This page contains some of my musings about the SSHRC doctoral proposal that funded my PhD research, along with reflections on how the project changed once research began.

The aim here is to show how proposals operate as planning documents, how they persuade reviewers that a project is doable, and how projects inevitably evolve in practice.

Original proposal materials appear alongside commentary on what worked, what changed, and what I would approach differently now.

Context

In 2013, I received SSHRC doctoral funding for a project titled The Debunkers: Moral Identity in the Skeptical Movement.

The proposal focused on organized skepticism and science advocacy, examining how individuals build moral identities around critical thinking and opposition to pseudoscience. Public skeptical actions such as the coordinated homeopathy overdoses in the UK served as examples of how skepticism blends science communication with moral concern and civic engagement.

At the time, the project seemed clearly centered on skepticism as a movement organized around defending science in public life.

The dissertation that eventually emerged followed some of these threads, though fieldwork gradually shifted the focus toward atheist identity and lifestyle activism.

Proposal documents

What the proposal tried to do

The proposal aimed to examine the skeptical movement as a form of lifestyle or identity-based activism centered on defending science and countering pseudoscience.

Core questions included:

  • Why do individuals participate in the skeptical movement?
  • How do skeptics construct a shared identity around critical thinking?
  • How does activism operate when expressed through everyday practices rather than conventional political protest?

Methodologically, the project proposed interviews, participant observation, and analysis of movement media and online discourse.

In hindsight, two elements mattered most for funding success: the opening framing and the feasibility story.

Writing moves that helped the proposal

Looking back, the proposal’s early paragraphs do a lot of heavy lifting. At the time, I was mostly operating on instinct. In hindsight, some recognizable writing moves show up that are worth making explicit.

Grant reviewers rarely read proposals in ideal conditions. They read quickly, across disciplines, and often while mentally triaging risk. Early paragraphs therefore function less as introduction and more as orientation. They tell the reader what kind of project they are about to spend time with.

Opening with an event

The proposal opens with a vivid public action: skeptics staging a mass homeopathic overdose outside pharmacies. This move accomplishes several things quickly.

It gives reviewers a concrete scene instead of an abstract concept. It signals public relevance. It shows skepticism producing visible social action. And it anchors the project in recognizable debates about science and misinformation (which is a lot to ask of four sentences).

From a writing standpoint, this also solves a common proposal problem: abstract nouns piling up too early. Starting with an event forces sentences to contain actors doing things, which naturally produces clearer subjects and verbs.

Reviewers read many proposals that begin with phrases like “In contemporary society…” or “There has been increasing attention to…”. Beginning with people doing something memorable helps a project feel grounded before theory enters the picture.

Moving from event to problem

The next move widens the lens from the overdose event to broader concerns, such as science communication, misinformation, and civic engagement.

Structurally, this is a paragraph-level zoom-out. The writing moves from scene to stakes. Good proposal paragraphs often alternate between concrete illustration and conceptual framing so readers never lose sight of either.

At the sentence level, this section works because each sentence answers the implicit reviewer question: Why does this matter beyond this specific case? Paragraphs feel coherent when sentences visibly build toward answering a shared question.

Framing identity as the analytical focus

Instead of presenting skeptics simply as activists, the proposal frames them as participants in moral identity work. This connects the project to established sociological literatures on identity, lifestyle movements, and social change.

From a writing perspective, this is where the proposal tells reviewers which intellectual conversations the project belongs to.

These sentences tend to succeed when they move from concrete case to theoretical conversation in small steps rather than leaps. Each sentence names a recognizable scholarly domain so the reader feels orientation instead of surprise.

Showing continuity with prior work

The proposal ties the project to my master’s research and doctoral preparation.

Writing-wise, this section reassures the reader by constructing a narrative of competence. Sentences link past work, current training, and future research into a single trajectory.

Funding committees often look for evidence that a student can realistically complete the proposed work. Demonstrating that you have already been circling the problem space helps the proposal feel like the next logical step instead of a speculative leap.

Paragraph mechanics.

Each paragraph performs one main function. When paragraphs try to accomplish multiple rhetorical jobs, proposals start to feel dense and uncertain.

Successful proposal paragraphs often follow a rhythm:

  1. Establish a clear focus in the first sentence.
  2. Develop or illustrate that focus.
  3. End with a sentence that points toward the next move.

Nothing flashy.

Sentence-level choices

Proposal writing often improves once sentences make responsibility and action visible. Sentences become easier to process when someone is clearly doing something.

Compare:

Science communication is increasingly characterized by challenges associated with misinformation.

with:

Advocacy groups, media actors, and political campaigns now compete to shape how scientific information reaches the public.

The second version contains actors and actions. The reader can picture movement instead of decoding abstraction.

Proposals also benefit from limiting stacked abstractions. Phrases like identity formation processes within contexts of legitimacy negotiation compress too many conceptual steps into one unit. Expanding them into sequential claims often improves clarity.

Short sentences also help reviewers breathe. Dense prose slows evaluation and raises perceived risk. Clarity reads as feasibility.

None of this requires stylistic brilliance.

Feasibility

Committees, if they have their heads screwed on right, ask a simple question: Can this person actually finish this project?

Several feasibility signals likely helped here.

A bounded research site

The project focused on identifiable communities in Edmonton, including groups I had already interacted with. Recruitment and access therefore appeared realistic.

A project that requires international travel or rare populations often raises risk concerns.

Manageable methods

Interviews, participant observation, and content analysis are standard qualitative methods. They do not require expensive equipment or complex logistics.

Supervisory support

The proposal clearly connected the project to supervisory expertise and available research resources, including archival materials.

This reassures committees that institutional support exists, which is a nice thing to have when you’re bleeding at the typewriter.

Demonstrated preparation

Coursework, prior research, and thesis work showed preparation in theory and methods. I guess that probably matters.

Realistic scale

Twenty-five interviews and local fieldwork sound achievable. Proposals collapse when their ambitions exceed doctoral time constraints.

How the dissertation actually evolved

The funded proposal and completed dissertation share roots, though the empirical focus shifted once fieldwork began.

While skepticism framed the original project, interviews revealed strong overlap between skeptical and atheist communities. Conversations frequently moved beyond pseudoscience toward questions of belonging, identity, and secular life.

Gradually, the project shifted toward examining atheist identity formation and lifestyle activism.

Several changes stand out.

From skepticism to atheism

Community boundaries proved porous. Participants often identified with both skeptical and atheist movements, making strict separation artificial.

From science advocacy to identity negotiation

Public science defense remained present, though personal identity struggles became analytically central.

From organized action to lifestyle politics

Activism appeared less as protest and more as everyday commitments, social networks, and identity practices.

The dissertation, Atheist Identity and Lifestyle Among Activists in Edmonton, therefore moved toward secular identity formation rather than skepticism alone.

What I misunderstood at the time

Several assumptions now look optimistic.

I assumed skeptical communities would operate as distinct movement spaces. In practice, identities crossed multiple secular networks.

I also underestimated how much internal disagreement shapes activist communities.