BBB Requirements to Attain Dissertator Status

Motivation:

These requirements are intended to ensure that a student has both the depth of knowledge to make original significant contributions to an area (i.e., complete a successful dissertation), as well as the breadth of knowledge to be a valuable member of a (future) psychology department.  The requirements below should be understood to satisfy those goals.

To fulfill these requirements, students will (1) complete a prelim examination that evaluates a student’s mastery of a content area within Biological Basis of Behavior (BBB), and (2) write and defend a thesis proposal.

Format:

Prelim requirement: 

The Preliminary Examination will have two components. The first component is a thesis proposal, and the second component is an outside-area paper.

The thesis proposal should take the form of a grant proposal, e.g., National Research Service Award (NRSA), including Specific Aims and Research Strategy. The thesis advisor, committee and student are responsible for defining the precise form of the thesis proposal.

The outside-area paper should review a topic unrelated to the graduate student’s research. The graduate student selects the topic, which their Committee needs to approve. The paper should demonstrate depth of understanding and critical analysis. This would generally require approximately 20 pages.

There will be an in-person examination to defend the thesis proposal and to defend the outside-area paper. Both components can be tested in a single Committee meeting, in which one hour is devoted to the thesis proposal and another hour is devoted to the outside-area paper. Alternatively, each component can be tested in one of two separate Committee meetings.

Timeframe:

The Prelim Exam can be completed as early as the end of the 2nd year, but should be completed by the end of the 3rd year (as soon as all class requirements are fulfilled).

Students should consult their committee regarding the areas of emphasis and timing of the examination.  Students are strongly encouraged to meet with the members of their committee on a regular basis prior to the anticipated date of the exam.  Students should meet with each member of their committee, typically 2-6 months before the anticipated exam date to discuss a possible topic so that the student can begin their literature research.

Prelim committee:

The student’s major advisor serves as chair of the prelim committee. 3-4 additional faculty members are selected to serve on the committee.  Ideally, these members will also serve on the dissertation committee.

Evaluation:

The student’s work is read by all members. Upon completion of the written part of the prelim exam, there will be a 1-2 hour meeting/in-person exam with the prelim committee during which the committee can ask questions related to the written answers.  The intent of this in-person exam is to allow the student to expand on the issues addressed in the written format (i.e., exam and/or papers) in an informal setting that is similar to professional evaluations.  The faculty members will meet in private immediately after the in-person exam to decide upon the final evaluation. Grades for the prelim exam are: Fail or Pass

Advancement to dissertator:

Students advance to dissertator status once they have both passed their prelims and successfully defended their thesis proposal. Unless the student has written the thesis proposal before the Prelim Exam, this may mean that there will be a 1-semester gap between passing the Prelim and becoming a dissertator.

The thesis proposal is evaluated by a full 5 people thesis committee (with one outside member). The mentor communicates to the committee members what the expectations are for the format of the thesis proposal.

Current Preliminary Exam Information (note: students who started in Fall 2024 or before have the option to utilize either the current or previous process)

MOTIVATION

Students in the PCCN Area Group must complete both a breadth and a depth requirement for the prelim exam. Students should first complete the breadth prelim to obtain a general overview of the field and then complete the depth prelim to dive into a topic that will motivate their dissertation research. The PCCN group provides several options to fulfill these breadth and depth requirements, which are detailed in the “Formats” section below. All formats have both a written component and a defense, which is open-ended discussion of the submitted written materials and

Below are general learning outcomes for the breadth and depth prelims, and additional learning outcomes particular to each format are highlighted in the “Formats” section.

Breadth prelim general learning outcomes

1. Organize literature spanning areas in cognition and cognitive neuroscience according to general themes or debates.
2. Identify core research questions in the chosen areas.
3. Explain studies/theoretical arguments that have addressed these core questions.
4. Propose open questions in the field and consider new studies that might address them
5. Formulate answers to questions posed by the committee about the chosen areas during an open ended discussion.

Depth prelim learning outcomes

1. Demonstrate a deep understanding of the literature that may form the basis for dissertation research.
2. Explain competing theories or hypotheses in this research area by providing arguments for/against each theory/hypothesis.
3. Develop new research questions that have not yet been answered by existing literature.
4. Develop preliminary ideas of how these new research questions could be answered by future experiments.
5. Formulate answers to questions proposed by the committee about the chosen topic during an open ended discussion.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS

The committee structure follows the overall department guidelines. Prelim committees must include at least three psychology faculty members, including the primary advisor(s). One affiliate member can count toward the three faculty-member requirement. Students can have additional non-affiliate committee members if they choose, but those individuals do not count towards the required three members. The committee members can change between the breadth and depth prelim exams.

