Partnership Development Grants

Requirements

Applications must demonstrate the following:

Quality and commitment of formal partnerships

Applicants should include relevant documentation to allow informed evaluation of the quality and level of commitment of the proposed formal partnerships.

Applicants must include evidence of formal partnership in their application. Evidence can include, but is not limited to:

• governance frameworks;

• agreements (intellectual property, conflict resolution, etc.);

• strategic plans; and

• other relevant documentation.

Institutional and partner organization contributions

Applicants are expected to include a plan to seek and secure cash and/or in-kind contributions for their initiative during the life of the grant. While there is no minimum contribution requirement, institutions and their partner organizations are expected to demonstrate a formal partnership currently exists, or is in the process of being developed, by supporting the activities of the formal partnership through cash and/or in-kind support.

For more information, see SSHRC’s

Merit review

Applications are reviewed, and available funds awarded, through a competitive merit review process. SSHRC bases funding decisions on the recommendations of the merit review committee and on the funds available. Committee discussions are guided by the principle of minimum essential funding.

Applications are reviewed by multidisciplinary committees that include relevant expertise from the academic community, as well as research expertise from the public, private and/or not-for-profit sectors. The exact number and composition of merit review committees will be determined by the number and nature of proposals received. Participants in the review process, if not in a conflict of interest with the applicant or any team members, are asked to evaluate the proposal based on the evaluation criteria below.

Committee members read an entire cohort of applications. Members, as a group, then evaluate and rank the proposals assigned to their committee.

SSHRC’s Guidelines for the merit review of Indigenous research are relevant for researchers (applicants and project directors) and students preparing SSHRC applications related to Indigenous research. SSHRC provides these guidelines to merit reviewers to help build understanding of Indigenous research and research-related activities, and to assist committee members in interpreting SSHRC’s specific evaluation criteria in the context of Indigenous research. SSHRC relies on a community of merit reviewers with experience and expertise in Indigenous research to judge the extent to which the guidelines can be applied to a particular research proposal. The guidelines may also be of use to postsecondary institutions and partner organizations that support Indigenous research.

Evaluation Criteria and Scoring

The following criteria and scoring scheme are used to evaluate the applications:

1. Challenge—The aim and importance of the endeavour (50%):

   • originality, significance and expected contribution to knowledge;

   • appropriateness of the literature review;

   • appropriateness of the theoretical approach or framework;

   • appropriateness of the methods/approach (including the co-creation of knowledge);

   • quality of training and mentoring to be provided to students, emerging scholars and other highly qualified personnel, and opportunities for them to contribute;

   • potential for the project results to have influence and impact within and/or beyond the social sciences and humanities research community; and

   • identification of progress indicators.

2. Feasibility—The plan to achieve excellence (20%):

   • appropriateness of the proposed timeline and probability that the objectives will be met;

   • quality and genuineness of the formal partnership and associated management and governance arrangements and leadership, including involvement of partner organizations and others in the design and conduct of the research and/or related activities;

   • expertise of the team and appropriateness of partner organizations in relation to the proposed project;

   • appropriateness of the requested budget and justification of proposed costs;

   • indications of other planned resources, including leveraging of cash and in-kind support from the host institution and/or from partner organizations; and

   • quality and appropriateness of the knowledge mobilization plans, including effective dissemination, exchange and engagement with stakeholders within and/or beyond the research community, where applicable.

3. Capability—The expertise to succeed (30%):

   • quality, quantity and significance of past experience and published and/or creative outputs of the applicant and any co-applicants and co-directors relative to their roles in the partnership and to their respective stages of career;

   • evidence of other knowledge mobilization activities (e.g., films, performances, commissioned reports, knowledge syntheses, experience in collaboration / other interactions with stakeholders, contributions to public debate and the media) and of impacts on professional practice, social services and policies, etc;

   • evidence of past contributions to the training and mentoring of students, postdoctoral researchers and other highly qualified personnel; and

   • past experience in formal partnerships.