of 55 /55
FUNDAMENTAL RESEARCH GRANT APPLICATION & EVALUATION Muhammad Fauzi Mohd Zain Fakulti Kejuruteraan dan Alam Bina, UKM 18 Feb 2014

FUNDAMENTAL RESEARCH GRANT APPLICATION & EVALUATION Muhammad Fauzi Mohd Zain Fakulti Kejuruteraan dan Alam Bina, UKM 18 Feb 2014

Embed Size (px)

Text of FUNDAMENTAL RESEARCH GRANT APPLICATION & EVALUATION Muhammad Fauzi Mohd Zain Fakulti Kejuruteraan...

  • FUNDAMENTAL RESEARCH GRANT APPLICATION & EVALUATIONMuhammad Fauzi Mohd ZainFakulti Kejuruteraan dan Alam Bina, UKM18 Feb 2014

  • Program Penyelidikan Fundamental2013Single Disciplinary Project

    permohonan projek penyelidikan melibatkan satu (1) bidang penyelidikan.siling peruntukan adalah RM250,000.00 sepanjang tempoh penyelidikan.Trans Disciplinary Project

    - permohonan projek penyelidikan melibatkan sekurang-kurangnya tiga (3) bidang penyelidikan (trans disciplinary) melangkaui jabatan / fakulti dari institusi yang sama.- sasaran hasil penyelidikan yang sama.- siling peruntukan adalah RM1,500,000.00 sepanjang tempoh penyelidikan. Research Acculturation Grant Scheme (RAGS)

    -dana tunas yang bertujuan untuk membudayakan penyelidikan di kalangan penyelidik muda di IPTA bukan RU sebagai persediaan untuk membangunkan prestasi penyelidikan supaya dapat berdaya saing di peringkat kebangsaan dan antarabangsa.Research Acculturation Collaborative Effort (RACE)

    Membantu Non-RU meningkatkan budaya penyelidikan dan seterusnya dapat meningkatkan output hasil penyelidikan. Usaha ini dapat mempercepatkan Non-RU untuk mencapai tahap setanding dengan RU yang lain.

  • BILPERKARAFRGS LRGSERGSPRGSSingle Disciplinary ProjectTrans Disciplinary ProjectRAGS1Siling PermohonanRM250,000 RM1,500,000RM50,000 RM80,000RM3 juta/tahunRM300,000RM500,0002Tempoh Penyelidikan1 hingga 3 tahun1 hingga 3 tahun1 hingga 2 tahun3 hingga 5 tahun3 tahun2 tahun3KPI 1 PhD 3 papers in index link journal (2 years) 10 PhD (3 years) 50 papers (3 years) 3 IP (per program) - number of researchers with Citation Index of 100) 1 PhD 3 papers in index journal 1 IP (filed)1 IP/project

  • Fundamental Research (FRGS)Basic researchPure research

    Fundamental research generates new knowledge and technologies to deal with unresolved problems.

  • Exploratory Research (ERGS)Relies onsecondary researchTo gather preliminary information

    Research intended only to provide greater familiarity with the phenomena that researcher wants to investigate so that he can formulate more precise research questions and perhaps develop hypotheses. Such studies can be essential when researcher is investigating new phenomena or phenomena that have not been studied before.

  • Most common reasons for grant writers (GWs) not receiving fundsNot new or lack of original ideasDiffuse, superficial or unfocused research planLack of knowledge of published relevant workLack of experience in the essential methodologyUncertainty concerning the future directionsQuestionable reasoning in experimental approachAbsence of acceptable scientific rationaleUnrealistically large amount of workInsufficient experimental detailUncritical approach

  • Quality of the ProposalThe measures for a good quality proposal are:

    Informative title; Convincing executive summary; Clear problem statement; Scientific background and rationale; Good selection of research methods; Ethical considerations; and Realistic budget and schedule.

  • A document that is neat, well organized and easy to read; Responsiveness to the program need, with specific references showing how the proposed project will achieve program goals and objectives;Fresh insight into an important problem; Writing that communicates the enthusiasm and commitment of the researcher; Evidence that the PI knows the field; Convincing preliminary data; andA feasible work plan that is supported by an appropriate budget.Characteristics of a good proposal:

  • Internal evaluationDepartment/Faculty/Institute levelUniversity level

    Internal evaluators improve the quality of grant submissions How to improve

  • External evaluationSponsor levelMany constraints

    Number of proposals, amount of money available, etc.To find mistakes/weaknesses, etc.To find ways on

    How to reject

  • Selecting An EvaluatorWhen selecting an evaluator for research grant project, the following criteria may be useful to consider:

    Credentials/Reputation- To what extent has the individual evaluated research grants, particularly fundamental focused researches? Is the evaluator affiliated with an academic institution? Education- To what extent the individual trained in evaluation? Does the evaluator have a certificate, or doctoral degree related to evaluation? Experience- To what extent does the individual have formal or informal experience with evaluation in fundamental research grant? Can the evaluator provide samples of evaluation reports that he or she has completed? Sensitivity- To what extent does the evaluator have experience working with the target population? Integrity- To what extent is the organization familiar with the evaluator? Does the evaluator present any conflicts of interest with evaluating the project?

