Player scripts provide players with role-specific materials for playing the game.
A script is available for each of the roles - Lead Research Director, Contestant, Research Director, Judge, Ethics Board Reviewer, Grant Holder, and Secretariat Staff.
Scripts include practical materials such as a step-by-step timelines, samples, and fill-in forms.
The Lead Research Director can be an individual or a small group of Research Methods teachers who head up the entire Contest from start to finish.
A Contestant is a social science student who submits a Research Proposal to an external grants review, the Contest.
The Research Directors are teachers who supervise the production of Research Proposals as part of course work and who agree to sponsor student Contestants for the Contest.
The Judges are volunteers from a variety of sectors within the college – teachers, students, staff and administration.
The Ethics Board Reviewers are a few volunteer students, teachers, staff members or administrators.
The Grant Holders are Contestants, either individuals or teams, who, after having entered the Collegiate Contest, are selected by the Judges and approved by the Ethics Board Reviewers to be the winner.
The Secretariat Staff is responsible for the publication of Collegiate Contest Grant Holders winning proposals.
Lead Research Directors must be teachers who have taught in Research Methods in Québec’s CEGEP Social Science Program. From recruiting players to convening meetings, the Lead Research Director is in charge of the overall operations of the Contest team of Judges, Research Directors and Ethics Board Reviewers, who vet high-quality student Research Proposals in a fair and professional manner.
By reaching beyond the confines of a single classroom to include learners and teachers from multiple courses, a Lead Research Director creates “a holistic learning ecosystem" as defined in Blessinger (2013). Learning-Scapes: Cultivating Meaningful and Sustainable Learning Ecosystems. Higher Education Tomorrow, Volume 1, Article 5.
The Contestants apply as members of their college’s social science program and identify with one of the ten social science disciplines.
As a members of separate professional associations (psychology, history, economics…), the Contestants are expected to think and act their way to winning the funds for their discipline affiliation.
The Contestants must be students who:
The Winners get published, become Grant Holders and are honoured with a Research Work of Outstanding Merit award.
Since the Contestants’ Research Proposals have to be judged and reviewed before the beginning of the vacation period, you have to ensure that you can complete your Research Proposal weeks before the end of the semester. You may have produced most or all of a Research Proposal in a previous semester or while playing the Fund$ Game or the Research Institute. Determine whether you can meet all the requirements and the deadlines.
Strategize how to align your Research Proposal to meet the requirements, especially for the Judges and the Ethics Board Reviewers.
Once you have your Research Proposal in hand, make a To-Do list of improvements to your existing proposal that can be undertaken in a reasonable amount of time. These should include:
Some recommendations:
Ensure your Proposal complies with the Code of Conduct guidelines before signalling your approval in the entry form.
The Contestants shall strive to advance knowledge on a topic with scientific rigor while showing respect for the integrity and rights of research subjects and authors.
The Contestants agree to:
Conduct their research in a way that honours accuracy and truth and formally recognizes the academic contributions of others.
Scientific fraud, forgery, fabrication of information and misconduct are not condoned at any level. This involves:
Obey the general rules regarding the ethical treatment of human subjects, which are embodied in the ethical rules governing researchers and members of your institution’s community.
This mostly involves:
Protect themselves and others from physical, emotional, legal, social or professional harm.
This mostly involves erring on the side of caution. It is best to exclude a technique if the related liability or potential for harm is unclear.
I, ______________________________ [please print], hereby declare that I have read and understood the Code of Conduct governing the Contestants in this Collegiate Contest.
I agree to adhere to the principles and values expressed in the Code and will, to the best of my abilities, assume the duties and obligations implied therein.
Signature: __________________________________
Date of signature: ______________________________
Contestant Name:
Names of team applicants (for a team submission):
College Name:
Student ID #:
Date of birth:
Email address:
Mailing address:
Projected date of graduation:
Name of Research Director (sponsoring teacher):
Name of course(s) for which proposal was completed:
Date(s) of course completion (e.g., fall 2016):
Social science discipline(s) of proposal:
Please also include a STATEMENT OF INTENT (100-word account of reason for applying).
For team submissions, each Contestant must submit a separate entry form and write a separate Statement of Intent.
I, ______________________________ [please print], supervised this Contestant’s submitted proposal
in the course(s) _____________________________, in the ____________semester of 20___,
and I feel confident that the proposal meets the basic requirements of the Contest.
