what are the steps involved in evaluating a research proposal

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

11.2 Steps in Developing a Research Proposal

Learning objectives.

• Identify the steps in developing a research proposal.
• Choose a topic and formulate a research question and working thesis.
• Develop a research proposal.

Writing a good research paper takes time, thought, and effort. Although this assignment is challenging, it is manageable. Focusing on one step at a time will help you develop a thoughtful, informative, well-supported research paper.

Your first step is to choose a topic and then to develop research questions, a working thesis, and a written research proposal. Set aside adequate time for this part of the process. Fully exploring ideas will help you build a solid foundation for your paper.

Choosing a Topic

When you choose a topic for a research paper, you are making a major commitment. Your choice will help determine whether you enjoy the lengthy process of research and writing—and whether your final paper fulfills the assignment requirements. If you choose your topic hastily, you may later find it difficult to work with your topic. By taking your time and choosing carefully, you can ensure that this assignment is not only challenging but also rewarding.

Writers understand the importance of choosing a topic that fulfills the assignment requirements and fits the assignment’s purpose and audience. (For more information about purpose and audience, see Chapter 6 “Writing Paragraphs: Separating Ideas and Shaping Content” .) Choosing a topic that interests you is also crucial. You instructor may provide a list of suggested topics or ask that you develop a topic on your own. In either case, try to identify topics that genuinely interest you.

After identifying potential topic ideas, you will need to evaluate your ideas and choose one topic to pursue. Will you be able to find enough information about the topic? Can you develop a paper about this topic that presents and supports your original ideas? Is the topic too broad or too narrow for the scope of the assignment? If so, can you modify it so it is more manageable? You will ask these questions during this preliminary phase of the research process.

Identifying Potential Topics

Sometimes, your instructor may provide a list of suggested topics. If so, you may benefit from identifying several possibilities before committing to one idea. It is important to know how to narrow down your ideas into a concise, manageable thesis. You may also use the list as a starting point to help you identify additional, related topics. Discussing your ideas with your instructor will help ensure that you choose a manageable topic that fits the requirements of the assignment.

In this chapter, you will follow a writer named Jorge, who is studying health care administration, as he prepares a research paper. You will also plan, research, and draft your own research paper.

Jorge was assigned to write a research paper on health and the media for an introductory course in health care. Although a general topic was selected for the students, Jorge had to decide which specific issues interested him. He brainstormed a list of possibilities.

If you are writing a research paper for a specialized course, look back through your notes and course activities. Identify reading assignments and class discussions that especially engaged you. Doing so can help you identify topics to pursue.

• Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) in the news
• Sexual education programs
• Hollywood and eating disorders
• Americans’ access to public health information
• Media portrayal of health care reform bill
• Depictions of drugs on television
• The effect of the Internet on mental health
• Popularized diets (such as low-carbohydrate diets)
• Fear of pandemics (bird flu, HINI, SARS)
• Electronic entertainment and obesity
• Advertisements for prescription drugs
• Public education and disease prevention

Set a timer for five minutes. Use brainstorming or idea mapping to create a list of topics you would be interested in researching for a paper about the influence of the Internet on social networking. Do you closely follow the media coverage of a particular website, such as Twitter? Would you like to learn more about a certain industry, such as online dating? Which social networking sites do you and your friends use? List as many ideas related to this topic as you can.

Narrowing Your Topic

Once you have a list of potential topics, you will need to choose one as the focus of your essay. You will also need to narrow your topic. Most writers find that the topics they listed during brainstorming or idea mapping are broad—too broad for the scope of the assignment. Working with an overly broad topic, such as sexual education programs or popularized diets, can be frustrating and overwhelming. Each topic has so many facets that it would be impossible to cover them all in a college research paper. However, more specific choices, such as the pros and cons of sexual education in kids’ television programs or the physical effects of the South Beach diet, are specific enough to write about without being too narrow to sustain an entire research paper.

A good research paper provides focused, in-depth information and analysis. If your topic is too broad, you will find it difficult to do more than skim the surface when you research it and write about it. Narrowing your focus is essential to making your topic manageable. To narrow your focus, explore your topic in writing, conduct preliminary research, and discuss both the topic and the research with others.

Exploring Your Topic in Writing

“How am I supposed to narrow my topic when I haven’t even begun researching yet?” In fact, you may already know more than you realize. Review your list and identify your top two or three topics. Set aside some time to explore each one through freewriting. (For more information about freewriting, see Chapter 8 “The Writing Process: How Do I Begin?” .) Simply taking the time to focus on your topic may yield fresh angles.

Jorge knew that he was especially interested in the topic of diet fads, but he also knew that it was much too broad for his assignment. He used freewriting to explore his thoughts so he could narrow his topic. Read Jorge’s ideas.

Conducting Preliminary Research

Another way writers may focus a topic is to conduct preliminary research . Like freewriting, exploratory reading can help you identify interesting angles. Surfing the web and browsing through newspaper and magazine articles are good ways to start. Find out what people are saying about your topic on blogs and online discussion groups. Discussing your topic with others can also inspire you. Talk about your ideas with your classmates, your friends, or your instructor.

Jorge’s freewriting exercise helped him realize that the assigned topic of health and the media intersected with a few of his interests—diet, nutrition, and obesity. Preliminary online research and discussions with his classmates strengthened his impression that many people are confused or misled by media coverage of these subjects.

Jorge decided to focus his paper on a topic that had garnered a great deal of media attention—low-carbohydrate diets. He wanted to find out whether low-carbohydrate diets were as effective as their proponents claimed.

Writing at Work

At work, you may need to research a topic quickly to find general information. This information can be useful in understanding trends in a given industry or generating competition. For example, a company may research a competitor’s prices and use the information when pricing their own product. You may find it useful to skim a variety of reliable sources and take notes on your findings.

The reliability of online sources varies greatly. In this exploratory phase of your research, you do not need to evaluate sources as closely as you will later. However, use common sense as you refine your paper topic. If you read a fascinating blog comment that gives you a new idea for your paper, be sure to check out other, more reliable sources as well to make sure the idea is worth pursuing.

Review the list of topics you created in Note 11.18 “Exercise 1” and identify two or three topics you would like to explore further. For each of these topics, spend five to ten minutes writing about the topic without stopping. Then review your writing to identify possible areas of focus.

Set aside time to conduct preliminary research about your potential topics. Then choose a topic to pursue for your research paper.

Collaboration

Please share your topic list with a classmate. Select one or two topics on his or her list that you would like to learn more about and return it to him or her. Discuss why you found the topics interesting, and learn which of your topics your classmate selected and why.

A Plan for Research

Your freewriting and preliminary research have helped you choose a focused, manageable topic for your research paper. To work with your topic successfully, you will need to determine what exactly you want to learn about it—and later, what you want to say about it. Before you begin conducting in-depth research, you will further define your focus by developing a research question , a working thesis, and a research proposal.

Formulating a Research Question

In forming a research question, you are setting a goal for your research. Your main research question should be substantial enough to form the guiding principle of your paper—but focused enough to guide your research. A strong research question requires you not only to find information but also to put together different pieces of information, interpret and analyze them, and figure out what you think. As you consider potential research questions, ask yourself whether they would be too hard or too easy to answer.

To determine your research question, review the freewriting you completed earlier. Skim through books, articles, and websites and list the questions you have. (You may wish to use the 5WH strategy to help you formulate questions. See Chapter 8 “The Writing Process: How Do I Begin?” for more information about 5WH questions.) Include simple, factual questions and more complex questions that would require analysis and interpretation. Determine your main question—the primary focus of your paper—and several subquestions that you will need to research to answer your main question.

Here are the research questions Jorge will use to focus his research. Notice that his main research question has no obvious, straightforward answer. Jorge will need to research his subquestions, which address narrower topics, to answer his main question.

Using the topic you selected in Note 11.24 “Exercise 2” , write your main research question and at least four to five subquestions. Check that your main research question is appropriately complex for your assignment.

Constructing a Working ThesIs

A working thesis concisely states a writer’s initial answer to the main research question. It does not merely state a fact or present a subjective opinion. Instead, it expresses a debatable idea or claim that you hope to prove through additional research. Your working thesis is called a working thesis for a reason—it is subject to change. As you learn more about your topic, you may change your thinking in light of your research findings. Let your working thesis serve as a guide to your research, but do not be afraid to modify it based on what you learn.

Jorge began his research with a strong point of view based on his preliminary writing and research. Read his working thesis statement, which presents the point he will argue. Notice how it states Jorge’s tentative answer to his research question.

One way to determine your working thesis is to consider how you would complete sentences such as I believe or My opinion is . However, keep in mind that academic writing generally does not use first-person pronouns. These statements are useful starting points, but formal research papers use an objective voice.

Write a working thesis statement that presents your preliminary answer to the research question you wrote in Note 11.27 “Exercise 3” . Check that your working thesis statement presents an idea or claim that could be supported or refuted by evidence from research.

Creating a Research Proposal

A research proposal is a brief document—no more than one typed page—that summarizes the preliminary work you have completed. Your purpose in writing it is to formalize your plan for research and present it to your instructor for feedback. In your research proposal, you will present your main research question, related subquestions, and working thesis. You will also briefly discuss the value of researching this topic and indicate how you plan to gather information.

When Jorge began drafting his research proposal, he realized that he had already created most of the pieces he needed. However, he knew he also had to explain how his research would be relevant to other future health care professionals. In addition, he wanted to form a general plan for doing the research and identifying potentially useful sources. Read Jorge’s research proposal.

Before you begin a new project at work, you may have to develop a project summary document that states the purpose of the project, explains why it would be a wise use of company resources, and briefly outlines the steps involved in completing the project. This type of document is similar to a research proposal. Both documents define and limit a project, explain its value, discuss how to proceed, and identify what resources you will use.

Writing Your Own Research Proposal

Now you may write your own research proposal, if you have not done so already. Follow the guidelines provided in this lesson.

Key Takeaways

• Developing a research proposal involves the following preliminary steps: identifying potential ideas, choosing ideas to explore further, choosing and narrowing a topic, formulating a research question, and developing a working thesis.
• A good topic for a research paper interests the writer and fulfills the requirements of the assignment.
• Defining and narrowing a topic helps writers conduct focused, in-depth research.
• Writers conduct preliminary research to identify possible topics and research questions and to develop a working thesis.
• A good research question interests readers, is neither too broad nor too narrow, and has no obvious answer.
• A good working thesis expresses a debatable idea or claim that can be supported with evidence from research.
• Writers create a research proposal to present their topic, main research question, subquestions, and working thesis to an instructor for approval or feedback.

Writing for Success Copyright © 2015 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Research Proposal: A step-by-step guide with template

Making sure your proposal is perfect will drastically improve your chances of landing a successful research position. Follow these steps.

There’s no doubt you have the most cutting-edge research idea to date, backed up by a solid methodology and a credible explanation proving its relevance! There are thousands of research ideas that could change the world with many new ideologies.

The truth is, none of this would matter without support. It can be daunting, challenging, and uncertain to secure funding for a research project. Even more so when it isn’t well-thought-out, outlined, and includes every detail.

An effective solution for presenting your project, or requesting funding, is to provide a research proposal to potential investors or financiers on your behalf.

It’s crucial to understand that making sure your proposal is perfect will drastically improve your chances of landing a successful research position. Your research proposal could result in the failure to study the research problem entirely if it is inadequately constructed or incomplete.

It is for this reason that we have created an excellent guide that covers everything you need to know about writing a research proposal, and includes helpful tips for presenting your proposal professionally and improving its likelihood of acceptance!

What Is a Research Proposal?

Generally, a research proposal is a well-crafted, formal document that provides a thorough explanation of what you plan to investigate. This includes a rationale for why it is worth investigating, as well as a method for investigating it.

Research proposal writing in the contemporary academic environment is a challenging undertaking given the constant shift in research methodology and a commitment to incorporating scientific breakthroughs.

An outline of the plan or roadmap for the study is the proposal, and once the proposal is complete, everything should be smooth sailing. It is still common for post-graduate evaluation panels and funding applications to submit substandard proposals.

By its very nature, the research proposal serves as a tool for convincing the supervisor, committee, or university that the proposed research fits within the scope of the program and is feasible when considering the time and resources available.

A research proposal should convince the person who is going to sanction your research, or put another way, you need to persuade them that your research idea is the best.

Obviously, if it does not convince them that it is reasonable and adequate, you will need to revise and submit it again. As a result, you will lose significant time, causing your research to be delayed or cut short, which is not good.

A good research proposal should have the following structure

A dissertation or thesis research proposal may take on a variety of forms depending on the university, but  most generally a research proposal will include the following elements:

• Titles or title pages that give a description of the research
• Detailed explanation of the proposed research and its background
• Outline of the research project
• An overview of key research studies in the field
• Description the proposed research design (approach)

So, if you include all these elements, you will have a general outline. Let’s take a closer look at how to write them and what to include in each element so that the research proposal is as robust as the idea itself.

A step-by-step guide to writing a research proposal

#1 introduction.

Researchers who wish to obtain grant funding for a project often write a proposal when seeking funding for a research-based postgraduate degree program, or in order to obtain approval for completing a thesis or PhD. Even though this is only a brief introduction, we should be considering it the beginning of an insightful discussion about the significance of a topic that deserves attention.

Your readers should understand what you are trying to accomplish after they read your introduction. Additionally, they should be able to perceive your zeal for the subject matter and a genuine interest in the possible outcome of the research.

As your introduction, consider answering these questions in three to four paragraphs:

• In what way does the study address its primary issue?
• Does that subject matter fall under the domain of that field of study?
• In order to investigate that problem, what method should be used?
• What is the importance of this study?
• How does it impact academia and society overall?
• What are the potential implications of the proposed research for someone reviewing the proposal?

It is not necessary to include an abstract or summary for the introduction to most academic departments and funding sources. Nevertheless, you should confirm your institution’s requirements.

#2 Background and importance

An explanation of the rationale for a research proposal and its significance is provided in this section. It is preferable to separate this part from the introduction so that the narrative flows seamlessly.

This section should be approached by presuming readers are time-pressed but want a general overview of the whole study and the research question.

Please keep in mind that this isn’t an exhaustive essay that contains every detail of your proposed research, rather a concise document that will spark interest in your proposal.

While you should try to take into account the following factors when framing the significance of your proposed study, there are no rigid rules.

• Provide a detailed explanation of the purpose and problem of the study. Multidimensional or interdisciplinary research problems often require this.
• Outline the purpose of your proposed research and describe the advantages of carrying out the study.
• Outline the major issues or problems to be discussed. These might come in the form of questions or comments.
• Be sure to highlight how your research contributes to existing theories that relate to the problem of the study.
• Describe how your study will be conducted, including the source of data and the method of analysis.
• To provide a sense of direction for your study, define the scope of your proposal.
• Defining key concepts or terms, if necessary, is recommended.

The steps to a perfect research proposal all get more specific as we move forward to enhance the concept of the research. In this case, it will become important to make sure that your supervisor or your funder has a clear understanding of every aspect of your research study.

#3 Reviewing prior literature and studies

The aim of this paragraph is to establish the context and significance of your study, including a review of the current literature pertinent to it.

This part aims to properly situate your proposed study within the bigger scheme of things of what is being investigated, while, at the same time, showing the innovation and originality of your proposed work.

When writing a literature review, it is imperative that your format is effective because it often contains extensive information that allows you to demonstrate your main research claims compared to other scholars.

Separating the literature according to major categories or conceptual frameworks is an excellent way to do this. This is a more effective method than listing each study one by one in chronological order.

In order to arrange the review of existing relevant studies in an efficient manner, a literature review is often written using the following five criteria:

• Be sure to cite your previous studies to ensure the focus remains on the research question. For more information, please refer to our guide on how to write a research paper .
• Study the literature’s methods, results, hypotheses, and conclusions. Recognize the authors’ differing perspectives.
• Compare and contrast the various themes, arguments, methodologies, and perspectives discussed in the literature. Explain the most prominent points of disagreement.
• Evaluate the literature. Identify persuasive arguments offered by scholars. Choose the most reliable, valid, and suitable methodologies.
• Consider how the literature relates to your area of research and your topic. Examine whether your proposal for investigation reflects existing literature, deviates from existing literature, synthesizes or adds to it in some way.

#4 Research questions and objectives

The next step is to develop your research objectives once you have determined your research focus.

When your readers read your proposal, what do you want them to learn? Try to write your objectives in one sentence, if you can. Put time and thought into framing them properly.

By setting an objective for your research, you’ll stay on track and avoid getting sidetracked.

Any study proposal should address the following questions irrespective of the topic or problem:

• What are you hoping to accomplish from the study? When describing the study topic and your research question, be concise and to the point.
• What is the purpose of the research? A compelling argument must also be offered to support your choice of topic.
• What research methods will you use? It is essential to outline a clear, logical strategy for completing your study and make sure that it is doable.

Some authors include this section in the introduction, where it is generally placed at the end of the section.

#5 Research Design and Methods

It is important to write this part correctly and organize logically even though you are not starting the research yet.  This must leave readers with a sense of assurance that the topic is worthwhile.

To achieve this, you must convince your reader that your research design and procedures will adequately address the study’s problems. Additionally, it seeks to ensure that the employed methods are capable of interpreting the likely study results efficiently.

You should design your research in a way that is directly related to your objectives.

Exemplifying your study design using examples from your literature review, you are setting up your study design effectively. You should follow other researchers’ good practices.

Pay attention to the methods you will use to collect data, the analyses you will perform, as well as your methods of measuring the validity of your results.

If you describe the methods you will use, make sure you include the following points:

• Develop a plan for conducting your research, as well as how you intend to interpret the findings based on the study’s objectives.
• When describing your objectives with the selected techniques, it is important to also elaborate on your plans.
• This section does not only present a list of events. Once you have chosen the strategy, make sure to explain why it is a good way to analyse your study question. Provide clear explanations.
• Last but not least, plan ahead to overcome any challenges you might encounter during the implementation of your research design.

In the event that you closely follow the best practices outlined in relevant studies as well as justify your selection, you will be prepared to address any questions or concerns you may encounter.

We have an amazing article that will give you everything you need to know about research design .

#6 Knowledge Contribution and Relevance

In this section, you describe your theory about how your study will contribute to, expand, or alter knowledge about the topic of your study.

You should discuss the implications of your research on future studies, applications, concepts, decisions, and procedures. It is common to address the study findings from a conceptual, analytical, or scientific perspective.

If you are framing your proposal of research, these guide questions may help you:

• How could the results be interpreted in the context of contesting the premises of the study?
• Could the expected study results lead to proposals for further research?
• Is your proposed research going to benefit people in any way?
• Is the outcome going to affect individuals in their work setting?
• In what ways will the suggested study impact or enhance the quality of life?
• Are the study’s results going to have an impact on intervention forms, techniques, or policies?
• What potential commercial, societal, or other benefits could be derived from the outcomes?
• Policy decisions will be influenced by the outcomes?
• Upon implementation, could they bring about new insights or breakthroughs?

Throughout this section, you will identify unsolved questions or research gaps in the existing literature. If the study is conducted as proposed, it is important to indicate how the research will be instrumental in understanding the nature of the research problem.

#7 Adherence to the Ethical Principles

In terms of scientific writing style, no particular style is generally acknowledged as more or less effective. The purpose is simply to provide relevant content that is formatted in a standardized way to enhance communication.

There are a variety of publication styles among different scholarly disciplines. It is therefore essential to follow the protocol according to the institution or organization that you are targeting.

All scholarly research and writing is, however, guided by codes of ethical conduct. The purpose of ethical guidelines, if they are followed, is to accomplish three things:

1) Preserve intellectual property right;

2) Ensure the rights and welfare of research participants;

3) Maintain the accuracy of scientific knowledge.

Scholars and writers who follow these ideals adhere to long-standing standards within their professional groups.

An additional ethical principle of the APA stresses the importance of maintaining scientific validity. An observation is at the heart of the standard scientific method, and it is verifiable and repeatable by others.

It is expected that scholars will not falsify or fabricate data in research writing. Researchers must also refrain from altering their studies’ outcomes to support a particular theory or to exclude inconclusive data from their report in an effort to create a convincing one.

#8 The budget

The need for detailed budgetary planning is not required by all universities when studying historical material or academic literature, though some do require it. In the case of a research grant application, you will likely have to include a comprehensive budget that breaks down the costs of each major component.

Ensure that the funding program or organization will cover the required costs, and include only the necessary items. For each of the items, you should include the following.

• To complete the study in its entirety, how much money would you require?
• Discuss the rationale for such a budget item for the purpose of completing research.
• The source of the amount – describe how it was determined.

When doing a study, you cannot buy ingredients the way you normally would. With so many items not having a price tag, how can you make a budget? Take the following into consideration:

• Does your project require access to any software programs or solutions? Do you need to install or train a technology tool?
• How much time will you be spending on your research study? Are you required to take time off from work to do your research?
• Are you going to need to travel to certain locations to meet with respondents or to collect data? At what cost?
• Will you be seeking research assistants for the study you propose? In what capacity and for what compensation? What other aspects are you planning to outsource?

It is possible to calculate a budget while also being able to estimate how much more money you will need in the event of an emergency.

#9 Timeline

A realistic and concise research schedule is also important to keep in mind. You should be able to finish your plan of study within the allotted time period, such as your degree program or the academic calendar.

You should include a timeline that includes a series of objectives you must complete to meet all the requirements for your scholarly research. The process starts with preliminary research and ends with final editing. A completion date for every step is required.

In addition, one should state the development that has been made. It is also recommended to include other relevant research events, for instance paper or poster presentations . In addition, a researcher must update the timeline regularly, as necessary, since this is not a static document.

#10 A Concluding Statement

Presenting a few of the anticipated results of your research proposal is an effective way to conclude your proposal.

The final stage of the process requires you to reveal the conclusion and rationale you anticipate reaching. Considering the research you have done so far, your reader knows that these are anticipated results, which are likely to evolve once the whole study is completed.

In any case, you must let the supervisors or sponsors know what implications may be drawn. It will be easier for them to assess the reliability and relevance of your research.

It will also demonstrate your meticulousness since you will have anticipated and taken into consideration the potential consequences of your research.

The Appendix section is required by some funding sources and academic institutions. This is extra information that is not in the main argument of the proposal, but appears to enhance the points made.

For example, data in the form of tables, consent forms, clinical/research guidelines, and procedures for data collection may be included in this document.

Research Proposal Template

Now that you know all about each element that composes an ideal research proposal, here is an extra help: a ready to use research proposal example. Just hit the button below, make a copy of the document and start working!

Avoid these common mistakes

In an era when rejection rates for prestigious journals can reach as high as 90 percent, you must avoid the following common mistakes when submitting a proposal:

• Proposals that are too long. Stay to the point when you write research proposals. Make your document concise and specific. Be sure not to diverge into off-topic discussions.
• Taking up too much research time. Many students struggle to delineate the context of their studies, regardless of the topic, time, or location. In order to explain the methodology of the study clearly to the reader, the proposal must clearly state what the study will focus on.
• Leaving out significant works from a literature review. Though everything in the proposal should be kept at a minimum, key research studies must need to be included. To understand the scope and growth of the issue, proposals should be based on significant studies.
• Major topics are too rarely discussed, and too much attention is paid to minor details. To persuasively argue for a study, a proposal should focus on just a few key research questions. Minor details should be noted, but should not overshadow the thesis.
• The proposal does not have a compelling and well-supported argument. To prove that a study should be approved or funded, the research proposal must outline its purpose.
• A typographical error, bad grammar or sloppy writing style. Even though a research proposal outlines a part of a larger project, it must conform to academic writing standards and guidelines.

A final note

We have come to the end of our research proposal guide. We really hope that you have found all the information you need. Wishing you success with the research study.

We at Mind the Graph create high quality illustrative graphics for research papers and posters to beautify your work. Check us out here .

Subscribe to our newsletter

Exclusive high quality content about effective visual communication in science.

Unlock Your Creativity

Create infographics, presentations and other scientifically-accurate designs without hassle — absolutely free for 7 days!

About Fabricio Pamplona

Fabricio Pamplona is the founder of Mind the Graph - a tool used by over 400K users in 60 countries. He has a Ph.D. and solid scientific background in Psychopharmacology and experience as a Guest Researcher at the Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry (Germany) and Researcher in D'Or Institute for Research and Education (IDOR, Brazil). Fabricio holds over 2500 citations in Google Scholar. He has 10 years of experience in small innovative businesses, with relevant experience in product design and innovation management. Connect with him on LinkedIn - Fabricio Pamplona .

Content tags

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Assignments

• Annotated Bibliography
• Analyzing a Scholarly Journal Article
• Group Presentations
• Dealing with Nervousness
• Using Visual Aids
• Grading Someone Else's Paper
• Types of Structured Group Activities
• Group Project Survival Skills
• Leading a Class Discussion
• Multiple Book Review Essay
• Reviewing Collected Works
• Writing a Case Analysis Paper
• Writing a Case Study
• About Informed Consent
• Writing Field Notes
• Writing a Policy Memo
• Writing a Reflective Paper
• Writing a Research Proposal
• Generative AI and Writing
• Acknowledgments

The goal of a research proposal is twofold: to present and justify the need to study a research problem and to present the practical ways in which the proposed study should be conducted. The design elements and procedures for conducting research are governed by standards of the predominant discipline in which the problem resides, therefore, the guidelines for research proposals are more exacting and less formal than a general project proposal. Research proposals contain extensive literature reviews. They must provide persuasive evidence that a need exists for the proposed study. In addition to providing a rationale, a proposal describes detailed methodology for conducting the research consistent with requirements of the professional or academic field and a statement on anticipated outcomes and benefits derived from the study's completion.

