51% of Members weigh in on the Proposed Internal Research/Creative Project Grant Policy Revisions!

Thank you to all members for participating in the recent survey on the proposed revisions to the Internal Research and Creative Grant (IRG) guidelines.

A total of 432* people participated in the survey, giving us an overall response rate of just over 51%!

Given this strong response, the FA has met with the AVP Research on Tuesday December 1, 2015 to share your feedback and preferences on these proposed guidelines.

Based on your feedback, we requested Research Services consider making the following revisions:

  • Ensuring that the IRG Committees have some discretion to cut budgets of funded applications, as long as those funding cuts can be justified and that this would lead to more applications being funded.
  • Allowing faculty members to apply for an IRG in successive years provided they are also applying for external funds in that year.
  • Increase the number of committees from three to five  (Social Science, Humanities, NSERC-type, CIHR-type, and Creative Grants)

In addition, we asked Research Services to discuss possible ways through which eligibility for IRGs would be extended to include teaching stream faculty and librarians.  As this discussion is ongoing, we will update you as part of the review of the next draft of the proposed revisions.


Survey Results

The survey asked two closed-ended questions and one open-ended question. The results of the closed-ended questions are as follows:

  1. On the question of whether IRG Committees should have the discretion to cut application budgets so that more applications could be funded, 66% of respondents were in favour.
  2. On the question of whether junior and senior applicants should be adjudicated in separate pools, 45% of respondents were in favour, while 55% favoured the system proposed in the revised guidelines.

The open-ended question asked faculty for any other comments and feedback they would like the Association to bring to Research Services. While there was some diversity of opinion, there was strong consensus around the following issues:

  1. Members are strongly against the proposed change to prohibit faculty to apply for an IRG in the year following the receipt of an IRG.
  2. There is a concern that the move towards team grants might reduce overall success rates.
  3. The maximum and minimum sizes of the grants should be reconsidered; some researchers, (i.e., researchers working on their own and with texts) do not require large grants, while others, (i.e., researchers in other disciplines), the maximum size of the grant is too small.
  4. There is a concern that not allowing teaching faculty and librarians to apply for IRGs is unfair and prevents these colleagues from fully participating in academic life.

Related Documents

DRAFT IRG Guidelines 2016-17 DISTRIBUTED

University Policy Review Committee Report – November 4 2015


.entry-meta { display: none; }