Skip to main content

Trailblazing Graduate Research

Trailblazing Graduate Research (Master’s and Ph.D. level)

Award Description 

 

  • The Student Section seeks to acknowledge a graduate student’s innovative and scholarly research in the field of ecology. This award highlights graduate research that introduces a new original idea and/or uses novel methods to address ecological problems that are of particular significance to the scientific community. The recipients of the Innovative Graduate Research will present a 20-minute talk on their research during the Trailblazing Students at ESA event.

 

Eligibility

  • You must be a member of ESA and the Student Section, or a first time meeting attendee.
  • You must be enrolled as a graduate student (Masters and/or Ph.D) or one year post-graduation. Research has to have been completed while you were a graduate student.
  • You must be in good academic standing.
  • You must attend the Student Section Business Meeting & Trailblazing Student at ESA Award Ceremony and your attendance at other Student Section events is strongly encouraged. Student Section events for the annual meeting can be found by clicking HERE.
  • Preference will be given to applicants who identify as an underrepresented minority..

Application Questions

  • Demographic Information
  • Presentation info (title & abstract)
  • Involvement in research. (include previous work and current work)
  • Describe current research  
  • Impact/Importance of research 
  • Future aspiration in ecology research 

Selection Criteria

  • Applications will be reviewed by an awards committee consisting of students and appointed by the officers of the Student Section. The award honors students that conducted novel ecology research of particular significance to the scientific community. We select winners based on the novelty and relevance of the research. To prevent any biases (especially sub-conscious) all applicant names, addresses, and any other personal information will be removed prior to distribution to judges. The applications are evaluated on the following criteria: 
      • Research’s contribution to the field: provides valuable, broadly applicable insights to the field of ecology.
      • Rating Criteria:
        • 5: The applicant provides specific details, such as topics, concepts, and issues, and clearly explains how these details contribute to our knowledge/understanding of ecology.
        • 4: The applicant provides specific details, such as topics, concepts, and issues, but fails to clearly explain how these details contribute to our knowledge/understanding of ecology.
        • 3: The applicant provides a clear but general explanation of how their research contributes to the existing body of knowledge in the field. 
        • 2: The applicant provides an unclear and general explanation of how their research contributes to the existing body of knowledge in the field. 
        • 1: The applicant does not mention the importance of their research with regard to its contribution to our knowledge/understanding of ecology.
    • Research’s originality: research is novel and engaging for all ecologists, regardless of subdiscipline.
      • Rating Criteria:
        • 5: The applicant describes specific aspects of their research, that makes their research BOTH novel and engaging to ecologists in a diversity of subdisciplines.
        • 4: The applicant describes specific aspects of their research, that makes their research EITHER novel OR engaging to ecologists in a diversity of subdisciplines.
        • 3: The applicant describes specific aspects of their research but fails to clearly explain how these details contribute to the novelty and/or importance of their research.
        • 2: The applicant provides an unclear and general explanation of the novelty and/or importance of their research.
        • 1: The applicant does not mention how their research is novel and engaging to ecologists in a diversity of subdisciplines.
    • Broader impact: The research has strong applications to real world environmental problems or issues.
      • Rating Criteria:
        • 5: The applicant describes specific aspects of their research, such as experiments, observations, and/or results, and clearly explains how these aspects address real-world environmental problems or issues
          • 4: The applicant describes specific aspects of their research, such as experiments, observations, and/or results, but fails to clearly explains how these aspects address real-world environmental problems or issues
          • 3: The applicant provides a clear but general explanation of how their research addresses real-world environmental problems or issues
          • 2: The applicant provides an unclear and general explanation of how their research addresses real-world environmental problems or issues
          • 1: The applicant does not mention how their research addresses real-world environmental problems or issues.
    • Future Research: The applicant should address their future research plans and what they hope to accomplish throughout their career. 
      • Rating Criteria:
        • 5: The applicant provides specific details, such as research questions, research implications, and career goals, and clearly explains how these details are related to their future research plans and career aspirations.
        • 4: The applicant provides specific details, such as research questions, research implications, and career goals, but fails to clearly explain how these details are related to their future research plans and career aspirations.
        • 3: The applicant provides a clear but general explanation of their future research plans and career aspirations.
        • 2: The applicant provides an unclear and general explanation of their future research plans and career aspirations.
        • 1: The applicant does not mention their future research plans and career aspirations.
    • Diversity and Inclusion: The applicant should describe the ways in which their current or future research promotes diversity and inclusion, with regards to culture, ethnicity, gender identity or expression, national origin, physical or mental difference, politics, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, and/or subculture, as described in ESA’s Diversity Statement. The diversity of geographic locations and/or ecology subdisciplines does NOT meet the diversity and inclusion criteria.
      • Rating Criteria:
        • 5: The applicant provides specific examples (e.g. partnering organizations, collaborators, and/or applicant led-initiatives/programs) of things they have done or plan to do in the future and clearly explain how these examples promote diversity and inclusion within the field of ecology
        • 4: The applicant provides specific examples (e.g. partnering organizations, collaborators, and/or applicant led-initiatives/programs) of things they have done or plan to do in the future but fails to clearly explain how these examples promote diversity and inclusion within the field of ecology
        • 3: The applicant provides a clear but generic example work they have done or plan to do in the future to promote diversity and inclusion within the field of ecology. 
        • 2: The applicant provides an unclear and generic example work they have done or plan to do in the future to promote diversity and inclusion within the field of ecology.
        • 1: The applicant does not mention the work they have done or plan to do in the future to promote diversity and inclusion within the field of ecology.
    • Syntax and Overall Quality: The application must be clear and well written. It must be apparent that the applicant thought through each question and provided thorough, proof-read responses
      • Rating Criteria:
        • 5: The application is well written and thorough. There are almost no syntax errors indicating a proofread application.
        • 4: The application is thorough but contains some syntax errors.
        • 3: The application is thorough but contains several syntax errors, grammatical errors, and inconsistent language.
        • 2: The application is not well written and in some areas not thorough (e.g. too short, lacking details, not logically organized).
        • 1: The application lacks thoroughness throughout and is poorly written.
  • Optional Uploads & Web Links: Bonus creativity points will be given to applicants who including optional uploads and/or links that illustrate: 1) the applicant’s work, 2) the impact and/or significance of their work, and/or 3) address any of the application questions in a creative/non-traditional way. Examples: videos that depict your work/research, social media sites used to educate the public, infographics created during a project, creative websites used to explain your work.
    • Rating Criteria:
      • 5: Optional uploads and/or web links are original, interesting, and engaging/interactive. Applicant shows exceptional creativity.
      • 3: Optional uploads and/or web links are original and interesting. Applicant shows some creativity
      • 1: Optional uploads and/or web links has some creative elements, showing an attempt to be creative