dissertation-prospectus

Dissertation Prospectus Writing

Write dissertation prospectuses and proposals for anthropological research that satisfy both committee expectations (intellectual coherence, feasibility, scholarly preparation) and — when dual-purpose — funder requirements (compliance, risk mitigation, credible execution). The strongest prospectuses are modular: adaptable into a committee document, a fundable grant narrative, and an ethics dossier without full rewrites.

Quick Reference

Task	Reference
Full prospectus guidance (sections, length norms, evaluation criteria, examples)	Read references/prospectus-guide.md
NSF DDRIG-specific requirements (if dual-purpose)	Load from grant-proposal skill: references/nsf-cultural-anthro.md
Wenner-Gren-specific requirements (if dual-purpose)	Load from grant-proposal skill: references/wenner-gren.md
Fulbright-specific requirements (if dual-purpose)	Load from grant-proposal skill: references/fulbright.md

Workflow

Step 1: Identify What the User Needs

Determine the entry point:

• Writing from scratch. The user has a topic and needs to build a full prospectus. Load the full reference file and work through sections in order.
• Revising an existing draft. The user has a draft and wants feedback or help improving specific sections. Identify which sections need work and load the relevant guidance from the reference file.
• Adapting format. The user has a prospectus for one context and needs to adapt it for another (e.g., committee prospectus → NSF DDRIG application). Load both the prospectus reference and the relevant funder reference.

Step 2: Gather Context

Before generating any content, ask for these required inputs:

1. Program and milestone. Which institution? Which milestone (US qualifying exam, UK upgrade/transfer, UK fieldwork clearance, other)? This determines length norms, required components, and evaluation criteria.
2. Research topic and site(s). What is the project about and where will fieldwork occur?
3. Epistemic stance. Which theoretical orientation(s) does the researcher work within? Ask which is primary and which are secondary.
4. Target funder (if dual-purpose). Is this prospectus also serving as the basis for an NSF DDRIG, Wenner-Gren, Fulbright, or other application?
5. Stage of development. Starting from scratch, refining a draft, or adapting to a different format?

Helpful but not required: theoretical framework, preliminary fieldwork or pilot data, language competencies, committee composition, timeline constraints.

Step 3: Load Appropriate Reference

Always load references/prospectus-guide.md for the full section-by-section guidance, length norms, evaluation criteria, and examples.

If the user is writing a dual-purpose document, also load the relevant funder reference from the grant-proposal skill to ensure the prospectus satisfies both audiences simultaneously.

Step 4: Generate Output

Follow the section structure and proportional allocations in the reference file. Key principles:

• Modular design. Each section should work both for the committee and for potential funder adaptation.
• Theory as leverage. Theoretical positioning shows what conceptual work becomes possible, not just allegiance to a framework.
• Methods as inferential design. Specify evidence, justify the site-method pairing, and show how analysis proceeds.
• Ethics as first-class content. Address consent modality, community obligations, and data protection substantively — not as boilerplate.
• Contingency planning. Include a Plan B methodology.
• Match length and format norms. US prospectuses range from 8-10 pages (Berkeley) to 25-30 pages (Harvard). UK proposals range from 7,000 to 20,000 words depending on milestone.

Step 5: Quality Check

Before presenting output, verify:

• Research questions are fieldwork-operational AND theoretically motivated
• Theoretical positioning shows leverage, not just allegiance
• Literature review is selective, problem-centered, and multi-tradition
• Methods section specifies evidence, justifies site-method pairing, and includes analysis plan
• Ethics section addresses consent modality, community obligations, and data protection substantively
• Timeline includes pre-fieldwork workstreams
• Budget is itemized and connected to the evidence plan
• Contingency plan is present
• Tone is confident without overclaiming
• Output matches the user's program length and format requirements
• Epistemic stance is reflected consistently throughout
• If dual-purpose: all funder-specific requirements are met

Parameters

• Epistemic stance: All 42 stances are relevant. Most dissertations combine a primary and one or more secondary stances.
• Genre/audience: Committee prospectus, dual-purpose prospectus + grant, UK upgrade/transfer, UK fieldwork clearance.
• Compression: 8-10 pages (short US), 20-30 pages (long US), 7,000-20,000 words (UK, varies by milestone).
• Risk posture: Low-risk, vulnerable populations, high-surveillance, politically sensitive.
• Formality register: Disciplinary (default for committee audiences).
• Field configuration: Single site, multi-sited, digital, archival, hybrid.

