The National Science Foundation’s Graduate Research Fellowship Program (GRFP) helps ensure the vitality of the human resource base of science and engineering in the United States and reinforces its diversity.  The program recognizes and supports outstanding graduate students in NSF-supported science, technology, engineering, and mathematics disciplines who are pursuing research-based master’s and doctoral degrees in the U.S. and abroad.  The NSF welcomes applications from all qualified students and strongly encourages under-represented populations, including women, under-represented racial and ethnic minorities, and persons with disabilities, to apply for this fellowship.

In addition to the prestige accompanying the receipt of this fellowship, winners also receive the following:

• Three Years of Support
• $30K Annual Stipend
• $10.5K Cost-of-Education Allowance
• $1K One-Time International Travel Allowance
• TeraGrid Supercomputer Access

The applications first become available in August and are eventually due in early November (at least this was the schedule they followed in 2009-2010). The results were set to be announced in mid-March, though this year they were actually announced in mid-April (I heard that decisions were delayed due to the weather complications in D.C. this winter). According to the site, it looks as if they announced 2000 awardees and 2025 honorable mentions, which seems to be up a great deal from past years.

Why am I writing this post?

For a comprehensive look at applying for NSF (and other similar fellowships), you should check out Philip Guo’s Fellowships Tips page, which is really good and very comprehensive. I personally learn best by example, so my goal in this post is to provide a personal example of the application and review process; hopefully, this will prove helpful to some of you applying in the coming fall.  While I did not win this year, I think it’s helpful to see the essays of others with reviews to get a real sense of what the reviewers are looking for.

If you take one thing away from this post: BE SPECIFIC!

The number one lesson that I gleaned from various sources while applying was “Whatever you write about, BE SPECIFIC”. From my understanding, what you write about and whether or not you actually follow the proposal if you win are both secondary to how specific you can be in your proposal. I wish I could re-find this link now, but when I was applying, I remember reading the application of another student who had posted their application materials and reviews. This student wrote an incredibly detailed proposal for studying land use in Africa; they included specific information about the plots of land they were going to study, the local contacts that they had assembled, even information about satellites from which they were going to pull aerial photos. One of the reviews had a comment along the lines of “Would have appreciated more detail about the study – for instance, what type of analysis are you planning to do on the satellite imagery?” It seems that it is impossible for you to cram too many details into the space provided.

Brief Overview of Written Application Materials:

Essentially, aside from other (important) components such as recommendations, test scores, and the like, the application is comprised of three major written components (see the full list here). The Personal Statement is where you get to talk about your background, your strengths, why you are interested in your research areas, and how winning a fellowship will contribute to your long-term career goals. In the Research Experience Statement, your goal is to essentially discuss why you are qualified to do the work that you are proposing to do. Finally, in the Proposed Plan of Research Statement, you lay out the research question you intend to address, how you are going to answer it, and how that answer will contribute to science and society as a whole.

Throughout these three essays, there are basically two major principles you want to keep in mind:

• Intellectual Merit: How important and original is this research, and how qualified is the applicant to conduct it?
• Broader Impacts: How will this research contribute to science, society, education, underprivileged groups, etc.?

Anyways, with that in mind, here are links to PDF’s of my three statements: Personal Statement, Research Experience, and Proposed Research Plan. Below, I am posting the reviews that I received from my 2 reviewers:

Reviewer 1:

Overall Assessment of Intellectual Merit: Good

The application has a good personal statement and the applicant has a convincing motivation and past research experience background. Nevertheless, I found this application not as competitive because the proposed research application was not specific enough about what exactly it is all about. By the same token it was not stated where the research is. A stronger motivational statement for the proposed research could also strengthen the application.

Overall Assessment of Broader Impacts: Good

The proposed research has an obvious broader impact and benefit to society. Nevertheless, the broader impact statement of this application could be stronger by addressing it specifically and in more detail . Broader impact criteria can be impact on society, integration of research on education, the potential to reach diverse audiences and outreach.

Reviewer 2:

Overall Assessment of Intellectual Merit: Good

Sanjay Kairam has a strong academic record and good research experience. To his credit, he has published several articles in some top-rated conferences. His description of the proposed research is reasonable but I expect a better and more specific explanations of the research plan and methodology.

Overall Assessment of Broader Impacts: Very Good

His interest in social computing stem from his personal experience working in hospital in low income neighborhood. He participated in several activities to promote social computing. The proposed research will have a positive impact on better understanding of social issues.

Conclusions:

In summary, my major takeaway was that while the personal statement and research experience were good, they wanted more details in a few different aspects of my proposed research plan (motivation, methodology, impact).  I was a little puzzled by the phrase “it was not stated where the research is” because I, as is the case with many students, was applying concurrently to graduate schools, so I did not yet know where I would be.

If you are applying for graduate schools, I would advise applying for NSF or another similar fellowship for a number of reasons.  First off, you might get it.  Second, even if you don’t, putting together the application was an incredibly useful exercise towards getting my school applications together – a great portion of my personal and research experience statements found their way into my school application materials.

I hope that getting to see my application statements and the reviews that they earned will help you when you are applying.  If you’d like to know more about my experience applying, talk about your experience, or even have thoughts on what I wrote (hey, I am applying again this year), hit up the comments section. If you are reading this while putting together your application – good luck!

——————————————————-

Last month, PARC hosted the first of two National Science Foundation-funded workshops on Technology-Mediated Social Participation, co-organized by PARC’s Peter Pirolli (see his original post on why we were motivated to do this here) and the University of Maryland’s Jennifer Preece and Ben Shneiderman. With the goal of drawing up a strong scientific research agenda and educational recommendations to help foster a new era of technologies that support social participation, the workshop brought together some of the top U.S. industry and academia researchers from fields such as Computer Science, Information Science, and Cognitive Science.

Workshop themes

Specifically, the workshop addressed three major themes:

1. How to integrate theory across levels from the individual to the community.
2. How to develop new methods of measuring social connections and social capital across networks.
3. How to build an infrastructure to collect data reliably and responsibly.

The primary goal of the workshop has been to produce reports on these three topics — now available on the public TMSP wiki. The reports address participants’ government, academic, and education recommendations, and implications for each of the topics.

Motivations and timing

Amy Bruckman of Georgia Tech reminded us of the need for such a cross-cutting initiative, commenting that “Right now it’s harder than it should be for academia and industry to work together. I think that’s a key place where a government-funded initiative can help — making it easier to form industry-academia collaborations.” Ben Shneiderman enthused that the workshop was a “remarkable gathering of leading academic and industry researchers and that it served as a big step forward in realizing the goals set out in my letter in AAAS Science (13 March 2009).”

Thinking Big! (Photo originally posted by @edchi)

Preece (serving as the Principal Investigator for the NSF grant supporting the workshop) spoke to the timeliness of this effort, observing that “A few people have been investigating this topic since the 1990’s, but now that billions of people worldwide are using Web 2.0 social media, such as Facebook, wikis, blogs, microblogs, and discussion forums, substantially increased research is needed to understand the benefits and dangers.” Throughout the workshop, one theme that emerged was how a more thorough understanding of social participation could affect users at all levels of participation in a variety of domains; Preece noted, “If community managers knew how to increase participation, then this technology could be more successful for patient support, citizen science contributions, and changing behaviors for energy conservation.”

PARC Forum and audience participation

The workshop also featured a special PARC Forum panel discussion on the Future of Technology-Mediated Social Participation, which discussed patterns of attention in social media, the potential of peer-produced content, and leveraging social network data to model and understand behavior. Bruckman (who served as a panelist along with Shneiderman, HP Labs’ Bernardo Huberman, and Facebook’s Cameron Marlow) shared, “Aside from joking about avocados and bison…I do think the panel opened some questions that fed into the discussion we had the next day,” highlighting the impact that public participation can have on driving this initiative.

Cameron Marlow discussing the relative dangers of avocados and bread (Photo originally posted by @HCIR_GeneG)

How can you get involved?

For those interested in helping to support this initiative — or curious about technology and social systems — the final reports will provide a glimpse into the ongoing discussion. In addition, the TMSP website also features a growing list of relevant resources, such as books, courses, and research groups (compiled, in part, by U. Maryland graduate student Dana Rotman, who has been instrumental in the planning and execution of these workshops).

What’s next?

Shneiderman hopes the effort will “catalyze the research community and encourage the U.S. National Science Foundation to dramatically increase its support for Technology-Mediated Social Participation, which is aligned with national priorities such as healthcare, energy conservation, disaster response, community safety, and more.”

The next event, the East Coast Workshop, will take place 11-12 February in Virginia (more information will be available at the TMSP East Coast Workshop website.)

And, we welcome you to read the reports, watch the Forum, and add your insights!

——————————————————-

Back to my personal comments…

All in all, I am extremely appreciative of the opportunity to participate in the workshop. I met a lot of incredible people, and I got to participate in some fascinating discussion. A lot of innovative ideas were discussed, and I am eager to see what will eventually emerge from these workshops – be it new research centers, changes in governmental policy, or increased funding for social computing research.