Krathwohl, David R. How to Prepare a Dissertation Proposal: Suggestions for Students in Education and the Social and Behavioral Sciences . Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2005.

How to Approach Writing a Research Proposal

Your professor may assign the task of writing a research proposal for the following reasons:

• Develop your skills in thinking about and designing a comprehensive research study;
• Learn how to conduct a comprehensive review of the literature to determine that the research problem has not been adequately addressed or has been answered ineffectively and, in so doing, become better at locating pertinent scholarship related to your topic;
• Improve your general research and writing skills;
• Practice identifying the logical steps that must be taken to accomplish one's research goals;
• Critically review, examine, and consider the use of different methods for gathering and analyzing data related to the research problem; and,
• Nurture a sense of inquisitiveness within yourself and to help see yourself as an active participant in the process of conducting scholarly research.

A proposal should contain all the key elements involved in designing a completed research study, with sufficient information that allows readers to assess the validity and usefulness of your proposed study. The only elements missing from a research proposal are the findings of the study and your analysis of those findings. Finally, an effective proposal is judged on the quality of your writing and, therefore, it is important that your proposal is coherent, clear, and compelling.

Regardless of the research problem you are investigating and the methodology you choose, all research proposals must address the following questions:

• What do you plan to accomplish? Be clear and succinct in defining the research problem and what it is you are proposing to investigate.
• Why do you want to do the research? In addition to detailing your research design, you also must conduct a thorough review of the literature and provide convincing evidence that it is a topic worthy of in-depth study. A successful research proposal must answer the "So What?" question.
• How are you going to conduct the research? Be sure that what you propose is doable. If you're having difficulty formulating a research problem to propose investigating, go here for strategies in developing a problem to study.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

• Failure to be concise . A research proposal must be focused and not be "all over the map" or diverge into unrelated tangents without a clear sense of purpose.
• Failure to cite landmark works in your literature review . Proposals should be grounded in foundational research that lays a foundation for understanding the development and scope of the the topic and its relevance.
• Failure to delimit the contextual scope of your research [e.g., time, place, people, etc.]. As with any research paper, your proposed study must inform the reader how and in what ways the study will frame the problem.
• Failure to develop a coherent and persuasive argument for the proposed research . This is critical. In many workplace settings, the research proposal is a formal document intended to argue for why a study should be funded.
• Sloppy or imprecise writing, or poor grammar . Although a research proposal does not represent a completed research study, there is still an expectation that it is well-written and follows the style and rules of good academic writing.
• Too much detail on minor issues, but not enough detail on major issues . Your proposal should focus on only a few key research questions in order to support the argument that the research needs to be conducted. Minor issues, even if valid, can be mentioned but they should not dominate the overall narrative.

Procter, Margaret. The Academic Proposal.  The Lab Report. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Sanford, Keith. Information for Students: Writing a Research Proposal. Baylor University; Wong, Paul T. P. How to Write a Research Proposal. International Network on Personal Meaning. Trinity Western University; Writing Academic Proposals: Conferences, Articles, and Books. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Writing a Research Proposal. University Library. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Structure and Writing Style

Beginning the Proposal Process

As with writing most college-level academic papers, research proposals are generally organized the same way throughout most social science disciplines. The text of proposals generally vary in length between ten and thirty-five pages, followed by the list of references. However, before you begin, read the assignment carefully and, if anything seems unclear, ask your professor whether there are any specific requirements for organizing and writing the proposal.

A good place to begin is to ask yourself a series of questions:

• What do I want to study?
• Why is the topic important?
• How is it significant within the subject areas covered in my class?
• What problems will it help solve?
• How does it build upon [and hopefully go beyond] research already conducted on the topic?
• What exactly should I plan to do, and can I get it done in the time available?

In general, a compelling research proposal should document your knowledge of the topic and demonstrate your enthusiasm for conducting the study. Approach it with the intention of leaving your readers feeling like, "Wow, that's an exciting idea and I can’t wait to see how it turns out!"

Most proposals should include the following sections:

I.  Introduction

In the real world of higher education, a research proposal is most often written by scholars seeking grant funding for a research project or it's the first step in getting approval to write a doctoral dissertation. Even if this is just a course assignment, treat your introduction as the initial pitch of an idea based on a thorough examination of the significance of a research problem. After reading the introduction, your readers should not only have an understanding of what you want to do, but they should also be able to gain a sense of your passion for the topic and to be excited about the study's possible outcomes. Note that most proposals do not include an abstract [summary] before the introduction.

Think about your introduction as a narrative written in two to four paragraphs that succinctly answers the following four questions :

• What is the central research problem?
• What is the topic of study related to that research problem?
• What methods should be used to analyze the research problem?
• Answer the "So What?" question by explaining why this is important research, what is its significance, and why should someone reading the proposal care about the outcomes of the proposed study?

II.  Background and Significance

This is where you explain the scope and context of your proposal and describe in detail why it's important. It can be melded into your introduction or you can create a separate section to help with the organization and narrative flow of your proposal. Approach writing this section with the thought that you can’t assume your readers will know as much about the research problem as you do. Note that this section is not an essay going over everything you have learned about the topic; instead, you must choose what is most relevant in explaining the aims of your research.

To that end, while there are no prescribed rules for establishing the significance of your proposed study, you should attempt to address some or all of the following:

• State the research problem and give a more detailed explanation about the purpose of the study than what you stated in the introduction. This is particularly important if the problem is complex or multifaceted .
• Present the rationale of your proposed study and clearly indicate why it is worth doing; be sure to answer the "So What? question [i.e., why should anyone care?].
• Describe the major issues or problems examined by your research. This can be in the form of questions to be addressed. Be sure to note how your proposed study builds on previous assumptions about the research problem.
• Explain the methods you plan to use for conducting your research. Clearly identify the key sources you intend to use and explain how they will contribute to your analysis of the topic.
• Describe the boundaries of your proposed research in order to provide a clear focus. Where appropriate, state not only what you plan to study, but what aspects of the research problem will be excluded from the study.
• If necessary, provide definitions of key concepts, theories, or terms.

III.  Literature Review

Connected to the background and significance of your study is a section of your proposal devoted to a more deliberate review and synthesis of prior studies related to the research problem under investigation . The purpose here is to place your project within the larger whole of what is currently being explored, while at the same time, demonstrating to your readers that your work is original and innovative. Think about what questions other researchers have asked, what methodological approaches they have used, and what is your understanding of their findings and, when stated, their recommendations. Also pay attention to any suggestions for further research.

Since a literature review is information dense, it is crucial that this section is intelligently structured to enable a reader to grasp the key arguments underpinning your proposed study in relation to the arguments put forth by other researchers. A good strategy is to break the literature into "conceptual categories" [themes] rather than systematically or chronologically describing groups of materials one at a time. Note that conceptual categories generally reveal themselves after you have read most of the pertinent literature on your topic so adding new categories is an on-going process of discovery as you review more studies. How do you know you've covered the key conceptual categories underlying the research literature? Generally, you can have confidence that all of the significant conceptual categories have been identified if you start to see repetition in the conclusions or recommendations that are being made.

NOTE: Do not shy away from challenging the conclusions made in prior research as a basis for supporting the need for your proposal. Assess what you believe is missing and state how previous research has failed to adequately examine the issue that your study addresses. Highlighting the problematic conclusions strengthens your proposal. For more information on writing literature reviews, GO HERE .

To help frame your proposal's review of prior research, consider the "five C’s" of writing a literature review:

• Cite , so as to keep the primary focus on the literature pertinent to your research problem.
• Compare the various arguments, theories, methodologies, and findings expressed in the literature: what do the authors agree on? Who applies similar approaches to analyzing the research problem?
• Contrast the various arguments, themes, methodologies, approaches, and controversies expressed in the literature: describe what are the major areas of disagreement, controversy, or debate among scholars?
• Critique the literature: Which arguments are more persuasive, and why? Which approaches, findings, and methodologies seem most reliable, valid, or appropriate, and why? Pay attention to the verbs you use to describe what an author says/does [e.g., asserts, demonstrates, argues, etc.].
• Connect the literature to your own area of research and investigation: how does your own work draw upon, depart from, synthesize, or add a new perspective to what has been said in the literature?

IV.  Research Design and Methods

This section must be well-written and logically organized because you are not actually doing the research, yet, your reader must have confidence that you have a plan worth pursuing . The reader will never have a study outcome from which to evaluate whether your methodological choices were the correct ones. Thus, the objective here is to convince the reader that your overall research design and proposed methods of analysis will correctly address the problem and that the methods will provide the means to effectively interpret the potential results. Your design and methods should be unmistakably tied to the specific aims of your study.

Describe the overall research design by building upon and drawing examples from your review of the literature. Consider not only methods that other researchers have used, but methods of data gathering that have not been used but perhaps could be. Be specific about the methodological approaches you plan to undertake to obtain information, the techniques you would use to analyze the data, and the tests of external validity to which you commit yourself [i.e., the trustworthiness by which you can generalize from your study to other people, places, events, and/or periods of time].

When describing the methods you will use, be sure to cover the following:

• Specify the research process you will undertake and the way you will interpret the results obtained in relation to the research problem. Don't just describe what you intend to achieve from applying the methods you choose, but state how you will spend your time while applying these methods [e.g., coding text from interviews to find statements about the need to change school curriculum; running a regression to determine if there is a relationship between campaign advertising on social media sites and election outcomes in Europe ].
• Keep in mind that the methodology is not just a list of tasks; it is a deliberate argument as to why techniques for gathering information add up to the best way to investigate the research problem. This is an important point because the mere listing of tasks to be performed does not demonstrate that, collectively, they effectively address the research problem. Be sure you clearly explain this.
• Anticipate and acknowledge any potential barriers and pitfalls in carrying out your research design and explain how you plan to address them. No method applied to research in the social and behavioral sciences is perfect, so you need to describe where you believe challenges may exist in obtaining data or accessing information. It's always better to acknowledge this than to have it brought up by your professor!

V.  Preliminary Suppositions and Implications

Just because you don't have to actually conduct the study and analyze the results, doesn't mean you can skip talking about the analytical process and potential implications . The purpose of this section is to argue how and in what ways you believe your research will refine, revise, or extend existing knowledge in the subject area under investigation. Depending on the aims and objectives of your study, describe how the anticipated results will impact future scholarly research, theory, practice, forms of interventions, or policy making. Note that such discussions may have either substantive [a potential new policy], theoretical [a potential new understanding], or methodological [a potential new way of analyzing] significance.   When thinking about the potential implications of your study, ask the following questions:

• What might the results mean in regards to challenging the theoretical framework and underlying assumptions that support the study?
• What suggestions for subsequent research could arise from the potential outcomes of the study?
• What will the results mean to practitioners in the natural settings of their workplace, organization, or community?
• Will the results influence programs, methods, and/or forms of intervention?
• How might the results contribute to the solution of social, economic, or other types of problems?
• Will the results influence policy decisions?
• In what way do individuals or groups benefit should your study be pursued?
• What will be improved or changed as a result of the proposed research?
• How will the results of the study be implemented and what innovations or transformative insights could emerge from the process of implementation?

NOTE:   This section should not delve into idle speculation, opinion, or be formulated on the basis of unclear evidence . The purpose is to reflect upon gaps or understudied areas of the current literature and describe how your proposed research contributes to a new understanding of the research problem should the study be implemented as designed.

ANOTHER NOTE : This section is also where you describe any potential limitations to your proposed study. While it is impossible to highlight all potential limitations because the study has yet to be conducted, you still must tell the reader where and in what form impediments may arise and how you plan to address them.

VI.  Conclusion

The conclusion reiterates the importance or significance of your proposal and provides a brief summary of the entire study . This section should be only one or two paragraphs long, emphasizing why the research problem is worth investigating, why your research study is unique, and how it should advance existing knowledge.

Someone reading this section should come away with an understanding of:

• Why the study should be done;
• The specific purpose of the study and the research questions it attempts to answer;
• The decision for why the research design and methods used where chosen over other options;
• The potential implications emerging from your proposed study of the research problem; and
• A sense of how your study fits within the broader scholarship about the research problem.

VII.  Citations

As with any scholarly research paper, you must cite the sources you used . In a standard research proposal, this section can take two forms, so consult with your professor about which one is preferred.

• References -- a list of only the sources you actually used in creating your proposal.
• Bibliography -- a list of everything you used in creating your proposal, along with additional citations to any key sources relevant to understanding the research problem.

In either case, this section should testify to the fact that you did enough preparatory work to ensure the project will complement and not just duplicate the efforts of other researchers. It demonstrates to the reader that you have a thorough understanding of prior research on the topic.

Most proposal formats have you start a new page and use the heading "References" or "Bibliography" centered at the top of the page. Cited works should always use a standard format that follows the writing style advised by the discipline of your course [e.g., education=APA; history=Chicago] or that is preferred by your professor. This section normally does not count towards the total page length of your research proposal.

Develop a Research Proposal: Writing the Proposal. Office of Library Information Services. Baltimore County Public Schools; Heath, M. Teresa Pereira and Caroline Tynan. “Crafting a Research Proposal.” The Marketing Review 10 (Summer 2010): 147-168; Jones, Mark. “Writing a Research Proposal.” In MasterClass in Geography Education: Transforming Teaching and Learning . Graham Butt, editor. (New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2015), pp. 113-127; Juni, Muhamad Hanafiah. “Writing a Research Proposal.” International Journal of Public Health and Clinical Sciences 1 (September/October 2014): 229-240; Krathwohl, David R. How to Prepare a Dissertation Proposal: Suggestions for Students in Education and the Social and Behavioral Sciences . Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2005; Procter, Margaret. The Academic Proposal. The Lab Report. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Punch, Keith and Wayne McGowan. "Developing and Writing a Research Proposal." In From Postgraduate to Social Scientist: A Guide to Key Skills . Nigel Gilbert, ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2006), 59-81; Wong, Paul T. P. How to Write a Research Proposal. International Network on Personal Meaning. Trinity Western University; Writing Academic Proposals: Conferences , Articles, and Books. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Writing a Research Proposal. University Library. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

• << Previous: Writing a Reflective Paper
• Next: Generative AI and Writing >>
• Last Updated: Mar 6, 2024 1:00 PM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/assignments

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Starting the research process

A Beginner's Guide to Starting the Research Process

When you have to write a thesis or dissertation , it can be hard to know where to begin, but there are some clear steps you can follow.

The research process often begins with a very broad idea for a topic you’d like to know more about. You do some preliminary research to identify a  problem . After refining your research questions , you can lay out the foundations of your research design , leading to a proposal that outlines your ideas and plans.

This article takes you through the first steps of the research process, helping you narrow down your ideas and build up a strong foundation for your research project.

Table of contents

Step 1: choose your topic, step 2: identify a problem, step 3: formulate research questions, step 4: create a research design, step 5: write a research proposal, other interesting articles.

First you have to come up with some ideas. Your thesis or dissertation topic can start out very broad. Think about the general area or field you’re interested in—maybe you already have specific research interests based on classes you’ve taken, or maybe you had to consider your topic when applying to graduate school and writing a statement of purpose .

Even if you already have a good sense of your topic, you’ll need to read widely to build background knowledge and begin narrowing down your ideas. Conduct an initial literature review to begin gathering relevant sources. As you read, take notes and try to identify problems, questions, debates, contradictions and gaps. Your aim is to narrow down from a broad area of interest to a specific niche.

Make sure to consider the practicalities: the requirements of your programme, the amount of time you have to complete the research, and how difficult it will be to access sources and data on the topic. Before moving onto the next stage, it’s a good idea to discuss the topic with your thesis supervisor.

>>Read more about narrowing down a research topic

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

So you’ve settled on a topic and found a niche—but what exactly will your research investigate, and why does it matter? To give your project focus and purpose, you have to define a research problem .

The problem might be a practical issue—for example, a process or practice that isn’t working well, an area of concern in an organization’s performance, or a difficulty faced by a specific group of people in society.

Alternatively, you might choose to investigate a theoretical problem—for example, an underexplored phenomenon or relationship, a contradiction between different models or theories, or an unresolved debate among scholars.

To put the problem in context and set your objectives, you can write a problem statement . This describes who the problem affects, why research is needed, and how your research project will contribute to solving it.

>>Read more about defining a research problem

Next, based on the problem statement, you need to write one or more research questions . These target exactly what you want to find out. They might focus on describing, comparing, evaluating, or explaining the research problem.

A strong research question should be specific enough that you can answer it thoroughly using appropriate qualitative or quantitative research methods. It should also be complex enough to require in-depth investigation, analysis, and argument. Questions that can be answered with “yes/no” or with easily available facts are not complex enough for a thesis or dissertation.

In some types of research, at this stage you might also have to develop a conceptual framework and testable hypotheses .

>>See research question examples

The research design is a practical framework for answering your research questions. It involves making decisions about the type of data you need, the methods you’ll use to collect and analyze it, and the location and timescale of your research.

There are often many possible paths you can take to answering your questions. The decisions you make will partly be based on your priorities. For example, do you want to determine causes and effects, draw generalizable conclusions, or understand the details of a specific context?

You need to decide whether you will use primary or secondary data and qualitative or quantitative methods . You also need to determine the specific tools, procedures, and materials you’ll use to collect and analyze your data, as well as your criteria for selecting participants or sources.

>>Read more about creating a research design

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Finally, after completing these steps, you are ready to complete a research proposal . The proposal outlines the context, relevance, purpose, and plan of your research.

As well as outlining the background, problem statement, and research questions, the proposal should also include a literature review that shows how your project will fit into existing work on the topic. The research design section describes your approach and explains exactly what you will do.

You might have to get the proposal approved by your supervisor before you get started, and it will guide the process of writing your thesis or dissertation.

>>Read more about writing a research proposal

If you want to know more about the research process , methodology , research bias , or statistics , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

Methodology

• Sampling methods
• Simple random sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Cluster sampling
• Likert scales
• Reproducibility

 Statistics

• Null hypothesis
• Statistical power
• Probability distribution
• Effect size
• Poisson distribution

Research bias

• Optimism bias
• Cognitive bias
• Implicit bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Anchoring bias
• Explicit bias

Is this article helpful?

Other students also liked.

• Writing Strong Research Questions | Criteria & Examples

What Is a Research Design | Types, Guide & Examples

• How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates

More interesting articles

• 10 Research Question Examples to Guide Your Research Project
• How to Choose a Dissertation Topic | 8 Steps to Follow
• How to Define a Research Problem | Ideas & Examples
• How to Write a Problem Statement | Guide & Examples
• Relevance of Your Dissertation Topic | Criteria & Tips
• Research Objectives | Definition & Examples
• What Is a Fishbone Diagram? | Templates & Examples
• What Is Root Cause Analysis? | Definition & Examples

"I thought AI Proofreading was useless but.."

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Research process
• How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates

How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates

Published on 30 October 2022 by Shona McCombes and Tegan George. Revised on 13 June 2023.

A research proposal describes what you will investigate, why it’s important, and how you will conduct your research.

The format of a research proposal varies between fields, but most proposals will contain at least these elements:

Introduction

Literature review.

• Research design

Reference list

While the sections may vary, the overall objective is always the same. A research proposal serves as a blueprint and guide for your research plan, helping you get organised and feel confident in the path forward you choose to take.

Table of contents

Research proposal purpose, research proposal examples, research design and methods, contribution to knowledge, research schedule, frequently asked questions.

Academics often have to write research proposals to get funding for their projects. As a student, you might have to write a research proposal as part of a grad school application , or prior to starting your thesis or dissertation .

In addition to helping you figure out what your research can look like, a proposal can also serve to demonstrate why your project is worth pursuing to a funder, educational institution, or supervisor.

Research proposal length

The length of a research proposal can vary quite a bit. A bachelor’s or master’s thesis proposal can be just a few pages, while proposals for PhD dissertations or research funding are usually much longer and more detailed. Your supervisor can help you determine the best length for your work.

One trick to get started is to think of your proposal’s structure as a shorter version of your thesis or dissertation , only without the results , conclusion and discussion sections.

Download our research proposal template

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Writing a research proposal can be quite challenging, but a good starting point could be to look at some examples. We’ve included a few for you below.

• Example research proposal #1: ‘A Conceptual Framework for Scheduling Constraint Management’
• Example research proposal #2: ‘ Medical Students as Mediators of Change in Tobacco Use’

Like your dissertation or thesis, the proposal will usually have a title page that includes:

• The proposed title of your project
• Your supervisor’s name
• Your institution and department

The first part of your proposal is the initial pitch for your project. Make sure it succinctly explains what you want to do and why.

Your introduction should:

• Introduce your topic
• Give necessary background and context
• Outline your  problem statement  and research questions

To guide your introduction , include information about:

• Who could have an interest in the topic (e.g., scientists, policymakers)
• How much is already known about the topic
• What is missing from this current knowledge
• What new insights your research will contribute
• Why you believe this research is worth doing

As you get started, it’s important to demonstrate that you’re familiar with the most important research on your topic. A strong literature review  shows your reader that your project has a solid foundation in existing knowledge or theory. It also shows that you’re not simply repeating what other people have already done or said, but rather using existing research as a jumping-off point for your own.

In this section, share exactly how your project will contribute to ongoing conversations in the field by:

• Comparing and contrasting the main theories, methods, and debates
• Examining the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches
• Explaining how will you build on, challenge, or synthesise prior scholarship

Following the literature review, restate your main  objectives . This brings the focus back to your own project. Next, your research design or methodology section will describe your overall approach, and the practical steps you will take to answer your research questions.

To finish your proposal on a strong note, explore the potential implications of your research for your field. Emphasise again what you aim to contribute and why it matters.

For example, your results might have implications for:

• Improving best practices
• Informing policymaking decisions
• Strengthening a theory or model
• Challenging popular or scientific beliefs
• Creating a basis for future research

Last but not least, your research proposal must include correct citations for every source you have used, compiled in a reference list . To create citations quickly and easily, you can use our free APA citation generator .

Some institutions or funders require a detailed timeline of the project, asking you to forecast what you will do at each stage and how long it may take. While not always required, be sure to check the requirements of your project.

Here’s an example schedule to help you get started. You can also download a template at the button below.

Download our research schedule template

If you are applying for research funding, chances are you will have to include a detailed budget. This shows your estimates of how much each part of your project will cost.

Make sure to check what type of costs the funding body will agree to cover. For each item, include:

• Cost : exactly how much money do you need?
• Justification : why is this cost necessary to complete the research?
• Source : how did you calculate the amount?

To determine your budget, think about:

• Travel costs : do you need to go somewhere to collect your data? How will you get there, and how much time will you need? What will you do there (e.g., interviews, archival research)?
• Materials : do you need access to any tools or technologies?
• Help : do you need to hire any research assistants for the project? What will they do, and how much will you pay them?

Once you’ve decided on your research objectives , you need to explain them in your paper, at the end of your problem statement.

Keep your research objectives clear and concise, and use appropriate verbs to accurately convey the work that you will carry out for each one.

I will compare …

A research aim is a broad statement indicating the general purpose of your research project. It should appear in your introduction at the end of your problem statement , before your research objectives.

Research objectives are more specific than your research aim. They indicate the specific ways you’ll address the overarching aim.

A PhD, which is short for philosophiae doctor (doctor of philosophy in Latin), is the highest university degree that can be obtained. In a PhD, students spend 3–5 years writing a dissertation , which aims to make a significant, original contribution to current knowledge.

A PhD is intended to prepare students for a career as a researcher, whether that be in academia, the public sector, or the private sector.

A master’s is a 1- or 2-year graduate degree that can prepare you for a variety of careers.

All master’s involve graduate-level coursework. Some are research-intensive and intend to prepare students for further study in a PhD; these usually require their students to write a master’s thesis . Others focus on professional training for a specific career.

Critical thinking refers to the ability to evaluate information and to be aware of biases or assumptions, including your own.

Like information literacy , it involves evaluating arguments, identifying and solving problems in an objective and systematic way, and clearly communicating your ideas.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

McCombes, S. & George, T. (2023, June 13). How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved 15 April 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/the-research-process/research-proposal-explained/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, what is a literature review | guide, template, & examples, how to write a results section | tips & examples.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter 14: The Research Proposal

15- Step Approach to Writing a Research Proposal

Step 1: Give the research proposal a title.

Step 2: Provide relevant personal and professional details below the title.

Step 3: Provide a short abstract or summary of around 300 words. (Some proposals do not include an abstract. Ask if you are unsure whether or not one is required.)

Step 4: Supply five keywords to describe the research proposal.

Step 5: Construct an introduction that contains the rationale and overview of a relevant literature review.

Step 6:  State the aim, research question, sub-questions and hypotheses/null hypotheses (if applicable) of the proposed research study.

Step 7: Outline the research methods.

Step 8: Select the setting, participants, sampling method, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and method of recruitment.

Step 9: Describe the data collection instruments to be utilized.

Step 10: Detail the intended data processing and analysis methods to be utilized.

Step 11. Declare any ethical considerations and outline data protection procedures to be followed.

Step 12: Produce a timetable. Consider potential problems that may occur and describe the limitations of the study.

Step 13: Estimate the resources that may be required.

Step 14: Create a reference list or bibliography (depending upon the assignment instructions).

Step 15: Append relevant additional material.

