how to evaluate research proposal

• GENERAL HUMANITIES PRESS RELEASES
• Methodology
• Editorial team
• Publication guidelines

How to assess research proposals?

By Lilian Nassi-Calò

Photo: Oliver Tacke .

The peer review of research proposals (grants) aims to judge the merit of projects and researchers and enable the best to be contemplated. The high number of candidates and proposals, however, has caused saturation of the reviewers, who find themselves immersed in increasing numbers of projects, not knowing the best way to assess them.

In a post previously published in this blog, the possibility of making reviews on grant proposals openly available has been discussed, as a way to help researchers devise better proposals, while allowing public recognition of referees and helping to prevent fraud in the appraisal process. This alternative comes from the successful experience of journals which made peer-reviewers comments openly available along with the published article.

Recently, Ewan Birney, director of the European Molecular Biology Laboratory’s European Bioinformatics Institute at Hinxton, UK, asked his Twitter followers for practical suggestions on how to identify the best candidates from hundreds of research grants submissions received by his institution. To his surprise, the scientific community responded enthusiastically with many suggestions which, in turn, led to other comments on Twitter. The experience was reported in Nature 1 , which is also receiving comments on its page.

Birney 2 started the debate on Twitter asking about a proxy for quality other than the journal title to assess the candidates’ competence, whose articles combined added up to about 2,500 overall. Yoav Gilad 3 , a geneticist at the University of Chicago, IL, US, advised him to read the 2,500 abstracts or the papers, even if it meant including more referees in the assessment process. Birney said that he considered it not feasible, although correct. Birney thinks, like many, that the journal’s title or its Impact Factor (IF) does not necessarily reflect the individual quality of the papers. Moreover, his task is even more difficult, because it includes assessing proposals that do not fall exactly within his area of ​​expertise. “Of course, even if I was using journal as proxy here it wouldn’t help me – everyone here has published ‘well’”.

The discussion continues on Twitter with a suggestion from Stephen Curry 4 , a structural biologist at the Imperial College in London about asking candidates to identify their four most relevant publications and justify their choices in a single page report. Richard Sever 5 , co-founder of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL) bioRxiv biomedical articles’ repository and assistant-director of CSHL Press considered it a good idea, pointing out, however, that this method could actually select candidates good at writing one page summaries.

The biggest concern, according to Birney, in using citation based metrics, as suggested by many researchers, lies in the fact that they vary considerably between disciplines and may not be comparable in a heterogeneous sample. Hugo Hilton 6 , an immunologist at the University of Stanford at CA, US, expressed his concern, as a candidate, that the selection processes are subject to not totally clear criteria and classic biases as the prestige of journals where applicants publish. It is worth, at this point, mentioning the Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) of 2012 7 , in which members of the American Society for Cell Biology pledged not to use the IF to evaluate researchers in grant proposals, career promotions and hiring, precisely to avoid distortions. Up to now the Declaration was signed by over 150 prominent scientists and 80 academic organizations.

Birney says that the referees should have a certain degree of autonomy to assess the proposals and there is no problem if all of them do not follow exactly the same procedures in their assessments. “I would prefer subjective but unbiased opinions, and five of them with different criteria than trying to unify the criteria so we all agree with the same answers.” However, he points out, transparency in the process is essential.

Despite being aware of the problems in using journals prestige as a proxy for quality, Birney believes that its use is unavoidable due to the large volume of proposals and candidates. He also advises candidates to highlight their achievements clearly in the proposal, rather than just pinpoint journal titles from their publications list.

The paper on Nature received several comments suggesting ways to speed up the evaluation process and come up with shortlists. It is also possible to registered users to submit their views on the topic 8 . Join the discussion you too!

1. CHAWLA, D.S. How to judge scientists’ strengths. Nature . 2015, volº 527, nº 279. DOI: 10.1038/527279f

2. Ewan Birney: http://twitter.com/ewanbirney

3. Yoav Gilad: http://twitter.com/Y_Gilad

4. Stephen Curry: http://twitter.com/Stephen_Curry

5. Richard Sever: http://twitter.com/cshperspectives

6. Hugo Hilton: http://twitter.com/Hilton_HG

7. SCIENTIFIC ELECTRONIC LIBRARY ONLINE. Declaration recommends eliminate the use of Impact factor for research evaluation . SciELO in Perspective. [viewed 22 November 2015]. Available from: http://blog.scielo.org/en/2013/07/16/declaration-recommends-eliminate-the-use-of-impact-factor-for-research-evaluation/

8. < http://www.nature.com/foxtrot/svc/login?type=commenting >

CHAWLA, D.S. How to judge scientists’ strengths. Nature . 2015, volº 527, nº 279. DOI: 10.1038/527279f

MALHOTRA, V. and MARDER, E. Peer review: The pleasure of publishing – originally published in the journal eLife in January/2015 . SciELO in Perspective. [viewed 21 November 2015]. Available from: http://blog.scielo.org/en/2015/05/11/peer-review-the-pleasure-of-publishing-originally-published-in-the-journal-elife-in-january2015/

SCIENTIFIC ELECTRONIC LIBRARY ONLINE. Could grant proposal reviews be made available openly?. SciELO in Perspective. [viewed 21 November 2015]. Available from: http://blog.scielo.org/en/2015/03/20/could-grant-proposal-reviews-be-made-available-openly/

SCIENTIFIC ELECTRONIC LIBRARY ONLINE. Declaration recommends eliminate the use of Impact factor for research evaluation . SciELO in Perspective. [viewed 22 November 2015]. Available from: http://blog.scielo.org/en/2013/07/16/declaration-recommends-eliminate-the-use-of-impact-factor-for-research-evaluation/

SCIENTIFIC ELECTRONIC LIBRARY ONLINE. Paper proposes four pillars for scholarly communication to favor the speed and the quality of science . SciELO in Perspective. [viewed 21 November 2015]. Available from: http://blog.scielo.org/en/2013/07/31/paper-proposes-four-pillars-for-scholarly-communication-to-favor-the-speed-and-the-quality-of-science/

SCIENTIFIC ELECTRONIC LIBRARY ONLINE. Peer-review as a research topic in its own right . SciELO in Perspective. [viewed 21 November 2015]. Available from: http://blog.scielo.org/en/2015/04/24/peer-review-as-a-research-topic-in-its-own-right/

SCIENTIFIC ELECTRONIC LIBRARY ONLINE. Scientometrics of peer-reviewers – will they be finally recognized? . SciELO in Perspective. [viewed 21 November 2015]. Available from: http://blog.scielo.org/en/2014/05/14/scientometrics-of-peer-reviewers-will-they-be-finally-recognized/

External links

bioRxiv – < http://biorxiv.org/ >

San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment – < http://am.ascb.org/dora/ >

About Lilian Nassi-Calò

Lilian Nassi-Calò studied chemistry at Instituto de Química – USP, holds a doctorate in Biochemistry by the same institution and a post-doctorate as an Alexander von Humboldt fellow in Wuerzburg, Germany. After her studies, she was a professor and researcher at IQ-USP. She also worked as an industrial chemist and presently she is Coordinator of Scientific Communication at BIREME/PAHO/WHO and a collaborator of SciELO.

Translated from the original in portuguese  by Lilian Nassi-Calò.

Related Posts:

Leave a Reply 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.

Post Navigation

SciELO Network

Press Releases

• It is now possible to develop an accessible passenger cabin for people with physical and sensory disabilities August 20, 2024 Rosa Emilia Moraes
• An Analysis of the Epistemological Foundations of Machine Learning August 15, 2024 Garibaldi Sarmento
• Barnyardgrass resistance to herbicides demands new agricultural strategies August 12, 2024 Ciência Rural
• Nietzsche and politics as will to dominion July 26, 2024 Adilson Felicio Feiler
• 115 years of Memórias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz, reflections on the current model and the future of scientific journals July 24, 2024 laraoliveira

Recent Posts

• An Analysis of the Epistemological Foundations of Machine Learning
• Tracing the origins of ‘publish or perish’ [Originally published in the LSE Impact blog in July/2024]
• 115 years of Memórias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz , reflections on the current model and the future of scientific journals
• Trans/Form/Ação officially adopts preprints as a submission method
• Bibliometric study on the adoption of open science measures reveals high scores for both Brazilian and SciELO-indexed journals

Recent Comments

• Nota de pesar: Charles Pessanha - anpocs.org.br on Interview and Tribute to Charles Pessanha [Originally published in DADOS’ blog in January/2020]
• Pesquisa da Pesquisa e Inovação on The use of research metrics is diversified in the Leiden Manifesto
• Pesquisa da Pesquisa organizará sessão especial em uma das maiores conferências sobre indicadores de CTI do mundo – Pesquisa da Pesquisa e Inovação on The use of research metrics is diversified in the Leiden Manifesto
• SciELO to Celebrate 25 Years with Series of Events - Public Knowledge Project on SciELO 25 Years: Open Science with IDEIA – Impact, Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility
• Como aumentar a divulgação da produção científica e das revistas acadêmicas - ABCD - Agência de Bibliotecas e Coleções Digitais on Why XML?

The posts are of the authors responsibility and don't necessarily convey the opinions of the SciELO Program.

SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online FAPESP - CAPES - CNPq - BIREME - FapUNIFESP http://www.scielo.org [email protected]

Home News Analysis Interviews Documents Newsletter About

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• 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.

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: Jun 3, 2024 9:44 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/assignments

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary site menu
• Skip to primary site search

Research at Brown

Writing an evaluation plan.

An evaluation plan is an integral part of a grant proposal that provides information to improve a project during development and implementation.

For small projects, the Office of the Vice President for Research can help you develop a simple evaluation plan. If you are writing a proposal for larger center grant, using a professional external evaluator is recommended. We can provide recommendations of external evaluators; please contact [email protected] ; for BioMed faculty visit the BioMed Evaluation Services webpage .

Do all grant proposals require an evaluation plan?

Not all grant proposals require an evaluation plan; however, many program announcements and funding opportunities stipulate and evaluation strategy with specific milestones are important elements that should be considered. If an evaluation plan is required, it will generally be listed in the program announcement. Most often, larger, more involved grant proposals will require an evaluation plan, while a smaller, single-investigator proposals will not. If you are unsure whether your proposal requires an evaluation plan, please contact us.

It is worth noting there is a difference between evaluation and research although there are several commonalities. Most simply:

• Research generalizes; Evaluation particularizes, 
• Research is designed to prove something; Evaluation is designed to improve something
• Research provides the basis for drawing conclusions; Evaluation provides a basis for decision making
• Research--how it works; Evaluation--how well it works
• Research is about what is; Evaluation is about what is valuable

There are two types of evaluation typically requested by funders--formative and summative—and which you use is largely dictated by the purpose of the evaluation. Do you want to prove that you achieved the outcomes as intended (summative) or are you doing evaluation to monitor if you are doing what you said you would in your grant application (formative)? Or both? We can help you prepare and review both types of evaluations outlined below.

Formative or Process Evaluation does the following:

• Assesses initial and ongoing project activities
• Begins during project development and continues through implementation
• Provides new and sometimes unanticipated insights into improving the outcomes of the project
• Involves review by the principal investigator, the steering or governance committee, and either an internal or external evaluator (depending on grant requirements)

Summative or Outcomes Evaluation does the following:

• Assesses the quality and success of a project in reaching stated goals
• Presents the information collected for project activities and outcomes
• Takes place after the completion of the project
• Involves review by the principal investigator, the steering or governance committee, either an internal or external evaluator, and the program director of the funding agency
• All evaluation plans should identify both participants (those directly involved in the project) and stakeholders (those otherwise invested by credibility, control or other capital), and should include the relevant items developed in the evaluation process.

What does the evaluation process entail?

The evaluation process can be broken down into a series of steps, from preparation to implementation and interpretation.

