What CIHR Heard: Analysis of Feedback on the Design Discussion Document - Alternative Formats

Figure 1: Feedback Collected from CIHR's Research Community (From February 8 to May 1, 2012)

This figure lists the four mechanisms used to collect feedback from CIHR's Research Community from February 8 to May 1, 2012. They include:

  • Face-to-Face Discussions: 82 discussions with research institutions, associations and partners.
  • Web-based Discussion Forum: 186 subscribers; 22 comments posted.
  • Design Discussion Document Feedback Form: The feedback form was sent to 1,691 targeted researchers; 513 completed feedback forms were submitted.
  • One-way correspondence: 243 e-mails and letters received.

Back to report

Figure 2: Proportion of Feedback Form Respondents by Self-Identified Career Stage

This pie-chart shows the proportion of feedback form respondents who completed the Design Discussion Document Feedback Form, by self-identified career stage. Of the 513 respondents,

  • Approximately 24% were early career researchers;
  • Approximately 24% were mid-career researcher;
  • Approximately 47% were senior researchers;
  • Approximately 5% were classified as Other.

Back to report

Figure 3: Proportion of Feedback Form Respondents by Self-Identified Pillar of Research

This pie-chart shows the proportion of feedback form respondents who completed the Design Discussion Document Feedback Form, by self-identified pillar of research. Of the 513 respondents,

  • Approximately 62% were Pillar 1 (Biomedical) researchers;
  • Approximately 10% were Pillar 2 (Clinical) researchers;
  • Approximately 12% were Pillar 3 (Health Systems and Services) researchers;
  • Approximately 16% were Pillar 4 (Social, Cultural, Environmental and Population) researchers.

Back to report

Figure 5 and 6: Proportion of Feedback Form Respondents who characterized themselves as individuals who would apply to the proposed funding mechanisms

This pie-chart shows the proportion of feedback form respondents who characterized themselves as individuals who would apply to the proposed funding mechanisms. Of the 513 respondents,

  • Approximately 22% would characterize themselves as someone who would apply to the Foundation/Programmatic Research Scheme;
  • Approximately 25% would characterize themselves as someone who would apply to the Project Scheme;
  • Approximately 46% would characterize themselves as someone who would apply to the either the Foundation/Programmatic Research or Project Schemes;

Approximately 8% would characterize themselves as someone who would not apply to the either the Foundation/Programmatic Research or Project Schemes.

Back to report (Figure 5)

Back to report (Figure 6)

Figure 7: Feedback Form Respondent Degree of Agreement: Integrated Knowledge Translation addresses challenges with CIHR's Open Suite of Programs and peer review system

This pie-chart shows the extent to which Design Discussion Document feedback form respondents agreed or disagreed that integrated knowledge translation would help address CIHR's current challenges with its Open Suite of Programs and peer review system. Of the 511 individuals who responded to this question,

  • Approximately 11% strongly agree that integrated knowledge translation would help address CIHR's current challenges with its Open Suite of Programs and peer review system;
  • Approximately 23% agree that integrated knowledge translation would help address CIHR's current challenges with its Open Suite of Programs and peer review system;
  • Approximately 27% neither agree nor disagree that integrated knowledge translation would help address CIHR's current challenges with its Open Suite of Programs and peer review system;
  • Approximately 18% disagree that integrated knowledge translation would help address CIHR's current challenges with its Open Suite of Programs and peer review system;
  • Approximately 15% strongly disagree that integrated knowledge translation would help address CIHR's current challenges with its Open Suite of Programs and peer review system;
  • Approximately 6% don't know whether integrated knowledge translation would help address CIHR's current challenges with its Open Suite of Programs and peer review system.

Back to report

Figure 8: Feedback Form Respondent Degree of Agreement: Integrated Knowledge Translation addresses challenges with CIHR's Open Suite of Programs and peer review system (by self-identified pillar and career stage)

The following table shows the percentage of respondents who believe that integrated knowledge translation would help address CIHR's current challenges with its Open Suite of Programs and peer review system, by self-identified pillar and career stage.

