action research proposal on reading

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

4 Preparing for Action Research in the Classroom: Practical Issues

ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS

• What sort of considerations are necessary to take action in your educational context?
• How do you facilitate an action plan without disrupting your teaching?
• How do you respond when the unplanned happens during data collection?

An action research project is a practical endeavor that will ultimately be shaped by your educational context and practice. Now that you have developed a literature review, you are ready to revise your initial plans and begin to plan your project. This chapter will provide some advice about your considerations when undertaking an action research project in your classroom.

Maintain Focus

Hopefully, you found a lot a research on your topic. If so, you will now have a better understanding of how it fits into your area and field of educational research. Even though the topic and area you are researching may not be small, your study itself should clearly focus on one aspect of the topic in your classroom. It is important to maintain clarity about what you are investigating because a lot will be going on simultaneously during the research process and you do not want to spend precious time on erroneous aspects that are irrelevant to your research.

Even though you may view your practice as research, and vice versa, you might want to consider your research project as a projection or megaphone for your work that will bring attention to the small decisions that make a difference in your educational context. From experience, our concern is that you will find that researching one aspect of your practice will reveal other interconnected aspects that you may find interesting, and you will disorient yourself researching in a confluence of interests, commitments, and purposes. We simply want to emphasize – don’t try to research everything at once. Stay focused on your topic, and focus on exploring it in depth, instead of its many related aspects. Once you feel you have made progress in one aspect, you can then progress to other related areas, as new research projects that continue the research cycle.

Identify a Clear Research Question

Your literature review should have exposed you to an array of research questions related to your topic. More importantly, your review should have helped identify which research questions we have addressed as a field, and which ones still need to be addressed . More than likely your research questions will resemble ones from your literature review, while also being distinguishable based upon your own educational context and the unexplored areas of research on your topic.

Regardless of how your research question took shape, it is important to be clear about what you are researching in your educational context. Action research questions typically begin in ways related to “How does … ?” or “How do I/we … ?”, for example:

Research Question Examples

• How does a semi-structured morning meeting improve my classroom community?
• How does historical fiction help students think about people’s agency in the past?
• How do I improve student punctuation use through acting out sentences?
• How do we increase student responsibility for their own learning as a team of teachers?

I particularly favor questions with I or we, because they emphasize that you, the actor and researcher, will be clearly taking action to improve your practice. While this may seem rather easy, you need to be aware of asking the right kind of question. One issue is asking a too pointed and closed question that limits the possibility for analysis. These questions tend to rely on quantitative answers, or yes/no answers. For example, “How many students got a 90% or higher on the exam, after reviewing the material three times?

Another issue is asking a question that is too broad, or that considers too many variables. For example, “How does room temperature affect students’ time-on-task?” These are obviously researchable questions, but the aim is a cause-and-effect relationship between variables that has little or no value to your daily practice.

I also want to point out that your research question will potentially change as the research develops. If you consider the question:

As you do an activity, you may find that students are more comfortable and engaged by acting sentences out in small groups, instead of the whole class. Therefore, your question may shift to:

• How do I improve student punctuation use through acting out sentences, in small groups ?

By simply engaging in the research process and asking questions, you will open your thinking to new possibilities and you will develop new understandings about yourself and the problematic aspects of your educational context.

Understand Your Capabilities and Know that Change Happens Slowly

Similar to your research question, it is important to have a clear and realistic understanding of what is possible to research in your specific educational context. For example, would you be able to address unsatisfactory structures (policies and systems) within your educational context? Probably not immediately, but over time you potentially could. It is much more feasible to think of change happening in smaller increments, from within your own classroom or context, with you as one change agent. For example, you might find it particularly problematic that your school or district places a heavy emphasis on traditional grades, believing that these grades are often not reflective of the skills students have or have not mastered. Instead of attempting to research grading practices across your school or district, your research might instead focus on determining how to provide more meaningful feedback to students and parents about progress in your course. While this project identifies and addresses a structural issue that is part of your school and district context, to keep things manageable, your research project would focus the outcomes on your classroom. The more research you do related to the structure of your educational context the more likely modifications will emerge. The more you understand these modifications in relation to the structural issues you identify within your own context, the more you can influence others by sharing your work and enabling others to understand the modification and address structural issues within their contexts. Throughout your project, you might determine that modifying your grades to be standards-based is more effective than traditional grades, and in turn, that sharing your research outcomes with colleagues at an in-service presentation prompts many to adopt a similar model in their own classrooms. It can be defeating to expect the world to change immediately, but you can provide the spark that ignites coordinated changes. In this way, action research is a powerful methodology for enacting social change. Action research enables individuals to change their own lives, while linking communities of like-minded practitioners who work towards action.

Plan Thoughtfully

Planning thoughtfully involves having a path in mind, but not necessarily having specific objectives. Due to your experience with students and your educational context, the research process will often develop in ways as you expected, but at times it may develop a little differently, which may require you to shift the research focus and change your research question. I will suggest a couple methods to help facilitate this potential shift. First, you may want to develop criteria for gauging the effectiveness of your research process. You may need to refine and modify your criteria and your thinking as you go. For example, we often ask ourselves if action research is encouraging depth of analysis beyond my typical daily pedagogical reflection. You can think about this as you are developing data collection methods and even when you are collecting data. The key distinction is whether the data you will be collecting allows for nuance among the participants or variables. This does not mean that you will have nuance, but it should allow for the possibility. Second, criteria are shaped by our values and develop into standards of judgement. If we identify criteria such as teacher empowerment, then we will use that standard to think about the action contained in our research process. Our values inform our work; therefore, our work should be judged in relation to the relevance of our values in our pedagogy and practice.

Does Your Timeline Work?

While action research is situated in the temporal span that is your life, your research project is short-term, bounded, and related to the socially mediated practices within your educational context. The timeline is important for bounding, or setting limits to your research project, while also making sure you provide the right amount of time for the data to emerge from the process.

For example, if you are thinking about examining the use of math diaries in your classroom, you probably do not want to look at a whole semester of entries because that would be a lot of data, with entries related to a wide range of topics. This would create a huge data analysis endeavor. Therefore, you may want to look at entries from one chapter or unit of study. Also, in terms of timelines, you want to make sure participants have enough time to develop the data you collect. Using the same math example, you would probably want students to have plenty of time to write in the journals, and also space out the entries over the span of the chapter or unit.

