For example:

• Strategic team building meetings;
• Co-development of shared research frameworks, questions, and approaches across disciplines;
• Activities to build shared language, concepts, and methods;
• Development of a clear, integrated research vision and preliminary work plan.

For example:

• Pilot studies and proof-of-concept experiments;
• Methodological development and testing across disciplines;
• Data collection and analysis to demonstrate feasibility or generate early findings;
• Technical validation of proposed novel approaches;
• Co-authored outputs such as preliminary manuscripts, review papers, or conference submissions to advance and disseminate early findings.

For example:

• Literature synthesis or environmental scans;
• Stakeholder consultations to identify and refine real-world challenges;
• Development of a clearly articulated, interdisciplinary research problem and approach;
• Positioning of the project relative to current paradigms to demonstrate transformative potential.

For example:

• Preparation of a strong, integrated concept for a major external funding application (e.g., NFRF);
• Development of a draft proposal, including objectives, methodology, and team roles;
• Identification of target funding opportunities and alignment of the project to program requirements;
• Establishment of governance structures and collaboration models to support a full-scale project;
• Development of joint publications and knowledge mobilization outputs to demonstrate early impact and team integration.

For example:

• Development of approaches for recruitment of a diverse team;
• Integration of EDI considerations into research design and team practices;
• Training approaches that support inclusive and equitable participation across disciplines and career stages.

For example:

• Active collaboration with communities, not-for-profit organizations, industry, and policymakers;
• Co-design and co-creation of research approaches and outputs;
• Indigenous engagement and relationship-building activities conducted in respectful, reciprocal, and ethical ways.

Note: The following are not eligible: 

• Activities that primarily constitute ongoing operations, full scale research programs, or incremental extensions of existing funded projects (all costs must be clearly related to advancing the proposed VISTA project and aligned with its objectives);
• Teaching buy-out, salary replacement, or other forms of workload reduction (consistent with the Tri-Agency Financial Administration Guide). 

This criterion assesses whether EDI is meaningfully integrated into the research team’s practices, specifically in team composition, recruitment, training, and inclusive working environments/practices. The expectation is project-specific: the NPI must explain how EDI will be applied in practice within their team and their project (institutional policies may be referred to, but they are not sufficient on their own).

Please refer to the following Tri-Agency resources for more information on EDI in research practice: 

• NFRF’s Best Practices in Equity, Diversity and Inclusion in Research guide
• NSERC’s EDI considerations at each stage of the research process
• SSHRC’s guide to addressing EDI considerations

To meet VISTA’s expectations, a project must show that addressing the proposed challenge genuinely requires an integrated interdisciplinary approach and cannot be effectively achieved through parallel disciplinary efforts. Interdisciplinarity must be central to both the rationale and the design of the project, with objectives, frameworks, and methods developed and applied in a coordinated and mutually informing way. Projects must be conceived as interdisciplinary from the outset, rather than combining separate disciplinary components or adding interdisciplinarity as a supplementary element.

Note: To be eligible for funding, proposals must meet both pass/fail criteria; failure to meet either criterion renders the proposal ineligible. Proposals receiving a pass for both EDI in research practice and interdisciplinarity criteria will be rated on a scale of 100 based on the following criteria.

In the VISTA context, high‑risk ideas refer to research approaches that are intellectually bold and exploratory, where outcomes are uncertain, but the potential payoff is transformative if successful. Risk is assessed at the level of the research idea, approach, or integration, not at the level of financial, ethical, or compliance risk.

A high‑risk project typically challenges existing assumptions, frameworks, or methods, or combines disciplines in non‑obvious ways that have not yet been tested.

Importantly, high risk does not mean poorly planned or speculative without grounding. Successful high‑risk proposals demonstrate a credible rationale, an appropriate methodology, and a thoughtful mitigation strategy, even when the outcome cannot be guaranteed.

A proposal is considered high‑risk when one or more of the following apply:

• Novel or unconventional approach:
  • Proposes new conceptual frameworks, methods, or analytical lenses;
  • Applies existing methods in radically new contexts or combinations;
  • Moves beyond incremental extensions of prior work.
• Intellectual uncertainty:
  • Success is not assured using standard assumptions;
  • There is a real possibility that the approach may fail or produce unexpected results;
  • The research explores questions where outcomes cannot be fully predicted in advance.
• Interdisciplinary risk:
  • Integrates disciplines that do not usually work together, requiring new shared language or methods;
  • Creates productive tension between theories, data, or methodologies across fields;
  • The interdisciplinary integration itself is a source of uncertainty.
• Departure from established pathways:
  • Challenges dominant paradigms, models, or practices;
  • Explores problems where conventional approaches have stalled or proven inadequate.

Note: High‑risk ideas are not:

• Incremental extensions of existing funded projects;
• Well established methods applied to new datasets with predictable outcomes;
• Projects where risk is limited to logistics, scale, or coordination rather than intellectual content;
• “Safe” multidisciplinary projects where disciplines operate in parallel without true integration. 

In the VISTA context, high‑reward/impact refers to the potential for significant and transformative scientific, social, cultural, environmental, health, political and/or economic impacts beyond the state-of-art.

High‑reward/impact is assessed based on the significance and transformative potential of the expected outcomes, including where relevant impacts across multiple fields or communities and contributions to sustained change beyond the VISTA grant duration.