Integrated KT
 
Early career researcher (n=127) Mid-career researcher (n=124) Senior researcher (n=242) Other (n=26)
P1 P2 P3 P4 P1 P1 P2 P3 P4 P1 P1 P2 P3 P4 P1 P1
In Agreement 30% 39% 71% 70% 14% 31% 65% 40% 17% 40% 72% 53% 50% 100% 57% 79%
In Disagreement 32% 22% 6% 9% 49% 23% 12% 33% 46% 20% 16% 17% 25% 0% 0% 0%
Neutral 38% 39% 24% 22% 37% 46% 24% 27% 37% 40% 12% 30% 25% 0% 43% 21%

Definitions

Early career researcher: Respondents with less than 5 years as an independent researcher. Includes self-identified graduate students and postdoctoral fellows).
Mid-career researcher: Respondents with 5-10 years as an independent researcher.
Senior researcher: Respondents with more than 10 years as an independent researcher.
Other: Respondents who identified themselves as "Knowledge User" and "Other".

P1 = Pillar 1 (Biomedical)
P2 = Pillar 2 (Clinical)
P3 = Pillar 3 (Health System and Services)
P4 = Pillar 4 (Social, Cultural, Environmental and Population)

Back to report

Figure 9: Feedback Form Respondent Degree of Agreement: The proposed changes would reduce barriers to funding excellence across the full spectrum of health research

This pie-chart shows the extent to which Design Discussion Document feedback form respondents agreed or disagreed that the proposed changes would reduce barriers to funding excellence across the full spectrum of health research. Of the 513 individuals who responded to this question,

  • Approximately 4% strongly agree that the proposed changes would reduce barriers to funding excellence across the full spectrum of health research;
  • Approximately 19% agree that the proposed changes would reduce barriers to funding excellence across the full spectrum of health research;
  • Approximately 23% neither agree nor disagree that the proposed changes would reduce barriers to funding excellence across the full spectrum of health research;
  • Approximately 21% disagree that the proposed changes would reduce barriers to funding excellence across the full spectrum of health research;
  • Approximately 32% strongly disagree that the proposed changes would reduce barriers to funding excellence across the full spectrum of health research;
  • Approximately 1% of respondents do not believe there are any barriers to funding excellence across the full spectrum of health research.

Back to report

Figure 10: Feedback Form Respondent Degree of Agreement: The Multi-Phased Competition Process addresses challenges with CIHR's Open Suite of Programs and peer review system

This pie-chart shows the extent to which Design Discussion Document feedback form respondents agreed or disagreed that the multi-phased competition process would help address CIHR's current challenges with its Open Suite of Programs and peer review system. Of the 511 individuals who responded to this question,

  • Approximately 13% strongly agree that the multi-phased competition process would help address CIHR's current challenges with its Open Suite of Programs and peer review system;
  • Approximately 37% agree that the multi-phased competition process would help address CIHR's current challenges with its Open Suite of Programs and peer review system;
  • Approximately 10% neither agree nor disagree that the multi-phased competition process would help address CIHR's current challenges with its Open Suite of Programs and peer review system;
  • Approximately 16% disagree that the multi-phased competition process would help address CIHR's current challenges with its Open Suite of Programs and peer review system;
  • Approximately 21% strongly disagree that the multi-phased competition process would help address CIHR's current challenges with its Open Suite of Programs and peer review system;
  • Approximately 3% don't know whether the multi-phased competition process would help address CIHR's current challenges with its Open Suite of Programs and peer review system.

Back to report

Figure 11: Feedback Form Respondent Degree of Agreement: The Multi-phased Competition Process addresses challenges with CIHR's Open Suite of Programs and peer review system (by self-identified pillar and career stage)

The following table shows the percentage of respondents who believe that the multi-phased competition process would help address CIHR's current challenges with its Open Suite of Programs and peer review system, by self-identified pillar and career stage.

