Relevant Degree Programs
Affiliations to Research Centres, Institutes & Clusters
Complete these steps before you reach out to a faculty member!
- Familiarize yourself with program requirements. You want to learn as much as possible from the information available to you before you reach out to a faculty member. Be sure to visit the graduate degree program listing and program-specific websites.
- Check whether the program requires you to seek commitment from a supervisor prior to submitting an application. For some programs this is an essential step while others match successful applicants with faculty members within the first year of study. This is either indicated in the program profile under "Admission Information & Requirements" - "Prepare Application" - "Supervision" or on the program website.
- Identify specific faculty members who are conducting research in your specific area of interest.
- Establish that your research interests align with the faculty member’s research interests.
- Read up on the faculty members in the program and the research being conducted in the department.
- Familiarize yourself with their work, read their recent publications and past theses/dissertations that they supervised. Be certain that their research is indeed what you are hoping to study.
- Compose an error-free and grammatically correct email addressed to your specifically targeted faculty member, and remember to use their correct titles.
- Do not send non-specific, mass emails to everyone in the department hoping for a match.
- Address the faculty members by name. Your contact should be genuine rather than generic.
- Include a brief outline of your academic background, why you are interested in working with the faculty member, and what experience you could bring to the department. The supervision enquiry form guides you with targeted questions. Ensure to craft compelling answers to these questions.
- Highlight your achievements and why you are a top student. Faculty members receive dozens of requests from prospective students and you may have less than 30 seconds to pique someone’s interest.
- Demonstrate that you are familiar with their research:
- Convey the specific ways you are a good fit for the program.
- Convey the specific ways the program/lab/faculty member is a good fit for the research you are interested in/already conducting.
- Be enthusiastic, but don’t overdo it.
G+PS regularly provides virtual sessions that focus on admission requirements and procedures and tips how to improve your application.
Graduate Student Supervision
Master's Student Supervision (2010 - 2020)
Background: The Food Explorers (FE) program was designed and developed for use with kindergarten and grade 1 children. Offered within the classroom setting, the program aims to encourage children to identify and experience a wide variety of foods. The objective of this study was to examine the impact of the program on children’s willingness to try new and familiar foods. Methods: A quasi- experimental pre-post design was employed to evaluate the impact of the program on children’s familiarity and willingness to try novel and familiar test foods. Children in the FE group participated in food -related classroom activities led by teachers, over 5 months and the control group were taught the standard curriculum. Assessments of familiarity and willingness to try foods was completed at baseline and after 5 months in both groups. Parent-perceived food neophobia was also assessed using a validated scale at both times. Open-ended questions were used to assess parent and teacher experience with the program. Results: Analyses were conducted with 194 children (FE group, n=102 and control group, n=92). Knowledge of familiar foods increased over time in both groups and a significant group by time interaction was observed with 2 test foods (out of 10) at follow-up, indicating increased knowledge in the FE group, compared to the control group. Willingness to try the test foods, measured as food preference scores significantly increased for five novel foods in the FE group compared to the control group. No significant difference was observed in parent-perceived food neophobia scores between groups. Parents indicated positive experiences with respect to their children’s willingness to try new foods at home. Positive experiences were also noted by the teachers.Conclusion: While there is some evidence to suggest that the FE program may positively impact food knowledge and willingness to try new foods in kindergarten and grade 1 children, limitations of the study and implementation of the FE program warrant consideration when considering the impact of the program. The findings of the study provide valuable information on barriers for implementation of the FE program in classrooms and will inform future evaluations of the program.
Background: Cancer survivors may be motivated to change their diet for weight management and improved survival. However, dietary behaviours and obesity are influenced by a range of individual-level and environmental factors rather than simply individual choices. This study aims to understand the diet quality of cancer survivors and its association with obesity and neighbourhood environment in comparison to non-cancer controls.Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted with 19,973 participants aged 35 to 69 years from Atlantic Canada. A healthy eating index (HEI) was used to evaluate diet quality using dietary intake collected from a food frequency questionnaire. Obesity was assessed using anthropometric and bio-impedance measures. Neighbourhood environment data were derived from the Canadian dissemination-area-level census data. Multivariable multi-level models were used to investigate HEI and its association with obesity in cancer survivors compared to non-cancer controls. The associations between neighbourhood deprivation, population density and HEI were also explored. Results: Cancer survivors (n = 1930) had a higher mean HEI than non-cancer controls (mean difference: 0.45, 95% CI [0.07, 0.84]). Body mass index, waist circumference, waist-to-hip ratio, body fat percentage, and fat-free mass index were not associated with HEI, while trunk fat percentage had a weak positive association with HEI (0.45, 95% CI [0.08, 0.83]). The diet-obesity relationship did not significantly differ by cancer status. Mean HEI was lower in the most compared to the least socially deprived neighbourhoods (-0.56, 95% CI [-0.88, -0.25]), and in the most compared to the least dense neighbourhoods (-0.39, 95% CI [-0.77, -0.01]), but was not associated with material deprivation. Associations between diet quality, material deprivation and population density significantly differed by urbanicity. In rural areas, diet quality decreased with increasing material deprivation and decreasing population density, while the reverse was true for urban areas. Conclusion: Cancer survivors had a slightly better diet quality than non-cancer controls, but both groups are in need of dietary improvement. Diet was not associated with obesity measures in the cancer and non-cancer groups but was associated with neighbourhood deprivation and population density with evidence of urban-rural differences, suggesting the complexity of dietary behaviour and the need for multi-level interventions.