University of St. Thomas

Guidelines

Background

The URCS board seeks well-written proposals from students representing diverse academic disciplines.  You may propose to explore a research question, jointly-author a scholarly paper, or develop a creative work of art, music, or communication.  Past projects have been as diverse as an in-depth study of Congress-woman Maxine Waters and her response to the Los Angeles riots of May 1992, an interpretation of symbols of death in a work of art, dietary preferences in snails, and the effect of low-level antibacterial exposure on environmental bacterial populations.    

Expectations of Grant Recipients

If you are awarded a Collaborative Inquiry grant in fall 2010 for research to be carried out during Spring Semester 2011, you will be expected to do the following:

1. Work on your project.  In close collaboration with a faculty mentor, work on your research project for 10 hours per week  for at least 10 weeks during Spring Semester 2011.  You should make sure that other commitments you may have during this time will not distract you or take you away from spending adequate time on the research project.    One purpose of providing the Collaborative Inquiry stipend is to free you from having to spend time on paid employment.
   
2. Turn in an End Report.  This report is due in the URCS office within 10 days of your completing the grant and should describe what you did on your project, the results that you gleaned, and what plans you might have, if any, to pursue publication or broader presentation of your work.  Even if you plan to continue working on your project after your Collaborative Inquiry grant is over, you must still turn in your End Report.
   
3. Present your work at a poster session.   Late each spring, the Grants and Research Office sponsors a "Inquiry at UST" poster session to highlight undergraduate research and creative work.  You will be required to present your work in this public forum and you will receive $50.00 to help defray any expenses in preparing your poster.

Before You Begin

Before you begin developing your application, be sure to discuss your proposed project with a faculty sponsor.   You may get help from anyone as you write your proposal, but your proposal must be written by you and not by groups of students or a faculty member.  Since the reviewers of your proposal will not all come from the same discipline as you, it is your responsibility to make sure that the proposal is clear and understandable to readers from other fields.   Include in your proposal all the details that you consider necessary in order to communicate effectvely to a cross-disciplinary audience, but keep the narrative within 6 pages.  In order to educate the reader quickly and provide a tight focus for the body of your narrative, be sure to include a glossary of terms in an appendix to the proposal, if appropriate.  At all costs, avoid using technical jargon or abbreviations that will not be comprehensible to someone outside of your field!

Preparation of Your Proposal

A complete proposal will consist of the following components.  You must use 10 point font or larger and 1" margins all around or your proposal may not be reviewed.

I.  Cover Page
The Application Cover Page should be the first page of your application.  Fill it out according to the instructions on the form.  This should be the first page of your proposal.

II.  Abstract [Limit: 200 words]
Each proposal must contain an abstract of no more than 200 words stating a) the essence of the problem that you will explore, b) the goals of your proposed project, c) the methodology that you will use, and d) the final product that you anticipate producing.

III.  Project Narrative [Limit: 4 pages]
Your project narrative should be no more than 4 pages.   If you exceed this limit, your proposal may not be reviewed.  The narrative should contain the following parts: 

1. Introduction
   Your first paragraph should highlight your learning goals, how you will work with your mentor, and why your learning goals can best be met in the context of a direct student-faculty collaboration outside of the classroom.
   
2.  Overview and Background
   You should give the reader of your proposal a quick overview of your project.  What specific questions are you proposing to address?   The most competitive proposals will describe how the project fits within your discipline.  You should do this by discussing the larger disciplinary context of your proposed work and by citing appropriate and current scholarly literature in your area of study.  How does your project fit within the current literature?  In some cases -- most notably for artistic performance works, this approach may be less useful and you should ask your mentor if there are more effective ways to put your work into a larger context.  Finally, you should tell the review committee if your project stands by itself or if it is part of a larger project.  If it is part of a larger project, explain how your part will fit in.
   
3. Methodology
   In this section, you should describe what exactly you will do in order to achieve the goals that you discussed in section a.  Many projects have both short-term and long-term questions to explore.  Some projects include goals which require you to develop new methods of scholarly inquiry -- be sure to describe these, if this is the case.  If your project will involve the analysis of statistical data, be sure to explain what questions you will address and how you will use these data.  If you are approaching a work of literature or a work of art or music using a particular theoretical basis, describe that theoretical basis and how you will use it in your project. 
   
4. Feasibility
   It will be important for you to convince the review committee that it will be possible for you to carry out your proposed project within a single semester, with you working 10 hours per week for 10 weeks.  Will you have sufficient access to the necessary library resources, equipment, laboratories, special collections, primary documents, and human subjects?  If the success of your project depends upon cooperation with another person or an external agency, you should be sure to include a letter from that person or agency indicating their approval and/or willingness to work wth you.
   
5. Role of Faculty Collaborator
   The success of every Collaborative Inquiry grant project depends upon a good partnership between a student and his/her faculty mentor.  You should describe in detail how your faculty mentor will be involved with your project and provide the support that you will need in order to be successful.  What role, in other words, will your faculty mentor play as you carry out your research?
   
6. Academic Preparation
   In this section, you should describe what academic background you have that will prepare you to carry out the project that you are proposing.  You should keep in mind that your faculty mentor will guide your work and help you develop your skills while you hold a Collaborative Inquiry grant, but you will have to have sufficient background in the discipiine in order to make sound progress on your proposed project.  What background, knowledge, and/or applied skills will you need for this project?  Do you have the necessary mathematical, foreign language, methodological skills, and/or theoretical background to be successful?  You should describe your qualifications here specifically as they relate to your project.

IV.  Appendices

Appendices should be included only if they provide critical information.  Some proposals have several appendices, while others have only one required appendix (Project Timeline).  You should use discretion when including appendices, as you do not want to overburden reviewers who are trying to judge your application:

1.  Project Timeline [REQUIRED]
   Your timeline should succinctly describe how you will divide up the work involved with your project and the sequence by which you will carry out that work.  The reader should gain a good overview of what you will be doing and when by looking at your timeline.
   
2. Glossary of Terms [optional]
   If your proposal contains a significant number of technical terms, you should include a glossary for use by readers who are not specialists in your field.  In all cases, you should be absolutely certain to avoid unncessary technical jargon throughout your application!
   
3. Supporting Figures [optional]
   This appendix should include any graphs, charts, or maps that will help the reader of your proposal understand your project better.
   
4. Treatment of Subjects [required, if appropriate]
   If your project will deal with human or animal subjects, your proposal must adhere to ethical guidelines established by the UST Institutional Review Board and/or the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee.  Include this appendix only if you plan to conduct research on human or animal subjects.  Consult the Institutional Review Board webpage at:  www.stthomas.edu/irb.  Contact the IACUC through your faculty collaborator.
   
5. Letters of Support [required, if appropriate]
   If you will require the cooperation of any person or agency outside of the St. Thomas community, you must include a letter from that person or agency indicating their willingness to provide the support that you will need in order to carry out your project.

Proposal Review Criteria

 
Reviewers of your grant proposal must determine from the stated goals and project description whether the project represents collaborative inquiry and emphasizes student learning.  Reviewers will rank proposals based on their answers to the following questions:

Is the proposal complete, clear, and concise?
Does the proposal follow the guidelines?
Is it clear how the proposed work relates to the current context of the discipline?
Does the student have sufficient background and experience to undertake and bring the project to a satisfactory conclusion within the ten-week period?
Is the timeline sufficient for completion of the project?
To what extent will the faculty collaborator be involved in the project?

When proposals are otherwise equivalent, and resources are limiting, reviewers may also consider the following:

Has this student been the recipient of other CIG or Young Scholars Awards?
Has this faculty member recently been the co-recipient of other CIG or Young Scholars Awards?
Have students in this department/program recently received a number of other CIG or Young Scholars Awards?