Multi-stage Competition Process
 
Early career researcher (n=127) Mid-career researcher (n=124) Senior researcher (n=242) Other (n=26)
P1 P2 P3 P4 P1 P2 P3 P4 P1 P2 P3 P4 P1 P2 P3 P4
In Agreement 55% 83% 76% 70% 34% 69% 65% 60% 34% 65% 64% 60% 100% 0% 57% 86%
In Disagreement 35% 17% 12% 22% 53% 0% 12% 13% 57% 25% 20% 17% 0% 0% 14% 0%
Neutral 10% 0% 12% 9% 13% 31% 24% 27% 10% 10% 16% 23% 0% 100% 29% 14%

Definitions

Early career researcher: Respondents with less than 5 years as an independent researcher. Includes self-identified graduate students and postdoctoral fellows).
Mid-career researcher: Respondents with 5-10 years as an independent researcher.
Senior researcher: Respondents with more than 10 years as an independent researcher.
Other: Respondents who identified themselves as "Knowledge User" and "Other".

P1 = Pillar 1 (Biomedical)
P2 = Pillar 2 (Clinical)
P3 = Pillar 3 (Health System and Services)
P4 = Pillar 4 (Social, Cultural, Environmental and Population)

Back to report

Figure 12: Feedback Form Respondent Degree of Agreement: Application-Focused Review addresses challenges with CIHR's Open Suite of Programs and peer review system

This pie-chart shows the extent to which Design Discussion Document feedback form respondents agreed or disagreed that application-focused review would help address CIHR's current challenges with its Open Suite of Programs and peer review system. Of the 512 individuals who responded to this question,

  • Approximately 20% strongly agree that application-focused review would help address CIHR's current challenges with its Open Suite of Programs and peer review system;
  • Approximately 47% agree that application-focused review would help address CIHR's current challenges with its Open Suite of Programs and peer review system;
  • Approximately 14% neither agree nor disagree that application-focused review would help address CIHR's current challenges with its Open Suite of Programs and peer review system;
  • Approximately 10% disagree that application-focused review would help address CIHR's current challenges with its Open Suite of Programs and peer review system;
  • Approximately 7% strongly disagree that application-focused review would help address CIHR's current challenges with its Open Suite of Programs and peer review system;
  • Approximately 2% don't know whether application-focused review would help address CIHR's current challenges with its Open Suite of Programs and peer review system.

Back to report

Figure 13: Feedback Form Respondent Degree of Agreement: Application-Focused Review addresses challenges with CIHR's Open Suite of Programs and peer review system (by self-identified pillar and career stage)

The following table shows the percentage of respondents who believe that application-focused review would help address CIHR's current challenges with its Open Suite of Programs and peer review system, by self-identified pillar and career stage.

Application-Focused Review
 
Early career researcher (n=127) Mid-career researcher (n=124) Senior researcher (n=242) Other (n=26)
P1 P2 P3 P4 P1 P2 P3 P4 P1 P2 P3 P4 P1 P2 P3 P4
In Agreement 77% 78% 100% 83% 54% 77% 71% 93% 53% 75% 80% 80% 75% 100% 71% 79%
In Disagreement 9% 6% 0% 4% 24% 8% 29% 7% 25% 15% 8% 13% 25% 0% 0% 0%
Neutral 14% 17% 0% 13% 22% 15% 0% 0% 22% 10% 12% 7% 0% 0% 29% 21%

Definitions

Early career researcher: Respondents with less than 5 years as an independent researcher. Includes self-identified graduate students and postdoctoral fellows).
Mid-career researcher: Respondents with 5-10 years as an independent researcher.
Senior researcher: Respondents with more than 10 years as an independent researcher.
Other: Respondents who identified themselves as "Knowledge User" and "Other".

