Get Research Help
Associate Librarian and Scholarly Services Librarian
Dean's Research Awards
Lemieux Library and McGoldrick Learning Commons Dean's Research Awards are awarded for both large-scale ($6,000) and small-scale ($1,500) research projects.
General eligibility requirements:
- Students must be enrolled in a degree-granting program while using research award funding, or the quarter following their award for summer awards.
- Students must be an undergraduate while using research award funding.
- Students must be in good standing at the university (not on academic or disciplinary probation or suspension) the quarter before or while using research award funding.
- Students may not be on a leave of absence when applying for the research award and/or are not planning to be on leave during the quarter(s) of the award while using research award funding.
- There is no GPA requirement, but academic status will be considered when evaluating students’ ability to complete the project.
- Student athletes should confirm the impact of any awarded stipend on their athletic eligibility.
Eligibility for research awards:
- Students must have a faculty mentor who will meet with you throughout the quarter(s) and oversee your progress.
- Group of students or individual students are eligible to apply.
- Projects can be within a single field of study or be interdisciplinary.
- The site for the research project should align with the scope of the research project.
Award acceptance agreement:
Students who receive the research award agree to:
-
Provide a summary of their experiences and how it has contributed to their growth as a scholar or researcher for the Lemieux Library and McGoldrick Learning Commons blog.
- Present their research (completed or work-in-progress) during the Seattle University Student Research and Creative Works Conference scheduled on campus for May, and have their presentation materials include into ScholarWorks, Seattle University's institutional repository.
Dean’s Research Award Rubric
(for large- and small-scale research award applications)
|
Student Narrative |
||||
|
Category |
0 Absent |
1 Developing |
2 Competent |
3 Professional / Accomplished |
|
Context and Background
|
No background information given.
|
Some background information is given, but the link to the current project/question is not clearly stated.
|
General background research is appropriately cited from reputable sources and clearly linked to the current project.
|
Specific background information provides a context for why the current project/question is being investigated and/or defines the situation/project “language”. |
|
Research Question, Problem, Thesis, Hypothesis, or Purpose |
No hypothesis, thesis, purpose, or question given.
|
Hypothesis, thesis, purpose, or question is present, but vague.
|
General thesis, hypothesis, purpose, or question is clearly articulated.
|
Specific thesis, hypothesis(es), purpose, or question(s) is clearly articulated, and variables or possible outcomes are defined. |
|
Methodology, Experiment Plan, Creative, or Scholarly Process |
No methodology, scholarly path, or creative process given. |
Basic methodology, scholarly path, or process is described in very general terms with no details. |
Some methodology, scholarly path, or process is described in very general terms with some details. |
Enough information is given so that an expert in the field could replicate the method, path, or process. |
|
Educational Benefits |
Absent. |
A brief articulation of preparation, interest and ownership of project, investment and skills, and/or expected learning outcomes. |
A thoughtful articulation of preparation, interest and ownership of project, investment and skills, OR expected learning outcomes.
|
A thoughtful articulation of preparation, interest and ownership of project, investment and skills, and expected learning outcomes. |
|
Bibliography |
Absent. |
Unclear, unprofessional formatting or disreputable sources cited. |
A single reference or many errors on a list of several reputable references. |
Several reputable references listed in a professional format, no typographical errors. |
|
Itemized budget |
None provided. |
Budget is not itemized or missing at least 2 key pieces of information (vendor name, price, taxes, shipping costs for each item).
|
Budget is itemized but is missing one key piece of information (vendor name, price, taxes, shipping costs for each item).
|
A clear, detailed budget including vendor name, price, taxes, and shipping costs for each item is provided.
|
|
Faculty Research Mentor Response |
||||
|
Category |
0 Absent |
1 Little |
2 Some |
3 A lot |
|
Endorsement |
No or negative faculty endorsement. |
Faculty endorses but is vague about the reasons. |
Faculty endorses and provides some reasons. |
Faculty endorses and provides many reasons. |
|
Support with project |
Faculty does not mention or says they will not provide any support. |
Faculty will provide some basic research support. |
Faculty will provide a lot of research support. |
Faculty will provide a significant amount of research support; |
|
Project contributions or significance |
Faculty does not provide any benefits to the student. |
Faculty provides vague benefits to the student. |
Faculty provides some benefits to the student. |
Faculty provides many benefits to the student |
|
Assessment |
Does not think applicant can complete the project or does not mention it. |
Thinks student will mostly be able to complete project but not as proposed. |
Thinks student will mostly be able to complete project as proposed. |
Thinks student will be able to complete the research project as proposed. |