Research Proposal Quick Reference
One page to keep open while you draft. Every list the supplied teaching source sets out on the research proposal, reproduced in its own wording and its own order, with a status label on each so you never quote an example form's word count as a rule.
How to read this page
Everything below is either the supplied teaching source's own wording, a close paraphrase of it, or this page's synthesis. The three are marked, because the commonest misuse of proposal material is treating one institution's example form as a universal standard.
THE THREE STATUS LABELS USED THROUGHOUT
| Label | What it means | How to use it |
|---|---|---|
| Stated | The source states this directly, as instruction or definition | Quote it or follow it. It still may be varied by your supervisor where the source says so |
| Example | An illustration, a suggested list, or one institution's form reproduced as an example | Use the shape, not the numbers. Never cite an example word count or item count as a requirement |
| Synthesis | This page's or this library's reading, going beyond what the source says | Treat as practical guidance, not as authority. Test it against your own supervisor's advice |
What the proposal is for
THE FIVE THINGS A PROPOSAL IS EXPECTED TO SHOW — STATED
| # | The expectation, as printed | Where it is discharged in the document |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Show that you are engaging in genuine enquiry, finding out about something worthwhile in a particular context | Background, rationale, purpose and aims |
| 2 | Link your proposed work with the work of others, while proving you are acquainted with major schools of thought relevant to the topic | Review of the literature |
| 3 | Establish a particular theoretical orientation | Literature review and research design |
| 4 | Establish your methodological approach | Research design |
| 5 | Show you have thought about the ethical issues | Research design — the procedures you will use to ensure ethical practice |
Column two is the source's list. Column three is synthesis, mapping each expectation onto the component table below. Full treatment at The Purpose of a Research Proposal.
THE FOUR-QUESTION FRAME — STATED
| Question | The source's wording | What it settles |
|---|---|---|
| What | "what you are going to research" | The problem, stated once and narrow enough for a method to be aimed at it |
| Why | "why you are going to research this particular area" | The justification, made in light of the literature — "commonly known as the 'gap' in our knowledge" |
| Significance | "what is the significance of researching this area" | Who is better off if the question is answered |
| How | "how you are going to conduct the research" | Design, sources or participants, collection, analysis and ethical practice |
- What
- Why
- Significance
- How
The source also lists its own objectives for the proposal stage: propose the problem statement; decide on aims, objectives and outcomes; choose writing styles and conventions; determine the structure of your proposal; develop a draft proposal. The third of those is never taught anywhere in the material — see the gap register at the end of this page.
The two component lists
THE COMPONENT TABLE, COMPRESSED — THIRTEEN ROWS
| # | Component | Function | The specification that matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Cover page | Identifies topic, writer, institution and degree | Title "descriptive of focus, concise, eye-catching and preferably use keywords from international information retrieval systems" |
| 2 | Table of contents | Lists sections and page references | Numbering 1; 1.1; 1.1.1 — "don't use more than four digits" |
| 3 | Background | Provides context | Historical, cultural, political, social or organisational; a theoretical starting point; personal motivation; policy; "may problematise the current status quo". The source prefers a more descriptive heading |
| 4 | Need for the study / rationale | Persuades the reader the study is needed, useful and interesting | A gap in the literature, a new context for existing ideas, or significance for the wider community. Usually combined with background |
| 5 | Purpose and aims | States purpose; outlines key questions and aims | Questions "usually What, How, Why, or What if" and "should be few, so that the focus is manageable" |
| 6 | Review of the literature | Shows awareness of significant writers; indicates the review's focus | "This is not expected to be extensive for the proposal." Still must show critical analysis, establish theoretical orientation, situate the research |
| 7 | Research design | Outlines and describes how the research will be conducted | "Includes your understandings of the nature of knowledge and how this affects your choice of research approach"; participants, collection, analysis, ethical procedures, delimitations — each described and justified |
| 8 | Timetable / plan | Depicts tasks and stages or times for completion | "May take the form of a chart, timeline or flowchart (or any other)". May sit inside research design |
| 9 | Proposed thesis structure | Describes the sequence and focus of each proposed chapter | A few lines per chapter, or a proposed table of contents |
| 10 | Significance / expected outcomes | Predicts significance and expected outcomes | "Note this is only a prediction, and may be excluded if the rationale for the study has been well developed" |
| 11 | Glossary of terms | Lists specialised terms and meanings | Terms from another culture, acronyms, key concepts in a relatively new field. Placed where easy to locate |
| 12 | Appendices | Displays documents whose presence would disturb the flow | Pilot study material, interview questions, survey instruments, explanatory statement to participants |
| 13 | References | Lists works consulted so far that appear useful | "Use referencing conventions recommended by your supervisor" |
Close-paraphrased and compressed from the supplied table, which the source attributes to a university education faculty's study resources. Row by row at Components of a Research Proposal.
