Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions? Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense? Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed?
Reviewers will provide an overall impact score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved, in consideration of the following review criteria and additional review criteria (as applicable for the project proposed).
Specific Aims: State concisely the goals of the proposed research and summarize the expected outcome(s), including the impact that the results of the proposed research will exert on the research field(s) involved.
Letters of Support: The application must include a letter or recommendation from the student's program advisor or program chair in support of the candidate and the proposed research dissertation. Letters of support should include information on the student's academic standing as well as a commitment from the school to implement the study as proposed.
The descriptions below are examples of the research foci of this grant program and are provided to guide potential applicants to determine whether a given scientific topic may be appropriate for this initiative. These descriptions are not intended to be comprehensive. In addition, given the complexity of drug abuse research, it is permitted to conduct the proposed dissertation research in conjunction with an ongoing research study or to use extant data. Research studies focused on HIV/AIDS and Health Disparities are encouraged.
Before preparation of the dissertation is well underway, the student should file an approved prospectus of the proposed research (i.e., dissertation proposal) with the Graduate School. Dissertation proposals are typically developed by the student in close consultation with the major advisor and other members of the advisory committee. The student is expected to orally present the proposed dissertation research in a departmental seminar and should check with the departmental Ph.D. coordinator regarding the timing and specific requirements of the presentation. All members of the advisory committee need to approve the proposal by signing the form mandated by the Graduate School.
Reviewers will consider the same review criteria used to evaluate other research project grants (listed below) and the overall impact will be evaluated within the context of a doctoral dissertation.
This FOA will use the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Dissertation Award (R36) mechanism. The R36 mechanism is intended to support the completion of a dissertation research project. It is expected that the doctoral candidate will have already completed core coursework and other didactics required for design and interpretation of the research. The total award project period may not exceed two years and dissertation awards are not renewable.
A Certification Letter from the faculty committee or university official directly responsible for supervising the development and progress of the dissertation research must be submitted with the application. This typically comes from the student’s dissertation committee chair or program chair. The letter must: (a) fully identify the members of the dissertation committee and certify their approval of the dissertation proposal; (b) certify that all requirements for the doctoral degree, except the dissertation and, if necessary, the clinical internship, are completed or will be completed by the time the grant award starts; (c) note that the university official or faculty committee expects the doctoral candidate to proceed with the approved project proposal with or without NIDA support; and (d) briefly describe the facilities and resources for the project and certify that they are adequate to conduct the proposed research.
Our dissertation examples and term paper help enable doctoral students to learn how to research and write their own Ph.D.
dissertations, thesis papers, and dissertation proposals, and they are responsible for citing us as a dissertation reference source.
The two outlines below are intended to show both what are the standardparts of a proposal and of a science paper. Notice that the only real difference is that you change "expected results" to "results" in the paper, and usually leavethe budget out, of the paper.
Approval of the dissertation prospectus also must incorporate an external review (not to be confused with the external member of the dissertation committee itself). The Chair of the Dissertation committee, in conjunction with the School of Business Ph.D. Director, selects at least two reviewers from outside the advisory committee (one of which may be external) who will attend with the members of the advisory committee an oral presentation of the Proposal by the student. Following the presentation, the advisory committee members and reviewers will discuss the proposal and provide feedback to the student. The reviewers then recommend to the program Director that the prospectus be approved, returned for revision, or disapproved. If this is not feasible for them to attend the oral presentation, then the external reviewers will read the written version of the prospectus and submit written feedback and their evaluation of it to the dissertation committee. This second option should only be exercised in unusual circumstances. The approved proposal normally should be submitted to the Graduate School no fewer than six months before the expected date of degree completion.
For research that involves human subjects but does not involve one of the six categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, the committee will evaluate the justification for involvement of human subjects and the proposed protections from research risk relating to their participation according to the following five review criteria: 1) risk to subjects, 2) adequacy of protection against risks, 3) potential benefits to the subjects and others, 4) importance of the knowledge to be gained, and 5) data and safety monitoring for clinical trials.
For research that involves human subjects and meets the criteria for one or more of the six categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, the committee will evaluate: 1) the justification for the exemption, 2) human subjects involvement and characteristics, and 3) sources of materials. For additional information on review of the Human Subjects section, please refer to the .