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 – [email protected] 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.