THE NINE-ELEMENT ALTERNATIVE OUTLINE — EXAMPLE
| # | Element | Nearest component in the thirteen-row table |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Working title | 1 — Cover page |
| 2 | Statement of the problem or gap in the current research in your field of study | 4 — Need for the study / rationale |
| 3 | Context in which the problem arises; historical and current research in the field | 3 and 6 — Background and literature review |
| 4 | Reasons why the problem exists and justification for addressing it | 4 — Rationale |
| 5 | Methodology you will use to address the problem | 7 — Research design |
| 6 | Key research questions | 5 — Purpose and aims |
| 7 | Expected contribution to knowledge | 10 — Significance / expected outcomes |
| 8 | Time-frame and (special) resources | 8 — Timetable / plan |
| 9 | References or bibliography | 13 — References |
Introduced as "It should contain some or all of the following elements". Column three is synthesis. Note what the nine-element list has that the thirteen-row table does not name: resources. And what the table has that the list omits: glossary, appendices, proposed thesis structure and the cover page's full identification block.
Primary or secondary: the fork that sets the shape
Secondary research proposal — Stated
- You are not gathering or creating your own empirical data, but using existing data collected, recorded and analysed by others
- "You will not need to include a detailed methodology or research methods section in the proposal"
- You should still provide an outline of how you will approach the problem, the theoretical framework and the areas, issues or authors you will focus on
- You should still use primary sources — original texts, films, magazines, novels, poems, records, letters, journals, diaries, shipping logs, museums
- The proposal must illustrate who and what you intend to access for data, and why or how it is relevant
Primary research proposal — Stated
- You collect or create your own data through experiments, interviews, questionnaires, surveys or statistical compilation
- Work out who or what you will access for information, and how you will collect it — recorded carefully as part of the proposal
- Say what you will do with the data and how it will be processed and analysed
- "This means your proposal will need to include a methodology and research design section. These must be accurate and detailed"
- "You may need to apply for ethics approval"
Scope, feasibility and the constraint the source names
The scope steps and the three scope questions — Stated
- Examine the scope of the research statement — "the statement provides a sense of what is expected from the research"
- Look at what is included and what is excluded — "it creates a boundary around your proposed research"
- Ask: what is the standard for the research?
- Ask: what is the word count allocated to the work?
- Ask: are you restricted in any way in terms of the kind of research you can undertake?
- Confirm the research is do-able given the resources available
- Confirm access to the necessary people and data, rather than assuming it
The component table asks for a statement of delimitations inside the research design section, and never says what that statement contains. Worked through at Scope and Delimitation; the timetable side is at Proposal Timetable and Resources.
Reasoning, hypotheses and the rules that go with them
Inductive approach — Stated, four steps
- "You gather all the evidence, information and data available"
- "You formulate a generalisation that provides a reasonable and logical explanation"
- "You begin with detailed observations on the phenomenon"
- "You move toward more abstract generalisations and ideas"
Deductive approach — Stated, four steps
- "You make some prediction based on evidence"
- "You test that prediction"
- "Using deductive reasoning, you develop research hypothesis/hypotheses from existing theory"
- "You test this hypothesis/these hypotheses"
A shorter gloss of the same distinction appears elsewhere in the material: inductive means hypotheses, explanations or propositions generated from examination of the data; deductive means data collected to test a prior hypothesis or proposition. Both are supplied — see Inductive and Deductive Reasoning in Research.