GENERAL STRUCTURE AND TIMELINE

Students should begin planning their prelims by the end of their second year and are required to complete both prelims by the beginning of their fourth year (Sept 15^st) to remain in satisfactory standing. Under extenuating circumstances, the committee can warrant an extension of this deadline by submitting a letter to the PCCN Area Chair with a new timeline. The PCCN faculty will evaluate progress at the end of the subsequent spring semester and will make a recommendation on standing at that time.

Each prelim exam (depth and breadth of all formats) will adhere to the following structure over 5 month timeline:

Month 1: Conduct preparatory work specific to the type of prelim format (see formats below). Note that for the depth prelim (but not the breadth prelim), preparatory work includes holding the proposal meeting.

Month 2-4: Read relevant literature/textbooks and prepare written materials (with figures as appropriate). Schedule the 1-hour defense with the committee at least one month before the defense date.

Month 5: Submit written materials to the committee at least one week before the defense date and then defend on the scheduled date. The defense will include all committee members (in person or virtually).

Note: Students may wish to expedite this process and complete a given prelim in less than 5 months. Students should not take more than 5 months for any prelim unless there are extenuating circumstances discussed with the primary advisor(s).  

EVALUATION

The student’s submitted work will be read by all members of the prelim committee prior to the defense. During the defense, the committee members will ask questions that arose during their reading of the submitted materials and will give the student further opportunity to demonstrate their command of the material. This component will also assess the student’s ability to draw on a body of knowledge to answer questions on-the-fly. This skill is important for several aspects of one’s professional life, including answering questions during conference presentations, while teaching in the classroom, and while interviewing for potential jobs.

This defense will adhere to the following structure over the course of a 1-hour period:

1. The committee and student will gather in the meeting room. When all members have arrived, the committee will ask the student to step outside while the committee holds a brief pre-meeting. Then the student will be invited back into the meeting room.
2. The student will give a brief (~15 minute) presentation based on the submitted material and the committee will ask questions. Some committees will wait until the end of the presentation to ask questions, whereas others may ask questions throughout the presentation.
3. The committee members will meet privately immediately following this discussion to evaluate the student’s progress on the general prelim learning outcomes and specific learning outcomes from the chosen format.

The committee will assign one of the following grades and invite the student back into the room to inform them of the outcome.

Pass: No further work on this prelim is needed.

Preliminary Pass: Revisions are needed, as specified by the committee, and must be submitted within one month of the defense date. The committee will evaluate the revised materials. There will be no additional defense meeting.

Fail: Students are allowed one additional attempt to pass this prelim type (breadth or depth). The second attempt must take place no more than three months from the initial examination and will include a second defense.

PRELIM FORMATS

The PCCN group provides several options to fulfill written components of the breadth and depth requirements. Below are multiple options for the breadth and depth prelims that have been approved by the PCCN area. When choosing a prelim format, students should work closely with their mentoring committee to develop a plan that is tailored to the student’s training needs and that is satisfactory to the committee members.

Breadth prelim formats 

Breadth option 1: Read papers provided by committee and write response papers

Each committee member provides the student with a reading list and then the student writes a series of response papers over a 1 month period to answer specific questions posed by their committee. The procedure is as follows:

Month 1        

• The student meets with each member of their mentoring committee to discuss potential topics and readings.
• Each committee member provides a reading list for each topic (~20-25 papers per topic).

Months 2-3

• The student reads all the papers on the reading lists.
• Each committee member submits 2 candidate questions to the advisor. The advisor then selects 3 pairs of questions (i.e., 1A or 1B, 2A or 2B, 3A or 3B).

Month 4

• The advisor assigns the student 1 pair of questions each week during this 1-month period. Each week the student chooses 1 question from the pair and writes an in-depth scholarly review answering the question. Each response paper should demonstrate depth of understanding and critical analysis. Each response paper should be ~16-20 pages (double spaced, not including references) and draw on knowledge from a substantial part of the reading list. An example reading list and questions, can be found here.
• The student schedules the defense with the committee

Month 5

• The advisor sends the response papers to the committee members.
• The defense is held with all committee members.

Learning outcomes specific to this format: 

1. Synthesize readings that the committee members indicate are central to the field.
2. Develop well-organized arguments in a cohesive narrative and integrate knowledge to answer general questions in the field.

