A Mixed‐Methods Analysis of a Student‐Led Near‐Peer Mentorship Program for the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program: Findings and a Replicable Framework

Le résumé fourni par la source

Grant writing is a critical skill if pursuing a research career. However, not all PhD students receive formal grant writing training as it can be costly for institutions to develop and maintain. To address this need, we implemented a student-led, near-peer mentorship program for biosciences graduate students applying to the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program (NSF GRFP). This program matches mentees with graduate student mentors and structures the grant writing process into a 7-week program with personalized feedback. To understand graduate student experiences and determine the efficacy of the NSF GRFP near-peer mentorship program, the authors performed qualitative and quantitative assessments of program survey data. The students' grant writing competencies were measured before and after the program. Additionally, mentee award rates were compared to benchmark rates for program participants and nationwide applicants. A qualitative analysis of open-ended survey data revealed common challenges in grant writing include writing cohesion, research essay development, and getting started and that near-peer mentorship augments the application process. Quantitative analysis revealed that mentees reported higher confidence in conceptualizing a study, designing a study, and funding a study afterwards as well as had a higher success rate of receiving an Award or Honorable Mention compared to the national average. This paper offers insights into PhD students' experiences in grant writing through qualitative analysis, validates the effectiveness of the program through statistical analysis, and offers an adoptable, low-cost, and sustainable program framework that can be implemented by student leaders at other institutions.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.