In relation to the examples, we think it is an important mind shift to not think of research timelines in terms of deadlines. It is vitally important to provide time and space for the data to emerge from the participants. Therefore, it would be potentially counterproductive to rush a 50-minute data collection into 20 minutes – like all good educators, be flexible in the research process.

Involve Others

It is important to not isolate yourself when doing research. Many educators are already isolated when it comes to practice in their classroom. The research process should be an opportunity to engage with colleagues and open up your classroom to discuss issues that are potentially impacting your entire educational context. Think about the following relationships:

Research participants

You may invite a variety of individuals in your educational context, many with whom you are in a shared situation (e.g. colleagues, administrators). These participants may be part of a collaborative study, they may simply help you develop data collection instruments or intervention items, or they may help to analyze and make sense of the data. While the primary research focus will be you and your learning, you will also appreciate how your learning is potentially influencing the quality of others’ learning.

We always tell educators to be public about your research, or anything exciting that is happening in your educational context, for that matter. In terms of research, you do not want it to seem mysterious to any stakeholder in the educational context. Invite others to visit your setting and observe your research process, and then ask for their formal feedback. Inviting others to your classroom will engage and connect you with other stakeholders, while also showing that your research was established in an ethic of respect for multiple perspectives.

Critical friends or validators

Using critical friends is one way to involve colleagues and also validate your findings and conclusions. While your positionality will shape the research process and subsequently your interpretations of the data, it is important to make sure that others see similar logic in your process and conclusions. Critical friends or validators provide some level of certification that the frameworks you use to develop your research project and make sense of your data are appropriate for your educational context. Your critical friends and validators’ suggestions will be useful if you develop a report or share your findings, but most importantly will provide you confidence moving forward.

Potential researchers

As an educational researcher, you are involved in ongoing improvement plans and district or systemic change. The flexibility of action research allows it to be used in a variety of ways, and your initial research can spark others in your context to engage in research either individually for their own purposes, or collaboratively as a grade level, team, or school. Collaborative inquiry with other educators is an emerging form of professional learning and development for schools with school improvement plans. While they call it collaborative inquiry, these schools are often using an action research model. It is good to think of all of your colleagues as potential research collaborators in the future.

Prioritize Ethical Practice

Try to always be cognizant of your own positionality during the action research process, its relation to your educational context, and any associated power relation to your positionality. Furthermore, you want to make sure that you are not coercing or engaging participants into harmful practices. While this may seem obvious, you may not even realize you are harming your participants because you believe the action is necessary for the research process.

For example, commonly teachers want to try out an intervention that will potentially positively impact their students. When the teacher sets up the action research study, they may have a control group and an experimental group. There is potential to impair the learning of one of these groups if the intervention is either highly impactful or exceedingly worse than the typical instruction. Therefore, teachers can sometimes overlook the potential harm to students in pursuing an experimental method of exploring an intervention.

If you are working with a university researcher, ethical concerns will be covered by the Institutional Review Board (IRB). If not, your school or district may have a process or form that you would need to complete, so it would beneficial to check your district policies before starting. Other widely accepted aspects of doing ethically informed research, include:

Confirm Awareness of Study and Negotiate Access – with authorities, participants and parents, guardians, caregivers and supervisors (with IRB this is done with Informed Consent).

• Promise to Uphold Confidentiality – Uphold confidentiality, to your fullest ability, to protect information, identity and data. You can identify people if they indicate they want to be recognized for their contributions.
• Ensure participants’ rights to withdraw from the study at any point .
• Make sure data is secured, either on password protected computer or lock drawer .

Prepare to Problematize your Thinking

Educational researchers who are more philosophically-natured emphasize that research is not about finding solutions, but instead is about creating and asking new and more precise questions. This is represented in the action research process shown in the diagrams in Chapter 1, as Collingwood (1939) notes the aim in human interaction is always to keep the conversation open, while Edward Said (1997) emphasized that there is no end because whatever we consider an end is actually the beginning of something entirely new. These reflections have perspective in evaluating the quality in research and signifying what is “good” in “good pedagogy” and “good research”. If we consider that action research is about studying and reflecting on one’s learning and how that learning influences practice to improve it, there is nothing to stop your line of inquiry as long as you relate it to improving practice. This is why it is necessary to problematize and scrutinize our practices.

Ethical Dilemmas for Educator-Researchers

Classroom teachers are increasingly expected to demonstrate a disposition of reflection and inquiry into their own practice. Many advocate for schools to become research centers, and to produce their own research studies, which is an important advancement in acknowledging and addressing the complexity in today’s schools. When schools conduct their own research studies without outside involvement, they bypass outside controls over their studies. Schools shift power away from the oversight of outside experts and ethical research responsibilities are shifted to those conducting the formal research within their educational context. Ethics firmly grounded and established in school policies and procedures for teaching, becomes multifaceted when teaching practice and research occur simultaneously. When educators conduct research in their classrooms, are they doing so as teachers or as researchers, and if they are researchers, at what point does the teaching role change to research? Although the notion of objectivity is a key element in traditional research paradigms, educator-based research acknowledges a subjective perspective as the educator-researcher is not viewed separately from the research. In action research, unlike traditional research, the educator as researcher gains access to the research site by the nature of the work they are paid and expected to perform. The educator is never detached from the research and remains at the research site both before and after the study. Because studying one’s practice comprises working with other people, ethical deliberations are inevitable. Educator-researchers confront role conflict and ambiguity regarding ethical issues such as informed consent from participants, protecting subjects (students) from harm, and ensuring confidentiality. They must demonstrate a commitment toward fully understanding ethical dilemmas that present themselves within the unique set of circumstances of the educational context. Questions about research ethics can feel exceedingly complex and in specific situations, educator- researchers require guidance from others.

Think about it this way. As a part-time historian and former history teacher I often problematized who we regard as good and bad people in history. I (Clark) grew up minutes from Jesse James’ childhood farm. Jesse James is a well-documented thief, and possibly by today’s standards, a terrorist. He is famous for daylight bank robberies, as well as the sheer number of successful robberies. When Jesse James was assassinated, by a trusted associate none-the-less, his body travelled the country for people to see, while his assailant and assailant’s brother reenacted the assassination over 1,200 times in theaters across the country. Still today in my hometown, they reenact Jesse James’ daylight bank robbery each year at the Fall Festival, immortalizing this thief and terrorist from our past. This demonstrates how some people saw him as somewhat of hero, or champion of some sort of resistance, both historically and in the present. I find this curious and ripe for further inquiry, but primarily it is problematic for how we think about people as good or bad in the past. Whatever we may individually or collectively think about Jesse James as a “good” or “bad” person in history, it is vitally important to problematize our thinking about him. Talking about Jesse James may seem strange, but it is relevant to the field of action research. If we tell people that we are engaging in important and “good” actions, we should be prepared to justify why it is “good” and provide a theoretical, epistemological, or ontological rationale if possible. Experience is never enough, you need to justify why you act in certain ways and not others, and this includes thinking critically about your own thinking.