P1 = Pillar 1 (Biomedical)
P2 = Pillar 2 (Clinical)
P3 = Pillar 3 (Health System and Services)
P4 = Pillar 4 (Social, Cultural, Environmental and Population)

Back to report

Figure 14: Feedback Form Respondent Degree of Agreement: The use of Structured Review Criteria addresses challenges with CIHR's Open Suite of Programs and peer review system

This pie-chart shows the extent to which Design Discussion Document feedback form respondents agreed or disagreed that the use of structured review criteria would help address CIHR's current challenges with its Open Suite of Programs and peer review system. Of the 512 individuals who responded to this question,

  • Approximately 17% strongly agree that the use of structured review criteria would help address CIHR's current challenges with its Open Suite of Programs and peer review system;
  • Approximately 43% agree that the use of structured review criteria would help address CIHR's current challenges with its Open Suite of Programs and peer review system;
  • Approximately 17% neither agree nor disagree that the use of structured review criteria would help address CIHR's current challenges with its Open Suite of Programs and peer review system;
  • Approximately 10% disagree that the use of structured review criteria would help address CIHR's current challenges with its Open Suite of Programs and peer review system;
  • Approximately 11% strongly disagree that the use of structured review criteria would help address CIHR's current challenges with its Open Suite of Programs and peer review system;
  • Approximately 2% don't know whether the use of structured review criteria would help address CIHR's current challenges with its Open Suite of Programs and peer review system.

Back to report

Figure 15: Feedback Form Respondent Degree of Agreement: The use of Structured Review Criteria addresses challenges with CIHR's Open Suite of Programs and peer review system (by self-identified pillar and career stage)

The following table shows the percentage of respondents who believe that the use of structured review criteria would help address CIHR's current challenges with its Open Suite of Programs and peer review system, by self-identified pillar and career stage.

Structured Review Criteria
 
Early career researcher (n=127) Mid-career researcher (n=124) Senior researcher (n=242) Other (n=26)
P1 P2 P3 P4 P1 P2 P3 P4 P1 P2 P3 P4 P1 P2 P3 P4
In Agreement 61% 89% 94% 83% 48% 54% 88% 73% 44% 80% 80% 67% 75% 100% 86% 64%
In Disagreement 16% 6% 0% 4% 29% 8% 6% 7% 35% 5% 8% 10% 25% 0% 0% 7%
Neutral 23% 6% 6% 13% 23% 38% 6% 20% 20% 15% 12% 23% 0% 0% 14% 29%

Definitions

Early career researcher: Respondents with less than 5 years as an independent researcher. Includes self-identified graduate students and postdoctoral fellows).
Mid-career researcher: Respondents with 5-10 years as an independent researcher.
Senior researcher: Respondents with more than 10 years as an independent researcher.
Other: Respondents who identified themselves as "Knowledge User" and "Other".

P1 = Pillar 1 (Biomedical)
P2 = Pillar 2 (Clinical)
P3 = Pillar 3 (Health System and Services)
P4 = Pillar 4 (Social, Cultural, Environmental and Population)

Back to report

Figure 16: Feedback Form Respondents' Degree of Agreement: The Remote (Virtual) Screening Process addresses challenges with CIHR's Open Suite of Programs and peer review system

This pie-chart shows the extent to which Design Discussion Document feedback form respondents agreed or disagreed that the remote (virtual) screening process would help address CIHR's current challenges with its Open Suite of Programs and peer review system. Of the 512 individuals who responded to this question,

  • Approximately 13% strongly agree that the remote (virtual) screening process would help address CIHR's current challenges with its Open Suite of Programs and peer review system;
  • Approximately 35% agree that the remote (virtual) screening process would help address CIHR's current challenges with its Open Suite of Programs and peer review system;
  • Approximately 18% neither agree nor disagree that the remote (virtual) screening process would help address CIHR's current challenges with its Open Suite of Programs and peer review system;
  • Approximately 12% disagree that the remote (virtual) screening process would help address CIHR's current challenges with its Open Suite of Programs and peer review system;
  • Approximately 21% strongly disagree that the remote (virtual) screening process would help address CIHR's current challenges with its Open Suite of Programs and peer review system;
  • Approximately 3% don't know whether the remote (virtual) screening process would help address CIHR's current challenges with its Open Suite of Programs and peer review system.

Back to report

Figure 17: Feedback Form Respondent Degree of Agreement: The Remote (Virtual) Screening Process addresses challenges with CIHR's Open Suite of Programs and peer review system (by self-identified pillar and career stage)

The following table shows the percentage of respondents who believe that the remote (virtual) screening process would help address CIHR's current challenges with its Open Suite of Programs and peer review system, by self-identified pillar and career stage.

