2022 Special Call – Research for Postpandemic Recovery: Merit Indicators for the Review Process

Incorporates different disciplinary approaches, bringing an innovative perspective to the defined challenge. The various disciplinary approaches and perspectives are fully integrated; the project is not an amalgamation of disciplinary-specific approaches.

The interdisciplinary nature of the project is achieved through an amalgamation of projects / activities that are disciplinary.

The interdisciplinary approach is reflected in the team.

The team includes at least one expert in social, economic, or socio-economic research and/or implementation science among the principal investigators (NPI or co-PI)

The team does not reflect the expertise required to execute the interdisciplinary approach.

The team does not include any experts in social, economic, or socio-economic research and/or implementation science among the principal investigators (NPI or co-PI)

Designed from an interdisciplinary perspective.

The project is an interdisciplinary component “added on” to a more conventional project or program of research.

-

The application does not adequately establish the interdisciplinary nature of the project.

The proposed project directly addresses one or more of the research priorities outlined in the UN Research Roadmap for the COVID-19 Recovery

The proposed project does not address any of the research priorities outlined in the UN Research Roadmap for the COVID-19 Recovery.

Shows understanding of EDI considerations / systemic barriers in the context of the research team.

Concrete and specific examples are cited in analysis.

Demonstrates a strong commitment to EDI overall.

Analysis of context is generic and/or does not point to one or more systemic barriers.

Evidence of commitment to EDI overall is lacking.

Lists at least one concrete practice that targets the specific context listed for each area.

A concrete practice is not listed for one or more of the areas, or the concrete practices listed are not related to the context that was described.

Provides a description of how the concrete practice has been/will be realistically implemented.

Careful thought has been given to inclusion considerations in the recruitment, training and mentoring plan.

Efforts to establish a diverse team, inclusive working environment and equitable opportunities for all team members are apparent.

Strong evidence of accounting for members’ needs and engaging support systems (as necessary) to ensure equitable contributions from each person.

Provides no or an unclear description of how the concrete practice will be implemented.

The implementation plan is unrealistic or does not offer a well thought-out plan to address inclusion considerations.

Explains how the concrete practice will impact EDI, and describes an appropriate methodology for measuring success, including specific evaluation criteria.

Gives no indication of how the impact will be measured.

Does not explain the anticipated impact of the concrete practice on EDI, or how it will be measured.

Offers a highly innovative approach.

Builds on the latest methods, concepts, information and techniques.

Innovative approach that incorporates advanced techniques and methodologies from several disciplines.

Represents a well thought-out approach that is an innovative variation on a conventional approach.

Represents a conventional approach to the problem.

International team that integrates expertise and perspectives from a wide variety of regions, disciplinary backgrounds and sectors.

International team that integrates expertise and perspectives from a variety of regions, disciplinary backgrounds and sectors.

Team integrates expertise and perspectives from more than one region, disciplinary background and/or sector.

Team does not integrate expertise and perspectives from more than one region, disciplinary background and/or sector.

Highly compelling case for why the approach will successfully address one or more of the research priorities outlined in the UN Roadmap.

Compelling case for why the approach is plausible and supports one or more of the research priorities outlined in the UN Roadmap.

The application is somewhat persuasive in terms of the potential of the approach to address one or more of the priorities outlined in the UN Roadmap.

The application was not convincing in terms of the potential of the approach to address one or more of the priorities outlined in the UN Roadmap.

Significant economic, scientific, artistic, cultural, social, technological or health impact.

Notable economic, scientific, artistic, cultural, social, technological or health impact.

Minor economic, scientific, artistic, cultural, social, technological or health impact.

No economic, scientific, artistic, cultural, social, technological or health impact.

Strong impact on a single or small number of unique communities or subpopulations, with lessons for other contexts, or strong impact on large or multiple communities.

Impact on a single or small number or unique communities or subpopulations, with lessons for others, or impact on large or multiple communities.

Limited impact on a single or small number of unique communities or subpopulations, with either limited or no lessons for others, or limited impact on multiple communities.

No meaningful impact on any unique communities, with limited or no lessons for others, and no impact on multiple communities.

There is a strong likelihood that the significant impact will be realized.

Potential for knowledge uptake and use is high, as evidenced by thoughtful consideration and involvement of potential users in the research team.

There is a reasonable likelihood that the significant impact will be realized.

Knowledge uptake is likely. Potential users are involved in the project.

There is a chance that the significant impact will be realized.

The potential for knowledge uptake is limited.

It is unlikely that the significant impact will be realized.

The potential for knowledge uptake is low because there is insufficient engagement of potential users.