Educators who view inquiry and research as a facet of their professional identity must think critically about how to design and conduct research in educational settings to address respect, justice, and beneficence to minimize harm to participants. This chapter emphasized the due diligence involved in ethically planning the collection of data, and in considering the challenges faced by educator-researchers in educational contexts.

Planning Action

After the thinking about the considerations above, you are now at the stage of having selected a topic and reflected on different aspects of that topic. You have undertaken a literature review and have done some reading which has enriched your understanding of your topic. As a result of your reading and further thinking, you may have changed or fine-tuned the topic you are exploring. Now it is time for action. In the last section of this chapter, we will address some practical issues of carrying out action research, drawing on both personal experiences of supervising educator-researchers in different settings and from reading and hearing about action research projects carried out by other researchers.

Engaging in an action research can be a rewarding experience, but a beneficial action research project does not happen by accident – it requires careful planning, a flexible approach, and continuous educator-researcher reflection. Although action research does not have to go through a pre-determined set of steps, it is useful here for you to be aware of the progression which we presented in Chapter 2. The sequence of activities we suggested then could be looked on as a checklist for you to consider before planning the practical aspects of your project.

We also want to provide some questions for you to think about as you are about to begin.

• Have you identified a topic for study?
• What is the specific context for the study? (It may be a personal project for you or for a group of researchers of which you are a member.)
• Have you read a sufficient amount of the relevant literature?
• Have you developed your research question(s)?
• Have you assessed the resource needed to complete the research?

As you start your project, it is worth writing down:

• a working title for your project, which you may need to refine later;
• the background of the study , both in terms of your professional context and personal motivation;
• the aims of the project;
• the specific outcomes you are hoping for.

Although most of the models of action research presented in Chapter 1 suggest action taking place in some pre-defined order, they also allow us the possibility of refining our ideas and action in the light of our experiences and reflections. Changes may need to be made in response to your evaluation and your reflections on how the project is progressing. For example, you might have to make adjustments, taking into account the students’ responses, your observations and any observations of your colleagues. All this is very useful and, in fact, it is one of the features that makes action research suitable for educational research.

Action research planning sheet

In the past, we have provided action researchers with the following planning list that incorporates all of these considerations. Again, like we have said many times, this is in no way definitive, or lock-in-step procedure you need to follow, but instead guidance based on our perspective to help you engage in the action research process. The left column is the simplified version, and the right column offers more specific advice if need.

Figure 4.1 Planning Sheet for Action Research

Action Research Copyright © by J. Spencer Clark; Suzanne Porath; Julie Thiele; and Morgan Jobe is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Sample Action Research Proposal

Related Papers

NORHANE DUMATO , jenny gargantos

Jurnal Pendidikan Anak Usia Dini Undiksha

Laksmi Uttari

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui pengaruh metode edutainment terhadap kemampuan klasifikasi anak kelompok A Taman Kanak-Kanak Gugus IV Kecamatan Buleleng. Jenis penelitian ini adalah quasi experiment dengan desain non-equivalent control group design. Populasi penelitian adalah seluruh anak kelompok A Taman Kanak-Kanak Gugus IV Kecamatan Buleleng yang berjumlah 96 orang. Dalam menentukan sampel digunakan teknik cluster sampling. Adapun sampel penelitian ini adalah kelompok A TKK Santo Rafael sejumlah 19 orang sebagai kelompok eksperimen dan kelompok A TK Ganesa sejumlah 16 orang sebagai kelompok kontrol. Data kemampuan klasifikasi dikumpulkan dengan metode observasi menggunakan instrumen lembar observasi. Data yang diperoleh dianalisis dengan teknik statistik deskriptif dan statistik inferensial (uji-t) dengan rumus polled varians. Berdasarkan hasil analisis deskriptif, rata-rata kemampuan klasifikasi pada kelompok eksperimen sebesar 58,53 yang termasuk kategori sangat tingg...

Aldi Wihananto

This research was a quantitative study which was intended to find out the improvement of students' achievement in writing recount text after being taught using Guided Questions. This research was an experimental research using two groups. The research was conducted based on control group pretest-posttest design. The design used two classes, one as the experimental class which received the treatment of Guided Questions and the other as control class which was taught with regular teaching learning activity by the classroom teacher. The regular teaching learning activity that was used by the classroom teacher was free writing. In teaching recount text writing using free writing, the teacher gave the students topic and asked them to write recount text based on the topic given. Control group pretest-posttest design uses pre-test to see the students' initial ability before treatment and post-test to see the improvement of the students' ability after they receive the treatments. The design can be illustrated as follow:

Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice

Bilgehan Eren

UJANG SUPARMAN

Anita Aguidan

jovelyn sinlao

Hani Ramadhani

The purpose of this study was to examine and recognize the achievement of improving students' creative thinking abilities through the application of demonstration learning methods on the subject of changes in the nature of objects in Ciampel Elementary School. Specifically, the targets to be achieved are as follows: 1) To determine the level of creative thinking of grade V students of SDN Ciampel before the demonstration method is conducted. 2) To determine the level of creative thinking of the fifth grade students of Ciampel Elementary School after the demonstration method was conducted. 3) To find out whether the application of the demonstration method can improve the creative thinking of class V students of SDN Ciampel. The method used is qualitative using classroom action research (CAR). The subject of the research was the fifth grade students with 30 students.

Eny Sulistyowati

Pengembangan Media Pembelajaran PPKN melalui Takon Basiri Di SMP Negeri 10 Probolinggo Eny Sulistyowati Guru SMP Negeri 10 Probolinggo Email: [email protected] Abstract: The objective of this research to develop learning PPKn. The method used is a map of concepts and methods of the inquiry with qualitative data analysis techniques. The development of class observations, showing the progress made by students and for teachers to understanding the concepts of learning PPKn. Learners define the concepts essential to write it down on paper board, board or the like which can be used as a learning tool, and then connect the important concept with a hyphen to become a meaningful concept. During the learning process, learners can develop a meaningful concept maps independently, find and search for meaningful concepts such as the flow of thought in a broad framework to organize the relationship between the concepts of the one with the other concepts. Learners are motivated to impro...

Language teaching and educational research

Havva Kurt Taşpınar

RELATED PAPERS

The Annals of Thoracic Surgery

Joanne Guay

Luciana Correia

António Manuel Borralho

Alejandra Lazcano Lagos

Proceedings of the 8th ACM on Multimedia Systems Conference

shanthi vellingiri

Jurnal Epidemiologi Kesehatan Komunitas

ayu mangosa

International Journal of Computing and Digital Systems

Maan Aljawder

ECS Transactions

Nathalie Coulon

Jurnal Ilmu Ilmu Perairan Dan Perikanan Indonesia

Setyo Eko Susilo

The Journal of Chemical Physics

Hristo Iglev

P. Wijermans

International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing

Douglas Jones

European Journal of Pharmacology: Molecular Pharmacology

nuria vivas

MEDICC Review

Juan Bautista Amaya

European Journal of Cultural Management and Policy

Francesca Sabatini

Brazilian Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences

Leoberto Tavares

Australasian Business, Accounting and Finance Journal

Joseph Mwale

Gabriel Axarlian

Revista Paulista de Pediatria

ROBERTA SIMONI ILINSKY

Springer eBooks

NIKHIL JATHAR

Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics

Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology

Hans Grönlund

Pediatric Pulmonology

Kiran Hebbar

办理拉筹伯大学毕业证 购买澳洲大学文凭LTU毕业证文凭学历

JSEP (Journal of Social and Agricultural Economics)

Roza Yulida

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

The Federal Register

The daily journal of the united states government, request access.

Due to aggressive automated scraping of FederalRegister.gov and eCFR.gov, programmatic access to these sites is limited to access to our extensive developer APIs.

If you are human user receiving this message, we can add your IP address to a set of IPs that can access FederalRegister.gov & eCFR.gov; complete the CAPTCHA (bot test) below and click "Request Access". This process will be necessary for each IP address you wish to access the site from, requests are valid for approximately one quarter (three months) after which the process may need to be repeated.

An official website of the United States government.

If you want to request a wider IP range, first request access for your current IP, and then use the "Site Feedback" button found in the lower left-hand side to make the request.

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• Auto Racing
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

Hamas accepts Gaza cease-fire; Israel says it will continue talks but presses on with Rafah attacks

Palestinians celebrated after Hamas said it would accept an Egyptian-Qatari ceasefire proposal to halt war with Israel. But Israel later approved a military operation into the Gaza Strip city of Rafah and officials say Israeli forces are striking targets in the area.

Israel’s army ordered some 100,000 Palestinians on Monday to begin evacuating from the southern city of Rafah in Gaza, signaling that a long-promised ground invasion could be imminent and further complicating efforts to broker a cease-fire. (AP video/Mohammad Jahjouh) (Production/Wafaa Shurafa)

Demonstrators gathered Monday in central Tel Aviv, urging the Israeli government to agree to a deal that would bring home the hostages from Gaza. (AP video/Sam Mednick)

Israeli military spokesman Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari said on Monday that Israel will continue its operations in Gaza for now. (May 6, 2024)

Smoke rises following an Israeli airstrike east of Rafah, Gaza Strip, Monday, May 6, 2024. (AP Photo/Ismael Abu Dayyah)

• Copy Link copied

Palestinians flee from the eastern side of the southern Gaza city of Rafah after the Israeli army orders them to evacuate ahead of a military operation, in Rafah, Gaza Strip, Monday, May 6, 2024. The order affects tens of thousands of people and could signal a broader invasion of Rafah, which Israel has identified as Hamas’ last major stronghold after seven months of war. (AP Photo/Ismael Abu Dayyah)

An Israeli Defense Forces tank drives away from the Gaza Strip, as seen from southern Israel, Monday, May 6, 2024. (AP Photo/Tsafrir Abayov)

Palestinians hold leaflets dropped by Israeli planes calling on them to evacuate ahead of an Israeli military operation in Rafah, southern Gaza Strip, Monday, May 6, 2024. The order affects tens of thousands of people and could signal a broader invasion of Rafah, which Israel has identified as Hamas’ last major stronghold after seven months of war. (AP Photo/Ismael Abu Dayyah)

Smoke rises following an Israeli airstrike on buildings near the separating wall between Egypt and Rafah, southern Gaza Strip, Monday, May 6, 2024. (AP Photo/Ramez Habboub)

Mourners carry the coffins of two victims who were among four civilians from the same family that killed on Sunday by Israeli strikes on the southern town of Mays al-Jabal, during their funeral procession, in Beirut, Monday, May 6, 2024. Hezbollah militants and Israeli forces have been exchanging fire in south Lebanon since a day after the Israel-Hamas war began on Oct. 7. (AP Photo/Hussein Malla)

Israeli police disperse demonstrators blocking a highway during a protest calling on the government to reach a cease-fire deal with Hamas to bring home hostages in Tel Aviv, Israel, May 6, 2024. The protesters took to the streets after the government appeared to spurn a deal accepted by Hamas. Israel said it would continue negotiations. (AP Photo/Ariel Schalit)

Israeli protesters block a highway during a demonstration calling on the government to reach a cease-fire deal with Hamas to bring home hostages in Tel Aviv, Israel, May 6, 2024. The protesters took to the streets after the government appeared to spurn a deal accepted by Hamas. Israel said it would continue negotiations. (AP Photo/Ariel Schalit)

Palestinians celebrate in the streets following Hamas’s announcement that it accepted a cease-fire proposal in Deir al-Balah, Gaza Strip on Monday, May 6, 2024. Despite the Hamas announcement, Israel said later Monday it would move forward with its planned offensive on Rafah, in the south of the strip. (AP Photo/Abdel Kareem Hana)

Israel brushes off allies’ warnings and moves into Rafah. Follow the AP’s live coverage .

JERUSALEM (AP) — Hamas said Monday it accepted an Egyptian-Qatari cease-fire proposal, but Israel said the deal did not meet its core demands and it was pushing ahead with an assault on the southern Gaza city of Rafah. Still, Israel said it would continue negotiations.

The high-stakes diplomatic moves and military brinkmanship left a glimmer of hope alive — but only barely — for an accord that could bring at least a pause in the 7-month-old war that has devastated the Gaza Strip . Hanging over the wrangling was the threat of an all-out Israeli assault on Rafah , a move the United States strongly opposes and that aid groups warn will be disastrous for some 1.4 million Palestinians taking refuge there.

Hamas’s abrupt acceptance of the cease-fire deal came hours after Israel ordered an evacuation of some 100,000 Palestinians from eastern neighborhoods of Rafah, signaling an invasion was imminent.

The Israeli military said it was conducting “targeted strikes” against Hamas in eastern Rafah. Soon after, Israeli tanks entered Rafah, reaching as close as 200 meters (yards) from Rafah’s crossing with neighboring Egypt, a Palestinian security official and an Egyptian official said. Both spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media. The reported incursion came a day after Hamas militants killed four Israeli soldiers in a mortar attack that Israel said originated near the Rafah crossing.

The Egyptian official said the operation appeared to be limited. The Associated Press could not independently verify the scope of the operation.

Israeli airstrikes also hit elsewhere in Rafah late Monday, killing at least five people, including a child and a woman, hospital officials said.

The Israeli military declined to comment.

Shortly after Hamas said it had accepted the Egyptian-Qatari truce proposal, Israel’s War Cabinet decided to continue the Rafah operation, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ‘s office said. It also said that while the proposal Hamas agreed to “is far from meeting Israel’s core demands,” it would send negotiators to Egypt to work on a deal. Late Monday, Qatar announced it was sending a team to Egypt as well.

President Joe Biden spoke with Netanyahu and reiterated U.S. concerns about an invasion of Rafah. U.S. State Department spokesman Matthew Miller said American officials were reviewing the Hamas response “and discussing it with our partners in the region.”

It was not immediately known if the proposal Hamas agreed to was substantially different from one that U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken pressed the militant group to accept last week, which Blinken said included significant Israeli concessions.

An American official said the U.S. was examining whether what Hamas agreed to was the version signed off on by Israel and international negotiators or something else.

Egyptian officials said that proposal called for a cease-fire of multiple stages starting with a limited hostage release and partial Israeli troop pullbacks within Gaza. The two sides would also negotiate a “permanent calm” that would lead to a full hostage release and greater Israeli withdrawal out of the territory, they said.

Hamas sought clearer guarantees for its key demand of an end to the war and complete Israeli withdrawal in return for the release of all hostages, but it wasn’t clear if any changes were made.

Israeli leaders have repeatedly rejected that trade-off, vowing to keep up their campaign until Hamas is destroyed after its Oct. 7 attack on Israel that triggered the war.

Netanyahu is under pressure from hard-line partners in his coalition who demand an attack on Rafah and could collapse his government if he signs a deal. But he also faces pressure from the families of hostages to reach a deal for their release. They say that time is running out to bring their loved ones home safely, and a ground operation would further endanger them.

Thousands of Israelis rallied around the country Monday night calling for an immediate agreement. About 1,000 protesters swelled near the defense headquarters in Tel Aviv. In Jerusalem, about 100 protesters marched toward Netanyahu’s residence with a banner reading, “The blood is on your hands.”

Israel says Rafah is the last significant Hamas stronghold in Gaza, and Netanyahu said Monday that the offensive against the city was vital to ensuring the militants can’t rebuild their military capabilities.

But he faces strong American opposition. Miller said Monday the U.S. has not seen a credible plan to protect Palestinian civilians. “We cannot support an operation in Rafah as it is currently envisioned,” he said.

The looming operation has raised global alarm . Aid agencies have warned that an offensive will bring a surge of more civilian deaths in an Israeli campaign that has already killed over 34,000 people and devastated the territory. It could also wreck the humanitarian aid operation based out of Rafah that is keeping Palestinians across the Gaza Strip alive, they say.

Israeli leaflets, text messages and radio broadcasts ordered Palestinians to evacuate eastern neighborhoods of Rafah, warning that an attack was imminent and anyone who stays “puts themselves and their family members in danger.”

The military told people to move to an Israel-declared humanitarian zone called Muwasi , a makeshift camp on the coast. It said Israel has expanded the size of the zone and that it included tents, food, water and field hospitals.

It wasn’t immediately clear, however, if that was already in place.

Around 450,000 displaced Palestinians already are sheltering in Muwasi. The U.N. agency for Palestinian refugees, known as UNRWA, said it has been providing them with aid. But conditions are squalid, with few sanitation facilities in the largely rural area, forcing families to dig private latrines.

The evacuation order left Palestinians in Rafah wrestling with having to uproot their families once again for an unknown fate, exhausted after months living in sprawling tent camps or crammed into schools or other shelters in and around the city. Israeli airstrikes on Rafah early Monday killed 22 people, including children and two infants.

Mohammed Jindiyah said that at the beginning of the war, he tried to hold out in his home in northern Gaza under heavy bombardment before fleeing to Rafah.

He is complying with Israel’s evacuation order this time, but was unsure whether to move to Muwasi or elsewhere.

“We are 12 families, and we don’t know where to go. There is no safe area in Gaza,” he said.

Sahar Abu Nahel, who fled to Rafah with 20 family members, including her children and grandchildren, wiped tears from her cheeks, despairing at a new move.

“I have no money or anything. I am seriously tired, as are the children,” she said. “Maybe it’s more honorable for us to die. We are being humiliated.”

The war was sparked by the unprecedented Oct. 7 raid into southern Israel in which Palestinian militants killed around 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and abducted some 250 hostages. After exchanges during a November cease-fire, Hamas is believed to still hold about 100 hostages as well the bodies of around 30 others.

Mroue reported from Beirut. AP journalists Samy Magdy and Lee Keath in Cairo and Zeke Miller in Washington contributed to this report.

Nixon Advisers’ Climate Research Plan: Another Lost Chance on the Road to Crisis

A 1971 plan for a global carbon dioxide monitoring network never came to fruition. the proposal is detailed in a document newly unearthed by the national security archive..

Share this article

A Pennsylvania County Is Suing the Fossil Fuel Industry for Damages Linked to Climate Change

MIT’s Sloan School Launches Ambitious Climate Center to Aid Policymakers

Exxon’s Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels’ Role in Global Warming Decades Ago

In 1971, President Richard Nixon’s science advisers proposed a multimillion dollar climate change research project with benefits they said were too “immense” to be quantified, since they involved “ensuring man’s survival,” according to a White House document newly obtained by the nonprofit National Security Archive and shared exclusively with Inside Climate News.

The plan would have established six global and 10 regional monitoring stations in remote locations to collect data on carbon dioxide, solar radiation, aerosols and other factors that exert influence on the atmosphere. It would have engaged five government agencies in a six-year initiative, with spending of $23 million in the project’s peak year of 1974—the equivalent of $172 million in today’s dollars. It would have used then-cutting-edge technology, some of which is only now being widely implemented in carbon monitoring more than 50 years later. 

But it stands as yet another lost opportunity early on the road to the climate crisis. Researchers at the National Security Archive, based at the George Washington University, could find no documentation of what happened to the proposal, and it was never implemented.

We’re hiring!

Please take a look at the new openings in our newsroom.

“Who knows what would have happened if we had some kind of concerted effort, just even on the monitoring side of things?” asked Rachel Santarsiero, an analyst who directs the National Security Archive’s Climate Change Transparency Project.

It turns out that the monitoring proposal, which was authorized by the head of Nixon’s White House Office of Science and Technology, Edward E. David Jr., did get a second life in another form. After leaving the Nixon administration, David joined the oil giant Exxon, and as president of the Exxon Research and Engineering Company from 1977 to 1986, he signed off on a groundbreaking Exxon project that used one of its oil tankers to gather atmospheric and oceanic carbon dioxide samples, beginning in 1979. That research, which was first reported by Inside Climate News in 2015, confirmed fossil fuels’ role in global warming. It also showed the oil industry knew the harm of its products and is now a key piece of evidence in lawsuits by states and cities across the country seeking compensation from the oil industry for climate damages.

The National Security Archive relies on the Freedom of Information Act to obtain such historical documents, and it currently maintains one of the largest non-governmental archives of declassified government documents—many relating to military and security issues. In the past year, the Archive has launched a project specifically to compile the historical record of the U.S. government’s reckoning with climate change. On Friday, to mark Earth Week, the group released a briefing book detailing climate change discussions in the Nixon White House, including the new document.

It has long been known that Nixon’s advisers warned him of the risks of global warming. A tranche of documents released by the Nixon Presidential Library in 2010 showed that his then-adviser Daniel Patrick Moynihan urged his administration to engage with the issue as early as 1969. Moynihan, who later served 24 years as U.S. Senator from New York, noted that sea level rise of 10 feet was possible with a 7-degree Fahrenheit (3.9-degree Celsius) temperature increase. “Goodbye, New York,” he wrote. “Goodbye Washington, for that matter.”

But the newly revealed Dec. 20, 1971, research proposal by the White House Office of Science and Technology shows for the first time that Nixon’s science advisors embarked on an extensive analysis of the potential risks of climate change and an assessment of the data needs. 

The purpose of the project would be to “assess current and future impact of natural climatic changes, provide alerts to potential catastrophic trends and gain new environmental insight and understanding as a basis for wise strategies,” reads the research plan, which is unsigned but was conducted under the authority of David.

Under a section marked “cost-benefit analysis,” the authors wrote, “No analysis is feasible. Benefits are immense, but not quantifiable, since this element contributes to ensuring man’s survival.”

Nixon’s aides proposed that the government embark on development of new instruments using lidar, or light-detecting and remote sensing—a technology then less than a decade old—to better measure carbon in the atmosphere. They were correct on the advantages of lidar, but it would be more than four decades until scientists at NASA and around the world began to implement its use to study not just the concentration of carbon dioxide, but its global distribution and daily variations.

“I felt like this document was really ahead of its time,” Santarsiero said.

Decades before a scientific consensus emerged on climate change, Nixon’s science advisers conveyed an understanding of the risks. Research, they wrote, would assist in “taking of protective measures against potential natural disasters such as large-scale inundation of low-lying coastal regions, broad extensions of ice sheets and severe health hazards.”

“No analysis is feasible. Benefits are immense, but not quantifiable, since this element contributes to ensuring man’s survival.”

The advisers showed awareness of the role of fossil fuel pollution in climate change, even if their understanding was incomplete. “Transportation on land or in the air exerts a deleterious effect upon the atmosphere and is in turn affected by it,” they wrote.

“They readily admitted that the science wasn’t there yet to solve these problems,” Santarsiero said. “But they said we still need to take action, and the science will grow alongside, to help us tackle these issues. That attitude just feels markedly different from the discourse that’s happening today, where we can’t even get general consensus, and that basically halts preventative or mitigation efforts in its tracks.”

Nixon, indeed, left behind a far more progressive record on the environment than his Republican successors. He proposed and established the Environmental Protection Agency and later embraced a national Earth Day, expanding on the idea launched earlier by U.S. Sen. Gaylord Nelson, a Wisconsin Democrat. Although the U.S. government never embarked on a carbon dioxide monitoring plan as ambitious as the one Nixon’s science advisers proposed, it would expand its research stations, as they advised, beyond the one site at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, which had been operating since 1958. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration opened additional carbon dioxide measurement stations at Barrow, Alaska; American Samoa; and South Pole, Antarctica, in 1973.

This story is funded by readers like you.

Our nonprofit newsroom provides award-winning climate coverage free of charge and advertising. We rely on donations from readers like you to keep going. Please donate now to support our work.

But by then, with the Watergate scandal engulfing Washington, the Nixon administration was unraveling. Nixon, who had privately railed against environmentalists for wanting humans to “go back and live like a bunch of damned animals,” as Santarsiero recollects in her briefing book, abolished his science and technology office. Its leader, David, quit in frustration early in 1973, according to his New York Times obituary in 2017.

While at Exxon, David continued to press for more science related to global warming, and in addition to the sampling research, he oversaw a transition to more climate modeling work—some of which was remarkably on target in its projection of temperature increase related to carbon dioxide concentrations. But in a coda to his career, he signed on to a 2012 Wall Street Journal opinion piece in which climate science skeptics argued there was no compelling reason to decarbonize the world’s economy.

Ultimately, U.S. government researchers at NASA, NOAA and other agencies would lead much of the science that led to a consensus on global warming. But government policy has lagged far behind the warnings of scientists, as the latest document from the Nixon archives underscores.

Marianne Lavelle

Reporter, washington, d.c..

Marianne Lavelle is a reporter for Inside Climate News. She has covered environment, science, law, and business in Washington, D.C. for more than two decades. She has won the Polk Award, the Investigative Editors and Reporters Award, and numerous other honors. Lavelle spent four years as online energy news editor and writer at National Geographic. She spearheaded a project on climate lobbying for the nonprofit journalism organization, the Center for Public Integrity. She also has worked at U.S. News and World Report magazine and The National Law Journal. While there, she led the award-winning 1992 investigation, “Unequal Protection,” on the disparity in environmental law enforcement against polluters in minority and white communities. Lavelle received her master’s degree from Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, and is a graduate of Villanova University.

• [email protected]

Newsletters

We deliver climate news to your inbox like nobody else. Every day or once a week, our original stories and digest of the web's top headlines deliver the full story, for free.

• Inside Clean Energy
• Today's Climate
• Breaking News
• I agree to the terms of service and privacy policy .

By Kiley Bense

By Phil McKenna

Part I of the Award-Winning Series: Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago

By neela banerjee, lisa song and david hasemyer, most popular.

Behind the Scenes: How a Plastics Plant Has Plagued a Pennsylvania County

By Kiley Price

Q&A: What’s the Deal with Bill Gates’s Wyoming Nuclear Plant?

Interview by steve curwood, living on earth.

If the EV Market Has Slowed, Nobody Bothered to Tell Ford

By dan gearino, as extreme weather batters schools, students are pushing for more climate change education.

Though climate change education varies across public schools in the U.S., extreme weather impacts are affecting them all.

‘Build Green’ Bill Seeks a Clean Shift in Transportation Spending

Oregon’s owyhee canyonlands is the biggest conservation opportunity left in the west. if congress won’t protect it, should biden step in.

Keep Environmental Journalism Alive

ICN provides award-winning climate coverage free of charge and advertising. We rely on donations from readers like you to keep going.

Language selection

• Français fr

Canada-UK 2024-25 collaborative industrial research and development call for proposals on enabling technologies and innovations for biomanufacturing of biologics and advanced therapeutics

• 1. Introduction
• 2. Application deadlines
• 3. Sectors of focus
• 4. Eligibility requirements
• 6. Application process
• 7. Contacts
• 8. Register

1. Introduction

Working together, the governments of Canada and the United Kingdom (UK) aim to foster and support collaborative industrial research and development (R&D) projects with a high potential for commercialization.

This call for proposals is open to organizations from Canada and the UK who wish to form project consortia to perform collaborative projects focused on developing innovative products, processes or technology‑based services in the area of biomanufacturing of biologics and advanced therapeutics technologies.

2. Application deadlines

• Canadian registration deadline: July 2, 2024
• Canadian expression of interest deadline: July 15, 2024
• International consortium project proposal deadline: October 16, 2024

3. Sectors of focus

This Canada‑UK partnering initiative is designed to further develop and diversify the biomanufacturing ecosystems in both countries. By helping small or medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and other stakeholders build the technical capabilities required for the development and economically sustainable production of next‑generation vaccines and therapeutics, both countries will be well positioned to respond to future health emergencies.

Projects must be focused on the development of pre‑commercial technologies that address an identified need in the area of biomanufacturing of biologics and advanced therapeutics technologies , in the following themes:

Enabling technologies for biologics and advanced therapeutics:

• Discovery, design and high throughput screening platforms, which may include the application of artificial intelligence
• Manufacturing systems and methods (e.g. centralized, distributed or point‑of‑care; microfluidics‑based devices, new and innovative systems for Good Manufacturing Practice production, fill and finish, automation security)
• Manufacturing process intensification enablers (e.g. hyper productive strains, novel expression systems, continuous production processes, perfusion technologies)
• Novel analytical characterization, potency assays and real‑time release technologies, biosensors
• Other relevant enabling technologies

Delivery systems for proteins and nucleic acids:

• Viral and non‑viral (e.g. lipid nanoparticles) platforms, including their components and payloads

Novel biological products:

• Vaccines (prophylactic, therapeutic, various platforms)
• Therapeutic proteins (antibodies) and related production process‑intensification enablers
• Advanced therapy medicinal products (e.g. mRNA, siRNA, gene therapies, cell therapies, engineered tissues)
• Other biological based therapies (e.g. bacteriophage, engineered probiotics)

4. Eligibility requirements

To be considered for funding, applicants must form a project consortium and develop a collaborative R&D project that meets the following criteria:

4.1 Consortium

• 1 incorporated Canadian SME
• 1 registered UK for‑profit business of any size The parties listed above must be unrelated parties (i.e. no direct, indirect, beneficial or constructive ownership interest between these parties)
• Other Canadian SMEs (Canadian collaborators eligible for funding)
• National Research Council of Canada (NRC) researchers (Canadian collaborators eligible for funding)
• Universities (Canadian collaborators eligible for funding)
• Research technology organizations (RTO) (Canadian collaborators eligible for funding)
• Others (Canadian collaborators eligible for funding)
• Large enterprises and industries (self‑funding)
• The project partners that form the consortium must agree on a plan to address intellectual property rights and intend to commercialize.

4.2 Canadian SME applicants

• be an incorporated, profit oriented small or medium-sized business in Canada
• have 500 or fewer full-time equivalent employees
• pursue growth and profit by developing and commercializing innovative, technology driven new or improved products, services or processes in Canada
• have a differentiated and protectable technology with commercial potential in global markets
• have sufficient working capital (e.g. revenue, investment) and resources to undertake a multi‑year R&D collaboration and commercialize the results
• be committed to significant growth through international market expansion
• have a minimum of 15 full‑time equivalent employees
• have commercialized 1 or more products domestically or internationally
• have greater than $500,000 CAD in annual revenue

4.3 Project

• commercial potential and outcomes that can be realized within 2 to 3 years of completion of the project
• a civilian (non‑military) purpose
• alignment with and advancement of the Canada's Biomanufacturing and Life Sciences Strategy
• an increase of the skills and expertise of the Canadian consortium members
• a complementary technological contribution from each partner
• an obvious advantage and added value resulting from the cooperation between the participants
• a balanced contribution between project partners and countries

4.4 UK eligibility requirements

Please consult the UK Innovation Funding Service (IFS) call for proposals announcement for UK eligibility requirements.

5. Funding

Eligible participants in collaborative projects selected through this call for proposals may receive funding from their respective national funding bodies. Funds will be provided in accordance with the applicable laws, regulations, rules and procedures established by the relevant national funding bodies, country and jurisdiction.

Note: One country or project partner cannot represent more than  70% of the total project budget.

5.1 Canadian funding

In Canada, this call for proposals is offered through the National Research Council of Canada Industrial Research Assistance Program (NRC IRAP) and the NRC Collaborative Science and Technology Innovation Program (NRC CSTIP).

NRC IRAP is responsible for the delivery of this call for proposals and for the management of any resulting SME funding agreements. The NRC CSTIP is responsible for the management of any resulting funding agreements with the other Canadian collaborators (see section 4.1). The NRC CSTIP aims to establish the NRC as a collaborative platform that leverages scientific excellence to tackle Canada's most pressing challenges.

