Research Partnerships Program (RPP)

• Eligibility: RCHSS full-time tenure or tenure-track faculty
• Funding: Up to $10,000
• Focus: Promote research partnerships whose aim is to secure extramural funding
• Application: Proposals accepted from September 1, 2024 – February 1, 2025 (subject to available funding)

The RCHSS Research Partnerships Program (RPP) is intended to support the development of relationships that have the promise to produce a robust research program.  Building research partnerships often requires significant investment.  It can take time to identity partnership opportunities.  And it can take resources to establish the infrastructure needed to grow a relationship.  The fund is designed to support faculty efforts to build these teams.  

Fundable partnerships can take many forms.  The previous iteration of this program focused on Research-Practitioner Partnerships – the goal of which is to leverage and integrate expertise possessed by both research and practice (e.g., consulting relationships, training partnership, or focused research projects).  Partners can include practitioners in public, nonprofit, or private agencies.  We still encourage partnerships of this nature.

We recently expanded the scope of fundable projects to include the cultivation of cross-institutional faculty partnerships.  We will entertain proposals whose aim is to identify promising new relationships by supporting early-stage meetings between research teams at different institutions.  Proposals that seek to create interdisciplinary projects/teams will be looked on with particular favor.

A RCHSS RPP grant is not an end in itself.  The goal of the program is to cultivate and support robust relationships that can be leveraged for extramural funding.  As such, recipients commit to developing a project for grant or foundation submission within 1 year of the funding’s conclusion.

• An RP team must include at least one (1) RCHSS-based tenured or tenure-track faculty member, with preference given to assistant and associate professors.
• Only RCHSS faculty can benefit directly from program award (e.g., travel or salary support).
• There is a limit of one (1) award per faculty member per fiscal year.

• Funds may be used for travel. This includes flights, mileage, lodging, per diems, or other eligible costs.
• Funds may be used for equipment, materials, and technology purchases essential to the project.
• Funds may be used for June compensation. The award will be inclusive of fringes (23%) and is subject to 33 1/3% summer compensation limit.
• Funds may not be used for faculty salaries or to secure course reassignments during fall or spring semesters.

NOTE: Funds must be expensed during the fiscal year and must observe RCHSS year-end purchasing deadlines.  RCHSS plans its annual budget sweep for March 31, 2025.  All award funding not encumbered by that date will revert to the college.

The application should be composed in an MS-Word compatible format using 12-point fonts and 1” margins.  Text shall be double-spaced.  Each Roman-numerated section should begin on a new page. Proposals that do not meet the formatting expectations will be returned unreviewed.

1. Cover Page: Title of the project, the names of partners, and institutional affiliations (with full addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses).
2. Abstract (250 words max): Describe the primary objectives of the project, the significance of the project, and key deliverables.
3. Project Narrative (2 pages max): The narrative should include the following in clearly identifiable sections.
   • Background Statement: What is the project or research question? Why is it significant? Include a brief statement on current approaches to the topic, identify existing challenges or limitations of the current approaches, and explain how the proposed partnership addresses those challenges.
   • Statement of Objectives: How do you expect to leverage the researcher-practitioner partnership to execute the project? What are the expected deliverables? Avoiding unnecessary jargon, explain your approach and anticipated outputs/results.
   • Plan of Work: What is the project timeline? Provide a plan for meeting objectives, with an explanation of procedures, activities, risks, timeline, and milestones. If appropriate, explain the plan for human/animal use and safety. Identify the contribution of each partner and provide a clear plan of collaboration.
4. Plans for Obtaining External Funding (1 page max): What are your follow-on plans? Please provide the following: 1) The name and URLs for agency/foundation you plan to approach, 2) an estimate of the funding to be requested from the entity, 3) an indication of any interactions you have already had with these entities, and 4) applicable submission deadlines. If considering multiple funding agencies, please provide above information for each.
5. Selected Bibliography (1 page max)
6. Budget with Justification (1 page max)
7.  CV or Biographical Sketch(es) (@ 2 pages max): Each RP participant should provide a current CV or biographical sketch. Faculty applicants are encouraged to follow NSF or NIH format.
8. Statement on Human Subjects: All research involving human subjects must have IRB approval. While proposal that have not yet undergone review will be considered for funding, no funds will be disbursed until the project is approved.

NOTE: Proposal will be reviewed on a rolling basis and awards offered until the available funding has been exhausted.

Proposals will be evaluated on the basis of: project feasibility; intellectual merit; clarity of objectives, methods, and anticipated results; reasonableness of costs; qualifications of personnel, including familiarity with the relevant literature, data, and methods to be used; as well as demonstrated organizational capacity for – and commitment to – the success of the researcher-practitioner partnership. Special attention will be given to the potential for outputs to serve as the foundation for a larger-scale, externally funded project.  

• Funded investigators commit to submitting an End of Year Report (see below).
• Funded investigators agree to notify the Associate Dean of Research of articles, chapters, proposal, or other deliverables produced with the aid of college support.
• Funded investigators agree to have research summarized in an RCHSS publication, if requested.
• Funded investigators agree to participate in follow-on activities such as present their research at a seminar, workshop, or other event and/or serving as a reviewer, if requested.
• Funded investigators commit to acknowledge RCHSS support in any papers and publication ensuing from the research.
• Funded investigators commit to providing copies of articles, chapters, or other scholarly outputs supported by the award, including any publicity materials, press clippings, or reviews.

• An “End of Year” report is due by June 30, 2025.  
• The report should be completed using the provided template and follow the directions found thereupon.
• The report include progress towards, and a clear timeline for, submission to a funding agency.  
• A project cannot be “closed” until the report has been received.  An investigator with an “open” project is not eligible for additional RCHSS research funding.

The RCHSS grant application scoring system uses a 5-point scale (Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, Poor).  The entire scale should be considered for each criterion.  The Summary Assessment should reflect the reviewer’s overall evaluation of the proposal (i.e., not a numerical average of individual criterion scores).  A score of “3” represents a “good” application.  

• Criteria
  Description
• Aims & Objectives
  Aims and objectives are clearly presented and can be met.
• Background
  Demonstrated knowledge of existing research/approaches.
• Significance
  Potential for project to make a significant impact.
• Approach
  Methods/procedures/process are clearly explained & appropriate.
• Timeline
  Research plan is clearly stated and achievable.
• Budget
  Budget is complete, well justified, & appropriate.
• Summary Assessment
  Overall (holistic) assessment of proposal quality.
   

Comments:  Identify key strengths and highlight areas that needed strengthening.  Offer recommendations for how to address shortcomings.