The NSF GRFP.... Round 4

No, you haven't misread the title of this post. "Round 4" is accurate. It's not referring to the number of drafts I've gone through, or the number of topic changes, either. It's referring to the actual number of times I've now applied for the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship.

Let's recap, shall we?

2010: Applied, and received an honorable mention

2011: Applied, and my application was not reviewed, as one of my references failed to submit a recommendation letter on time. I was working in the field the weeks preceding and following the due date, with no access to the Internet or phone service. Interestingly, this was the year that recommendation letters were due the same day as proposals-- I wonder how many other letter-writers were "thrown" by this change. This was before the NSF included the option to list fourth and fifth "backup" references.

2012: Applied, and received an honorable mention

2013: Applied.

It's a good thing that the NSF doesn't place a limit on number of attempts made by a single applicant. I'm lucky enough that, at the beginning of my second year in graduate school, I'm still eligible for the award. But the thought that this is my last remaining year to apply for the GRF weighed heavily on me as I wrote this year's proposal.

In years past, I have felt confident about my proposals, but less so about my personal statements and research background essays. Reviews from the two occasions on which my proposals were read by the NSF were not terribly helpful, but at least one reviewer in each case suggested strengthening and/or elaborating on proposed outreach activities.

This year, I found that the proposal itself was the most difficult to write. I initially found this strange, as I have an actual dissertation project now, and actual data from an actual field season. I've just finished my first season in the field (which, apart from a couple small snafus, was a resounding success). You'd think that, with real data in hand and at least a broad conceptualization of the way the work will continue, it would be easier to write a stellar proposal. But real data are messy, pilot data aren't necessarily indicative of larger trends (particularly with small sample sizes), and it turns out that trying to condense an actual dissertation project into two pages is far more difficult than trying to condense a potential dissertation topic into a short length.

I ran through eight different approaches, with multiple drafts of three or four of those. The proposal I finally chose to submit was not, in my opinion, the strongest it could have been. I'm still not sure that the flow among background information, hypotheses, and methods is appropriate, and I worry that the broader scientific impacts (the most interesting aspects of the study) will be lost in the minutiae I was forced to include toward intellectual merit. :\

There's no use worrying about it now, though. It's out of my hands, and into the reviewers' (hopefully), and it remains to be seen how they will judge the work.

The one thing I do feel good about? Outreach and broader (societal) impacts. This past year I've begun an outreach/science education project that already has a fairly large following, and wrote a manuscript on the work that was recently accepted to a well-respected journal. My personal statement dealt almost entirely with this process, as well as my plans to continue and improve upon the work. Between that, an additional field season under my belt (one geared toward my dissertation work), and a couple additional presentations, my personal statement and research background essays felt pretty strong. Go figure.

All this has just further illustrated for me the idiosyncratic nature of the GRFP, which I know will only be enhanced by the random draw of reviewers who ultimately read and judge my proposal. If they've had a bad day or have some internal bias against my topic, study system, writing style-- anything-- they may not see fit to rank it highly. If they happen to be specialists in my particular field, they may see the inherent flaws in my proposal, and, again, not see fit to rank it highly. If they are not specialists within my field, and can see the broader merit in the ideas and proposed application and data analysis, perhaps I have a shot at it.

Only time will tell, and I'll find out, again, in late March or April. The past three attempts have taught me not to get my hopes up. I could really use a GRF (as if anyone couldn't!), particularly because my fieldwork needs to take place in autumn, a prime time for teaching assistantships, and not something that will be easy to work around if I don't receive some form of external support.

Will this be my year, finally? Will my fourth go-round prove that I really am a worthy candidate for a GRF? Or will I again get handed an honorable mention (or worse, nothing), and have to walk away knowing that, even after FOUR attempts, I still couldn't pass muster?