The Tri-Agency Institutional Program Secretariat (TIPS), which administers the Canada Research Chairs Program, would like to thank you for completing your annual report, and for reflecting on and sharing with us various aspects of your experience as a Canada Research Chair. Your feedback is important, particularly at this time as the 15-year program evaluation of the Chairs Program is currently underway, the results of which are anticipated to be released in the summer of 2016.
Every year, the +1,800 annual reports are read by the program officer at the Secretariat responsible for your institution, and the issues raised by chairholders are taken into serious consideration in the performance monitoring of the program, and more generally by helping shape program literature and inform program changes where possible.
Given the sheer volume of annual reports received, program staff responds directly to chairholders in cases where there is a misunderstanding of program policy or in the small number of cases where significant concerns are raised. As you know, the Canada Research Chair award is an institutional award, and many of the issues raised by chairholders in their reports are those that must be discussed and negotiated between the institution and the chairholder directly (i.e. the employer and employee).
Such issues include:
- earmarking a certain percentage of the award for research;
- level of protected time for research;
- level of institutional and administrative support, administrative duties, and amount of lab space; and
- succession plans for Tier 2 chairholders after their second terms.
We encourage chairholders to discuss these issues directly with their institution well before the end date of their award (where necessary) to ensure the success of their research program.
Other suggestions/concerns received by chairholders in the last few years include:
- increasing the number of available chairs;
- the transition of chairholders after the loss of a chair through the biennial recalculation exercise;
- transparency within the renewal process at the institutional level and equity concerns;
- availability of agency funding/low success rates, need for harmonization of tri-agency policies;
- costs of CFI upgrades and maintenance;
- establishing a Tier 2 mentoring program and opportunities for collaboration/communication amongst chairholders; and
- reporting requirements (frequency, formatting of reports etc.).
It is expected that some of the issues outlined above may be raised and addressed within the 15th year evaluation of the program.
Once again we would like to thank you for your time and effort in sharing your successes and the progress made towards your research goals, including your concerns and suggestions for improvement with the Secretariat. We will continue to read and analyze the reports every year and make program improvements where possible under the terms and conditions of the program.
Wishing you the best in your future work,
Thank you,
Marie-Lynne Boudreau
Manager