Assess whether you are well-positioned to write a detailed and convincing letter of reference. Providing a vague or noncommittal portrait of the candidate will likely do more harm than good, so if you don’t believe you can provide a strong recommendation, consider politely declining the request while giving the applicant enough time to find a more suitable referee.  

BONUS TIP: If you believe an applicant’s research project does not fit with the award criteria, don’t be afraid to (tactfully) say so! Your honesty and candour at this stage of the process could be invaluable in helping the student decide whether to allocate time and energy to the process of preparing an application. 

Read all instructions carefully and familiarize yourself with the award criteria. Most major scholarships ask for an evaluation of the feasibility and impact of the applicant’s research project, as well as an assessment of their professional skills and achievements—but be on the lookout for additional criteria as well as differences in formatting requirements between applications!

Consider using the checklist below to help you review the award instructions and identify information you might need as you prepare the layout of your letter:

• Letterhead and signature: are these required for your letter? 
• Font size and line spacing: have you been given any specific guidelines? 
• Length: will this be measured in words, characters, or pages? 
• Structure: do you need to provide separate answers to a series of specific questions, or write a unified letter that addresses all elements of the selection criteria?    
• Submission method: are you being asked to fill in online text boxes, or upload your letter as a separate file? The answer to this question will likely play a large role in determining how to structure the letter and organize your reflections.    

Request materials that will help you understand and contextualize the applicant’s academic work, such as CVs, transcripts, and draft proposals. Whenever possible, arrange a meeting with the applicant to gain further insight into the specifics of their research and academic background. You may also want to consider proactively sitting down with your student(s) to assist them in identifying scholarship, award, and grant opportunities. Together, you can map out a timeline for completing the award application, including deadlines for submitting drafts (student) and providing feedback (supervisor).

BONUS TIP: Even if a student does not appear to be a competitive applicant for a particular award, it may still be worthwhile for them to submit an application as a form of professional development (as long as they can balance the time needed to prepare this submission with their other academic goals). Students learn transferable skills just by participating in the application process, as this process can help them become newly adept at explaining complex ideas in accessible and persuasive ways.

For more information about how FGSPA can support your supervisee with this aspect of career development, check out the resources available to Researchers and Communicators through Brock’s GRADvantage framework.

Prioritize the use of jargon-free language in your letter. Provide brief definitions of any important terms that may not be accessible to a multidisciplinary audience. Only include acronyms if they are absolutely necessary and write them out in full the first time they are used.

Lower-impact wording: “The applicant’s investigations into interactions between tau and Kinesin-1 will have an immense impact on our ability to better understand the causal factors underlying the formation of neurofibrillary tangles within the brain and develop new courses of treatment for multiple neurodegenerative disorders.”

Higher-impact wording: “What I find especially promising are the applicant’s investigations into two key proteins, tau and Kinesin-1, that play a central role in the development of neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer’s. By examining how changes in levels of Kinesin-1 affect tau formation in the brain, the applicant’s research will illuminate new treatment options for a wide range of illnesses.”

Key takeaway: While reducing jargon is a worthy goal, not all technical or field-specific phrases need to be eliminated. If used sparingly and defined clearly, these phrases can serve as demonstrations of your trustworthiness as an expert evaluator of a project’s field-specific merits.

Focus on the future more than the past. Emphasize how the applicant’s research is changing their field, improving society, and/or intervening impactfully in an ongoing scholarly debate. This doesn’t mean that a discussion of past achievements is off-limits: in fact, talking about what the applicant has already accomplished is one of the most effective ways of demonstrating their ability to successfully carry out the proposed research. Still, bearing in mind that major award committees tend to be most interested in how their contributions will help the recipient grow as a scholar, consider framing any references to previous successes as evidence of the student’s research potential, while continually reminding the adjudication committee of the future impact of the applicant’s project.

Lower-impact wording: “The applicant has placed a first-author publication in a leading journal, and has received numerous awards recognizing excellence in research design, including the SSHRC CGRS-M scholarship. Their publication grew directly out of a graduate-quality essay they wrote as a student in my fourth-year undergraduate seminar, for which they received an A+. In all of their academic pursuits, they have established a record of consistent high-level accomplishment that merits recognition.”

Higher-impact wording: “The applicant demonstrates exceptional research potential. As a student in my undergraduate seminar, the applicant wrote a graduate-quality research paper that received an A+, later publishing a version of this paper in a leading journal. They continued to show exceptional research promise by completing a SSHRC-funded Master’s project on a topic related to their current proposal. This record of accomplishment testifies to the applicant’s ability to advance knowledge within their field for years to come.”

Key takeaway: Surrounding your discussions of the applicant’s previous achievements with affirmations of their future potential encourages readers to view the applicant’s academic journey as a unified narrative, in which past accomplishments have laid the groundwork for successes yet to come.