Research Methods for the Social Sciences: An Introduction Copyright © 2020 by Valerie Sheppard is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Resources Home 🏠
• Try SciSpace Copilot
• Search research papers
• Add Copilot Extension
• Try AI Detector
• Try Paraphraser
• Try Citation Generator
• April Papers
• June Papers
• July Papers

How to Write a Research Proposal

Table of Contents

In academia, especially in social and behavioral sciences, writing a research proposal is an essential first step while planning a new research project. A research proposal is an initial pitch, or theoretical framework that serves to introduce the topic and anticipated results of a project, provide an overview of the methods to be used, and convince the reader that the proposed research can be conducted successfully. It is very essential to know how to write a research proposal, whether you are a student trying to fulfill course requirements or a researcher looking for funding for scholarly research. But writing a well-structured proposal is easier said than done.

To make things simpler for you, In this article, I explained the fundamentals of a research proposal, its structure, the steps involved in writing a research proposal, and common mistakes to avoid. Continue reading to gain a thorough understanding of the concept and purpose of a research proposal. This blog will also enable you to write the research proposal quickly, reducing the likelihood of rejection.

What is a Research Proposal?

In simpler terms,  A research proposal is a document written to explain and justify your chosen research topic and the necessity to carry out that particular research by addressing the research problem. Likewise, a good research proposal should carry the proposed research's results and benefits, backed by convincing evidence.

Always keep your audience in mind while writing your research proposal. Your audience expects a concise summary and a detailed research methodology from you in the research proposal.

To begin, you must understand the purpose of a research proposal in order to effectively write a research proposal and also to receive swift approvals.

What is the purpose or importance of a research proposal?

A research proposal's purpose is to provide a detailed outline of the process that will be used to answer a specific research problem. Whereas the goal of the research proposal varies from person to person. In some cases, it may be to secure funding, while in others, it may be to obtain a meager approval from the committee or the supervisor to proceed with the research project. Regardless of your research proposal's end goal, you are supposed to write a research proposal that fulfills its intended purpose of presenting the best plan for your research.

While writing a research proposal, you should demonstrate how and why your proposed research is crucial for the domain, especially if it is social and behavioral sciences. It would help if you showed how your work is necessary by addressing some key points like:

• Bridging the gaps in the existing domain of research.
• Adding new and fresh perspectives to the existing understanding of the topic.
• Undervalued data in the current stats of the domain.

Furthermore, your research proposal must demonstrate that you, as an author, are capable of conducting the research and that the results will significantly contribute to the field of knowledge. To do so, include and explain your academic background and significance along with your previous accolades to demonstrate that you and your idea have academic merit.

What is the ideal length of a research proposal?

There are no hard and fast rules about how long a research proposal should be, and it varies dramatically from different institutions and publishers. However, as a standard domain practice, a research proposal is generally between 3000- 4000 words. A majority of globally reputed institutions follow the 3000- 3500 word limit.

Since the research proposal is written well before the research is conducted, you need to outline all the necessary elements your research will entail and accomplish. Once completed, your research proposal must resemble a concise version of a thesis or dissertation without results and a discussion section.

Structure of a research proposal

When you recognize a gap in the existing books of knowledge, you will address it by developing a research problem. A research problem is a question that researchers want to answer. It is the starting point for any research project, and it can be broad or narrow, depending on your objectives. Once you have a problem, it is followed by articulating a research question. After that, you can embark on the process of writing a research proposal.

Whether your goal is to secure funding or just approval, nevertheless, your research proposal needs to follow the basic outline of a research paper, containing all the necessary sections. Therefore, the structure of a research proposal closely resembles and follows a thesis or dissertation or any research paper. It should contain the following sections:

As is well known, the first thing that catches the reader's attention is a catchy title. Therefore, you should try to come up with a catchy yet informative title for your research proposal. Additionally, it should be concise and clear to reflect enough information about your research question.

To create a good research proposal, try writing the title to induce interest and information in your readers. Pro-Tip: Avoid using phrases such as “An investigation of …” or “A review of …” etc. . These have been overused for ages and may reflect your research title as a regular entry. On the other hand, concise and well-defined titles are always something readers like and stand higher chances for a proposal approval.

2. Abstract

Write your abstract in a brief yet very informative way. It should summarize the research you intend to conduct. Put an emphasis on the research question, research hypothesis , research design and methods, and the key findings of your proposed research.

If you wish to create a detailed proposal, try including a table of contents. It will help readers navigate easily and catch a glance at your entire proposal writing. Check out this guide if you want to learn more about how to write a research abstract for your scholarly research.

3. Introduction

All papers need a striking introduction to set the context of the research question. While framing your research proposal, ensure that the introduction provides rich background and relevant information about the research question.

Your entire research proposal hinges upon your research question. Thus, fit should come out clearly in the intro. Provide a general introduction without clear explanations, and it might render your research proposal insignificant.

Start your research proposal with the research problem, engage your audience with elements that relate to the problem, and then shed some light on the research question. Then, proceed with your study's evidence-based justification, and you'll find that the audience is sticking with your proposal narrative.

While writing your research proposal, ensure that you have covered the following:

• Purpose of your study.
• Background information and significance of your study.
• Introduction to the question, followed by an introduction to the paper.
• Brief mention of the critical issues that you will focus on.
• Declaration of independent and dependent variables of the research hypothesis. (You can learn more about the variables of the research hypothesis here .)

4. Literature Review

Writing a literature review is an important part of the research process. It provides the researcher with a summary of previous studies that have been conducted on a subject, and it helps the researcher determine what areas might need additional investigation in the existing research. Guidelines for the literature review vary for different institutions.

To effectively conduct and write a literature review check this guide . You can also use tools like SciSpace Copilot , our AI research assistant that makes reading academic papers a much easier task. You can use it to get simple explanations for complex text, maths, or tables. Copilot can be particularly helpful when you’re sifting through papers as you can quickly understand the abstract, get some context around the study, and identify if the paper is relevant to your project or not.

The literature review can either be kept as a separate section or incorporated into the introduction section. A separate section is always favorable and vital in gaining the research proposal approval. Additionally, a separate section for a literature review offers in-depth background data and demonstrates the relevance of your research question by emphasizing the gaps that have remained since the previous study.

Your research proposal’s literature review must contain and serve the following:

• To provide a reference of the studies and the researchers who have previously worked in the same domain.
• To provide the build path of your research question.
• To furnish a critical examination of the previous research works.
• To present the research issues about the current investigation.
• To convince the audience about the importance of your research in the relevant domain.

Need help you with your literature review? Try SciSpace Discover and get barrier-free access to scientific knowledge.

Discover millions of peer-reviewed research articles and their full-text PDFs here. The articles can be compiled in one place and saved for later use to conduct a Hassel-free literature review.

5. Research Methodology

Research design and methods is the section where you explain how you will be conducting the proposed research. Ensure that you provide and include a sufficient explanation for the chosen methods. Additionally, include some points explaining how your chosen methods will help you get the desired or expected results.

Provide ample information to the readers about your research procedures so that they can easily comprehend the methodology and its expected results. Through your research methodology, you can easily show your audience whether the results you are promising can be achieved or not.

Most importantly, make sure the methodology you choose—whether qualitative or quantitative—is the best fit for your research. You should also be able to justify your choice.

Additionally, you should properly explain both the quantitative and qualitative components of your research if they are both used. For a qualitative approach, you must offer more elaborate and in-depth theoretical-based evidence. On the other hand, for the quantitative approach, you must describe the survey or lab setup, sample size, tools, and data collection methods.

Make sure you have plenty of explanations for the research methodology to support how you approached the research problem.

6. Expected Research Results

The expected research results section is where the researcher states what they expect to find in their research. The purpose of this section is to provide a summary of the study's goals, as well as give an overview of what the researcher expects will be found out. These results must orient the reader in sync with the methodology section and provide the answers to the research questions.

7. Limitations

The limitations section of an academic research paper is a section in which the writers of the paper discuss the weaknesses of their study. They do this by identifying problems with their methods, design, and implementation. This section should also discuss any other factors that may have affected the results or accuracy of the study. This section allows readers to understand how much confidence they can place in the findings, and how applicable they are to other contexts.

Furthermore, it will also showcase your honesty and complete understanding of the topic. Your research proposal’s limitations can include:

• Reasons for the chosen sample size.
• Justifications for the availability of resources at hand.
• Any unexpected error that might occur in the course of research as well.

8. Reference and Bibliography

If you don’t want your efforts to be tagged as plagiarized, ensure that you include the reference section at the end of the research proposal and follow the appropriate citation guidelines while citing different scholarly sources and various other researchers’ work.

For references, use both the in-text and footnote citations. List all the literature you have used to gather the information. However, in the bibliography, apart from including the references you have cited, you should include the sources that you didn't cite.

Reasons why research proposals get rejected

Research proposals often get rejected due to the smallest of mistakes. To keep the chances of getting your research proposal rejection at bay or a minimum, you should be aware of what grounds committees or supervisors often decide on rejection.

Follow through to understand the common reasons why research papers get rejected:

• The proposal stated a flawed hypothesis.
• The readers or the audience don't get convinced that the expected results will be anything new or unique.
• The research methodology lacks the details and may appear unrealistic.
• The research proposal lacks coherence in the problem statement, methodology, and results.
• Inadequate literature review.
• Inaccurate interpretation of expected results from the methodology.
• Plagiarized or copied sections of the research proposal.

Common mistakes to avoid

You must stay aware of the research proposal guidelines and best writing manners. To maximize the approval chances of your research proposal, you should try to avoid some common pitfalls like:

• Making it verbose

Try explaining the various sections of the research proposal economically. Ideally, you should strive to keep your writing as a concise, brief, and to the point as possible. The more concisely you explain the purpose and goal of your research proposal, the better.

• Focusing on minor issues than tackling the core

While writing the research proposal, you may feel every issue is important, and you should provide an explanatory note for that. However, stay wiser while selecting the importance of issues. Avoid falling into the trap of trivial issues, as it may distract your readers from the core issues.

• Failure to put a strong research argument

The easiest way your readers can undermine your research proposal is by stating it is far more subjective and sounds unrealistic. A potent research argument describing the gaps in the current field, its importance, significance, and contributions to your research is the foremost requirement of a good research proposal.

Remember, even though you are proposing the objective, academic way, the goal is to persuade the audience to provide you with the required research approval.

• Not citing correctly

Understand that when you are going for some research, its outcome will contribute to the existing pool of knowledge. Therefore, always cite some landmark works of your chosen research domain and connect your proposed work with it.

Providing such intricate details will establish your research's importance, relevance, and familiarity with the domain knowledge.

Before You Go,

You might also like.

Consensus GPT vs. SciSpace GPT: Choose the Best GPT for Research

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework: Understanding the Differences

Types of Essays in Academic Writing - Quick Guide (2024)

What (Exactly) Is A Research Proposal?

A simple explainer with examples + free template.

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Reviewed By: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | June 2020 (Updated April 2023)

Whether you’re nearing the end of your degree and your dissertation is on the horizon, or you’re planning to apply for a PhD program, chances are you’ll need to craft a convincing research proposal . If you’re on this page, you’re probably unsure exactly what the research proposal is all about. Well, you’ve come to the right place.

Overview: Research Proposal Basics

• What a research proposal is
• What a research proposal needs to cover
• How to structure your research proposal
• Example /sample proposals
• Proposal writing FAQs
• Key takeaways & additional resources

What is a research proposal?

Simply put, a research proposal is a structured, formal document that explains what you plan to research (your research topic), why it’s worth researching (your justification), and how  you plan to investigate it (your methodology). 

The purpose of the research proposal (its job, so to speak) is to convince  your research supervisor, committee or university that your research is  suitable  (for the requirements of the degree program) and  manageable  (given the time and resource constraints you will face). 

The most important word here is “ convince ” – in other words, your research proposal needs to  sell  your research idea (to whoever is going to approve it). If it doesn’t convince them (of its suitability and manageability), you’ll need to revise and resubmit . This will cost you valuable time, which will either delay the start of your research or eat into its time allowance (which is bad news). 

What goes into a research proposal?

A good dissertation or thesis proposal needs to cover the “ what “, “ why ” and” how ” of the proposed study. Let’s look at each of these attributes in a little more detail:

Your proposal needs to clearly articulate your research topic . This needs to be specific and unambiguous . Your research topic should make it clear exactly what you plan to research and in what context. Here’s an example of a well-articulated research topic:

An investigation into the factors which impact female Generation Y consumer’s likelihood to promote a specific makeup brand to their peers: a British context

As you can see, this topic is extremely clear. From this one line we can see exactly:

• What’s being investigated – factors that make people promote or advocate for a brand of a specific makeup brand
• Who it involves – female Gen-Y consumers
• In what context – the United Kingdom

So, make sure that your research proposal provides a detailed explanation of your research topic . If possible, also briefly outline your research aims and objectives , and perhaps even your research questions (although in some cases you’ll only develop these at a later stage). Needless to say, don’t start writing your proposal until you have a clear topic in mind , or you’ll end up waffling and your research proposal will suffer as a result of this.

Need a helping hand?

As we touched on earlier, it’s not good enough to simply propose a research topic – you need to justify why your topic is original . In other words, what makes it  unique ? What gap in the current literature does it fill? If it’s simply a rehash of the existing research, it’s probably not going to get approval – it needs to be fresh.

But,  originality  alone is not enough. Once you’ve ticked that box, you also need to justify why your proposed topic is  important . In other words, what value will it add to the world if you achieve your research aims?

As an example, let’s look at the sample research topic we mentioned earlier (factors impacting brand advocacy). In this case, if the research could uncover relevant factors, these findings would be very useful to marketers in the cosmetics industry, and would, therefore, have commercial value . That is a clear justification for the research.

So, when you’re crafting your research proposal, remember that it’s not enough for a topic to simply be unique. It needs to be useful and value-creating – and you need to convey that value in your proposal. If you’re struggling to find a research topic that makes the cut, watch  our video covering how to find a research topic .

It’s all good and well to have a great topic that’s original and valuable, but you’re not going to convince anyone to approve it without discussing the practicalities – in other words:

• How will you actually undertake your research (i.e., your methodology)?
• Is your research methodology appropriate given your research aims?
• Is your approach manageable given your constraints (time, money, etc.)?

While it’s generally not expected that you’ll have a fully fleshed-out methodology at the proposal stage, you’ll likely still need to provide a high-level overview of your research methodology . Here are some important questions you’ll need to address in your research proposal:

• Will you take a qualitative , quantitative or mixed -method approach?
• What sampling strategy will you adopt?
• How will you collect your data (e.g., interviews, surveys, etc)?
• How will you analyse your data (e.g., descriptive and inferential statistics , content analysis, discourse analysis, etc, .)?
• What potential limitations will your methodology carry?

So, be sure to give some thought to the practicalities of your research and have at least a basic methodological plan before you start writing up your proposal. If this all sounds rather intimidating, the video below provides a good introduction to research methodology and the key choices you’ll need to make.

How To Structure A Research Proposal

Now that we’ve covered the key points that need to be addressed in a proposal, you may be wondering, “ But how is a research proposal structured? “.

While the exact structure and format required for a research proposal differs from university to university, there are four “essential ingredients” that commonly make up the structure of a research proposal:

• A rich introduction and background to the proposed research
• An initial literature review covering the existing research
• An overview of the proposed research methodology
• A discussion regarding the practicalities (project plans, timelines, etc.)

In the video below, we unpack each of these four sections, step by step.

Research Proposal Examples/Samples

In the video below, we provide a detailed walkthrough of two successful research proposals (Master’s and PhD-level), as well as our popular free proposal template.

Proposal Writing FAQs

How long should a research proposal be.

This varies tremendously, depending on the university, the field of study (e.g., social sciences vs natural sciences), and the level of the degree (e.g. undergraduate, Masters or PhD) – so it’s always best to check with your university what their specific requirements are before you start planning your proposal.

As a rough guide, a formal research proposal at Masters-level often ranges between 2000-3000 words, while a PhD-level proposal can be far more detailed, ranging from 5000-8000 words. In some cases, a rough outline of the topic is all that’s needed, while in other cases, universities expect a very detailed proposal that essentially forms the first three chapters of the dissertation or thesis.

The takeaway – be sure to check with your institution before you start writing.

How do I choose a topic for my research proposal?

Finding a good research topic is a process that involves multiple steps. We cover the topic ideation process in this video post.

How do I write a literature review for my proposal?

While you typically won’t need a comprehensive literature review at the proposal stage, you still need to demonstrate that you’re familiar with the key literature and are able to synthesise it. We explain the literature review process here.

How do I create a timeline and budget for my proposal?

We explain how to craft a project plan/timeline and budget in Research Proposal Bootcamp .

Which referencing format should I use in my research proposal?

The expectations and requirements regarding formatting and referencing vary from institution to institution. Therefore, you’ll need to check this information with your university.

What common proposal writing mistakes do I need to look out for?

We’ve create a video post about some of the most common mistakes students make when writing a proposal – you can access that here . If you’re short on time, here’s a quick summary:

• The research topic is too broad (or just poorly articulated).
• The research aims, objectives and questions don’t align.
• The research topic is not well justified.
• The study has a weak theoretical foundation.
• The research design is not well articulated well enough.
• Poor writing and sloppy presentation.
• Poor project planning and risk management.
• Not following the university’s specific criteria.

Key Takeaways & Additional Resources

As you write up your research proposal, remember the all-important core purpose:  to convince . Your research proposal needs to sell your study in terms of suitability and viability. So, focus on crafting a convincing narrative to ensure a strong proposal.

At the same time, pay close attention to your university’s requirements. While we’ve covered the essentials here, every institution has its own set of expectations and it’s essential that you follow these to maximise your chances of approval.

By the way, we’ve got plenty more resources to help you fast-track your research proposal. Here are some of our most popular resources to get you started:

• Proposal Writing 101 : A Introductory Webinar
• Research Proposal Bootcamp : The Ultimate Online Course
• Template : A basic template to help you craft your proposal

If you’re looking for 1-on-1 support with your research proposal, be sure to check out our private coaching service , where we hold your hand through the proposal development process (and the entire research journey), step by step.

Psst… there’s more!

This post is an extract from our bestselling short course, Research Proposal Bootcamp . If you want to work smart, you don't want to miss this .

You Might Also Like:

51 Comments

I truly enjoyed this video, as it was eye-opening to what I have to do in the preparation of preparing a Research proposal.

I would be interested in getting some coaching.

I real appreciate on your elaboration on how to develop research proposal,the video explains each steps clearly.

Thank you for the video. It really assisted me and my niece. I am a PhD candidate and she is an undergraduate student. It is at times, very difficult to guide a family member but with this video, my job is done.

In view of the above, I welcome more coaching.

Wonderful guidelines, thanks

This is very helpful. Would love to continue even as I prepare for starting my masters next year.

Thanks for the work done, the text was helpful to me

Bundle of thanks to you for the research proposal guide it was really good and useful if it is possible please send me the sample of research proposal

You’re most welcome. We don’t have any research proposals that we can share (the students own the intellectual property), but you might find our research proposal template useful: https://gradcoach.com/research-proposal-template/

Cheruiyot Moses Kipyegon

Thanks alot. It was an eye opener that came timely enough before my imminent proposal defense. Thanks, again

thank you very much your lesson is very interested may God be with you

I am an undergraduate student (First Degree) preparing to write my project,this video and explanation had shed more light to me thanks for your efforts keep it up.

Very useful. I am grateful.

this is a very a good guidance on research proposal, for sure i have learnt something

Wonderful guidelines for writing a research proposal, I am a student of m.phil( education), this guideline is suitable for me. Thanks

You’re welcome 🙂

Thank you, this was so helpful.

A really great and insightful video. It opened my eyes as to how to write a research paper. I would like to receive more guidance for writing my research paper from your esteemed faculty.

Thank you, great insights

Thank you, great insights, thank you so much, feeling edified

Wow thank you, great insights, thanks a lot

Thank you. This is a great insight. I am a student preparing for a PhD program. I am requested to write my Research Proposal as part of what I am required to submit before my unconditional admission. I am grateful having listened to this video which will go a long way in helping me to actually choose a topic of interest and not just any topic as well as to narrow down the topic and be specific about it. I indeed need more of this especially as am trying to choose a topic suitable for a DBA am about embarking on. Thank you once more. The video is indeed helpful.

Have learnt a lot just at the right time. Thank you so much.

thank you very much ,because have learn a lot things concerning research proposal and be blessed u for your time that you providing to help us

Hi. For my MSc medical education research, please evaluate this topic for me: Training Needs Assessment of Faculty in Medical Training Institutions in Kericho and Bomet Counties

I have really learnt a lot based on research proposal and it’s formulation

Thank you. I learn much from the proposal since it is applied

Your effort is much appreciated – you have good articulation.

You have good articulation.

I do applaud your simplified method of explaining the subject matter, which indeed has broaden my understanding of the subject matter. Definitely this would enable me writing a sellable research proposal.

This really helping

Great! I liked your tutoring on how to find a research topic and how to write a research proposal. Precise and concise. Thank you very much. Will certainly share this with my students. Research made simple indeed.

Thank you very much. I an now assist my students effectively.

Thank you very much. I can now assist my students effectively.

I need any research proposal

Thank you for these videos. I will need chapter by chapter assistance in writing my MSc dissertation

Very helpfull

the videos are very good and straight forward

thanks so much for this wonderful presentations, i really enjoyed it to the fullest wish to learn more from you

Thank you very much. I learned a lot from your lecture.

I really enjoy the in-depth knowledge on research proposal you have given. me. You have indeed broaden my understanding and skills. Thank you

interesting session this has equipped me with knowledge as i head for exams in an hour’s time, am sure i get A++

This article was most informative and easy to understand. I now have a good idea of how to write my research proposal.

Thank you very much.

Wow, this literature is very resourceful and interesting to read. I enjoyed it and I intend reading it every now then.

Thank you for the clarity

Thank you. Very helpful.

Thank you very much for this essential piece. I need 1o1 coaching, unfortunately, your service is not available in my country. Anyways, a very important eye-opener. I really enjoyed it. A thumb up to Gradcoach

What is JAM? Please explain.

Thank you so much for these videos. They are extremely helpful! God bless!

very very wonderful…

thank you for the video but i need a written example

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

We use essential cookies to make Venngage work. By clicking “Accept All Cookies”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts.

Manage Cookies

Cookies and similar technologies collect certain information about how you’re using our website. Some of them are essential, and without them you wouldn’t be able to use Venngage. But others are optional, and you get to choose whether we use them or not.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

These cookies are always on, as they’re essential for making Venngage work, and making it safe. Without these cookies, services you’ve asked for can’t be provided.

Show cookie providers

• Google Login

Functionality Cookies

These cookies help us provide enhanced functionality and personalisation, and remember your settings. They may be set by us or by third party providers.

Performance Cookies

These cookies help us analyze how many people are using Venngage, where they come from and how they're using it. If you opt out of these cookies, we can’t get feedback to make Venngage better for you and all our users.

• Google Analytics

Targeting Cookies

These cookies are set by our advertising partners to track your activity and show you relevant Venngage ads on other sites as you browse the internet.

• Google Tag Manager
• Infographics
• Daily Infographics
• Graphic Design
• Graphs and Charts
• Data Visualization
• Human Resources
• Beginner Guides

Blog Education

How to Write a Research Proposal: A Step-by-Step

By Danesh Ramuthi , Nov 29, 2023

A research proposal is a structured outline for a planned study on a specific topic. It serves as a roadmap, guiding researchers through the process of converting their research idea into a feasible project. 

The aim of a research proposal is multifold: it articulates the research problem, establishes a theoretical framework, outlines the research methodology and highlights the potential significance of the study. Importantly, it’s a critical tool for scholars seeking grant funding or approval for their research projects.

Crafting a good research proposal requires not only understanding your research topic and methodological approaches but also the ability to present your ideas clearly and persuasively. Explore Venngage’s Proposal Maker and Research Proposals Templates to begin your journey in writing a compelling research proposal.

What to include in a research proposal?

In a research proposal, include a clear statement of your research question or problem, along with an explanation of its significance. This should be followed by a literature review that situates your proposed study within the context of existing research. 

Your proposal should also outline the research methodology, detailing how you plan to conduct your study, including data collection and analysis methods.

Additionally, include a theoretical framework that guides your research approach, a timeline or research schedule, and a budget if applicable. It’s important to also address the anticipated outcomes and potential implications of your study. A well-structured research proposal will clearly communicate your research objectives, methods and significance to the readers.

How to format a research proposal?

Formatting a research proposal involves adhering to a structured outline to ensure clarity and coherence. While specific requirements may vary, a standard research proposal typically includes the following elements:

• Title Page: Must include the title of your research proposal, your name and affiliations. The title should be concise and descriptive of your proposed research.
• Abstract: A brief summary of your proposal, usually not exceeding 250 words. It should highlight the research question, methodology and the potential impact of the study.
• Introduction: Introduces your research question or problem, explains its significance, and states the objectives of your study.
• Literature review: Here, you contextualize your research within existing scholarship, demonstrating your knowledge of the field and how your research will contribute to it.
• Methodology: Outline your research methods, including how you will collect and analyze data. This section should be detailed enough to show the feasibility and thoughtfulness of your approach.
• Timeline: Provide an estimated schedule for your research, breaking down the process into stages with a realistic timeline for each.
• Budget (if applicable): If your research requires funding, include a detailed budget outlining expected cost.
• References/Bibliography: List all sources referenced in your proposal in a consistent citation style.