• Develop a conceptual model of the project and identify key evaluation points. This ensures that all participants and stakeholders understand the project's structure and expected outcomes, and helps focus on the project’s most important elements.
• Create evaluation questions and define measurable outcomes. Outcomes may be divided into short-term and long-term, or defined by the more immediate number of people affected by the project versus the overall changes that might not occur until after the project’s completion.
• Develop an appropriate evaluation design. A successful evaluation both highlights the most useful information about the project’s objectives and addresses its shortcomings. In developing an evaluation design, you should first determine who will be studied and when, and then select a methodological approach and data collection instruments. The NSF-sponsored Online Evaluation Resource Library provides step-by-step instructions for developing an evaluation plan.
• Collect data.
• Analyze data and present to interested audiences.

Explore Brown University

How To Write A Research Proposal

A Straightforward How-To Guide (With Examples)

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Reviewed By: Dr. Eunice Rautenbach | August 2019 (Updated April 2023)

Writing up a strong research proposal for a dissertation or thesis is much like a marriage proposal. It’s a task that calls on you to win somebody over and persuade them that what you’re planning is a great idea. An idea they’re happy to say ‘yes’ to. This means that your dissertation proposal needs to be   persuasive ,   attractive   and well-planned. In this post, I’ll show you how to write a winning dissertation proposal, from scratch.

Before you start:

– Understand exactly what a research proposal is – Ask yourself these 4 questions

The 5 essential ingredients:

• The title/topic
• The introduction chapter
• The scope/delimitations
• Preliminary literature review
• Design/ methodology
• Practical considerations and risks 

What Is A Research Proposal?

The research proposal is literally that: a written document that communicates what you propose to research, in a concise format. It’s where you put all that stuff that’s spinning around in your head down on to paper, in a logical, convincing fashion.

Convincing   is the keyword here, as your research proposal needs to convince the assessor that your research is   clearly articulated   (i.e., a clear research question) ,   worth doing   (i.e., is unique and valuable enough to justify the effort), and   doable   within the restrictions you’ll face (time limits, budget, skill limits, etc.). If your proposal does not address these three criteria, your research won’t be approved, no matter how “exciting” the research idea might be.

PS – if you’re completely new to proposal writing, we’ve got a detailed walkthrough video covering two successful research proposals here . 

How do I know I’m ready?

Before starting the writing process, you need to   ask yourself 4 important questions .  If you can’t answer them succinctly and confidently, you’re not ready – you need to go back and think more deeply about your dissertation topic .

You should be able to answer the following 4 questions before starting your dissertation or thesis research proposal:

• WHAT is my main research question? (the topic)
• WHO cares and why is this important? (the justification)
• WHAT data would I need to answer this question, and how will I analyse it? (the research design)
• HOW will I manage the completion of this research, within the given timelines? (project and risk management)

If you can’t answer these questions clearly and concisely,   you’re not yet ready   to write your research proposal – revisit our   post on choosing a topic .

If you can, that’s great – it’s time to start writing up your dissertation proposal. Next, I’ll discuss what needs to go into your research proposal, and how to structure it all into an intuitive, convincing document with a linear narrative.

The 5 Essential Ingredients

Research proposals can vary in style between institutions and disciplines, but here I’ll share with you a   handy 5-section structure   you can use. These 5 sections directly address the core questions we spoke about earlier, ensuring that you present a convincing proposal. If your institution already provides a proposal template, there will likely be substantial overlap with this, so you’ll still get value from reading on.

For each section discussed below, make sure you use headers and sub-headers (ideally, numbered headers) to help the reader navigate through your document, and to support them when they need to revisit a previous section. Don’t just present an endless wall of text, paragraph after paragraph after paragraph…

Top Tip:   Use MS Word Styles to format headings. This will allow you to be clear about whether a sub-heading is level 2, 3, or 4. Additionally, you can view your document in ‘outline view’ which will show you only your headings. This makes it much easier to check your structure, shift things around and make decisions about where a section needs to sit. You can also generate a 100% accurate table of contents using Word’s automatic functionality.

Ingredient #1 – Topic/Title Header

Your research proposal’s title should be your main research question in its simplest form, possibly with a sub-heading providing basic details on the specifics of the study. For example:

“Compliance with equality legislation in the charity sector: a study of the ‘reasonable adjustments’ made in three London care homes”

As you can see, this title provides a clear indication of what the research is about, in broad terms. It paints a high-level picture for the first-time reader, which gives them a taste of what to expect.   Always aim for a clear, concise title . Don’t feel the need to capture every detail of your research in your title – your proposal will fill in the gaps.

Need a helping hand?

Ingredient #2 – Introduction

In this section of your research proposal, you’ll expand on what you’ve communicated in the title, by providing a few paragraphs which offer more detail about your research topic. Importantly, the focus here is the   topic   – what will you research and why is that worth researching? This is not the place to discuss methodology, practicalities, etc. – you’ll do that later.

You should cover the following:

• An overview of the   broad area   you’ll be researching – introduce the reader to key concepts and language
• An explanation of the   specific (narrower) area   you’ll be focusing, and why you’ll be focusing there
• Your research   aims   and   objectives
• Your   research question (s) and sub-questions (if applicable)

Importantly, you should aim to use short sentences and plain language – don’t babble on with extensive jargon, acronyms and complex language. Assume that the reader is an intelligent layman – not a subject area specialist (even if they are). Remember that the   best writing is writing that can be easily understood   and digested. Keep it simple.

Note that some universities may want some extra bits and pieces in your introduction section. For example, personal development objectives, a structural outline, etc. Check your brief to see if there are any other details they expect in your proposal, and make sure you find a place for these.

Ingredient #3 – Scope

Next, you’ll need to specify what the scope of your research will be – this is also known as the delimitations . In other words, you need to make it clear what you will be covering and, more importantly, what you won’t be covering in your research. Simply put, this is about ring fencing your research topic so that you have a laser-sharp focus.

All too often, students feel the need to go broad and try to address as many issues as possible, in the interest of producing comprehensive research. Whilst this is admirable, it’s a mistake. By tightly refining your scope, you’ll enable yourself to   go deep   with your research, which is what you need to earn good marks. If your scope is too broad, you’re likely going to land up with superficial research (which won’t earn marks), so don’t be afraid to narrow things down.

Ingredient #4 – Literature Review

In this section of your research proposal, you need to provide a (relatively) brief discussion of the existing literature. Naturally, this will not be as comprehensive as the literature review in your actual dissertation, but it will lay the foundation for that. In fact, if you put in the effort at this stage, you’ll make your life a lot easier when it’s time to write your actual literature review chapter.

There are a few things you need to achieve in this section:

• Demonstrate that you’ve done your reading and are   familiar with the current state of the research   in your topic area.
• Show that   there’s a clear gap   for your specific research – i.e., show that your topic is sufficiently unique and will add value to the existing research.
• Show how the existing research has shaped your thinking regarding   research design . For example, you might use scales or questionnaires from previous studies.

When you write up your literature review, keep these three objectives front of mind, especially number two (revealing the gap in the literature), so that your literature review has a   clear purpose and direction . Everything you write should be contributing towards one (or more) of these objectives in some way. If it doesn’t, you need to ask yourself whether it’s truly needed.

Top Tip:  Don’t fall into the trap of just describing the main pieces of literature, for example, “A says this, B says that, C also says that…” and so on. Merely describing the literature provides no value. Instead, you need to   synthesise   it, and use it to address the three objectives above.

Ingredient #5 – Research Methodology

Now that you’ve clearly explained both your intended research topic (in the introduction) and the existing research it will draw on (in the literature review section), it’s time to get practical and explain exactly how you’ll be carrying out your own research. In other words, your research methodology.

In this section, you’ll need to   answer two critical questions :

• How   will you design your research? I.e., what research methodology will you adopt, what will your sample be, how will you collect data, etc.
• Why   have you chosen this design? I.e., why does this approach suit your specific research aims, objectives and questions?

In other words, this is not just about explaining WHAT you’ll be doing, it’s also about explaining WHY. In fact, the   justification is the most important part , because that justification is how you demonstrate a good understanding of research design (which is what assessors want to see).

Some essential design choices you need to cover in your research proposal include:

• Your intended research philosophy (e.g., positivism, interpretivism or pragmatism )
• What methodological approach you’ll be taking (e.g., qualitative , quantitative or mixed )
• The details of your sample (e.g., sample size, who they are, who they represent, etc.)
• What data you plan to collect (i.e. data about what, in what form?)
• How you plan to collect it (e.g., surveys , interviews , focus groups, etc.)
• How you plan to analyse it (e.g., regression analysis, thematic analysis , etc.)
• Ethical adherence (i.e., does this research satisfy all ethical requirements of your institution, or does it need further approval?)

This list is not exhaustive – these are just some core attributes of research design. Check with your institution what level of detail they expect. The “ research onion ” by Saunders et al (2009) provides a good summary of the various design choices you ultimately need to make – you can   read more about that here .

Don’t forget the practicalities…

In addition to the technical aspects, you will need to address the   practical   side of the project. In other words, you need to explain   what resources you’ll need   (e.g., time, money, access to equipment or software, etc.) and how you intend to secure these resources. You need to show that your project is feasible, so any “make or break” type resources need to already be secured. The success or failure of your project cannot depend on some resource which you’re not yet sure you have access to.

Another part of the practicalities discussion is   project and risk management . In other words, you need to show that you have a clear project plan to tackle your research with. Some key questions to address:

• What are the timelines for each phase of your project?
• Are the time allocations reasonable?
• What happens if something takes longer than anticipated (risk management)?
• What happens if you don’t get the response rate you expect?

A good way to demonstrate that you’ve thought this through is to include a Gantt chart and a risk register (in the appendix if word count is a problem). With these two tools, you can show that you’ve got a clear, feasible plan, and you’ve thought about and accounted for the potential risks.

Tip – Be honest about the potential difficulties – but show that you are anticipating solutions and workarounds. This is much more impressive to an assessor than an unrealistically optimistic proposal which does not anticipate any challenges whatsoever.

Final Touches: Read And Simplify

The final step is to edit and proofread your proposal – very carefully. It sounds obvious, but all too often poor editing and proofreading ruin a good proposal. Nothing is more off-putting for an assessor than a poorly edited, typo-strewn document. It sends the message that you either do not pay attention to detail, or just don’t care. Neither of these are good messages. Put the effort into editing and proofreading your proposal (or pay someone to do it for you) – it will pay dividends.

When you’re editing, watch out for ‘academese’. Many students can speak simply, passionately and clearly about their dissertation topic – but become incomprehensible the moment they turn the laptop on. You are not required to write in any kind of special, formal, complex language when you write academic work. Sure, there may be technical terms, jargon specific to your discipline, shorthand terms and so on. But, apart from those,   keep your written language very close to natural spoken language   – just as you would speak in the classroom. Imagine that you are explaining your project plans to your classmates or a family member. Remember, write for the intelligent layman, not the subject matter experts. Plain-language, concise writing is what wins hearts and minds – and marks!

Let’s Recap: Research Proposal 101

And there you have it – how to write your dissertation or thesis research proposal, from the title page to the final proof. Here’s a quick recap of the key takeaways:

• The purpose of the research proposal is to   convince   – therefore, you need to make a clear, concise argument of why your research is both worth doing and doable.
• Make sure you can ask the critical what, who, and how questions of your research   before   you put pen to paper.
• Title – provides the first taste of your research, in broad terms
• Introduction – explains what you’ll be researching in more detail
• Scope – explains the boundaries of your research
• Literature review – explains how your research fits into the existing research and why it’s unique and valuable
• Research methodology – explains and justifies how you will carry out your own research

Hopefully, this post has helped you better understand how to write up a winning research proposal. If you enjoyed it, be sure to check out the rest of the Grad Coach Blog . If your university doesn’t provide any template for your proposal, you might want to try out our free research proposal template .