Breadth option 2: Develop reading lists and write open-note take-home exam

Students develop their own reading list with support from their committee members and complete a 6 hour take-home exam to answer questions posed by their committee. The procedure is as follows:

Month 1

• The student meets with each committee member to decide topics (one topic per committee member, within the purview of that committee member’s expertise).
• The student begins reading and formulating their reading lists for each topic (~20-25 papers per topic).

Month 2

• The student shares a full draft of their reading lists with each corresponding committee member and the committee members provide input on which parts of the list to emphasize and where there might be gaps that need to be filled.
• The student continues reading, updates the list, and sends it back to the committee member for final approval.

Months 3-4

• The student completes all the readings on the list and studies for the open-note takehome exam.
• The advisor will ask each committee member for two questions on their topic (3 topics x 2 questions  = 6 questions total).
• The student schedules the defense

Month 5

• On the day of the take-home exam, the advisor sends the student all 6 questions. The student will choose 1 question from each topic, answering 3 questions in total within 6 hours. It is recommended that the student spend approximately 2 hours per question, drawing on the relevant literature from their reading lists.
• The advisor sends the response to questions to the committee members.
• The defense is held with all committee members one week after the take-home exam.

Learning outcomes specific to this format: 

1. Construct a core list of readings on a given topic that spans the key authors and perspectives on the topic. The ability to do so effectively is useful for learning how to orient oneself to a new literature when starting a new research project, developing a grant proposal, or teaching a course.
2. Synthesize knowledge on a particular topic quickly and efficiently. The ability to do so effectively is helpful when working under time constraints, such as when writing for a paper/grant deadline or preparing new lectures to teach during the flow of a semester.

Breadth option 3: Develop a course and write about debates in the field

Students design an undergraduate course covering a broad content area in cognition or cognitive neuroscience. The course should include a lecture component and a discussion section, with a syllabus for each. In addition, students write three different essays (see below).

Month 1

• The student selects a broad content area in PCCN, such as Cognition, or Perception, or Cognitive Neuroscience. For example, a course on Perceptual Development would be too narrow because it would only cover developmental approaches to the field.
• The student checks in with all committee members either as a group or informally one-on-one to make sure that all of them approve the course topic.

Month 2-3

• Syllabus for lecture course. The student composes a syllabus for a semester-long undergraduate lecture course. Assume the semester has 15 weeks and that your class will meet twice a week. Students often begin this part of the assignment by reviewing textbooks to help them organize the potential material and structure of the course. Students can consult with faculty and/or other students who have recently taken the prelim about possible textbooks (since they may already have copies that can be borrowed). Students should be prepared to explain why they chose their particular textbook, rather than others, during the prelim defense meeting. The syllabus should include:

1. the topic(s) that will be covered by each lecture
2. details about required readings to support each lecture
3. basic information about how you will evaluate students’ performance in the course (e.g., “there will be 3 exams and 2 papers”).

The focus should be on the content of the course (items A and B). It is not necessary to include specific details about assignments or grading criteria (e.g., the exact prompt for the second paper assignment; information about how different components of the group project will be weighted; etc.).

• Syllabus for discussion section. The student composes a for a once-a-week discussion section to accompany the lecture component of the course. The goal of the section is to allow the class to engage more deeply with the lecture material and discuss important findings. Each discussion section meeting should include 2 primary journal articles that go deeper into the topics being discussed in the lecture course that week. The syllabus should include the reading for each class meeting, resulting in a total of 30 journal articles (2 per week x 15 weeks).

Please note: the discussion section readings should not copy the reading list of existing courses (e.g., breadth courses being taught in our department or courses the student took in the past).

Month 4

• The student prepares three short essays (4-6 double-spaced pages each, not including references) that are inspired by their course preparation.  Each essay should describe a debate or theme that will be emphasized in the course.  Distinct topics should be chosen for each essay spanning the range of topics in the breadth course.

Essay 1: Discuss a classic debate in the field that plays a major role in your course.

Essay 2: Discuss a current debate in the field that plays a major role in your course

Essay 3: Discuss a topic, debate, or theme that you anticipate emerging in the near future that current students should engage with in your course.

In each essay, the student should discuss why the issue selected deserves significant attention in the course. The committee expects to see evidence suggesting the importance of the issues described in the three essays in the syllabi documents (e.g., choice of reading assignments, textbook, topics, etc.). The committee will evaluate how the student’s thinking about these debates/issues inspired the decisions made about the course. The essays will be a focal point of the discussion during the prelim defense.