A proposal is considered high‑reward when one or more of the following apply:

• Substantial advance: outcomes represent a substantial advance beyond current knowledge or practice.
• Transformative change: articulates significant impact and breakthrough potential (e.g., opening new avenues of inquiry or resolving longstanding issues).
• Clear articulation of change and measurement (stronger ratings): substantial change is clearly defined and supported by a strong measurement plan; short‑, medium‑, and long‑term benefits are clear and measurable.
• Reach across fields/communities (where relevant): impacts large communities and/or multiple fields.
• Training component (as reflected in the rating descriptors): stronger proposals may include a strong/unique training plan for trainees.  

Note: High‑reward/impact is not:

• A natural progression of existing work where transformative change is unclear;
• Broad claims of benefit without clarity on what will change or how change will be demonstrated (e.g., no measurement plan);
• Impacts that are minor, limited to one field without justification, or described without sufficient detail. 

In the VISTA context, feasibility and team refers to whether the proposal presents a credible, well‑articulated plan (including appropriateness of the proposed budget) and a team with the expertise, complementarity, and capacity to successfully deliver the interdisciplinary project.

This criterion assesses the quality and feasbility of the plan (objectives, methodology, timeline, environment) and the extent to which the team’s disciplinary and methodological expertise is combined and coordinated to enable the proposed interdisciplinary approach.  The proposed budget will be reviewed for appropriateness, completeness, and alignment with project objectives.  

If applicable, Indigenous research approaches and the integration of EDI considerations in research design are assessed under this criterion as part of the methodology and overall project design.

Indigenous research is research that is conducted by, for, or with Indigenous Peoples and communities, and that is grounded in Indigenous knowledge systems, priorities, and ways of knowing, following principles of respect, reciprocity, and co-creation. 

For more information on expectations regarding Indigenous research, please consult the SSHRC’s Guidelines for the merit review of Indigenous research. 

EDI in research design is the integration of equity, diversity, and inclusion considerations into the research questions, methodology, data collection, analysis, and interpretation, including factors such as sex, gender, and other identity dimensions, if relevant. It includes but is not limited to sex- and gender-based analysis (SGBA+).

Please refer to the following Tri-Agency resources for more information on EDI in research design:

• NFRF’s Best Practices in Equity, Diversity and Inclusion in Research guide
• NSERC’s EDI considerations at each stage of the research process
• CHIR’s sex- and gender-based analysis (SGBA)
• SSHRC’s guide to addressing EDI considerations

Applications will be reviewed for completeness and eligibility. Confirmation will be sent to the NPI by November 23, 2026.

The multidisciplinary review panel will be composed of uOttawa researchers, including at the OAHN-based affiliated institutes, and the collective expertise will cover the mandate areas of the three agencies (NSERC, SSHRC, CIHR). Researchers will include those with an exceptional track record of success in obtaining and implementing large-scale interdisciplinary grants and membership on large-scale grant review panels.

Each eligible application will be assigned to three reviewers and will be reviewed based on the evaluation matrices (see below). A ranked list of the applications per stream will be established; projects will be funded until all available funds are exhausted within each stream.

Based on the ranked list of evaluated proposals, the VISTA Selection Committee, composed of members of the review panel and chaired by the Associate Vice-President, Research Services, will make the final funding decisions, taking into consideration the overall proposal portfolio.

Applicants will be provided with a summary of the review comments.

Both EDI-RP and interdisciplinarity are pass/fail criteria. To be eligible for funding, proposals must meet both pass/fail criteria; failure to meet either criterion renders the proposal ineligible.

Proposals receiving a pass for both EDI in research practice and interdisciplinarity criteria will be rated on a scale of 100 based on the following criteria:

For each proposal, reviewers will evaluate the three scored criteria (high reward, high risk, feasibility and team) using a 4-point scale matrix:

For each proposal, an average score is calculated as follows:

Average score = (final score from review #1 + ... + final score from review #n) / n

Where:

• n = number of reviews
• final score = risk score + reward score + feasibility and team score

Where:

• risk score = 33 x rating fraction 
• reward score = 33 x rating fraction 
• feasibility and team score = 34 x rating fraction

Note: To be eligible for funding, the project must receive an average score of at least 70 out of 100.

Mid-term report

The mid-term report must outline progress to date, including key activities completed, emerging outcomes, and any adjustments made to the original project plan. It must be accompanied by a mid-term financial statement.

To be deemed satisfactory, the mid-term report must demonstrate meaningful progress toward the objectives outlined in the application. This includes evidence of concrete activities, such as team-building initiatives, scientific workshops, partner and stakeholder engagement, or proof-of-concept studies, where applicable. The financial statement must show that the first installment has been substantially expended during the first half of the project, in alignment with reported activities. 

Final report

The final report must summarize overall achievements, key lessons learned and outline the next stage of research. This includes a clear action plan to pursue a large-scale, interdisciplinary funding opportunity building on the VISTA project, as well as an explanation of how the grant has positioned the team for this next step. A final financial statement must also be submitted.

Any unspent funds at the end of the grant period must be reported. A no-cost extension may be requested to complete project activities (subject to approval) and is limited to one extension of up to 12 months. Any funds remaining on the project end date, as specified on the official Notice of Decision, and including the no-cost extension (if requested), will revert back to the VISTA program.  

Throughout the grant period, the research team will participate in follow-up meetings with OVPRI to discuss progress and next steps beyond the VISTA grant. Teams may also be invited to participate in workshops, World Cafés, or other planning activities.

Recipients are expected to submit an application to a national or international, peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary funding opportunity near or shortly after the completion of the VISTA grant.

Recipients are expected to be available for promotional activities that showcases their work. 

Recipients may also be requested to support other interdisciplinary OVPRI initiatives, such as support on internal peer review panels. 

Acknowledgement of the financial support, as detailed in the Notice of Decision, is a condition of funding.