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 .

30 Comments

Thank you so much for the valuable insight that you have given, especially on the research proposal. That is what I have managed to cover. I still need to go back to the other parts as I got disturbed while still listening to Derek’s audio on you-tube. I am inspired. I will definitely continue with Grad-coach guidance on You-tube.

Thanks for the kind words :). All the best with your proposal.

First of all, thanks a lot for making such a wonderful presentation. The video was really useful and gave me a very clear insight of how a research proposal has to be written. I shall try implementing these ideas in my RP.

Once again, I thank you for this content.

I found reading your outline on writing research proposal very beneficial. I wish there was a way of submitting my draft proposal to you guys for critiquing before I submit to the institution.

Hi Bonginkosi

Thank you for the kind words. Yes, we do provide a review service. The best starting point is to have a chat with one of our coaches here: https://gradcoach.com/book/new/ .

Hello team GRADCOACH, may God bless you so much. I was totally green in research. Am so happy for your free superb tutorials and resources. Once again thank you so much Derek and his team.

You’re welcome, Erick. Good luck with your research proposal 🙂

thank you for the information. its precise and on point.

Really a remarkable piece of writing and great source of guidance for the researchers. GOD BLESS YOU for your guidance. Regards

Thanks so much for your guidance. It is easy and comprehensive the way you explain the steps for a winning research proposal.

Thank you guys so much for the rich post. I enjoyed and learn from every word in it. My problem now is how to get into your platform wherein I can always seek help on things related to my research work ? Secondly, I wish to find out if there is a way I can send my tentative proposal to you guys for examination before I take to my supervisor Once again thanks very much for the insights

Thanks for your kind words, Desire.

If you are based in a country where Grad Coach’s paid services are available, you can book a consultation by clicking the “Book” button in the top right.

Best of luck with your studies.

May God bless you team for the wonderful work you are doing,

If I have a topic, Can I submit it to you so that you can draft a proposal for me?? As I am expecting to go for masters degree in the near future.

Thanks for your comment. We definitely cannot draft a proposal for you, as that would constitute academic misconduct. The proposal needs to be your own work. We can coach you through the process, but it needs to be your own work and your own writing.

Best of luck with your research!

I found a lot of many essential concepts from your material. it is real a road map to write a research proposal. so thanks a lot. If there is any update material on your hand on MBA please forward to me.

GradCoach is a professional website that presents support and helps for MBA student like me through the useful online information on the page and with my 1-on-1 online coaching with the amazing and professional PhD Kerryen.

Thank you Kerryen so much for the support and help 🙂

I really recommend dealing with such a reliable services provider like Gradcoah and a coach like Kerryen.

Hi, Am happy for your service and effort to help students and researchers, Please, i have been given an assignment on research for strategic development, the task one is to formulate a research proposal to support the strategic development of a business area, my issue here is how to go about it, especially the topic or title and introduction. Please, i would like to know if you could help me and how much is the charge.

This content is practical, valuable, and just great!

Thank you very much!

Hi Derek, Thank you for the valuable presentation. It is very helpful especially for beginners like me. I am just starting my PhD.

This is quite instructive and research proposal made simple. Can I have a research proposal template?

Great! Thanks for rescuing me, because I had no former knowledge in this topic. But with this piece of information, I am now secured. Thank you once more.

I enjoyed listening to your video on how to write a proposal. I think I will be able to write a winning proposal with your advice. I wish you were to be my supervisor.

Dear Derek Jansen,

Thank you for your great content. I couldn’t learn these topics in MBA, but now I learned from GradCoach. Really appreciate your efforts….

From Afghanistan!

I have got very essential inputs for startup of my dissertation proposal. Well organized properly communicated with video presentation. Thank you for the presentation.

Wow, this is absolutely amazing guys. Thank you so much for the fruitful presentation, you’ve made my research much easier.

this helps me a lot. thank you all so much for impacting in us. may god richly bless you all

How I wish I’d learn about Grad Coach earlier. I’ve been stumbling around writing and rewriting! Now I have concise clear directions on how to put this thing together. Thank you!

Fantastic!! Thank You for this very concise yet comprehensive guidance.

Even if I am poor in English I would like to thank you very much.

Thank you very much, this is very insightful.

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

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.

Search This Site

• Budget & Planning
• Common Data Set
• Substantive change process
• Brown bags and presentations
• University Factbook
• Diversity dashboards
• Undergraduate
• Graduate School
• Professional Schools
• Medical Division
• Total Enrollment
• Undergraduate Enrollment
• Graduate School Enrollment
• Professional Schools Enrollment
• Medical Division Enrollment
• Tuition and Self-Help
• Degrees Conferred
• Academic Staff
• Non-academic Staff
• External Environment
• All undergraduate students
• Incoming undergraduates
• Graduating seniors
• Faculty and academics
• Submit survey proposals
• Survey calendar
• So you want to survey Cornell students…
• Academic program changes
• Academic program review

Formal Review of Research Proposals

When is Formal Review Required?

Student & Campus Life research projects that will use substantial resources of the Cornell community must be formally reviewed by the committee before they can be initiated. At a minimum, this includes research that draws participants from a major institutional data base, for example, those maintained by the University Registrar; Office of the Dean of Students; Fraternity, Sorority and Independent Living; and Class Councils. Regardless of how potential participants are to be identified, research that meets the following criteria will also require formal review by the committee:

• Involves more that 100 participants for a quantitative data collection method (e.g., survey research) or 25 participants for a qualitative data collection method (e.g., focus groups or interviews);
• Is broader in scope than program evaluation (e.g., asks about more than just program-based experiences or includes individuals who did not participate in the target program or event); and
• Will require a substantial amount of participants’ time (e.g., protocols that will take more than 10 or 15 minutes to complete, or longitudinal research designs).

Conversely, research projects that are very limited in scope, and research that is conducted exclusively for program evaluation purposes (i.e., research that examines the program-related experiences of students who participate in a specific program or event) will generally be exempt from formal review by the committee.

Submitting a Proposal for Formal Review

The committee meets monthly during the fall, winter and spring semesters to formally review research proposals and conduct related business. At least eight weeks before the anticipated launch date of the project, researchers should submit a  SCLRG research proposal form to Leslie Meyerhoff or Marne Einarson . The proposal form asks for information about the purpose and proposed design of the study, as well as draft versions of data collection instruments. Samples of completed research proposals are available here and here .

The following criteria will be used by the committee to evaluate research proposals:

• Importance: Does the research address an important issue at Cornell? Will it provide useful information for academic planning or providing services to Cornell students?
• Content and Design : Does the proposed methodology fit the research question(s)? Are the questions well-constructed and easily understood? Is the instrument of reasonable length? Have the questions been pretested?
• Population and Sampling Methodology: Who is the target population? Is the sampling methodology appropriate to the research question(s)? Has the same student cohort and/or sample been used in other recent research? Could a smaller sample be drawn to achieve the same objective? How will the researcher(s) gain access to the proposed participants?
• Timing: Does the proposed timing of the research overlap with or follow closely upon other research directed toward the same population? When were data on this issue last collected at Cornell? Is the data collection period scheduled at a time when students are likely to respond?
• Data Management and Dissemination: Who will have access to the data? What are the provisions for secure storage of the data? Can data from this research be linked to other data sets? What is the plan for analyzing the data and disseminating the results? How will research results contribute to better decision making? How will research results be shared more broadly?
• Resources : What resources will be required to conduct this research (e.g., instrument design, Web application development, mail and/or e-mail services, data entry and analysis)? From where will these resources be obtained?
• Overall Impact: What will be the impact of the study? Are there any conceivable negative impacts on the University? Will the study overburden respondents? Overall, do the expected benefits of the study appear to outweigh the costs?

Based on their evaluation of the research proposal, the committee may decide to:

• Approve the project as submitted
• Approve the project with recommendations for changes that must be adopted before the project can be initiated
• Require revisions and re-submission of the project before approval is granted
• Reject the project (e.g., the potential benefits of the data do not justify the costs of collection; the research design has weaknesses that cannot be rectified)

IRB Approval

If research results will not be used exclusively for internal purposes (e.g., they will be presented or published beyond Cornell; or used for an undergraduate honors thesis, master’s thesis or doctoral dissertation), researchers may also be required to obtain approval from Cornell’s Institutional Review Board for Human Participants (IRB). IRB approval should be sought after the proposal has been reviewed by the SAS Research Group. The committee should subsequently be informed of the decision of the IRB.

© 2024 Cornell University

If you have a disability and are having trouble accessing information on this website or need materials in an alternate format, contact  [email protected]  for assistance.

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 .

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

Published on January 2, 2023 by Shona McCombes . Revised on September 11, 2023.

What is a literature review? A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic. It provides an overview of current knowledge, allowing you to identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research that you can later apply to your paper, thesis, or dissertation topic .

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

• Search for relevant literature
• Evaluate sources
• Identify themes, debates, and gaps
• Outline the structure
• Write your literature review

A good literature review doesn’t just summarize sources—it analyzes, synthesizes , and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

What is the purpose of a literature review, examples of literature reviews, step 1 – search for relevant literature, step 2 – evaluate and select sources, step 3 – identify themes, debates, and gaps, step 4 – outline your literature review’s structure, step 5 – write your literature review, free lecture slides, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions, introduction.

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

When you write a thesis , dissertation , or research paper , you will likely have to conduct a literature review to situate your research within existing knowledge. The literature review gives you a chance to:

• Demonstrate your familiarity with the topic and its scholarly context
• Develop a theoretical framework and methodology for your research
• Position your work in relation to other researchers and theorists
• Show how your research addresses a gap or contributes to a debate
• Evaluate the current state of research and demonstrate your knowledge of the scholarly debates around your topic.

Writing literature reviews is a particularly important skill if you want to apply for graduate school or pursue a career in research. We’ve written a step-by-step guide that you can follow below.

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

Writing literature reviews can be quite challenging! A good starting point could be to look at some examples, depending on what kind of literature review you’d like to write.

• Example literature review #1: “Why Do People Migrate? A Review of the Theoretical Literature” ( Theoretical literature review about the development of economic migration theory from the 1950s to today.)
• Example literature review #2: “Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines” ( Methodological literature review about interdisciplinary knowledge acquisition and production.)
• Example literature review #3: “The Use of Technology in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Thematic literature review about the effects of technology on language acquisition.)
• Example literature review #4: “Learners’ Listening Comprehension Difficulties in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Chronological literature review about how the concept of listening skills has changed over time.)

You can also check out our templates with literature review examples and sample outlines at the links below.

Download Word doc Download Google doc

Before you begin searching for literature, you need a clearly defined topic .

If you are writing the literature review section of a dissertation or research paper, you will search for literature related to your research problem and questions .

Make a list of keywords

Start by creating a list of keywords related to your research question. Include each of the key concepts or variables you’re interested in, and list any synonyms and related terms. You can add to this list as you discover new keywords in the process of your literature search.

• Social media, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, TikTok
• Body image, self-perception, self-esteem, mental health
• Generation Z, teenagers, adolescents, youth

Search for relevant sources

Use your keywords to begin searching for sources. Some useful databases to search for journals and articles include:

• Your university’s library catalogue
• Google Scholar
• Project Muse (humanities and social sciences)
• Medline (life sciences and biomedicine)
• EconLit (economics)
• Inspec (physics, engineering and computer science)

You can also use boolean operators to help narrow down your search.

Make sure to read the abstract to find out whether an article is relevant to your question. When you find a useful book or article, you can check the bibliography to find other relevant sources.

You likely won’t be able to read absolutely everything that has been written on your topic, so it will be necessary to evaluate which sources are most relevant to your research question.

