Research
40 points.
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. |
| 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. |
| Methodology (10) | The feasibility of proposed research is evident. All relevant research theories, approaches, methods, and sources of data are fully articulated. Applicant clearly has a full methodological plan ready to implement, and the skills to implement this plan. | Proposed research is very likely feasible. Relevant research theories, approaches, methods, and sources of data are articulated, but some relevant information might be missing. Applicant clearly has a robust methodological plan that is close to ready for implementation. | Proposed research may be feasible. Relevant research theories, approaches, methods, and sources of data are mentioned, but not fully explained, and key information is missing. The applicant lacks a fully developed methodological plan. | Proposed research is unlikely to be feasible. Discussion of methodology is too vague to be useful and needs significant further development. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
Travel
35 points.
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. |
| 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. |
| Methodology (5) | The feasibility of proposed research is evident. All relevant research theories, approaches, methods, and sources of data are fully articulated. Applicant clearly has a full methodological plan ready to implement, and the skills to implement this plan. | Proposed research is very likely feasible. Relevant research theories, approaches, methods, and sources of data are articulated, but some relevant information might be missing. Applicant clearly has a robust methodological plan that is close to ready for implementation. | Proposed research may be feasible. Relevant research theories, approaches, methods, and sources of data are mentioned, but not fully explained, and key information is missing. The applicant lacks a fully developed methodological plan. | Proposed research is unlikely to be feasible. Discussion of methodology is too vague to be useful and needs significant further development. |
| 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. |
| 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. |