Phase One Application Preparation

Dissertation Overview

Before discussing the individual components of the Dissertation Overview section, it may be helpful to understand the role each one plays in the application. Although these materials describe the same dissertation, they serve different purposes.

The Abstract helps orient the reader to the project. The Research Question identifies the central intellectual problem the dissertation seeks to address. The Project Summary explains the project as a whole, including its question, contribution, methods, and significance. The Bibliography situates the project within the scholarly conversations most relevant to the work.

Each component helps reviewers understand a different aspect of the dissertation. Approaching them as distinct tasks will often result in a stronger application.

Abstract

Up to 200 words

The abstract is often the first description of the project that reviewers and administrators encounter. Its purpose is straightforward: to provide a concise and accurate overview of the dissertation.

A strong abstract allows a reader to quickly understand what the project studies, what question it investigates, and why that question matters. It should provide enough information to orient someone unfamiliar with the dissertation without attempting to reproduce the detail or nuance of the Project Summary.

Applicants sometimes treat the abstract as a shortened version of the Project Summary or fill it with specialized language that assumes extensive disciplinary knowledge. In practice, the most effective abstracts are often the clearest and most direct. A reader should be able to identify the topic, central question, and general approach of the dissertation after a single reading.

Remember that the abstract serves multiple purposes within the review process. It helps orient reviewers, but it also helps the Foundation understand the nature of the project, identify common themes across applications, and assess how the dissertation relates to the Fellowship’s mission. Clarity is therefore more valuable than sophistication. The goal is not to impress the reader. The goal is to help the reader understand the project quickly and accurately.

Research Question

Up to 250 words

This section asks a deceptively simple question: What is the central question your dissertation seeks to answer?

Applicants often respond by describing a topic, field of study, historical period, population, or body of literature. While this information may be important, it is not the same thing as identifying the question that organizes the project.
A strong response helps the reader understand what problem, puzzle, tension, or uncertainty motivates the dissertation. What are you trying to understand? What is not yet adequately explained? What question drives the research forward?

For reviewers, this section provides an early indication of the project’s intellectual coherence. Clear questions often lead to clear projects. If the central question is difficult to identify, reviewers may struggle to understand how the various parts of the dissertation fit together.

This section also creates an opportunity to clarify the relationship between the dissertation and the Fellowship’s mission. Applicants need not force the language of religion, ethics, values, or morals into their answer. However, if those concerns are central to the project, they should be visible in the way the question itself is framed.

The strongest responses are usually concise, focused, and specific. A reader should finish this section with a clear understanding of the question that makes the dissertation necessary.

Project Summary

Up to 1,000 words

The Project Summary is the centerpiece of the Phase 1 application. While the abstract provides orientation and the Research Question identifies the central inquiry, the Project Summary allows applicants to explain the dissertation as a whole.

Reviewers are not looking for a chapter-by-chapter description of the dissertation. They are trying to understand the intellectual shape of the project. What question is being asked? Why does it matter? How does the dissertation approach that question? What contribution does it make?

The section asks applicants to address four elements: the central problem or question, the project’s primary argument or contribution, the methods or sources employed, and the significance of the work within the field. These elements should not be treated as separate boxes to be checked. The strongest summaries weave them together into a coherent explanation of the project.

Because Newcombe is an interdisciplinary competition, clarity is particularly important. Reviewers should not need specialized knowledge of a subfield to understand what is at stake. This does not mean simplifying the scholarship. It means explaining it clearly enough that an educated reader outside the field can understand the project’s purpose, approach, and significance.

Applicants sometimes assume that the goal of the Project Summary is to demonstrate the complexity of the dissertation. In practice, the goal is understanding. A strong summary helps readers quickly grasp what the project is about, why it matters, and why the dissertation is worth supporting.

Perhaps most importantly, this section should help reviewers see the dissertation as a complete intellectual project rather than a collection of research activities, case studies, or chapters. By the end of the Project Summary, a reviewer should understand not only what the applicant is studying, but what the dissertation contributes to the scholarly conversation and why that contribution matters.