For each publication, ask yourself:

• What question or problem is the author addressing?
• What are the key concepts and how are they defined?
• What are the key theories, models, and methods?
• Does the research use established frameworks or take an innovative approach?
• What are the results and conclusions of the study?
• How does the publication relate to other literature in the field? Does it confirm, add to, or challenge established knowledge?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the research?

Make sure the sources you use are credible , and make sure you read any landmark studies and major theories in your field of research.

You can use our template to summarize and evaluate sources you’re thinking about using. Click on either button below to download.

Take notes and cite your sources

As you read, you should also begin the writing process. Take notes that you can later incorporate into the text of your literature review.

It is important to keep track of your sources with citations to avoid plagiarism . It can be helpful to make an annotated bibliography , where you compile full citation information and write a paragraph of summary and analysis for each source. This helps you remember what you read and saves time later in the process.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

To begin organizing your literature review’s argument and structure, be sure you understand the connections and relationships between the sources you’ve read. Based on your reading and notes, you can look for:

• Trends and patterns (in theory, method or results): do certain approaches become more or less popular over time?
• Themes: what questions or concepts recur across the literature?
• Debates, conflicts and contradictions: where do sources disagree?
• Pivotal publications: are there any influential theories or studies that changed the direction of the field?
• Gaps: what is missing from the literature? Are there weaknesses that need to be addressed?

This step will help you work out the structure of your literature review and (if applicable) show how your own research will contribute to existing knowledge.

• Most research has focused on young women.
• There is an increasing interest in the visual aspects of social media.
• But there is still a lack of robust research on highly visual platforms like Instagram and Snapchat—this is a gap that you could address in your own research.

There are various approaches to organizing the body of a literature review. Depending on the length of your literature review, you can combine several of these strategies (for example, your overall structure might be thematic, but each theme is discussed chronologically).

Chronological

The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time. However, if you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order.

Try to analyze patterns, turning points and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred.

If you have found some recurring central themes, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic.

For example, if you are reviewing literature about inequalities in migrant health outcomes, key themes might include healthcare policy, language barriers, cultural attitudes, legal status, and economic access.

Methodological

If you draw your sources from different disciplines or fields that use a variety of research methods , you might want to compare the results and conclusions that emerge from different approaches. For example:

• Look at what results have emerged in qualitative versus quantitative research
• Discuss how the topic has been approached by empirical versus theoretical scholarship
• Divide the literature into sociological, historical, and cultural sources

Theoretical

A literature review is often the foundation for a theoretical framework . You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts.

You might argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach, or combine various theoretical concepts to create a framework for your research.

Like any other academic text , your literature review should have an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion . What you include in each depends on the objective of your literature review.

The introduction should clearly establish the focus and purpose of the literature review.

Depending on the length of your literature review, you might want to divide the body into subsections. You can use a subheading for each theme, time period, or methodological approach.

As you write, you can follow these tips:

• Summarize and synthesize: give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole
• Analyze and interpret: don’t just paraphrase other researchers — add your own interpretations where possible, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole
• Critically evaluate: mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources
• Write in well-structured paragraphs: use transition words and topic sentences to draw connections, comparisons and contrasts

In the conclusion, you should summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance.

When you’ve finished writing and revising your literature review, don’t forget to proofread thoroughly before submitting. Not a language expert? Check out Scribbr’s professional proofreading services !

This article has been adapted into lecture slides that you can use to teach your students about writing a literature review.

Scribbr slides are free to use, customize, and distribute for educational purposes.

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

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.

• 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

A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources (such as books, journal articles, and theses) related to a specific topic or research question .

It is often written as part of a thesis, dissertation , or research paper , in order to situate your work in relation to existing knowledge.

There are several reasons to conduct a literature review at the beginning of a research project:

• To familiarize yourself with the current state of knowledge on your topic
• To ensure that you’re not just repeating what others have already done
• To identify gaps in knowledge and unresolved problems that your research can address
• To develop your theoretical framework and methodology
• To provide an overview of the key findings and debates on the topic

Writing the literature review shows your reader how your work relates to existing research and what new insights it will contribute.

The literature review usually comes near the beginning of your thesis or dissertation . After the introduction , it grounds your research in a scholarly field and leads directly to your theoretical framework or methodology .

A literature review is a survey of credible sources on a topic, often used in dissertations , theses, and research papers . Literature reviews give an overview of knowledge on a subject, helping you identify relevant theories and methods, as well as gaps in existing research. Literature reviews are set up similarly to other  academic texts , with an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion .

An  annotated bibliography is a list of  source references that has a short description (called an annotation ) for each of the sources. It is often assigned as part of the research process for a  paper .  

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 Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved August 26, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, "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”

How to Write a Research Proposal: (with Examples & Templates)

Table of Contents

Before conducting a study, a research proposal should be created that outlines researchers’ plans and methodology and is submitted to the concerned evaluating organization or person. Creating a research proposal is an important step to ensure that researchers are on track and are moving forward as intended. A research proposal can be defined as a detailed plan or blueprint for the proposed research that you intend to undertake. It provides readers with a snapshot of your project by describing what you will investigate, why it is needed, and how you will conduct the research.  

Your research proposal should aim to explain to the readers why your research is relevant and original, that you understand the context and current scenario in the field, have the appropriate resources to conduct the research, and that the research is feasible given the usual constraints.  

This article will describe in detail the purpose and typical structure of a research proposal , along with examples and templates to help you ace this step in your research journey.  

What is a Research Proposal ?  

A research proposal¹ ,²  can be defined as a formal report that describes your proposed research, its objectives, methodology, implications, and other important details. Research proposals are the framework of your research and are used to obtain approvals or grants to conduct the study from various committees or organizations. Consequently, research proposals should convince readers of your study’s credibility, accuracy, achievability, practicality, and reproducibility.   

With research proposals , researchers usually aim to persuade the readers, funding agencies, educational institutions, and supervisors to approve the proposal. To achieve this, the report should be well structured with the objectives written in clear, understandable language devoid of jargon. A well-organized research proposal conveys to the readers or evaluators that the writer has thought out the research plan meticulously and has the resources to ensure timely completion.  

Purpose of Research Proposals  

A research proposal is a sales pitch and therefore should be detailed enough to convince your readers, who could be supervisors, ethics committees, universities, etc., that what you’re proposing has merit and is feasible . Research proposals can help students discuss their dissertation with their faculty or fulfill course requirements and also help researchers obtain funding. A well-structured proposal instills confidence among readers about your ability to conduct and complete the study as proposed.  

Research proposals can be written for several reasons:³  

• To describe the importance of research in the specific topic  
• Address any potential challenges you may encounter  
• Showcase knowledge in the field and your ability to conduct a study  
• Apply for a role at a research institute  
• Convince a research supervisor or university that your research can satisfy the requirements of a degree program  
• Highlight the importance of your research to organizations that may sponsor your project  
• Identify implications of your project and how it can benefit the audience  

What Goes in a Research Proposal?    

Research proposals should aim to answer the three basic questions—what, why, and how.  

The What question should be answered by describing the specific subject being researched. It should typically include the objectives, the cohort details, and the location or setting.  

The Why question should be answered by describing the existing scenario of the subject, listing unanswered questions, identifying gaps in the existing research, and describing how your study can address these gaps, along with the implications and significance.  

The How question should be answered by describing the proposed research methodology, data analysis tools expected to be used, and other details to describe your proposed methodology.   

Research Proposal Example  

Here is a research proposal sample template (with examples) from the University of Rochester Medical Center. 4 The sections in all research proposals are essentially the same although different terminology and other specific sections may be used depending on the subject.  

Structure of a Research Proposal  

If you want to know how to make a research proposal impactful, include the following components:¹  

1. Introduction  

This section provides a background of the study, including the research topic, what is already known about it and the gaps, and the significance of the proposed research.  

2. Literature review  

This section contains descriptions of all the previous relevant studies pertaining to the research topic. Every study cited should be described in a few sentences, starting with the general studies to the more specific ones. This section builds on the understanding gained by readers in the Introduction section and supports it by citing relevant prior literature, indicating to readers that you have thoroughly researched your subject.  

3. Objectives  

Once the background and gaps in the research topic have been established, authors must now state the aims of the research clearly. Hypotheses should be mentioned here. This section further helps readers understand what your study’s specific goals are.  

4. Research design and methodology  

Here, authors should clearly describe the methods they intend to use to achieve their proposed objectives. Important components of this section include the population and sample size, data collection and analysis methods and duration, statistical analysis software, measures to avoid bias (randomization, blinding), etc.  

5. Ethical considerations  

This refers to the protection of participants’ rights, such as the right to privacy, right to confidentiality, etc. Researchers need to obtain informed consent and institutional review approval by the required authorities and mention this clearly for transparency.  

6. Budget/funding  

Researchers should prepare their budget and include all expected expenditures. An additional allowance for contingencies such as delays should also be factored in.  

7. Appendices  

This section typically includes information that supports the research proposal and may include informed consent forms, questionnaires, participant information, measurement tools, etc.  

8. Citations  

Important Tips for Writing a Research Proposal  

Writing a research proposal begins much before the actual task of writing. Planning the research proposal structure and content is an important stage, which if done efficiently, can help you seamlessly transition into the writing stage. 3,5  

The Planning Stage  

• Manage your time efficiently. Plan to have the draft version ready at least two weeks before your deadline and the final version at least two to three days before the deadline.
• What is the primary objective of your research?  
• Will your research address any existing gap?  
• What is the impact of your proposed research?  
• Do people outside your field find your research applicable in other areas?  
• If your research is unsuccessful, would there still be other useful research outcomes?  

  The Writing Stage  

• Create an outline with main section headings that are typically used.  
• Focus only on writing and getting your points across without worrying about the format of the research proposal , grammar, punctuation, etc. These can be fixed during the subsequent passes. Add details to each section heading you created in the beginning.   
• Ensure your sentences are concise and use plain language. A research proposal usually contains about 2,000 to 4,000 words or four to seven pages.  
• Don’t use too many technical terms and abbreviations assuming that the readers would know them. Define the abbreviations and technical terms.  
• Ensure that the entire content is readable. Avoid using long paragraphs because they affect the continuity in reading. Break them into shorter paragraphs and introduce some white space for readability.  
• Focus on only the major research issues and cite sources accordingly. Don’t include generic information or their sources in the literature review.  
• Proofread your final document to ensure there are no grammatical errors so readers can enjoy a seamless, uninterrupted read.  
• Use academic, scholarly language because it brings formality into a document.  
• Ensure that your title is created using the keywords in the document and is neither too long and specific nor too short and general.  
• Cite all sources appropriately to avoid plagiarism.  
• Make sure that you follow guidelines, if provided. This includes rules as simple as using a specific font or a hyphen or en dash between numerical ranges.  
• Ensure that you’ve answered all questions requested by the evaluating authority.  

Key Takeaways   

Here’s a summary of the main points about research proposals discussed in the previous sections:  

• A research proposal is a document that outlines the details of a proposed study and is created by researchers to submit to evaluators who could be research institutions, universities, faculty, etc.  
• Research proposals are usually about 2,000-4,000 words long, but this depends on the evaluating authority’s guidelines.  
• A good research proposal ensures that you’ve done your background research and assessed the feasibility of the research.  
• Research proposals have the following main sections—introduction, literature review, objectives, methodology, ethical considerations, and budget.  

Frequently Asked Questions  

Q1. How is a research proposal evaluated?  

A1. In general, most evaluators, including universities, broadly use the following criteria to evaluate research proposals . 6  

• Significance —Does the research address any important subject or issue, which may or may not be specific to the evaluator or university?  
• Content and design —Is the proposed methodology appropriate to answer the research question? Are the objectives clear and well aligned with the proposed methodology?  
• Sample size and selection —Is the target population or cohort size clearly mentioned? Is the sampling process used to select participants randomized, appropriate, and free of bias?  
• Timing —Are the proposed data collection dates mentioned clearly? Is the project feasible given the specified resources and timeline?  
• Data management and dissemination —Who will have access to the data? What is the plan for data analysis?  

