Proposal Review Checklist

Eligibility

  • Check for eligibility – institutional, researcher, etc.
  • Check for funder priorities/objectives – does this proposal fit under them?

Formatting

  • Check guidelines for formatting of font, margins, document headers, section headers, section length, total length, page numbering (NOTE: Standard SSHRC formatting: Times New Roman, 12 points, 0.75 inch (2cm) margins, name of PI at top right within set margins, page numbering as of last page of online form)
  • Optimize readability/scannability – headings, enough paragraphing, reasonable sentence length, enough white space,etc.
  • Use the space allotted

Language

  • Avoid “academese”, disciplinary jargon, etc. – give definitions and/or clarifications, use plain language.
  • Check Selection Committee composition - is the language appropriate for this group?
  • Check for consistency of spelling (Canadian, British, American)
  • Check for use of acronyms – defined when first used?
  • Active v. passive, confident v. tentative writing
  • Carefully edit – for spelling, grammar, redundancy, vague language

Content

Check proposal-specific guidelines for anything else that should be covered in each of the sections. General guidelines:

Summary

  • Does it address the big picture question of: so what? why is this important/original?– need to grab the reviewers’ attention here, get them excited
  • Does it indicate overall proposal goal(s) and objectives? And key outcomes?Any innovation, e.g. innovative dissemination of results?
  • Methodology should be minimal, broadly framed
  • What sets this proposal apart from others? – locate it in the field
  • Is the language appropriate for a lay audience? – a summary is often used to publicize the research, so need to keep language non-technical, minimize academese

Goal/Objectives

  • Is there agoal statement that indicates what the proposal seeks to achieve in a broader sense?
  • Is/are the objective(s)/research questions clearly stated?
  • Are the objectives referred to in a consistent manner throughout the proposal?
  • Does the description match the objectives?

Rationale/Context/Literature Review

  • Has the case been made for the need for this research –where the “so what” question needs to be fully addressed. Will it create new knowledge, advance knowledge in some manner? What is the scholarly, intellectual, social, economic, cultural significance of the research - to Canada and beyond? What identified problem will be addressed? Who will benefit? Who is interested in this research? What impact will it have?
  • What is the niche for the proposed project – how does it fit into the overall area of research?
  • Is the literature review thorough/does it appear thorough? – have a peer in this field review the proposal
  • How does the research fit into the researcher’s record of research?
  • Has the theoretical approach/framework been defined?
  • Are all references fully cited? Make sure references in text are cited in references section; check selection committee – is amount of referencing appropriate for the group?

Methodology / Work Plan

More detail is always better: has the research plan been well thought through? – concrete details as to:

  • how the research will be conducted? - not just a list of activities, situate these in a research strategy
  • rationale for a particular approach/choice of methodologies? - demonstrate rationale for choice of methodology in terms of achieving objectives
  • if using case studies, criteria/rationale for selection of cases?
  • if using surveys, interviews –nature of the questions? who will be interviewed? how many interviews? need to consider sample size? setting of interviews? ethical/confidentiality issues noted? language/cultural barriers?
  • if using workshops – where? when in relation to research? duration? goal of workshop(s)? who will attend? format of workshop – small group/large group?
  • methods of data analysis? why are these methods appropriate?
  • phases/timeframe(s)?
  • for research teams, who will do what? (SSHRC Standard – separate section)

Communication of Results

  • are the research outcomes/outputs clear and derived logically from the research?
  • Are the major stakeholders of the research identified? are the dissemination strategies appropriate for each stakeholder group?
  • Are there dissemination strategies for both academic and non-academic audiences, if appropriate?

Overall

  • does the proposal address all the funder’s evaluation criteria?
  • is the proposal convincing – in terms of the need for the research? that it will create important new knowledge?
  • is the proposed project realistic? doable? are the timelines reasonable?
  • are the right people with the right experience and skills included to do the work?
  • are the necessary partners included to enable the research?

Budget

  • Does the budget follow funder guidelines for:
  • Minimum/maximum allowed – by year, total budget?
  • pay rates for students? (SSHRC: 12K max. for Master’s students, 15K max. for doctoral students, 31.5K for post-doctoral fellows)
  • cost of travel and per diem?
  • overhead? (Note: Tri-Council only allows direct costs of research, does not allow overhead)
  • Is the budget aligned with funder preferences? – e.g. Tri-Council preference for funding graduate students rather than consultants
  • Are other potential sources of funds listed?
  • Does the budget add up?
  • Are all workplan items budgeted for – e.g.workshop expenses, publishing, database development
  • Is there adequate administrative support/staffing (though careful as to amount)?
  • Are budget amounts realistic? – e.g. enough graduate student hours to do the work; avoid both underselling and inflating
  • Are in-kind contributions realistic?
  • Are the budget items properly justified?
  • in terms of the research – is the expense needed in order to achieve objectives?
  • in terms of dollar amounts for individual amounts?

1