research plan sample for phd

How to Prepare a PhD Research Plan/Schedule?

PhD research plan is a structured schedule for completing different objectives and milestones during a given timeframe. Scholars are usually unaware of it. Let us find out how to prepare it. 

Between March 2021 to 2022, I read almost 15 different research proposals from students (for their projects) and only a single one, I found, with a comprehensive research plan for 3 years. Which is still not, kind of practical, probably copied from other students. 

Such entities are not known to over 90% of students, if some know that because their university asked for but unfortunately, this basic procedure lacks penetration among students. I don’t know the exact reason, but students lack a basic understanding of the research process. 

Meaning, that they don’t know or perhaps don’t complete their course work needly. PhD research requires many documents, SOPs and write-ups, before even starting it. For example, a rough research plan, research proposal, initial interview, competence screening, grant proposal and so on. 

However, the requirement varies among universities and thus knowledge regarding basic procedures often also varies among students. So I’m not blaming students but certainly, it is the fault of the university side, as well.  

When you come up with a research proposal with a research schedule or entire plant, certainly it will create a positive image and good reputation. So it is important. But how to prepare it? 

Hey, there I’m Dr Tushar, a PhD tutor and coach. In this article, we will understand how we can prepare a structured plan for the PhD research and how to execute it. 

So let’s get started.  

How to prepare a PhD research plan/schedule?

A PhD research plan or schedule can be prepared using the GANTT chart which includes a month, semester or year-wise planning of the entire PhD research work. 

First, enlist goals and objectives.

It’s not about your research objective enlisted in your proposal. I’m talking about the objectives of your PhD. Take a look at some of the objectives.

Note that these are all the objectives that should be completed during the PhD, but not limited to a specific subject. Note you have to show how you can complete or achieve each objective during the entire tenure of your work. 

And that is what the plan/schedule is all about. Next, explain the time duration. The time required to complete each goal, roughly. For example, a semester or a year to complete the course work or 4 to 8 months for completion of ethical approval. 

Now two things must be known to you, at this point in time. 

• First, enlist the time required to complete each objective, as aforementioned. 
• Second, what goals would you complete during each semester?

For instance, course work takes a semester to complete, but during the period a scholar can also craft their PhD research title, research proposal, ethical approval and grant proposals. 

Now it is also crucial to know that there is no time bound to complete goals, but it should be completed as you explained. Let’s say you can plant it for 3 years, 4 or even 5 years depending on the weightage of your work. 

In summary, the answer to the question of how to prepare a research plan is, 

• Enlist your goals or objectives. 
• Decide the time required to complete each goal.
• Prepare a GANTT chart.  

Now you have prepared zero-date planning for your research but how to present it? The answer is a GANTT chart.   

GANTT chart for PhD research plan: 

GANTT chart is a task manager and graphical presentation of how and how many tasks are completed or should be completed against a given time duration. Take a look at the image below. 

How can you prepare one?

Open MS Excel (on Windows) or numbers (on Mac).

Enlist goals or objectives in a column. 

Enlist years (duration of PhD) in a row and bifurcate them into individual semesters. You can also prepare a month-wise plan, that’s totally up to you. In my opinion, semester-wise planning is good because research is a lengthy and time-consuming process. So monthly planning would not work. 

To make a chart more attractive and readable use colors, as I used. Now mark a ‘cell’ against a column and row showing the objective which you are going to complete in a semester. Take a look. 

After the end of this, your GANTT chart would look like this. 

You can prepare a month-wise planning, individual semester-wise planning and goal-wise planning etc. I will explain these things in upcoming articles on 5 different types of GANTT charts for PhD.  

Custom writing services: 

If you find difficulties in preparing a research plan, synopsis, proposal or GANTT chart. We can work on behalf of you. Our costume services are, 

• Synopsis writing 
• Project writing 
• Research proposal writing 
• Research planning and GANTT chart preparation. 

You can contact us at [email protected] or [email protected] to get more information. 

Wrapping up: 

Planning and executing a research schedule are two different things. Oftentimes, students just prepare as per the requirements and then do work as per their convenience. Then they are stuck in one place and just work around the time. 

Plan things. Make your own GANTT chart, put it on your work table or stick it on a wall so that you can see it daily. Try to achieve each goal in time. Trust me things will work and you will complete your PhD before anyone else.  

Dr. Tushar Chauhan is a Scientist, Blogger and Scientific-writer. He has completed PhD in Genetics. Dr. Chauhan is a PhD coach and tutor.

Share this:

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share on Pinterest
• Share on Linkedin
• Share via Email

About The Author

Dr Tushar Chauhan

Related posts.

Why is it called a Doctor of Philosophy?