Q2. What is the difference between the Introduction and Literature Review sections in a research proposal ?  

A2. The Introduction or Background section in a research proposal sets the context of the study by describing the current scenario of the subject and identifying the gaps and need for the research. A Literature Review, on the other hand, provides references to all prior relevant literature to help corroborate the gaps identified and the research need.  

Q3. How long should a research proposal be?  

A3. Research proposal lengths vary with the evaluating authority like universities or committees and also the subject. Here’s a table that lists the typical research proposal lengths for a few universities.  

Q4. What are the common mistakes to avoid in a research proposal ?  

A4. Here are a few common mistakes that you must avoid while writing a research proposal . 7  

• No clear objectives: Objectives should be clear, specific, and measurable for the easy understanding among readers.  
• Incomplete or unconvincing background research: Background research usually includes a review of the current scenario of the particular industry and also a review of the previous literature on the subject. This helps readers understand your reasons for undertaking this research because you identified gaps in the existing research.  
• Overlooking project feasibility: The project scope and estimates should be realistic considering the resources and time available.   
• Neglecting the impact and significance of the study: In a research proposal , readers and evaluators look for the implications or significance of your research and how it contributes to the existing research. This information should always be included.  
• Unstructured format of a research proposal : A well-structured document gives confidence to evaluators that you have read the guidelines carefully and are well organized in your approach, consequently affirming that you will be able to undertake the research as mentioned in your proposal.  
• Ineffective writing style: The language used should be formal and grammatically correct. If required, editors could be consulted, including AI-based tools such as Paperpal , to refine the research proposal structure and language.  

Thus, a research proposal is an essential document that can help you promote your research and secure funds and grants for conducting your research. Consequently, it should be well written in clear language and include all essential details to convince the evaluators of your ability to conduct the research as proposed.  

This article has described all the important components of a research proposal and has also provided tips to improve your writing style. We hope all these tips will help you write a well-structured research proposal to ensure receipt of grants or any other purpose.  

References  

• Sudheesh K, Duggappa DR, Nethra SS. How to write a research proposal? Indian J Anaesth. 2016;60(9):631-634. Accessed July 15, 2024. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5037942/  
• Writing research proposals. Harvard College Office of Undergraduate Research and Fellowships. Harvard University. Accessed July 14, 2024. https://uraf.harvard.edu/apply-opportunities/app-components/essays/research-proposals  
• What is a research proposal? Plus how to write one. Indeed website. Accessed July 17, 2024. https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/research-proposal  
• Research proposal template. University of Rochester Medical Center. Accessed July 16, 2024. https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/MediaLibraries/URMCMedia/pediatrics/research/documents/Research-proposal-Template.pdf  
• Tips for successful proposal writing. Johns Hopkins University. Accessed July 17, 2024. https://research.jhu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Tips-for-Successful-Proposal-Writing.pdf  
• Formal review of research proposals. Cornell University. Accessed July 18, 2024. https://irp.dpb.cornell.edu/surveys/survey-assessment-review-group/research-proposals  
• 7 Mistakes you must avoid in your research proposal. Aveksana (via LinkedIn). Accessed July 17, 2024. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/7-mistakes-you-must-avoid-your-research-proposal-aveksana-cmtwf/  

Paperpal is a comprehensive AI writing toolkit that helps students and researchers achieve 2x the writing in half the time. It leverages 21+ years of STM experience and insights from millions of research articles to provide in-depth academic writing, language editing, and submission readiness support to help you write better, faster.  

Get accurate academic translations, rewriting support, grammar checks, vocabulary suggestions, and generative AI assistance that delivers human precision at machine speed. Try for free or upgrade to Paperpal Prime starting at US$19 a month to access premium features, including consistency, plagiarism, and 30+ submission readiness checks to help you succeed.  

Experience the future of academic writing – Sign up to Paperpal and start writing for free!  

Related Reads:

How to write a phd research proposal.

• What are the Benefits of Generative AI for Academic Writing?
• How to Avoid Plagiarism When Using Generative AI Tools
• What is Hedging in Academic Writing?  

How to Write Your Research Paper in APA Format

The future of academia: how ai tools are changing the way we do research, you may also like, dissertation printing and binding | types & comparison , what is a dissertation preface definition and examples , how to write your research paper in apa..., how to choose a dissertation topic, how to write an academic paragraph (step-by-step guide), maintaining academic integrity with paperpal’s generative ai writing..., research funding basics: what should a grant proposal..., how to write an abstract in research papers..., how to write dissertation acknowledgements.

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
• Indian J Anaesth
• v.60(9); 2016 Sep

How to write a research proposal?

Department of Anaesthesiology, Bangalore Medical College and Research Institute, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India

Devika Rani Duggappa

Writing the proposal of a research work in the present era is a challenging task due to the constantly evolving trends in the qualitative research design and the need to incorporate medical advances into the methodology. The proposal is a detailed plan or ‘blueprint’ for the intended study, and once it is completed, the research project should flow smoothly. Even today, many of the proposals at post-graduate evaluation committees and application proposals for funding are substandard. A search was conducted with keywords such as research proposal, writing proposal and qualitative using search engines, namely, PubMed and Google Scholar, and an attempt has been made to provide broad guidelines for writing a scientifically appropriate research proposal.

INTRODUCTION

A clean, well-thought-out proposal forms the backbone for the research itself and hence becomes the most important step in the process of conduct of research.[ 1 ] The objective of preparing a research proposal would be to obtain approvals from various committees including ethics committee [details under ‘Research methodology II’ section [ Table 1 ] in this issue of IJA) and to request for grants. However, there are very few universally accepted guidelines for preparation of a good quality research proposal. A search was performed with keywords such as research proposal, funding, qualitative and writing proposals using search engines, namely, PubMed, Google Scholar and Scopus.

Five ‘C’s while writing a literature review

BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF A RESEARCH PROPOSAL

A proposal needs to show how your work fits into what is already known about the topic and what new paradigm will it add to the literature, while specifying the question that the research will answer, establishing its significance, and the implications of the answer.[ 2 ] The proposal must be capable of convincing the evaluation committee about the credibility, achievability, practicality and reproducibility (repeatability) of the research design.[ 3 ] Four categories of audience with different expectations may be present in the evaluation committees, namely academic colleagues, policy-makers, practitioners and lay audiences who evaluate the research proposal. Tips for preparation of a good research proposal include; ‘be practical, be persuasive, make broader links, aim for crystal clarity and plan before you write’. A researcher must be balanced, with a realistic understanding of what can be achieved. Being persuasive implies that researcher must be able to convince other researchers, research funding agencies, educational institutions and supervisors that the research is worth getting approval. The aim of the researcher should be clearly stated in simple language that describes the research in a way that non-specialists can comprehend, without use of jargons. The proposal must not only demonstrate that it is based on an intelligent understanding of the existing literature but also show that the writer has thought about the time needed to conduct each stage of the research.[ 4 , 5 ]

CONTENTS OF A RESEARCH PROPOSAL

The contents or formats of a research proposal vary depending on the requirements of evaluation committee and are generally provided by the evaluation committee or the institution.

In general, a cover page should contain the (i) title of the proposal, (ii) name and affiliation of the researcher (principal investigator) and co-investigators, (iii) institutional affiliation (degree of the investigator and the name of institution where the study will be performed), details of contact such as phone numbers, E-mail id's and lines for signatures of investigators.

The main contents of the proposal may be presented under the following headings: (i) introduction, (ii) review of literature, (iii) aims and objectives, (iv) research design and methods, (v) ethical considerations, (vi) budget, (vii) appendices and (viii) citations.[ 4 ]

Introduction

It is also sometimes termed as ‘need for study’ or ‘abstract’. Introduction is an initial pitch of an idea; it sets the scene and puts the research in context.[ 6 ] The introduction should be designed to create interest in the reader about the topic and proposal. It should convey to the reader, what you want to do, what necessitates the study and your passion for the topic.[ 7 ] Some questions that can be used to assess the significance of the study are: (i) Who has an interest in the domain of inquiry? (ii) What do we already know about the topic? (iii) What has not been answered adequately in previous research and practice? (iv) How will this research add to knowledge, practice and policy in this area? Some of the evaluation committees, expect the last two questions, elaborated under a separate heading of ‘background and significance’.[ 8 ] Introduction should also contain the hypothesis behind the research design. If hypothesis cannot be constructed, the line of inquiry to be used in the research must be indicated.

Review of literature

It refers to all sources of scientific evidence pertaining to the topic in interest. In the present era of digitalisation and easy accessibility, there is an enormous amount of relevant data available, making it a challenge for the researcher to include all of it in his/her review.[ 9 ] It is crucial to structure this section intelligently so that the reader can grasp the argument related to your study in relation to that of other researchers, while still demonstrating to your readers that your work is original and innovative. It is preferable to summarise each article in a paragraph, highlighting the details pertinent to the topic of interest. The progression of review can move from the more general to the more focused studies, or a historical progression can be used to develop the story, without making it exhaustive.[ 1 ] Literature should include supporting data, disagreements and controversies. Five ‘C's may be kept in mind while writing a literature review[ 10 ] [ Table 1 ].

Aims and objectives

The research purpose (or goal or aim) gives a broad indication of what the researcher wishes to achieve in the research. The hypothesis to be tested can be the aim of the study. The objectives related to parameters or tools used to achieve the aim are generally categorised as primary and secondary objectives.

Research design and method

The objective here is to convince the reader that the overall research design and methods of analysis will correctly address the research problem and to impress upon the reader that the methodology/sources chosen are appropriate for the specific topic. It should be unmistakably tied to the specific aims of your study.

In this section, the methods and sources used to conduct the research must be discussed, including specific references to sites, databases, key texts or authors that will be indispensable to the project. There should be specific mention about the methodological approaches to be undertaken to gather information, about the techniques to be used to analyse it and about the tests of external validity to which researcher is committed.[ 10 , 11 ]

The components of this section include the following:[ 4 ]

Population and sample

Population refers to all the elements (individuals, objects or substances) that meet certain criteria for inclusion in a given universe,[ 12 ] and sample refers to subset of population which meets the inclusion criteria for enrolment into the study. The inclusion and exclusion criteria should be clearly defined. The details pertaining to sample size are discussed in the article “Sample size calculation: Basic priniciples” published in this issue of IJA.

Data collection

The researcher is expected to give a detailed account of the methodology adopted for collection of data, which include the time frame required for the research. The methodology should be tested for its validity and ensure that, in pursuit of achieving the results, the participant's life is not jeopardised. The author should anticipate and acknowledge any potential barrier and pitfall in carrying out the research design and explain plans to address them, thereby avoiding lacunae due to incomplete data collection. If the researcher is planning to acquire data through interviews or questionnaires, copy of the questions used for the same should be attached as an annexure with the proposal.

Rigor (soundness of the research)

This addresses the strength of the research with respect to its neutrality, consistency and applicability. Rigor must be reflected throughout the proposal.

It refers to the robustness of a research method against bias. The author should convey the measures taken to avoid bias, viz. blinding and randomisation, in an elaborate way, thus ensuring that the result obtained from the adopted method is purely as chance and not influenced by other confounding variables.

Consistency

Consistency considers whether the findings will be consistent if the inquiry was replicated with the same participants and in a similar context. This can be achieved by adopting standard and universally accepted methods and scales.