THE HYPOTHESIS RULES — STATED
| Rule | The source's wording |
|---|---|
| What a hypothesis is | "The hypothesis is the supposition to be tested", used "to make predictions that can be tested by observing the outcome of an experiment" |
| Collect | "The researcher(s) collects data to test the hypothesis" |
| Analyse | "Analyses and interprets the data using a variety of statistical methods, engaging in what is known as Empirical research" |
| Report | "The results of the data analysis in confirming or rejecting the hypothesis are reported and evaluated" |
| Continue | "At the end the researcher may discuss avenues for further research" |
| Inconsistent outcome | "If the outcome is inconsistent with the hypothesis, then the hypothesis is rejected" |
| Consistent outcome | "If the outcome is consistent with the hypothesis, the experiment is said to support the hypothesis" |
| Usefulness | "A useful hypothesis allows prediction and within the accuracy of observation of the time, the prediction will be confirmed" |
| Supersession | "As the accuracy of observation improves with time, the hypothesis may no longer provide an accurate prediction. In this case a new hypothesis will be developed to challenge the old, and to the extent that the new hypothesis makes more accurate predictions than the old, the new will supersede it" |
The word prove does not appear anywhere in this material. Full treatment at Formulating and Testing a Hypothesis.
The twelve questions that refine a topic
Before the proposal is drafted, the source asks you to revisit four elements — select a topic, review literature, conceptualise, define the research question — and supplies twelve questions to do it with.
THE TWELVE TOPIC-REVIEW QUESTIONS — STATED
| Group | # | The question |
|---|---|---|
| Literature | 1 | What are the authors of those journal articles saying about the topic? |
| Literature | 2 | What is known about the topic? |
| Literature | 3 | What issues and aspects have been thoroughly explored? |
| Literature | 4 | What issues, aspects and questions do the authors recommend for further research? |
| Literature | 5 | What issues are yet to be explored? Is there any issue among those that you could or should explore? |
| Method and access | 6 | What methodologies did these researchers use in their study? |
| Method and access | 7 | What kind of data collection methods did they use? |
| Method and access | 8 | Where would you conduct the research? Do you have access to a site, an organisation where or with whom you could conduct research? |
| Method and access | 9 | What kinds of data would you look for to produce some new knowledge in this field? |
| Method and access | 10 | How would you go about gathering the data? |
| Method and access | 11 | Where is that data? Is it in records and reports? Is it in the testimony of people, which you might gather through interviews or focus groups? Do you have access? |
| Method and access | 12 | Why would you gather the data in that manner? |
Close-paraphrased from the supplied source, which poses all twelve and answers none. Worked through at Refining Your Topic Before the Proposal.
Where the material stops
GAP AND DEFECT REGISTER FOR THE PROPOSAL MATERIAL
| What is named | What is missing | Where the answer has to come from |
|---|---|---|
| "Choose writing styles and conventions" — a stated objective | No content at all on register, voice, structural conventions or house style | Your supervisor and your institution's style guide. The second undelivered objective in the dataset |
| Referencing conventions | Deferred — "use referencing conventions recommended by your supervisor" | Your supervisor. The material elsewhere supplies Harvard patterns for journal articles and books only |
| A statement of delimitations, required inside research design | No description of what such a statement contains | Synthesised in this library; confirm the expected form with your supervisor |
| "A variety of statistical methods" for hypothesis testing | No method, test, threshold or criterion for deciding when an outcome is inconsistent | A statistics text or your field's methods literature — fixed in writing before collection begins |
| The conceptual framework | Defined two incompatible ways: as the research statement itself, and as the structure of concepts from which the theoretical framework emerges | Both are supplied. State which definition you are using wherever you use the term |
| "Different styles of conceptual framework" for explorative, descriptive and evaluative research | None of the styles is described | Not resolvable from this material |
| "It should be clear what paradigm you are working within" | The requirement is stated once; ten examined published works in this library declare none | A real tension, documented on both sides. Do not read the published practice as permission |
| Primary sources against primary data | Two senses of primary, never reconciled | Use the full phrase every time — primary sources or primary data |
| The component list count | Called a twelve-item table; contains thirteen rows | Cite the rows, not the count |
What to carry forward
- Two component lists, thirteen rows and nine elements. Neither is compulsory and neither overrides the other — check with your supervisor.