Preparing for a PhD Viva

Leave 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.

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

How to write a research proposal

What is a research proposal.

A research proposal should present your idea or question and expected outcomes with clarity and definition – the what.

It should also make a case for why your question is significant and what value it will bring to your discipline – the why. 

What it shouldn't do is answer the question – that's what your research will do.

Why is it important?

Research proposals are significant because Another reason why it formally outlines your intended research. Which means you need to provide details on how you will go about your research, including:

• your approach and methodology
• timeline and feasibility
• all other considerations needed to progress your research, such as resources.

Think of it as a tool that will help you clarify your idea and make conducting your research easier.

How long should it be?

Usually no more than 2000 words, but check the requirements of your degree, and your supervisor or research coordinator.

Presenting your idea clearly and concisely demonstrates that you can write this way – an attribute of a potential research candidate that is valued by assessors.

What should it include?

Project title.

Your title should clearly indicate what your proposed research is about.

Research supervisor

State the name, department and faculty or school of the academic who has agreed to supervise you. Rest assured, your research supervisor will work with you to refine your research proposal ahead of submission to ensure it meets the needs of your discipline.

Proposed mode of research

Describe your proposed mode of research. Which may be closely linked to your discipline, and is where you will describe the style or format of your research, e.g. data, field research, composition, written work, social performance and mixed media etc. 

This is not required for research in the sciences, but your research supervisor will be able to guide you on discipline-specific requirements.

Aims and objectives

What are you trying to achieve with your research? What is the purpose? This section should reference why you're applying for a research degree. Are you addressing a gap in the current research? Do you want to look at a theory more closely and test it out? Is there something you're trying to prove or disprove? To help you clarify this, think about the potential outcome of your research if you were successful – that is your aim. Make sure that this is a focused statement.

Your objectives will be your aim broken down – the steps to achieving the intended outcome. They are the smaller proof points that will underpin your research's purpose. Be logical in the order of how you present these so that each succeeds the previous, i.e. if you need to achieve 'a' before 'b' before 'c', then make sure you order your objectives a, b, c.

A concise summary of what your research is about. It outlines the key aspects of what you will investigate as well as the expected outcomes. It briefly covers the what, why and how of your research. 

A good way to evaluate if you have written a strong synopsis, is to get somebody to read it without reading the rest of your research proposal. Would they know what your research is about?

Now that you have your question clarified, it is time to explain the why. Here, you need to demonstrate an understanding of the current research climate in your area of interest.

Providing context around your research topic through a literature review will show the assessor that you understand current dialogue around your research, and what is published.

Demonstrate you have a strong understanding of the key topics, significant studies and notable researchers in your area of research and how these have contributed to the current landscape.

Expected research contribution

In this section, you should consider the following:

• Why is your research question or hypothesis worth asking?
• How is the current research lacking or falling short?
• What impact will your research have on the discipline?
• Will you be extending an area of knowledge, applying it to new contexts, solving a problem, testing a theory, or challenging an existing one?
• Establish why your research is important by convincing your audience there is a gap.
• What will be the outcome of your research contribution?
• Demonstrate both your current level of knowledge and how the pursuit of your question or hypothesis will create a new understanding and generate new information.
• Show how your research is innovative and original.

Draw links between your research and the faculty or school you are applying at, and explain why you have chosen your supervisor, and what research have they or their school done to reinforce and support your own work. Cite these reasons to demonstrate how your research will benefit and contribute to the current body of knowledge.

Proposed methodology

Provide an overview of the methodology and techniques you will use to conduct your research. Cover what materials and equipment you will use, what theoretical frameworks will you draw on, and how will you collect data.

Highlight why you have chosen this particular methodology, but also why others may not have been as suitable. You need to demonstrate that you have put thought into your approach and why it's the most appropriate way to carry out your research. 

It should also highlight potential limitations you anticipate, feasibility within time and other constraints, ethical considerations and how you will address these, as well as general resources.

A work plan is a critical component of your research proposal because it indicates the feasibility of completion within the timeframe and supports you in achieving your objectives throughout your degree.

Consider the milestones you aim to achieve at each stage of your research. A PhD or master's degree by research can take two to four years of full-time study to complete. It might be helpful to offer year one in detail and the following years in broader terms. Ultimately you have to show that your research is likely to be both original and finished – and that you understand the time involved.

Provide details of the resources you will need to carry out your research project. Consider equipment, fieldwork expenses, travel and a proposed budget, to indicate how realistic your research proposal is in terms of financial requirements and whether any adjustments are needed.

Bibliography

Provide a list of references that you've made throughout your research proposal. 

Apply for postgraduate study

New hdr curriculum, find a supervisor.