Applicants selected as finalists and invited into the Phase 2 application will have an opportunity to present the project in greater depth through a longer proposal. The purpose of the Project Summary is not to provide a comprehensive account of the dissertation or engage every relevant scholarly debate. Rather, it is to provide a clear explanation of the project’s central question, contribution, methods, and significance.

Some applicants worry that a 1,000-word summary cannot adequately capture the full complexity of a dissertation project. That is true—and it is by design. The purpose of Phase 1 is not to conduct a comprehensive scholarly evaluation of every application. Rather, it is to help reviewers understand the project clearly enough to determine whether it merits further consideration. In this sense, the Project Summary explains the project. It answers questions such as: What are you studying? What question motivates the dissertation? Why does it matter? Those applicants selected as finalists will later have an opportunity to submit a longer proposal. That proposal serves a different purpose. It allows reviewers to engage the scholarship in greater depth, assess the project’s originality and intellectual contribution, and evaluate how persuasively the dissertation advances its claims.

Put simply, the Project Summary explains the project; the Proposal in Phase 2 demonstrates the scholarship.

Selected Bibliography

Up to 25 sources

The purpose of the Selected Bibliography is to help reviewers understand the intellectual foundations of the dissertation.

Applicants are not expected to provide a comprehensive dissertation bibliography. Nor are reviewers using this section to count citations, assess completeness, or determine whether every relevant source has been included. Instead, the bibliography should provide a concise picture of the scholarly conversations most central to the project.

As you select sources, ask yourself: Which works are most important for understanding the intellectual foundations of this dissertation? Which authors, debates, theories, methods, or historical conversations have most directly shaped the project?

The strongest bibliographies are representative rather than exhaustive. They help reviewers understand where the dissertation is situated intellectually and how it relates to existing scholarship. A carefully chosen list of foundational sources is often more useful than a longer list that attempts to demonstrate comprehensiveness.

Because reviewers come from a variety of disciplines, clarity is more valuable than volume. The goal is not to prove that you have read everything. The goal is to help reviewers understand the scholarly conversation into which your dissertation enters.

Religion, Ethics, Morals and Values

Purpose of This Section

To help reviewers understand how questions of religion, ethics, morals, and values function within the dissertation and whether they are among the project’s central organizing concerns. This section also provides applicants with an opportunity to articulate the normative dimensions of their work and explain why the questions at the heart of the project matter.

What Reviewers Are Trying to Learn

Whether questions of religion, ethics, morals, or values are central to the dissertation rather than merely present; how those questions shape the project’s aims, arguments, questions, or contributions; and whether the applicant has identified a significant question that aligns with the Fellowship’s mission.

Applicants should think of this section as an opportunity to explain why the dissertation belongs in a Newcombe competition. The strongest responses do not simply identify the presence of ethical, religious, or value-related themes. They help reviewers understand why those themes matter to the project and how they contribute to its central intellectual purpose.

Centrality to Mission

Up to 300 words

If the previous section asks applicants to explain how questions of religion, ethics, values, or morals function within the dissertation, this section asks applicants to explain their own understanding of the importance of these questions. Reviewers are not simply looking for the presence of such questions. They are trying to understand the emphasis the applicant places on the role those questions play within the project as a whole.

A strong response typically addresses three related questions. What does the applicant understand to be the ethical, religious, moral, or value-related dimension of the project? Why does the applicant believe those questions are central to the dissertation? How does the applicant understand those questions to shape the project’s aims, arguments, contributions, or significance? The goal is not simply to identify the presence of these themes, but to explain the role they play in the intellectual life of the dissertation.

Applicants sometimes focus on where questions of religion, ethics, values, or morals appear within the dissertation. While this may provide useful context, it does not fully answer the question. Reviewers are less interested in where these themes appear than in understanding how the applicant understands their function within the project. How do these questions organize the inquiry? How do they shape the questions being asked? Why does the applicant believe they are essential to the dissertation’s contribution?

The strongest responses help reviewers understand not only that questions of religion, ethics, values, or morals are present, but why the applicant considers them essential to the dissertation’s intellectual purpose.