• The student schedules the defense

Month 5

• The students sends all documents (i.e., lecture syllabus; section syllabus; 3 essays) to the committee at least one week prior to the defense meeting.
• At the defense the student should come prepared to describe and answer questions about their course, including:
  • Subject matter (Why these course topics and not others?)
  • Selected readings (What other readings/textbooks were considered, and why were the current ones chosen?)
  • Content in the three essays
  • Assumptions and themes underlying the lecture course and discussion section (e.g., will the course have a particular theoretical bent? How does this course differ from other courses in cognition or cognitive neuroscience?

Learning outcomes specific to this format: 

1. Develop teaching materials that could be useful for future teaching activities
2. Identify relevant primary articles that accompany general textbook topics
3. Explain debates/themes in the field that have (and have potential to) advanced scientific topics in the literature.

Depth prelim formats 

Depth option 1: Write a grant proposal

Students write a 2-year grant proposal (e.g., NRSA) that is focused on the student’s dissertation topic. To insure depth in the field, the proposal should include at least 40 references. The primary goal is to assess depth of background knowledge in the field, so the evaluation will focus more on the theoretical motivation for the proposed project rooted in the literature, and less on the details of the proposed experiments. If the proposed experiments form the basis of the dissertation, then the dissertation proposal will provide an opportunity to assess the experiment details.

The procedure is as follows:

Month 1

• The student plans and discusses ideas for the grant proposal with the primary advisor(s)
• The student writes a 2-page outline of the proposal and sends it to the committee at least one week in advance of the proposal meeting.

Month 2

• The student and full committee meet for the depth prelim proposal meeting (in person or virtually). Ideally all committee members meet together, but separate meetings are allowed if necessary.
• The student makes modifications to the plan as requested by the committee members and sends updated outline.

Months 3-4:

• The student reads the relevant literature and writes the grant proposal adhering to the formatting requirements for the particular grant type. The proposal should include at least 40 references to relevant literature.
• The student schedules the defense.

Month 5

• The student sends the full grant proposal to the committee at least one week before the defense date
• The defense is held with all committee members.

Learning outcomes specific to this format: 

1. Synthesize literature to identify gaps in the field that should be addressed with future research.
2. Develop the motivation for a novel set of experiments that will advance the field.

Depth option 2: Write a review paper

Students write a review paper on their primary area of research. The paper should synthesize/analyze existing literature and offer new perspectives on future directions. The paper should avoid “laundry list” descriptions of previous studies, and instead, put a new spin on the existing literature. This document may form the foundation for the dissertation, and the “new spin” might motivate the dissertation research.   The paper should be about 40-60 pages (double spaced) and incorporate at least 40 references.

Month 1

• The student plans and discusses ideas for a review paper that would advance the student’s research program and could contribute the field.
• The student writes a 2-page outline of the review paper and sends it to the committee at least one week in advance of the proposal meeting.

Month 2

• The student and full committee meet for the depth prelim proposal meeting (in person or virtually). Ideally all committee members meet together, but separate meetings are allowed if necessary.
• The student makes modifications to the plan as requested by the committee members and sends an updated outline.

Months 3-4:

• The student reads the relevant literature and writes the review paper (40-60 pages double spaced, including at least 40 references to relevant literature).
• The student schedules the defense.

Month 5

• The student sends the review paper to the committee at least one week before the defense date
• The defense is held with all committee members.

Learning outcomes specific to this format: 

1. Develop a new perspective on the existing literature (e.g., find new commonalities across seemingly disparate areas in your field, develop an overarching theoretical framework, identify and explain trends in the literature).
2. Develop a comprehensive narrative of prior work in your field, including core research questions, approaches to answering them, conclusions drawn from existing research, and open questions that require future research.

PCCN students and faculty are welcome to propose new formats to add to the set of approved options described below. For a new format to be approved, the case must be made that this new format helps students achieve distinct learning outcomes that are not achieved by the currently approved formats. Here is the procedure for proposing new prelim formats:

1. The individual proposing a new format should write a description of the new format by following the structure of the existing formats. The proposal should include the following components:
   1. brief summary of the new format (few sentences)
   2. timeline of the new format using the 5-month structure of the existing formats
   3. List of learning outcome(s) that are unique to the proposed format (not covered by existing formats)
2. If the new format is proposed by a student, it should first be approved by the committee and then be emailed to the PCCN Area Chair. If the new format is proposed by a faculty member, it can be emailed to the PCCN Area Chair directly.
3. The PCCN Area Chair may consult with other faculty members in the area and may request revisions prior to making a decision on approval.
4. The PCCN Area Chair will notify the individual who submitted the proposal of the outcome.

