Research Proposal for Researching Research Proposals Denied:
Researchers Call for More Research

September 22, 2006
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, MN

In response to the meta-conundrum caused by a research proposal whose proposed area of research was research proposals, the National Science Foundation denied granting funds for the research.  The principle investigator on the proposal was Dr. Suzie Chamberland from the newly created Department of ‘Research’ Research at the University of Minnesota.  

The proposed research was aimed at researching the nature of research proposals.  It was hoped funding would be provided by the NSF.  Dr. Chamberland summarized the importance of the research, “Research proposals themselves are a neglected area of study.  We believe strongly that a focused study of research proposals will provide the basic science necessary for the eventual cure of cancer, the end of our dependence on foreign oil and the manufacture of more interesting things you can buy at the dollar store.”  President Robert Bruininks added, “’Research’ research is an important new field and it’s a crucial part of our stadium drive and top three thingy.”

An anonymous source within the NSF stated that the proposal “blew our [their] minds,” with its references to the very thing the evaluation committee was doing at that very moment.  “We got all confused, because we were like, ‘We look at research proposals all day and yet this proposal is about research proposals!’  We got mixed up thinking about the crazy self-referential implications and then we were like ‘Forget this!  This is too hard keeping track of everything.’”  Another source concurred, “It was like being inside an M.C. Escher drawing where you’re like ‘Whoa! What dimension is this where the stairs go up and down, y’know?’”

Noam Chomsky, a linguistics professor at MIT stated: “Such a research proposal, to study research proposals, could create quite a recursive loop between the semantic and the meta-semantic.  It’s similar to the liar paradox.  If someone utters, “Everything I say is a lie,” then if we assume everything she says is untrue, her statement itself must be false.  Yet we must assume the truth of her statement to reach the previous conclusion, hence the paradox.  It’s really weird.  So I guess the dork patrol at the NSF got a little confused…Is this being recorded right now?”  He later added, “Please NSF, please don’t take my money away.”

Goldy the Golden Gopher, when learning of the news, reportedly shed a single golden tear.

Another researcher, Dr. Kerry Randolph at UCLA conjectured, “Perhaps the NSF thought the proposal was a joke and didn’t take it seriously.  I mean, it’s kind of a crazy idea.”  However Professor John Lipmann, a fellow of the Science Studies Studio at Carnegie Mellon replied, “Oh, I hardly think the NSF thought the proposal was a joke.  I mean who would take the time to write a fake research proposal?  That’d be like writing a fake news article…just plain stupid.”