Research Award Level I - Application Guidelines / Evaluation and Scoring

Level I Research Funding is designed to:

• Increase the capacity of researchers to compete successfully for research awards and other funding;
• Remove barriers that impede involvement in gambling research;
• Promote the development of quality research proposals;
• Encourage non-traditional researchers to enter the problem gambling field; and
• Assist in the development of collaborative partnerships.

Level I Research Award Guidelines

Research can be:

1. A literature review, critical literature review, or annotated bibliography. A literature review provides an overview of a field or topic. A critical literature review provides an overview of a field or topic relevant to a stated thesis or argument (e.g., how ideas and conclusions in the literature support or do not support a given argument). An annotated bibliography provides an overview of a field or topic, where each article selected is summarized in a single paragraph. An annotated bibliography can be a descriptive or a critical overview of the field or topic; in the case of a critical overview, the literature annotated should be relevant to a stated thesis or argument.
2. Empirical research, including qualitative or quantitative research, pilot testing, development or testing of instruments or questionnaires.
3. A Meta-analysis. A meta-analysis is used to integrate results from a large set of empirical research studies in order to estimate the overall strength of the relationship (effect size) between target variables. A meta-analysis is usually also designed to determine factors that affect the relationship between the target variables. For example, a meta-analysis might explore the long term impact of corporal punishment on the variables childhood aggression and antisocial behaviour, and might explore how gender of the child affects the relationship. Meta-analyses can be conducted on collections of research that are empirical, have quantitative (not qualitative) results, contain the variables of interest, and that report results that can be statistically compared (e.g., effect sizes, correlation coefficients).

All applications should include the following:

1. Title page.

Include the following:

• Title of the proposal
• Name of sponsoring organization
• Status of sponsoring organization (e.g., not-for-profit, hospital, university, etc.)
• Investigator names and contact information (institutional affiliation, title, address, telephone and fax numbers, email address)
• Dates of proposed period of support
• Total dollar amount requested
• Dated signatures of
  • Principal Investigator,
  • Project Contact person (if different from above),
  • Individual authorized to sign on behalf of the sponsoring organization

2. Abstract.

• In a maximum of 400 words, state the proposals 1) purpose, 2) rationale, 3) general method (e.g., qualitative empirical research or critical literature review), 4) potential implications, and 5) significance.
• Citations are not required.
• Writing format: single spaced, black ink, 12pt font, one inch margins.

3. Scientific Excellence description of Investigators [10%]

• In a maximum of 500 words per investigator, briefly describe the qualifications and experience of the key members of the research team in relation to their ability to implement the proposed research.
• Writing format: single spaced, black ink, 12pt font, one inch margins.

4. Purpose & Significance [25%]

In a maximum of 500 words (single spaced, black ink, 12pt font with 1 inch margins), explain the purpose and significance of the proposed research as follows:

Purpose:

• Clearly state and defend the purpose of the proposed research. The major problem, conceptual/pragmatic question, or research/practice gap should be clear.
• If applicable, state how the research relates to a level III or IV project

Significance. Explain why the research is important, for example:

• How does the research make an important contribution or add value to the problem gambling field?
• Is there a high degree of potential utilization of the research
• What is the practical and/or theoretical importance of this research?

5. Proposal (attachment), system support, access, ethical considerations [65%]

PART A: Proposal

• Writing format: single spaced, black ink, 12pt font, one inch margins.
• Must not exceed 5 single spaced pages (including references but excluding appendices); those that exceed 5 pages will not be considered for an award.
• The proposal must contain the subtitled sections as described below.

Note: Proposal requirements are different according to whether the proposal is 1) a literature review, critical literature review, or annotated bibliography or 2) empirical research, including qualitative or quantitative research, or 3) a meta-analysis.

For literature reviews, critical literature reviews, or annotated bibliographies, include the following in the proposal:

Literature Review/Justification [25%]

• Justify the proposed project. Relations, contradictions, and/or inconsistencies in the literature as related to the proposed project should be clear, if applicable. Theoretical, conceptual, clinical, methodological or other issues targeted in the proposed project should be justified, if applicable. The argument/thesis statement should be clear and justified, if appropriate.
• If other reviews exist:
  • Cite the other reviews
  • Clarify why the proposed review is necessary.

Methodology [35%]

Clearly describe how the literature review/critical literature review/annotated bibliography will be conducted.

• Describe how the literature to be assessed will be selected, for example:
  • search methodology (e.g., keywords to be used in electronic database searches/search strategies)
  • publication dates considered
  • types of literature considered (peer reviewed, grey literature, other)
  • inclusion/exclusion factors (e.g., methodological, data analysis, or sample considerations)
• In addition to the above, the reviewers will evaluate the overall appropriateness of the proposed methodological approach.

List of References to be used – to help assess feasibility & importance [5%]

• Provide a list of references to be used in the literature review, critical literature review, or annotated bibliography. Forty or more titles are expected, but a minimum of twenty are required; this list can be expanded in the final report.

The reference list will be used to help evaluate the feasibility and importance of the proposed review.