*****************************
Previous PCCN Preliminary Exam Information (still available as options for students who started in Fall 2024 or before)
Motivation: Students in the PCCN Area Group must complete both a “depth” and a “breadth” requirement for the prelim exam. The PCCN group allows a wide range of options to fulfill these requirements, including but not limited to those described below. In all cases, the student should work closely with their mentoring committee to develop a plan tailored to the student’s training needs and satisfactory to the committee members. Committees must include at least three psychology faculty members, including the primary advisor(s) and may differ for breadth versus depth.

Format:  Options for breadth: 1) Course design. Students can demonstrate mastery of the PCCN area by designing an introductory-level course. The committee should decide the content area together, and the student should follow the guidelines laid out in the accompanying document. 2) Write a series of response papers to answer specific questions. Students will meet with their mentoring committee to discuss potential topics and readings (committee members may provide a reading list). Each committee member will write 2 candidate questions. The advisor will submit 3 pairs of questions (i.e., A1/B1, A2/B2, A3/B3) to the student, submitting 1 pair each week during a 1-month period. Each week the candidate chooses 1 question from each pair and writes an in-depth scholarly review. Each response paper should demonstrate depth of understanding and critical analysis. The committee may specify an expected length for response paper (historically 16-20 double-spaced pages). 3) Write a review paper on a topic outside of the student’s primary area of research. The student should consult closely with their committee to choose a topic of appropriate scope. Prior to beginning writing, the student will put together a reading list that will be approved by the committee. Typical manuscript length is 30-40 double-spaced pages.

Options for depth: 1) Write and submit a grant proposal (e.g., NRSA), typically on the student’s dissertation topic. 2) Write a review paper on the student’s primary area of research, which may then be submitted for publication and/or serve as the first chapter of the student’s dissertation.

Timeframe: Students should start planning their prelims by the end of their second year and should aim to complete the first prelim by the end of their third year and the second prelim by the beginning of their fourth year.

Evaluation: The student’s submitted work will be read by all members of the prelim committee. Upon completion of the written part of the prelim exam, the student will typically meet with the committee for a 1-2 hour meeting/in-person exam during which the committee will ask questions related to the paper. The intent of this in-person exam is to allow the student to expand on the issues addressed in the written format in an informal setting that is similar to professional evaluations. The committee members will meet in private immediately after the in-person exam to decide upon the final evaluation. Grades for the prelim exam are Fail or Pass. The committee may still request revisions from a student who passed the exam; the timeline and details of such revisions (including which committee members will read the revision, and whether additional meetings are warranted) will be decided by the committee.

Specific information about the Clinical Area prelim process is described in the Clinical Program Information Prelim Page

Portfolio

(Satisfies the UW Graduate School Preliminary Examination Requirement)

 

Graduate Program in Developmental Psychology UW-Madison

(Adopted Fall 2023; minor changes Spring 2026)

 

GOALS

The portfolio provides a mechanism for Developmental doctoral students to organize, plan, and reflect on their progress through our program. It reflects the program’s values, highlighting the importance of both breadth of study/experiences in developmental science and allied topics/disciplines, as well as depth in a specific area of study as core components of doctoral training. The portfolio also allows students to receive regular feedback on all aspects of their progress through the program and to appreciate the ways in which all their activities during graduate school are contributing to their professional development.

Student portfolios can and should be explicitly designed with the flexibility to reflect each student’s career goals, intellectual interests, and choices about service and outreach; each student’s path through the program will be unique. While this process is intentionally designed to be flexible, it must reflect what earning a PhD entails. A student may decide to pursue career paths outside of academia, but the prelim process must retain a focus on research products and scholarship, as well as mastering relevant content. This system is meant to respect what we think you should have achieved by the end of a PhD program focused on developmental science, while at the same time supporting flexibility.

A distinctive feature of the portfolio system is that the portfolio is a working document that will develop and change each year based upon dialogue with the student’s mentors. The portfolio is intended to be a useful tool to guide graduate student development flexibly and productively, while keeping students aware of their own progress. The associated components are intended to facilitate the student’s pathway to their next intended career step.

EVALUATION AND TIMELINE

Students will develop their portfolio over their first three to four years in the program. By November 30th for students starting their Year 2, students will submit their portfolio materials. Beginning in Year 3, students should submit materials by September 30th. (This change in deadline is to allow 2nd year students to finish their First Year Projects prior to submitting their portfolio materials). Developmental faculty* will review the personal statement and other components of the portfolio to guide a discussion with the student about professional goals, progress, accomplishments, future plans, and obstacles or other challenges. The Developmental Area Chair will schedule annual discussions in the fall semester for students in Year 3 and beyond, and in the spring semester for students in Year 2.