Normative Question

Unlike the Research Question, which asks what the dissertation seeks to understand or explain, the Normative Question asks applicants to identify the deeper moral, ethical, religious, or value-related question that gives the project its broader significance. What larger human concern motivates the inquiry? Why does this question deserve sustained scholarly attention?

The research question and the normative question are related, but they are not the same.
For example:
Research question: How did Islamic legal scholars in the Ottoman Empire reason about environmental stewardship?
Normative question: What responsibilities do religious traditions have in shaping human relationships with the natural world?
Or:
Research question: How do disability advocates understand autonomy in clinical decision-making?

Normative question: What does respect for human dignity require when autonomy and care come into tension?

The research question is disciplinary. The normative question is the deeper human question that gives the research its significance.

Applicants should not feel compelled to frame their work as solving a social problem, advancing a particular moral position, or offering a definitive answer to a contested question. Many successful Newcombe projects investigate questions that remain open, complex, and unresolved. The goal is not to demonstrate certainty, but to articulate the deeper question that makes the research intellectually and humanly significant.

For some projects, the normative question may involve competing values, ethical dilemmas, religious commitments, questions of justice, responsibility, authority, meaning, or human flourishing. For others, it may involve understanding how individuals, institutions, communities, or traditions navigate such concerns. In some cases, the normative question will closely resemble the research question. In others, it will operate at a different level, illuminating the broader ethical, religious, or value-related significance of the inquiry. What matters is not the category of question, but the applicant’s understanding of why that question lies at the heart of the dissertation. The strongest responses help reviewers understand not only what the dissertation investigates, but why the applicant believes that investigation matters.

Please see the Categories of Normative Complexity at the end of this document for ways in which many Newcombe Fellows have approached this question.

Technology Assistance

The purpose of this question is transparency.

The Newcombe Fellowship recognizes that AI and large language model (LLM) tools are becoming increasingly common in academic research and writing. Applicants may use a variety of tools in a variety of ways. Rather than attempting to prohibit or police those uses, the Fellowship asks applicants to disclose them openly.

This disclosure does not advantage or disadvantage an application. Reviewers are not evaluating whether AI tools were used. They are evaluating the applicant’s scholarly work. The purpose of the question is simply to provide an accurate account of how application materials were prepared.

Applicants should answer honestly and briefly. If AI tools were used, describe the nature and extent of that use. Examples might include brainstorming, outlining, editing, proofreading, or other forms of assistance. Regardless of the tools employed, applicants remain responsible for the intellectual content, accuracy, judgment, and scholarly integrity of all submitted materials.

Dissertation Progress and Fellowship Year Work Plan

Purpose of This Section:

To help reviewers understand the current status of the dissertation, the work that remains to be completed, and the role the Fellowship year will play in supporting that work.

What Reviewers Are Trying to Learn

Where the dissertation stands at the time of application, what work remains to be completed, what writing the Fellowship year will support, and whether there is a realistic relationship between the work remaining and the timeline proposed. Reviewers are ultimately trying to determine whether the project is at a stage where Newcombe support can make a meaningful contribution to successful completion.

The timeline section is designed to help reviewers understand three things: Where is the dissertation now? What work remains? What portion of that work will the Fellowship support?

The first set of questions asks about the current status of the dissertation at the time of application. Applicants identify the number of substantive chapters in the completed dissertation and indicate the status of each chapter, the introduction, and the conclusion. This information provides a snapshot of the project as it exists on the application deadline.

Because the Fellowship year does not begin until the September following the application deadline, the application also asks applicants to describe the research and writing that remain to be completed. These questions are intended to capture the work that lies between the dissertation’s current state and its successful completion.

Reviewers use this information to understand the relationship between the dissertation and the Fellowship year. How much substantive work remains? What research activities still need to occur? What writing has already been completed? What writing will take place during the Fellowship year itself?

