"Internal Research Proposal Evaluation Template"

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Download "Internal Research Proposal Evaluation Template"

417 times
Rate (4.3 / 5) 25 votes
Internal Research Proposal
Evaluation form
Research Title:__________________________________________________
Referee:________________________________________
Evaluation: Please rate each element of the criteria circle your rating below out of 5 as
follows:
A. Score [5] All relevant aspects of the criterion are successfully addressed and it
should be approved as proposed with no changes;
B. Score [4] The criterion is well addressed, although certain improvements are
possible and it needs minor changes;
C. Score [3] The criterion is broadly addressed, yet significant weaknesses need to be
corrected and it needs major changes but can be approved without another evaluation;
D. Score [2] There are serious weaknesses in relation to the criterion and it needs
serious changes that would require another evaluation;
E. Score [1] The criterion is addressed in an unsatisfactory manner and it should not
be approved.
Reviewers are expected to write a brief narrative evaluation at the end of this form,
summarizing the strengths and weaknesses of this proposal.
A current copy of the CV as well as a copy of the Final Report on the last IRG
received, if any, should accompany the proposal.
I) Scholarly Value and Methodology:
1- Does the title specify the subject and purpose of the investigation?
1
2
3
4
5
2- Does the problem narrative/ section provide sufficient theoretical
1
2
3
4
5
background for framing the project within the context of and the debates
in the discipline?
3- Does the theoretical framework cite key studies in the field?
1
2
3
4
5
4- Is there a clear statement of the hypothesis/ research question (goal of
1
2
3
4
5
the project) and is it clearly related to the theoretical framework?
5- Is the method(s) of approach to addressing the primary research
1
2
3
4
5
question (hypothesis testing or answering the problem) appropriate and
clear?
6- Is it clear how the data will be analyzed? Does the data analysis
1
2
3
4
5
answer the research questions?
7- Is the procedure for sampling (if used) clearly explained? Is the
1
2
3
4
5
sample appropriate for testing the hypothesis/ research question?
Internal Research Proposal
Evaluation form
Research Title:__________________________________________________
Referee:________________________________________
Evaluation: Please rate each element of the criteria circle your rating below out of 5 as
follows:
A. Score [5] All relevant aspects of the criterion are successfully addressed and it
should be approved as proposed with no changes;
B. Score [4] The criterion is well addressed, although certain improvements are
possible and it needs minor changes;
C. Score [3] The criterion is broadly addressed, yet significant weaknesses need to be
corrected and it needs major changes but can be approved without another evaluation;
D. Score [2] There are serious weaknesses in relation to the criterion and it needs
serious changes that would require another evaluation;
E. Score [1] The criterion is addressed in an unsatisfactory manner and it should not
be approved.
Reviewers are expected to write a brief narrative evaluation at the end of this form,
summarizing the strengths and weaknesses of this proposal.
A current copy of the CV as well as a copy of the Final Report on the last IRG
received, if any, should accompany the proposal.
I) Scholarly Value and Methodology:
1- Does the title specify the subject and purpose of the investigation?
1
2
3
4
5
2- Does the problem narrative/ section provide sufficient theoretical
1
2
3
4
5
background for framing the project within the context of and the debates
in the discipline?
3- Does the theoretical framework cite key studies in the field?
1
2
3
4
5
4- Is there a clear statement of the hypothesis/ research question (goal of
1
2
3
4
5
the project) and is it clearly related to the theoretical framework?
5- Is the method(s) of approach to addressing the primary research
1
2
3
4
5
question (hypothesis testing or answering the problem) appropriate and
clear?
6- Is it clear how the data will be analyzed? Does the data analysis
1
2
3
4
5
answer the research questions?
7- Is the procedure for sampling (if used) clearly explained? Is the
1
2
3
4
5
sample appropriate for testing the hypothesis/ research question?
8- Does the proposal include a Works Cited page/ Bibliography? Does it
1
2
3
4
5
follow the standard disciplinary citation rules (APA/ MLA, etc.)? Is the
list consistent with the works cited in the study itself?
9- Does the study purport to advance or extend disciplinary and / or
1
2
3
4
5
interdisciplinary knowledge in the field? How original is it?
II) Scope of the Project:
1- Does the problem section set limits to the problem?
1
2
3
4
5
2- Does the proposal address in clear disciplinary or interdisciplinary
1
2
3
4
5
terms the shape of the entire project?
3- Does the proposal clearly describe the plan of activities, including
1
2
3
4
5
steps and time required to accomplish the objectives and/or
methodology?
III) Significance and Value:
1- Is the basic and applied significance of the project clearly explained?
1
2
3
4
5
2- Does the proposal bring professional recognition to the university or
1
2
3
4
5
enrich classroom teaching or have a significant impact on the
curriculum?
3- Does it extend the applicant’s expertise?
1
2
3
4
5
4- Does it have a potential for publication (see below) and/ or
1
2
3
4
5
presentation at a conference? Has the author clearly stated how the
results will be disseminated?
IV) Background and Qualifications:
1- Does the applicant have the necessary credentials and track record for
1
2
3
4
5
undertaking the project?
2- Is the proposed research clearly grounded in the applicant’s prior
1
2
3
4
5
research on the topic?
3- Is there a clear idea of how will the project advance the applicant’s
1
2
3
4
5
research agenda?
4- Was there a description of the objectives and results from previous
1
2
3
4
5
grants, if any, given in the application?
V) Feasibility:
1- How likely is it for the applicant to complete the project in suggested
1
2
3
4
5
time?
2- Can the experimental design be implemented?
1
2
3
4
5
3- Is the budget line, if any, justified and reasonable?
1
2
3
4
5
VI) Overall Quality:
1- How is the application presented and documented overall?
1
2
3
4
5
2- Is it well written? Are there any glaring errors in style, grammar, and
1
2
3
4
5
language?
3- Is it accessible and comprehensible to faculty from other disciplines?
1
2
3
4
5
4- Are scientific integrity and precision considered?
1
2
3
4
5
Overall Recommendation of the reviewer/committee:
Mean Score: __________
---------Accept, --------Reject, ---------Accept with
conditions to make the above mentioned changes
Narrative evaluation: Please summarize the merits and weaknesses of the proposal.
Page of 3