- Four questions in order: what, why, significance, how. Five expectations sit on top, adding theoretical orientation and ethics.
- Research design is the one place you are told to write down your understanding of the nature of knowledge.
- Secondary research drops the detailed methodology section; primary research must have one, accurate and detailed, and may need ethics approval.
- Time is named as the biggest constraint. Scope is the instrument you control it with.
- Hypotheses are rejected or supported, never proved, and are superseded by whatever predicts more accurately.
- Twelve review questions end in one statement or question. Question eleven — where is that data, and do you have access — is the one that ends topics.
Frequently asked questions
Which of the two component lists should I follow?
Whichever your supervisor expects, and neither on its own authority. The thirteen-row table is introduced as a suggested checklist that your supervisor may add to or cut, and the nine-element outline says "some or all of the following elements". Where they differ, the useful move is to take the union — the nine-element list is the only one that names resources, and the table is the only one that names a glossary, appendices and the proposed thesis structure.
Is the proposal binding once it is approved?
No. The source states that the plans are not binding and may well change substantially as the research progresses. What is being assessed is your direction and discipline as a researcher, not the accuracy of the forecast. The limits are practical: changes should be explained in the final document, and a material change may take the study outside what your ethics approval actually covers.
How long should a research proposal be?
The supplied material sets no length for a proposal. It does say the literature review section is "not expected to be extensive", that research questions should be few, and that word count allocated to the work is one of the three scope questions you must ask. Any word counts you encounter in this library's ethics material belong to one example application form and are not proposal requirements.
Do I have to declare a research paradigm in the proposal?
The material says it should be clear what paradigm you are working within and what theoretical assumptions you are making or questioning, and the component table asks the research design section for your understanding of the nature of knowledge. That is the requirement as stated. Every examined published work in this library omits an explicit declaration, which is a tension worth knowing about but not permission to skip it in an assessed proposal.
What is the difference between the four questions and the five expectations?
They come from two different passages and operate at different levels. The four questions — what, why, significance, how — are the shape of the argument the document makes. The five expectations are the qualities a reader checks that argument for, and two of them, theoretical orientation and ethical thinking, are not named by the four questions at all.
When does ethics approval fit into the proposal timetable?
Before any data collection, without exception. The supplied material states that you cannot proceed without approval from the relevant ethics committees, and that data gathered before clearance cannot be used for your findings even if you already have it. The proposal itself is described as helping you prepare your presentation to the ethics committee, so the ethical thinking has to be inside the document rather than after it.
References and source attribution
- Quinlan, C. 2011, Business Research Methods, 1st ed., Cengage Publishing — cited in the supplied source, with Chapter 3 as the prescribed reading on research ethics that the proposal's ethics preparation feeds into.
- O'Leary, Z. 2017, The Essential Guide to Doing Your Research Project, 3rd ed., Sage Publications, London — one of the general research methods texts cited across the supplied source.
- Bryman, A. 2016, Social Research Methods, 5th ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford — cited in the supplied source; the standing reference for inductive and deductive design.
- Naoum, S. G. 2013, Dissertation Research & Writing for Construction Students, 3rd ed., Routledge — cited in the supplied source as a reading on topic selection and the shape of a research project.
- Trochim, W. M. K. 2006, Research Methods Knowledge Base — cited in the supplied source, including its material on problem formulation.
- The supplied teaching source: consolidated weekly teaching notes and slide material on developing a research proposal, which supplies the purpose statement, both component lists, the four-question frame, the scope statements, the inductive and deductive accounts, the hypothesis rules and the twelve topic-review questions reproduced on this page.
Suggested questions for Ask KEVOS
- Audit my draft proposal against the thirteen-row component table and tell me what is missing.
- Which of the twelve topic-review questions can I not yet answer for my project?
- Check my conclusion for claims the reject-or-support rule does not permit.
- Is my project primary or secondary research, and what does that change about the proposal's shape?
- Draft a delimitations statement for my study from my research question and my access constraints.
- Map my proposal sections onto the four questions — what, why, significance, how — and show me which one is thin.