RiP conference sessions are reserved for university (undergraduate and graduate) students’ presentations of their research studies. RiP sessions provide a formal presentation opportunity for university students who are engaged in research that is underway but is not sufficiently far along to submit for other MSERA submissions. The author of each accepted proposal will make either a 10-13 minute presentation in a research session or share their research within a round table RiP session. A general discussion will follow the presentation in both venues. 

 

Proposals must include a brief working paper (maximum 1000 words) that provides an overview of the research in progress, describes the current stage of the project, and includes brief descriptions of the following elements: 

•    Research problem or objectives  

•    Theoretical or conceptual framework

•    Research question(s) and relevant literature

•    Methods, techniques, or modes of inquiry

•    Data sources, evidence, objects, or materials

•    Preliminary or anticipated findings

•    Scholarly significance or anticipated contribution to the field

•    Anticipated progress or next steps prior to the Annual Meeting 

 

(The section below will be updated based on feedback from AERA.)

For each element in the working paper, the reviewers will rate the proposal from a high score of 3 to a low score of 0 or “incomplete.” Descriptions of proposal elements used in completing reviews are listed below. The rubric used to assign a score for each proposal element follows the list of elements for a RiP proposal. 

 

1.    Research problem or objectives 

The research problem or objectives are stated clearly and concisely and supported by the literature. The paper’s purpose is engaging and thought-provoking.

 

2.    Theoretical or conceptual framework

The proposal strongly supports the study topic AND is based upon a thoughtful synthesis of the literature/theory most relevant to the topic and is supported with in-text citations.

 

3.    Research question(s) and relevant literature 

The Research questions are sound and explained in detail and are based upon a thoughtful synthesis of the literature/theory most relevant to the topic.

 

4.    Methods, techniques, or modes of inquiry

All methods, research techniques, or modes of inquiry are aligned to the research questions.

 

5.    Data sources, evidence, objects, or materials 

 

6.    Preliminary or anticipated findings

 

7.    Scholarly significance or anticipated contribution to the field.

Scholarly significance or anticipated contribution to the field is detailed and supported by relevant research. 

 

8.    Anticipated progress or next steps prior to the annual meeting.

Anticipated progress or next steps are outlined and make logistical sense.

 

9.    Organization and Formatting

The paper is organized with well-constructed paragraphs and transitions. There are a few formatting, style, grammar, spelling, or punctuation errors. 

 

The University Student Director and the University Student Advisory Committee Co-Chair annually recruit MSERA members to volunteer as proposal reviewers.  Each proposal should receive a minimum of two reviews and a maximum of four reviews.  The reviewers provide a score for each element included in the proposal based on the provided rubric. 

 

After all proposals are reviewed, the final summary scores and percentages will be used by the University Student Director and the University Student Advisory Committee Co-Chair to recommend those proposals that should be accepted. The information will be shared with the Program Chair(s).  The Program Chair(s) will provide the RiP summary scores and percentages along with the proposal authors’ contact information to the President of the MSERA Foundation.