Remote (Virtual) Screening Process
 
Early career researcher (n=127) Mid-career researcher (n=124) Senior researcher (n=242) Other (n=26)
P1 P2 P3 P4 P1 P2 P3 P4 P1 P2 P3 P4 P1 P2 P3 P4
In Agreement 43% 72% 76% 74% 33% 69% 47% 60% 34% 60% 84% 53% 25% 100% 71% 71%
In Disagreement 33% 6% 0% 13% 49% 15% 24% 13% 49% 10% 4% 20% 25% 0% 0% 7%
Neutral 23% 22% 24% 13% 18% 15% 29% 27% 17% 30% 12% 27% 50% 0% 29% 21%

Definitions

Early career researcher: Respondents with less than 5 years as an independent researcher. Includes self-identified graduate students and postdoctoral fellows).
Mid-career researcher: Respondents with 5-10 years as an independent researcher.
Senior researcher: Respondents with more than 10 years as an independent researcher.
Other: Respondents who identified themselves as "Knowledge User" and "Other".

P1 = Pillar 1 (Biomedical)
P2 = Pillar 2 (Clinical)
P3 = Pillar 3 (Health System and Services)
P4 = Pillar 4 (Social, Cultural, Environmental and Population)

Back to report

Figure 18: Feedback Form Respondents' Degree of Agreement: The College of Reviewers addresses challenges with CIHR's Open Suite of Programs and peer review system

This pie-chart shows the extent to which Design Discussion Document feedback form respondents agreed or disagreed that College of Reviewers would help address CIHR's current challenges with its Open Suite of Programs and peer review system. Of the 512 individuals who responded to this question,

  • Approximately 16% strongly agree that College of Reviewers would help address CIHR's current challenges with its Open Suite of Programs and peer review system;
  • Approximately 41% agree that College of Reviewers would help address CIHR's current challenges with its Open Suite of Programs and peer review system;
  • Approximately 18% neither agree nor disagree that College of Reviewers would help address CIHR's current challenges with its Open Suite of Programs and peer review system;
  • Approximately 10% disagree that College of Reviewers would help address CIHR's current challenges with its Open Suite of Programs and peer review system;
  • Approximately 12% strongly disagree that College of Reviewers would help address CIHR's current challenges with its Open Suite of Programs and peer review system;
  • Approximately 3% don't know whether that College of Reviewers would help address CIHR's current challenges with its Open Suite of Programs and peer review system.

Back to report

Figure 19: Feedback Form Respondent Degree of Agreement: The College of Reviewers addresses challenges with CIHR's Open Suite of Programs and peer review system (by self-identified pillar and career stage)

The following table shows the percentage of respondents who believe that the College of Reviewers would help address CIHR's current challenges with its Open Suite of Programs and peer review system, by self-identified pillar and career stage.

College of Reviewers

 
Early career researcher (n=127) Mid-career researcher (n=124) Senior researcher (n=242) Other (n=26)
P1 P2 P3 P4 P1 P2 P3 P4 P1 P2 P3 P4 P1 P2 P3 P4
In Agreement 59% 67% 82% 70% 54% 69% 65% 93% 46% 50% 72% 67% 0% 100% 86% 50%
In Disagreement 19% 6% 0% 9% 25% 0% 18% 0% 37% 15% 12% 17% 25% 0% 0% 7%
Neutral 22% 28% 18% 22% 20% 31% 18% 7% 18% 35% 16% 17% 75% 0% 14% 43%

Definitions

Early career researcher: Respondents with less than 5 years as an independent researcher. Includes self-identified graduate students and postdoctoral fellows).
Mid-career researcher: Respondents with 5-10 years as an independent researcher.
Senior researcher: Respondents with more than 10 years as an independent researcher.
Other: Respondents who identified themselves as "Knowledge User" and "Other".

P1 = Pillar 1 (Biomedical)
P2 = Pillar 2 (Clinical)
P3 = Pillar 3 (Health System and Services)
P4 = Pillar 4 (Social, Cultural, Environmental and Population)

Back to report

Date modified: