Research
Excellent |
Good |
Fair |
Mediocre |
Poor |
|
Implications (10) |
Clearly demonstrated the importance and relevance of proposed research to a broader non-specialist audience as well as the academic implications. |
Makes an effort to explain research to a non-specialist audience, but still employes significant field jargon. |
Has a clearly developed research concept but does not explain its significance well to even an expert audience. Heavy use of jargon and field specific language, without explaining their meaning. |
Assumes the significance of project is mostly self-evident and only provides highly specific literature review for context. |
No context or background is given. |
Question (10) |
Highlighted an exceptional question of research and demonstrated a grasp of the existing research. |
A satisfactory research questions is proposed, but may not be adequately connected to research. |
Proposes a clear research question, but there are significant flaws with the question or the research. |
Poorly articulated research question and lacks description of how it fits within existing research. |
Does not have a clear research question. |
Methodology (10) |
Proposes or employs unique, novel, and feasible research theories, methods, sources, or approaches to answer research question. |
Satisfactorily proposes a concise and feasible approach to their research, but lacks originality or has minor practical flaws with methodology. |
Provides a methodological approach to research, but contains significant flaws or feasibility issues. |
Methodology is poorly developed and needs further consideration. |
No methodology is proposed to address question. |
Criteria (5) |
Proposal perfectly meets criteria and addresses how funds will be used. |
Proposal meets criteria but does not adequately address or neglects some issues. |
Proposal appears to meet criteria; however, does not specifically address funding. |
Does not clearly demonstrate how funds will be utilized, nor is it clear if criteria are clearly met. |
Does not meet criteria. Disqualified. |
Need (5) |
Demonstrates strong need of funding and has not previously received significant funding. |
Demonstrates a clear need of funding, but has received some funding. |
Does not demonstrate strong need but has not received funding in the past. |
Does not demonstrate a particularly strong need and has received some funding in the past. |
Does not demonstrate any need and has previously received funding. |
Travel
Excellent |
Good |
Fair |
Mediocre |
Poor |
|
Implications (5) |
Clearly demonstrated the importance and relevance of proposed research to a broader non-specialist audience as well as the academic implications. |
Makes an effort to explain research to a non-specialist audience, but still employes significant field jargon. |
Has a clearly developed research concept but does not explain its significance well to even an expert audience. Heavy use of jargon and field specific language, without explaining their meaning. |
Assumes the significance of project is mostly self-evident and only provides highly specific literature review for context. |
No context or background is given. |
Question (5) |
Highlighted an exceptional question of research and demonstrated a grasp of the existing research. |
A satisfactory research questions is proposed but may not be adequately connected to research. |
Proposes a clear research question, but there are significant flaws with the question or the research. |
Poorly articulated research question and lacks description of how it fits within existing research. |
Does not have a clear research question. |
Methodology (5) |
Proposes or employs unique, novel, and feasible research theories, methods, sources, or approaches to answer research question. |
Satisfactorily proposes a concise and feasible approach to their research but lacks originality or has minor practical flaws with methodology. |
Provides a methodological approach to research but contains significant flaws or feasibility issues. |
Methodology is poorly developed and needs further consideration. |
No methodology is proposed to address question. |
Criteria (10) |
Proposal perfectly meets criteria and addresses how funds will be used. |
Proposal meets criteria but does not adequately address or neglects some issues. |
Proposal appears to meet criteria; however, does not specifically address funding. |
Does not clearly demonstrate how funds will be utilized, nor is it clear if criteria are clearly met. |
Does not meet criteria. Disqualified. |
Need (10) |
Demonstrates strong need of funding and has not previously received significant funding. |
Demonstrates a clear need of funding but has received some funding. |
Does not demonstrate strong need but has not received funding in the past. |
Does not demonstrate a particularly strong need and has received some funding in the past. |
Does not demonstrate any need and has previously received funding. |