Briefly indicate how you supervised this Contestant’s proposal:
Signature: __________________________________
Date of signature: ______________________________
Research Directors encourage students to become part of a co-curricular Contest to choose the Grant Holder with the best Research Proposal. They facilitate student involvement in the Contest either as Contestants, Judges or Ethics Board Reviewers. They also help Contestants align their Research Proposal with the Contest requirements and sponsor student Contestants by attesting to having supervised some or all of the Contestant’s Research Proposal work.
Research Directors must be teachers who have taught in Québec’s CEGEP Social Science Program and supervised the production of a Contestant’s Research Proposal.
Review the Research Proposal(s) being considered for sponsorship and provide a couple of concrete measures that can be taken to improve the Contestant’s chances of winning the Contest. This could also be done as a peer review exercise modelled on the Research Institute’s Internal Grant Review. In providing feedback, consider recommending some of the following measures:
The Judges read and evaluate the Contestant Research Proposals for the External Grants Review and select Grant Holders. The Lead Research Director selects the Judges from social science student, teacher, staff and administrator applicants.
The Judges must be:
The evaluation criteria below can be used to select a winning proposal. The Judges determine which criteria they prefer and how to weight each item.
Judges embody professional authority at its highest level, and as such, the Judges should be objective, respectful and fair in rendering decisions about the Contestants’ work.
The Judges agree to:
Failure to abide by this Code may lead to disqualification from the Contest.
I, ____________________________ [please print], hereby declare that
Signature: __________________________________
Date of signature: ______________________________
Applicant’s Name:
Program of study:
Student ID #:
Email address:
Projected date of graduation:
Please also include a STATEMENT OF INTENT (100-word account of reason for applying).
Judges embody professional authority at its highest level, and as such, the Judges should be objective, respectful and fair in rendering decisions about the Contestants’ work.
The Judges agree to:
Failure to abide by this Code may lead to disqualification from the Contest.
I, ____________________________ [please print], hereby declare that
Signature: __________________________________
Date of signature: ______________________________
Check whichever option applies:
If you are a teacher, are you sponsoring a Contest applicant?
Email address:
Phone number:
Please also include a STATEMENT OF INTENT (100-word account of reason for applying).
As members of an Ethics Board, the Reviewers are expected to enforce the ethical standards of research in the Contestant Research Proposals and ensure fair and equitable procedures are followed in the Contest proceedings.
An online tutorial on research ethics helps the Reviewers to evaluate the Research Proposals and judge the Contest participants’ adherence to their Code of Conduct.
The Reviewers determine whether to endorse the short-listed proposals for a second reading and write a Final Report on the Contest.
When the Lead Research Director convenes the first meeting of Reviewers, you should:
The Reviewers should use this form, or a modified version of it, to evaluate the short-listed Research Proposals. Use a separate form for each evaluation. Items 6-16 apply only to Research Proposals involving direct contact with participants. Place a checkmark in the N/A boxes for these items for proposals that do not involve direct contact with participants.
Reviewer Name: ____________________________________
Code # ______________________ Short title of Proposal ________________________________________________________
EVALUATION CRITERIA | PLACE A CHECKMARK IN APPROPRIATE BOX | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
YES | SOMEWHAT | NO | N/A | ||
1. | Does the Contestant appear to have properly credited all sources referred to and provided a complete bibliography of sources? | ||||
2. | Are the information sources or intended data sources from reputable sources or has the Contestant at least stated the limitations of any less reputable sources? | ||||
3. | Does the research question warrant the time and trouble to pursue the research? | ||||
4. | Does the Contestant demonstrate a clear and thoughtful understanding of the ethical rules governing research? | ||||
5. | Would you feel comfortable giving the Contestant permission to gather data in this way? | ||||
6. | Does the data collection plan appear to involve dignified, fair and respectful treatment of individuals or groups? | ||||
7. | Would you characterize the proposed interaction with the research subjects as LOW RISK? 1 | ||||
8. | Does the recruitment (sampling) plan provide enough detail to judge whether it is ethical? | ||||
9. | Does the proposal exclude participants who are legally (under 18) or otherwise unable to give valid consent (e.g., people with learning difficulties, receiving counselling or suicidal…) or in a dependent or subordinate relationship with the researcher? | ||||
10. | Does the recruitment (sampling) plan restrict the participants to people who can safely be studied by untrained, novice student researchers? | ||||
11. | Is adequate information provided in the consent/permission form concerning participant rights, such as the right to withdraw? | ||||
12. | Are adequate measures in place to obtain informed/voluntary consent? | ||||
13. | Will the participants be aware they are being studied? | ||||
14. | Are adequate measures in place to ensure confidentiality? | ||||
15. | Are the risks to the participants’ health, safety or professional integrity acceptable? | ||||
16. | Would you be willing to participate? |
COMMENTS | |
---|---|
|
“NO” responses warrant serious consideration. Consult the Tri-Council Policy Statement TCPS used in Step 1 of the Step-by-Step for further information. You may also want to confer with your fellow Reviewers.
