewers dropping out (100 a day)…
• Resulting in desperate recruitment and considerable drop in quality
• #PScream - open letter to Minister of Health: 1300 PI signatures
• Working group established - recommendations are a start
Issues: Quality of Review

Ending Thoughts
1. Critical to engage representative users of programs from the beginning
and to maintain their engagement throughout and after roll out. Test widely
and test changes as well (best intentions can lead to unanticipated conflicts).
2. Even if a process is designed to alleviate complexity, has broad support,
and sounds like a fantastic idea, implementation is everything.
3. Trying to achieve all things for all people is a sure road to failure. This was
a common feature of both the CCV and CIHR reforms. Too much crammed
in, trying to please all but satisfying none.
4. If a feature cannot be easily integrated, don’t add it, work out how to make
it seamless.
5. Time is money. Users time is 1000X designers time (users pay).
6. Ideological frameworks are easy to communicate but are no substitute for
practical solutions. Admit errors, build empathy.
7. If you give people multiple paths to achieve the same goal, more of them
reach the right destination.
8. Hide complexity: bury it (deep). The simpler something looks, the better it
is often designed.
9. Never have a list with 10 recommendations. At least one is redundant.
10. See 9.Ms Universe Canada

Ending Thoughts
1. Critical to engage representative users of programs from the beginning
and to maintain their engagement throughout and after roll out. Test widely
and test changes as well (best intentions can lead to unanticipated conflicts).
2. Even if a process is designed to alleviate complexity, has broad support,
and sounds like a fantastic idea, implementation is everything.
3. Trying to achieve all things for all people is a sure road to failure. This was
a common feature of both the CCV and CIHR reforms. Too much crammed
in, trying to please all but satisfying none.
4. If a feature cannot be easily integrated, don’t add it, work out how to make
it seamless.
5. Time is money. Users time is 1000X designers time (users pay).
6. Ideological frameworks are easy to communicate but are no substitute for
practical solutions. Admit errors, build empathy.
7. If you give people multiple paths to achieve the same goal, more of them
reach the right destination.
8. Hide complexity: bury it (deep). The simpler something looks, the better it
is often designed.
9. Never have a list with 10 recommendations. At least one is redundant.
10. See 9.Ms Universe Canada
Do NOT Do This!!!

The Tragedies of the Canadian Common CV and CIHR Reforms

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (15)

Similar to The Tragedies of the Canadian Common CV and CIHR Reforms

Similar to The Tragedies of the Canadian Common CV and CIHR Reforms (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

The Tragedies of the Canadian Common CV and CIHR Reforms