Applicability

Applicability refers to the degree to which the findings can be applied to different contexts and groups.[ 13 ]

Data analysis

This section deals with the reduction and reconstruction of data and its analysis including sample size calculation. The researcher is expected to explain the steps adopted for coding and sorting the data obtained. Various tests to be used to analyse the data for its robustness, significance should be clearly stated. Author should also mention the names of statistician and suitable software which will be used in due course of data analysis and their contribution to data analysis and sample calculation.[ 9 ]

Ethical considerations

Medical research introduces special moral and ethical problems that are not usually encountered by other researchers during data collection, and hence, the researcher should take special care in ensuring that ethical standards are met. Ethical considerations refer to the protection of the participants' rights (right to self-determination, right to privacy, right to autonomy and confidentiality, right to fair treatment and right to protection from discomfort and harm), obtaining informed consent and the institutional review process (ethical approval). The researcher needs to provide adequate information on each of these aspects.

Informed consent needs to be obtained from the participants (details discussed in further chapters), as well as the research site and the relevant authorities.

When the researcher prepares a research budget, he/she should predict and cost all aspects of the research and then add an additional allowance for unpredictable disasters, delays and rising costs. All items in the budget should be justified.

Appendices are documents that support the proposal and application. The appendices will be specific for each proposal but documents that are usually required include informed consent form, supporting documents, questionnaires, measurement tools and patient information of the study in layman's language.

As with any scholarly research paper, you must cite the sources you used in composing your proposal. Although the words ‘references and bibliography’ are different, they are used interchangeably. It refers to all references cited in the research proposal.

Successful, qualitative research proposals should communicate the researcher's knowledge of the field and method and convey the emergent nature of the qualitative design. The proposal should follow a discernible logic from the introduction to presentation of the appendices.

Financial support and sponsorship

Conflicts of interest.

There are no conflicts of interest.

• Privacy Policy

Home » Research Proposal – Types, Template and Example

Research Proposal – Types, Template and Example

Table of Contents

Research Proposal

Research proposal is a document that outlines a proposed research project . It is typically written by researchers, scholars, or students who intend to conduct research to address a specific research question or problem.

Types of Research Proposal

Research proposals can vary depending on the nature of the research project and the specific requirements of the funding agency, academic institution, or research program. Here are some common types of research proposals:

Academic Research Proposal

This is the most common type of research proposal, which is prepared by students, scholars, or researchers to seek approval and funding for an academic research project. It includes all the essential components mentioned earlier, such as the introduction, literature review , methodology , and expected outcomes.

Grant Proposal

A grant proposal is specifically designed to secure funding from external sources, such as government agencies, foundations, or private organizations. It typically includes additional sections, such as a detailed budget, project timeline, evaluation plan, and a description of the project’s alignment with the funding agency’s priorities and objectives.

Dissertation or Thesis Proposal

Students pursuing a master’s or doctoral degree often need to submit a proposal outlining their intended research for their dissertation or thesis. These proposals are usually more extensive and comprehensive, including an in-depth literature review, theoretical framework, research questions or hypotheses, and a detailed methodology.

Research Project Proposal

This type of proposal is often prepared by researchers or research teams within an organization or institution. It outlines a specific research project that aims to address a particular problem, explore a specific area of interest, or provide insights for decision-making. Research project proposals may include sections on project management, collaboration, and dissemination of results.

Research Fellowship Proposal

Researchers or scholars applying for research fellowships may be required to submit a proposal outlining their proposed research project. These proposals often emphasize the novelty and significance of the research and its alignment with the goals and objectives of the fellowship program.

Collaborative Research Proposal

In cases where researchers from multiple institutions or disciplines collaborate on a research project, a collaborative research proposal is prepared. This proposal highlights the objectives, responsibilities, and contributions of each collaborator, as well as the overall research plan and coordination mechanisms.

Research Proposal Outline

A research proposal typically follows a standard outline that helps structure the document and ensure all essential components are included. While the specific headings and subheadings may vary slightly depending on the requirements of your institution or funding agency, the following outline provides a general structure for a research proposal:

• Title of the research proposal
• Name of the researcher(s) or principal investigator(s)
• Affiliation or institution
• Date of submission
• A concise summary of the research proposal, typically limited to 200-300 words.
• Briefly introduce the research problem or question, state the objectives, summarize the methodology, and highlight the expected outcomes or significance of the research.
• Provide an overview of the subject area and the specific research problem or question.
• Present relevant background information, theories, or concepts to establish the need for the research.
• Clearly state the research objectives or research questions that the study aims to address.
• Indicate the significance or potential contributions of the research.
• Summarize and analyze relevant studies, theories, or scholarly works.
• Identify research gaps or unresolved issues that your study intends to address.
• Highlight the novelty or uniqueness of your research.
• Describe the overall approach or research design that will be used (e.g., experimental, qualitative, quantitative).
• Justify the chosen approach based on the research objectives and question.
• Explain how data will be collected (e.g., surveys, interviews, experiments).
• Describe the sampling strategy and sample size, if applicable.
• Address any ethical considerations related to data collection.
• Outline the data analysis techniques or statistical methods that will be applied.
• Explain how the data will be interpreted and analyzed to answer the research question(s).
• Provide a detailed schedule or timeline that outlines the various stages of the research project.
• Specify the estimated duration for each stage, including data collection, analysis, and report writing.
• State the potential outcomes or results of the research.
• Discuss the potential significance or contributions of the study to the field.
• Address any potential limitations or challenges that may be encountered.
• Identify the resources required to conduct the research, such as funding, equipment, or access to data.
• Specify any collaborations or partnerships necessary for the successful completion of the study.
• Include a list of cited references in the appropriate citation style (e.g., APA, MLA).

———————————————————————————————–

Research Proposal Example Template

Here’s an example of a research proposal to give you an idea of how it can be structured:

Title: The Impact of Social Media on Adolescent Well-being: A Mixed-Methods Study

This research proposal aims to investigate the impact of social media on the well-being of adolescents. The study will employ a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews to gather comprehensive data. The research objectives include examining the relationship between social media use and mental health, exploring the role of peer influence in shaping online behaviors, and identifying strategies for promoting healthy social media use among adolescents. The findings of this study will contribute to the understanding of the effects of social media on adolescent well-being and inform the development of targeted interventions.

1. Introduction

1.1 Background and Context:

Adolescents today are immersed in social media platforms, which have become integral to their daily lives. However, concerns have been raised about the potential negative impact of social media on their well-being, including increased rates of depression, anxiety, and body dissatisfaction. It is crucial to investigate this phenomenon further and understand the underlying mechanisms to develop effective strategies for promoting healthy social media use among adolescents.

1.2 Research Objectives:

The main objectives of this study are:

• To examine the association between social media use and mental health outcomes among adolescents.
• To explore the influence of peer relationships and social comparison on online behaviors.
• To identify strategies and interventions to foster positive social media use and enhance adolescent well-being.

2. Literature Review

Extensive research has been conducted on the impact of social media on adolescents. Existing literature suggests that excessive social media use can contribute to negative outcomes, such as low self-esteem, cyberbullying, and addictive behaviors. However, some studies have also highlighted the positive aspects of social media, such as providing opportunities for self-expression and social support. This study will build upon this literature by incorporating both quantitative and qualitative approaches to gain a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between social media and adolescent well-being.

3. Methodology

3.1 Research Design:

This study will adopt a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews. The quantitative phase will involve administering standardized questionnaires to a representative sample of adolescents to assess their social media use, mental health indicators, and perceived social support. The qualitative phase will include in-depth interviews with a subset of participants to explore their experiences, motivations, and perceptions related to social media use.

3.2 Data Collection Methods:

Quantitative data will be collected through an online survey distributed to schools in the target region. The survey will include validated scales to measure social media use, mental health outcomes, and perceived social support. Qualitative data will be collected through semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of participants. The interviews will be audio-recorded and transcribed for thematic analysis.

3.3 Data Analysis:

Quantitative data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics and regression analysis to examine the relationships between variables. Qualitative data will be analyzed thematically to identify common themes and patterns within participants’ narratives. Integration of quantitative and qualitative findings will provide a comprehensive understanding of the research questions.

4. Timeline

The research project will be conducted over a period of 12 months, divided into specific phases, including literature review, study design, data collection, analysis, and report writing. A detailed timeline outlining the key milestones and activities is provided in Appendix A.

5. Expected Outcomes and Significance

This study aims to contribute to the existing literature on the impact of social media on adolescent well-being by employing a mixed-methods approach. The findings will inform the development of evidence-based interventions and guidelines to promote healthy social media use among adolescents. This research has the potential to benefit adolescents, parents, educators, and policymakers by providing insights into the complex relationship between social media and well-being and offering strategies for fostering positive online experiences.

6. Resources

The resources required for this research include access to a representative sample of adolescents, research assistants for data collection, statistical software for data analysis, and funding to cover survey administration and participant incentives. Ethical considerations will be taken into account, ensuring participant confidentiality and obtaining informed consent.

7. References

Research Proposal Writing Guide

Writing a research proposal can be a complex task, but with proper guidance and organization, you can create a compelling and well-structured proposal. Here’s a step-by-step guide to help you through the process:

• Understand the requirements: Familiarize yourself with the guidelines and requirements provided by your institution, funding agency, or program. Pay attention to formatting, page limits, specific sections or headings, and any other instructions.
• Identify your research topic: Choose a research topic that aligns with your interests, expertise, and the goals of your program or funding opportunity. Ensure that your topic is specific, focused, and relevant to the field of study.
• Conduct a literature review : Review existing literature and research relevant to your topic. Identify key theories, concepts, methodologies, and findings related to your research question. This will help you establish the context, identify research gaps, and demonstrate the significance of your proposed study.
• Define your research objectives and research question(s): Clearly state the objectives you aim to achieve with your research. Formulate research questions that address the gaps identified in the literature review. Your research objectives and questions should be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART).
• Develop a research methodology: Determine the most appropriate research design and methodology for your study. Consider whether quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods approaches will best address your research question(s). Describe the data collection methods, sampling strategy, data analysis techniques, and any ethical considerations associated with your research.
• Create a research plan and timeline: Outline the various stages of your research project, including tasks, milestones, and deadlines. Develop a realistic timeline that considers factors such as data collection, analysis, and report writing. This plan will help you stay organized and manage your time effectively throughout the research process.
• A. Introduction: Provide background information on the research problem, highlight its significance, and introduce your research objectives and questions.
• B. Literature review: Summarize relevant literature, identify gaps, and justify the need for your proposed research.
• C . Methodology: Describe your research design, data collection methods, sampling strategy, data analysis techniques, and any ethical considerations.
• D . Expected outcomes and significance: Explain the potential outcomes, contributions, and implications of your research.
• E. Resources: Identify the resources required to conduct your research, such as funding, equipment, or access to data.
• F . References: Include a list of cited references in the appropriate citation style.
• Revise and proofread: Review your proposal for clarity, coherence, and logical flow. Check for grammar and spelling errors. Seek feedback from mentors, colleagues, or advisors to refine and improve your proposal.
• Finalize and submit: Make any necessary revisions based on feedback and finalize your research proposal. Ensure that you have met all the requirements and formatting guidelines. Submit your proposal within the specified deadline.

Research Proposal Length

The length of a research proposal can vary depending on the specific guidelines provided by your institution or funding agency. However, research proposals typically range from 1,500 to 3,000 words, excluding references and any additional supporting documents.