How to write a research proposal in 11 steps?

Writing a research proposal in structured steps ensures a comprehensive and coherent presentation of your research project. Let’s look at the explanation for each of the steps here:  

Step 1: Title and Abstract Step 2: Introduction Step 3: Research objectives Step 4: Literature review Step 5: Methodology Step 6: Timeline Step 7: Resources Step 8: Ethical considerations Step 9: Expected outcomes and significance Step 10: References Step 11: Appendices

Step 1: title and abstract.

Select a concise, descriptive title and write an abstract summarizing your research question, objectives, methodology and expected outcomes​​. The abstract should include your research question, the objectives you aim to achieve, the methodology you plan to employ and the anticipated outcomes. 

Step 2: Introduction

In this section, introduce the topic of your research, emphasizing its significance and relevance to the field. Articulate the research problem or question in clear terms and provide background context, which should include an overview of previous research in the field.

Step 3: Research objectives

Here, you’ll need to outline specific, clear and achievable objectives that align with your research problem. These objectives should be well-defined, focused and measurable, serving as the guiding pillars for your study. They help in establishing what you intend to accomplish through your research and provide a clear direction for your investigation.

Step 4: Literature review

In this part, conduct a thorough review of existing literature related to your research topic. This involves a detailed summary of key findings and major contributions from previous research. Identify existing gaps in the literature and articulate how your research aims to fill these gaps. The literature review not only shows your grasp of the subject matter but also how your research will contribute new insights or perspectives to the field.

Step 5: Methodology

Describe the design of your research and the methodologies you will employ. This should include detailed information on data collection methods, instruments to be used and analysis techniques. Justify the appropriateness of these methods for your research​​.

Step 6: Timeline

Construct a detailed timeline that maps out the major milestones and activities of your research project. Break the entire research process into smaller, manageable tasks and assign realistic time frames to each. This timeline should cover everything from the initial research phase to the final submission, including periods for data collection, analysis and report writing. 

It helps in ensuring your project stays on track and demonstrates to reviewers that you have a well-thought-out plan for completing your research efficiently.

Step 7: Resources

Identify all the resources that will be required for your research, such as specific databases, laboratory equipment, software or funding. Provide details on how these resources will be accessed or acquired. 

If your research requires funding, explain how it will be utilized effectively to support various aspects of the project. 

Step 8: Ethical considerations

Address any ethical issues that may arise during your research. This is particularly important for research involving human subjects. Describe the measures you will take to ensure ethical standards are maintained, such as obtaining informed consent, ensuring participant privacy, and adhering to data protection regulations. 

Here, in this section you should reassure reviewers that you are committed to conducting your research responsibly and ethically.

Step 9: Expected outcomes and significance

Articulate the expected outcomes or results of your research. Explain the potential impact and significance of these outcomes, whether in advancing academic knowledge, influencing policy or addressing specific societal or practical issues. 

Step 10: References

Compile a comprehensive list of all the references cited in your proposal. Adhere to a consistent citation style (like APA or MLA) throughout your document. The reference section not only gives credit to the original authors of your sourced information but also strengthens the credibility of your proposal.

Step 11: Appendices

Include additional supporting materials that are pertinent to your research proposal. This can be survey questionnaires, interview guides, detailed data analysis plans or any supplementary information that supports the main text. 

Appendices provide further depth to your proposal, showcasing the thoroughness of your preparation.

Research proposal FAQs

1. how long should a research proposal be.

The length of a research proposal can vary depending on the requirements of the academic institution, funding body or specific guidelines provided. Generally, research proposals range from 500 to 1500 words or about one to a few pages long. It’s important to provide enough detail to clearly convey your research idea, objectives and methodology, while being concise. Always check

2. Why is the research plan pivotal to a research project?

The research plan is pivotal to a research project because it acts as a blueprint, guiding every phase of the study. It outlines the objectives, methodology, timeline and expected outcomes, providing a structured approach and ensuring that the research is systematically conducted. 

A well-crafted plan helps in identifying potential challenges, allocating resources efficiently and maintaining focus on the research goals. It is also essential for communicating the project’s feasibility and importance to stakeholders, such as funding bodies or academic supervisors.

Mastering how to write a research proposal is an essential skill for any scholar, whether in social and behavioral sciences, academic writing or any field requiring scholarly research. From this article, you have learned key components, from the literature review to the research design, helping you develop a persuasive and well-structured proposal.

Remember, a good research proposal not only highlights your proposed research and methodology but also demonstrates its relevance and potential impact.

For additional support, consider utilizing Venngage’s Proposal Maker and Research Proposals Templates , valuable tools in crafting a compelling proposal that stands out.

Whether it’s for grant funding, a research paper or a dissertation proposal, these resources can assist in transforming your research idea into a successful submission.

• Search Menu
• Advance articles
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Why Publish?
• About Science and Public Policy
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

1. introduction, 2. background, 4. findings, 5. discussion, 6. conclusion and final remarks, supplementary material, data availability, conflict of interest statement., acknowledgements.

• < Previous

Evaluation of research proposals by peer review panels: broader panels for broader assessments?

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Rebecca Abma-Schouten, Joey Gijbels, Wendy Reijmerink, Ingeborg Meijer, Evaluation of research proposals by peer review panels: broader panels for broader assessments?, Science and Public Policy , Volume 50, Issue 4, August 2023, Pages 619–632, https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad009

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Panel peer review is widely used to decide which research proposals receive funding. Through this exploratory observational study at two large biomedical and health research funders in the Netherlands, we gain insight into how scientific quality and societal relevance are discussed in panel meetings. We explore, in ten review panel meetings of biomedical and health funding programmes, how panel composition and formal assessment criteria affect the arguments used. We observe that more scientific arguments are used than arguments related to societal relevance and expected impact. Also, more diverse panels result in a wider range of arguments, largely for the benefit of arguments related to societal relevance and impact. We discuss how funders can contribute to the quality of peer review by creating a shared conceptual framework that better defines research quality and societal relevance. We also contribute to a further understanding of the role of diverse peer review panels.

Scientific biomedical and health research is often supported by project or programme grants from public funding agencies such as governmental research funders and charities. Research funders primarily rely on peer review, often a combination of independent written review and discussion in a peer review panel, to inform their funding decisions. Peer review panels have the difficult task of integrating and balancing the various assessment criteria to select and rank the eligible proposals. With the increasing emphasis on societal benefit and being responsive to societal needs, the assessment of research proposals ought to include broader assessment criteria, including both scientific quality and societal relevance, and a broader perspective on relevant peers. This results in new practices of including non-scientific peers in review panels ( Del Carmen Calatrava Moreno et al. 2019 ; Den Oudendammer et al. 2019 ; Van den Brink et al. 2016 ). Relevant peers, in the context of biomedical and health research, include, for example, health-care professionals, (healthcare) policymakers, and patients as the (end-)users of research.

Currently, in scientific and grey literature, much attention is paid to what legitimate criteria are and to deficiencies in the peer review process, for example, focusing on the role of chance and the difficulty of assessing interdisciplinary or ‘blue sky’ research ( Langfeldt 2006 ; Roumbanis 2021a ). Our research primarily builds upon the work of Lamont (2009) , Huutoniemi (2012) , and Kolarz et al. (2016) . Their work articulates how the discourse in peer review panels can be understood by giving insight into disciplinary assessment cultures and social dynamics, as well as how panel members define and value concepts such as scientific excellence, interdisciplinarity, and societal impact. At the same time, there is little empirical work on what actually is discussed in peer review meetings and to what extent this is related to the specific objectives of the research funding programme. Such observational work is especially lacking in the biomedical and health domain.

The aim of our exploratory study is to learn what arguments panel members use in a review meeting when assessing research proposals in biomedical and health research programmes. We explore how arguments used in peer review panels are affected by (1) the formal assessment criteria and (2) the inclusion of non-scientific peers in review panels, also called (end-)users of research, societal stakeholders, or societal actors. We add to the existing literature by focusing on the actual arguments used in peer review assessment in practice.

To this end, we observed ten panel meetings in a variety of eight biomedical and health research programmes at two large research funders in the Netherlands: the governmental research funder The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw) and the charitable research funder the Dutch Heart Foundation (DHF). Our first research question focuses on what arguments panel members use when assessing research proposals in a review meeting. The second examines to what extent these arguments correspond with the formal −as described in the programme brochure and assessment form− criteria on scientific quality and societal impact creation. The third question focuses on how arguments used differ between panel members with different perspectives.

2.1 Relation between science and society

To understand the dual focus of scientific quality and societal relevance in research funding, a theoretical understanding and a practical operationalisation of the relation between science and society are needed. The conceptualisation of this relationship affects both who are perceived as relevant peers in the review process and the criteria by which research proposals are assessed.

The relationship between science and society is not constant over time nor static, yet a relation that is much debated. Scientific knowledge can have a huge impact on societies, either intended or unintended. Vice versa, the social environment and structure in which science takes place influence the rate of development, the topics of interest, and the content of science. However, the second part of this inter-relatedness between science and society generally receives less attention ( Merton 1968 ; Weingart 1999 ).

From a historical perspective, scientific and technological progress contributed to the view that science was valuable on its own account and that science and the scientist stood independent of society. While this protected science from unwarranted political influence, societal disengagement with science resulted in less authority by science and debate about its contribution to society. This interdependence and mutual influence contributed to a modern view of science in which knowledge development is valued both on its own merit and for its impact on, and interaction with, society. As such, societal factors and problems are important drivers for scientific research. This warrants that the relation and boundaries between science, society, and politics need to be organised and constantly reinforced and reiterated ( Merton 1968 ; Shapin 2008 ; Weingart 1999 ).

Glerup and Horst (2014) conceptualise the value of science to society and the role of society in science in four rationalities that reflect different justifications for their relation and thus also for who is responsible for (assessing) the societal value of science. The rationalities are arranged along two axes: one is related to the internal or external regulation of science and the other is related to either the process or the outcome of science as the object of steering. The first two rationalities of Reflexivity and Demarcation focus on internal regulation in the scientific community. Reflexivity focuses on the outcome. Central is that science, and thus, scientists should learn from societal problems and provide solutions. Demarcation focuses on the process: science should continuously question its own motives and methods. The latter two rationalities of Contribution and Integration focus on external regulation. The core of the outcome-oriented Contribution rationality is that scientists do not necessarily see themselves as ‘working for the public good’. Science should thus be regulated by society to ensure that outcomes are useful. The central idea of the process-oriented Integration rationality is that societal actors should be involved in science in order to influence the direction of research.

Research funders can be seen as external or societal regulators of science. They can focus on organising the process of science, Integration, or on scientific outcomes that function as solutions for societal challenges, Contribution. In the Contribution perspective, a funder could enhance outside (societal) involvement in science to ensure that scientists take responsibility to deliver results that are needed and used by society. From Integration follows that actors from science and society need to work together in order to produce the best results. In this perspective, there is a lack of integration between science and society and more collaboration and dialogue are needed to develop a new kind of integrative responsibility ( Glerup and Horst 2014 ). This argues for the inclusion of other types of evaluators in research assessment. In reality, these rationalities are not mutually exclusive and also not strictly separated. As a consequence, multiple rationalities can be recognised in the reasoning of scientists and in the policies of research funders today.

2.2 Criteria for research quality and societal relevance

The rationalities of Glerup and Horst have consequences for which language is used to discuss societal relevance and impact in research proposals. Even though the main ingredients are quite similar, as a consequence of the coexisting rationalities in science, societal aspects can be defined and operationalised in different ways ( Alla et al. 2017 ). In the definition of societal impact by Reed, emphasis is placed on the outcome : the contribution to society. It includes the significance for society, the size of potential impact, and the reach , the number of people or organisations benefiting from the expected outcomes ( Reed et al. 2021 ). Other models and definitions focus more on the process of science and its interaction with society. Spaapen and Van Drooge introduced productive interactions in the assessment of societal impact, highlighting a direct contact between researchers and other actors. A key idea is that the interaction in different domains leads to impact in different domains ( Meijer 2012 ; Spaapen and Van Drooge 2011 ). Definitions that focus on the process often refer to societal impact as (1) something that can take place in distinguishable societal domains, (2) something that needs to be actively pursued, and (3) something that requires interactions with societal stakeholders (or users of research) ( Hughes and Kitson 2012 ; Spaapen and Van Drooge 2011 ).

Glerup and Horst show that process and outcome-oriented aspects can be combined in the operationalisation of criteria for assessing research proposals on societal aspects. Also, the funders participating in this study include the outcome—the value created in different domains—and the process—productive interactions with stakeholders—in their formal assessment criteria for societal relevance and impact. Different labels are used for these criteria, such as societal relevance , societal quality , and societal impact ( Abma-Schouten 2017 ; Reijmerink and Oortwijn 2017 ). In this paper, we use societal relevance or societal relevance and impact .

Scientific quality in research assessment frequently refers to all aspects and activities in the study that contribute to the validity and reliability of the research results and that contribute to the integrity and quality of the research process itself. The criteria commonly include the relevance of the proposal for the funding programme, the scientific relevance, originality, innovativeness, methodology, and feasibility ( Abdoul et al. 2012 ). Several studies demonstrated that quality is seen as not only a rich concept but also a complex concept in which excellence and innovativeness, methodological aspects, engagement of stakeholders, multidisciplinary collaboration, and societal relevance all play a role ( Geurts 2016 ; Roumbanis 2019 ; Scholten et al. 2018 ). Another study showed a comprehensive definition of ‘good’ science, which includes creativity, reproducibility, perseverance, intellectual courage, and personal integrity. It demonstrated that ‘good’ science involves not only scientific excellence but also personal values and ethics, and engagement with society ( Van den Brink et al. 2016 ). Noticeable in these studies is the connection made between societal relevance and scientific quality.

In summary, the criteria for scientific quality and societal relevance are conceptualised in different ways, and perspectives on the role of societal value creation and the involvement of societal actors vary strongly. Research funders hence have to pay attention to the meaning of the criteria for the panel members they recruit to help them, and navigate and negotiate how the criteria are applied in assessing research proposals. To be able to do so, more insight is needed in which elements of scientific quality and societal relevance are discussed in practice by peer review panels.

2.3 Role of funders and societal actors in peer review

National governments and charities are important funders of biomedical and health research. How this funding is distributed varies per country. Project funding is frequently allocated based on research programming by specialised public funding organisations, such as the Dutch Research Council in the Netherlands and ZonMw for health research. The DHF, the second largest private non-profit research funder in the Netherlands, provides project funding ( Private Non-Profit Financiering 2020 ). Funders, as so-called boundary organisations, can act as key intermediaries between government, science, and society ( Jasanoff 2011 ). Their responsibility is to develop effective research policies connecting societal demands and scientific ‘supply’. This includes setting up and executing fair and balanced assessment procedures ( Sarewitz and Pielke 2007 ). Herein, the role of societal stakeholders is receiving increasing attention ( Benedictus et al. 2016 ; De Rijcke et al. 2016 ; Dijstelbloem et al. 2013 ; Scholten et al. 2018 ).

All charitable health research funders in the Netherlands have, in the last decade, included patients at different stages of the funding process, including in assessing research proposals ( Den Oudendammer et al. 2019 ). To facilitate research funders in involving patients in assessing research proposals, the federation of Dutch patient organisations set up an independent reviewer panel with (at-risk) patients and direct caregivers ( Patiëntenfederatie Nederland, n.d .). Other foundations have set up societal advisory panels including a wider range of societal actors than patients alone. The Committee Societal Quality (CSQ) of the DHF includes, for example, (at-risk) patients and a wide range of cardiovascular health-care professionals who are not active as academic researchers. This model is also applied by the Diabetes Foundation and the Princess Beatrix Muscle Foundation in the Netherlands ( Diabetesfonds, n.d .; Prinses Beatrix Spierfonds, n.d .).

In 2014, the Lancet presented a series of five papers about biomedical and health research known as the ‘increasing value, reducing waste’ series ( Macleod et al. 2014 ). The authors addressed several issues as well as potential solutions that funders can implement. They highlight, among others, the importance of improving the societal relevance of the research questions and including the burden of disease in research assessment in order to increase the value of biomedical and health science for society. A better understanding of and an increasing role of users of research are also part of the described solutions ( Chalmers et al. 2014 ; Van den Brink et al. 2016 ). This is also in line with the recommendations of the 2013 Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) ( DORA 2013 ). These recommendations influence the way in which research funders operationalise their criteria in research assessment, how they balance the judgement of scientific and societal aspects, and how they involve societal stakeholders in peer review.

2.4 Panel peer review of research proposals

To assess research proposals, funders rely on the services of peer experts to review the thousands or perhaps millions of research proposals seeking funding each year. While often associated with scholarly publishing, peer review also includes the ex ante assessment of research grant and fellowship applications ( Abdoul et al. 2012 ). Peer review of proposals often includes a written assessment of a proposal by an anonymous peer and a peer review panel meeting to select the proposals eligible for funding. Peer review is an established component of professional academic practice, is deeply embedded in the research culture, and essentially consists of experts in a given domain appraising the professional performance, creativity, and/or quality of scientific work produced by others in their field of competence ( Demicheli and Di Pietrantonj 2007 ). The history of peer review as the default approach for scientific evaluation and accountability is, however, relatively young. While the term was unheard of in the 1960s, by 1970, it had become the standard. Since that time, peer review has become increasingly diverse and formalised, resulting in more public accountability ( Reinhart and Schendzielorz 2021 ).

While many studies have been conducted concerning peer review in scholarly publishing, peer review in grant allocation processes has been less discussed ( Demicheli and Di Pietrantonj 2007 ). The most extensive work on this topic has been conducted by Lamont (2009) . Lamont studied peer review panels in five American research funding organisations, including observing three panels. Other examples include Roumbanis’s ethnographic observations of ten review panels at the Swedish Research Council in natural and engineering sciences ( Roumbanis 2017 , 2021a ). Also, Huutoniemi was able to study, but not observe, four panels on environmental studies and social sciences of the Academy of Finland ( Huutoniemi 2012 ). Additionally, Van Arensbergen and Van den Besselaar (2012) analysed peer review through interviews and by analysing the scores and outcomes at different stages of the peer review process in a talent funding programme. In particular, interesting is the study by Luo and colleagues on 164 written panel review reports, showing that the reviews from panels that included non-scientific peers described broader and more concrete impact topics. Mixed panels also more often connected research processes and characteristics of applicants with impact creation ( Luo et al. 2021 ).

While these studies primarily focused on peer review panels in other disciplinary domains or are based on interviews or reports instead of direct observations, we believe that many of the findings are relevant to the functioning of panels in the context of biomedical and health research. From this literature, we learn to have realistic expectations of peer review. It is inherently difficult to predict in advance which research projects will provide the most important findings or breakthroughs ( Lee et al. 2013 ; Pier et al. 2018 ; Roumbanis 2021a , 2021b ). At the same time, these limitations may not substantiate the replacement of peer review by another assessment approach ( Wessely 1998 ). Many topics addressed in the literature are inter-related and relevant to our study, such as disciplinary differences and interdisciplinarity, social dynamics and their consequences for consistency and bias, and suggestions to improve panel peer review ( Lamont and Huutoniemi 2011 ; Lee et al. 2013 ; Pier et al. 2018 ; Roumbanis 2021a , b ; Wessely 1998 ).

Different scientific disciplines show different preferences and beliefs about how to build knowledge and thus have different perceptions of excellence. However, panellists are willing to respect and acknowledge other standards of excellence ( Lamont 2009 ). Evaluation cultures also differ between scientific fields. Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics panels might, in comparison with panellists from social sciences and humanities, be more concerned with the consistency of the assessment across panels and therefore with clear definitions and uses of assessment criteria ( Lamont and Huutoniemi 2011 ). However, much is still to learn about how panellists’ cognitive affiliations with particular disciplines unfold in the evaluation process. Therefore, the assessment of interdisciplinary research is much more complex than just improving the criteria or procedure because less explicit repertoires would also need to change ( Huutoniemi 2012 ).

Social dynamics play a role as panellists may differ in their motivation to engage in allocation processes, which could create bias ( Lee et al. 2013 ). Placing emphasis on meeting established standards or thoroughness in peer review may promote uncontroversial and safe projects, especially in a situation where strong competition puts pressure on experts to reach a consensus ( Langfeldt 2001 ,2006 ). Personal interest and cognitive similarity may also contribute to conservative bias, which could negatively affect controversial or frontier science ( Luukkonen 2012 ; Roumbanis 2021a ; Travis and Collins 1991 ). Central in this part of literature is that panel conclusions are the outcome of and are influenced by the group interaction ( Van Arensbergen et al. 2014a ). Differences in, for example, the status and expertise of the panel members can play an important role in group dynamics. Insights from social psychology on group dynamics can help in understanding and avoiding bias in peer review panels ( Olbrecht and Bornmann 2010 ). For example, group performance research shows that more diverse groups with complementary skills make better group decisions than homogenous groups. Yet, heterogeneity can also increase conflict within the group ( Forsyth 1999 ). Therefore, it is important to pay attention to power dynamics and maintain team spirit and good communication ( Van Arensbergen et al. 2014a ), especially in meetings that include both scientific and non-scientific peers.

The literature also provides funders with starting points to improve the peer review process. For example, the explicitness of review procedures positively influences the decision-making processes ( Langfeldt 2001 ). Strategic voting and decision-making appear to be less frequent in panels that rate than in panels that rank proposals. Also, an advisory instead of a decisional role may improve the quality of the panel assessment ( Lamont and Huutoniemi 2011 ).

Despite different disciplinary evaluative cultures, formal procedures, and criteria, panel members with different backgrounds develop shared customary rules of deliberation that facilitate agreement and help avoid situations of conflict ( Huutoniemi 2012 ; Lamont 2009 ). This is a necessary prerequisite for opening up peer review panels to include non-academic experts. When doing so, it is important to realise that panel review is a social, emotional, and interactional process. It is therefore important to also take these non-cognitive aspects into account when studying cognitive aspects ( Lamont and Guetzkow 2016 ), as we do in this study.

In summary, what we learn from the literature is that (1) the specific criteria to operationalise scientific quality and societal relevance of research are important, (2) the rationalities from Glerup and Horst predict that not everyone values societal aspects and involve non-scientists in peer review to the same extent and in the same way, (3) this may affect the way peer review panels discuss these aspects, and (4) peer review is a challenging group process that could accommodate other rationalities in order to prevent bias towards specific scientific criteria. To disentangle these aspects, we have carried out an observational study of a diverse range of peer review panel sessions using a fixed set of criteria focusing on scientific quality and societal relevance.

3.1 Research assessment at ZonMw and the DHF

The peer review approach and the criteria used by both the DHF and ZonMw are largely comparable. Funding programmes at both organisations start with a brochure describing the purposes, goals, and conditions for research applications, as well as the assessment procedure and criteria. Both organisations apply a two-stage process. In the first phase, reviewers are asked to write a peer review. In the second phase, a panel reviews the application based on the advice of the written reviews and the applicants’ rebuttal. The panels advise the board on eligible proposals for funding including a ranking of these proposals.

There are also differences between the two organisations. At ZonMw, the criteria for societal relevance and quality are operationalised in the ZonMw Framework Fostering Responsible Research Practices ( Reijmerink and Oortwijn 2017 ). This contributes to a common operationalisation of both quality and societal relevance on the level of individual funding programmes. Important elements in the criteria for societal relevance are, for instance, stakeholder participation, (applying) holistic health concepts, and the added value of knowledge in practice, policy, and education. The framework was developed to optimise the funding process from the perspective of knowledge utilisation and includes concepts like productive interactions and Open Science. It is part of the ZonMw Impact Assessment Framework aimed at guiding the planning, monitoring, and evaluation of funding programmes ( Reijmerink et al. 2020 ). At ZonMw, interdisciplinary panels are set up specifically for each funding programme. Panels are interdisciplinary in nature with academics of a wide range of disciplines and often include non-academic peers, like policymakers, health-care professionals, and patients.

At the DHF, the criteria for scientific quality and societal relevance, at the DHF called societal impact , find their origin in the strategy report of the advisory committee CardioVascular Research Netherlands ( Reneman et al. 2010 ). This report forms the basis of the DHF research policy focusing on scientific and societal impact by creating national collaborations in thematic, interdisciplinary research programmes (the so-called consortia) connecting preclinical and clinical expertise into one concerted effort. An International Scientific Advisory Committee (ISAC) was established to assess these thematic consortia. This panel consists of international scientists, primarily with expertise in the broad cardiovascular research field. The DHF criteria for societal impact were redeveloped in 2013 in collaboration with their CSQ. This panel assesses and advises on the societal aspects of proposed studies. The societal impact criteria include the relevance of the health-care problem, the expected contribution to a solution, attention to the next step in science and towards implementation in practice, and the involvement of and interaction with (end-)users of research (R.Y. Abma-Schouten and I.M. Meijer, unpublished data). Peer review panels for consortium funding are generally composed of members of the ISAC, members of the CSQ, and ad hoc panel members relevant to the specific programme. CSQ members often have a pre-meeting before the final panel meetings to prepare and empower CSQ representatives participating in the peer review panel.

3.2 Selection of funding programmes

To compare and evaluate observations between the two organisations, we selected funding programmes that were relatively comparable in scope and aims. The criteria were (1) a translational and/or clinical objective and (2) the selection procedure consisted of review panels that were responsible for the (final) relevance and quality assessment of grant applications. In total, we selected eight programmes: four at each organisation. At the DHF, two programmes were chosen in which the CSQ did not participate to better disentangle the role of the panel composition. For each programme, we observed the selection process varying from one session on one day (taking 2–8 h) to multiple sessions over several days. Ten sessions were observed in total, of which eight were final peer review panel meetings and two were CSQ meetings preparing for the panel meeting.

After management approval for the study in both organisations, we asked programme managers and panel chairpersons of the programmes that were selected for their consent for observation; none refused participation. Panel members were, in a passive consent procedure, informed about the planned observation and anonymous analyses.

To ensure the independence of this evaluation, the selection of the grant programmes, and peer review panels observed, was at the discretion of the project team of this study. The observations and supervision of the analyses were performed by the senior author not affiliated with the funders.

3.3 Observation matrix

Given the lack of a common operationalisation for scientific quality and societal relevance, we decided to use an observation matrix with a fixed set of detailed aspects as a gold standard to score the brochures, the assessment forms, and the arguments used in panel meetings. The matrix used for the observations of the review panels was based upon and adapted from a ‘grant committee observation matrix’ developed by Van Arensbergen. The original matrix informed a literature review on the selection of talent through peer review and the social dynamics in grant review committees ( van Arensbergen et al. 2014b ). The matrix includes four categories of aspects that operationalise societal relevance, scientific quality, committee, and applicant (see  Table 1 ). The aspects of scientific quality and societal relevance were adapted to fit the operationalisation of scientific quality and societal relevance of the organisations involved. The aspects concerning societal relevance were derived from the CSQ criteria, and the aspects concerning scientific quality were based on the scientific criteria of the first panel observed. The four argument types related to the panel were kept as they were. This committee-related category reflects statements that are related to the personal experience or preference of a panel member and can be seen as signals for bias. This category also includes statements that compare a project with another project without further substantiation. The three applicant-related arguments in the original observation matrix were extended with a fourth on social skills in communication with society. We added health technology assessment (HTA) because one programme specifically focused on this aspect. We tested our version of the observation matrix in pilot observations.

Aspects included in the observation matrix and examples of arguments.

3.4 Observations

Data were primarily collected through observations. Our observations of review panel meetings were non-participatory: the observer and goal of the observation were introduced at the start of the meeting, without further interactions during the meeting. To aid in the processing of observations, some meetings were audiotaped (sound only). Presentations or responses of applicants were not noted and were not part of the analysis. The observer made notes on the ongoing discussion and scored the arguments while listening. One meeting was not attended in person and only observed and scored by listening to the audiotape recording. Because this made identification of the panel members unreliable, this panel meeting was excluded from the analysis of the third research question on how arguments used differ between panel members with different perspectives.

3.5 Grant programmes and the assessment criteria

We gathered and analysed all brochures and assessment forms used by the review panels in order to answer our second research question on the correspondence of arguments used with the formal criteria. Several programmes consisted of multiple grant calls: in that case, the specific call brochure was gathered and analysed, not the overall programme brochure. Additional documentation (e.g. instructional presentations at the start of the panel meeting) was not included in the document analysis. All included documents were marked using the aforementioned observation matrix. The panel-related arguments were not used because this category reflects the personal arguments of panel members that are not part of brochures or instructions. To avoid potential differences in scoring methods, two of the authors independently scored half of the documents that were checked and validated afterwards by the other. Differences were discussed until a consensus was reached.

3.6 Panel composition

In order to answer the third research question, background information on panel members was collected. We categorised the panel members into five common types of panel members: scientific, clinical scientific, health-care professional/clinical, patient, and policy. First, a list of all panel members was composed including their scientific and professional backgrounds and affiliations. The theoretical notion that reviewers represent different types of users of research and therefore potential impact domains (academic, social, economic, and cultural) was leading in the categorisation ( Meijer 2012 ; Spaapen and Van Drooge 2011 ). Because clinical researchers play a dual role in both advancing research as a fellow academic and as a user of the research output in health-care practice, we divided the academic members into two categories of non-clinical and clinical researchers. Multiple types of professional actors participated in each review panel. These were divided into two groups for the analysis: health-care professionals (without current academic activity) and policymakers in the health-care sector. No representatives of the private sector participated in the observed review panels. From the public domain, (at-risk) patients and patient representatives were part of several review panels. Only publicly available information was used to classify the panel members. Members were assigned to one category only: categorisation took place based on the specific role and expertise for which they were appointed to the panel.

In two of the four DHF programmes, the assessment procedure included the CSQ. In these two programmes, representatives of this CSQ participated in the scientific panel to articulate the findings of the CSQ meeting during the final assessment meeting. Two grant programmes were assessed by a review panel with solely (clinical) scientific members.

3.7 Analysis

Data were processed using ATLAS.ti 8 and Microsoft Excel 2010 to produce descriptive statistics. All observed arguments were coded and given a randomised identification code for the panel member using that particular argument. The number of times an argument type was observed was used as an indicator for the relative importance of that argument in the appraisal of proposals. With this approach, a practical and reproducible method for research funders to evaluate the effect of policy changes on peer review was developed. If codes or notes were unclear, post-observation validation of codes was carried out based on observation matrix notes. Arguments that were noted by the observer but could not be matched with an existing code were first coded as a ‘non-existing’ code, and these were resolved by listening back to the audiotapes. Arguments that could not be assigned to a panel member were assigned a ‘missing panel member’ code. A total of 4.7 per cent of all codes were assigned a ‘missing panel member’ code.

After the analyses, two meetings were held to reflect on the results: one with the CSQ and the other with the programme coordinators of both organisations. The goal of these meetings was to improve our interpretation of the findings, disseminate the results derived from this project, and identify topics for further analyses or future studies.

3.8 Limitations

Our study focuses on studying the final phase of the peer review process of research applications in a real-life setting. Our design, a non-participant observation of peer review panels, also introduced several challenges ( Liu and Maitlis 2010 ).

First, the independent review phase or pre-application phase was not part of our study. We therefore could not assess to what extent attention to certain aspects of scientific quality or societal relevance and impact in the review phase influenced the topics discussed during the meeting.

Second, the most important challenge of overt non-participant observations is the observer effect: the danger of causing reactivity in those under study. We believe that the consequences of this effect on our conclusions were limited because panellists are used to external observers in the meetings of these two funders. The observer briefly explained the goal of the study during the introductory round of the panel in general terms. The observer sat as unobtrusively as possible and avoided reactivity to discussions. Similar to previous observations of panels, we experienced that the fact that an observer was present faded into the background during a meeting ( Roumbanis 2021a ). However, a limited observer effect can never be entirely excluded.

Third, our design to only score the arguments raised, and not the responses of the applicant, or information on the content of the proposals, has its positives and negatives. With this approach, we could assure the anonymity of the grant procedures reviewed, the applicants and proposals, panels, and individual panellists. This was an important condition for the funders involved. We took the frequency arguments used as a proxy for the relative importance of that argument in decision-making, which undeniably also has its caveats. Our data collection approach limits more in-depth reflection on which arguments were decisive in decision-making and on group dynamics during the interaction with the applicants as non-verbal and non-content-related comments were not captured in this study.

Fourth, despite this being one of the largest observational studies on the peer review assessment of grant applications with the observation of ten panels in eight grant programmes, many variables might explain differences in arguments used within and beyond our view. Examples of ‘confounding’ variables are the many variations in panel composition, the differences in objectives of the programmes, and the range of the funding programmes. Our study should therefore be seen as exploratory and thus warrants caution in drawing conclusions.

4.1 Overview of observational data

The grant programmes included in this study reflected a broad range of biomedical and health funding programmes, ranging from fellowship grants to translational research and applied health research. All formal documents available to the applicants and to the review panel were retrieved for both ZonMw and the DHF. In total, eighteen documents corresponding to the eight grant programmes were studied. The number of proposals assessed per programme varied from three to thirty-three. The duration of the panel meetings varied between 2 h and two consecutive days. Together, this resulted in a large spread in the number of total arguments used in an individual meeting and in a grant programme as a whole. In the shortest meeting, 49 arguments were observed versus 254 in the longest, with a mean of 126 arguments per meeting and on average 15 arguments per proposal.

We found consistency between how criteria were operationalised in the grant programme’s brochures and in the assessment forms of the review panels overall. At the same time, because the number of elements included in the observation matrix is limited, there was a considerable diversity in the arguments that fall within each aspect (see examples in  Table 1 ). Some of these differences could possibly be explained by differences in language used and the level of detail in the observation matrix, the brochure, and the panel’s instructions. This was especially the case in the applicant-related aspects in which the observation matrix was more detailed than the text in the brochure and assessment forms.

In interpretating our findings, it is important to take into account that, even though our data were largely complete and the observation matrix matched well with the description of the criteria in the brochures and assessment forms, there was a large diversity in the type and number of arguments used and in the number of proposals assessed in the grant programmes included in our study.

4.2 Wide range of arguments used by panels: scientific arguments used most

For our first research question, we explored the number and type of arguments used in the panel meetings. Figure 1 provides an overview of the arguments used. Scientific quality was discussed most. The number of times the feasibility of the aims was discussed clearly stands out in comparison to all other arguments. Also, the match between the science and the problem studied and the plan of work were frequently discussed aspects of scientific quality. International competitiveness of the proposal was discussed the least of all five scientific arguments.

The number of arguments used in panel meetings.

Attention was paid to societal relevance and impact in the panel meetings of both organisations. Yet, the language used differed somewhat between organisations. The contribution to a solution and the next step in science were the most often used societal arguments. At ZonMw, the impact of the health-care problem studied and the activities towards partners were less frequently discussed than the other three societal arguments. At the DHF, the five societal arguments were used equally often.

With the exception of the fellowship programme meeting, applicant-related arguments were not often used. The fellowship panel used arguments related to the applicant and to scientific quality about equally often. Committee-related arguments were also rarely used in the majority of the eight grant programmes observed. In three out of the ten panel meetings, one or two arguments were observed, which were related to personal experience with the applicant or their direct network. In seven out of ten meetings, statements were observed, which were unasserted or were explicitly announced as reflecting a personal preference. The frequency varied between one and seven statements (sixteen in total), which is low in comparison to the other arguments used (see  Fig. 1 for examples).

4.3 Use of arguments varied strongly per panel meeting

The balance in the use of scientific and societal arguments varied strongly per grant programme, panel, and organisation. At ZonMw, two meetings had approximately an equal balance in societal and scientific arguments. In the other two meetings, scientific arguments were used twice to four times as often as societal arguments. At the DHF, three types of panels were observed. Different patterns in the relative use of societal and scientific arguments were observed for each of these panel types. In the two CSQ-only meetings the societal arguments were used approximately twice as often as scientific arguments. In the two meetings of the scientific panels, societal arguments were infrequently used (between zero and four times per argument category). In the combined societal and scientific panel meetings, the use of societal and scientific arguments was more balanced.

4.4 Match of arguments used by panels with the assessment criteria

In order to answer our second research question, we looked into the relation of the arguments used with the formal criteria. We observed that a broader range of arguments were often used in comparison to how the criteria were described in the brochure and assessment instruction. However, arguments related to aspects that were consequently included in the brochure and instruction seemed to be discussed more frequently than in programmes where those aspects were not consistently included or were not included at all. Although the match of the science with the health-care problem and the background and reputation of the applicant were not always made explicit in the brochure or instructions, they were discussed in many panel meetings. Supplementary Fig. S1 provides a visualisation of how arguments used differ between the programmes in which those aspects were, were not, consistently included in the brochure and instruction forms.

4.5 Two-thirds of the assessment was driven by scientific panel members

To answer our third question, we looked into the differences in arguments used between panel members representing a scientific, clinical scientific, professional, policy, or patient perspective. In each research programme, the majority of panellists had a scientific background ( n  = 35), thirty-four members had a clinical scientific background, twenty had a health professional/clinical background, eight members represented a policy perspective, and fifteen represented a patient perspective. From the total number of arguments (1,097), two-thirds were made by members with a scientific or clinical scientific perspective. Members with a scientific background engaged most actively in the discussion with a mean of twelve arguments per member. Similarly, clinical scientists and health-care professionals participated with a mean of nine arguments, and members with a policy and patient perspective put forward the least number of arguments on average, namely, seven and eight. Figure 2 provides a complete overview of the total and mean number of arguments used by the different disciplines in the various panels.

The total and mean number of arguments displayed per subgroup of panel members.

4.6 Diverse use of arguments by panellists, but background matters

In meetings of both organisations, we observed a diverse use of arguments by the panel members. Yet, the use of arguments varied depending on the background of the panel member (see  Fig. 3 ). Those with a scientific and clinical scientific perspective used primarily scientific arguments. As could be expected, health-care professionals and patients used societal arguments more often.

The use of arguments differentiated by panel member background.

Further breakdown of arguments across backgrounds showed clear differences in the use of scientific arguments between the different disciplines of panellists. Scientists and clinical scientists discussed the feasibility of the aims more than twice as often as their second most often uttered element of scientific quality, which was the match between the science and the problem studied . Patients and members with a policy or health professional background put forward fewer but more varied scientific arguments.

Patients and health-care professionals accounted for approximately half of the societal arguments used, despite being a much smaller part of the panel’s overall composition. In other words, members with a scientific perspective were less likely to use societal arguments. The relevance of the health-care problem studied, activities towards partners , and arguments related to participation and diversity were not used often by this group. Patients often used arguments related to patient participation and diversity and activities towards partners , although the frequency of the use of the latter differed per organisation.

The majority of the applicant-related arguments were put forward by scientists, including clinical scientists. Committee-related arguments were very rare and are therefore not differentiated by panel member background, except comments related to a comparison with other applications. These arguments were mainly put forward by panel members with a scientific background. HTA -related arguments were often used by panel members with a scientific perspective. Panel members with other perspectives used this argument scarcely (see Supplementary Figs S2–S4 for the visual presentation of the differences between panel members on all aspects included in the matrix).

5.1 Explanations for arguments used in panels

Our observations show that most arguments for scientific quality were often used. However, except for the feasibility , the frequency of arguments used varied strongly between the meetings and between the individual proposals that were discussed. The fact that most arguments were not consistently used is not surprising given the results from previous studies that showed heterogeneity in grant application assessments and low consistency in comments and scores by independent reviewers ( Abdoul et al. 2012 ; Pier et al. 2018 ). In an analysis of written assessments on nine observed dimensions, no dimension was used in more than 45 per cent of the reviews ( Hartmann and Neidhardt 1990 ).

There are several possible explanations for this heterogeneity. Roumbanis (2021a) described how being responsive to the different challenges in the proposals and to the points of attention arising from the written assessments influenced discussion in panels. Also when a disagreement arises, more time is spent on discussion ( Roumbanis 2021a ). One could infer that unambiguous, and thus not debated, aspects might remain largely undetected in our study. We believe, however, that the main points relevant to the assessment will not remain entirely unmentioned, because most panels in our study started the discussion with a short summary of the proposal, the written assessment, and the rebuttal. Lamont (2009) , however, points out that opening statements serve more goals than merely decision-making. They can also increase the credibility of the panellist, showing their comprehension and balanced assessment of an application. We can therefore not entirely disentangle whether the arguments observed most were also found to be most important or decisive or those were simply the topics that led to most disagreement.

An interesting difference with Roumbanis’ study was the available discussion time per proposal. In our study, most panels handled a limited number of proposals, allowing for longer discussions in comparison with the often 2-min time frame that Roumbanis (2021b) described, potentially contributing to a wider range of arguments being discussed. Limited time per proposal might also limit the number of panellists contributing to the discussion per proposal ( De Bont 2014 ).

5.2 Reducing heterogeneity by improving operationalisation and the consequent use of assessment criteria

We found that the language used for the operationalisation of the assessment criteria in programme brochures and in the observation matrix was much more detailed than in the instruction for the panel, which was often very concise. The exercise also illustrated that many terms were used interchangeably.

This was especially true for the applicant-related aspects. Several panels discussed how talent should be assessed. This confusion is understandable when considering the changing values in research and its assessment ( Moher et al. 2018 ) and the fact that the instruction of the funders was very concise. For example, it was not explicated whether the individual or the team should be assessed. Arensbergen et al. (2014b) described how in grant allocation processes, talent is generally assessed using limited characteristics. More objective and quantifiable outputs often prevailed at the expense of recognising and rewarding a broad variety of skills and traits combining professional, social, and individual capital ( DORA 2013 ).

In addition, committee-related arguments, like personal experiences with the applicant or their institute, were rarely used in our study. Comparisons between proposals were sometimes made without further argumentation, mainly by scientific panel members. This was especially pronounced in one (fellowship) grant programme with a high number of proposals. In this programme, the panel meeting concentrated on quickly comparing the quality of the applicants and of the proposals based on the reviewer’s judgement, instead of a more in-depth discussion of the different aspects of the proposals. Because the review phase was not part of this study, the question of which aspects have been used for the assessment of the proposals in this panel therefore remains partially unanswered. However, weighing and comparing proposals on different aspects and with different inputs is a core element of scientific peer review, both in the review of papers and in the review of grants ( Hirschauer 2010 ). The large role of scientific panel members in comparing proposals is therefore not surprising.

One could anticipate that more consequent language in the operationalising criteria may lead to more clarity for both applicants and panellists and to more consistency in the assessment of research proposals. The trend in our observations was that arguments were used less when the related criteria were not or were consequently included in the brochure and panel instruction. It remains, however, challenging to disentangle the influence of the formal definitions of criteria on the arguments used. Previous studies also encountered difficulties in studying the role of the formal instruction in peer review but concluded that this role is relatively limited ( Langfeldt 2001 ; Reinhart 2010 ).

The lack of a clear operationalisation of criteria can contribute to heterogeneity in peer review as many scholars found that assessors differ in the conceptualisation of good science and to the importance they attach to various aspects of research quality and societal relevance ( Abdoul et al. 2012 ; Geurts 2016 ; Scholten et al. 2018 ; Van den Brink et al. 2016 ). The large variation and absence of a gold standard in the interpretation of scientific quality and societal relevance affect the consistency of peer review. As a consequence, it is challenging to systematically evaluate and improve peer review in order to fund the research that contributes most to science and society. To contribute to responsible research and innovation, it is, therefore, important that funders invest in a more consistent and conscientious peer review process ( Curry et al. 2020 ; DORA 2013 ).

A common conceptualisation of scientific quality and societal relevance and impact could improve the alignment between views on good scientific conduct, programmes’ objectives, and the peer review in practice. Such a conceptualisation could contribute to more transparency and quality in the assessment of research. By involving panel members from all relevant backgrounds, including the research community, health-care professionals, and societal actors, in a better operationalisation of criteria, more inclusive views of good science can be implemented more systematically in the peer review assessment of research proposals. The ZonMw Framework Fostering Responsible Research Practices is an example of an initiative aiming to support standardisation and integration ( Reijmerink et al. 2020 ).

Given the lack of a common definition or conceptualisation of scientific quality and societal relevance, our study made an important decision by choosing to use a fixed set of detailed aspects of two important criteria as a gold standard to score the brochures, the panel instructions, and the arguments used by the panels. This approach proved helpful in disentangling the different components of scientific quality and societal relevance. Having said that, it is important not to oversimplify the causes for heterogeneity in peer review because these substantive arguments are not independent of non-cognitive, emotional, or social aspects ( Lamont and Guetzkow 2016 ; Reinhart 2010 ).

5.3 Do more diverse panels contribute to a broader use of arguments?

Both funders participating in our study have an outspoken public mission that requests sufficient attention to societal aspects in assessment processes. In reality, as observed in several panels, the main focus of peer review meetings is on scientific arguments. Next to the possible explanations earlier, the composition of the panel might play a role in explaining arguments used in panel meetings. Our results have shown that health-care professionals and patients bring in more societal arguments than scientists, including those who are also clinicians. It is, however, not that simple. In the more diverse panels, panel members, regardless of their backgrounds, used more societal arguments than in the less diverse panels.

Observing ten panel meetings was sufficient to explore differences in arguments used by panel members with different backgrounds. The pattern of (primarily) scientific arguments being raised by panels with mainly scientific members is not surprising. After all, it is their main task to assess the scientific content of grant proposals and fit their competencies. As such, one could argue, depending on how one justifies the relationship between science and society, that health-care professionals and patients might be better suited to assess the value for potential users of research results. Scientific panel members and clinical scientists in our study used less arguments that reflect on opening up and connecting science directly to others who can bring it further (being industry, health-care professionals, or other stakeholders). Patients filled this gap since these two types of arguments were the most prevalent type put forward by them. Making an active connection with society apparently needs a broader, more diverse panel for scientists to direct their attention to more societal arguments. Evident from our observations is that in panels with patients and health-care professionals, their presence seemed to increase the attention placed on arguments beyond the scientific arguments put forward by all panel members, including scientists. This conclusion is congruent with the observation that there was a more equal balance in the use of societal and scientific arguments in the scientific panels in which the CSQ participated. This illustrates that opening up peer review panels to non-scientific members creates an opportunity to focus on both the contribution and the integrative rationality ( Glerup and Horst 2014 ) or, in other words, to allow productive interactions between scientific and non-scientific actors. This corresponds with previous research that suggests that with regard to societal aspects, reviews from mixed panels were broader and richer ( Luo et al. 2021 ). In panels with non-scientific experts, more emphasis was placed on the role of the proposed research process to increase the likelihood of societal impact over the causal importance of scientific excellence for broader impacts. This is in line with the findings that panels with more disciplinary diversity, in range and also by including generalist experts, applied more versatile styles to reach consensus and paid more attention to relevance and pragmatic value ( Huutoniemi 2012 ).

Our observations further illustrate that patients and health-care professionals were less vocal in panels than (clinical) scientists and were in the minority. This could reflect their social role and lower perceived authority in the panel. Several guides are available for funders to stimulate the equal participation of patients in science. These guides are also applicable to their involvement in peer review panels. Measures to be taken include the support and training to help prepare patients for their participation in deliberations with renowned scientists and explicitly addressing power differences ( De Wit et al. 2016 ). Panel chairs and programme officers have to set and supervise the conditions for the functioning of both the individual panel members and the panel as a whole ( Lamont 2009 ).

5.4 Suggestions for future studies

In future studies, it is important to further disentangle the role of the operationalisation and appraisal of assessment criteria in reducing heterogeneity in the arguments used by panels. More controlled experimental settings are a valuable addition to the current mainly observational methodologies applied to disentangle some of the cognitive and social factors that influence the functioning and argumentation of peer review panels. Reusing data from the panel observations and the data on the written reports could also provide a starting point for a bottom-up approach to create a more consistent and shared conceptualisation and operationalisation of assessment criteria.

To further understand the effects of opening up review panels to non-scientific peers, it is valuable to compare the role of diversity and interdisciplinarity in solely scientific panels versus panels that also include non-scientific experts.

In future studies, differences between domains and types of research should also be addressed. We hypothesise that biomedical and health research is perhaps more suited for the inclusion of non-scientific peers in panels than other research domains. For example, it is valuable to better understand how potentially relevant users can be well enough identified in other research fields and to what extent non-academics can contribute to assessing the possible value of, especially early or blue sky, research.

The goal of our study was to explore in practice which arguments regarding the main criteria of scientific quality and societal relevance were used by peer review panels of biomedical and health research funding programmes. We showed that there is a wide diversity in the number and range of arguments used, but three main scientific aspects were discussed most frequently. These are the following: is it a feasible approach; does the science match the problem , and is the work plan scientifically sound? Nevertheless, these scientific aspects were accompanied by a significant amount of discussion of societal aspects, of which the contribution to a solution is the most prominent. In comparison with scientific panellists, non-scientific panellists, such as health-care professionals, policymakers, and patients, often use a wider range of arguments and other societal arguments. Even more striking was that, even though non-scientific peers were often outnumbered and less vocal in panels, scientists also used a wider range of arguments when non-scientific peers were present.

It is relevant that two health research funders collaborated in the current study to reflect on and improve peer review in research funding. There are few studies published that describe live observations of peer review panel meetings. Many studies focus on alternatives for peer review or reflect on the outcomes of the peer review process, instead of reflecting on the practice and improvement of peer review assessment of grant proposals. Privacy and confidentiality concerns of funders also contribute to the lack of information on the functioning of peer review panels. In this study, both organisations were willing to participate because of their interest in research funding policies in relation to enhancing the societal value and impact of science. The study provided them with practical suggestions, for example, on how to improve the alignment in language used in programme brochures and instructions of review panels, and contributed to valuable knowledge exchanges between organisations. We hope that this publication stimulates more research funders to evaluate their peer review approach in research funding and share their insights.

For a long time, research funders relied solely on scientists for designing and executing peer review of research proposals, thereby delegating responsibility for the process. Although review panels have a discretionary authority, it is important that funders set and supervise the process and the conditions. We argue that one of these conditions should be the diversification of peer review panels and opening up panels for non-scientific peers.

Supplementary material is available at Science and Public Policy online.

Details of the data and information on how to request access is available from the first author.

Joey Gijbels and Wendy Reijmerink are employed by ZonMw. Rebecca Abma-Schouten is employed by the Dutch Heart Foundation and as external PhD candidate affiliated with the Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University.

A special thanks to the panel chairs and programme officers of ZonMw and the DHF for their willingness to participate in this project. We thank Diny Stekelenburg, an internship student at ZonMw, for her contributions to the project. Our sincerest gratitude to Prof. Paul Wouters, Sarah Coombs, and Michiel van der Vaart for proofreading and their valuable feedback. Finally, we thank the editors and anonymous reviewers of Science and Public Policy for their thorough and insightful reviews and recommendations. Their contributions are recognisable in the final version of this paper.

Abdoul   H. , Perrey   C. , Amiel   P. , et al.  ( 2012 ) ‘ Peer Review of Grant Applications: Criteria Used and Qualitative Study of Reviewer Practices ’, PLoS One , 7 : 1 – 15 .

Google Scholar

Abma-Schouten   R. Y. ( 2017 ) ‘ Maatschappelijke Kwaliteit van Onderzoeksvoorstellen ’, Dutch Heart Foundation .

Alla   K. , Hall   W. D. , Whiteford   H. A. , et al.  ( 2017 ) ‘ How Do We Define the Policy Impact of Public Health Research? A Systematic Review ’, Health Research Policy and Systems , 15 : 84.

Benedictus   R. , Miedema   F. , and Ferguson   M. W. J. ( 2016 ) ‘ Fewer Numbers, Better Science ’, Nature , 538 : 453 – 4 .

Chalmers   I. , Bracken   M. B. , Djulbegovic   B. , et al.  ( 2014 ) ‘ How to Increase Value and Reduce Waste When Research Priorities Are Set ’, The Lancet , 383 : 156 – 65 .

Curry   S. , De Rijcke   S. , Hatch   A. , et al.  ( 2020 ) ‘ The Changing Role of Funders in Responsible Research Assessment: Progress, Obstacles and the Way Ahead ’, RoRI Working Paper No. 3, London : Research on Research Institute (RoRI) .

De Bont   A. ( 2014 ) ‘ Beoordelen Bekeken. Reflecties op het Werk van Een Programmacommissie van ZonMw ’, ZonMw .

De Rijcke   S. , Wouters   P. F. , Rushforth   A. D. , et al.  ( 2016 ) ‘ Evaluation Practices and Effects of Indicator Use—a Literature Review ’, Research Evaluation , 25 : 161 – 9 .

De Wit   A. M. , Bloemkolk   D. , Teunissen   T. , et al.  ( 2016 ) ‘ Voorwaarden voor Succesvolle Betrokkenheid van Patiënten/cliënten bij Medisch Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek ’, Tijdschrift voor Sociale Gezondheidszorg , 94 : 91 – 100 .

Del Carmen Calatrava Moreno   M. , Warta   K. , Arnold   E. , et al.  ( 2019 ) Science Europe Study on Research Assessment Practices . Technopolis Group Austria .

Google Preview

Demicheli   V. and Di Pietrantonj   C. ( 2007 ) ‘ Peer Review for Improving the Quality of Grant Applications ’, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews , 2 : MR000003.

Den Oudendammer   W. M. , Noordhoek   J. , Abma-Schouten   R. Y. , et al.  ( 2019 ) ‘ Patient Participation in Research Funding: An Overview of When, Why and How Amongst Dutch Health Funds ’, Research Involvement and Engagement , 5 .

Diabetesfonds ( n.d. ) Maatschappelijke Adviesraad < https://www.diabetesfonds.nl/over-ons/maatschappelijke-adviesraad > accessed 18 Sept 2022 .

Dijstelbloem   H. , Huisman   F. , Miedema   F. , et al.  ( 2013 ) ‘ Science in Transition Position Paper: Waarom de Wetenschap Niet Werkt Zoals het Moet, En Wat Daar aan te Doen Is ’, Utrecht : Science in Transition .

Forsyth   D. R. ( 1999 ) Group Dynamics , 3rd edn. Belmont : Wadsworth Publishing Company .

Geurts   J. ( 2016 ) ‘ Wat Goed Is, Herken Je Meteen ’, NRC Handelsblad < https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2016/10/28/wat-goed-is-herken-je-meteen-4975248-a1529050 > accessed 6 Mar 2022 .

Glerup   C. and Horst   M. ( 2014 ) ‘ Mapping “Social Responsibility” in Science ’, Journal of Responsible Innovation , 1 : 31 – 50 .

Hartmann   I. and Neidhardt   F. ( 1990 ) ‘ Peer Review at the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft ’, Scientometrics , 19 : 419 – 25 .

Hirschauer   S. ( 2010 ) ‘ Editorial Judgments: A Praxeology of “Voting” in Peer Review ’, Social Studies of Science , 40 : 71 – 103 .

Hughes   A. and Kitson   M. ( 2012 ) ‘ Pathways to Impact and the Strategic Role of Universities: New Evidence on the Breadth and Depth of University Knowledge Exchange in the UK and the Factors Constraining Its Development ’, Cambridge Journal of Economics , 36 : 723 – 50 .

Huutoniemi   K. ( 2012 ) ‘ Communicating and Compromising on Disciplinary Expertise in the Peer Review of Research Proposals ’, Social Studies of Science , 42 : 897 – 921 .

Jasanoff   S. ( 2011 ) ‘ Constitutional Moments in Governing Science and Technology ’, Science and Engineering Ethics , 17 : 621 – 38 .

Kolarz   P. , Arnold   E. , Farla   K. , et al.  ( 2016 ) Evaluation of the ESRC Transformative Research Scheme . Brighton : Technopolis Group .

Lamont   M. ( 2009 ) How Professors Think : Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment . Cambridge : Harvard University Press .

Lamont   M. Guetzkow   J. ( 2016 ) ‘How Quality Is Recognized by Peer Review Panels: The Case of the Humanities’, in M.   Ochsner , S. E.   Hug , and H.-D.   Daniel (eds) Research Assessment in the Humanities , pp. 31 – 41 . Cham : Springer International Publishing .

Lamont   M. Huutoniemi   K. ( 2011 ) ‘Comparing Customary Rules of Fairness: Evaluative Practices in Various Types of Peer Review Panels’, in C.   Charles   G.   Neil and L.   Michèle (eds) Social Knowledge in the Making , pp. 209–32. Chicago : The University of Chicago Press .

Langfeldt   L. ( 2001 ) ‘ The Decision-making Constraints and Processes of Grant Peer Review, and Their Effects on the Review Outcome ’, Social Studies of Science , 31 : 820 – 41 .

——— ( 2006 ) ‘ The Policy Challenges of Peer Review: Managing Bias, Conflict of Interests and Interdisciplinary Assessments ’, Research Evaluation , 15 : 31 – 41 .

Lee   C. J. , Sugimoto   C. R. , Zhang   G. , et al.  ( 2013 ) ‘ Bias in Peer Review ’, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology , 64 : 2 – 17 .

Liu   F. Maitlis   S. ( 2010 ) ‘Nonparticipant Observation’, in A. J.   Mills , G.   Durepos , and E.   Wiebe (eds) Encyclopedia of Case Study Research , pp. 609 – 11 . Los Angeles : SAGE .

Luo   J. , Ma   L. , and Shankar   K. ( 2021 ) ‘ Does the Inclusion of Non-academix Reviewers Make Any Difference for Grant Impact Panels? ’, Science & Public Policy , 48 : 763 – 75 .

Luukkonen   T. ( 2012 ) ‘ Conservatism and Risk-taking in Peer Review: Emerging ERC Practices ’, Research Evaluation , 21 : 48 – 60 .

Macleod   M. R. , Michie   S. , Roberts   I. , et al.  ( 2014 ) ‘ Biomedical Research: Increasing Value, Reducing Waste ’, The Lancet , 383 : 101 – 4 .

Meijer   I. M. ( 2012 ) ‘ Societal Returns of Scientific Research. How Can We Measure It? ’, Leiden : Center for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University .

Merton   R. K. ( 1968 ) Social Theory and Social Structure , Enlarged edn. [Nachdr.] . New York : The Free Press .

Moher   D. , Naudet   F. , Cristea   I. A. , et al.  ( 2018 ) ‘ Assessing Scientists for Hiring, Promotion, And Tenure ’, PLoS Biology , 16 : e2004089.

Olbrecht   M. and Bornmann   L. ( 2010 ) ‘ Panel Peer Review of Grant Applications: What Do We Know from Research in Social Psychology on Judgment and Decision-making in Groups? ’, Research Evaluation , 19 : 293 – 304 .

Patiëntenfederatie Nederland ( n.d. ) Ervaringsdeskundigen Referentenpanel < https://www.patientenfederatie.nl/zet-je-ervaring-in/lid-worden-van-ons-referentenpanel > accessed 18 Sept 2022.

Pier   E. L. , M.   B. , Filut   A. , et al.  ( 2018 ) ‘ Low Agreement among Reviewers Evaluating the Same NIH Grant Applications ’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 115 : 2952 – 7 .

Prinses Beatrix Spierfonds ( n.d. ) Gebruikerscommissie < https://www.spierfonds.nl/wie-wij-zijn/gebruikerscommissie > accessed 18 Sep 2022 .

( 2020 ) Private Non-profit Financiering van Onderzoek in Nederland < https://www.rathenau.nl/nl/wetenschap-cijfers/geld/wat-geeft-nederland-uit-aan-rd/private-non-profit-financiering-van#:∼:text=R%26D%20in%20Nederland%20wordt%20gefinancierd,aan%20wetenschappelijk%20onderzoek%20in%20Nederland > accessed 6 Mar 2022 .

Reneman   R. S. , Breimer   M. L. , Simoons   J. , et al.  ( 2010 ) ‘ De toekomst van het cardiovasculaire onderzoek in Nederland. Sturing op synergie en impact ’, Den Haag : Nederlandse Hartstichting .

Reed   M. S. , Ferré   M. , Marin-Ortega   J. , et al.  ( 2021 ) ‘ Evaluating Impact from Research: A Methodological Framework ’, Research Policy , 50 : 104147.

Reijmerink   W. and Oortwijn   W. ( 2017 ) ‘ Bevorderen van Verantwoorde Onderzoekspraktijken Door ZonMw ’, Beleidsonderzoek Online. accessed 6 Mar 2022.

Reijmerink   W. , Vianen   G. , Bink   M. , et al.  ( 2020 ) ‘ Ensuring Value in Health Research by Funders’ Implementation of EQUATOR Reporting Guidelines: The Case of ZonMw ’, Berlin : REWARD|EQUATOR .

Reinhart   M. ( 2010 ) ‘ Peer Review Practices: A Content Analysis of External Reviews in Science Funding ’, Research Evaluation , 19 : 317 – 31 .

Reinhart   M. and Schendzielorz   C. ( 2021 ) Trends in Peer Review . SocArXiv . < https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/nzsp5 > accessed 29 Aug 2022.

Roumbanis   L. ( 2017 ) ‘ Academic Judgments under Uncertainty: A Study of Collective Anchoring Effects in Swedish Research Council Panel Groups ’, Social Studies of Science , 47 : 95 – 116 .

——— ( 2021a ) ‘ Disagreement and Agonistic Chance in Peer Review ’, Science, Technology & Human Values , 47 : 1302 – 33 .

——— ( 2021b ) ‘ The Oracles of Science: On Grant Peer Review and Competitive Funding ’, Social Science Information , 60 : 356 – 62 .

( 2019 ) ‘ Ruimte voor ieders talent (Position Paper) ’, Den Haag : VSNU, NFU, KNAW, NWO en ZonMw . < https://www.universiteitenvannederland.nl/recognitionandrewards/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Position-paper-Ruimte-voor-ieders-talent.pdf >.

( 2013 ) San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment . The Declaration . < https://sfdora.org > accessed 2 Jan 2022 .

Sarewitz   D. and Pielke   R. A.  Jr. ( 2007 ) ‘ The Neglected Heart of Science Policy: Reconciling Supply of and Demand for Science ’, Environmental Science & Policy , 10 : 5 – 16 .

Scholten   W. , Van Drooge   L. , and Diederen   P. ( 2018 ) Excellent Is Niet Gewoon. Dertig Jaar Focus op Excellentie in het Nederlandse Wetenschapsbeleid . The Hague : Rathenau Instituut .

Shapin   S. ( 2008 ) The Scientific Life : A Moral History of a Late Modern Vocation . Chicago : University of Chicago press .

Spaapen   J. and Van Drooge   L. ( 2011 ) ‘ Introducing “Productive Interactions” in Social Impact Assessment ’, Research Evaluation , 20 : 211 – 8 .

Travis   G. D. L. and Collins   H. M. ( 1991 ) ‘ New Light on Old Boys: Cognitive and Institutional Particularism in the Peer Review System ’, Science, Technology & Human Values , 16 : 322 – 41 .

Van Arensbergen   P. and Van den Besselaar   P. ( 2012 ) ‘ The Selection of Scientific Talent in the Allocation of Research Grants ’, Higher Education Policy , 25 : 381 – 405 .

Van Arensbergen   P. , Van der Weijden   I. , and Van den Besselaar   P. V. D. ( 2014a ) ‘ The Selection of Talent as a Group Process: A Literature Review on the Social Dynamics of Decision Making in Grant Panels ’, Research Evaluation , 23 : 298 – 311 .

—— ( 2014b ) ‘ Different Views on Scholarly Talent: What Are the Talents We Are Looking for in Science? ’, Research Evaluation , 23 : 273 – 84 .

Van den Brink , G. , Scholten , W. , and Jansen , T. , eds ( 2016 ) Goed Werk voor Academici . Culemborg : Stichting Beroepseer .

Weingart   P. ( 1999 ) ‘ Scientific Expertise and Political Accountability: Paradoxes of Science in Politics ’, Science & Public Policy , 26 : 151 – 61 .

Wessely   S. ( 1998 ) ‘ Peer Review of Grant Applications: What Do We Know? ’, The Lancet , 352 : 301 – 5 .

Supplementary data

Email alerts, citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1471-5430
• Print ISSN 0302-3427
• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Writing from Research

17 Steps in Developing a Research Proposal

Writing a good research paper takes time, thought, and effort. Although this assignment is challenging, it is manageable. Focusing on one step at a time will help you develop a thoughtful, informative, well-supported research paper.

Your first step is to choose a topic and then to develop research questions, a working thesis, and a written research proposal. Set aside adequate time for this part of the process. Fully exploring ideas will help you build a solid foundation for your paper.

Choosing a Topic

When you choose a topic for a research paper, you are making a major commitment. Your choice will help determine whether you enjoy the lengthy process of research and writing—and whether your final paper fulfills the assignment requirements. If you choose your topic hastily, you may later find it difficult to work with your topic. By taking your time and choosing carefully, you can ensure that this assignment is not only challenging but also rewarding.

Writers understand the importance of choosing a topic that fulfills the assignment requirements and fits the assignment’s purpose and audience. Choosing a topic that interests you is also crucial. You instructor may provide a list of suggested topics or ask that you develop a topic on your own. In either case, try to identify topics that genuinely interest you.

After identifying potential topic ideas, you will need to evaluate your ideas and choose one topic to pursue. Will you be able to find enough information about the topic? Can you develop a paper about this topic that presents and supports your original ideas? Is the topic too broad or too narrow for the scope of the assignment? If so, can you modify it so it is more manageable? You will ask these questions during this preliminary phase of the research process.

Identifying Potential Topics

Sometimes, your instructor may provide a list of suggested topics. If so, you may benefit from identifying several possibilities before committing to one idea. It is important to know how to narrow down your ideas into a concise, manageable thesis. You may also use the list as a starting point to help you identify additional, related topics. Discussing your ideas with your instructor will help ensure that you choose a manageable topic that fits the requirements of the assignment.

In this chapter, you will follow a student, who is studying health care administration, as he prepares a research paper. You will also plan, research, and draft your own research paper.

This student was assigned to write a research paper on health and the media for an introductory course in health care. Although a general topic was selected for the students, the student had to decide which specific issues interested him. He brainstormed a list of possibilities.

Possible Topics

• Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) in the news
• Sexual education programs
• Hollywood and eating disorders
• Americans’ access to public health information
• Media portrayal of health care reform bill
• Depictions of drugs on television
• The effect of the Internet on mental health
• Popularized diets (such as low-carbohydrate diets)
• Fear of pandemics (bird flu, HINI, SARS)
• Electronic entertainment and obesity
• Advertisements for prescription drugs
• Public education and disease prevention

Exercise 17.1

Set a timer for five minutes. Use brainstorming or idea mapping to create a list of topics you would be interested in researching for a paper about the influence of the Internet on social networking. Do you closely follow the media coverage of a particular website, such as Twitter? Would you like to learn more about a certain industry, such as online dating? Which social networking sites do you and your friends use? List as many ideas related to this topic as you can.

Narrowing Your Topic

Once you have a list of potential topics, you will need to choose one as the focus of your essay. You will also need to narrow your topic. Most writers find that the topics they listed during brainstorming or idea mapping are broad—too broad for the scope of the assignment. Working with an overly broad topic, such as sexual education programs or popularized diets, can be frustrating and overwhelming. Each topic has so many facets that it would be impossible to cover them all in a college research paper. However, more specific choices, such as the pros and cons of sexual education in kids’ television programs or the physical effects of the South Beach diet, are specific enough to write about without being too narrow to sustain an entire research paper.

A good research paper provides focused, in-depth information and analysis. If your topic is too broad, you will find it difficult to do more than skim the surface when you research it and write about it. Narrowing your focus is essential to making your topic manageable. To narrow your focus, explore your topic in writing, conduct preliminary research, and discuss both the topic and the research with others.

Exploring Your Topic in Writing

“How am I supposed to narrow my topic when I haven’t even begun researching yet?” In fact, you may already know more than you realize. Review your list and identify your top two or three topics. Set aside some time to explore each one through freewriting. (For more information about freewriting, see “The Writing Process: How Do I Begin?”.) Simply taking the time to focus on your topic may yield fresh angles.

The student above knew that he was especially interested in the topic of diet fads, but he also knew that it was much too broad for his assignment. He used freewriting to explore his thoughts so he could narrow his topic. Read the student’s ideas.

Conducting Preliminary Research

Another way writers may focus a topic is to conduct preliminary research. Like freewriting, exploratory reading can help you identify interesting angles. Surfing the web and browsing through newspaper and magazine articles are good ways to start. Find out what people are saying about your topic on blogs and online discussion groups. Discussing your topic with others can also inspire you. Talk about your ideas with your classmates, your friends, or your instructor.

The student above’s freewriting exercise helped him realize that the assigned topic of health and the media intersected with a few of his interests—diet, nutrition, and obesity. Preliminary online research and discussions with his classmates strengthened his impression that many people are confused or misled by media coverage of these subjects.

The student decided to focus his paper on a topic that had garnered a great deal of media attention—low-carbohydrate diets. He wanted to find out whether low-carbohydrate diets were as effective as their proponents claimed.

Writing in Process

At work, you may need to research a topic quickly to find general information. This information can be useful in understanding trends in a given industry or generating competition. For example, a company may research a competitor’s prices and use the information when pricing their own product. You may find it useful to skim a variety of reliable sources and take notes on your findings.

Exercise 17.2

Review the list of topics you created in Exercise 17.1 and identify two or three topics you would like to explore further. For each of these topics, spend five to ten minutes writing about the topic without stopping. Then review your writing to identify possible areas of focus.

Set aside time to conduct preliminary research about your potential topics. Then choose a topic to pursue for your research paper.

Collaboration

Please share your topic list with a classmate. Select one or two topics on his or her list that you would like to learn more about and return it to him or her. Discuss why you found the topics interesting, and learn which of your topics your classmate selected and why.

A Plan for Research

Your freewriting and preliminary research have helped you choose a focused, manageable topic for your research paper. To work with your topic successfully, you will need to determine what exactly you want to learn about it—and later, what you want to say about it. Before you begin conducting in-depth research, you will further define your focus by developing a research question, a working thesis, and a research proposal.

Formulating a Research Question

In forming a research question, you are setting a goal for your research. Your main research question should be substantial enough to form the guiding principle of your paper—but focused enough to guide your research. A strong research question requires you not only to find information but also to put together different pieces of information, interpret and analyze them, and figure out what you think. As you consider potential research questions, ask yourself whether they would be too hard or too easy to answer.

To determine your research question, review the freewriting you completed earlier. Skim through books, articles, and websites and list the questions you have. (You may wish to use the 5WH strategy to help you formulate questions. See “The Writing Process: How Do I Begin?” for more information about 5WH questions.) Include simple, factual questions and more complex questions that would require analysis and interpretation. Determine your main question—the primary focus of your paper—and several subquestions that you will need to research to answer your main question.

Here are the research questions the student will use to focus his research. Notice that his main research question has no obvious, straightforward answer. The student will need to research his subquestions, which address narrower topics, to answer his main question.

Topic: Low-carbohydrate diets

Main question: Are low-carbohydrate diets as effective as they have been portrayed to be by media sources?

Subquestions:

• Who can benefit from following a low-carbohydrate diet?
• What are the supposed advantages to following a low-carbohydrate diet?
• When did low-carb diets become a “hot” topic in the media?
• Where do average consumers get information about diet and nutrition?
• Why has the low-carb approach received so much media attention?
• How do low-carb diets work?

Exercise 17.3

Using the topic you selected in Exercise 17.2, write your main research question and at least four to five subquestions. Check that your main research question is appropriately complex for your assignment.

Constructing a Working Thesis

A working thesis concisely states a writer’s initial answer to the main research question. It does not merely state a fact or present a subjective opinion. Instead, it expresses a debatable idea or claim that you hope to prove through additional research. Your working thesis is called a working thesis for a reason—it is subject to change. As you learn more about your topic, you may change your thinking in light of your research findings. Let your working thesis serve as a guide to your research, but do not be afraid to modify it based on what you learn.

The student began his research with a strong point of view based on his preliminary writing and research. Read his working thesis statement, which presents the point he will argue. Notice how it states the student’s tentative answer to his research question.

Main research question: Are low-carb diets as effective as they have sometimes been portrayed to be by the mass media?

Working thesis statement: Low-car diets do not live up to the media hype surrounding them.

Exercise 17.4

Write a working thesis statement that presents your preliminary answer to the research question you wrote in Exercise 17.3. Check that your working thesis statement presents an idea or claim that could be supported or refuted by evidence from research.

Creating a Research Proposal

A research proposal is a brief document—no more than one typed page—that summarizes the preliminary work you have completed. Your purpose in writing it is to formalize your plan for research and present it to your instructor for feedback. In your research proposal, you will present your main research question, related subquestions, and working thesis. You will also briefly discuss the value of researching this topic and indicate how you plan to gather information.

When the student’s began drafting his research proposal, he realized that he had already created most of the pieces he needed. However, he knew he also had to explain how his research would be relevant to other future health care professionals. In addition, he wanted to form a general plan for doing the research and identifying potentially useful sources. Read the student’s research proposal.

Jorge Ramirez

March 28, 2011

Health care 101

Research Proposal

In recent years, topics related to diet, nutrition, and weight loss have been covered extensively in the popular media. Different experts recommend various, often conflicting strategies for maintaining a healthy weight. One highly recommended approach which forms the basis of many popular diet plans, is to limit consumption of carbohydrates. Yet experts disagree on the effectiveness and health benefits of this approach. What information should consumers consider when evaluating diet plans? In my research, I will explore the claims made by proponents of the “low-carbohydrate lifestyle.” My primary research question is: Are low-carbohydrate diets as effective for maintaining a healthy weight as they are portrayed to be? My secondary research questions are:

• What are the supposed advantages to following a low-carb diet?

My working thesis is that low-carbohydrate diets do not live up to the media hype surrounding them. For this assignment, I will review general-interest and scholarly articles that discuss the relationship between low-carbohydrate diets, weight loss, and long-term health outcomes.

Writing In Process

Before you begin a new project at work, you may have to develop a project summary document that states the purpose of the project, explains why it would be a wise use of company resources, and briefly outlines the steps involved in completing the project. This type of document is similar to a research proposal. Both documents define and limit a project, explain its value, discuss how to proceed, and identify what resources you will use.

Text Attributions

• This chapter was adapted from “ Steps in Developing a Research Proposal ” in  Writing for Success  by a publisher who has requested that they and the original author not receive attribution (and republished by University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing). Adapted by Allison Kilgannon.   CC BY-NC-SA .

Media Attributions

• Figure 17.1 “Marry me pleaseeeeee” © SJ photography is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

Provincial English Copyright © 2022 by Allison Kilgannon is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Pharmacol Pharmacother
• v.4(2); Apr-Jun 2013

The critical steps for successful research: The research proposal and scientific writing: (A report on the pre-conference workshop held in conjunction with the 64 th annual conference of the Indian Pharmaceutical Congress-2012)

Pitchai balakumar.

Pharmacology Unit, Faculty of Pharmacy, AIMST University, Semeling, 08100 Bedong. Kedah Darul Aman, Malaysia

Mohammed Naseeruddin Inamdar

1 Department of Pharmacology, Al-Ameen College of Pharmacy, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India

Gowraganahalli Jagadeesh

2 Division of Cardiovascular and Renal Products, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, USA

An interactive workshop on ‘The Critical Steps for Successful Research: The Research Proposal and Scientific Writing’ was conducted in conjunction with the 64 th Annual Conference of the Indian Pharmaceutical Congress-2012 at Chennai, India. In essence, research is performed to enlighten our understanding of a contemporary issue relevant to the needs of society. To accomplish this, a researcher begins search for a novel topic based on purpose, creativity, critical thinking, and logic. This leads to the fundamental pieces of the research endeavor: Question, objective, hypothesis, experimental tools to test the hypothesis, methodology, and data analysis. When correctly performed, research should produce new knowledge. The four cornerstones of good research are the well-formulated protocol or proposal that is well executed, analyzed, discussed and concluded. This recent workshop educated researchers in the critical steps involved in the development of a scientific idea to its successful execution and eventual publication.

INTRODUCTION

Creativity and critical thinking are of particular importance in scientific research. Basically, research is original investigation undertaken to gain knowledge and understand concepts in major subject areas of specialization, and includes the generation of ideas and information leading to new or substantially improved scientific insights with relevance to the needs of society. Hence, the primary objective of research is to produce new knowledge. Research is both theoretical and empirical. It is theoretical because the starting point of scientific research is the conceptualization of a research topic and development of a research question and hypothesis. Research is empirical (practical) because all of the planned studies involve a series of observations, measurements, and analyses of data that are all based on proper experimental design.[ 1 – 9 ]

The subject of this report is to inform readers of the proceedings from a recent workshop organized by the 64 th Annual conference of the ‘ Indian Pharmaceutical Congress ’ at SRM University, Chennai, India, from 05 to 06 December 2012. The objectives of the workshop titled ‘The Critical Steps for Successful Research: The Research Proposal and Scientific Writing,’ were to assist participants in developing a strong fundamental understanding of how best to develop a research or study protocol, and communicate those research findings in a conference setting or scientific journal. Completing any research project requires meticulous planning, experimental design and execution, and compilation and publication of findings in the form of a research paper. All of these are often unfamiliar to naïve researchers; thus, the purpose of this workshop was to teach participants to master the critical steps involved in the development of an idea to its execution and eventual publication of the results (See the last section for a list of learning objectives).

THE STRUCTURE OF THE WORKSHOP

The two-day workshop was formatted to include key lectures and interactive breakout sessions that focused on protocol development in six subject areas of the pharmaceutical sciences. This was followed by sessions on scientific writing. DAY 1 taught the basic concepts of scientific research, including: (1) how to formulate a topic for research and to describe the what, why , and how of the protocol, (2) biomedical literature search and review, (3) study designs, statistical concepts, and result analyses, and (4) publication ethics. DAY 2 educated the attendees on the basic elements and logistics of writing a scientific paper and thesis, and preparation of poster as well as oral presentations.

The final phase of the workshop was the ‘Panel Discussion,’ including ‘Feedback/Comments’ by participants. There were thirteen distinguished speakers from India and abroad. Approximately 120 post-graduate and pre-doctoral students, young faculty members, and scientists representing industries attended the workshop from different parts of the country. All participants received a printed copy of the workshop manual and supporting materials on statistical analyses of data.

THE BASIC CONCEPTS OF RESEARCH: THE KEY TO GETTING STARTED IN RESEARCH

A research project generally comprises four key components: (1) writing a protocol, (2) performing experiments, (3) tabulating and analyzing data, and (4) writing a thesis or manuscript for publication.

Fundamentals in the research process

A protocol, whether experimental or clinical, serves as a navigator that evolves from a basic outline of the study plan to become a qualified research or grant proposal. It provides the structural support for the research. Dr. G. Jagadeesh (US FDA), the first speaker of the session, spoke on ‘ Fundamentals in research process and cornerstones of a research project .’ He discussed at length the developmental and structural processes in preparing a research protocol. A systematic and step-by-step approach is necessary in planning a study. Without a well-designed protocol, there would be a little chance for successful completion of a research project or an experiment.

Research topic

The first and the foremost difficult task in research is to identify a topic for investigation. The research topic is the keystone of the entire scientific enterprise. It begins the project, drives the entire study, and is crucial for moving the project forward. It dictates the remaining elements of the study [ Table 1 ] and thus, it should not be too narrow or too broad or unfocused. Because of these potential pitfalls, it is essential that a good or novel scientific idea be based on a sound concept. Creativity, critical thinking, and logic are required to generate new concepts and ideas in solving a research problem. Creativity involves critical thinking and is associated with generating many ideas. Critical thinking is analytical, judgmental, and involves evaluating choices before making a decision.[ 4 ] Thus, critical thinking is convergent type thinking that narrows and refines those divergent ideas and finally settles to one idea for an in-depth study. The idea on which a research project is built should be novel, appropriate to achieve within the existing conditions, and useful to the society at large. Therefore, creativity and critical thinking assist biomedical scientists in research that results in funding support, novel discovery, and publication.[ 1 , 4 ]

Elements of a study protocol

Research question

The next most crucial aspect of a study protocol is identifying a research question. It should be a thought-provoking question. The question sets the framework. It emerges from the title, findings/results, and problems observed in previous studies. Thus, mastering the literature, attendance at conferences, and discussion in journal clubs/seminars are sources for developing research questions. Consider the following example in developing related research questions from the research topic.

Hepatoprotective activity of Terminalia arjuna and Apium graveolens on paracetamol-induced liver damage in albino rats.

How is paracetamol metabolized in the body? Does it involve P450 enzymes? How does paracetamol cause liver injury? What are the mechanisms by which drugs can alleviate liver damage? What biochemical parameters are indicative of liver injury? What major endogenous inflammatory molecules are involved in paracetamol-induced liver damage?

A research question is broken down into more precise objectives. The objectives lead to more precise methods and definition of key terms. The objectives should be SMART-Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Time-framed,[ 10 ] and should cover the entire breadth of the project. The objectives are sometimes organized into hierarchies: Primary, secondary, and exploratory; or simply general and specific. Study the following example:

To evaluate the safety and tolerability of single oral doses of compound X in normal volunteers.

To assess the pharmacokinetic profile of compound X following single oral doses.

To evaluate the incidence of peripheral edema reported as an adverse event.

The objectives and research questions are then formulated into a workable or testable hypothesis. The latter forces us to think carefully about what comparisons will be needed to answer the research question, and establishes the format for applying statistical tests to interpret the results. The hypothesis should link a process to an existing or postulated biologic pathway. A hypothesis is written in a form that can yield measurable results. Studies that utilize statistics to compare groups of data should have a hypothesis. Consider the following example:

• The hepatoprotective activity of Terminalia arjuna is superior to that of Apium graveolens against paracetamol-induced liver damage in albino rats.

All biological research, including discovery science, is hypothesis-driven. However, not all studies need be conducted with a hypothesis. For example, descriptive studies (e.g., describing characteristics of a plant, or a chemical compound) do not need a hypothesis.[ 1 ]

Relevance of the study

Another important section to be included in the protocol is ‘significance of the study.’ Its purpose is to justify the need for the research that is being proposed (e.g., development of a vaccine for a disease). In summary, the proposed study should demonstrate that it represents an advancement in understanding and that the eventual results will be meaningful, contribute to the field, and possibly even impact society.

Biomedical literature

A literature search may be defined as the process of examining published sources of information on a research or review topic, thesis, grant application, chemical, drug, disease, or clinical trial, etc. The quantity of information available in print or electronically (e.g., the internet) is immense and growing with time. A researcher should be familiar with the right kinds of databases and search engines to extract the needed information.[ 3 , 6 ]

Dr. P. Balakumar (Institute of Pharmacy, Rajendra Institute of Technology and Sciences, Sirsa, Haryana; currently, Faculty of Pharmacy, AIMST University, Malaysia) spoke on ‘ Biomedical literature: Searching, reviewing and referencing .’ He schematically explained the basis of scientific literature, designing a literature review, and searching literature. After an introduction to the genesis and diverse sources of scientific literature searches, the use of PubMed, one of the premier databases used for biomedical literature searches world-wide, was illustrated with examples and screenshots. Several companion databases and search engines are also used for finding information related to health sciences, and they include Embase, Web of Science, SciFinder, The Cochrane Library, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Scopus, and Google Scholar.[ 3 ] Literature searches using alternative interfaces for PubMed such as GoPubMed, Quertle, PubFocus, Pubget, and BibliMed were discussed. The participants were additionally informed of databases on chemistry, drugs and drug targets, clinical trials, toxicology, and laboratory animals (reviewed in ref[ 3 ]).

Referencing and bibliography are essential in scientific writing and publication.[ 7 ] Referencing systems are broadly classified into two major types, such as Parenthetical and Notation systems. Parenthetical referencing is also known as Harvard style of referencing, while Vancouver referencing style and ‘Footnote’ or ‘Endnote’ are placed under Notation referencing systems. The participants were educated on each referencing system with examples.

Bibliography management

Dr. Raj Rajasekaran (University of California at San Diego, CA, USA) enlightened the audience on ‘ bibliography management ’ using reference management software programs such as Reference Manager ® , Endnote ® , and Zotero ® for creating and formatting bibliographies while writing a manuscript for publication. The discussion focused on the use of bibliography management software in avoiding common mistakes such as incomplete references. Important steps in bibliography management, such as creating reference libraries/databases, searching for references using PubMed/Google scholar, selecting and transferring selected references into a library, inserting citations into a research article and formatting bibliographies, were presented. A demonstration of Zotero®, a freely available reference management program, included the salient features of the software, adding references from PubMed using PubMed ID, inserting citations and formatting using different styles.

Writing experimental protocols

The workshop systematically instructed the participants in writing ‘ experimental protocols ’ in six disciplines of Pharmaceutical Sciences.: (1) Pharmaceutical Chemistry (presented by Dr. P. V. Bharatam, NIPER, Mohali, Punjab); (2) Pharmacology (presented by Dr. G. Jagadeesh and Dr. P. Balakumar); (3) Pharmaceutics (presented by Dr. Jayant Khandare, Piramal Life Sciences, Mumbai); (4) Pharmacy Practice (presented by Dr. Shobha Hiremath, Al-Ameen College of Pharmacy, Bengaluru); (5) Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry (presented by Dr. Salma Khanam, Al-Ameen College of Pharmacy, Bengaluru); and (6) Pharmaceutical Analysis (presented by Dr. Saranjit Singh, NIPER, Mohali, Punjab). The purpose of the research plan is to describe the what (Specific Aims/Objectives), why (Background and Significance), and how (Design and Methods) of the proposal.

The research plan should answer the following questions: (a) what do you intend to do; (b) what has already been done in general, and what have other researchers done in the field; (c) why is this worth doing; (d) how is it innovative; (e) what will this new work add to existing knowledge; and (f) how will the research be accomplished?

In general, the format used by the faculty in all subjects is shown in Table 2 .

Elements of a research protocol

Biostatistics

Biostatistics is a key component of biomedical research. Highly reputed journals like The Lancet, BMJ, Journal of the American Medical Association, and many other biomedical journals include biostatisticians on their editorial board or reviewers list. This indicates that a great importance is given for learning and correctly employing appropriate statistical methods in biomedical research. The post-lunch session on day 1 of the workshop was largely committed to discussion on ‘ Basic biostatistics .’ Dr. R. Raveendran (JIPMER, Puducherry) and Dr. Avijit Hazra (PGIMER, Kolkata) reviewed, in parallel sessions, descriptive statistics, probability concepts, sample size calculation, choosing a statistical test, confidence intervals, hypothesis testing and ‘ P ’ values, parametric and non-parametric statistical tests, including analysis of variance (ANOVA), t tests, Chi-square test, type I and type II errors, correlation and regression, and summary statistics. This was followed by a practice and demonstration session. Statistics CD, compiled by Dr. Raveendran, was distributed to the participants before the session began and was demonstrated live. Both speakers worked on a variety of problems that involved both clinical and experimental data. They discussed through examples the experimental designs encountered in a variety of studies and statistical analyses performed for different types of data. For the benefit of readers, we have summarized statistical tests applied frequently for different experimental designs and post-hoc tests [ Figure 1 ].

Conceptual framework for statistical analyses of data. Of the two kinds of variables, qualitative (categorical) and quantitative (numerical), qualitative variables (nominal or ordinal) are not normally distributed. Numerical data that come from normal distributions are analyzed using parametric tests, if not; the data are analyzed using non-parametric tests. The most popularly used Student's t -test compares the means of two populations, data for this test could be paired or unpaired. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) is used to compare the means of three or more independent populations that are normally distributed. Applying t test repeatedly in pair (multiple comparison), to compare the means of more than two populations, will increase the probability of type I error (false positive). In this case, for proper interpretation, we need to adjust the P values. Repeated measures ANOVA is used to compare the population means if more than two observations coming from same subject over time. The null hypothesis is rejected with a ‘ P ’ value of less than 0.05, and the difference in population means is considered to be statistically significant. Subsequently, appropriate post-hoc tests are used for pairwise comparisons of population means. Two-way or three-way ANOVA are considered if two (diet, dose) or three (diet, dose, strain) independent factors, respectively, are analyzed in an experiment (not described in the Figure). Categorical nominal unmatched variables (counts or frequencies) are analyzed by Chi-square test (not shown in the Figure)

Research and publication ethics

The legitimate pursuit of scientific creativity is unfortunately being marred by a simultaneous increase in scientific misconduct. A disproportionate share of allegations involves scientists of many countries, and even from respected laboratories. Misconduct destroys faith in science and scientists and creates a hierarchy of fraudsters. Investigating misconduct also steals valuable time and resources. In spite of these facts, most researchers are not aware of publication ethics.

Day 1 of the workshop ended with a presentation on ‘ research and publication ethics ’ by Dr. M. K. Unnikrishnan (College of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Manipal University, Manipal). He spoke on the essentials of publication ethics that included plagiarism (attempting to take credit of the work of others), self-plagiarism (multiple publications by an author on the same content of work with slightly different wordings), falsification (manipulation of research data and processes and omitting critical data or results), gift authorship (guest authorship), ghostwriting (someone other than the named author (s) makes a major contribution), salami publishing (publishing many papers, with minor differences, from the same study), and sabotage (distracting the research works of others to halt their research completion). Additionally, Dr. Unnikrishnan pointed out the ‘ Ingelfinger rule ’ of stipulating that a scientist must not submit the same original research in two different journals. He also advised the audience that authorship is not just credit for the work but also responsibility for scientific contents of a paper. Although some Indian Universities are instituting preventive measures (e.g., use of plagiarism detecting software, Shodhganga digital archiving of doctoral theses), Dr. Unnikrishnan argued for a great need to sensitize young researchers on the nature and implications of scientific misconduct. Finally, he discussed methods on how editors and peer reviewers should ethically conduct themselves while managing a manuscript for publication.

SCIENTIFIC COMMUNICATION: THE KEY TO SUCCESSFUL SELLING OF FINDINGS

Research outcomes are measured through quality publications. Scientists must not only ‘do’ science but must ‘write’ science. The story of the project must be told in a clear, simple language weaving in previous work done in the field, answering the research question, and addressing the hypothesis set forth at the beginning of the study. Scientific publication is an organic process of planning, researching, drafting, revising, and updating the current knowledge for future perspectives. Writing a research paper is no easier than the research itself. The lectures of Day 2 of the workshop dealt with the basic elements and logistics of writing a scientific paper.

An overview of paper structure and thesis writing

Dr. Amitabh Prakash (Adis, Auckland, New Zealand) spoke on ‘ Learning how to write a good scientific paper .’ His presentation described the essential components of an original research paper and thesis (e.g., introduction, methods, results, and discussion [IMRaD]) and provided guidance on the correct order, in which data should appear within these sections. The characteristics of a good abstract and title and the creation of appropriate key words were discussed. Dr. Prakash suggested that the ‘title of a paper’ might perhaps have a chance to make a good impression, and the title might be either indicative (title that gives the purpose of the study) or declarative (title that gives the study conclusion). He also suggested that an abstract is a succinct summary of a research paper, and it should be specific, clear, and concise, and should have IMRaD structure in brief, followed by key words. Selection of appropriate papers to be cited in the reference list was also discussed. Various unethical authorships were enumerated, and ‘The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship’ was explained ( http://www.icmje.org/ethical_1author.html ; also see Table 1 in reference #9). The session highlighted the need for transparency in medical publication and provided a clear description of items that needed to be included in the ‘Disclosures’ section (e.g., sources of funding for the study and potential conflicts of interest of all authors, etc.) and ‘Acknowledgements’ section (e.g., writing assistance and input from all individuals who did not meet the authorship criteria). The final part of the presentation was devoted to thesis writing, and Dr. Prakash provided the audience with a list of common mistakes that are frequently encountered when writing a manuscript.

The backbone of a study is description of results through Text, Tables, and Figures. Dr. S. B. Deshpande (Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India) spoke on ‘ Effective Presentation of Results .’ The Results section deals with the observations made by the authors and thus, is not hypothetical. This section is subdivided into three segments, that is, descriptive form of the Text, providing numerical data in Tables, and visualizing the observations in Graphs or Figures. All these are arranged in a sequential order to address the question hypothesized in the Introduction. The description in Text provides clear content of the findings highlighting the observations. It should not be the repetition of facts in tables or graphs. Tables are used to summarize or emphasize descriptive content in the text or to present the numerical data that are unrelated. Illustrations should be used when the evidence bearing on the conclusions of a paper cannot be adequately presented in a written description or in a Table. Tables or Figures should relate to each other logically in sequence and should be clear by themselves. Furthermore, the discussion is based entirely on these observations. Additionally, how the results are applied to further research in the field to advance our understanding of research questions was discussed.

Dr. Peush Sahni (All-India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi) spoke on effectively ‘ structuring the Discussion ’ for a research paper. The Discussion section deals with a systematic interpretation of study results within the available knowledge. He said the section should begin with the most important point relating to the subject studied, focusing on key issues, providing link sentences between paragraphs, and ensuring the flow of text. Points were made to avoid history, not repeat all the results, and provide limitations of the study. The strengths and novel findings of the study should be provided in the discussion, and it should open avenues for future research and new questions. The Discussion section should end with a conclusion stating the summary of key findings. Dr. Sahni gave an example from a published paper for writing a Discussion. In another presentation titled ‘ Writing an effective title and the abstract ,’ Dr. Sahni described the important components of a good title, such as, it should be simple, concise, informative, interesting and eye-catching, accurate and specific about the paper's content, and should state the subject in full indicating study design and animal species. Dr. Sahni explained structured (IMRaD) and unstructured abstracts and discussed a few selected examples with the audience.

Language and style in publication

The next lecture of Dr. Amitabh Prakash on ‘ Language and style in scientific writing: Importance of terseness, shortness and clarity in writing ’ focused on the actual sentence construction, language, grammar and punctuation in scientific manuscripts. His presentation emphasized the importance of brevity and clarity in the writing of manuscripts describing biomedical research. Starting with a guide to the appropriate construction of sentences and paragraphs, attendees were given a brief overview of the correct use of punctuation with interactive examples. Dr. Prakash discussed common errors in grammar and proactively sought audience participation in correcting some examples. Additional discussion was centered on discouraging the use of redundant and expendable words, jargon, and the use of adjectives with incomparable words. The session ended with a discussion of words and phrases that are commonly misused (e.g., data vs . datum, affect vs . effect, among vs . between, dose vs . dosage, and efficacy/efficacious vs . effective/effectiveness) in biomedical research manuscripts.

Working with journals

The appropriateness in selecting the journal for submission and acceptance of the manuscript should be determined by the experience of an author. The corresponding author must have a rationale in choosing the appropriate journal, and this depends upon the scope of the study and the quality of work performed. Dr. Amitabh Prakash spoke on ‘ Working with journals: Selecting a journal, cover letter, peer review process and impact factor ’ by instructing the audience in assessing the true value of a journal, understanding principles involved in the peer review processes, providing tips on making an initial approach to the editorial office, and drafting an appropriate cover letter to accompany the submission. His presentation defined the metrics that are most commonly used to measure journal quality (e.g., impact factor™, Eigenfactor™ score, Article Influence™ score, SCOPUS 2-year citation data, SCImago Journal Rank, h-Index, etc.) and guided attendees on the relative advantages and disadvantages of using each metric. Factors to consider when assessing journal quality were discussed, and the audience was educated on the ‘green’ and ‘gold’ open access publication models. Various peer review models (e.g., double-blind, single-blind, non-blind) were described together with the role of the journal editor in assessing manuscripts and selecting suitable reviewers. A typical checklist sent to referees was shared with the attendees, and clear guidance was provided on the best way to address referee feedback. The session concluded with a discussion of the potential drawbacks of the current peer review system.

Poster and oral presentations at conferences

Posters have become an increasingly popular mode of presentation at conferences, as it can accommodate more papers per meeting, has no time constraint, provides a better presenter-audience interaction, and allows one to select and attend papers of interest. In Figure 2 , we provide instructions, design, and layout in preparing a scientific poster. In the final presentation, Dr. Sahni provided the audience with step-by-step instructions on how to write and format posters for layout, content, font size, color, and graphics. Attendees were given specific guidance on the format of text on slides, the use of color, font type and size, and the use of illustrations and multimedia effects. Moreover, the importance of practical tips while delivering oral or poster presentation was provided to the audience, such as speak slowly and clearly, be informative, maintain eye contact, and listen to the questions from judges/audience carefully before coming up with an answer.

Guidelines and design to scientific poster presentation. The objective of scientific posters is to present laboratory work in scientific meetings. A poster is an excellent means of communicating scientific work, because it is a graphic representation of data. Posters should have focus points, and the intended message should be clearly conveyed through simple sections: Text, Tables, and Graphs. Posters should be clear, succinct, striking, and eye-catching. Colors should be used only where necessary. Use one font (Arial or Times New Roman) throughout. Fancy fonts should be avoided. All headings should have font size of 44, and be in bold capital letters. Size of Title may be a bit larger; subheading: Font size of 36, bold and caps. References and Acknowledgments, if any, should have font size of 24. Text should have font size between 24 and 30, in order to be legible from a distance of 3 to 6 feet. Do not use lengthy notes

PANEL DISCUSSION: FEEDBACK AND COMMENTS BY PARTICIPANTS

After all the presentations were made, Dr. Jagadeesh began a panel discussion that included all speakers. The discussion was aimed at what we do currently and could do in the future with respect to ‘developing a research question and then writing an effective thesis proposal/protocol followed by publication.’ Dr. Jagadeesh asked the following questions to the panelists, while receiving questions/suggestions from the participants and panelists.

• Does a Post-Graduate or Ph.D. student receive adequate training, either through an institutional course, a workshop of the present nature, or from the guide?
• Are these Post-Graduates self-taught (like most of us who learnt the hard way)?
• How are these guides trained? How do we train them to become more efficient mentors?
• Does a Post-Graduate or Ph.D. student struggle to find a method (s) to carry out studies? To what extent do seniors/guides help a post graduate overcome technical difficulties? How difficult is it for a student to find chemicals, reagents, instruments, and technical help in conducting studies?
• Analyses of data and interpretation: Most students struggle without adequate guidance.
• Thesis and publications frequently feature inadequate/incorrect statistical analyses and representation of data in tables/graphs. The student, their guide, and the reviewers all share equal responsibility.
• Who initiates and drafts the research paper? The Post-Graduate or their guide?
• What kind of assistance does a Post-Graduate get from the guide in finalizing a paper for publication?
• Does the guide insist that each Post-Graduate thesis yield at least one paper, and each Ph.D. thesis more than two papers, plus a review article?

The panelists and audience expressed a variety of views, but were unable to arrive at a decisive conclusion.

WHAT HAVE THE PARTICIPANTS LEARNED?

At the end of this fast-moving two-day workshop, the participants had opportunities in learning the following topics:

• Sequential steps in developing a study protocol, from choosing a research topic to developing research questions and a hypothesis.
• Study protocols on different topics in their subject of specialization
• Searching and reviewing the literature
• Appropriate statistical analyses in biomedical research
• Scientific ethics in publication
• Writing and understanding the components of a research paper (IMRaD)
• Recognizing the value of good title, running title, abstract, key words, etc
• Importance of Tables and Figures in the Results section, and their importance in describing findings
• Evidence-based Discussion in a research paper
• Language and style in writing a paper and expert tips on getting it published
• Presentation of research findings at a conference (oral and poster).

Overall, the workshop was deemed very helpful to participants. The participants rated the quality of workshop from “ satisfied ” to “ very satisfied .” A significant number of participants were of the opinion that the time allotted for each presentation was short and thus, be extended from the present two days to four days with adequate time to ask questions. In addition, a ‘hands-on’ session should be introduced for writing a proposal and manuscript. A large number of attendees expressed their desire to attend a similar workshop, if conducted, in the near future.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

We gratefully express our gratitude to the Organizing Committee, especially Professors K. Chinnasamy, B. G. Shivananda, N. Udupa, Jerad Suresh, Padma Parekh, A. P. Basavarajappa, Mr. S. V. Veerramani, Mr. J. Jayaseelan, and all volunteers of the SRM University. We thank Dr. Thomas Papoian (US FDA) for helpful comments on the manuscript.

The opinions expressed herein are those of Gowraganahalli Jagadeesh and do not necessarily reflect those of the US Food and Drug Administration

Source of Support: Nil

Conflict of Interest: None declared.

Module 1: Research and the Writing Process

Steps in developing a research proposal, learning objectives.

• Identify the steps in developing a research proposal.
• Choose a topic and formulate a research question and working thesis.
• Develop a research proposal.

Writing a good research paper takes time, thought, and effort. Although this assignment is challenging, it is manageable. Focusing on one step at a time will help you develop a thoughtful, informative, well-supported research paper.

Your first step is to choose a topic and then to develop research questions, a working thesis, and a written research proposal. Set aside adequate time for this part of the process. Fully exploring ideas will help you build a solid foundation for your paper.

Choosing a Topic

When you choose a topic for a research paper, you are making a major commitment. Your choice will help determine whether you enjoy the lengthy process of research and writing—and whether your final paper fulfills the assignment requirements. If you choose your topic hastily, you may later find it difficult to work with your topic. By taking your time and choosing carefully, you can ensure that this assignment is not only challenging but also rewarding.

