What is your name?
What are the names of your fellow judges?
What is the assigned topic for the game?
Take about 15 minutes to search online for information regarding funding agency judges and what they do. Go to the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) website and explore SSHRC merit reviews.
Did you know that... A research council typically consists of a number of eminent scholars and distinguished experts from industry and government who have been selected by the governing body of a funding agency. At the federal level in Canada, the Ministry of Industry oversees the operations of three federal granting agencies, referred to as the Tri-Council. The Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) is one of these three councils, the others being Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR) and Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC). Combined, their mandate is to support post-secondary scientific inquiry in academia and in the public and private sectors. Council members are selected for their expertise and professionalism and are usually drawn from different sectors of society. |
Based on your search of SSHRC, provide brief responses to the following questions:
Take another 15 minutes to explore the governance section of the SSHRC website. Look for prospects for a role-play name and title. Discuss the prospects with your fellow judges. Choose a name, professional title and institutional affiliation.
What is your:
Assign each judge a specialized council position, such as President, Vice-President, Chairperson, Secretary, or Treasurer.
Review the Code of Conduct under the Rules and Code of Conduct and respond to the questions below.
Which part of the code of conduct do you think you will have no trouble adhering to?
Which part of the code of conduct do you think you may have some trouble adhering to? Why?
Read the Topics and Proposal Abstracts for The FUND$ GAME
Using the table below, on a scale of 1-10 where 1 represents the lowest level of knowledge and 10 the highest, estimate your level knowledge for each of the disciplines:
DISCIPLINE | COMBINED LEVEL OF KNOWLEDGE ON 1-10 SCALE, LOW TO HIGH |
---|---|
Anthropology | |
Business | |
Economics | |
Geography | |
History | |
Philosophy | |
Political Science | |
Psychology | |
Religious Studies | |
Sociology |
Compare rankings above with your fellow judges. Identify three disciplines about which you, as a team, have deficient knowledge and briefly explain how you intend to redress this.
Which two disciplines do you feel you know the least about?
Visit the professional association website for these two disciplines. Navigate through each site for a few minutes. Eventually, jot down a few points you have learned about each discipline. (Search “Canadian” or “American” before the discipline name, followed by the word “Association,” such as “Canadian Political Science Association.”)
Read the Sample Research Proposal on your own and identify three features that you believe should be subjected to scrutiny. In other words, what aspects of the proposal stand out as elements that should be evaluated by you, the judges?
What is your assigned topic for the FUND$ GAME?
Consult a specialized social science encyclopedia in your college library’s e-book collection, book stacks or database. Search for an entry/article on the assigned topic.
The length of these entries ranges between 1 to 5 pages. Aim for an entry that provides an overview of the research and the disciplines or fields involved. Popular encyclopaedias such as Britannica or Wikipedia are not appropriate as there is no guarantee that the authors are qualified specialists in the field. For instance, The International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences is a 26-volume specialized encyclopedia that is available in most academic libraries. You may require the teacher’s guidance for this item.
Take note of the following:
“
“
Page number:
FUNDING CRITERIA | PERFORMANCE INDICATOR(S) |
---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Create score sheets for use during the GAME PLAY.Design them with efficiency in mind. While judging, you will be multi-tasking; actively listening, taking notes, scoring performances, directing presentations. The players will expect the judges to sustain an even, brisk pace. There will be only a minute between presentations to complete your scoring and then, after all the proposals are presented, only 15 minutes to make your funding dispersal decisions. Well-designed score sheets are indispensable.
As a team, determine how you plan to announce the winners and the losers. For fairness and equivalence, it is advisable to tabulate numeric scores using the criteria. Judgment will be required to apportion the $1M. Some teams may receive nothing. In this case, you may consider suggesting that the team address those areas in need of improvement and re-submit for the following round of funding.
