Applications and Approvals

Faculty advisor approval is a required part of the application process. It confirms both that you are willing to serve as the student's faculty advisor and that you support the proposed project as an appropriate foundation for the student's URS thesis.

Before an application reaches you, the Office of Undergraduate Research reviews the student and faculty advisor for program eligibility. Eligible applications are then routed to the faculty advisor for review and approval before proceeding to an additional round of proposal review.

What Does Faculty Advisor Approval Mean?

By approving a URS application, you are confirming that you have discussed the proposed project with the student and are willing to mentor the student through the research and thesis process.

Approval also indicates that, based on your disciplinary expertise, you believe the proposed work provides a reasonable path toward an undergraduate thesis.

We do not expect the proposal to predict every aspect of the research. Projects evolve, methods change, results are unexpected, and some questions lead in different directions than anticipated. The purpose of the application is not to lock the student into an inflexible research plan.

Instead, the proposal should demonstrate that the student has a clear, feasible starting point and understands enough about the project to explain what they intend to investigate, how they expect to approach the work, and what their individual contribution will be.

Before You Approve

As you review an application, consider the project as a whole rather than just one part of a long process. 

In particular, we encourage you to consider:

• Scope and feasibility. Can the proposed work reasonably develop into a thesis within the URS timeline?
• Student contribution. Is the student's individual role sufficiently defined, particularly if the work is part of a larger project or research group?
• Research approach. Does the proposed methodology or scholarly approach make sense for the question and discipline?
• Student understanding. Does the proposal demonstrate that the student understands the purpose of the project and can explain the work they will undertake?
• Available support. Will the student have reasonable access to the mentorship, resources, data, facilities, materials, or other support necessary to pursue the project?
• Readiness to proceed. Are there substantive issues that should be addressed before the proposal moves to the next stage of review?

The proposal does not need to describe a completed project. In many cases, students are applying while research is still developing. What we are looking for is a viable plan for moving forward.

Approve or Return for Revision

If the application accurately reflects the project and you are comfortable with the proposed plan, you may approve it.

If substantive changes are needed, return the application to the student for revision rather than approving it with the expectation that the issue will be addressed later. The student can revise the application and resubmit it to you for approval.

Returning an application for revision is not a negative outcome. In many cases, it is an important part of helping a student articulate the project more clearly before an external reviewer sees it.

A revision may be appropriate when the scope is unrealistic, the student's individual contribution is unclear, the research question and proposed approach do not align, important project information is missing, or the written proposal does not accurately represent the work you and the student have discussed.

The goal is not perfection. The goal is for the proposal that leaves the advisor-review stage to be one that both the student and faculty advisor can stand behind.

What Happens After You Approve?

Once the faculty advisor approves the application, UGR moves the proposal into the external proposal-review process. A trained proposal reviewer evaluates the proposal and either approves it or requests revisions.

The proposal reviewer serves a different role from the faculty advisor. You bring detailed knowledge of the student, project, research environment, and discipline. The proposal reviewer provides an additional perspective on whether the student has communicated the project and their individual contribution effectively.

A request for revision should therefore not be interpreted as a rejection of the project or a criticism of the faculty advisor's approval. The review process is intended to help students strengthen the proposal and demonstrate that they can communicate their research to an informed reader beyond their immediate research environment.

If the Proposal Reviewer Requests Revisions

If one of our proposal reviewers requests revisions, the application is returned to the student with reviewer feedback. The student revises the proposal and submits the revised version through the application process.

You will be notified when the revised document is submitted, but you are not required to approve the application a second time. The revised proposal proceeds through the reviewer process without repeating the initial faculty advisor approval step.

We still encourage students to discuss substantive reviewer feedback with their faculty advisor when appropriate. External reviewers can identify questions or areas that need clarification, but the faculty advisor remains the student's primary source of disciplinary guidance.

Research That Changes After Approval

An approved proposal is a starting point, not a contract requiring the research to unfold exactly as predicted.

Research changes for many legitimate reasons, and a project may need to narrow considerably once the student begins the work. 

Reasonable evolution is part of research and does not, by itself, indicate a problem. However, faculty advisors should contact UGR when a change becomes substantial enough that there is a question about whether the student's work still represents the project approved for URS, whether the student's individual contribution has materially changed, or whether the revised scope can still reasonably support a thesis within the program timeline.

One of the most important questions during application review is whether the proposal clearly identifies the student's own work.

This is particularly important for students working in laboratories, research groups, faculty-led projects, or other collaborative environments. URS does not require the student's research to be disconnected from a larger project. Collaborative research is a normal and valuable part of scholarship.

The proposal should, however, make it possible for a reviewer to understand the student's role within that larger context.