Students may submit and defend their final portfolio at any point once they have finished their required coursework. Students are encouraged to complete their portfolio process during the fall semester of Year 4, but they must complete it by the fall semester of Year 5 (unless they have requested and received a formal extension from the Developmental faculty).

The final portfolio must be shared with the Developmental faculty and the student must also meet with the Developmental faculty to discuss the final portfolio. This final portfolio will be evaluated as Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory. An evaluation of Satisfactory is required to obtain dissertator status. By deeming the portfolio to be Satisfactory, the Developmental faculty will have determined that the student has developed a rich knowledge base and skill set and is prepared to pursue independent research in the form of their dissertation. When a portfolio is deemed Satisfactory, the Developmental Area Chair will inform the Graduate Program Manager, who will then initiate the paperwork for obtaining dissertator status.

Portfolios should be shared with Developmental faculty via Google Drive. Students should feel free to work on the documents online or to work offline and upload them when they are ready to be shared. Students should follow the template to ensure that their portfolio contains all the necessary components and to make it straightforward for faculty to find and review their materials.

Here is a link to a template portfolio folder, with instructions: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1ViGkaK2Sf0yzNBE43i7-YMx6OmkDm_gF?usp=share_link

*Students are encouraged to share their portfolio documents with non-Developmental faculty members of their Mentoring Committee.

 

COMPONENTS OF THE PORTFOLIO

1. Personal statement

A personal narrative statement of approximately 500 words describing the student’s career goals (this will likely be slightly shorter earlier in the student’s training and slightly longer towards the end). This is intended to provide a context for the other materials provided in their portfolio. Other optional topics that a student may wish to mention in their personal statement include: current accomplishments and expertise, anticipated accomplishments, plans to acquire new expertise, obstacles experienced or anticipated, or any other relevant information to contextualize their portfolio. The statement will be relatively brief early in a student’s graduate training and evolve as the student develops a firmer set of career goals and is more deeply established as an emerging developmental scientist.

 

2. Research experiences, training, and products

All portfolios must include the “required research products” listed below, even if the student has not yet made progress in a particular area (if a goal is not yet started or completed, the state of progress can simply be noted, e.g., “not yet started,” etc.). Depending on their career goals and professional aspirations, students may add “additional research products” as they wish. For all published or submitted papers, students should report their relative contributions to the conceptualization, design, analysis, and writing in percentages. (It can be tricky to estimate these contributions, so students should discuss how to do this with their mentors and co-authors). These details are intended to help tailor the mentoring committee’s advice to the student each year.

Required research products

(A) List of Developmental Proseminar presentations: Provide title, abstract, date. Two are required (one may be presented at a proseminar for an area group other than Developmental or to a group outside the department). Note that presenting in the First Year Project Symposium does not count toward the presentation requirement.

(B) List of significant research products: Students must include at least one significant research paper led by the student (i.e., the student listed as first author if submitted). Please either include a link to the paper or upload a .pdf to your portfolio on Google Drive.

• A published (or submitted for publication) version of the First Year Project. We recognize that not all FYPs render publishable data.
• A published (or submitted for publication) version of a non-FYP research project that was led by the student.
• A published (or submitted for publication) substantive review or theory paper that was led by the student.

          Additional optional research products that can be included

• Empirical papers: Can include co-authored papers submitted or published.
• Theory or review papers: Can include co-authored papers submitted or published.
• Methods papers: Can include first-authored or co-authored papers submitted or published.
• Perspectives papers or letters: Can include first-authored or co-authored papers submitted or published.
• NRSA or other grants: Include the grant and any summary statements or other evaluations.
• Presentations or posters at scientific meetings: Provide title, abstract, and date. If possible, a pdf of the poster or related handout should also be included. These can include presentations/posters at local meetings.
• Science-based blogs or other online contributions
• Research collaborations, consulting, or fellowships in industry
• Workshops attended or led: Provide title, workshop summary, and date

 

(C) Research Statement: Please craft a research statement that could eventually form the basis of job or fellowship applications. It should be roughly 500 words. When preparing a research statement, you should think about conveying the following: What is your research program about? What questions are you addressing and what are you seeking to explain? What are some (even if preliminary) answers to your “big questions”? What’s novel (e.g., theoretically, empirically, methodologically) about your approach?

In working on your research statement, please keep the following points in mind:

(a) Your committee (and others) are looking for evidence that you are forming “….a coherent program of research that establishes yourself as an emerging leader in your field” and that “the scholarship should be both novel and of sufficient impact to make a significant contribution to the theoretical framework of their field.” (b) You needn’t try to fit every single project or accomplishment into this document – the goal is to provide a coherent narrative rather than a laundry list of everything you have done and are doing.