Review the GAME PLAY Agenda & Set Design. As a team, list all the equipment and printed or electronic materials needed for the GAME PLAY. You may want to discuss these plans with the teacher.
I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR THESE ITEMS |
OTHERS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THESE ITEMS (WHO?) |
ITEMS FOR GAME PLAY | QUESTIONS |
---|---|---|---|
|
Access to score sheets for judges | ||
|
Team name placards | ||
|
Funding currency | ||
|
Access to GAME PLAY Agenda & Set Design | ||
|
Materials/Equipment for reporting information (markers, projector, screen …) | ||
|
Judge’s gavel or other such device | ||
|
Timer |
CRITERIA | PERFORMANCE INDICATORS |
---|---|
1. Well-organized & prepared |
|
2. Positive repercussions on society |
|
3. Cost-effectiveness |
|
Discipline: _________________
CRITERIA | 1-3 | 4-7 | 8-10 | SCORE |
---|---|---|---|---|
1. Sound, Logical Proposal |
Proposal is vague and unclear; lacks grounding in research field; limited reference to scientific terms or data gathering or sampling plan; may not be ethical (probably too vague to determine). | Proposal makes some sense and is fairly logical in sequence; some connection to existing research in the discipline; weak/limited choice of methods for gathering data, selecting sample and analyzing data; limited use of scientific terminology; could be ethical. | Proposal is very clear and makes lots of sense; grounded in existing research in the discipline; excellent choice of methods for gathering data, selecting sample and analyzing data; sophisticated use of scientific terminology; ethically sound. | |
2. High Impact Potential |
Little to no evidence provided of the value of investing in this research; unclear or vague path to impact in the field. | Some support for research leading to breakthroughs; evidence of some potential for making improvements; some justification for investing in this research project. | Convincing case for research leading to major breakthroughs; demonstrated potential for research to contribute to improvements; justified value of investing in this research project. | |
3. Professionalism | Researchers lacked professionalism in some ways: Weak team work, disorganized presentation, potentially unethical plans or work processes, lack of accountability for monies and materials required. |
Researchers demonstrated some professionalism: worked together, presented in an organized fashion, adhered to ethical rules of conduct, costed and planned work with some degree of accountability. | Researchers demonstrated professionalism: worked well together presented in a highly organized fashion, adhered to ethical rules of conduct, costed and planned work in a detailed and accountable manner. | |
TOTAL SCORE |
||||
Comments |
DISCIPLINE | CRITERION 1 1-10 |
CRITERION 2 1-10 |
CRITERION 3 1-10 |
SCORE |
---|---|---|---|---|
1. Anthropology | ||||
2. Business | ||||
3. Economics | ||||
4. Geography | ||||
5. History | ||||
6. Philosophy | ||||
7. Political Science | ||||
8. Psychology | ||||
9. Religious Studies | ||||
10. Sociology |
To show funding distribution choices of Judges and General Public. $1,000,000 in research funds to be distributed
SOCIAL SCIENCE DISCIPLINES | RESEARCH COUNCIL $ GRANTS | GENERAL PUBLIC $ GRANT OPINION |
---|---|---|
Anthropology | ||
Business | ||
Economics | ||
Geography | ||
History/Classics | ||
Philosophy | ||
Political Science | ||
Psychology | ||
Religious Studies | ||
Sociology |
The judges are in charge of chairing the GAME PLAY. This is the recommended agenda. The total time for the in-class competition is 2-2.5 hours.
STEP | WHAT THE JUDGES NEED TO DO | TIME IN MINUTES |
---|---|---|
Set-up
|
~15-20 | |
1. Welcome |
|
~5 |
2. General Public Speech |
|
~5 |
3. Discipline Group Presentations |
|
~60 |
4. Judges’ Deliberations |
|
~15 |
5. Announcement of Funding Winners |
|
~10 |
6. Question & Answer Period |
|
~10 |
7. Adjourn |
|
Set design: Configure classroom seating by role grouping: