Skip to main content

FRAC Rubrics

Eleanor Lane, Nathan Deutsch,

Provost's OfficeChallenge TravelResearch Rubric
Seed Fund 

Review

likely to scholarly objective, objectives? 

  YesNoCriterion 

1. Significance: Is the proposed workedresearch, scholarly, or creative activity significant orand important?

  make an important contribution to the field? 
Is

2. Research Need: Does the projectproposal address a clearly fillingdefined aresearch knowledgequestion, gap?

  or important research need? 

3. Research Approach: Are the proposed methodsmethods, sufficientapproach, or creative activities appropriate to clearly answerachieve the project’sstated questions?

   
Are the timelines clearly defined and reasonable for the scope of the proposed work?  
Will the project outcomes be effectively disseminated to broad audiences?  
Does the proposed work have high probability of resulting in externally sponsored funding?  

 

Compensated Leave Rubric

 YesNo
Is the proposed worked significant or important?  
Is the project clearly filling a knowledge gap?  
Are the proposed methods sufficient to clearly answer the project’s questions?  
Are the timelines clearly defined and reasonable for the scope of the proposed work?  
Will the project outcomes be effectively disseminated to broad audiences?  
Does the proposed work have high probability of resulting in externally sponsored funding?  

 

4.

Faculty Research Fund Rubric

theproposedtimelineandavailableperformances,exhibitions,patents)? 

competitiveness,whereappropriate? 

andsupporttherequestedexpenses? 

10.

Overall
 Objective not met = 0Objective scarcely met = 1Objective partially met, but with significant weaknesses = 2-3Objective mostly met; shortcomings minor = 4Stellar = 5
Overall Proposal Presentation:Feasibility Is the narrative no more than four pages? Is it easy to read with limited jargon?     
Narrative:: Is the proposed work significantfeasible /within important?          resources? 

Narrative:5. Dissemination: Is there a clear and appropriate plan for disseminating the project clearlyoutcomes filling(e.g., apublications, knowledgepresentations, gap?

        

Narrative:6. Future Funding Potential Are the proposed methods sufficient to clearly answer the project questions?

     
Narrative: Are the timelines clearly defined and reasonable for the scope of the proposed work?     
Narrative: Will the project outcomes be effectively disseminated to broad audiences?     
Narrative:: Does the proposed work havedemonstrate highstrong probabilitypotential to lead to future external funding or resultingsubstantially instrengthen externallyfuture sponsoredfunding funding?        

References:7. Budget: AreIs the referencesproposed budget reasonable and appropriate tofor putaccomplishing proposedthe workproject inobjectives? context?

      

Budget:8. Budget Justification: IsDoes the budget appropriatejustification foradequately proposedexplain work?

         

Budget9. Justification:Investigator Readiness: IsDoes the budgetapplicant clearly justified?

     
CV: Isdemonstrate the researcherexpertise, equippedqualifications, and resources necessary to successfully complete the proposed work? 

  
     Merit: Is the proposal of sufficient overall quality to warrant FRAC Seed Fund support? 

Provost's

Challenge
 
Faculty Research SeedFund Fund
Rubric 
contributiontothefield? 

theproposedtimelineandavailableperformances,exhibitions,patents)? 

competitiveness,whereappropriate? 

andsupporttherequestedexpenses? 

10.

Overall
  Objective

Review notCriterion met

= 0		Objective scarcely met = 1Objective partially met, but with significant weaknesses = 2-3Objective mostly met; shortcomings minor = 4Stellar = 5

Overall1. Proposal Presentation:Significance: Is the narrativeproposed noresearch, morescholarly, thanor fourcreative pages?activity Issignificant itand easylikely to readmake withan limitedimportant jargon?

         

Narrative:2. Research Need: Does the proposal address a clearly defined research question, scholarly objective, or important research need? 

3. Research Approach: Are the proposed methods, approach, or creative activities appropriate to achieve the stated objectives? 

4. Feasibility: Is the proposed work significantfeasible /within important?

          resources? 

Narrative:5. Dissemination: Is there a clear and appropriate plan for disseminating the project clearlyoutcomes filling(e.g., apublications, knowledgepresentations, gap?

        

Narrative:6. Future Funding Potential Are the proposed methods sufficient to clearly answer the project questions?

     
Narrative: Are the timelines clearly defined and reasonable for the scope of the proposed work?     
Narrative: Will the project outcomes be effectively disseminated to broad audiences?     
Narrative:: Does the proposed work havedemonstrate highstrong probabilitypotential to lead to future external funding or resultingsubstantially instrengthen externallyfuture sponsoredfunding funding?        

References:7. Budget: AreIs the referencesproposed budget reasonable and appropriate tofor putaccomplishing proposedthe workproject inobjectives? context?

      

Budget:8. Budget Justification: IsDoes the budget appropriatejustification foradequately proposedexplain work?

         

Budget9. Justification:Investigator Readiness: IsDoes the budgetapplicant clearly justified?

     
CV: Isdemonstrate the researcherexpertise, equippedqualifications, and resources necessary to successfully complete the proposed work? 

  
     Merit: Is the proposal of sufficient overall quality to warrant FRAC Seed Fund support? 

 

RTT Travel Fund Rubric 

Review Criterion 

1. Significance: Is the proposed research significant and likely to advance knowledge or scholarly activity? 

2. Research Design: Are the proposed methods appropriate and sufficient to achieve the stated objectives? 

3. Feasibility: Is the proposed work feasible given the timeline, budget, and available resources? 

4. Travel Justification: Is the requested travel essential to accomplishing the research objectives (e.g., fieldwork, collaboration, specialized training, archives, or conference presentation)? 

5. Investigator Readiness: Does the applicant demonstrate the expertise and preparedness to successfully complete the proposed work? 

6. Dissemination: Is there a clear plan to disseminate the research findings (e.g., publications, presentations, outreach)? 

7. Future Funding Potential: Is the project likely to strengthen the applicant's competitiveness for future external funding? 

8. Institutional Impact: Will the proposed work enhance Arkansas State University's research profile, collaborations, or strategic priorities? 

9. Overall Merit: Is the proposal of sufficient overall quality to merit FRAC Travel Fund support? 

 

Off-Campus Duty Assignment (Compensated Leave) Rubric 

Review Criterion 

1.  Significance: Is the proposed research, scholarly, or creative activity significant and likely to make an important contribution to the field? 

2.  Objectives: Does the proposal articulate clear and well-defined research or scholarly objectives? 

3.  Approach: Are the proposed methods, approach, or creative activities appropriate to achieve the stated objectives? 

4.  Feasibility: Is the proposed scope of work realistic and achievable during the Off-Campus Duty Assignment period? 

5.  Investigator Readiness: Does the applicant demonstrate the expertise, qualifications, and available resources necessary to successfully complete the proposed work? 

6.  Productivity: Is there a high likelihood that the Off-Campus Duty Assignment will substantially advance the proposed project? 

7.  Scholarly Outcomes: Is there a clear plan for scholarly outcomes (e.g., publications, presentations, performances, exhibitions, patents, or other creative works)? 

8.  Future Research Competitiveness: Does the proposal demonstrate potential to enhance future research productivity or competitiveness for external funding, where appropriate? 

9.  Institutional Impact: Will the proposed work contribute to Arkansas State University's research, scholarly, or creative mission? 

10.  Overall Merit: Is the proposal of sufficient overall quality to warrant FRAC Compensated Leave support? 

Back to top