Applied Public Health Chair Webinar Q&A session

  • Is it necessary or helpful to identify a NCC partner at the application stage?

    A: The facilitation with the NCCs was intended for post-award. For the successful new cohort, this facilitation linkage will be available, and will be facilitated by the Chief Science Officer's Office at PHAC. If there is a pre-existing strong relationship with a NCC partner, they can be included, as long as the NCC partner is not the named decision making partner.

  • Do the 15 years include years for Sabbatical leave or working in an administrative position like Director position? Thanks.

    A: No adjustments are provided for professional leaves (e.g., training, sabbatical, administrative) – these years would count toward the maximum.

  • What I understand so far is that the general pool is more a "second chance" pool, rather than a pool than can be targeted as the first choice for an application. Is that correct?

    A: You can apply to the general pool if you feel your application does not fit a specific Research Area. In addition, applicants will be considered in the general pool if they are not funded by other Research Areas.

  • Further, I wonder if the general pool can be for something else than preferred one (equity science I think). Thanks.

    A: Yes, the general pool is open to all areas of population health intervention research, as relevant to the mandates of IPPH and PHAC. It is not required to be relevant to equity science – that is just a suggestion (and is not mandatory).

  • Can foreign visiting professors working at Canadian universities apply?

    A: Likely not, as The NPA must have their substantive role in Canada for the duration of the requested award term. The NPA must provide a confirmation from their institution that they are in a tenure track position or will be able to apply for a tenure-track position (or equivalent) in their department or faculty during the six-year award period.

  • To the last point (Research Areas/pools), if applied to more than one pool, should justifications be provided separately for each, given there might be different emphasis for each pool or is it just one statement covering the mandates of each of the pools?

    A: Justifications need to be provided for each Research Area selection. Justifications will be one half-page per research area selected and they will be separate from the Research Proposal.

  • Please provide more guidance on the expectations for the sustainability plan. Also, there is no length specified, is this right?

    A: There is no page limit for the sustainability plan (though ResearchNet will limit the document to 99 pages). The sustainability plan should be developed with your institution and co-signed. It must describe how the Chair will continue to be supported by the applicant's institution after year 6 of their program through leveraging institutional mechanisms and non-CIHR funding streams. The sustainability plan must indicate a financial model, costs and funding sources anticipated.

  • Can you please confirm for the LOI stage - is there peer review by a panel of reviewers or only relevance review?

    A: Only relevance review is conducted at the LOI stage; There will be peer review at the full application stage.

  • Can you confirm whether global health research would be relevant to the mandates of PHAC or IPPH, or whether the Chair's program should focus primarily on population health research within Canada?

    A: Global health research is relevant to the mandate of IPPH (as highlighted in IPPH's Strategic plan) and is also relevant to PHAC. E.g., Research Area 2 focuses on environmental climate change with a One Health lens.

  • I'm hearing that there is a need for applicants to align with the objectives of the funding opportunity, PHAC and CIHR-IPPH mandates, and in some instances, the priorities of multiple CIHR institutes. Given that there is limited space for both the LOI and full application, can you expand on how you'll evaluate alignment with these (relevance review)? I'm wondering whether applicants should prioritize being explicit about alignment with these mandates/priorities over a fulsome description of the research work.

    A: You can use your proposal but also the space in the Apply to Priority Announcements task (one-half page) to justify relevance.

  • Can the Decision Maker be from the same organization as the NPA? If yes, is it recommended to identify a Decision Maker from a different org.?

    A: Nothing in FO indicates the Decision Maker cannot be from same organization as the NPA. It is possible for both roles to be from the same organization especially if the NPA is from a non-academic institution. Remember that the decision maker may be a provincial/territorial/local Medical Officer of Health, a community leader, or a partner from a non-federal governmental or non-profit agency responsible for evidence-based public health practice or policy making.

  • Presumably "tenured" as well as "tenure track" would qualify, given the mid-career researcher status that is required?

    A: Those who already hold tenure, or in a tenure track position are eligible as long as they classify as a mid-career researcher according to the FO.

  • To confirm, letters from the institution are not required at the LOI stage, only at the full application stage, right?

    A: Letters of support are not required at the LOI stage, but they are nice to have.

  • Is there an opportunity to reach out to program officers/managers at PHAC or other agencies to seek feedback on research program alignment and eligibility?

    A: No, this would create an unfair advantage. Questions should be submitted to CIHR’s Contact Center.

  • Are any guidelines provided for the structure of the 2-page LOI proposal?

    A: No, it is up to the applicants to decide what to include in the proposal.

  • In terms of the decision maker partner and the associated letters of support, is there any expectation of a commitment of in-kind or cash contributions to the research program?

    A: There is no requirement for the formal identification of cash or in-kind contributions. The Decision Maker (DM) partner needs to demonstrate they would be a good receptor for the research. Cash or in-kind contributions are not a requirement, but they may demonstrate the commitment of the DM partner.

  • Is it more usual for the Chair applications to be in English or in French? Said differently, does this affect success rate, since the pool of reviewers for application in French language is typically smaller?

    A: The language of the application has no impact on success rate. CIHR will identify reviewers for the applications submitted in French.

  • Would having previous successful CIHR funding record affect success rate?

    A: Applicant track record is the first evaluation criteria, so it can have an impact, but it will not be the only factor. There are other ways to demonstrate merit, which will be considered as described in the evaluation criterion 1.

Date modified: