ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
1
Application ItemCriterionEXCELLENTGOODSATISFACTORYPOOR
2
Nominee's Research ProposalInterdisciplinarity(6 pts) Nominee clearly explains what makes their research interdisciplinary. They give clear and compelling examples of how their research project crosses disciplinary borders (e.g. with methods, theories, literature).(4 pts) Nominee explains what makes their research interdisciplinary. They give clear examples of how their research project crosses disciplinary borders (e.g. with their methods, theories, literature).(2 pts) Nominee somewhat articulates what makes their research interdisciplinary. They don't provide examples of how their research project crosses disciplinary borders (e.g. methods, theories, literature).0 (pts) Nominee provides an unclear explanation of how their research is interdisciplinary. They don't give examples of how their research project crosses disciplinary borders (e.g. methods, theories, literature).
3
Nominee's Research ProposalInnovativeness(6 pts) Nominee provides clear and compelling reasoning for how their interdisciplinary research is innovative and how their approach is unique to their field of study. Nominee clearly articulates if the project builds on existing collaboration(s) or explores new directions or collaboration. (4 pts) Nominee provides reasoning for how their research is innovative and how their approach is unique within their field of study. Nominee somewhat articulates if the project builds on existing collaboration(s) or explores new directions or collaboration.(2 pts) Nominee provides weak reasoning for how their interdisciplinary research is innovative and how their approach is unique to their field of study. Nominee provides a weak explanation on if the project builds on existing collaboration(s) or explores new directions or collaboration.0 (pts) Nominee does not provide reasoning for how their interdisciplinary research is innovative or unique to their field of study. Nominee does not explain if the project builds on existing collaboration(s) or explores new directions or collaboration.
4
Nominee's Research ProposalMutual Synergy(6 pts) Nominee provides clear and compelling reason(s) for why their chosen center/institute is essential in developing a high quality interdisciplinary research study.(4 pts) Nominee provides clear reason(s) for why their chosen center/institute is essential in developing a high quality interdisciplinary research study.(2 pts) Nominee provides weak reason(s) for why their chosen center/institute is essential in developing a high quality interdisciplinary research study.0 (pts) Nominee does not provide reason(s) for why their chosen center/institute is essential in developing a high quality interdisciplinary research study.
5
Nominee's Research ProposalSignificance(6 pts) Nominee provides clear and compelling explanation about the potential significance, including the contributions and impact, of their research to primary field.(4 pts) Nominee provides clear explanation about the potential significance, maybe including the contributions and impact, of their research to primary field.(2 pts) Nominee provides weak explanation about the potential significance of their research to primary field.0 (pts) Nominee does not explain the potential significance of their research to primary field.
6
Nominee's Research ProposalWriting Style(6 pts) Nominee clearly articulates and explains their interdisciplinary research using non-jargon/field specific terms. Proposal is organized.(4 pts) Nominee articulates and explains their interdisciplinary research using some jargon/field specific terms. Proposal is organized.(2 pts) Nominee explains their interdisciplinary research using a lot of jargon/field specific terms. Proposal is not well-organized. 0 (pts) The proposal is full of jargon/field specific terms making it very difficult to comprehend by a general audience. Proposal lacks organizational structure.
7
Application ItemCriterionEXCELLENTGOODSATISFACTORYPOOR
8
Advisor/Co-Advisor Letter of SupportContent expectation:1) discuss the interdisciplinarity of the nominee's research project, 2) its impact on the field, and 3) the importance of the partnership for the nominee's project.(3 pts) Letter provides clear and compelling articulation and addresses all content expectations.(2 pts) Letter provides clear articulation of some or all of the content expectations.(1 pts) Letter provides weak articulation of some content expectations.0 (pts) Letter does not address any of the content expectations.
9
Application ItemCriterionEXCELLENTGOODSATISFACTORYPOOR
10
Center or Institute Faculty Mentor Letter of SupportContent expectation: 1) discuss how their mentorship will support the nominee's project and 2) the innovativeness of the project.(3 pts) Letter provides clear and compelling articulation and addresses all content expectations.(2 pts) Letter provides clear articulation of some or all of the content expectations.(1 pts) Letter provides weak articulation of some content expectations.0 (pts) Letter does not address any of the content expectations.
11
Application ItemCriterionEXCELLENTGOODSATISFACTORYPOOR
12
Center or Institute Director Prompt ResponseContent expectation: 1) discuss the resources they provide and 2) the synergy they hope results from this collaboration.(3 pts) Responses provide clear and compelling articulation and addresses all content expectations.(2 pts) Responses provide clear articulation of some or all of the content expectations.(1 pts) Responses provide weak articulation of some content expectations.0 (pts) Responses do not address any of the content expectations.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100