After completing the 16-item checklist items, rate the proposal under review:
Please forward these completed forms to the Judges’ Communications Officer and the Lead Research Director. Only the Judges’ Communications Officer and the Lead Research Director will have access to these forms.
1 Low risk is defined as involving minimal to no physical or emotional risk to either the Contestants or the research participants, risks that are no greater than those likely to be encountered in everyday life. A proposal that involves significant risk or involvement or direct knowledge of illegal activities should be rejected. Tests that determine IQ or emotional or mental well-being or those requiring the extraction of bodily substances or fluids, the use of drugs (including alcohol), the consumption of caffeinated drinks or special diets can pose significant physical or emotional risks and do not qualify as low risk.
Ethics Board Reviewers ensure that finalists’ Research Proposals are thoroughly vetted for compliance with ethical standards. Ethics Board Reviewers agree to:
The Contestants agree to:
- Conduct their research in a way that honours accuracy and truth and formally recognizes the academic contributions of others.
- Scientific fraud, forgery, fabrication of information and misconduct are not condoned at any level. This involves:
- Referring to sources from which they have extracted central ideas, theories, findings, specific arguments, definitions, conclusions, interpretations and scales of measurement, even when not using direct quotations.
- Avoiding fabrication of facts and figures, falsification by wrongful author attribution or exaggeration and plagiarism.
- Avoiding colloquial, emotional and non-academic expression.
- Consistently and correctly using a formatting style that is appropriate to the discipline(s) featured in the proposal.
- Obey the general rules regarding the ethical treatment of human subjects, which are embodied in the ethical rules governing researchers and members of your institution’s community.
- This mostly involves:
- Informed consent, which may include a consent form (attached as an appendix item for the Contest) or, when only verbal consent is viable, a consent script (embodied in the Method Plan).
- For subjects under 18 years of age, informed consent from a parent or legal guardian.Recognition of the subjects’ right:
- Not to be distressed, humiliated, dishonoured or harmed through their participation
- To withdraw from study at any point in time
- Requesting permission from the director, board of directors, manager, owner, or other person in charge for access to institutions.
- Permission form to request access to and terms of use for personal possessions such as photos, personal diaries or letters.
- Refraining from direct contact with children and physically, emotionally or socio-economically vulnerable individuals.
Protect themselves and others from physical, emotional, legal, social or professional harm.
This mostly involves erring on the side of caution. It is best to exclude a technique if the related liability or potential for harm is unclear.
I, _________________________________ ,
Signature: __________________________________
Date of signature: ______________________________
EBR Applicant’s Name:
College Name:
Status:
Position/Program/Department:
If you are a teacher, are you sponsoring a Contest applicant?
Email address:
Phone #:
Please also include a STATEMENT OF INTENT (100-word account of reason for applying).
Contest winners who choose to be published and honoured with a Research Work of Outstanding Merit award sign an agreement to become Grant Holders.
To qualify, Grant Holders must
I, ______________________________ [please print], from _______________________________ (college), agree to assume the rights and responsibilities of a TRC Grant Holder. This involves being granted the Research Work of Outstanding Merit Award, being designated a Grant Holder and having my Research Proposal disseminated by the Secretariat Staff. I understand that I may be called on to provide further information and approval.
I confirm that the Research Director ___________________________________ [please print], named as the sponsor on my Contestant Entry Form did offer instructional assistance in the production of my Research Proposal and, with their agreement, can be named as my official Research Director.
Signature: __________________________________
Signature of parent or guardian if under 18: _________________________________________
Date of signature: ______________________________
Date of birth:
College:
Mailing address:
Email address:
The Secretariat Staff for the Collegiate Contest is in charge of general administrative functions related to official website communications and postings about the Contest winners. They provide web exposure to exceptional scientific work at the CEGEP level.
We recommend that Lead Research Directors get in touch with the Communications or Public Affairs department of your College to plan with them the announcement of the winners, and show them the Collegiate Contest materials to explain them the scenario.
Possible conduits for publication of winners may include:
If you would like to feature winning proposals on the TRC website, please get in touch with the CCDMD at soutien@ccdmd.qc.ca.