Seek reappointment

Tier I BoGRCs

  • Tier I BoGRCs are awarded for a five-year term and are renewable only once following a positive recommendation from the SOURCE Leadership Council.
  • The maximum number of terms a researcher may hold a Tier I appointment is two terms.  A researcher may not apply for a new Tier I appointment in a subsequent competition.
  • Applications for reappointment will be assessed based on the applicant's sustained research, creative activity, or scholarship over the past five years.
  • The reappointment process will follow the same process for an appointment. In exceptional circumstances, the Vice-President (Research) may waive the requirement for external review.

Chair holders seeking reappointment must submit a reappointment package consisting of the following items:

1. A performance report demonstrating how the chairholder has achieved the objectives outlined in the original application. (max. 5 pages)

PRESENTATION

  • Use Times New Roman, font size 12, black type, single spaced. 
  • No condensed/narrow fonts, type or spacing. 
  • Margins must be no smaller than 2 cm (3/4 inch) around the page. 
  • The application should be clear and concise and written for a multidisciplinary committee.
  • Bibliographic references may be appended to this section and will not count towards the page limit.

The Performance Report must clearly demonstrate how you have achieved the objectives set out in your original BoGRC application, that you have upheld the standards of the Board of Governors Research Chair program, and what the added value has been to you as a Board of Governors Research Chair.

  1. Executive Summary. Highlight the major research and training accomplishments achieved during the term of the award.
  2. Research Program. Describe how you have: (1) achieved the objectives of your original research program, and (2) carried out a program of research that is producing leading-edge results which are making a significant impact at the international level.
  3. Engagement with research users and communication of results.  Explain how your research results have made a significant impact in the field. Where possible, include a discussion on how you have engaged with research users (e.g., media, academics, industry, government, not-for-profit organizations, practitioners, policy makers, educators, private sector, artistic and cultural community etc.) during the various stages of your research as well as efforts to disseminate your research results.
  4. Training Strategies. Describe initiatives undertaken to create an environment that attracts, develops, and retains excellent students (undergraduate, masters and/or doctoral) and trainees; and encourages these students and trainees to develop their research expertise.
  5. Fit with the Strategic Research Plan.  Describe (1) efforts to build and foster relationships with other research initiatives nationally and internationally, and (2) the impact of your research program on supporting the priorities in your Faculty and the Strategic Research Plan.

These guidelines have been adopted from the renewal nomination process from the Canada Research Chair program, available here.

2. A proposed program of research, scholarly, or creative activity for the next term. (max. 4 pages)

PRESENTATION

  • Use Times New Roman, font size 12, black type, single spaced. 
  • No condensed/narrow fonts, type or spacing. 
  • Margins must be no smaller than 2 cm (3/4 inch) around the page. 
  • The application should be clear and concise and written for a multidisciplinary committee.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED RESEARCH PROGRAM (maximum 4 pages, excluding the abstract and list of references)

Organize the detailed narrative under the following headings:

  1. Abstract. Briefly state the objectives of the proposed research/scholarly/creative program.
  2. Context.  (1) Explain the relationship and relevance of the proposed program to your ongoing research.  If the proposal is a departure from your previous research, describe how it relates to experiences and insights gained from earlier research achievements.  (2) Define the problem clearly and concisely, providing any background information essential to understanding the importance of the work.
  3. Theoretical Framework, Methodology, and Proposed Outcomes. Outline the theoretical framework governing the work proposed, the proposed methodologies and key activities.
  4. Significance and Dissemination. (1) Outline the potential significance, future use, relevance or application of the results.  (2) Explain how the results will be disseminated.
  5. Proposed training strategies. (1) Describe the training strategies that will be used to attract students and trainees. (2) Outline their specific roles and responsibilities relative to the proposed research program and how these will complement their academic training/preparation.

These guidelines have bee adopted from the Canada Research Chair program, available here.

3. A letter from the Chair's Dean discussing the research, scholarship, or creative activity of the applicant within the context of the applicant's discipline, department/faculty, and stage of research/scholarship/creative career.

4. A current UNIWeb curriculum vitae limited to contributions and activities within the past five years.

5. The names and contact information of five external reviewers who do not have a conflict of interest, as described in the University of Lethbridge Conflict of Interest Policy and the University of Lethbridge Faculty Handbook, and have the appropriate expertise to provide a comprehensive, unbiased, critical review.

    A conflict of interest occurs when a reviewer’s duties and responsibilities with regard to the review process are in conflict with that reviewer’s private, professional, business or public interests. There may be a real, perceived or potential conflict of interest when the review committee member, external reviewer or observer:

    • May receive professional/personal benefit resulting from the funding opportunity or application being reviewed;
    • Has a professional/personal relationship with an applicant or the applicant’s institution; or
    • Has a direct/indirect financial interest in a funding opportunity or application being reviewed.

    A conflict of interest may exist when review committee members, external reviewers or observers:

    • Are a relative or close friend or have a personal relationship with the applicant(s);
    • Are in a position to gain or lose financially/materially from the funding of the application;
    • Have had long-standing scientific or personal differences with the applicant(s);
    • Are closely professionally affiliated with the applicants, as a result of having in the last six years:
      • Been a supervisor or a trainee of the applicant(s);
      • Currently supervise the applicant(s) (i.e., Department Chair or Dean);
      • Collaborated, published or shared funding with the applicants, or have plans to do so in the immediate future; and/or
      • Feel for any reason unable to provide an impartial review of the application.

    The Office of the Vice-President (Research) reserves the right to resolve areas of uncertainty and to determine if a conflict exists.

    These guidelines are adapted from the Government of Canada, available here .

    Tier II BoGRCs

    • Tier II BoGRCs are non-renewable and cannot be transitioned to Tier I status.
    • The maximum number of terms a researcher may hold a Tier II appointment is one term.  A researcher cannot apply for a new Tier II appointment in a subsequent competition.