SSHRC Grant Writing Workshop

Report
Grant Writing Session #1
SSHRC
OISE Student Success Centre (OSSC)
James Corcoran (CTL);
Gary Fogal (CTL); Steven Leigh (CTL);
Pamela Osmond (LHAE); Chloe Shantz-Hilkes (LHAE)
Lisa Chinchamie (APHD); Michelle Pon (CTL)
September 16, 2014
Overview
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Participant backgrounds
Awards available
Eligibility
Evaluation criteria
Writing a program or plan of study letter
Application tips
Departmental contacts and other resources
Testimonials and tips
Q&A
SSHRC Overview
• Doctoral Fellowships
• CGS Bombardier Doctoral
• CGS Master’s
CGS Bombardier Doctoral
• $35,000 a year for 36 months
• SSHRC selection committee only considers the
top-ranked SSHRC Doctoral Fellowship
applicants.
• Must be in Year 1 or 2 when taking up the
award
Doctoral Fellowships
• 12-48 months duration
• Annual value: $20,000
• Quotas are based on previous success rates
• Each department has a different quota
CGS Master’s
• $17,500 for 12 months, non-renewable
• Quotas are based on enrolment
• Each department has a different quota based
on success rate and master’s population
SSHRC Doctoral Eligibility
•
•
•
•
Full-time student
Canadian citizen or resident
Pursuing a first doctoral degree
Overall average of at least A-, 80%, or a GPA of
3.7/4.0 (calculations differ depending on what
year you are currently in).
• Applicants can be in Years 1 through 4
CGS Master’s Eligibility
• Applicants must have completed, as of December 31 of the year of
application, between zero and 12 months of full-time studies (or
full-time equivalent) in:
– The master’s program for which you are requesting funding
• Not have previously held a CGS M
• Overall average of at least A-, 80%, or a GPA of 3.7/4.0 in the last
two completed years of study (full-time equivalent) - calculations
differ depending on what year you are currently in.
• Applicants (prospective students) to the program are now ranked at
the Department level.
• Submit online
• An eligible graduate program must have a significant research
component.
SSHRC Doctoral Evaluation criteria
• past academic results, as demonstrated by
transcripts, awards and distinctions;
• the program of study and its potential
contribution to the advancement of knowledge;
• relevant professional and academic experience,
including research training, as demonstrated by
conference presentations and scholarly
publications;
• two written evaluations from referees
CGS Master’s Evaluation Criteria
• Academic Excellence:
As demonstrated by past academic results, transcripts,
awards and distinctions.
• Research Potential:
As demonstrated by the applicant’s research history,
his/her interest in discovery, the proposed research, its
potential contribution to the advancement of knowledge in
the field, and any anticipated outcomes
• Personal characteristics & interpersonal skills:
As demonstrated by the applicant’s past professional and
relevant extracurricular interactions and collaborations
Application Tips
CGS-M
• Write down User ID and a password to access your application
• Complete and submit your application using the ResearchPortal.
Doctoral
• Write down User ID and a password to access your application
• Remember to “verify” your application when you are done. The
watermark should not appear.
• Complete and sign your checklist.
• Remember to sign your application!
Considerations When Crafting (or recrafting) Program or Plan of Study
• Audience (Generalist vs Specialist)
• Outlining
• Structure: content by section
• Style: conciseness; format (APA & SSHRC specs.)
• Revision
Tips – Program or Plan of Study
• Clearly state your research purpose and
questions.
• Make a strong case for the significance of your
research to theory and practice
• Use language that scholars who are not in your
field will understand.
• Select elements of your larger literature review
that clearly support your purpose and your
research methods.
• Present a workable research design in as much
detail as possible.
Further considerations:
Program or Plan of study
• Introduction: background and lit review (displaying broad
and specific knowledge)
• Problem: where is the gap?
• Positioning: how may my research contribute to
advancement of knowledge in this area?; how am I
uniquely qualified to carry out this research in a timely and
effective manner?
• Impact: so what? Why is this potential research important
and to whom? How will I disseminate my findings to
important stakeholders following completion?
The need for revision
• Part of writing process
• Should include multiple attempts
• Should include multiple stakeholders
Departmental contacts
• CTL: Michelle Pon
• LHAE: Sezen Atacan; Karen Palma
• SJE: Ann-Kristine Pearson
• APHD: Lisa Chinchamie
Resources
School of Graduate Studies: Scholarships and Awards
http://www.sgs.utoronto.ca/currentstudents/Pages/Scholarships-and-Awards.aspx
SSHRC Doctoral Fellowship
http://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/funding-financement/programsprogrammes/fellowships/doctoral-doctorat-eng.aspx
Canada Graduate Scholarship (CGS) – Masters
http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/Students-Etudiants/PG-CS/CGSM-BESCM_eng.asp
OISE Student Success Centre (OSSC)
http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/ss/OISE_Student_Success_Centre_(OSSC)/
School of Graduate Studies English Language Writing Support Centre (ELWS)
http://www.sgs.utoronto.ca/currentstudents/Pages/English-Language-and-WritingSupport.aspx
Suggestions for “best” practice
• Use multiple editors
• Consider taking ELWS courses
• Use OISE OSSC advisors and departmental
advisors
• Attention to detail – departmental liaison
• Carefully consider clarity and feasibility of
proposed research
• Edit, edit, re-edit
Gary Fogal (Doctoral SSHRC)
• Work the system – or not
e.g. Strengthening Centres of Creativity, Innovation
and Knowledge
• Precise, Organized & Clear
• Tap into available resources
– (writing centres, online resources, etc.)
• Tap into your supervisor (once)
• Sound confident (& avoid modesty)
• Present a project as being in motion
Pamela Osmond (Doctoral SSHRC)
See handout
Steven Leigh (CGS-M)
See handout
Chloe Shantz-Hilkes (CGS-M)
Michelle Pon (CTL) &
Lisa Chinchamie (APHD)
Q&A
• Feel free to pose questions to one particular
panelist or the panel as a whole

similar documents