So, how detailed was your proposed plan of research?

[iamwhoiam]

I remember the NSF GRF asking for way too many details on proposed plan of research (ultimately, I couldn't finish it on time and could not submit), but how specifically did you write your research plans for your SOP? I only wrote something very vague, such as "would like to study the effects of drug addiction etc., and find treatments for it using etc." (this is not my area of interest, so I have no better details.)

Did you write something more specific? I heard writing research interests that were too narrow were worse than too broad, but now I look back and think maybe it was too vague. Ah, post-application depression is sinking in.

Happy Holidays everyone!

Edited December 24, 2009 by iamwhoiam

[socialcomm]

I've been out of school so long it was hard to be too specific, but I tried to be as specific as possible. So, I gave a general overview of my area of interest and then provided a couple research questions I'm interested in investigating. Who knows where that will get me!

Good luck and happy holidays to you too.

[newday123]

but how specifically did you write your research plans for your SOP? I only wrote something very vague, such as "would like to study the effects of drug addiction etc., and find treatments for it using etc." (this is not my area of interest, so I have no better details.)

I was pretty specific about my research plans. In the first two paragraphs of my SOP, I summarized my career plans, what led me to consider graduate school, my preparation, etc. I wrote the rest of my SOP like a mini-research proposal: I broke down my topic into subtopics and then discussed each one in a separate paragraph, bringing in relevant details from my past research projects, ideas from current literature, and which faculty members I wish to learn from and why. Furthermore, I used informal citations (e.g. name of the author, quotations) wherever appropriate. In my conclusion I summarized my research interests, reiterated reasons why I was applying to that particular department, and re-affirmed my enthusiasm for grad school. I figured that my SOP would serve as my second writing sample.

My feeling is that it's probably better to be specific than general. For instance, there might be dozens of people who are interested in finding treatments for drug addiction. You need to show what's unique about you, your background, your experiences, and your interests. If you find the right programs to apply to, then you shouldn't have much problem finding at least two faculty members who are conducting research in the area(s) of your interest.

Once there was a thread on the Chronicle forums regarding the issue of generality versus specificity in one's SOP. A number of faculty members replied that they would prefer to see specifics. One of them even said something like: "Why would you want to attend a school where no one cares about your research interests?"

That's my two cents. Hope my strategy works. Cross your fingers!

Edited December 24, 2009 by newday123

[coyabean]

It varied. For anthro programs I told them about my proposed research project but I didn't drill down to potential sites, the reasons why I chose them, etc. I talked more globally about knowledge production, etc.

For the interdisciplinary programs I was VERY specific, down to naming coursework, professors, area resources, etc. because I was told -- more than once -- that such programs are very attuned to candidates being self-motivated as they don't have alot of structure.

[socialpsych]

I was advised to be pretty specific about my interests, and when I read SOPs now I advise people to be specific. Even if you are not totally sure what exactly you want to study, the proposed research plan is an opportunity to show cultural knowledge of the field -- that you know what a good potential research project looks like, and that you can talk about it the way insiders do. We will all be doing a lot of talking about and selling our ideas as grad students and academics, so the SOP is a place to show you have that skill. Of course, what you say has to be true enough to your actual interests that it lands you with the right advisor, but I don't think self-expression is the only purpose of that part of the statement.

[johndiligent]

I wasn't very specific, but I'm applying for MA programmes so the need to be very specific is lessened a bit. I basically told them the area I'm interested in, the time period, the geographical area, the focus within all of that and what methodological approaches I'd be coming at the topic with. Apart from that, I offered a few specific questions and areas of investigation that I'd been considering but didn't zero in one on any one. Maybe that is what you mean by specific. I don't know.

If I were too specific (for instance, said that I was interested in looking at the iconography of lithic artefacts found in the Dead Sea region from 60-70 CE), I think I'd come off as already dedicated to one project, and who knows if it's one that's going to fly. But if I tell them who I am as a scholar - that is, what larger questions about the sub-field are particularly appealing to me, then I think it gives the prof a bit more room to see whether we'd jive.

[peppermint.beatnik]

I am specific in my sops, but my project is always tailored to the resources of the department to which I am applying. I.e. I don't have the same project for every school, though they share similarities.

If you're applying to an MA, you don't have to be specific. Most people at my school just had an interest in the field when they came.

Edited December 27, 2009 by peppermint.beatnik

[profound_g]

I gave a general overview and suggested a few specific questions. It fit nicely in the whole statement.