Reference List

• APA format reference list that contains references for all citations

For empirical research, include the following in the proposal:

Literature Review/Justification [15%]

Justify your proposed research. Address the following in your literature review:

• How does your proposed research relate to previous work in the area?
• Identify relations, contradictions, inconsistencies in the literature, as related to your proposed research
• What are the theoretical implications of the study?
• Clearly state the hypothesis/research question. It should be consistent with the purpose and literature review. It should be clear how the hypothesis or research question is aligned with making an important contribution to resolving the identified problem/issue your research will address.
• In addition to the clearly stated hypothesis/research question, clearly state predicted results if relevant.
• A discussion of preliminary work related to this line of research is appropriate if applicable.

Methodology (including the following subheadings: participants, materials, design & procedure) [45%]

Clearly describe how the research will be conducted. A well described methodology should allow replication of your study with no need for clarification. It should be clear why the methodological approach/design proposed is appropriate to the research question(s) or hypothesis(es). Where appropriate, discuss preparatory work. Write the methodology using the following italicized subheadings:

Participants

• Report and justify number of participants. Report power calculations if appropriate.
• Report and describe the sample characteristics (e.g., source, demographic features, inclusion and exclusion criteria).
• Report the procedure for recruiting and assigning participants and report the number to be assigned to each condition (if applicable).
• Report participant compensation and consent method.
• The sample should be well described and it should be representative; if the sample is not representative, it should be clear why it is not.

Materials

• Report specific equipment to be used, for example, questionnaires (include reliability information) computer program, brain imaging equipment. Clarify why the materials used are appropriate to the design.
• Information about published evidence of the psychometric properties of the measurement instruments should be reported as available/relevant

Design & Procedure

• Report how the research will be executed from beginning to end.
• Include instructions to participants as well as control features such as randomization and counterbalancing.
• It should be clear how the data collection procedure is appropriate to the design.

Results [5%]

• Report the data analysis procedures to be employed.
• It should be clear how the analyses are appropriate to the research question(s) or hypothesis(es).

Reference List

• APA format reference list that contains references for all citations.

For a meta-analysis, include the following in the proposal:

Literature Review/Justification [25%]

• Justify the proposed meta-analysis. Relations, contradictions, and/or inconsistencies in the literature as related to the proposed project should be clear, if applicable. Theoretical, conceptual, clinical, methodological or other issues targeted in the proposed project should be justified, if applicable. The argument/thesis statement should be clear and justified, if appropriate. If appropriate, clearly state the hypothesized strength of the relationship between the variables of interest).
• If other meta-analyses exist for the proposed topic,
  • Cite the other meta-analyses
  • Clarify why the proposed meta-analysis is necessary.

Methodology [35%]

Clearly describe how the meta-analysis will be conducted.

• Describe how the literature to be assessed will be selected, for example:
  • search methodology (e.g., keywords used in electronic database searches)
  • publication dates considered
  • types of literature considered (peer reviewed, grey literature, other)
  • inclusion/exclusion factors (e.g., methodological, data analysis, sample, topic considerations)
• Specify and describe the statistical analyses to be employed to calculate the strength of the relationship between the target variables.
• Specify and describe the statistical analyses to be employed to determine how different factors influence the strength of the relationship between the target variables.
• In addition to the above, the reviewers will evaluate the overall appropriateness of the proposed methodological approach.

List of References to be used – to help assess feasibility & importance [5%]

• Provide a list of references to be used in the meta-analysis. Forty or more titles are expected, but a minimum of twenty are required; this list can be expanded in the final report.

The reference list will be used to help evaluate the feasibility and importance of the proposed meta-analysis.

The remaining sections the same for all level I applications:

PART B: System support, access, ethical considerations.

These sections can be pasted from a word document into the online application, filled out directly into the electronic application, or are required as separate attachments; information to be contained in each section is described below:

• System support: describe the academic/research support available from the sponsoring organization and the contribution it will make to the successful implementation of the study. Include both financial and ‘in kind’ contributions, if applicable.
• Access: describe the availability of, or relevant permission to access, any data, subjects, partners, key informants, or research sites required to complete the research. NOTE: Requests for research access to Ontario Lottery and Gaming (OLG) sites, suppliers, slots laboratory or staff must be made directly to OPGRC, and will be negotiated under OPGRC’s memorandum of understanding with OLG.
• Ethical considerations: identify ethical considerations inherent in the proposed research and describe how they will be addressed. In addition, indicate how and when ethics approval will be sought. NOTE: funding, if granted, is conditional on ethics approval.

6. Appendices

• Limited to twice the maximum length of the proposal. Include only information directly relevant to the proposal (e.g., select questionnaires).
• You can include more than one appendix; use separate attachments for separate documents.

7. Budget and Timeline

Specific Timeline

• Specify each task to be undertaken, the team member to be assigned to that task, and the estimated time for each task, using the budget template provided.
• Note that your timeline will be evaluated in terms of feasibility and appropriate personnel skill- to- task alignments.

Specific Budget

• Specify the cost associated with each part of the proposed research, using the template provided. Note that you should specify "in kind" expenses as well; simply indicate the cost associated with the (specified) task is $0.
• You are expected to JUSTIFY the cost associated with each budget item in the space provided. There is no word limit for justification of budget items.
• Note that your budget will be evaluated in terms of how it represents good value for money.

8. OPGRC Productivity Index (if applicable)

If you are the recipient of a previous OPGRC award, provide in a maximum of 500 words, a description of:

• All awards received to date from OPGRC.
• Agreement deadlines for completion, extensions, and dates of completion for interim/final reports for each award.
• All associated publications and/or knowledge translation activities for each specific award.
• Writing format: single spaced, black ink, 12pt font, one inch margins.