The strongest responses provide a clear and realistic account of the project’s current status, the work that remains, and the role the Fellowship will play in supporting its completion. Reviewers are not looking for certainty or perfect prediction. They are looking for evidence that the applicant understands the scope of the remaining work and has a credible plan for carrying it forward.

Dissertation Chapters and Chapter Status

The first questions in this section ask applicants to identify the number of substantive chapters in the completed dissertation and indicate the current status of each chapter at the time of application.

These questions are intended to provide a snapshot of the dissertation as it exists at the application deadline. Reviewers are not using this information to evaluate whether a dissertation contains the “right” number of chapters or follows a particular disciplinary structure. Different fields organize dissertations in different ways. What matters is helping reviewers understand the project’s current stage of development.

Applicants should report the status of each chapter honestly and consistently. The goal is not to present the most advanced version of the dissertation possible. The goal is to provide an accurate picture of where the project stands at the time of application.

Together, the chapter-count and chapter-status questions help reviewers understand how much substantive work has already been completed and how much remains. They also provide important context for the Fellowship-Year Writing Plan that follows later in the application.

Because nearly a year will pass between the application deadline and the start of the Fellowship year, applicants should think of these questions as describing the dissertation’s present state. Questions about future work belong in the sections that follow.

Introduction and Conclusion

The application asks applicants to report the status of the introduction and conclusion separately from the dissertation’s substantive chapters. This distinction is intentional.

Introductions and conclusions are important components of a dissertation. They often contain significant intellectual work, including framing the project, articulating its contributions, and drawing together its central themes and findings. At the same time, they serve a different function than the substantive chapters that form the core of the dissertation’s analysis and argument.

For this reason, reviewers consider introductions, conclusions, and substantive chapters separately when assessing the amount and nature of the work that remains. Reporting their status independently provides a more accurate picture of the dissertation’s current stage and the writing that remains to be completed.

Applicants should not assume that introductions and conclusions are less important than substantive chapters. Nor should they assume that they are equivalent. The purpose of these questions is simply to help reviewers understand what kinds of writing remain and how that work relates to the Fellowship year.

As with the chapter-status questions, applicants should report the status of the introduction and conclusion as they exist at the time of application. Future plans for drafting or revising these sections can be discussed in the Fellowship-Year Writing Plan.

Remaining Research

This section asks applicants to describe any major research activities that must still be completed before the dissertation can be finished. Examples might include archival research, fieldwork, interviews, data collection, document analysis, language study, or other forms of evidence gathering.

The purpose of this question is not to account for every task that remains between the application date and completion of the dissertation. Rather, it is intended to help reviewers understand whether significant research activities remain and how those activities relate to the Fellowship year.

Applicants should focus on substantive research rather than writing, revision, editing, committee review, or administrative milestones. Those activities may be important to the completion of the dissertation, but they are addressed elsewhere in the application.

The Newcombe Fellowship is designed primarily to support students who are entering the final writing stage of the dissertation. As a result, most research should already be complete at the time of application. While some remaining research is entirely appropriate—and in some cases necessary for successful completion—applicants should be able to demonstrate that the Fellowship year will be devoted primarily to writing rather than evidence gathering.

Reviewers are not looking for a particular amount of remaining research. They are trying to understand the current stage of the project and how the remaining research relates to the work that will be completed during the Fellowship year.

Fellowship-Year Writing Plan

This section asks applicants to describe the substantive writing that will be completed during the Fellowship year. It is the culminating question of the Dissertation Progress and Fellowship-Year Work Plan section.

The purpose of this question is not to produce a month-by-month schedule. Rather, it is to help reviewers understand how the Fellowship year will be used and what intellectual work remains to be completed. Reviewers are trying to understand the relationship between the dissertation’s current status and the year of support being requested.

As you prepare your response, it may be helpful to think about three questions: Where is the dissertation now? What work remains? What portion of that work will be completed during the Fellowship year?

Strong responses distinguish clearly between different kinds of work. Applicants should identify which substantive chapters remain to be drafted, whether the introduction or conclusion will be written during the Fellowship year, and what revision work will remain on existing chapters. Reviewers are not simply interested in whether writing remains. They are trying to understand the nature of that writing and its relationship to the Fellowship year.

