Lecture 11

This is what you will learn during this class:

You will refine your proposal based on peer feedback and share how this feedback has shaped your final draft.

Breakdown:

Step 1 Introduction (30 minutes)

1. • I’ll begin with a brief outline of the session structure and the importance of constructive feedback.

   • Key areas to focus on during feedback include:

     • Clarity of your program-level background and significance

     • Cohesiveness of the overarching framework (e.g., MRC)

     • Logical flow and integration between each study in your proposal

     • The impact significance of your overall program and each phase

   • I will also go over the CIHR template that I want you to use for your final assignment. 

Step 2 Draft the Proposal (1 Hour)

Step 3 Break (10 Minutes)

Step 4 Peer Feedback Pairs (45 Minutes)

1. • Pair up with a classmate. Ideally, work with someone whose project is in a similar topic area

   • Take turns presenting your combined proposal draft, focusing on:

     • Your program-level background and research question

     • The overarching framework and how it supports your studies

     • Linkages between each study, showing continuity across phases

     • Anticipated outcomes and program impact

   • Offer detailed feedback on each other’s proposals. As you provide feedback, concentrate on:

     • How clearly your partner communicates their program’s overarching goal

     • Whether each study builds logically on the previous one

     • Appropriateness of the methodologies, ethical considerations, and data management strategies

   • Take notes on the feedback you receive and use it to make immediate refinements to your proposal.

STEP 5 Feedback Reflection Presentations (30 minutes)

Individual Reflections (5 minutes each)

1. • After the peer feedback session, each of you will present a brief reflection to the class. Share:

     • Key feedback you received from your peer reviewer

     • Specific changes you’ve made or plan to make based on the feedback

     • How the feedback helped you improve the cohesion and impact of your proposal

   • Class Discussion: After each presentation, your classmates and I may offer quick comments or additional insights to further refine your proposal.

CIHR Operating

TITLE of Research Proposal

Suggested template for organizing CIHR operating grant

1. SIGNIFICANCE AND OVERALL HYPOTHESIS
   One page. Provide a brief background, setting out the problem and its relevance or significance clinically and/or to healthcare. Then explain how the problem can be solved or ameliorated by research, including the ultimate goal or purpose of the research. A real-world problem exists for which research can propose a solution.
   Your hypothesis is the foundation or the basis of your application. Examples: Analogs to chemokine receptors can inhibit HIV infection. Nicotine and opiates work through similar neuronal substrates to provide their motivational effects.

2. OBJECTIVES
   Half page. Provide the objectives of the proposal, that is, the measurable specific results that you propose to achieve. Objectives should be SMART—specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, time-bound.

3. BACKGROUND
   Two pages. Provide background, literature summary, generalities of previous work, including your own, as it relates to this project, and explain specific terms.

4. PROGRESS AND EXPERIMENTAL PLANS
   One page. Provide specific details of progress and plans.

5. SPECIFIC AIMS
   Half page. Define Aim 1 – Aim 2 – Aim 3 –. Your specific aims are the individual objectives of your project, what you want to accomplish step-by-step.

6. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
   Six pages. Provide a brief summary of research design and methods. Aim-by-aim, give details about progress and experimental plans. Use sub-headings for each specific area of research. With each aim, provide expected results and significance. Always provide alternatives in case research takes an unexpected turn.

7. TIME CONSIDERATIONS, EXPECTED RESULTS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
   Third of a page. Provide some details.

8. SUMMARY AND CONCLUDING REMARKS
   Third of a page. Explain the significance and impact of the research.

REFERENCES:

Grant Proposal Assessment Framework (Total: 25 Marks)

a) Background and Justification (6 Marks)

• Problem/Gaps/Hook: How well does the proposal articulate the real-world problem, identify the knowledge gaps, and establish a compelling reason for the research? (3 marks)

• Relevance and Significance: Does the proposal demonstrate why this research matters to clinical practice, healthcare, or scientific knowledge? (2 marks)

• Innovation: Is the proposed research novel or creative in addressing the identified problem or gaps? (1 mark)

b) Logical Connection Across Studies (6 Marks)

• Progression Between Studies: Are the three studies logically connected, with each study building clearly on the findings or outcomes of the previous one? (3 marks)

• Study-Level Justification: Does each study include its own problem/gap/hook statement to explain its individual significance? (2 marks)

• Clarity of Framework: Does the proposal clearly situate the studies within an overarching research framework like the MRC? (1 mark)

c) Methodology and Logic Model (7 Marks)

• Research Questions and Aims: Are the research questions and aims for each study clear and well-aligned with the methodologies? (2 marks)

• Methodological Rigor: Are the methodologies described in sufficient detail, appropriate for the aims, and feasible? (3 marks)

• Logic Model: Does each study include a clear and logical connection between research questions, methods, analysis, and expected outcomes? (2 marks)

d) Significance and Impact (4 Marks)

• Alignment with Objectives: Does the significance of the research logically link to the objectives and outcomes outlined in the proposal? (2 marks)

• Real-World Application: Does the proposal effectively describe how the research outcomes could address real-world problems, influence policy, or improve practice? (2 marks)

e) Presentation and Clarity (2 Marks)

• Organization and Clarity: Is the proposal well-written, clearly organized, and professional? (2 marks)