research ideas or research interests in an SOP?

[A. sesquipedale]

As I've been reading the boards and related internet sites in general, there seem to be two different views on what should constitute a good SOP. I've now submitted most of mine so I guess I am posing this question for either curiosity's sake or for future applicants. Should well thought out and studied research ideas be posed in an ideal SOP? Or, should broader interests that fit well with what you want to do, and the mentor you are applying to work with, be posed instead?

On the one hand, there seems to be an expectation by some members/websites that well thought out research ideas are needed for a great SOP as it shows you are committed, serious, thinking, and able to hit the ground running in your program on day 1 (option 1).

On the other hand, what if 1) our ideas are not that great? After all, we are applying to be trained to become professional researchers, and most of us are not yet. What if 2) our ideas don't match exactly with where the mentor(s) we are applying to work with hope to take their research? This is where the other camp seems to be: State your interests, how you got interested, and the general area you hope to research in graduate school while bending your interests slightly, if needed, to match with where the mentor hopes to explore (without laying out your thesis or dissertation proposal in your SOP). (option 2)

The other thing to consider is, how much does this depend on the field (for research oriented fields)? For example, is option 1 preferred for the social sciences and option 2 for the natural sciences, or vice-versa?

So what do you all think?

[TheDude]

I went with specific, even more so since you read my SOP, and have 2 specific ideas that cater to one person in all of the 8 departments I am applying to. I think it is a risk, but I also checked with most all professors to inquire about taking on new graduate students. There were 2 departments where I overlapped with 2-4 professors and I didn't check with them to see if they were taking students.

I feel like I had to be specific because I didn't graduate from a prestigious undergrad university. In an interview I sat across from someone who told me they really liked me and that I was going to have to show I was more capable than the kids who went to prestigious schools. So, I figured showing a command of the literature and having really specific research ideas that have emerged out of my previous work was best for me.

I guess what I am saying is stating, "Dr. X is working in the field of socioemotional development in pre-K children. I am also interested in..." wasn't going to cut the mustard for me.

I was also told by a professor I work with that trimming my research ideas was a risk, this is in my second SOP which you haven't seen. I think it really just depends on the contextual factors that surround you as an applicant. I also only worked with one professor for 6 semesters. My other 2 LORs were from professors who were hip to my research and involvement, but knew me academically speaking. Consequently, I knew only one of my LORs was going to speak about me as a researcher throughout the whole thing. I feel like I need to prove my work in one lab, over a prolonged period of time, provided a solid foundation of research skills and catalyzed many ideas.

But it would be helpful to hear from someone in the social sciences who went through this last year. That is the only thing that sucks about this forum at this time, we really just get opinions and no facts because we are all new to this.

[A. sesquipedale]

I went with specific, even more so since you read my SOP, and have 2 specific ideas that cater to one person in all of the 8 departments I am applying to. I think it is a risk, but I also checked with most all professors to inquire about taking on new graduate students. There were 2 departments where I overlapped with 2-4 professors and I didn't check with them to see if they were taking students.

I feel like I had to be specific because I didn't graduate from a prestigious undergrad university. In an interview I sat across from someone who told me they really liked me and that I was going to have to show I was more capable than the kids who went to prestigious schools. So, I figured showing a command of the literature and having really specific research ideas that have emerged out of my previous work was best for me.

I guess what I am saying is stating, "Dr. X is working in the field of socioemotional development in pre-K children. I am also interested in..." wasn't going to cut the mustard for me.

I was also told by a professor I work with that trimming my research ideas was a risk, this is in my second SOP which you haven't seen. I think it really just depends on the contextual factors that surround you as an applicant. I also only worked with one professor for 6 semesters. My other 2 LORs were from professors who were hip to my research and involvement, but knew me academically speaking. Consequently, I knew only one of my LORs was going to speak about me as a researcher throughout the whole thing. I feel like I need to prove my work in one lab, over a prolonged period of time, provided a solid foundation of research skills and catalyzed many ideas.

But it would be helpful to hear from someone in the social sciences who went through this last year. That is the only thing that sucks about this forum at this time, we really just get opinions and no facts because we are all new to this.

Yes it seems someone could make a career, if they were interested, in gathering these data as there seems to be a surplus of opinions with little evidence, I agree with you there. But, I also think these opinions help people at least reflect on, and think about what is best for them. You raise good points too about the possibility of an individual's research background weighing in on their decision to choose one style over the other.

Edited December 6, 2010 by A. sesquipedale

[BlueRose]

I do think there is some field-to-field variation. My sense is that it depends on how cohesive a research group usually is in that field. In the experimental sciences, groups tend to be highly cohesive. (When you have an array of specialized, expensive, difficult to use techniques at your disposal, it is very much in your interest to keep using them.) Therefore you see generic SOPs in the vein of "I want to study explosions. With Prof. Coyote in fuse dynamics and Prof. Nofingers in grenade construction, Boom U is a great place. My research experience is..." If somebody likes your background, then it's a question of whether they have a project to match; it's not in your interest to pretend your interests are more defined than they are, because then it's harder to match you.

For the humanities, and to some extent in theoretical science, I get the impression that groups are looser. There might be a shared theoretical approach; maybe the advisor is doing Marxist histories, but the topics range from 16th-century basket weaving to 20th century theme parks. In that case, you really do have to come in with a project idea, because nobody's going to hand it to you. They don't want you to sit around for half a decade trying to come up with something.

I'm closer to experimental sciences, so I kept it fairly generic. Of course, I still had to convey that I knew what I wanted, and that I had enough exposure to know what a good research question looks like. I mentioned some ongoing projects as examples. But I didn't come close to writing a thesis proposal.

What I did do was include my NSF fellowship proposal as a writing sample. It had a cover note saying what it was, and that it was intended as a sample of my ability to design a research project. Maybe that would help split the difference?

Edited December 7, 2010 by BlueRose