Through this call for proposals, projects have the opportunity to benefit from the NRC's assets (special‑purpose research facilities, scientific expertise and networks) along with financial assistance in the form of non‑repayable grants or contributions.

Note: The maximum Canadian funding allocation for each consortium project is set at $1,000,000 CAD . This includes funding for Canadian SMEs and other Canadian collaborators.

Canadian SMEs

Eligible Canadian SMEs may receive up 50% reimbursement of the total project costs up to a maximum total funding amount of $1,000,000 CAD over 12 to 24 months .

Canadian SME applicants may apply to more than one NRC IRAP call for proposals simultaneously. However, NRC IRAP may limit the number of funded projects per applicant. Canadian SME applicants who are applying to more than one opportunity or who have ongoing NRC IRAP projects should speak to their NRC IRAP representative for more information.

Note: Canadian SME applicants must be eligible for funding as NRC IRAP clients before they can be considered for funding through this call for proposals.

For more information on NRC IRAP eligibility and becoming an NRC IRAP client, please contact NRC IRAP at 1‑877‑994‑4727 .

Other Canadian collaborators

• This restriction is in place to prioritize and encourage the growth and development of SMEs within the consortium projects.
• salaries (excluding academic principal investigator salaries)
• research support costs (including student stipends, research materials and minor equipment purchases up to $10,000)
• travel and accommodation costs
• professional services (amounts invoiced by a contractor for services rendered directly to the project)
• Indirect (i.e. overhead) costs up to 10% of total eligible project costs

5.2 UK funding

In the UK, this call for proposals is offered through the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund by UK Research and Innovation (UKRI). Innovate UK, part of UKRI, is responsible for the delivery of this call for proposals and the management of any resulting funding agreements.

Please consult the Innovate UK IFS call for proposals announcement for UK funding parameters.

6. Application process

This call for proposal is being hosted by Innovate UK's Innovation Funding Service (IFS). Each project consortium must complete and submit the joint project application form via the UK Innovation IFS application portal. Please consult the Innovate UK IFS application portal for instructions on how to complete and submit the project application package.

In addition to the project consortium submitting the IFS project application form, each country lead participant must submit all required consortium application documents on behalf of the consortium, to the appropriate national funding body (NRC IRAP for Canada and UKRI for UK) and meet its due diligence process requirements. Failure to do so, for any reason, may cause the entire collaborative project application to be considered incomplete or ineligible and render the entire project consortium ineligible for funding through this call for proposals.

Application processes and evaluations will be performed independently by each national funding body in accordance with their national and institutional laws and regulations. Once each national funding body has evaluated the submitted applications, a final joint project selection will be performed.

Information on respective application processes follows below:

6.1 Canadian application process

The Canadian application process has 4 phases:

• Registration
• Expression of interest
• International consortium project proposal (ICPP)
• National funding body proposal and funding agreement

Step 1: Registration phase

The lead Canadian applicant must register electronically by using the Register button at the bottom of this page. Basic information about the applicant and the organization will be required upon registration.

NRC IRAP will review registrations for this call for proposals and contact applicants if more information is required. Qualifying applicants will proceed to the next phase and be invited to submit an expression of interest form.

Step 2: Expression of interest phase

During this phase, the lead Canadian applicant must submit an expression of interest (EOI) form outlining basic information on the applicants and the collaborative project.

While completing the EOI form, each Canadian SME applicant is encouraged to contact their NRC IRAP representative to discuss their project idea and receive guidance on preparing their submission.

It is recommended that applicants submit the EOI as early as possible. EOIs will be evaluated by an NRC evaluation team. Qualifying applicants will be invited to submit the more detailed international consortium project proposal (ICPP) in collaboration with their project partners. The lead Canadian consortium applicant will be provided with all the templates needed to submit an ICPP.

Step 3: International consortium project proposal (ICPP) phase

During this phase, all project partners must work together to complete and submit the IFS Joint project application.

In addition, all the Canadian partners must work together to complete and submit the Canadian CPP application package, which consists of the following:

• project consortium
• collaborative project
• expected outcomes
• expected project cost and calendar
• An NRC IRAP Canadian SME annex form containing additional information required to assess the Canadian SME applicants and the project consortium
• An NRC Other Canadian Collaborator annex form containing additional information required to assess the Canadian researcher applicants and the project consortium
• roles and responsibilities of each consortium member
• project management framework
• division of intellectual property rights
• confidentiality and publication agreements, and liability clauses

Canadian ICPP applications will be evaluated by an NRC evaluation team. Next, the amalgamated evaluation results will be shared between national funding bodies to jointly select the collaborative projects that will be invited to proceed to the final national funding body proposal and funding agreement stage.

Step 4: National funding body proposal and funding agreement phase

During the national funding body proposal and funding agreement phase, all eligible project partners work independently to complete funding proposals and sign legally binding funding agreements with their respective national funding body. Canadian SME applicants will work with their NRC IRAP representative to prepare an NRC IRAP funding proposal and contribution agreement. Other Canadian collaborators will work with the NRC CSTIP to prepare a funding proposal and grant or contribution agreement as appropriate.

6.2 UK application process

For information related to application stages, requirements, instructions, ICPP application packages and national funding body proposals and funding agreements, please consult the Innovate UK IFS call for proposals announcement .

7. Contacts

For questions, concerns or for more information, please contact the appropriate call for proposals representative listed below:

7.1 Canadian contacts

Small and medium‑sized enterprises Paul McVeigh NRC IRAP Biotechnology Program Lead National Research Council of Canada Industrial Research Assistance Program [email protected]

Other Canadian collaborators National Program Office National Research Council of Canada NRC.NationalProgramOffice-Bureaunationaldesprogrammes.CNRC@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca

7.2 UK contact

Dr Rachel Harris Innovation Lead – Medicines Manufacturing nnovate UK [email protected]

8. Registration

Canadian SME participants must be registered NRC IRAP clients. If not already an NRC IRAP client, Canadian SMEs must contact 1‑877‑994‑4727 to determine if they might be eligible for support through the NRC IRAP.

To begin the application process, the lead Canadian applicant must register for this opportunity by selecting the Register button.

If there is no Register button visible below this line, it means the call for proposals has closed. Please contact the contact listed in Section 7 or the NRC IRAP International Office at [email protected] for more information.

Page details

From: National Research Council Canada