PLEASE NOTE: Because of the way the application system works, even those who are applying for the SEED STREAM will be required to upload a ‘support’ letter, even though you don’t need a support letter. We apologize for this technical glitch. Please type up a one line Word or PDF document that says “I am applying for the Seed Stream” and attach that document as your ‘support’ letter during the application process. Thanks, and again, we apologize for this technical glitch in the application system.
A: Pre-approval funds release requires approval from the Office of Research Ethics. Please consult the ORE for guidance on the process for applying for a pre-approval release of funds. If you have applied for pre-release, you must indicate this in your application; please specify the amount requested for initial release and provide a timeline for future approval.
A: No, you may apply at any time; funds will only be released upon receipt of a copy of the letter of approval, however. Please bear in mind that delegated/expedited review (the most common review for projects submitted to the ITIF, but by no means the only one) takes 4-5 weeks from the time of submission to the REB.
A: As a general principle, if you are collecting any kind of data about humans, and especially if you plan on presenting or writing about a research component of your project, ethics approval may be required. We strongly urge you to consult with your divisional research services office to make this determination, prior to submitting your ITIF proposal.
A: Funds are disbursed in the full approved amount at the start of the project. There is no recurrence or phased release of funding.
A: Proposals should be submitted by 5 PM EDT on November 8th, 2022.
A: The intent of that criterion was to provide students with employment/mentorship/experience/training opportunities. Keep in mind that this is only one of the criteria, so certainly projects that don’t employ students will be duly considered. However, I think the committee would like to see that students are hired to work on projects over contracting out the work to third-party companies, if appropriate student labour was available.
A: Inter-institutional collaboration would be viewed as a positive thing, but the main focus of the project should be on UofT teaching activities, and collaborations between UofT departments is particularly valuable. The source of matching funds does not have to be restricted to UofT however.
A: The answer to the evaluative component question is either/both. Essentially, the committee will be looking for evidence in the proposal that the person/team intends to write about their project, either an evaluation of the project itself, or the results of a study that emerge from the project. Even though we would like people to see this as more than just a development project, please keep in mind that this is an innovation grant, not a research grant, so the focus should be on the project, but having an evaluative component to the proposal will enhance its chances of success. (Reminder, if you intend to ‘study’ the project, we strongly recommend consulting with Research Services regarding ethical approvals!)
A: Generally speaking, there is a reluctance to give money for basic hardware or basic software (like a PC running productivity software). However, where the hardware is more unique to the nature of the project, it could easily be considered for funding. Ultimately, the adjudication committee will evaluate each project individually, so if you are uncertain as to whether or not a request would be eligible, please err on side of chance and submit a proposal – we are much more interested in encouraging innovative ideas than turning people away. And yes, we have given money for such specialized hardware in the past.