  • Selecting An EvaluatorWhen selecting an evaluator for research grant project, the following criteria may be useful to consider:

    Communication Skills- To what extent is the evaluator able to explain technical concepts in understandable language and demonstrate clear verbal and written expression? Availability- To what extent is the evaluator available to meet with the project timelines and be flexible if timelines need to be modified? Cost- Are the proposed cost for the evaluation reasonable for the required tasks? Contract/Scope of Service- Is the evaluator willing to design a scope of service/contract or agreement outlining his/her responsibilities along with timelines?

  • Pros and Cons of using External Evaluators

    ProsConsLess work for your organizationEvaluators professional expertiseEvaluators bring objectivityEvaluation results may have more credibilityLess control over the processStaff may have more complete understanding on the programLess opportunity to develop internal evaluation capacityExpensive

  • Conflict of InterestEvaluators are required to declare any personal interests according to the following criteria. Evaluators must disqualify themselves if they can in any way benefit from the approval or rejection of the proposal. They must also disqualify themselves in the following circumstances: Evaluators have close collaboration with the GW (e.g. have co-authored and published an article with the GW during the past three years, have been involved in the preparation of the application, or are involved in the publication or application of the results) Evaluators have been a superior, subordinate or instructor of the GW during the past three years Evaluators are currently applying for the same post as the GW Evaluators are currently applying for funding from the same funding instrument on the same research area.The GW is a close person to evaluator.

  • Research Proposal VS Research evaluation

    Module of FRGS/ERGS Proposal

    TitleDetails of ResearcherResearch InformationExecutive SummaryResearch BackgroundProblem StatementHypothesesLiterature ReviewResearch ObjectivesMethodology/Research DesignTimeline/ScheduleExpected ResultsFacilities and Special ResourcesBudgetResume/Brief CVAppendicesWhat Ext. Evaluators Look For:

    Title (1)Details of ResearcherResearch InformationExecutive Summary (2)Research BackgroundProblem Statement (3)HypothesesLiterature ReviewResearch Objectives (4)Methodology/Research Design (5)Timeline/ScheduleExpected Results (6)Facilities and Special ResourcesBudget (7)Resume/Brief CVAppendices

  • Fundamental Criteria of Evaluation

    CARE:Are GWs tackling an important problem? If they can make progress on it, will anyone care?

    NOW:Why now? If this problem is so important, why has it not been addressed before?

    IDEAS:Do GWs have concrete ideas for starting an attack on the problem and a vision for proceeding further? Is initial progress likely and subsequent progress possible?

    RESULTS:Do GWs have some preliminary results? Do they demonstrate a good understanding of the problem and the methods needed attack it further?

    PLAN:Do GWs have sensible plans and methods (e.g., concrete steps and ways of decoupling risks)?

    CAN-DO:Why these GWs? Why are their qualifications and infrastructure appropriate?

    LEGAL:Have GWs followed the rules of the solicitation (e.g., compelling broader impacts for FRGS/ERGS)?.

  • Main Criteria of Evaluation All proposals must be evaluated based on the criteria outlined below.RelevanceDegree to which the proposal was related to KPM (F/E/L/PRGS)Degree to which the proposed research results would be relevant to policy-makersExtent and appropriateness of dissemination plansDegree to which the proposed research would facilitate the goals of KPMDegree to which the proposed research represented an innovative approach and develop new knowledge in the field of engineering or other disciplines

    Research TeamQuality of the research team and their researchThe applicant and the research team are among the leading in their field. The publications are at a remarkable international level. The articles are published in the best peer-reviewed journals, or proceedings, which are indexed in the leading databases of the field. The impact of the applicant (number of citation; the scientific level of the journals, where the articles are published) is, in the respective field, at a remarkable international level)

  • Main Criteria of Evaluation All proposals must be evaluated based on the criteria outlined below.Proposal QualityDegree to which the research approach provided results that can be generalized beyond the unit of analysis and were applicable to multiple settings or groupsDegree to which proposal demonstrated general criteria of excellenceInnovationQuality of the research objectives and linkage to literature reviewClarity of the research questionsAppropriateness of methodologyQuality/clarity and detail of proposed research methodetc

  • Main Criteria of Evaluation (detail)Evaluating what worked and what didn't will be crucial for grant sponsor and for GWs. What impact do evaluators expect to achieve and how will they evaluate it? Before evaluators design their evaluation, Carlson and O'Neal-McElrath, authors of Winning Grants, Step by Step, suggest that evaluations can accomplish these 6 purposes: To find out if the hypothesis was right. Did GWs actually do what they set out to do? To determine if the methods specified were used, and if the objectives were met. To find out if an impact was made on the identified need. To obtain feedback from the people served and other members of the community. To maintain control over the project (evaluations are done at various points in the project). To make changes in the program mid-stream, if necessary, to insure the program's success.

