WILLIAM T. GRANT SCHOLARS

SELECTION COMMITTEE REVIEW TEMPLATE

(Revised July 2016)

Applicant:

Reviews are to be entered in the online review form in Easygrants. This template is provided should you wish to write your reviews offline first, and then cut and paste your comments in the online form.

REMINDER: There are no special features for bolding or italicizing words. Use spacing wisely. We strongly encourage breaking out points in individual paragraphs in place of bullets.

Reviewer Guidance

All proposals have strong points, but reviewers should includedetailed critical comments to help applicants strengthen their work. Your review (except the summative comments, rating, and external reviewer suggestions) will be shared with the applicant.

APPLICANT

1a. Does the applicant demonstrate promise for becoming an influential researcher?Is the applicant’s ability to conduct and communicate creative, sophisticated research is demonstrated through prior training and publications? The quality of publications is more important than the quantity.

Click here to begin typing

1b. Will the applicant significantly expand his or her expertise in new ways? This award differs from traditional research grants in that it is an investment in career development. Consider 1) if the applicant identifies ways the award will expand his or her expertise (e.g., in a different discipline, method, content area), and 2) if the research plan convincingly explains how the applicant would develop the new expertise.

Click here to begin typing

RESEARCH PLAN

2a. Is the research area consistent with the Foundation’s Current Research Interests? Comment on the proposal’s fit with interest in either 1) reducing inequality or 2) improving the use of research evidence.

Our inequality interests include supporting research to:

  • describe what we need to know to inform strategies for responding to inequality
  • test existing programs, policies, and practices to see whether and how they reduce inequality
  • improves measures of inequality that researchers, practitioners, or policymakers can use

Our use of research evidence interests include research to:

  • identify, create, and test the structural and social conditions that foster more routine and constructive uses of existing research evidence
  • identify, create, and test the incentives, structures, and relationships that facilitate the production of new research evidence that responds to decision makers’ needs
  • investigate whether and under what conditions using high-quality research improves decision making and youth outcomes

Click here to begin typing

2b. Is the research plan scientifically rigorous and feasible?

Consider whether the plan:

  • addresses questions important to policy and/or practice related to youth;
  • reflects a mastery of related theory and empirical findings;
  • advances prior and concurrent research efforts;
  • reflects high standards of evidence and rigorous methods. Comment on the research design, sampling, measurement, and data analysis plans;
  • demonstrates consideration of the gender, ethnic, and cultural appropriateness of concepts, methods, and measures;
  • is feasible; and
  • is cohesive, wherein multiple studies (if proposed) are well-integrated.

Click here to begin typing

MENTORING PLAN

3a. Has the applicant proposed one to two suitable mentors for the first two years of the award?

Consider whether each mentor:

  • has appropriate expertise in the applicant’s stretch areas;
  • demonstrates a commitment to mentor the applicant and a strong track record of mentorship; and
  • already has a mentoring relationship with the applicant. If so, describe whether the award would add significant value.

Click here to begin typing

3b. Will the mentoring plan contribute significantly to the applicant’s development?

Consider whether each mentor’s letter and the applicant’s description of the plan:

  • demonstrate that they have agreed on sensible mentoring goals; and
  • include appropriate mentoring activities, interactions, and sufficient time to meet the mentoring goals.

Click here to begin typing

INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT

4. Enter any concerns about institutional support or the proposed budget.

Click here to begin typing

SUMMATIVE COMMENTS (Shared with Selection Committee and staff only)

5.Add summativecomments for the Selection Committee. If the application is a resubmission, discuss whether it adequately addresses reviewers’ previous concerns.

Click here to begin typing

EXTERNAL REVIEWERS (Only if your rating is 1, 2, or 3)

Please suggest external reviewers, being mindful of reviewers’ expertise, reliability, and likelihood of providing constructive feedback. Also consider seniority—mid-career and senior researchers often offer useful comments on the career development aspects of the proposal.

Click here to begin typing

1