Purpose of Research Proposal

The purpose of a research proposal is to outline and communicate your research project to others, such as academic institutions, funding agencies, or potential collaborators. It serves several important purposes:

• Demonstrate the significance of the research: A research proposal explains the importance and relevance of your research project. It outlines the research problem or question, highlights the gaps in existing knowledge, and explains how your study will contribute to the field. By clearly articulating the significance of your research, you can convince others of its value and potential impact.
• Provide a clear research plan: A research proposal outlines the methodology, design, and approach you will use to conduct your study. It describes the research objectives, data collection methods, data analysis techniques, and potential outcomes. By presenting a clear research plan, you demonstrate that your study is well-thought-out, feasible, and likely to produce meaningful results.
• Secure funding or support: For researchers seeking funding or support for their projects, a research proposal is essential. It allows you to make a persuasive case for why your research is deserving of financial resources or institutional backing. The proposal explains the budgetary requirements, resources needed, and potential benefits of the research, helping you secure the necessary funding or support.
• Seek feedback and guidance: Presenting a research proposal provides an opportunity to receive feedback and guidance from experts in your field. It allows you to engage in discussions and receive suggestions for refining your research plan, improving the methodology, or addressing any potential limitations. This feedback can enhance the quality of your study and increase its chances of success.
• Establish ethical considerations: A research proposal also addresses ethical considerations associated with your study. It outlines how you will ensure participant confidentiality, obtain informed consent, and adhere to ethical guidelines and regulations. By demonstrating your awareness and commitment to ethical research practices, you build trust and credibility in your proposed study.

Importance of Research Proposal

The research proposal holds significant importance in the research process. Here are some key reasons why research proposals are important:

• Planning and organization: A research proposal requires careful planning and organization of your research project. It forces you to think through the research objectives, research questions, methodology, and potential outcomes before embarking on the actual study. This planning phase helps you establish a clear direction and framework for your research, ensuring that your efforts are focused and purposeful.
• Demonstrating the significance of the research: A research proposal allows you to articulate the significance and relevance of your study. By providing a thorough literature review and clearly defining the research problem or question, you can showcase the gaps in existing knowledge that your research aims to address. This demonstrates to others, such as funding agencies or academic institutions, why your research is important and deserving of support.
• Obtaining funding and resources: Research proposals are often required to secure funding for your research project. Funding agencies and organizations need to evaluate the feasibility and potential impact of the proposed research before allocating resources. A well-crafted research proposal helps convince funders of the value of your research and increases the likelihood of securing financial support, grants, or scholarships.
• Receiving feedback and guidance: Presenting a research proposal provides an opportunity to seek feedback and guidance from experts in your field. By sharing your research plan and objectives with others, you can benefit from their insights and suggestions. This feedback can help refine your research design, strengthen your methodology, and ensure that your study is rigorous and well-informed.
• Ethical considerations: A research proposal addresses ethical considerations associated with your study. It outlines how you will protect the rights and welfare of participants, maintain confidentiality, obtain informed consent, and adhere to ethical guidelines and regulations. This emphasis on ethical practices ensures that your research is conducted responsibly and with integrity.
• Enhancing collaboration and partnerships: A research proposal can facilitate collaborations and partnerships with other researchers, institutions, or organizations. When presenting your research plan, you may attract the interest of potential collaborators who share similar research interests or possess complementary expertise. Collaborative partnerships can enrich your study, expand your resources, and foster knowledge exchange.
• Establishing a research trajectory: A research proposal serves as a foundation for your research project. Once approved, it becomes a roadmap that guides your study’s implementation, data collection, analysis, and reporting. It helps maintain focus and ensures that your research stays on track and aligned with the initial objectives.

When to Write Research Proposal

The timing of when to write a research proposal can vary depending on the specific requirements and circumstances. However, here are a few common situations when it is appropriate to write a research proposal:

• Academic research: If you are a student pursuing a research degree, such as a Ph.D. or Master’s by research, you will typically be required to write a research proposal as part of the application process. This is usually done before starting the research program to outline your proposed study and seek approval from the academic institution.
• Funding applications: When applying for research grants, scholarships, or funding from organizations or institutions, you will often need to submit a research proposal. Funding agencies require a detailed description of your research project, including its objectives, methodology, and expected outcomes. Writing a research proposal in this context is necessary to secure financial support for your study.
• Research collaborations: When collaborating with other researchers, institutions, or organizations on a research project, it is common to prepare a research proposal. This helps outline the research objectives, roles and responsibilities, and expected contributions from each party. Writing a research proposal in this case allows all collaborators to align their efforts and ensure a shared understanding of the project.
• Research project within an organization: If you are conducting research within an organization, such as a company or government agency, you may be required to write a research proposal to gain approval and support for your study. This proposal outlines the research objectives, methodology, resources needed, and expected outcomes, ensuring that the project aligns with the organization’s goals and objectives.
• Independent research projects: Even if you are not required to write a research proposal, it can still be beneficial to develop one for your independent research projects. Writing a research proposal helps you plan and structure your study, clarify your research objectives, and anticipate potential challenges or limitations. It also allows you to communicate your research plans effectively to supervisors, mentors, or collaborators.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Grant Proposal – Example, Template and Guide

How To Write A Proposal – Step By Step Guide...

How To Write A Business Proposal – Step-by-Step...

Proposal – Types, Examples, and Writing Guide

How To Write A Grant Proposal – Step-by-Step...

Business Proposal – Templates, Examples and Guide

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 26 August 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.

Research Proposal Analyzer

The Research Proposal Analyzer is an AI tool designed to streamline the research process by evaluating research objectives and methodologies. By leveraging advanced natural language processing techniques, it provides valuable insights and suggestions to enhance the clarity and effectiveness of research proposals. This tool empowers researchers to optimize their objectives and methodologies for a more impactful and rigorous study.

Check out more AI tool .

Elevate Guest Experience with RoomGenie

Invest your money effortlessly 🚀 Try the NewsGenie tool!

84 J Sector A Scheme no 71

Indore (MP)

India 452009

Email: [email protected]

Textify's NewsGenie uses Generative AI to analyze real-time news, offering deep insights for informed decisions. Ideal for financial analysts, business owners, banks, and college students to stay ahead of trends and opportunities.

We Trust in Human Precision

20,000+ Professional Language Experts Ready to Help. Expertise in a variety of Niches.

API Solutions

• API Pricing
• Cost estimate
• Customer loyalty program
• Educational Discount
• Non-Profit Discount
• Green Initiative Discount1

Value-Driven Pricing

Unmatched expertise at affordable rates tailored for your needs. Our services empower you to boost your productivity.

• Special Discounts
• Enterprise transcription solutions
• Enterprise translation solutions
• Transcription/Caption API
• AI Transcription Proofreading API

Trusted by Global Leaders

GoTranscript is the chosen service for top media organizations, universities, and Fortune 50 companies.

GoTranscript

One of the Largest Online Transcription and Translation Agencies in the World. Founded in 2005.

Speaker 1: One of the most frequently asked questions that I am asked all the time across my social media platforms, across my YouTube, across my comments, is about the research process. So how do you start? Where do you even begin? You need to submit a dissertation, you need to submit a research proposal, you need to think of a hypothesis, you need to think of a problem statement, you need to find a gap in literature where do you even begin with the whole research process now it isn't as hard as it seems it's just one of those things that you're never told or you're never taught how to do it's one of those things that you just kind of figure out so hopefully in today's video i will be talking to you about the overview and kind of a quick beginner's guide to the research process, giving you the steps of how you get from zero to having something, having a question, having a hypothesis, having somewhere to start. I'm going to be making this into a bit of a series so in today's video I'm going to be giving you an overview as to the different chapters, the different sections of the process, how you get from nothing to something and then in the following videos I will be going through each of those sections in a bit more detail and hopefully if you are someone who is within one of those kind of parts you can just jump to that video and have a have a quick quick watch if you are someone who is just starting off then this is the best place for you to begin have a little think about how you're going to navigate your research process and how you're going to get from the start to the end it is not difficult but it does require a few steps, a few technicalities, which I'll talk you through today. I'll leave the timestamps down below so you feel free to go and jump to the different sections that you are interested in watching. And if you do enjoy this kind of video and you want to see the rest of the videos from me, then don't forget to subscribe to see more on my channel. So step number one is to choose a topic. Now this is the beginning of something beautiful. This is where you choose what you're actually going to be studying and when you're actually going to be reading about now it's really important that you have chosen a topic that you are interested in that there is an interest in within the research space that has something missing so you don't want to choose a topic that we know everything about you want to choose a topic that we don't know everything about and there are things that we want to try to find more about you want to choose a topic that is within your university guidelines so as much as i would love to do a research on the solar system about space well if my course is to do with cell biology well then i can't so you have to think about your limits think about what you are allowed to do within your university guidelines as well but you do need to think about taking that broad topic and making it into something a bit more narrow so it's not good enough to just say i want to do research on alzheimer's okay alzheimer's fine you've got a topic, but you now need to narrow it down. So what about it are you looking at? Are you looking at the risk factors? Are you looking at what happens once you have Alzheimer's? Are you looking at a specific group of people? Are you looking at a specific cell type? What is it that you are looking at? You need to narrow that down. In order to narrow it down, you need to do a bit of a literature search. So whilst choosing a topic, whilst in this first stage, you need to look at literature. So to find literature you want to go to different websites where you have literature and this could be for example Google Scholar is a good place to start, PubMed is a good place to start. These are places where you can find literature about that topic and kind of read around the subject and identify whether firstly is it something that you are actually interested in and secondly is there enough information for you to gather to be able to write your literature review in the future so that first step your first step of your research process is thinking about the topic because without a topic you there's nothing you can't do anything else so the first step has to always be to find a topic and think about it now once you've thought about a topic and you've narrowed it down to the thing that you're interested in at this stage you will then go to your supervisor to your lecturer to your professor to your mentor to your tutor and you will ask them do you think this is a good topic and that is where you will get some feedback and most likely you'll have to go back have another think or try to refine a bit more or try to think about it in a different way but that is always the first step. In the video that I make about finding a good topic we'll talk about it in a lot more depth but to start off with to introduce this is always the first step. So the second step is to identify a problem and this is what we like to call in as you know in research the gap in literature. So a problem slash gap in literature is the part of research that we that is missing. So when you do research in fact in order to graduate from a PhD you have to and this is one of the criteria you have to produce research it has to be in a thesis or in a in a published paper it has to be research it has to be a finding that is new something that we do not know before we did not know before your research right and that is the number one criteria for for actually getting a phd it is the fact that it has to be something new has to be something novel that you have discovered okay so you need to think about the gap in literature where is there a missing piece i understand this i understand that we know this we know that but what is there that we don't quite know and that is the bit that you are then going to try to identify during your research process right chosen a topic now we need to find the problem where is the missing information now in order to do this you need to have read a lot of papers around your topic. So that's why I said initially, you need to have had approval from your committee, from your tutor, your supervisor to say, right, that's okay. It's good for me to go there. Now you've got that topic that you're looking at. You then want to try to find the gap. Where are you going to slot in? What is it that you are going to provide in terms of knowledge? Now, the identifying a problem is actually quite an important and quite critical part of the research process it's almost impossible you to continue on with your research without having identified the problem because if you don't have a problem you don't know what it is you're looking at you don't know what methods you're using you don't know what your research question is going to be or your hypothesis so at this stage you have to have a very well-defined research problem and your question in order to continue on to the next steps so when i say research problem and we'll talk about this more in in the following video that i'm going to produce about it but when i talk about research problem it could be a number of different things so it could be that we understand or we have the knowledge of a certain situation but now you're comparing it to a different situation so it could be more theoretical where you're comparing two things to each other that haven't been compared before so that would be fine as long as what you have is something original or you may be trying to explore a specific relationship let's say for example in my case with my PhD I was looking at two different proteins and the relationship between them so that is one type of research that you can do as well and so just think about your topic and think about where the gap is in the literature you have to read a lot to be able to find this and a question I get a lot emailed to me and directed to me is about this problem so how do I find a problem like how do i find a gap in literature and it's almost impossible for me to to give you any answers because i have to have read all the papers within your topic in order to answer that question which is almost impossible so it's something that you have to do independently and you can always discuss with me you can discuss kind of trying to refine that question but for the most part you need to read around your subject yourself to get that question then step number three is to actually write down your research question now this is usually in the form maybe of a hypothesis or maybe it could be just a you know a standalone question so this is just you saying this is what i'm looking at so i'm looking at whether actin and myosin bind together to have an impact on the motility of the cortex like that is my question and then i'll have a hypothesis saying actin and myosin bind together and they do this so this is just my question and you're just following on from your problem so you've identified your topic you found the problem the gap in literature and then you write down what your question is so what it is exactly that you are looking for and this will be like your guiding star this will be the thing the question the statement that you have at the top you know at the top of your mind whenever you are looking at literature whenever you're writing a literature review whenever you speak to someone you have that question in mind and so that needs to be something that's really well defined it should also be really specific so it can't just be saying is obesity caused by i don't know fatty food i'm just giving a random example that is too vague is obesity in children in male in female different ages what fatty foods what like you need to be very very specific so specific that someone else should be able to pick up your research question and know what it is you're looking at they need to be able to know sort of what methods you're using is it qualitative or is it quantitative what type of research are you actually doing that should really be in the research question so a good research question is one where that is really well defined then step number four is to write a research design so this is where you're kind of creating a bit of a method a bit of a process within a process so you are now writing down and you're now thinking about how you're going to conduct this research so to follow this will be the research proposal but at this stage here you're just thinking about your research design so how are you going to get this research done what are the factors that you need to think about who are the people the participants that you may need are you doing a lab-based thing do you need cells are you you know what do you need humans do you need animals is it just a review paper so do you just need to think about researchers out there what kind of study are you going to conduct in order to find out the results and the answer to your question essentially the research design is a practical framework so it's giving laying out that frame for you in order to answer your research question. And here, it's more of a thinking process. It's more of a discussion. You might want to ask your supervisor, you might want to ask your tutor to talk about it. How are we going to get the answer to this question? And then to finish off the research process, you now want to write a research proposal. And I have a really good video about this, and I'll leave the link for it down below, where you are detailing all the steps for your research so you're detailing your the background of your research the literature review and you're justifying that there is a need for this research you then want to detail your methods your materials the aim your you know your timeline how long it's going to take you to do these things and then that document is what you take with you to your supervisor and say look this is my research proposal you might take it to a potential phd supervisor and say look this is what i've found and this is what i'm really interested in and here is the proposal and you have it all outlined there for you or it's a document that you're able to use in order to build upon your dissertation and so if you're writing an essay dissertation you are able to use that as well so with your research proposal you are detailing the context you are detailing the purpose the plan and your aims the whole process going from finding a topic finding a problem finding the research question defining the actual research and then now you're compiling all of that and you're putting it into a document called the research proposal and all of this information is in there someone should be able to pick that up see what you found find the review of the literature and say right this is a good study this is a good bit of research we are going to approve this and then you can go on and plan the rest of your research so i hope this video helped you summarizing the steps of the research process to begin with and as i mentioned i'm going to be doing each of these five steps as single videos so i can expand on them and i'll make it into a playlist so you're able to sort of follow up and click on the next couple videos but for now i hope this did help with thinking about the research process and thinking about maybe what stage you are at if you are at any of them if you do want further support you can contact me on thepagedoctor.com where i give support and we have a team of consultants top consultants and top editors that can support you through the process of writing your research proposal or even through the post process of thinking about how you're going to find a gap in literature how you're going to find you know your hypothesis and define that for you so don't forget to leave me a comment and let me know if this was helpful and don't forget to leave me a thumbs up and subscribe to see more from me and I'll see you in my next one. Bye.

