Research Presentation Award

  • Speaker at Podium

Apply for an RPA here.

Graduate students presenting original research at conferences or performing or displaying creative work are eligible to receive a Research Presentation Award (RPA) of $500. RPAs are intended to enable graduate students to travel to important conferences or events within their discipline in order to present their scholarly and creative work. RPAs are awarded two times each year and are distributed within two months after the application deadline. The application deadline is in the middle of an award period which allows students to apply who have either already presented their research/creative work or who are planning to within the specified time period. Approximately one-third of the applicants receive an award.

Students may apply for one of two types of RPA’s: research or creative work. This distinction between these award types was made to improve the review process for graduate students that intended to travel to conference and events to perform or display their creative work, or develop their talents at a workshop in their discipline. Please see the scoring rubrics for each type of award.

Apply for an RPA here.

Deadlines

Term Applicant Deadlines    Recommender Deadlines Conference Date
Fall 2018 October 15, 2018 at 5 pm October 22, 2018 at 5 pm Jul - Dec 2018
Winter 2019 February 11, 2019 at 5pm February 18, 2019 at 5pm Jan - June 2019

Submission of either the faculty or student form after 5:00PM the day of the applicable deadline will result in automatic rejection of the application. Please note that faculty endorsers will be sent a link (via the email address the student provides for them) to the necessary faculty form upon completion of the student's form. The applicant will then be notified via email when the endorser has completed and submitted the necessary form.

Research Presentation Award Criteria

There is some criteria you must meet in order to qualify for an RPA:

  1. Students may only receive one RPA per academic year.
  2. Students may only submit one application per application period.
  3. Applicants must be enrolled as a student during the semester they receive the RPA award. If the applicant is not enrolled in a least 2.0 credit hours, the award will not be granted.
  4. Conferences may be national or international.
  5. Research must be performed as a graduate student. Graduate students may not submit applications on research performed or presented as an undergraduate.

Research Presentation Award Limitations

Students are encouraged to consider the following limitations when applying for an RPA:

  1. Students who have received Stafford Loan Monies are still eligible; however, receiving an RPA could put them in an "over award" status in which case any refund would be applied directly to the loan thus reducing the amount borrowed. For more details, please see your financial aid counselor.
  2. Awards are deposited into the student's university account. There are NO exceptions. Any outstanding balances will be paid first. Funds can be accessed by going to the Cashiers Office in the ASB.

Review Process

Applications are reviewed in a two-step process. First, applications are reviewed by an educated, lay audience. Second, applications are reviewed by faculty endorsers.  Each application is scored based on the following two sections:

Research Award Type


Section 1: Significance of Conference (10 points)

Superior (8-10 pts)

Significance of the conference is clearly conveyed. The reviewer is very
convinced that the conference will be valuable to the applicant’s academic
and professional development.

Good (6-7 pts)

Significance of the conference is mostly clear, but there are some weak
points. Reviewer is convinced of the value of the conference.

Fair (2-5 pts)

Significance of the conference is not clearly conveyed, and/or the reviewer
is somewhat convinced of the value of the conference.

Poor (0-2 pts)

Significance of the conference is confusing or not explained.  The reviewer
is not convinced of the value of the conference.


Section 2: Main Idea of Research & Significance to Discipline (20 points)

Superior (17-20 pts)

Main idea of research is very clearly conveyed and well communicated to 
an educated lay audience.  The reviewer is very convinced that the
research makes a significant contribution to the discipline commensurate
with graduate level research.

Good (13-16 pts)

Main idea of research is clearly conveyed with minor flaws. Reviewer is
convinced that the research makes a significant contribution to the
discipline.

Average (9-12 pts)

Main idea of research is mostly clear, but there are some weak points. 
The reviewer is somewhat convinced that the research makes a significant
contribution to the discipline.

Fair (5-8 pts)

Main idea of research is confusing and/or there are missing pieces.  The
reviewer is slightly convinced that the research makes a significant
contribution to the discipline.

Poor (0-4 pts)

Main idea of research is not explained.  The reviewer is not convinced that
the research makes a significant contribution to the discipline.


Creative Work Type


Section 1: Significance to Education (10 points)

Superior (8-10 pts)

Significance of the conference/workshop is clearly conveyed. The reviewer
is very convinced that the conference will be valuable to the applicant’s 
educational and professional development.

Good (6-7 pts)

Significance of the conference/workshop is mostly clear, but there are
some weak points. Reviewer is convinced of the value of the conference.

Fair (2-5 pts)

Significance of the conference/workshop is not clearly conveyed, and/or
the reviewer is somewhat convinced of the value of the conference.

Poor (0-2 pts)

Significance of the conference/workshop is confusing or not explained. 
The reviewer is not convinced of the value of the conference.


Section 2: Significance of Conference (10 points)

Superior (8-10 pts)

Significance of the conference/workshop to applicant’s research field is
clearly conveyed. The reviewer is very convinced that the conference will
be of significant value to the broader field of research or commercial
development.  This may be demonstrated through the size of the
converence or the impact on research or professional practices.

Good (6-7 pts)

Significance of the conference/workshop is mostly clear, but there are
some weak points. Reviewer is convinced of the value of the conference.

Fair (2-5 pts)

Significance of the conference/workshop is not clearly conveyed, and/or
the reviewer is somewhat convinced of the value of the conference.

Poor (0-2 pts)

Significance of the conference/workshop is confusing or not explained. 
The reviewer is not convinced of the value of the conference.


Section 3: Significance to Others (10 points)

Superior (8-10 pts)

Significance of the conference/workshop to the applicant’s ability to serve
and help others. The reviewer is very convinced that the applicant will
share what they learn from the conference with others (in specific ways).

Good (6-7 pts)

Significance of the conference/workshop is mostly clear, but there are
some weak points. Reviewer is convinced of the applicant’s plans to share
what they learn.

Fair (2-5 pts)

Significance of the conference/workshop is not clearly conveyed, and/or
the reviewer is somewhat convinced of the applicant’s plans to share what
they learn.

Poor (0-2 pts)

Significance of the conference/workshop is confusing or not explained. 
The reviewer is not convinced of the applicant’s plans to share what they
learn.