(c) Ideally, the research statement is written in a way that is understandable to anyone in the Department. It should not take special knowledge to decode or include jargon. Those who seek more detail and more technical language can and will rely on your publications.

We strongly encourage you to read and consider the recommendations about writing powerful research statements described in this article by Drs. Gernsbacher and Devine.

 

3. Evidence of breadth of knowledge in developmental psychology and other areas of study

The materials submitted in this section should demonstrate the student’s knowledge beyond their specific content area of expertise. Some of this breadth comes from other parts of developmental psychology beyond the student’s own subarea (e.g., a student focused on social development should also learn about cognitive, language, and perceptual development to better understand the factors influencing social development). Some of this breadth comes from other areas of psychology (e.g., a student focused on language development should also learn and understand the eventual adult state by learning about adult language behaviors). And some of this breadth comes from allied disciplines (e.g., Educational Psychology, Neuroscience,

Communication Sciences and Disorders, Linguistics, Public Policy, Biostatistics, Computer Science).

All portfolios must include the following categories, even if the student has not yet made progress in each area. Depending on their career goals and professional aspirations, students may add additional categories as they wish.

Required breadth categories

(A) Breadth across Developmental Psychology

(B) Breadth across Psychology

(C) Breadth in at least one other discipline

There are many ways to achieve and demonstrate breadth. Your committee will engage in dialogue with you to help you find the best ways to do this over your first 4 years, including:

• TA-ing a course outside your own specific research area (e.g., Child Development, Cognitive Development, Introduction to Psychology, non-developmental courses).
• Taking multiple courses that extend beyond your own specific research area, either in Psychology or in another department
• Taking non-developmental graduate courses in your area (e.g., a student studying memory development may take a course in adult memory)
• Attending a conference outside your own research area
• Research collaborations that bridge beyond your own research area
• Manuscripts focused on topics that extend into other subfields

 

4. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) experiences, training, and products

All students must include the required diversity statement described below. However, they may also include and/or describe additional experiences, training, and products that demonstrate their training and commitment to DEI practices, broadly construed. Examples of additional (not required) DEI experiences and/or products are provided below. However, this list should not be considered exhaustive. It should also be noted that many of the products that you might include in this section could be “cross-listed” in another category of the portfolio.

(A) Required diversity product

Diversity statement: Describe your experiences, training, and practices regarding research, teaching, mentoring, and outreach (if applicable) with diverse populations. Diversity is construed broadly in this context by design. You may wish to reflect on your engagement with a myriad of populations, from those who have historically been marginalized and under-studied in psychology, to at-risk and vulnerable populations traditionally subject to systematic discrimination in social science research and society more generally, to creating inclusive learning contexts in the laboratory or classroom. Suggested length: 500 words. Note that some employers now ask job candidates to address these issues in some form.

(B) Optional diversity products

• • Syllabus or course design that attends to issues of DEI
  • Description of mentorship experiences of students from diverse groups
  • Research that addresses issues pertaining to DEI
  • Translations of research instruments into other languages to increase accessibility
  • Development of protocols for research/lab practices to address DEI issues
  • Descriptions of workshops or consultation with experts on DEI practices in research, practice, or teaching
  • Outreach to diverse communities
  • Description of relevant DELTA courses

 

5. Teaching experiences, training, and products

Students should obtain experiences in teaching during their time in our program. Examples of experiences and/or products that you can consider including in your portfolio to document these experiences are listed below. This list should not be considered exhaustive. Note that academic jobs applications require a teaching statement.

Examples of teaching products

• Teaching statement: Provide a statement that describes your teaching philosophy and indicate how you strive to achieve and ensure excellence in teaching and mentoring. Suggested length: Up to 500 words.
• Description of courses for which you served as a TA or Instructor: Include course evaluation summary statistics and raw evaluations if available.
• Description of courses developed and materials: Include course materials such as syllabus, required reading, sample exams, course website)
• Description of mentorship experiences
• Description of relevant DELTA courses

 

6. Service

Students should list activities they have undertaken on behalf of their professional communities that may include the department, university, and field.

• Description of service to the Department
• Description of service to the University
• Description of service to the field (e.g., manuscript reviewing, roles in professional organizations)

 

7. Transcript

All students should include an (unofficial) copy of their current transcript documenting their coursework and grades and a copy of their departmental progress report (available from the Graduate Program Manager). At the time of final evaluation of the portfolio, their transcript must confirm that they have completed all required coursework.