  • Determine if GWs will use quantitative or qualitative methods for their data collection, or what combination of the two types they will use. Develop a good description of these methods and their rationale for the grantor. Make sure the evaluation component of GWs proposal connects with the proposal's objectives and methods. If those objectives and methods are measurable and time-specific, the evaluation will be easier to design. Evaluators must ask these questions as they develop the evaluation section of GWs proposal: What is the evaluation's purpose? How will GWs use the findings? What will GWs know after the evaluation that they didn't know before? What will GWs do as a result of the evaluation that they couldn't do before because they lacked the relevant information? How will the clients and community served be better as a result of the program?

  • Main Criteria of Evaluation (detail)The following criteria will be used to evaluate proposals:Quality of the proposal (i.e., significance, relevance of methodology, importance of findings, value to larger academic community, etc). Proposals should be framed in a manner easily understood by someone outside your discipline. Proposals must meet high professional standards in presentation, including spelling, grammar, and proper budgeting.Potential for peer-review publication, presentation, exhibition, etc.Budgetary appropriateness.Potential for disseminating research to broader academic community.Value for professional development of faculty member.

  • Main Criteria of Evaluation (detail)Review questions include, but are not limited to:

    Does the proposal communicate the importance of the work?Is the importance of the project within its field made clear?Will successful completion of the project have an impact upon the field?Is the project significant to the development of a program of scholarly activity by the lead GW?Are the objectives clearly defined, and is the basic question to be answered clearly identified?Are all necessary facilities available?

  • Main Criteria of Evaluation (detail)Review questions include, but are not limited to:

    Does the lead GW have the necessary background and expertise?Are project activities well planned, and do they realistically fall within an appropriate timetable?Have all items requested been justified?Is the amount requested reasonable and consistent with the total funding available to this grant program?If equipment is requested, has the possibility that it is already available elsewhere on campus been addressed?If support for students is requested, is it clear that their activities are essential to the research program?

  • External evaluationSponsor levelEvaluators focus on the Four Cs

    Clarity. How GWs do cross-reference current literature in laying out their premises.

    Content. How GWs organize their ideas around aims linked to their hypothesis.

    Coherence of concepts. How GWs present coherent set of ideas predicated by previous work.

    Cutting edge. Are GWs ready to take legitimate risks.

  • Make Life Easy for EvaluatorsEvaluators are knowledgeable, experienced scientists, but they cant know everything.

    Problem: evaluators may not get the significance of the proposed research.Solution: GWs write a compelling argument.Problem: evaluators may not be familiar with all the research methods.Solution: GWs write to the non-expert in the field.Problem: evaluators may not be familiar with the research lab.Solution: GWs show to evaluators that they can do the job.Problem: evaluators may get worn out by having to read 10 to 20 applications in detail.Solution: GWs write clearly and concisely, and make sure the application is neat, well organized, and visually appealing.

  • Ethical Statement

    Researchers undertaking any form of fundamental research using animals or people have to submit a proposal to either the animal ethics committee or the human ethics committee for approval before the data gathering can begin.

  • Joel Orosz, of the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, has sagely observed that there are really only four kinds of proposals Bad idea, bad proposalBad idea, good proposalGood idea, bad proposalGood idea, good proposal

  • Good Proposal Grant Proposal (Failed/Success)-Sample

    Good Ideas Good GrantsmanshipGood Presentation Good ReviewGood Luck

  • Kevin C. Chung, MD, Melissa J. ShauverCheryl Anne Boyce, Ph.DXander HT Wehrens, M.D. Ph.DGitlin, L. N., Lyons, K. J.Simon Peyton JonesBaharuddin Salleh

  • 1. Sains Tulin - Prof. Emeritus Dato' Dr. Muhamad bin Yahaya, UKM 2. Sains Gunaan - Prof Emeritus Dato' Dr Md Ikram Bin Mohd Said, UKM 3. Sains Sosial - Prof. Dr. Samsudin bin A. Rahim, UKM 4. Sains Tabii dan Warisan Negara - Prof. Dato Dr. Nik Muhamad bin Nik Ab. Majid, UPM 5. Sains Kesihatan dan Klinikal - Prof Dato Dr. Amin bin Jalaluddin, UM 6. Sastera dan Sastera Iktisas - Dato Prof. Salleh bin Yaapar, USM 7. ICT - Prof Dr. Ku Ruhana binti Ku Mahamud, UUM 8. Teknologi dan Kejuruteraan - Prof Dr Muhammad Fauzi Mohd Zain, UKM

  • Thank you