Photo by MIND AND I/ Shutterstock

Government Contracting Bids: How to Compete and Win Contracts

If you are looking to expand your business, government contracting bids present a massive opportunity, with billions of dollars up for grabs. 

Doing business with the government through contracting can be a game-changer in terms of credibility and prospects. However, the road to success is far from easy, as only less than 5% of U.S. businesses engage with the government. 

Table of Contents

What are government contract bids?

A government contract bid is like a job application for a specific project or to provide goods and services for the government. 

The bid is a public request from the government—a competitive process public entities use to procure goods and services from private suppliers. To make a bid, you must follow a reasonable price based on the government’s regulations. 

While some new companies offer lower prices to get started with government contracting, the government actually looks beyond the price; it prefers those who can guarantee good quality work on time and within budget.

Three types of government contracting bids

Here are some of the most effective formal methods of competitive bidding. 

Request for information (RFI)

A request for information is a formal process to get information from potential suppliers. It starts with a table of contents that outlines what the buyer needs. The RFI is typically used early in the buying process to learn about supplier capabilities and gather data for future decisions. 

For example, the Department of Defense used an RFI to ask for ideas on sharing spectrum for better 5G deployment.

Request for proposal (RFP)

A request for proposal is a comprehensive document that asks potential suppliers to submit their ideas and prices for a project. It’s used across public and private sectors to find the best solutions at the best prices. 

RFPs are often used for construction, where subcontractors, materials, machinery, and project timelines need to be specified. They include a section explaining the scope of work and deadlines. 

For example, the State Department used an RFP to find IT services for a $10 billion project, EVOLVE .

Request for quote (RFQ)

A request for quote is the first step in getting a price quote for a project. It’s similar to an RFP but focuses more on getting a comprehensive pricing quote. RFQs are often used for standard products where the quantity is known, while RFPs are for niche projects where details aren’t as clear. 

For example, the General Services Administration used an RFQ to get price quotes for janitorial and sanitation supplies to support federal agencies.

Steps on how to win government contracting bids

Companies new to contracting can easily become confused during the bidding process. Here are detailed steps to help beginners successfully bid on government contracts.

1. Complete the requirements

Businesses must complete several foundational requirements to establish credibility and eligibility before starting with government contracting bids. 

The first thing to obtain is the Unique Entity ID . It is an identifier that standardizes entities conducting business with the federal government. The UEID is unique to the business and is used for all transactions with the federal government. It does not expire but must be renewed on SAM.gov annually.

The second requirement is to update SAM registration . The business must renew and validate its registration every 12 months. To avoid inconvenience, start the renewal process at least 60 days before your registration expires.

The third is to look for the business’ NAICS codes . The North American Industry Classification System codes analyze industries, follow regulations, and find potential suppliers in the procurement process. Each NAICS code is a six-digit number that describes a business’s main industry based on its products or services. If the business is involved in multiple types of work, use more than one NAICS code.

2. Conduct market research to win contract bid from the government

Contractors should conduct market research to understand the federal government. Knowing the needs of government agencies can help businesses tailor their offerings to meet these needs effectively.

Market research also helps develop competitive strategies and reduce risks. Contractors can study their competition, find gaps in the market, and create unique selling points to stand out in the government contracting bidding process.  

There are several websites and tools that contractors can use for market research. 

• The Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) provides detailed information on government contract actions, such as spending patterns and legacy data
• SAM.gov provides access to various government procurement systems where contractors can search for existing entity registration records or exclusion records. It also offers contract data reports and access to publicly available data

3. Carefully select the government contracts to bid on

A common mistake for beginner contractors is bidding on every contract opportunity, spreading their resources too thin and resulting in subpar proposals. Only bid on projects that align with your company’s core competencies and meet the necessary resources to execute the projects effectively.

Another mistake is underestimating the competition, leading to unrealistic bids. Contractors should pay attention to their past performance to determine their strengths and expertise, which can impact their chances of winning new contracts.

For example, if a company excels in environmental engineering, its proposal for a government project should focus on environmental restoration and should be backed by its previous successful projects and portfolio.

Lastly, forming strategic subcontracting partnerships with industry-specific firms can enhance a proposal’s attractiveness, especially when dealing with specialized knowledge or capabilities that primary contractors lack.

4. Prepare a winning proposal

Preparing a winning proposal requires attention to detail, strategic planning, and a deep understanding of the government’s needs. Some of the key elements your proposal must include are:

• Cover page : Clearly state the RFP title, solicitation number, due date, and contracting agency
• Executive summary : Summarize why your company is the best fit for the contract
• Technical approach : Detail your methodology, staffing plan, and schedule
• Past performance : Highlight your experience and success in similar contracts
• Management plan : Outline your project management and risk management strategies
• Pricing schedule : Provide a detailed breakdown of costs aligned with the scope of work
• Quality assurance plan : Explain how you can ensure the quality of deliverables

Submit your proposal on time and in the required format. Engage in follow-up communications to clarify doubts and demonstrate your commitment to the project.

Read more: How to Write a Proposal for a Government Contract

5. Keep your pricing competitive

Before setting prices for a government contract, conduct a thorough cost analysis for all direct and indirect costs associated with the contract, such as labor, materials, overhead, and petty cash. 

Perform market research to determine the pricing range for similar contracts. Analyze past contracts awarded by the government agency and prices offered by competitors. The Federal Procurement Data System and online government contracting news sources can provide insights into current market rates and competitive pricing strategies.

Consider value-based pricing , where the price is set based on the perceived or estimated value of the services to the government. It is applicable to highly valued government services, such as advanced cybersecurity measures or innovative, eco-friendly materials for construction projects.

Lastly, leverage economies of scale to reduce per-unit costs. It is achievable by bidding on multiple or larger contracts where the cost of production decreases as the quantity increases. 

Four stages of the bidding process

Here are the four stages of the bidding process, from preparation to contract awarding.

1. Preparation and planning

This planning and preparation stage occurs when the federal buyer creates a detailed Project Procurement Management Plan (PPMP) based on the project’s budget. It outlines the procurement needs and schedules, ensuring all activities align with the project’s goals. 

For example, the Department of Defense uses a Capability Development Document (CDD) to outline requirements. If the DOD decides to procure a new aircraft system, this stage assesses the current fleet’s capabilities, identifies gaps, and determines how the new system can address these gaps.

2. Solicitation of bids

After the planning phase, the federal agency releases a document asking for bids or proposals. This document outlines all the project details, including specifications, terms and conditions, and evaluation criteria.

Bidders need to understand this document to ensure their bids meet requirements. They can also ask questions in the Q&A section of the procurement website for clarifications on specific requirements.

3. Submission of bids

During this stage, vendors submit their bids based on the rules in the bid request. They detail proposals on how to fulfill the requirements, how long it takes, how much it costs, and how to ensure overall compliance.

Here are a few important things to consider when preparing a bid:

• Cost estimation : Vendors must accurately estimate all project costs, including materials, labor, equipment, overhead, and other potential expenses. 
• Project plan and timeline : Vendors need to include a detailed plan for their approach to the project, methods to use, and deadlines for timely delivery.
• Compliance with specifications : The bid must show the vendor can meet all project specifications, including quality standards, performance requirements, and regulations.
• Unique selling proposition : Vendors must highlight their unique selling points, like special expertise in innovative solutions or a strong track record.

Most importantly, vendors must follow the submission guidelines carefully:

• Format and documentation: Bids must follow the specified format, forms, certifications, and documents. Failure to do so can result in disqualification.
• Deadline: Bids must be submitted on or before the deadline. Only on-time bids are accepted by the government.
• Bid security: Some projects require vendors to submit a bid bond or security to show their dedication to commit to the project if they win financially.

4. Evaluation of bids

In the final stage of the bidding process, bids are evaluated based on the criteria in the bid request. The contract is awarded to the bidder who best meets the criteria and provides the best value.

The evaluation focuses on specific criteria:

• Price/financial evaluation : It’s not just about the lowest price but the value each bid offers. Offerors should have reasonable prices based on independent estimates, prices of other contracts, or commercial price lists.
• Technical capabilitie s: Assess if the bid meets the project’s specifications and quality needs for technology, compliance, and innovation.
• Bidder experience and past performance : Review the bidder’s history with similar projects, including their completion timeline, budget planning, and compliance.  
• Compliance with procurement requirements : Check that the bid meets all legal, regulatory, and policy requirements.

The government may conduct a pre-award survey to ensure the proposed award winner meets the solicitation requirements. Upon completion of the evaluation, the contract is awarded to the bidder who best meets the evaluation criteria. 

Register Here