Applicants sometimes assume that the strongest timelines are the most ambitious. In practice, the strongest responses are often the clearest and most realistic. A persuasive plan demonstrates a credible relationship between the work remaining and the year of support being requested.

It is also important to remember the purpose of the Fellowship itself. Newcombe is designed to support a year of substantive dissertation writing. The strongest applications demonstrate that meaningful intellectual work will take place during the Fellowship year. Applicants are expected to have moved beyond the research stage and into the writing stage of the dissertation. It is entirely appropriate—and often expected—that some chapters will not have been fully written and will be completed during the Fellowship year. At the same time, the Fellowship is generally not intended for projects that are already substantially complete and require only minor revisions, formatting, or defense preparation. The goal is to demonstrate a clear and credible relationship between the work remaining and the year of support being requested.

Many applicants focus heavily on projected completion dates. While completion remains important, reviewers are often more interested in the writing itself. A dissertation defended in August of the Fellowship year may be a stronger fit than one completed in April for a May
graduation if the later project involves more substantial writing during the Fellowship year. The central question is not simply when the dissertation will be finished. The central question is what intellectual work remains and how the Fellowship year will support its completion.

Expected Completion

The final questions in this section ask applicants to estimate when they expect to complete a full dissertation draft, submit the dissertation to their committee, and defend the dissertation.

These dates help reviewers understand how the Fellowship year relates to the applicant’s overall completion plan. They are not intended to measure ambition, efficiency, or certainty. Dissertation projects evolve, research findings change, committee feedback can alter timelines, and unexpected delays are common. Reviewers understand this.

Applicants should provide their best good-faith estimates based on their current understanding of the project. The goal is not to predict the future perfectly. The goal is to demonstrate a realistic understanding of the work that remains.

Applicants sometimes assume that the strongest applications are those with the earliest completion dates. For Newcombe, that is not necessarily the case. The Fellowship is intended to support a year of substantive dissertation writing. As a result, reviewers are often more interested in the relationship between the Fellowship year and the remaining intellectual work than in the speed of completion itself.

While many Fellows complete and defend before spring or summer graduation deadlines, applicants should remember that the Fellowship year extends through August. In some cases, a defense scheduled for late summer or early fall may be entirely appropriate if it reflects a meaningful amount of writing taking place during the Fellowship year.

The central question is not simply when the dissertation will be completed. The central question is whether the Fellowship year provides meaningful support for the work required to complete it.

Intellectual and professional profile

Purpose of This Section:

To help reviewers understand the applicant’s scholarly development and preparation for the dissertation project.

What Reviewers Are Trying to Learn:

What experiences, accomplishments, and forms of intellectual engagement have prepared the applicant to undertake the proposed dissertation successfully.

The dissertation materials help reviewers understand the project. This section shifts attention to the scholar who is carrying it out.

The Scholarly Profile provides an opportunity to highlight the experiences, accomplishments, and intellectual engagements that have been most important in preparing you for this work. Rather than repeating information contained in the CV, applicants should focus on the aspects of their scholarly development that are most relevant to understanding the dissertation and their readiness to complete it successfully.

Scholarly Profile

The Scholarly Profile provides context for your development as a scholar and helps reviewers understand the preparation that supports the proposed dissertation project.

Because a curriculum vitae is also included in the application, this section should not be approached as a comprehensive inventory of publications, presentations, awards, fellowships, teaching experiences, or professional accomplishments. Reviewers can find that information in the CV. Instead, the Scholarly Profile provides an opportunity to highlight the experiences that have been most important in preparing you to undertake and complete this work. These may include publications, conference presentations, teaching, fellowships, public scholarship, professional experience related to the dissertation, or other forms of intellectual engagement. The goal is not to demonstrate breadth for its own sake. Rather, it is to help reviewers understand the preparation that supports the proposed project.

Strong responses are selective and interpretive. They do not simply list accomplishments. They explain why particular experiences mattered and how they contributed to the development of the skills, knowledge, expertise, or perspectives necessary to undertake the dissertation successfully.