Goals and Format of Prelims  The goals for the preliminary exams are to promote mastery of the breadth of ideas in Social Psychology as well as a set of professional capabilities including reviewing and consideration of methods and issues in the conduct our science. Together these skills will help to prepare students to become independent thinkers and scholars, capable of launching their own professional careers.  

Components of the revised prelims will be:

Prepare a review of a scholarly article submitted to a journal.   Reviewing journal articles is one of the most frequent and important tasks we complete as scholars in the discipline.  The goal of this requirement is to develop an understanding of what a review should entail and to practice preparing reviews. To wit, students will complete at least one review (overseen by advisor) written in the year before prelims are taken.  The target paper should be long enough to warrant a review of approximately 2 pages. In the process, students should think about the role of the reviewer and the role of the editor in the review process.  Students should also consider the author’s perspective when drafting the review.  Writing critical (often the, perhaps too, easy part) yet constructive reviews (the more challenging and possibly more important part) is critical to progress in science.

Lead one proseminar a topic of interest that is not the student’s specific research topic.   Leading discussions is an important skill to develop for the purposes of teaching, participating in proseminar, and more general discussion of the issues related to the field.  The goal is to encourage breadth in thinking about the field. Examples of possible topics include but are not limited to: Use of control groups, power, replication, good research practices.  Pretty much any topic that facilitates good discussion of critical issues to doing quality science or to advancing theory would be appropriate.  Students should present a 10-15 minute overview and then serve as discussion leader.  The topic should be approved by all members of the social area.

In class portion of the prelim. As has been true historically, there will be an in class portion of the prelim.  The goal of this portion of the prelim is for students to demonstrate mastery of the substance of our discipline.  Mastering the substance of the discipline is essential for doing one’s own science in the field and it is essential for engaging with other scholars, reviewing, engaging is dialogue/debate about issues in the field, etc.  Historically, there has been considerable choice in the questions students could answer on the prelim.  The downside of such latitude in choosing what to answer is that students could selectively prepare for the exam.  Moving forward, the format will be similar to years gone by (e.g., identifications, short answer, longer essays), but students will have less choice in questions to answer.

The “at home” portion of the prelim will be a scholarly paper.   Historically, the take home exam included 5 essay questions (one typically being an article to review) and was completed over a 1-week period. Moving forward, students will prepare a scholarly a paper aimed at outlining the future issues to be addressed in the student’s research area. Writing this type of paper is a professional productive activity and could lead to a publication.  It should be roughly 30 pages of text excluding references.  For most students, the paper should serve to launch dissertation ideas.  A one-page paper proposal is required four months before the paper due date. All of these components will be evaluated by all members of the social area, except the review, which is subject to confidentiality constraints. In addition to readings in P728, the faculty expects students qualifying for candidacy to have read the following classic papers.  Questions about these pared may be posed on the in-class portion of the prelim.  Question for the in class exam, however, are not limited to these readings. Students should be up-to-date in their journal reading and conversant with topics covered in brownbag sessions (e.g., outside speakers, field related discussions led by faculty or other students).  

---

Asch, S.E. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American, 193, 35–35. Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24(3), 285-290. Hastorf, A.H., & Cantril, H. (1954). They saw a game: A case study. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 49, 129-134. Janis, I.L. (1971). Groupthink. Psychology Today, 5, 43-36. Jones, E. E. (1979). The rocky road from acts to dispositions. American Psychologist, 34(2), 107-117. Jones, E. E., & Nisbett, R. E. (1971). The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior. Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behavior, 79–94. Katz, D., & Braly, K. (1933). Racial stereotypes of one hundred college students. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 28, 280-290. Latane, B., & Darley, J. Bystander “Apathy”, American Scientist, 1969, 57, 244-268. Lepper, M. R., Greene, D., & Nisbett, R. E. Under- mining children’s intrinsic interest with extrinsic rewards: A test of the overjustification hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1973, 28, 129-137.  Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67,  371–378. Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1966). Teacher’s expectancies: Determinants of pupils’ IQ gains.  Psychological Reports, 19, 115-118. Schachter, S., & Singer, J. E. (1962). Cognitive, social, and physiological determinants of emotional state. Psychological Review, 69, 379-399. Sherif, M. (1961). Experiments in group conflict, Scientific American, 195, 54-58. Snyder, M., Tanke, E.D., & Berscheid, E. (1977). Social perception and interpersonal behavior. On the  self-fulfilling nature of social stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 656- 666. Tajfel, H., (1970). Experiments in intergroup prejudice. Scientific American, 233, 96-102. Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social  Psychology, 9, 1–27.