KIX call for proposals: GPE KIX regional observatories on education system resilience

Table of contents 

1. Introduction

2. Background

3. Scope and objectives of the Observatory initiative

4. Structure and design of the Observatory initiative

5. Expectations of implementing partners

6. Funding and duration

7. Eligibility criteria

8. Proposal submission details

9. Evaluation criteria

10. Submission and review process

11. Inquiries

12. Call timeline

13. Additional considerations

Annex A: Integrating gender equality, equity and inclusion (GEI) in research proposals and projects

Annex B: List of GPE partner countries

1. Introduction 

The International Development Research Centre (IDRC) and the Global Partnership for Education (GPE) invite proposals from individual organizations, or consortia of multiple organizations, to become implementing partners in the new GPE KIX Observatory on Education System Resilience initiative. The purpose of the initiative is to contribute to the improvement of education system resilience of GPE partner countries through research and evidence. The task of implementing partners will be to establish and operate regional observatories, conduct applied research and mobilize its findings. The call expects to fund six regional observatories: one in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), one in East, West, Central, and Southern Africa, and four in Europe, Middle East and North Africa, Asia, and the Pacific (EMAP).   

This call is part of the Knowledge and Innovation Exchange (KIX), a joint endeavour of GPE and IDRC. KIX supports GPE partner countries to have and use the evidence and innovation they need to accelerate access, learning outcomes and gender equality through equitable, inclusive and resilient education systems fit for the 21st century. KIX facilitates direct knowledge sharing across GPE partner countries through four regional hubs and funds applied research on their priorities. KIX is part of GPE’s strategy to support transformative change for education in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).    

The GPE KIX Observatory on Education System Resilience initiative follows on the GPE KIX COVID-19 Observatory project. The original project focused on collecting, synthesizing and sharing evidence about education-related policy and practice responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in GPE partner countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Building on the insights of the original project and the scoping study conducted in preparation for the call, the new initiative focuses on meanings and practices of education system resilience and potential future disruptions to the education sector in GPE partner countries and expands its geographic reach from the Africa region to the LAC and EMAP regions.  

The deadline for the submission of proposals is July 11, 2024 (23:59 EDT).  

2. Background 

The COVID-19 pandemic revealed critical gaps in education contingency planning and preparedness across the globe (Anderson, 2022). Especially at the onset of the pandemic, countries struggled to ensure continuity of learning, to protect the social and emotional wellbeing of learners and teachers, and to address the negative consequences of school closures. Marginalized groups, especially girls, children with disabilities and refugees, were hit hardest by these negative consequences, which further exacerbated existing inequalities (ADEA, AU/CIEFFA & APHRC, 2021). With the decline of the pandemic and schools reopening, many educational stakeholders have renewed the call to build back better by strengthening education system resilience in preparation for future pandemics, as well as to better address the challenges and opportunities posed by climate change, globalization, demographic changes, new and protracted political conflicts, displaced populations, new education technology and artificial intelligence. As a result of these pressures, education policies and programs have increasingly embraced the concept of resilience to help education systems respond to and recover from crises and adapt to new realities (Kelcey et al., 2023).   

The scoping study conducted in preparation for this call, as well as other research, shows that while the concept of education system resilience has been embraced in international development discourse, especially in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, there is a lack of consensus around what it means in theory and in practice (Cameron et al., 2024). The term ‘resilience’ itself has a wide range of definitions and uses across education. Psychological research, for instance, tends to be concerned with individual forms of resilience but there is an increasing understanding of how individual resilience interacts with broader social and system dynamics. Discussions of education system resilience are particularly common in international development in the context of crisis and disaster relief and rebuilding. There is consistent recognition across the literature that a defining feature of resilient education systems is having effective planning in place to deal with crises (Cameron et al., 2024). Policies that include disaster risk reduction, crisis-sensitive education planning and a consideration of climate change impacts are generally seen as evidence of education system resilience.  

Education system resilience can be defined broadly as “the capacity of an education system to absorb, resist, and adapt to disturbances while ensuring the continuity of its vital functions” (Dülks et al., 2023, p. 3). The term itself is broad, encompassing many aspects of the education system, and it interacts with other forms of individual, institutional and community resilience. Rather than assuming a system will bounce back to a pre-crisis state of being, education system resilience entails “continuous adaptation and proactive anticipation of changing circumstances” (Dülks et al., 2023, p. 3). Hence, education system resilience is not an “innate trait” but rather a “process through which individuals and institutions overcome and transform significant risks to achieve positive outcomes that are scalable and sustainable” (Kelcey et al., 2023, p. 1).  