By the end of this section, reviewers should have a clearer understanding of the preparation that supports the project and the experiences that have helped equip the applicant to carry it out.

Recommendations

Purpose of This Section:

To provide reviewers with a brief external assessment of the applicant’s scholarly readiness, project fit, and likelihood of successful completion.

What Reviewers Are Trying to Learn:

Whether a faculty member familiar with the applicant’s work believes the student is prepared to undertake advanced doctoral research, whether the project aligns with the Fellowship’s mission, and whether the applicant appears well-positioned to complete the dissertation successfully.

Unlike many fellowship competitions, the Newcombe Fellowship does not require full recommendation letters during Phase 1 of the application process. Instead, recommenders complete a brief evaluative rubric and may provide a short optional statement. One recommender
must be the dissertation advisor. Applicants should choose a second recommender who knows their scholarly work and dissertation project well, since both recommenders will be asked to provide detailed letters of recommendation should the applicant advance to Phase 2 as a finalist.

This approach serves two purposes. It allows reviewers to obtain a limited external perspective on the applicant and project, and it also reduces the burden placed on faculty by reserving full recommendation letters for the smaller group of applicants who advance to Phase 2.

Applicants should not think of this recommendation form as a substitute for a traditional letter. The goal is not to provide a detailed evaluation of every aspect of the applicant’s academic career. Rather, the form helps reviewers confirm several key considerations, including scholarly preparedness, alignment with the Fellowship’s mission, intellectual promise, and likelihood of timely completion.

Because the recommendation form is intentionally brief, applicants should ensure that their recommenders are familiar with both the dissertation project and the goals of the Fellowship. A thoughtful response from someone who understands the project well is often more helpful than a longer response from someone with limited familiarity.

If an applicant advances to Phase 2, recommenders will later be asked to provide full letters of recommendation. Those letters allow reviewers to evaluate the scholarship and the scholar in greater depth. The Phase 1 recommendation form serves a different purpose: it provides a concise external perspective that helps reviewers determine which projects warrant further consideration.

Optional Guidance for Communicating with Recommenders

Applicants should contact recommenders and complete the recommender section of the application as early as possible. When making the request, be sure to communicate the recommendation deadline clearly and provide any supporting materials that may be helpful. Even though the Phase 1 recommendation takes the form of a brief evaluation rubric rather than a traditional letter, it still requires faculty members to set aside time to review materials and provide thoughtful responses. Waiting until the application deadline approaches places unnecessary pressure on both applicants and recommenders.

Many applicants find it helpful to provide recommenders with a brief explanation of the Fellowship and the recommendation process. Doing so can help ensure that recommenders understand the purpose of the Fellowship, the nature of the Phase 1 recommendation rubric, and the timeline for submission.

The goal is not to tell recommenders what to write, but rather to provide sufficient context for them to complete the rubric effectively. Applicants may also wish to share a current CV, dissertation abstract, Project Summary, or other materials that help explain the project and its relationship to the Fellowship.

Below you will find sample language that may be adapted into your own words when contacting a recommender.

Suggested Email Language

Thank you for agreeing to serve as a recommender for my application to the Charlotte W. Newcombe Doctoral Dissertation Fellowship. The deadline for submitting the recommendation is November 1.

The Newcombe Fellowship supports doctoral dissertation projects that engage significant questions related to religion, ethics, morals, or values. The Fellowship is intended for students in the final writing stage of the dissertation and supports a year of substantive dissertation writing.

For the initial stage of review, recommenders are asked to complete a brief evaluation rubric rather than a traditional recommendation letter. The rubric asks for your assessment of my scholarly preparation, the project’s relationship to the Fellowship’s mission, and my likelihood of successfully completing the dissertation. There is also an opportunity to provide a brief optional comment.

I have attached materials that may be helpful as you complete the recommendation, including my dissertation abstract, Project Summary, and CV. I would also be happy to discuss the project or the Fellowship if additional context would be useful.

Thank you again for your time and support.