Short-term benefits are significant, clearly defined and specific, and a detailed measurement plan is in place.

Short-term benefits are notable, clearly described, and a detailed measurement plan is in place.

Short-term benefits are described and will be measured, but the measurement plan lacks details.

There is a lack of clarity or specificity about the short-term benefits that will result.

The proposed research project is clearly presented and its objectives are clearly defined.

The proposed research project is presented adequately and its objectives are sufficiently described.

The proposed research project lacks clarity. Objectives are minimally described.

The proposed research project, as presented, lacks clarity. Objectives are not clearly described and/or there are concerns about the likelihood of being able to achieve them.

The application demonstrates that the research team is aware of current and relevant research and prior art or knowledge.

The application demonstrates that the research team is aware of most current and relevant research, and prior art or knowledge.

Knowledge of some developments might be lacking, but this does not impact the feasibility of the proposed research.

The application demonstrates that the research team lacks awareness of relevant research or prior art or knowledge in one aspect/discipline related to the project.

The proposed project does not seem to take into account current and relevant research and prior art or knowledge (for example, proposing approaches that have been tested and failed).

The proposed work plan, including the methodological approach, is well described, reasonable and likely to be achievable within the proposed time frame.

The proposed work plan, including the methodological approach, is described, reasonable and likely to be mostly achievable within the proposed time frame.

The proposed work plan is reasonable. The methodological approach is lacking detail. The project objectives might be met within the proposed time frame.

The proposed work plan is not reasonable/feasible. The methodological approach is missing or flawed. It is unlikely that the project objectives will be met within the proposed time frame.

The research is designed with use in mind, with a clear plan for engagement with stakeholders and end users (including ensuring findings are accessible and user-friendly).

The research is designed with use in mind, with a plan for engagement with stakeholders and end users (including ensuring findings are accessible and user-friendly).

There is engagement of potential users in the project but no plan to ensure uptake.

There is no engagement with potential users and/or no plan to ensure uptake.

The application clearly demonstrates that the research team has the required expertise in all relevant disciplines to meet the objectives.

The application demonstrates that the research team likely has the required expertise in all relevant disciplines to help meet the objectives.

The application demonstrates that the research team has most of the required expertise, though some aspects may be missing or insufficiently described.

The application does not clearly demonstrate that the research team has all the required expertise to complete the work.

The research team has acquired or has concrete plans to acquire the necessary resources to complete the work. All aspects have been described.

The research team has acquired or has concrete plans to acquire the necessary resources to complete the work. Some aspects have not been well described.

The application demonstrates that the research team has acquired or has concrete plans to acquire most of the resources to complete the work. Some aspects may be missing or insufficiently described.

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+ has been integrated into the proposed methodology.

The proposal clearly articulates the relevance of GBA+ to the project and the potential significance of the findings to various groups.

The impact on the methodological approach and/or design has been clearly described.

There is a plan to support the participation of individuals or communities involved in the research (if applicable).

GBA+ has been integrated into the methodological approach.

The impact on the methodological approach and/or design has been described.

Support for the participation of individuals or communities involved in the research has been considered (if applicable).

GBA+ has been integrated into the methodological approach.

The impact on the methodological approach or design has not been described.

There is insufficient consideration of support for the participation of individuals or communities involved in the research (if applicable).

GBA+ considerations have not been integrated into the methodological approach or design.

Co-creation, co-leadership and co-ownership with Indigenous Peoples from Turtle Island (including First Nations, Inuit and/or Métis Peoples) and beyond are clearly integrated in the project’s design. The methodological approach and/or theoretical framework successfully incorporate(s) key considerations of SSHRC’s Merit Review of Indigenous Research. Attention to equitable processes and procedures for fair and respectful inclusion of Indigenous communities and their perspectives is evident.

Active engagement and reciprocity with Indigenous Peoples from Turtle Island (including First Nations, Inuit and/or Métis Peoples) and beyond are present and clearly described. Key considerations of SSHRC’s Merit Review of Indigenous Research have been incorporated into the methodological approach and/ or theoretical framework of the project.

Modest engagement and reciprocity with Indigenous Peoples from Turtle Island (including First Nations, Inuit and/or Métis Peoples) and beyond are present or described. There is minimal incorporation of SSHRC’s key considerations for the Merit Review of Indigenous Research.

Engagement and reciprocity with Indigenous Peoples from Turtle Island (including First Nations, Inuit and/or Métis Peoples) and beyond appear to be lacking or have not been described. Key considerations of SSHRC’s Merit Review of Indigenous Research have not been incorporated into the methodological approach and/or theoretical framework of the project.