In practice, education system resilience encompasses multiple activities at different levels. For instance, at the policy and planning level, it may focus on system strengthening, risk anticipation, planning, responding and recovering from crises, and preventing and mitigating crises (for more details, see Cameron et al., 2024, pp. 12-16). At the teaching and learning level, it may involve the training of teachers, the development of learning materials, the use of distance-learning approaches in times of school closures and the provision of remedial education programs to address learning losses (for more details, see Save the Children & GPE, 2023, pp. 29-31). At the infrastructure level, education system resilience activities may focus on safe temporary learning places, including water, sanitation and hygiene facilities, in the wake of natural and other disasters, the rehabilitation of damaged buildings and facilities, and the construction of climate-resilient schools (ibid). At the school and community level, it may entail developing school safety and education continuity management plans, establishing school-safe environments, preparing communities for risk prevention and response, strengthening relationships between school and community groups, and back-to-school campaigns (ibid). Lastly, at the individual level, resilience involves developing knowledge and skills to be able to deal with different adversities. Across all these levels, one needs to consider the needs of marginalized groups (though this does not always occur in practice) because education systems that are neither equitable nor inclusive cannot be resilient (Cameron et al., 2024).  

While education system resilience has been gaining prominence in international development discourse, its understanding and practice are still developing and evolving. The review of education system resilience practices of selected countries[1] as part of the scoping study revealed a similar wide range of definitions, mirroring the literature base to some degree. The study found no direct reference to resilience in some instances, some references to individual-level resilience of children and young people and in other cases,  mentions of resilience in separate disaster risk reduction and other multi-sector plans. Further, the review found a wide range of measures, whether currently in place or lacking and required, that countries consider key to building the resilience of their education systems. These are mostly related to crises and emergencies, especially natural disasters and conflict. The review also found that efforts at resilience are stymied by pressing challenges in the present; that there is a strong focus on shorter-term planning, and that risk planning through the anticipation of future disruptions is usually weak. Countries tend to be preoccupied with responding to current issues and crises and often lack opportunities and resources to consider future disruptions and opportunities or to develop plans for tackling them (Cameron et al., 2024). Lastly, the review showed that there is insufficient attention to marginalized groups in the planning process, and that activities falling under education system resilience are often donor dependent. 

As the review points out, while countries need to strengthen resilience of their education systems to mitigate and recover from current disruptions and shocks, they also need to prepare for those that will take place in the future and to adapt to emerging opportunities. Education systems will face many more and increasingly diverse forms of disruption, both negative and positive, in the coming decades (Cameron et al., 2024). For instance, advances in the form of education technology and generative artificial intelligence have created both threats to and new opportunities for our approach to learning (UNESCO, 2023). Climate changes such as increasing temperatures and adverse weather events will likely result in fewer instructional hours, the destruction of many school buildings and the creation of infrastructure needed to facilitate distance learning (Newsome et al., 2023). Current and new armed conflicts will lead to an increase of displaced children and youth with interrupted access to education or no access at all, which will have negative political and socio-economic implications. In light of this, education systems need to look ahead to future changes to ensure their preparedness. 

​​3. Scope and objectives of the Observatory initiative  

Given an increasing emphasis on education system resilience and the expectation of increasingly diverse disruptions to education systems in the coming years, two aspects within education system resilience are of particular interest to the Observatory initiative:  

1. Existing practices related to education system resilience in GPE partner countries. While there is a growing emphasis on education system resilience, we have limited knowledge of how the countries actually understand and practice it, especially when it comes to their preparedness for future disruptions. We also have limited knowledge of how to build resilient education systems that promote the welfare of the most vulnerable. Generating and sharing evidence about the evolving practices of education system resilience, including those that address the needs of marginalized groups, across countries can help them to learn about such practices from each other and potentially to use this knowledge to shape their own policies.   
2. Anticipation of future disruptions to education systems in GPE partner countries. The pandemic and other crises have provided important lessons that can be applied to strengthen education systems and make them more resilient. However, we need more insight into potential future disruptions and opportunities, especially those that have not been experienced before, and their implications, especially for marginalized groups. Generating and sharing insights into signals of change and future disruptions is important as it can help countries to better prepare for and respond to them.

