OFFICE OF RESEARCH SERVICES
COMMUNITY OF RESEARCH EXCELLENCE
DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES (CREDO) PROGRAM
REFEREE ASSESSMENT FORM
Instructions:
The applicant has given your name as one of two referees in support of their application for a CREDO
award from the University of Lethbridge Office of Research Services.
Your evaluation is intended to assist the SSHRC Leadership Committee in its deliberations for awarding
CREDO awards. We are extremely grateful for your expertise as well as your time and effort.
Please refer to the background and application guidelines on our website at
http://www.uleth.ca/rch/funding/dspIntGrant.cfm?GrantID=28.
Given the competitive nature of the adjudication process, constructive criticism and/or suggestions for
improvement, if appropriate, are welcome and will be shared with the applicant.
As your assessment will be made available to the applicant, please do not include any personal
identifying information. If such information appears in your document, the committee reserves the right to
remove it.
Please complete this form and email it back to Jane Allan – jane.allan@uleth.ca. Please do not send a
copy to the applicant.
Eligibility:
Who can be a referee?
Referees can be external or internal to the University of Lethbridge and should be knowledgeable about
the study's subject matter or phenomenon of interest.
Who cannot be a referee?
Referees may not be a collaborator, co-author, master's or doctoral thesis advisor or committee member.
Conflict of interest:
Any potential conflicts of interest, including close personal or professional relationships, must be
declared.
Name of Applicant: ___________________________________________________
Title of Project: ______________________________________________________
Part 1: Declarations on confidentiality and conflict of interest
1) The information provided in the applications is protected by Canada’s Privacy Act and is made
available to external assessors for reviewing purposes only. I therefore agree to treat as strictly
confidential all the material from the above-mentioned file which has been submitted to me by the
Committee. After responding, be it positively or negatively, I will ensure the destruction of the said
material.
Agree
Disagree
2) I attest that I am not in a conflict of interest with the applicant(s).
Agree
Disagree
Part 2: Program of Research
A program of research is a sustained research enterprise that includes one or more projects or other
components, and which is shaped by broad objectives for the advancement of knowledge. Please use the
scale below to check the boxes which best correspond to your opinion of the program of research. If
applicable, use the blank area under each category to elaborate upon your response.
1) Degree of originality and the program’s expected contribution to knowledge.
Modest Good Very Excellent
Good
Not original. Potential
contribution modest at
best.
Extremely innovative.
Great idea. Potential
contribution is high.
Explain the rationale for your response:
2) Completeness and timeliness of the literature review: is the program of research is adequately
grounded in existing literature.
Not
Modest Good Very Excellent
Applicable
Good
Incomplete, out-of-date,
disconnected from the
program.
Explain the rationale for your response:
Relatively complete
and timely. Program
flows easily from
literature.
3) Theoretical/conceptual approach or framework: is it sufficiently developed, explained and focused?
Not
Modest Good Very Excellent
Applicable
Good
Under-developed,
insufficiently explained, too
broad.
Well developed and
explained, focused.
Explain the rationale for your response:
4) Methodology/work plan: is it well-described, appropriate to the projected outcomes of the program of
research and will it lead to meaningful results?
Not
Modest Good Very Excellent
Applicable
Good
Not appropriate or
justified
Link between
methodology/work plan
and projected results
clear
Explain the rationale for your response:
5) How valuable would you rate the training provided to students involved with this project?
Not
Modest Good Very Excellent
Applicable
Good
Work appears to be of little
value added for either
student or project.
Students will receive
significant research
training.
Explain the rationale for your response:
Part 3: Record of Research Achievement
In your evaluation of this scholar’s record or research achievement, address the following criteria while
considering his/her career stage:


quality and quantity of publications;
evidence of impact within academia and beyond;
In the case of a research team, evaluate the strength and suitability of the team members’ research
achievements.
Modest Good Very Excellent
Good
Quality and quantity is
limited; impact is minor
Quality and quantity
is significant; impact
is considerable
Explain the rationale for your response:
Part 4: Overall assessment of the application
_____Modest
_____Good
_____Very good
_____Excellent
Please summarize the strengths and weaknesses of the program. Please include here any comments
you may have regarding the budget.