Guardrails

• Do not generate content without knowing the program and milestone. Length norms, required components, and evaluation criteria differ significantly between US and UK programs and between institutions. Ask first.
• Do not produce ethics sections that are boilerplate. Ethics must address the specific consent modality, community obligations, and data protection concerns relevant to the project. If the risk posture is elevated, ethics protections must match.
• Do not omit contingency planning. All prospectuses should include a Plan B methodology, even when not formally required.
• Flag dual-purpose tension. When a prospectus serves both committee and funder audiences, flag any points where their expectations diverge (e.g., NSF requires falsifiable questions; committees may accept more interpretive framing).
• Do not overclaim. Epistemic humility about what the research will and will not be able to show is a mark of sophistication.

Common Failure Modes

Failure mode	Prevention
Overbreadth — too many questions, none convincing	Limit to 2-4 tightly articulated questions
Ethics as afterthought — perfunctory section	Make ethics a workflow step throughout
Vague analysis plan — "I will use thematic analysis"	Specify coding approach, triangulation, what constitutes a claim
Methods as menu — lists techniques without logic	Frame as inferential design generating specific evidence
No contingency — assumes everything goes to plan	Include Plan B with alternative methods and claim limitations
Answers already known — telegraphs conclusions	Frame genuinely open questions; acknowledge uncertainty
Generic literature review — lists without argument	Make the review an argument about where this project intervenes
Mission mismatch — description without theory contribution	Connect every methods choice to a theoretical claim

Examples

Example 1: US sociocultural prospectus (Berkeley-style)

Input: "I'm writing my prospectus for my QE at Berkeley. My project is about how Senegalese migrants in Paris use WhatsApp groups to maintain translocal kinship networks. I work within an interpretivist framework drawing on practice theory and digital anthropology."

Output approach:

• Load references/prospectus-guide.md
• Set length to 8-10 pages (Berkeley tight format)
• Set epistemic stance to interpretivist + practice theory
• Set field configuration to multi-sited (Paris + digital + Senegal)
• Methods: participant observation in WhatsApp groups, life history interviews, multi-sited fieldwork logic
• Analysis: iterative coding with practice-theoretical categories

Example 2: UK fieldwork proposal (Cambridge-style)

Input: "I need to write my fieldwork proposal for Cambridge clearance. My research examines Indigenous water governance in Bolivia's Altiplano. I work within decolonial and political ecology traditions."

Output approach:

• Load references/prospectus-guide.md
• Set length to 7,000 words
• Set epistemic stance to decolonial + political ecology
• Set risk posture to politically sensitive + Indigenous communities
• Methods: foreground community authority, reciprocity, Indigenous knowledge sovereignty; include CARE Principles for data management
• Flag: separate risk assessment form also needed

Example 3: Dual-purpose prospectus + NSF DDRIG

Input: "I'm writing my dissertation prospectus and I also want to adapt it for my NSF DDRIG application. My project studies algorithmic hiring systems in tech companies from an STS perspective."

Output approach:

• Load references/prospectus-guide.md AND nsf-cultural-anthro.md
• Generate committee prospectus first, then flag NSF-specific adaptations
• NSF requires labeled intellectual merit and broader impacts sections, falsifiable questions, explicit analysis plan, data management plan
• Frame STS questions with falsifiable stakes for NSF audience