In light of the above, the main objective of the Observatory initiative is for GPE partner countries to have and use research and evidence to make their education systems more resilient and better prepared for future disruptions. The specific objectives of the initiative will be as follows:

• generate and mobilize evidence about how education stakeholders understand and practice education system resilience in GPE partner countries  
• generate and mobilize insights into changing landscapes, potential future disruptions and opportunities, and effective approaches to addressing them in GPE partner countries 
• use the generated evidence to identify recommendations for crisis preparedness and the education system resilience of GPE partner countries

The initiative will be guided by the following research questions:   

• How do education stakeholders understand and practice education system resilience in GPE partner countries?   
• What future disruptions to education systems in GPE partner countries do education and other relevant stakeholders envision?   
• What are some potentially effective approaches to addressing these future disruptions in GPE partner countries?

In keeping with GPE’s mandate, the Observatory initiative will examine the above research questions with respect to pre-primary, primary and secondary education as well as teacher training. The Observatory initiative will not examine the research questions with respect to technical and vocational education and training or higher education. Also, as with the original KIX COVID-19 Observatory project, we expect the new initiative on education system resilience to consider both the education system operation (e.g., policy and planning, continuity of learning, teacher training and support, etc.) and the socio-emotional wellbeing of learners when examining the above research questions. As the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated, the socio-emotional health of learners is as important as the continuity of learning: prolonged school closures can lead not only to learning loss but also to negative outcomes for the wellbeing of children (ADEA, AU/CIEFFA & APHRC, 2021; ADEA & APHRC, 2023).   

​​4. Structure and design of the Observatory initiative 

The Observatory initiative will cover GPE partners countries in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), East, West, Central, and Southern Africa, and Europe, Middle East and North Africa, Asia, and the Pacific (EMAP; see Annex B for the list of countries). There will be LMIC-based research implementing partners — either individual organizations or consortia of multiple organizations — in each region: one in LAC, one in East, West, Central, and Southern Africa and four in EMAP because of the regional breadth and diversity. The EMAP region will consist of four sub-regions: Eastern Europe, Caucasus, and Central Asia; Middle East and North Africa; South Asia and Southeast Asia; and the Pacific. There will be four implementing partners across these sub-regions — one partner per sub-region.  

The implementing partners will run GPE KIX regional observatories on education system resilience in the aforementioned regions and sub-regions. The observatories should be positioned to add value to other existing initiatives related to education system resilience in the regions of focus. Implementing partners across regions and sub-regions will not work in silos — they will interact with each other at different stages of their projects through a community of practice, exchanging information about research approaches, preliminary and final results, and knowledge mobilization strategies, as well as participating in joint events.  

While each implementing partner will have their own project design, the overall design of the Observatory initiative will consist of two main components:   

1. An examination of the meanings and practices of education system resilience in GPE partner countries, including how past and current disruptions inform education system preparedness, what issues countries try to address through education system resilience efforts, and what (if anything) they do in terms of preparedness for future disruptions. The implementation of this research component could take the form of case study research and cross-country comparison, among other approaches. The study could be guided by, but not limited to, the five-component framework presented in the scoping study paper (for more details, see pages 12-16) and undertaken through the lenses of policy and practice.[2] The study should pay attention to relevant policies and processes outside the education sector as many countries have ministries or agencies responsible for disaster management and relief which are distinct from ministries of education and their activities can have implications for the education sector. Some outputs of this component could include a cross-country comparison report of education system resilience meanings and practices, exemplary case studies of education system resilience practices, and a typology of issues that countries try to address through education system resilience practices.  
2. An exploration of changing landscapes and potential future disruptions in GPE partner countries, along with possibly effective approaches to addressing them. The implementation of this research component will draw on elements of strategic foresight and consist of three main parts: (1) gathering information and data to understand the future horizon, as the foundation for the foresight work; (2) foresight and analysis of the collected information and data to identify the most significant drivers of change, trends and emerging issues; and (3) exploring implications, identifying opportunities and socializing insights arising from this analysis (the “so-what” part). Following the initial scoping, regional observatories will decide on specific domains (e.g., climate change, migration and displacement, food insecurity, technological advancements, education financing) within which they will explore potential future disruptions to the education sector in their regions of focus. While some foresight studies focus on long-range futures, we expect projects to limit themselves to the five-to-ten-year horizon. The data collection as part of this research component should not be limited only to education officials and actors but should also involve officials from other relevant ministries, civil society representatives and other stakeholders who can shed light on future disruptions and opportunities for education systems. One of the outputs of this component could be a mapping of anticipated future disruptions, along with potentially effective approaches to addressing them based on promising existing practices.

We do not envision that implementing both components of the Observatory initiative will require an in-depth study of each GPE partner country in the region of focus. Implementing partners may consider, for instance, including all countries in the region of focus in the document review process but focus on a smaller set of countries for in-depth case studies. Considering the two components, as well as project duration and available resources, applicants should explain how they propose to operationalize an overall design of the initiative in their regions of focus to effectively address the guiding objectives and research questions of the call. 

​​5. Expectations of implementing partners 

When applying to, and undertaking, the regional observatory project, we expect the implementing partners to meet the following requirements:  

• Implementing partner profile. Proposals may be submitted by organizations headquartered in an LMIC which have a strong background in social science research, a good understanding of the education sector in the region of focus, and a solid track record of research and knowledge-mobilization activities across multiple countries or at a regional or continental scale. Also, see the general eligibility criteria below.  
• Consideration of existing initiatives. When developing proposals and implementing projects, partners should consider GPE and other initiatives related to education system resilience (e.g., Climate Smart Education Systems Initiative, the Global Alliance for Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience in the Education Sector) in order to ensure complementarity of their work to them. Also, partners should consider drawing on the data already available through other initiatives for the purposes of the secondary analysis if needed. Where possible and if necessary, GPE and IDRC may facilitate connections with other initiatives to foster synergies and cooperation.  
• Research for development. Partners will be expected to undertake research for development, which is designed to address the call objectives: build knowledge and evidence and mobilize them for policy and practice. Research should be problem-focused and action-oriented. Partners should identify and engage with relevant users of knowledge throughout the project to ensure that research is relevant and positioned for use in policy and practice. They should have a robust strategy for disseminating generated knowledge and evidence. Partners will need to meet the quality standards of IDRC’s Research Quality Plus (RQ+) framework.  
• Foresight research. Partners will be expected to undertake foresight research to examine future disruptions and new opportunities as part of the second component of the Observatory initiative. The applicants who are not familiar with foresight methodologies should think about how they will address this requirement in their research (e.g., the inclusion of a foresight consultant in the project). IDRC will support the partners with the foresight component of the project through capacity strengthening and the sharing of best practices.  
• Gender equality, equity and inclusion (GEI). Partners will be expected to implement the two components of the Observatory initiative through a GEI lens, using an intersectional approach. Vulnerable groups are disproportionally affected by disasters and other crisis situations and are often invisible in disaster risk reduction planning, which further leads to their marginalization (Cameron et al., 2024). Hence, it is important to consider their needs in the development of resilient education systems. Annex A provides a series of questions to help guide the integration of GEI in research and project implementation. 
• Community of practice. Partners will be expected to participate in the professional community of practice that will be established to facilitate the exchange of information among them about research approaches, recruitment strategies, preliminary and final results, and knowledge mobilization strategies. The community of practice will meet virtually or in person and will be coordinated either by IDRC or another organization.  

​​6. Funding and duration  

KIX will allocate CAD4 million for the entire initiative through this call. Each individual project will be 28 months in duration. 

We ask each applicant to propose the budget considering the set budget limits, project duration and proposed activities. When developing budgets, applicants should think about the scale and scope of their activities, including the research design and the knowledge-mobilization strategy, in the chosen region. Some regions have more GPE partner countries than others, which may have implications for the project design and implementation and subsequently for the budget. The budget, along with proposed activities, should demonstrate value for money and be appropriate in relation to the project objectives, duration and activities, and the chosen region.  

The following budget limits have been set for the regional observatories: 

• Latin America and the Caribbean: CAD400,000 
• East, West, Central, and Southern Africa: CAD1.5 million 
• Europe, Middle East and North Africa, Asia, and the Pacific:  
  • Eastern Europe, Caucasus, and Central Asia: CAD450,000 
  • Middle East and North Africa: CAD300,000 
  • South Asia and Southeast Asia: CAD1million 
  • The Pacific: CAD350,000 

​​7. Eligibility criteria 

Proposals must be submitted by nationally/internationally registered or incorporated organizations that are headquartered in LMICs. These could include, inter alia, research institutions, universities, think tanks, network secretariats, associations, civil society organizations, non-profits, or the private sector.   

Applicants must have independent legal status (or “legal personality”), be capable of contracting in their own right and name, receiving and administering funds, and have the authority to direct proposed project activities. Applicants must be able to demonstrate their legal status through written documentation. Legal status will only be reviewed if and when applicants are selected following technical selection.   

Proposals may be submitted by individual organizations or by consortia of up to three organizations. Proposals from consortia must name one lead organization, which can subgrant to the others. The lead organization must be headquartered in an LMIC, while consortium members may be from within LMICs or outside. Organizations/consortia must have a track record of work in GPE partner countries.   

Individuals and for-profit providers of core education services are not eligible for funding. Government ministries and agencies are not eligible for funding but can be involved in projects.  

​​8. Proposal submission details  

All applications should be submitted in English, French or Spanish, using the online application form. 

The online application will ask to provide the following information:  

• Project title 
• Region of focus  
  • Latin America and the Caribbean 
  • East, West, Central, and Southern Africa
  • Eastern Europe, Caucasus, and Central Asia
  • Middle East and North Africa 
  • South Asia and Southeast Asia 
  • The Pacific 
• Project summary in plain language 
• Contact information of the project leader and co-applicants (if applicable) 
• The rationale for the consortium (if applicable)

Project interest and organizational profile (max. 700 words) 

• Explain your interest in applying to the call to become an implementing partner in the Observatory initiative.  
• Describe what qualifies you to successfully implement the project in the chosen region — past experiences of organizing and conducting research at a multi-country, regional or continental scale and relevant expertise, including those related to education system resilience (if any). If you apply as a consortium, comment on the relevant experience and expertise of consortium partners.

Project purpose and anticipated results (max. 1,500 words) 

• Present your understanding of the research problem, including potential domains of focus for foresight research, and the vision for the project in the chosen region in response to the call.   
• State the project objectives in response to the call objectives.  
• State the research questions in response to the call guiding research questions.  
• Outline intended results — outputs and outcomes — of the project focusing on knowledge generation and knowledge mobilization. 
• Describe how the project will ensure complementarity between its work and other relevant initiatives in the region of focus.

*You may adjust or modify guiding objectives and research questions based on the scope of your activities, proposed design and methodology, and an overall vision for the project in the region of focus. 

Project design and methodology (max. 2,000 words) 

• Outline and justify the conceptual framework(s) to be used to implement both components of the project: (1) examination of meanings and practices of education system resilience in GPE partner countries and (2) exploration of changing landscapes, potential future disruptions, and possible effective approaches to address them.  
• Describe the study methodology and design for each component of the project, including sampling, methods and types of analysis, while considering the contexts of the chosen region.   
• Outline how GEI considerations will be incorporated in all stages of the project, including data, collection, analysis and dissemination.  
• Outline how relevant stakeholders will be involved in fair and equitable partnerships during the project. 
• Describe the project adaptive management approach, including potential risks to achieving the project objectives and mitigation strategies.

Research ethics (max. 500 words) 

• Provide details of the potential ethical issues in relation to the proposed research and what steps will be taken to ensure the highest ethical standards and the greatest protection of research participants. Refer to the Canadian Tri-Council Policy Statement on Ethical Conduct of Research Involving Humans. 
• Identify which institutional or national research ethics body will provide ethics review and oversight. Note that prior to commencing research, applicants will need to obtain approval from an official institutional or national research ethics body and will need to comply with the terms and conditions of the Grant Agreement.

Knowledge-mobilization strategy (max. 700 words) 

• Present a knowledge-mobilization strategy for the project considering the contexts of the chosen region. The strategy should outline how the activities and outputs of the project will engage potential knowledge users. It should also present approaches to be used to disseminate and support the work of the project among GPE partner countries and beyond. Lastly, the strategy should consider plans for leveraging the platforms provided by relevant KIX Regional Hubs and other relevant initiatives.

Monitoring, evaluation and learning (max. 700 words) 

• Outline the project theory of change, along with intended results that focus on knowledge generation and knowledge mobilization. 
• Describe the processes that the project will use to monitor progress, adapt, achieve results and report.

Project team capacities (max. 1,000 words) 

• Provide an overview of the project team structure, including their roles and relevant expertise (research, GEI, knowledge mobilization and MEL). Specify available language capacities necessary to work in the region of focus.  
• Describe project governance and coordination arrangements to produce high-quality work and support fair and equitable partnerships. 
• Explain how GEI principles will be upheld with respect to the project team members.

Budget justification (max. 700 words) 

• Explain why the requested amount of funding is required for the proposed research.

Additional documents 

In addition to the proposal, applicants are expected to submit:  

• An estimated budget, with a cost breakdown by categories using the IDRC budget template. Complete all the tabs except the Summary tab, which will be generated automatically. Save the completed and duly signed budget as a PDF document and attach this to your application. For a list of eligible expenses, please refer to the IDRC  Guidelines for Acceptable Project Expenditures. For general information, refer to the General IDRC Funding Guidelines. Please add information on any matched funding, or additional leveraged resources, that are relevant to this proposal under the “Donor contributions” and “Local contributions” tabs.  
• A workplan.  
• A two-page CV of the lead applicant with relevant experience and key contact individuals from other organizations in the case of consortia.

By submitting this proposal, the applicant confirms that their acknowledgment of the applicable Terms and Conditions for the Grant Agreement, acknowledged and accepted, form an integral part of the funding application. The applicant also agrees to abide by GPE's Policy on Protection from Sexual Exploitation, Abuse and Harassment, as well as by IDRC Corporate Principles on Research Ethics, IDRC Open Access Policy, and IDRC Open Data Statement of Principles to proceed.

​​9. Evaluation criteria 

Proposals will be assessed against the review criteria listed below.

​​10. Submission and review process 

Eligible proposals must be submitted no later than July 11, 2024 (23:59 EDT). Proposals received after the deadline or incomplete proposals will not be considered. All applications must be submitted using the online application form. An acknowledgement of receipt of proposal will be sent following the timely submission.   

Responding to this call is the first step in the application process for potentially securing funding for your proposal. The review process will consist of the following steps, conducted by IDRC staff:   

1. Verification of eligibility requirements and proposal completeness: IDRC will review all submitted proposals to ensure they meet eligibility requirements and include all necessary application materials. Ineligible, incomplete and irrelevant proposals will not be considered further.   
2. Review and ranking of shortlisted proposals: IDRC staff will review eligible proposals using the evaluation criteria presented in section 9. Each proposal will be reviewed by at least two reviewers. Proposals will be ranked on the basis of scoring and subsequent discussion.  
3. Recommending implementing partners: Top scoring proposals for each region will be submitted for approval to the KIX Executive Committee.  
4. Final approval: The KIX Executive Committee will provide final approval of the implementing partners and their projects to be funded through this call.   
5. Notification of results: Following the selection by the Executive Committee, successful and non-successful applicants will be notified of the results by September 2, 2024.   
6. Request for changes: IDRC reserves the right to request successful applicants to make changes based on feedback from IDRC and GPE, if necessary.  
7. Inception Phase: Upon selection and the signing of the Grant Agreement, partners will be oriented to KIX over a period of three months called the Inception Phase. During this period, IDRC will work with selected partners to operationalize their proposals as well as refine workplans and other elements necessary for the successful implementation of the project.  

​​11. Inquiries  

A webinar, hosted in English, French, and Spanish, took place on June 5, 2024 (7:30am – 8:30am EDT) to answer questions about this call for proposals. A recording is available for all 3 languages and can be found here.

​​12. Call timeline   

​​13. Additional considerations 

• As a Canadian Crown Corporation, IDRC is subject to Canada’s Access to Information Act. Consequently, any submissions in response to this call for Research Proposals will be held by IDRC in a manner consistent with the Access to Information Act, including IDRC's obligations to disclose documents requested by members of the public.  
• By way of submitting an application under this call, applicants consent to the disclosure of the documents they submit to IDRC. If selected for funding, applicants further consent to the disclosure of their name and the title of the proposed project in any announcement of selected projects. Unsuccessful proposals will be destroyed within 180 days after the close of the application period. Proposals deemed as high quality, but which do not receive funding from this round, will be retained for an additional 12 months, based on applicant permissions.  
• Applicants must publish research findings in the public domain in accordance with IDRC’s Open Access Policy.   
• The technical selection of a proposal does not constitute a formal commitment by IDRC to fund the project. Applicants whose proposals are selected for a recommendation for funding will undergo an institutional assessment. This step assesses the potential risk of material loss of IDRC funds due to weaknesses in the capacity of an applicant’s institution to manage or report on the financial aspects of project activities, or because of economic and political conditions relating to the institution's operating environment. IDRC needs to review three broad areas in its assessment of what measures should be applied to minimize such risk: the materiality of the investment; the management capacity of the applicant’s institution; and the wider environment within which the organization operates. IDRC will have no obligation to issue any funds prior to the applicant returning an executed Grant Agreement issued to them by IDRC. The process for finalizing the project proposal, budget and administrative documentation is expected to take place in September-November 2024.  
• IDRC reserves the right in its sole discretion at any time to withdraw support for a project or recipient where the i) implementation, ii) monitoring of, or iii) access to a project is not possible or would jeopardize the safety of staff, contractors or anyone affiliated to IDRC. Additionally, where it is determined that a project or participation of an institution or individual would or could reasonably violate laws, sanctions or other obligations with which IDRC and or the applicant must comply, support for the project may be withheld or withdrawn.  
• Country clearance requirements: IDRC has conducted general agreements for scientific and technical cooperation with a number of governments. These agreements establish the framework for IDRC cooperation with that country by defining the rights and obligations of both IDRC and the government. As such, the applicant institution may be required to obtain country approval in accordance with these agreements prior to receiving funding from IDRC. This requirement applies only to selected applications. IDRC reserves the right to not pursue the funding of a selected project if the country approval is not secured within six months after IDRC officially announces approval of the project, as this would jeopardize the timely completion of the initiative.  
• Applicants whose proposals are selected to recommend for funding will be required to provide additional documentation (see additional documents under Proposal Submission Details) prior to confirmation of funding of their projects. IDRC reserves the right to rescind its selection of a project if it is deemed that the information provided in the application is false or misleading.

​​Annex A: Integrating gender equality, equity and inclusion (GEI) in research proposals and projects  

Integrating GEI in all stages of research projects is essential for producing research that is fair, equitable and inclusive, and ultimately promotes equal opportunities and treatment for all people regardless of their gender, sexual orientation, race, religion or any other identity. When a project integrates GEI considerations across its design as well as methodologies, outputs, outcomes and organizational practices, the project is gender-responsive or gender-transformative (see IDRC’s Guide to integrating gender in your proposal). When developing proposals, applicants should consider how to orient projects to be either gender-responsive or gender-transformative in all aspects:    

Project interest and organizational profile 

Having relevant knowledge and experience of integrating GEI in the design and implementation of research projects can help to ensure that GEI will be considered in all stages of the project.  

• What previous experience and expertise related to GEI do you have?

Research purpose and anticipated results   

Including GEI in research objectives, research questions and project results helps to focus the project on GEI and ensure that it works towards addressing identified GEI challenges.  

• To what extent does the understanding of the research problem consider GEI issues?  
• To what extent do the research objectives and questions address GEI issues?    
• To what extent do the results — outputs, outcomes and intended impact — address GEI issues? 

Project design and methodology  

Including GEI in the research design and methodology helps to incorporate a diversity of perspectives, including those of marginalized groups who may be underrepresented in the research.    

• To what extent are GEI considerations incorporated in all stages of the project, including design, methodology, data collection, analysis and dissemination? 
• Are different groups involved in the research process in a meaningful, participatory way?

Knowledge-mobilization strategy   

Including GEI in knowledge-mobilization activities helps to ensure that GEI issues are raised and addressed beyond the project.    

• Are GEI considerations included in the knowledge-mobilization strategy?   
• How will GEI-specific findings be documented and shared? 

Monitoring, evaluation and learning   

Including GEI in your MEL plan ensures that there are set GEI targets, their progress is monitored, and learnings are documented and reported.    

• To what extent is GEI integrated into the theory of change?   
• Does the proposal outline mechanisms to monitor and report on GEI-related results?

Project team capacities  

Including GEI expertise and ensuring GEI representation in the composition of the team is important for ensuring diverse perspectives and experiences, addressing gender and inclusion-related challenges, conducting ethical research, engaging stakeholders and disseminating findings to diverse audiences.   

• Do you have a person responsible for leading GEI integration?    
• Does the project team include a balanced mix of people of different genders? What roles do they have?    
• Have you highlighted the expertise within the team needed to conduct rigorous GEI analysis? 

​Annex B: List of GPE partner countries   

​ [1] Cambodia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Grenada, Kyrgyz Republic, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines.  

[2] While the presented framework focuses on policy and planning, research does not need to be limited only to them. It may focus on other levels such as teaching and learning, infrastructure, and schools and communities — or what might be called ‘bottom-up’ resilience activities and processes.