Be specific about accomplishments. Ensure that general statements about an applicant’s skills are backed up with concrete examples drawn from your own observations. Phrases such as “unparalleled researcher” or “excellent teacher” convey very little descriptive information on their own: consider supporting them with anecdotes that show these skills in action.

Quantifying the results of an applicant’s actions can help! Relevant metrics to consider include things like  previous research funding obtained by the applicant, the number of major academic conferences attended by the applicant, and/or the impact scores of journals where the applicant has published.

Lower-impact wording: “The applicant has always been a terrific writer: their work blows me away each time I read it. In the graduate seminar they took with me, they wrote a wonderful essay that displayed a capacity for startlingly original critical analysis. They also make a point of sharing their research at conferences at every possible opportunity, despite being at an early stage of their graduate studies.”

Higher-impact wording: “The applicant’s advanced communication skills will be an asset to them as they complete this project. In my graduate seminar, they demonstrated an aptitude for identifying inconsistencies within existing scholarly frameworks, producing an essay that holds publishable promise because of its interrogation of received ideas. The applicant has continued to strengthen this ability by giving presentations at three international conferences, an unusual feat for someone at an early stage of their graduate studies.”

Key takeaway: Whenever possible, back up broad claims about the applicant’s strengths with detailed anecdotes drawn from your own observations, using these anecdotes to highlight the transferable skills that the applicant will carry with them as they work to complete their research project.

Avoid intensifiers such as “really,” “very,” or “highly.” These words risk implying a lack of confidence in the descriptors that follow. Trust that adjectives such as “diligent” or “empathetic” can stand on their own and do not require additional emphasis.

BONUS TIP: To reduce your reliance on vague or ambiguous intensifiers, consider replacing them with specific reflections on where the applicant stands in relation to other students you have encountered in your professional life. Note the difference between writing that “Applicant X is a very effective leader” and “Applicant X’s leadership skills extend far beyond those of any first-year PhD student I have supervised in my 15-year career.”

Provide context for any sites of ambiguity within the applicant’s academic record. For example, in certain cases, you may need to explain how grading standards differ across institutions or clarify that a lack of publications is not unusual for early-stage graduate students within your discipline (while also, ideally, pointing out how and where the applicant’s current research holds publishable promise).

BONUS TIP: Addressing an area of “weakness” within an applicant’s academic record is not always harmful, especially if this element of their research profile is likely to be easily noticed by the adjudication committee (based on the selection criteria) and the rest of the application is otherwise strong. Typically, however, it’s most effective to frame these trouble spots in a manner that highlights the applicant’s commitment to growth and provides specific examples of how they are working on addressing the gaps in their CV (e.g., by pursuing more opportunities for community involvement, or by establishing a formal knowledge mobilization strategy).

Aim to proactively account for the possibility of unconscious bias. Some competitions, including those administered by Canada’s Tri-Agency Research Councils (SSHRC, NSERC, and CIHR), prefer letter-writers to substitute “the applicant” for the applicant’s name and refer to the applicant using gender-neutral pronouns (they/them/their) throughout the writing process. This approach is motivated by a desire to reduce the chances of an assessment being unconsciously influenced by assumptions or stereotypes related to race, ethnicity, gender, and nationality. A more thorough overview of how to limit unconscious bias can be found on the Tri-Agency website.

NOTE: In some cases, an applicant’s identity may play a pivotal role in determining their eligibility for a particular award, as many scholarship competitions are only open to members of specific communities; for example, the Kappa Kappa Gamma Foundation provides scholarships exclusively to female-identifying Canadians. Decisions about whether to use applicant names and gendered language will therefore vary on a case-by-case basis, remaining subject to the discretion of the individual letter-writer.

Content Questions to Consider: 

• Does the applicant’s research overlap meaningfully with any priority research areas identified by the relevant funding body (e.g., SSHRC’s Imagining Canada’s Future initiative)? If so, could I further emphasize these points of connection?
• Am I being as objective as possible in my assessment of the applicant’s strengths, especially relative to their peers? Am I rating all students at a similar level (e.g., within the top 2, 5, or 10 percent of students I have supervised), or am I differentiating meaningfully between them in ways that will help award adjudicators make informed decisions?

Formatting Questions to Consider:

• Am I using all the space that has been provided for my letter, based on the application instructions, without repeating information or relying heavily on general statements?
• Have I double-checked requirements around font type and size, as well as margin width and line spacing, to ensure that my letter meets the necessary criteria?

Language and Tone Questions to Consider:

• Are there places within the letter where I could replace or supplement a vague superlative with a concrete example, anecdote, or comparison?
• Have I made intentional choices about whether to omit the applicant’s name and/or use gender-neutral pronouns?
• Is there a colleague who could read my letter and provide feedback on the tone or structure?

NOTE: If sharing your letter with another faculty member, be sure to anonymize the document beforehand to preserve the applicant’s privacy. Confidential letters of reference should not be shared with applicants at any stage of composition.