It’s been three years since I started coaching and mentoring Graduate Research Fellowship Program applicants through Rice University’s Center for Written, Oral, & Visual Communication. This year, I am thrilled to announce that several students with whom I worked have been recognized by the National Science Foundation! It’s been an honor to be a small part of their journeys.
Congratulations to new GRFP Fellows Katie Brown (first year in Bioengineering), Constantinos Chamzas (first year in Robotics and Computer Vision), Gebhard Keny (second year in Cultural Anthropology), and Felix Wu (graduating Psychology undergraduate), and honorably mentioned students Izzy Bilotta (first year in Industrial/Organizational Psychology) and Hana Jaafari (second year in Biophysics)!
As an NSF coach, one of the most frequently asked questions I received is, “How do I cite things?” Because there is no formal convention, students have a lot of leeway here. To this end, I always recommend using the most economic citation format — you want to maximize real estate for your actual statement writing. Below, I detail my method, which by no means is required or even necessarily recommended; you can and should explore options and norms in your field. This is just what worked for me.
In-text citations: I personally used superscript numbers in the body of my statement. I assigned a number to each reference as it occurred in the statement, starting with 1,2,3, etc.; if the same reference was cited later in the statement, I would label it with the same number that it had originally been given.
References section: Here, I decreased the font size from 12-point to 10-point. Note (September 2020):The NSF application now requires a font size of 11 or greater for the References section! Please adhere to these guidelines (and always read the most up-to-date solicitation) to make sure you don’t get disqualified for minor reasons.
I then plugged in only the essentials for each reference:
Author(s)’s information: last name; first and middle initials. If there were more than six authors, I only included the first author’s information and added “et al” afterward.
The abbreviated name of the journal, if it’s in a publication
The year of publication
My references section ended up looking like this:
References: 1. Beach, M. C. et al.Med. Care (2005). 2. Smedley, A. R., Stith. A., & Nelson, A. R. (The National Academies Press, 2003). 3. Hebl, M. R. & Xu, J. J. Int. Assoc. Study Obes. (2001). 4. Paasche-Orlow, M. (2004). 5. Betancourt, J. R., Green, A. R., Carrillo, J. E. & Ananeh-Firempong, O. Public Health Rep. (2003). 6. Salas, E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Kraiger, K. & Smith-Jentsch, K. A. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest (2012). 7. Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (SAGE Publications, Inc, 2007). 8. Bhandari, M. et al.Acad. Med. J. Assoc. Am. Med. Coll. (2003). 9. Olguín Olguín, D. (MIT, 2007). 10. King, H. B. et al. (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US), 2008). 11. Weld, L. R. et al.Am. J. Med. Qual. (2015).
An obvious note: This may also mean forgoing the normal reference style within the field. In my case, the American Psychological Association (APA)’s format would have taken up substantially more space than this strategy. It seems reviewers understand the name of the game!
The NSF GRFP requires that applicants explain the importance of their research through two domains:
The Intellectual Merit criterion encompasses the potential to advance knowledge.
The Broader Impacts criterion encompasses the potential to benefit society and contribute to the achievement of specific, desired societal outcomes.
The intellectual merit criterion is usually pretty self-evident: all your accomplishments and greatest hits as a scholar. However, as a grant-writing mentor and coach, I’ve seen applicants struggle to articulate the latter. One exercise to help identify broader impacts involves thinking through different “types” of influence:
How does your work benefit society?
How will your research improve society?
Can it influence policy?
What will you do to help your research reach lay audiences? (e.g., talks, workshops, policy briefs, other forms of dissemination)
How does your work benefit the field scientifically?*
Does it introduce new concepts, theories, or knowledge?
Does it test new methods?
How else can it push boundaries of what is currently known?
Does it cross any boundaries? (e.g., interdisciplinary work, interprofessional collaboration)
How will you, on an individual level, contribute beyond your research?
Will you incorporate broader impacts in the actual implementation of your work? (e.g., mentoring others)
Will you be involved in service in your department, university, communities, and other groups? (e.g., volunteering, serving on graduate committees)
* This sometimes overlaps with intellectual merit, but you can also argue for a case here if appropriate.
Of course, you want to be careful not to overstate the impact of your research. That’s why it’s helpful to not just focus on the “quality” of your experiences, but the “quantity” too: the many avenues through which you can affect change. It can thus be useful to triangulate your broader impacts, including through consideration of the above questions.
Earlier this year, I found out I was the recipient of the NSF GRFP: the sole winner in the field of Industrial-Organizational Psychology in 2015. It was a tremendous honor and vote of confidence in my abilities as a researcher — the result of years of experience, a ton of preparation and a good dose of luck.
Given the high volume of participants (over 17,000 this previous year), applying for the NSF GRFP is an extremely competitive enterprise. There are plenty of thorough and comprehensive guides out there, some of which I’ve included at the end of this post. In case it would be helpful, however, I’m also including my own take-aways from this grant-writing experience — particularly since I am in a discipline that doesn’t ordinarily garner a lot of STEM-oriented awards.
Understand the reviewers.
Critically important! Like in anything else, you need to know what your target audience is looking for. Luckily, the NSF makes this very clear by telling you their criteria; they want to be assured that you have intellectual merit and that your research promises broader impacts. Remember, too, that they are funding you, as a student — not necessarily your specific research project. Reviewers understand that research can and does change over the course of a graduate career; no one will come knocking on your door four years down the line to make sure you saw your proposal through. What you want to do is prove to them that you are on your way to becoming a contributing, star researcher.
My strategy: I re-read every sentence of my statement to make sure they either emphasized one of the two criteria, or that they pushed forward my narrative in a critical way. Speaking of which…
Find your story.
You are essentially trying to market yourself to the NSF reviewers. Most candidates will have strong academic backgrounds and interesting research ideas. To set yourself apart, find an “angle” — tell a comprehensive, thematically-tied story about yourself and your research, weaving in distinctive characteristics (e.g., overcoming adversity, participating in outreach). Although my research and extracurricular experiences were diverse, spanning many different domains and disciplines, I wrote about the common thread that unified them and propelled my own research forward.
Tip: It’s always a good idea to open with an attention-catching personal anecdote! I dedicated the first few lines of my statement to a story about a very personal experience that exemplified my research interests’ real-world applications. I also mentioned (but did not overly elaborate on) things that helped me stand out, like my experience as a first-generation American, woman, and racial minority.
Consult with others.
Read as many samples as you can, even if they aren’t exactly from students your field — see the below resources section for links with outstanding statements. Talk to experts, other winners, faculty, etc. Ask for extra pairs of eyes on your statements, particularly your personal one (usually the research proposal will be more technical and more scientifically sound). I, personally, carved out time to attend workshops and use free coaching services offered by my university. Take advantage of any resources you might have! This will help you understand what, exactly, reviewers are looking for.
Below, I’ve included a rough outline of my statement structures.
Make it clear.
Relatedly, you want to make it easy for NSF reviewers to understand why and how you are qualified and exceptional. Early on in my personal statement, I established my driving motivations (what “I’m about”) to give them a strong sense of who I am. I used formatting to be as explicit as possible: I bolded important statements (sparingly), used headers to explicitly outline my intellectual merit and broader impacts sections, and used line breaks between paragraphs to give reviewers’ eyes a break. Think about how many statements reviewers need to go through, and try to make their job easier.
Time yourself wisely.
Give yourself enough time. Start by listing out all the potential things you might ever want to incorporate into your statement, cull through them, develop your narrative, and then sit down and write it up. Know yourself and your work habits, be kind to yourself and allow yourself breaks, and plan accordingly! Easy, right?
Help your recommenders.
Every reference writer works differently. Some may want privacy and full control over the letter; others may want you to develop a draft yourself. In any case, it helps to give them as much information as possible. I referred back to my graduate school application process and created a “brag sheet” to highlight the greatest hits in my CV and the key points of my proposal. Providing your letter-writers with as much information as possible is critical — help them help you.