Societal Dimensions of Engineering, Science, and Technology (SDEST)

Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Proposal

Email: Program Director: John Perhonis, jperhoni@nsf.gov

Telephone: (703) 292-7279

FAX : (703) 292-9068

Proposals for Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grants submitted to the SDEST Program must comply with or have information about the following bulleted items:

• Target Date: February 1, August 1

• Project Duration: 12 months
• Proposal Submission : All proposals must be submitted electronically via Fastlane.
• Project Cover Page: The dissertation advisor is the principal investigator (PI); the doctoral student should be listed as coprincipal investigator Co/PI). Proposal Title should begin with "Doctoral Dissertation Research..” If relevant, Human subjects should be checked pending or approved. If approved, a copy should be included in the proposal. If pending, the project description should include a statement indicating the student is seeking or will seek approval.
• Project Description must not exceed 15 pages. Do NOT single space. Proposals which do not follow page and space limit may be returned without review.
• CV’s and “Current and Pending Support Forms,” must be provided for both the PI and the Co/PI
• Project Budget : No indirect costs are allowed; and the usual dollar limit on an award is $8,000 for research in North America and $12,000 for work abroad.
• Advisor Supporting Letter : The PI must include a supporting letter which documents that the student's dissertation project has been approved. Other information that helps reviewers and panelists understand qualifications of the student to perform the research, the role of the advisor, and the nature of the research is also important.

If you have additional questions, then please contact the Program Directors listed above.

Dissertation Advice to Students

Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grantsprovide funds for research expenses not normally available through the student's university. The proposal must include a letter of recommendation from the faculty advisor evaluating the student's promise as a researcher and the value and status of the proposed research. If the doctoral student will use the award for travel expenses to work with a specialist, the proposal should provide a justification for this choice and a letter from the specialist agreeing to work with the student. The proposal should include a statement indicating whether the student has passed the preliminary qualifying exams and all course work required for the dissertation. These requirements must be met before an award will be made.

Outstanding proposals specify how the knowledge to be created advances our theoretical understanding of the study situation, so that people interested in similar situations in different contexts will learn from the project's outcome. The key is to be explicit in showing how the general theory explains the local situation, and in showing how the new knowledge from the local situation will advance the theory.

Follow the proposal preparation guidelines in the Doctoral Dissertation Program Announcement, especially the instructions for spacing (one half or doubled spaced), length (15 pages for the project description), font size (12 point is best, no smaller than 15 characters/2.5 cm), CVs (2 page maximum biographical sketch), and proposal summary (15 page maximum) The summary must address in separate paragraphs the "intellectual merit" and the "broader impacts". (See the GPG).

Use a clear and concise writing style. Reviewers will include scientists from a variety of specialty areas. It is possible that no specialist from your particular area of research will be on the panel. Defining key terms and keeping your proposal free of jargon will ensure that all reviewers will be able to understand your proposal and evaluate it fairly.

One of the areas in which the proposal will be evaluated is "Research Competence of the Student." You can provide information to reviewers in the body of the proposal as well as in your CV. Be sure to any other information which can help reviewers evaluate how well prepared you are to conduct the research.

Do not attach any appendix unless you have received permission from the NSF program director. Proposals without explicit permission for appendices may be held up or returned from the mail room. Remember that reviewers are not obligated to read appendices, so critically important information should be in the body of the proposal. Letters testifying to local institutional sponsorship need not be appended but definitely should be cited in the proposal.

The following are suggested page limits for the Project Description. These are not hard-and-fast rules, but indicate reviewers' interests:

• Statement of the research problem, specific aims, expectations, propositions or hypotheses , 1 page

• Review of the literature and significance 5 pp
• Preliminary studies by the student, if any 2 pp
• Research Plan, 6 pp Including:
• Research Design
• Research Site or source of data
• (References and citations are as important in your methods as in your theory section)
• Data analysis plans
• Research Schedule 1 page

The research plan should begin with an overview of the research design, relating it to the theory. This should be followed by a brief description of the research site. Data collection and analysis methods follow. Theories, setting and methods should be tightly linked: Readers should learn what the researcher is going to do and how the specific activities to be engaged in relate to both theory and setting. Note that a mere listing of a method is not enough to tell a reader what the researcher plans and why. The term "participant observation", for example, is extraordinarily general and should be unpacked into its specific components, each related to the information outcome which is then related to the research design and theory.

Sampling should be explicitly justified by discussing how data will generalize to a relevant population or theory. Each method, whether it generates qualitative or quantitative data, should be justified in terms of the research aims. The key issue is to impress reviewers that the new knowledge from your project will generalize to significant populations and theories.

Proposals also should include an analysis plan, although readers recognize that plans change in the process of fieldwork. Describe how you will use your data to answer your research questions and test your hypotheses. A mere listing of software programs will not demonstrate to reviewers that you have seriously considered all phases of the research process in designing your proposal. It should be possible for a reviewer to look back to your specific aims and understand why each kind of data is being collected, and why a particular analytic technique is planned.

Reviewers are well aware that there are no perfect strategies for conducting research, but will be looking for evidence that you understand the strengths and weaknesses of the approach selected. In a competitive review process where only a subset of excellent proposals can be funded, reviewers need to be told how the new knowledge to be gained from your particular study will yield generalizations that advance our theoretical understanding of the problem.

* Note: Students doing international research, having a formal affiliation with a foreign research institution, may be eligible for additional funding. Please contact the appropriate program in NSF's Office of International Science (http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/int/)