2021 Innovative Approaches to Research in the Pandemic Context: Merit Indicators for the Review Process
Using the matrices
For each criterion, consider the relevant elements. These may include a few, several or all of the elements outlined in the matrices, as well as some not listed. The matrices are to be used as a guide. Except where otherwise noted, it is left to the discretion of the reviewer to balance assessments of individual elements to provide an overall rating for each criterion.
Criterion: Fit to program
Applications must fit the objectives of the funding opportunity to be considered for funding.
| - | Fits the objectives of the funding opportunity | Does not fit the objectives of the funding opportunity |
|---|---|---|
| Fit to program | Proposes the development of a novel or innovative research methodology that responds to limitations of current methodologies in the context of the pandemic. | The proposed research methodology is not significantly different from existing methodologies, or does not address research challenges created by the COVID-19 pandemic. |
Criterion: Equity, diversity and inclusion
To meet the NFRF program’s expectations for equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI), projects must adequately address each of the following elements.
| - | Meets expectations | Does not meet expectations |
|---|---|---|
| Analysis of context |
Clearly demonstrates understanding of EDI considerations/systemic barriers within the context of the research team. Provides a clear explanation of the team’s specific challenges/opportunities related to EDI. Cites examples in the analysis. Demonstrates a strong, broad-based commitment to EDI. |
Fails to demonstrate an understanding of EDI considerations/systemic barriers within the context of the research team. Provides an analysis of context that is generic and/or not aligned with best practices and/or does not identify one or more systemic barriers. Lacks evidence of a commitment to and understanding of EDI overall. |
| Concrete practice for each area |
Clearly identifies at least one concrete practice specific to the context of the research team for each area. |
Does not provide a concrete practice for all areas, and/or provides concrete practices irrelevant to the context of the research team. Challenges are not discussed. |
| Implementation |
Provides a clear and realistic explanation of how the concrete practice or practices have been/will be implemented. Considers implementation challenges. |
Lacks, or provides an unclear description of, the implementation plan. Provides an unrealistic implementation plan. |
| Impact |
Explains how the concrete practice or practices will impact EDI. Describes a suitable methodology for measuring success, including specific evaluation criteria. |
Does not explain the anticipated impacts the concrete practice or practices will have on EDI. Does not describe any method for measuring success. |
Criterion: High Risk
How high risk a project is can be defined by elements including the following. A project does not have to include all the elements listed to be deemed to meet the expectations for the high risk criterion.
| - | Idea is bold, innovative and high risk | Idea does not meet expectations |
|---|---|---|
| Proposes unique research methods and techniques |
Aims to develop a completely new research methodology or technique. Aims to develop a novel approach by adapting existing methods or techniques to a new context. |
The proposed approach is a proven method or technique, or represents an incremental or “logical next step” development in the research methodology. |
| Challenges current approaches to research |
Challenges conventional approaches to research, including by building community empowerment and leadership and/or enabling community participation and engagement. |
- |
| Uses novel interdisciplinary approaches |
Goes beyond established approaches of any single discipline, bringing together disparate perspectives in new ways. |
- |
| Other |
- |
The application does not adequately establish the high-risk nature of the project. |
Criterion: High Reward
Projects that are high reward are those with the potential for outcomes that can be defined by elements including, but not limited to, the following.
A project does not have to include all the elements listed to be deemed to meet the expectations for the high reward criterion.
| - | Project has potential for high impact | Project’s potential impact is limited |
|---|---|---|
| If successful, the project will result in: | ||
| Impact on research |
Advances in current methods or techniques that will improve research. There is a plan for sharing the novel methodology with the research community. |
No significant improvement to current methods or techniques. There is no plan to disseminate the novel methodology to the research community. |
| Multidisciplinary benefit |
Methodology can be applied to and will benefit more than one field of research. |
- |
| Community impact |
Impact on communities, with communities empowered to lead the research or actively engaged to participate in the research. The approach can be adapted for use with other communities or in other contexts. |
No meaningful impact on communities. The proposed methodology is not designed around community engagement. There is limited ability to adapt the approach for use with other communities or in other contexts. |
| Broad impact |
Increased knowledge generation and/or acceleration of research, or continued generation of knowledge when otherwise impossible owing to the pandemic. |
New methodology unlikely to produce an acceptable level of knowledge generation. |
| Other | - |
The application did not adequately explain the value of the project’s potential outcomes. |
Criterion: Feasibility
A project’s feasibility can be defined by elements including, but not limited to, the following. A project must include all elements listed to be deemed to meet the expectations of the feasibility criterion. The only exceptions to this are for the gender-based analysis plus (GBA+) and Indigenous research elements, which are relevant only where applicable.
| Project is well planned and designed | There is room for improvement in the project plan and/or design | |
|---|---|---|
| Objectives | The proposed research project is clearly presented and objectives are clearly defined. |
The proposed research project, as presented, lacks clarity. Objectives are not clearly described and/or there are concerns about the likelihood of achieving them. |
| Building on current knowledge | The application demonstrates that the research team is aware of current and relevant research methodologies. |
The proposed project does not seem to take into account current and relevant research methodologies and prior art or knowledge (for example, proposes approaches that have been tested and failed, or ones already in use). |
| Work plan | The proposed work plan, including the methodological approach, is well described, reasonable and likely to be achievable within the proposed timeframe. |
The proposed work plan is not reasonable/feasible. The methodological approach is missing or flawed. It is unlikely the project objectives will be met within the proposed timeframe. |
| Research team | The application clearly demonstrates that the research team has the required expertise to meet the objectives. |
The application does not clearly demonstrate that the research team has the required expertise to complete the work. |
| Resources | The research team has acquired, or has concrete plans to acquire, the necessary resources to complete the work. |
The application does not clearly demonstrate that the research team has acquired, or has concrete plans to acquire, the necessary resources to complete the work. |
| GBA+Footnote * | If applicable, GBA+ has been integrated into the proposed methodology. Its impact on the methodological approach and/or design has been clearly described. |
GBA+ considerations apply to the project, but the applicant indicated that they do not. GBA+ has not been adequately integrated into the proposed methodology, or its impact on the methodology has not been clearly described. |
|
Indigenous researchFootnote * See the SSHRC Guidelines for the Merit Review of Indigenous Research |
Co-creation, co-leadership and co-ownership with First Nations, Inuit and/or Métis Peoples are clearly integrated in the project’s design. The methodological approach and/or theoretical framework successfully incorporate SSHRC’s key considerations for Indigenous research. Attention to equitable processes and procedures for fair and respectful inclusion of Indigenous communities and their perspectives is evident. |
Engagement and reciprocity with First Nations, Inuit and/or Métis Peoples are lacking or have not been described. Key considerations of SSHRC’s Guidelines for the Merit Review of Indigenous Research have not been incorporated into the project’s methodological approach and/or theoretical framework. |
- Date modified: