The GSA graduate student research grant supports graduate research in the geosciences via awards of up to $2,500 to geoscience graduate students enrolled in universities in the USA, Canada, Mexico, and Central America. According to GSA, in in 2020, $651,645 was awarded to 360 graduate students (~55% of the 657 who applied), with an average grant of $1,820. The deadline for the 2021 application is February 2, 2021, and applicants must be a current GSA student member to apply.
We surveyed 18 geoscience graduate students awarded 1 or more GSA research grants. If you are an awardee and wish to be added to the survey, email us! Applicants, if you have questions, submit in the comments section below!
Applications require (1) a presentation of the problem, hypothesis, and overall objectives (2) a section discussing the scientific and society significance of the proposed work (3) a statement of your research plan (4) a budget and budget justification. We asked our survey participants for advice in each of these areas.
Survey Participant Demographics
Advice on writing a compelling hypothesis
It's ok not to have data. My hypothesis was graphically described in my figure -which was the reviewer's favorite part.
State a TESTABLE hypothesis, and make sure you demonstrate how the methods you will use address the hypothesis. Make inferences about the outcome of the study, especially how any result is a valuable contribution.
Make sure it is right up front and that what you are trying to test is very clear. I found it helpful to literally say "I am testing the hypothesis that...X is caused by Y, by doing Z...". Reviewers see so many of these, help them out by being explicit and clear and easy to read.
Clearly outline the hypotheses by using an H1, H2, etc. to make it easy for reviewers to find them. When brainstorming/drafting this grant, I often iterated over the hypotheses multiple times as I continued to refine the problem statement and methods to get a testable, narrowed hypothesis.
Be very, very specific and ensure that it is a testable hypothesis with the methods presented! For both of my applications, I included a statement at the end of the hypothesis section that literally started with 'I hypothesize that: 1) , 2) , and 3) . This way, the reviewers have no difficulty ensuring that you have a clear hypothesis.
Clearly state the hypothesis without fluff, and provide specific methods for how you would confirm or not confirm that your hypothesis is correct. Fully explain how the methods would investigate the problem, and how they would help to answer your questions.
Informally talk to peers about your idea(s) first. If it you can explain it to them and it generates some excitement then there's a good chance it's compelling.
Use clear, explicit language so your research problem, hypothesis, and objective can be easily identified. It might help to keep the scope of the proposal relatively narrow and focus on one easily obtainable objective, even if your project is broader
Advice on writing a compelling significance section
As narrowed as the hypotheses and problem statement might be, this is where you really get to zoom back out to think about the broader implications of the project. I view this section as a funnel where you begin with the zoomed out impacts, slowly narrow back to the previous problem statement, and finish with a punchy sentence. I view this as a argumentation paragraph.
Start BROAD - how does your hypothesis fit into the broader field. Check resources like NSF vision documents for ideas on what is important in your discipline right now.
Make it clear what the knowledge gap is. Then describe how your work bridges the gap. Make it super clear to *any* geoscientist - no jargon or overly detail-ridden sentences.
Make sure to address the significance in multiple ways, eg why it's significant to your hypothesis/research question, the particular method you used/the geological setting where you're doing your research, and then finally the broader impacts of your results
Avoid saying it's significant because it hasn't been done. Try to think about why it matters for either understanding processes or for people!
Make sure you sell it in a way that its beneficial to the field you're working in and provide specific citations to support your claim.
Relate the significance of your grant proposal to outstanding and current issues in your geologic field. Refer to recently published NSF white pages, or review papers highlighting grand challenges in your field. Demonstrate that your findings will make progress on one of these issues and is important for your field.
This section needs both include specific scientific outcomes and broader implications for society and scientific audiences. I also focused on the current scientific gap in my research field that I am trying to address.
Application Preparation
**A figure is now a required element of the GSA grad research grant proposal (since 2016 or so), some of our awardees received the award before this was a requirement.
Advice on writing a compelling research plan
Align your research plan to directly investigate questions you present within your hypotheses. Be straight forward, and don't over-explain one method, because the word count in this section and be difficult to stay within.
Both reviewers complimented the grant proposal on being clear and logical -these seem to be important traits to the reviewers
Be realistic about time commitments. Draw it out by hand to make sure it's feasible.
State all components of the research plan up front (field work, analytical, etc.) and then expand on each component as necessary. If proposing field work, explain why you chose the area(s) and how you plan to collect data. If proposing analytical work, explain your dataset and what the proposed analyses will reveal #feasability. Show that you have thought about logistics -sampling strategy, fieldwork timeline, why your technique is better than others.
Clearly state what data you will collect and what it will tell you.
Give estimates of your timeline, make sure you know which labs or instruments you'll be using
Make sure that your methods are doable and that they directly address your hypothesis(es). To show that you can carry out your proposed methods, specifically state the laboratory/computational/etc. resources on your campus or elsewhere that you will be using (I.e. 'I will do xyz through the Proteomics and Metabolomics Facility at Colorado State University) so that it is a concrete plan. After stating the methods, include a statement saying "This will test my aforementioned hypotheses by XYZ" or similar to link back to hypothesis.
This paragraph is more technically written. If you label the hypotheses with H1 etc., then you can directly tie the methods in this paragraph to the hypotheses by referring to H1 etc. When listing field sites, I only include the information about the site that is pertinent to the proposed project to save on space.
A brief sentence or two at the end of the research plan with an example of how you will interpret observations/data can show reviewers how the data you plan to collect aligns with your research goal.
I would try to work backward from what you want to achieve. This will help you figure out what datasets you will need and quantifying how many measurements etc you will need to answer your hypothesis. I would try to be as specific as possible.
I applied to the GSA grant twice and only received it the second time. The reviewers from my first round said that I had too many strands of ideas in my proposal and the methods lacked specificity. In my successful GSA grant, a reviewer said that the proposed work included all the elements of a study at the intersection of sedimentology and geomorphology. I think it was helpful that I had worked on many of the ideas and clarified them between the first and second proposals. The only feedback I got was if the work was possible with just 4 field assistants. They were right, I ended up having the help of more than 6-7 people each day.
Advice on writing a compelling budget section
Specificity is key! Also, if you include anything in the methods section that will not be covered by the GSA grant, specify where those funds are coming from - the reviewers want to ensure that you can and will carry out the proposed project if you get the grant!
Do your homework. Don't just ballpark it, find out the exact rates you will need for, say, renting a vehicle, or what the per diem rates are for your university travel plan if you want to propose field work/travel (what will the campsites/hotels cost? will you have field/lab assistants to pay for food for? what will food cost for how many? what will each sample cost and where did you get that estimate? etc). Showing that level of detail again, inspires confidence that you know what you're doing and know what you are getting into. Basically, show the reviewers that you have thought about every step of your research plan, and have thought through what your research will cost.
Write a realistic budget, include as much detail as possible, such as specific airlines, places you will be staying, gas calculations. Don’t forget to include the little things such as sample bags, any analytical costs, and meal per firm. Demonstrate that you need this funding to make your project the best scientific contribution it can be.
For me, these are always very dry paragraphs that list the costs of things proposed in the research plan paragraph. My advice would be to keep the writing simple.
Make it align with everything you discuss within your research plan, and thoroughly plan out realistic costs.
This is also about feasibility. I looked up potential flights, campsites, car rentals to get a precise number. Budgets change but you should shoot for accuracy. Put EVERYTHING to show you've thought of it, then there is a section for amount requested from GSA so for example my analyses are 100k but I only requested fieldwork $ from GSA
I would take advantage of existing rates for transportation, lodging, and per diem in your department.
Tips about Figures
A figure is now a required element of the GSA grad research grant proposal
The figure always helps. Include a figure (I think they were optional when I was writing my proposals -- hopefully they are required now). A lot of people really like to look at a figure and I have gotten feedback about how useful it was to see my figures. I would have a full page figure of figures (so there would be ~three - four different small figures on the larger one, each with its own caption. I was trying to squeeze in more information and visuals, but that seemed to work well for the reviewers who looked at it). Also, remember that they look at a million of these things, so keep them in mind -- make it easy and a pleasure to read!
The figure is extremely important. Reviews want to fund a publishable proposal, having a well formatted original figure demonstrates that your proposal is at the level of work currently being published and it will be published with just a little more work.
My reviewers loved how clear my figures were. You could tell what I was trying to do just from the figure and caption. Make the figure a central part of the grant application, not an after thought. In fact, I would brainstorm the figure first!
A quote from a reviewer!
"Each Reviewer deals with a larger volume of GSA student research grants and evaluates and ranks them according to motivation, hypothesis, figure, budget, budget justification, broader impacts, befits to career path, etc.. Given the volume and limited time that realistically can be devoted to each individual proposal, it is absolutely critical to concisely and effectively communicate hypothesis, impact, feasibility of work plan, and justification. Compelling proposals state the objectives and merit clearly and explicitly and without the need for the reviewer to find or interpret the significance of the proposed work. Hence, it’s crucial to state the hypothesis or relevance of the proposed research as prominently and clearly as possible. Help the reviewer to easily grasp the impact and merit of your proposed research."
Many survey participants shared their identities, and 72% of survey respondents indicated they would be willing to share all or part of their proposal documents as examples. You can contact them directly below. Please remember not all participants will be comfortable sharing their documents. Thanks to all of our participants!
Matt Nix, Claire Ruggles, Zachary Foster-Baril, Katherine Guns, Jordan Wang, Sara Schreder-Gomes (@sara_schreder), Emily Mixon (@emilyemixon), Kristina Butler (@futurerockdoc), Sarah George, Catherine Ross (@impact_rocks), Tshering Lama Sherpa (@GeoSherpini), Amelia Nelson (@amelia_rnelson), Kelly Thomson (@kellydthomson), Ogochukwu Ozotta (@OhGee_nature), Alison Tune (@waterUtalkinabt), Hima Hassenruck Gudipati (@himaglobe)
If you would like to contribute advice to this column or if we missed your name/Twitter handle please contact us here!