Writers understand the importance of choosing a topic that fulfills the assignment requirements and fits the assignment’s purpose and audience. (For more information about purpose and audience, see Chapter 6 “Writing Paragraphs: Separating Ideas and Shaping Content”.) Choosing a topic that interests you is also crucial. You instructor may provide a list of suggested topics or ask that you develop a topic on your own. In either case, try to identify topics that genuinely interest you.

After identifying potential topic ideas, you will need to evaluate your ideas and choose one topic to pursue. Will you be able to find enough information about the topic? Can you develop a paper about this topic that presents and supports your original ideas? Is the topic too broad or too narrow for the scope of the assignment? If so, can you modify it so it is more manageable? You will ask these questions during this preliminary phase of the research process.

Identifying Potential Topics

Sometimes, your instructor may provide a list of suggested topics. If so, you may benefit from identifying several possibilities before committing to one idea. It is important to know how to narrow down your ideas into a concise, manageable thesis. You may also use the list as a starting point to help you identify additional, related topics. Discussing your ideas with your instructor will help ensure that you choose a manageable topic that fits the requirements of the assignment.

In this chapter, you will follow a writer named Jorge, who is studying health care administration, as he prepares a research paper. You will also plan, research, and draft your own research paper.

Jorge was assigned to write a research paper on health and the media for an introductory course in health care. Although a general topic was selected for the students, Jorge had to decide which specific issues interested him. He brainstormed a list of possibilities.

If you are writing a research paper for a specialized course, look back through your notes and course activities. Identify reading assignments and class discussions that especially engaged you. Doing so can help you identify topics to pursue.

Set a timer for five minutes. Use brainstorming or idea mapping to create a list of topics you would be interested in researching for a paper about the influence of the Internet on social networking. Do you closely follow the media coverage of a particular website, such as Twitter? Would you like to learn more about a certain industry, such as online dating? Which social networking sites do you and your friends use? List as many ideas related to this topic as you can.

Narrowing Your Topic

Once you have a list of potential topics, you will need to choose one as the focus of your essay. You will also need to narrow your topic. Most writers find that the topics they listed during brainstorming or idea mapping are broad—too broad for the scope of the assignment. Working with an overly broad topic, such as sexual education programs or popularized diets, can be frustrating and overwhelming. Each topic has so many facets that it would be impossible to cover them all in a college research paper. However, more specific choices, such as the pros and cons of sexual education in kids’ television programs or the physical effects of the South Beach diet, are specific enough to write about without being too narrow to sustain an entire research paper.

A good research paper provides focused, in-depth information and analysis. If your topic is too broad, you will find it difficult to do more than skim the surface when you research it and write about it. Narrowing your focus is essential to making your topic manageable. To narrow your focus, explore your topic in writing, conduct preliminary research, and discuss both the topic and the research with others.

Exploring Your Topic in Writing

“How am I supposed to narrow my topic when I haven’t even begun researching yet?” In fact, you may already know more than you realize. Review your list and identify your top two or three topics. Set aside some time to explore each one through freewriting. (For more information about freewriting, see Chapter 8 “The Writing Process: How Do I Begin?”.) Simply taking the time to focus on your topic may yield fresh angles.

Jorge knew that he was especially interested in the topic of diet fads, but he also knew that it was much too broad for his assignment. He used freewriting to explore his thoughts so he could narrow his topic. Read Jorge’s ideas.

Conducting Preliminary Research

Another way writers may focus a topic is to conduct preliminary research . Like freewriting, exploratory reading can help you identify interesting angles. Surfing the web and browsing through newspaper and magazine articles are good ways to start. Find out what people are saying about your topic on blogs and online discussion groups. Discussing your topic with others can also inspire you. Talk about your ideas with your classmates, your friends, or your instructor.

Jorge’s freewriting exercise helped him realize that the assigned topic of health and the media intersected with a few of his interests—diet, nutrition, and obesity. Preliminary online research and discussions with his classmates strengthened his impression that many people are confused or misled by media coverage of these subjects.

Jorge decided to focus his paper on a topic that had garnered a great deal of media attention—low-carbohydrate diets. He wanted to find out whether low-carbohydrate diets were as effective as their proponents claimed.

Writing at Work

At work, you may need to research a topic quickly to find general information. This information can be useful in understanding trends in a given industry or generating competition. For example, a company may research a competitor’s prices and use the information when pricing their own product. You may find it useful to skim a variety of reliable sources and take notes on your findings.

The reliability of online sources varies greatly. In this exploratory phase of your research, you do not need to evaluate sources as closely as you will later. However, use common sense as you refine your paper topic. If you read a fascinating blog comment that gives you a new idea for your paper, be sure to check out other, more reliable sources as well to make sure the idea is worth pursuing.

Review the list of topics you created in Note 11.18 “Exercise 1” and identify two or three topics you would like to explore further. For each of these topics, spend five to ten minutes writing about the topic without stopping. Then review your writing to identify possible areas of focus.

Set aside time to conduct preliminary research about your potential topics. Then choose a topic to pursue for your research paper.

Collaboration

Please share your topic list with a classmate. Select one or two topics on his or her list that you would like to learn more about and return it to him or her. Discuss why you found the topics interesting, and learn which of your topics your classmate selected and why.

A Plan for Research

Your freewriting and preliminary research have helped you choose a focused, manageable topic for your research paper. To work with your topic successfully, you will need to determine what exactly you want to learn about it—and later, what you want to say about it. Before you begin conducting in-depth research, you will further define your focus by developing a research question , a working thesis, and a research proposal.

Formulating a Research Question

In forming a research question, you are setting a goal for your research. Your main research question should be substantial enough to form the guiding principle of your paper—but focused enough to guide your research. A strong research question requires you not only to find information but also to put together different pieces of information, interpret and analyze them, and figure out what you think. As you consider potential research questions, ask yourself whether they would be too hard or too easy to answer.

To determine your research question, review the freewriting you completed earlier. Skim through books, articles, and websites and list the questions you have. (You may wish to use the 5WH strategy to help you formulate questions. See Chapter 8 “The Writing Process: How Do I Begin?” for more information about 5WH questions.) Include simple, factual questions and more complex questions that would require analysis and interpretation. Determine your main question—the primary focus of your paper—and several subquestions that you will need to research to answer your main question.

Here are the research questions Jorge will use to focus his research. Notice that his main research question has no obvious, straightforward answer. Jorge will need to research his subquestions, which address narrower topics, to answer his main question.

Using the topic you selected in Note 11.24 “Exercise 2”, write your main research question and at least four to five subquestions. Check that your main research question is appropriately complex for your assignment.

Constructing a Working ThesIs

A working thesis concisely states a writer’s initial answer to the main research question. It does not merely state a fact or present a subjective opinion. Instead, it expresses a debatable idea or claim that you hope to prove through additional research. Your working thesis is called a working thesis for a reason—it is subject to change. As you learn more about your topic, you may change your thinking in light of your research findings. Let your working thesis serve as a guide to your research, but do not be afraid to modify it based on what you learn.

Jorge began his research with a strong point of view based on his preliminary writing and research. Read his working thesis statement, which presents the point he will argue. Notice how it states Jorge’s tentative answer to his research question.

One way to determine your working thesis is to consider how you would complete sentences such as I believe or My opinion is . However, keep in mind that academic writing generally does not use first-person pronouns. These statements are useful starting points, but formal research papers use an objective voice.

Write a working thesis statement that presents your preliminary answer to the research question you wrote in Note 11.27 “Exercise 3”. Check that your working thesis statement presents an idea or claim that could be supported or refuted by evidence from research.

Creating a Research Proposal

A research proposal is a brief document—no more than one typed page—that summarizes the preliminary work you have completed. Your purpose in writing it is to formalize your plan for research and present it to your instructor for feedback. In your research proposal, you will present your main research question, related subquestions, and working thesis. You will also briefly discuss the value of researching this topic and indicate how you plan to gather information.

When Jorge began drafting his research proposal, he realized that he had already created most of the pieces he needed. However, he knew he also had to explain how his research would be relevant to other future health care professionals. In addition, he wanted to form a general plan for doing the research and identifying potentially useful sources. Read Jorge’s research proposal.

Before you begin a new project at work, you may have to develop a project summary document that states the purpose of the project, explains why it would be a wise use of company resources, and briefly outlines the steps involved in completing the project. This type of document is similar to a research proposal. Both documents define and limit a project, explain its value, discuss how to proceed, and identify what resources you will use.

Writing Your Own Research Proposal

Now you may write your own research proposal, if you have not done so already. Follow the guidelines provided in this lesson.

Key Takeaways

• Developing a research proposal involves the following preliminary steps: identifying potential ideas, choosing ideas to explore further, choosing and narrowing a topic, formulating a research question, and developing a working thesis.
• A good topic for a research paper interests the writer and fulfills the requirements of the assignment.
• Defining and narrowing a topic helps writers conduct focused, in-depth research.
• Writers conduct preliminary research to identify possible topics and research questions and to develop a working thesis.
• A good research question interests readers, is neither too broad nor too narrow, and has no obvious answer.
• A good working thesis expresses a debatable idea or claim that can be supported with evidence from research.
• Writers create a research proposal to present their topic, main research question, subquestions, and working thesis to an instructor for approval or feedback.
• Successful Writing Section 11.2, Steps in Developing a Research Proposal. Authored by : Anonymous. Located at : http://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/successful-writing/s15-02-steps-in-developing-a-research.html . License : CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike

Evaluating Research Proposals

Comparing proposals “apples-to-apples” is crucial to establishing which one will best meet your needs. Consider these ideas to help you focus on the details that contribute to a successful survey.

Make sure the proposal responds to your objectives.

The proposal process begins well before you ask any research firm for quote. The process really begins with the discussions you and your team have about objectives. What are your goals? What are the decisions you want to make when the project is done and you have data in hand?

Once you have a solid vision of the survey, then it’s time to start talking with potential partners Throughout your conversations, take note: Do the various firms ask you specific questions about your objectives, the group of people you’d like to survey, and your ultimate goals? Do they, indeed, ask about decisions that you wish to make? Details regarding your specific need should always be front and center during the conversations.

Sampling plan.

When reviewing the sampling plan, make sure the proposal mentions sample size, response rate estimates, number of responses, and maximum sampling error. If you’re unsure of the impact these figures have on the quality of your results, ask the researcher. They should be able to explain them in terms you can understand.

Questionnaire.

The quantity and types of information sought from respondents will impact cost. Quantity encompasses the number of questions and number of variables to process. Type refers to how the questions will be processed, the data entry involved and whether all or just some data will be cleaned.

No evaluation is complete until you know the approximate number and types of questions planned for the survey. The number of open-ended questions should be included as well because open-ended questions that capture verbatim responses can impact the response rate and possibly the price of your survey, especially if done by mail.

In addition, make sure the proposal clearly indicates who will develop the questionnaire content. Also, determine if it includes enough collaboration time to be sufficiently customized to meet your particular needs.

Data collection approach.

For online surveys paying attention to the data collection series and who is responsible for sending survey invitations. Multiple emails to sample members can encourage response. As well, the invitation process should be sensitive to data privacy issues such as those indicated by GDPR and others. Proposals for mailed surveys should clearly outline the data collection series and each component of the survey kit.

Data processing.

Any proposal you receive should highlight the steps the research company will take to make sure that the data is accurate and representative. Depending on the type of survey, checking logic, consistency, and outliers can take a significant amount of time. You must have some process noted to identify inconsistent answers for surveys that collect a significant amount of numerical data (salary survey, market studies, budget planning). Finally, some percentage of mailed surveys need to be verified for data entry accuracy.

A straightforward analysis of survey data can meet many objectives. In other cases, a multivariate statistical analysis will provide deeper insights to achieve your objectives— making results easier to use. If your objectives include learning about separate segments of your circulation, crosstabulations should be specified.

Deliverables.

A variety of reporting options exist for a survey. These include but are not limited to data tables, a summary of the results, in-depth analysis, and graphed presentations. As a result, you need to understand exactly what you’ll receive following your survey and in what format.

No surprises!

Make sure the proposal covers all the bases: what you need to do and provide, what the firm will do when they will do it and how much it will cost. There should be no surprises in what you need to supply. No “you need how much letterhead and envelopes?” a week before your survey is scheduled to mail. Review the price carefully and understand what it includes and doesn’t include. As with many things in life, you usually get what you pay for.

Share this:

Related posts:, notes on the pre- and post-survey.

Notes on the Pre- and Post-Survey The Pre-Post survey is used to look at how things may change over time. It may be how brand awareness levels change after a new ad campaign is introduced or how opinions of a political candidate move after a speech. The catalyst to potential change, sometimes called the event […]

The Importance of Questionnaire Design

The Importance of Questionnaire Design Planning a survey requires many steps and decisions along the way: “How many people do I need to survey? How am I going to distribute the survey?” And, while people often figure out what questions they want to ask, many overlook the importance of expert, unbiased questionnaire design. When you […]

Will Color Printing Give Your Survey a Boost?

Will Color Printing Give Your Survey a Boost? Occasionally we are asked if color printing (versus black and white) is better to use as part of a survey mailing? Will this treatment generate more attention and ultimately a better response? Our Opinion: If you’re looking to use color to boost your survey’s response rate, it […]

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

• Privacy Policy

Buy Me a Coffee

Home » Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Table of Contents

Research Process

Definition:

Research Process is a systematic and structured approach that involves the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data or information to answer a specific research question or solve a particular problem.

Research Process Steps

Research Process Steps are as follows:

Identify the Research Question or Problem

This is the first step in the research process. It involves identifying a problem or question that needs to be addressed. The research question should be specific, relevant, and focused on a particular area of interest.

Conduct a Literature Review

Once the research question has been identified, the next step is to conduct a literature review. This involves reviewing existing research and literature on the topic to identify any gaps in knowledge or areas where further research is needed. A literature review helps to provide a theoretical framework for the research and also ensures that the research is not duplicating previous work.

Formulate a Hypothesis or Research Objectives

Based on the research question and literature review, the researcher can formulate a hypothesis or research objectives. A hypothesis is a statement that can be tested to determine its validity, while research objectives are specific goals that the researcher aims to achieve through the research.

Design a Research Plan and Methodology

This step involves designing a research plan and methodology that will enable the researcher to collect and analyze data to test the hypothesis or achieve the research objectives. The research plan should include details on the sample size, data collection methods, and data analysis techniques that will be used.

Collect and Analyze Data

This step involves collecting and analyzing data according to the research plan and methodology. Data can be collected through various methods, including surveys, interviews, observations, or experiments. The data analysis process involves cleaning and organizing the data, applying statistical and analytical techniques to the data, and interpreting the results.

Interpret the Findings and Draw Conclusions

After analyzing the data, the researcher must interpret the findings and draw conclusions. This involves assessing the validity and reliability of the results and determining whether the hypothesis was supported or not. The researcher must also consider any limitations of the research and discuss the implications of the findings.

Communicate the Results

Finally, the researcher must communicate the results of the research through a research report, presentation, or publication. The research report should provide a detailed account of the research process, including the research question, literature review, research methodology, data analysis, findings, and conclusions. The report should also include recommendations for further research in the area.

Review and Revise

The research process is an iterative one, and it is important to review and revise the research plan and methodology as necessary. Researchers should assess the quality of their data and methods, reflect on their findings, and consider areas for improvement.

Ethical Considerations

Throughout the research process, ethical considerations must be taken into account. This includes ensuring that the research design protects the welfare of research participants, obtaining informed consent, maintaining confidentiality and privacy, and avoiding any potential harm to participants or their communities.

Dissemination and Application

The final step in the research process is to disseminate the findings and apply the research to real-world settings. Researchers can share their findings through academic publications, presentations at conferences, or media coverage. The research can be used to inform policy decisions, develop interventions, or improve practice in the relevant field.

Research Process Example

Following is a Research Process Example:

Research Question : What are the effects of a plant-based diet on athletic performance in high school athletes?

Step 1: Background Research Conduct a literature review to gain a better understanding of the existing research on the topic. Read academic articles and research studies related to plant-based diets, athletic performance, and high school athletes.

Step 2: Develop a Hypothesis Based on the literature review, develop a hypothesis that a plant-based diet positively affects athletic performance in high school athletes.

Step 3: Design the Study Design a study to test the hypothesis. Decide on the study population, sample size, and research methods. For this study, you could use a survey to collect data on dietary habits and athletic performance from a sample of high school athletes who follow a plant-based diet and a sample of high school athletes who do not follow a plant-based diet.

Step 4: Collect Data Distribute the survey to the selected sample and collect data on dietary habits and athletic performance.

Step 5: Analyze Data Use statistical analysis to compare the data from the two samples and determine if there is a significant difference in athletic performance between those who follow a plant-based diet and those who do not.

Step 6 : Interpret Results Interpret the results of the analysis in the context of the research question and hypothesis. Discuss any limitations or potential biases in the study design.

Step 7: Draw Conclusions Based on the results, draw conclusions about whether a plant-based diet has a significant effect on athletic performance in high school athletes. If the hypothesis is supported by the data, discuss potential implications and future research directions.

Step 8: Communicate Findings Communicate the findings of the study in a clear and concise manner. Use appropriate language, visuals, and formats to ensure that the findings are understood and valued.

Applications of Research Process

The research process has numerous applications across a wide range of fields and industries. Some examples of applications of the research process include:

• Scientific research: The research process is widely used in scientific research to investigate phenomena in the natural world and develop new theories or technologies. This includes fields such as biology, chemistry, physics, and environmental science.
• Social sciences : The research process is commonly used in social sciences to study human behavior, social structures, and institutions. This includes fields such as sociology, psychology, anthropology, and economics.
• Education: The research process is used in education to study learning processes, curriculum design, and teaching methodologies. This includes research on student achievement, teacher effectiveness, and educational policy.
• Healthcare: The research process is used in healthcare to investigate medical conditions, develop new treatments, and evaluate healthcare interventions. This includes fields such as medicine, nursing, and public health.
• Business and industry : The research process is used in business and industry to study consumer behavior, market trends, and develop new products or services. This includes market research, product development, and customer satisfaction research.
• Government and policy : The research process is used in government and policy to evaluate the effectiveness of policies and programs, and to inform policy decisions. This includes research on social welfare, crime prevention, and environmental policy.

Purpose of Research Process

The purpose of the research process is to systematically and scientifically investigate a problem or question in order to generate new knowledge or solve a problem. The research process enables researchers to:

• Identify gaps in existing knowledge: By conducting a thorough literature review, researchers can identify gaps in existing knowledge and develop research questions that address these gaps.
• Collect and analyze data : The research process provides a structured approach to collecting and analyzing data. Researchers can use a variety of research methods, including surveys, experiments, and interviews, to collect data that is valid and reliable.
• Test hypotheses : The research process allows researchers to test hypotheses and make evidence-based conclusions. Through the systematic analysis of data, researchers can draw conclusions about the relationships between variables and develop new theories or models.
• Solve problems: The research process can be used to solve practical problems and improve real-world outcomes. For example, researchers can develop interventions to address health or social problems, evaluate the effectiveness of policies or programs, and improve organizational processes.
• Generate new knowledge : The research process is a key way to generate new knowledge and advance understanding in a given field. By conducting rigorous and well-designed research, researchers can make significant contributions to their field and help to shape future research.

Tips for Research Process

Here are some tips for the research process:

• Start with a clear research question : A well-defined research question is the foundation of a successful research project. It should be specific, relevant, and achievable within the given time frame and resources.
• Conduct a thorough literature review: A comprehensive literature review will help you to identify gaps in existing knowledge, build on previous research, and avoid duplication. It will also provide a theoretical framework for your research.
• Choose appropriate research methods: Select research methods that are appropriate for your research question, objectives, and sample size. Ensure that your methods are valid, reliable, and ethical.
• Be organized and systematic: Keep detailed notes throughout the research process, including your research plan, methodology, data collection, and analysis. This will help you to stay organized and ensure that you don’t miss any important details.
• Analyze data rigorously: Use appropriate statistical and analytical techniques to analyze your data. Ensure that your analysis is valid, reliable, and transparent.
• I nterpret results carefully : Interpret your results in the context of your research question and objectives. Consider any limitations or potential biases in your research design, and be cautious in drawing conclusions.
• Communicate effectively: Communicate your research findings clearly and effectively to your target audience. Use appropriate language, visuals, and formats to ensure that your findings are understood and valued.
• Collaborate and seek feedback : Collaborate with other researchers, experts, or stakeholders in your field. Seek feedback on your research design, methods, and findings to ensure that they are relevant, meaningful, and impactful.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

Institutional Review Board – Application Sample...

Evaluating Research – Process, Examples and...

Research Questions – Types, Examples and Writing...

Covid 19 - Lockdown, let out your PhD indagation with our Expert

• Live Support
• Quick Query
• [email protected]

10 Research Proposal Writing Steps

At the onset of any thesis, you must be very clear with the Research Proposal writing steps. These steps must be synchronised in a very systematic manner. Always keep in mind that Research Proposal writing steps must be comprehensively organised to make the Supervisor understand the what , why , and how of your future thesis. It is therefore important that before the phase of the Research Proposal writing steps, you must have a clear draft of what exactly you are going to write in the Research Proposal. The draft must have well elaborated –

As the draft for the Research proposal is finalised with a properly structured Introduction, Literature Review, Research Methodology, Possible Outcomes, and Reference list, it is time for following the Research Proposal writing steps. 10 steps that must be well arranged in the Research Proposal are noted below:

Step 1: Cover Page

At the beginning of the writing process of the research proposal, you need to have 3 pages for the Cover page, Title page, and Abstract. The step to prepare the cover page must be followed by -

=> Revise and Proofread

However, this can be considered even after the completion of the rest of the steps. This is a personal choice. 

Step 2: Introduction

The writing of the Introduction is very important for a Research Proposal. In this step, you need to make clear statements about the purpose or the relevance of the research. You must make an appropriate declaration of the Research Question, along with its Aim and Objectives.

Research Purpose/Relevance

Research Question

Research Aim and Objectives

The Research Question, Aim and Objectives, are the three things that remain the same in the future thesis. Thus, you need to be very assured of these declarations.    

Step 3: Literature Review

Research Proposal writing steps must consider Literature Review as the spine of the research process. It is the Literature review that makes the researcher attains exclusive knowledge about the research question and related queries. The notable subheadings to be included in this step are:

Empirical Analyses

Theoretical Analyses

Research Gaps

This step of writing the Literature review must make some declarations on empirical derivations and theoretical analyses initiated by former researchers in the respective field of research. In this step, it becomes very necessary to offer a Theoretical Framework as the map for understanding the research field. Critical evaluation of all the relevant former content is mandatory at this step. As the evaluation process gets accomplished, there is a need for making clear declarations about the attained Research Gaps. These researcher gaps will lead the Research Proposal writing steps to the next level- Research Methodology.

Step 4: Research Methodology

The decision regarding the Research Methodology depends on the identification of the right research philosophy. The research philosophy can be of either Pragmatism, Positivism, Realism, or Interpretivism. The appropriate selection of research philosophy will decide for research approach and design, and eventually the need for data collection sources. The necessary subheadings for this heading are:

Research Philosophy

Research Approach

Research Design

Data Collection

Kindly note that the inclusion of Research Design must remain about the Theoretical Framework as declared under the heading of the Literature Review.

Step 5: Knowledgeable Contributions

This is a step that remains focussed on the inclusion of -

Critical Evaluations of Possibilities

Research Contributions

=>  Revise and Proofread

As the researcher follows the Research Proposal writing steps, this step might appear difficult to present as it becomes somewhat early to declare the contributions of the research at this initial phase of the proposal. However, the researcher must offer some idea about the kind of possibilities that can be achieved through this research.

Step 6: Ethical Approval

The step for Ethical Approval must be well supported by the declarations of-

Consent Letter

Code of Ethics

The consent latter is mandatory for primary data collection, and the maintenance of the code of ethics must be adhered to as per the University norms. Remember, that you need to read all the ethical norms as stated on the official site of the University and structure the research process accordingly. 

Step 7: Research Timeline

Research Proposal writing steps must make a clear declaration about the total timeline need for the completion of a thesis. It is therefore very important to include-

Schedules Date Sheet

Chapters with Months

There can be possible variations in meeting the declared timelines, yet the basic framework needs to be followed appropriately.

Step 8: Research Expenditure

Many research works need travelling and other expenditure. Even many get funded. The researcher needs to make clear elaboration about the expenditure or funding of the research work. This elaboration must comprise- 

Research Cost

Justification on Cost

Source of Expenditure

It is necessary that you offer documents in support of your justification and the same can be added in the Appendices.

Step 9: Reference List

The researcher must follow this step as the crucial step among all the other steps of Research Proposal writing steps. A detailed and well-formatted list of the sources used in the research must be declared at this step.

University Recommended

Alphabetical Arrangement

Thus, this officially remains the last step on the entire list of Research Proposal writing steps.

Step 10: Appendices (if any)

The need for Appendices can be a step in the list of Research Proposal writing steps. However, it stands as optional, yet is recommended as it includes some major information related to the research. These major information can be-

Additional Data

Questionnaire

Interview Questions

This step can consider including official documents or tables & charts, which have great relevance to the Introduction and the Literature Review sections.

On a conclusive note, revise and proofread the entire Research Proposal at every step. Always keep in mind that the aforementioned Research Proposal writing steps are very important in meeting the core need for systematic explanation on what , why , and how of your future thesis.