Search by keyword, topic, location, or supervisor name

• 1800 SYD UNI ( 1800 793 864 )
• or +61 2 8627 1444
• Open 9am to 5pm, Monday to Friday
• Student Centre Level 3 Jane Foss Russell Building Darlington Campus

Scholarships

Find the right scholarship for you

Research areas

Our research covers the spectrum – from linguistics to nanoscience

Our breadth of expertise across our faculties and schools is supported by deep disciplinary knowledge. We have significant capability in more than 20 major areas of research.

Research facilities

High-impact research through state-of-the-art infrastructure

How to Write a PhD Research Proposal

• Applying to a PhD
• A research proposal summarises your intended research.
• Your research proposal is used to confirm you understand the topic, and that the university has the expertise to support your study.
• The length of a research proposal varies. It is usually specified by either the programme requirements or the supervisor upon request. 1500 to 3500 words is common.
• The typical research proposal structure consists of: Title, Abstract, Background and Rationale, Research Aims and Objectives, Research Design and Methodology, Timetable, and a Bibliography.

What is a Research Proposal?

A research proposal is a supporting document that may be required when applying to a research degree. It summarises your intended research by outlining what your research questions are, why they’re important to your field and what knowledge gaps surround your topic. It also outlines your research in terms of your aims, methods and proposed timetable .

What Is It Used for and Why Is It Important?

A research proposal will be used to:

• Confirm whether you understand the topic and can communicate complex ideas.
• Confirm whether the university has adequate expertise to support you in your research topic.
• Apply for funding or research grants to external bodies.

How Long Should a PhD Research Proposal Be?

Some universities will specify a word count all students will need to adhere to. You will typically find these in the description of the PhD listing. If they haven’t stated a word count limit, you should contact the potential supervisor to clarify whether there are any requirements. If not, aim for 1500 to 3500 words (3 to 7 pages).

Your title should indicate clearly what your research question is. It needs to be simple and to the point; if the reader needs to read further into your proposal to understand your question, your working title isn’t clear enough.

Directly below your title, state the topic your research question relates to. Whether you include this information at the top of your proposal or insert a dedicated title page is your choice and will come down to personal preference.

2. Abstract

If your research proposal is over 2000 words, consider providing an abstract. Your abstract should summarise your question, why it’s important to your field and how you intend to answer it; in other words, explain your research context.

Only include crucial information in this section – 250 words should be sufficient to get across your main points.

3. Background & Rationale

First, specify which subject area your research problem falls in. This will help set the context of your study and will help the reader anticipate the direction of your proposed research.

Following this, include a literature review . A literature review summarises the existing knowledge which surrounds your research topic. This should include a discussion of the theories, models and bodies of text which directly relate to your research problem. As well as discussing the information available, discuss those which aren’t. In other words, identify what the current gaps in knowledge are and discuss how this will influence your research. Your aim here is to convince the potential supervisor and funding providers of why your intended research is worth investing time and money into.

Last, discuss the key debates and developments currently at the centre of your research area.

4. Research Aims & Objectives

Identify the aims and objectives of your research. The aims are the problems your project intends to solve; the objectives are the measurable steps and outcomes required to achieve the aim.

In outlining your aims and objectives, you will need to explain why your proposed research is worth exploring. Consider these aspects:

• Will your research solve a problem?
• Will your research address a current gap in knowledge?
• Will your research have any social or practical benefits?

If you fail to address the above questions, it’s unlikely they will accept your proposal – all PhD research projects must show originality and value to be considered.

5. Research Design and Methodology

The following structure is recommended when discussing your research design:

• Sample/Population – Discuss your sample size, target populations, specimen types etc.
• Methods – What research methods have you considered, how did you evaluate them and how did you decide on your chosen one?
• Data Collection – How are you going to collect and validate your data? Are there any limitations?
• Data Analysis – How are you going to interpret your results and obtain a meaningful conclusion from them?
• Ethical Considerations – Are there any potential implications associated with your research approach? This could either be to research participants or to your field as a whole on the outcome of your findings (i.e. if you’re researching a particularly controversial area). How are you going to monitor for these implications and what types of preventive steps will you need to put into place?

6. Timetable

We’ve outlined the various stages of a PhD and the approximate duration of a PhD programme which you can refer to when designing your own research study.

7. Bibliography

Plagiarism is taken seriously across all academic levels, but even more so for doctorates. Therefore, ensure you reference the existing literature you have used in writing your PhD proposal. Besides this, try to adopt the same referencing style as the University you’re applying to uses. You can easily find this information in the PhD Thesis formatting guidelines published on the University’s website.

Finding a PhD has never been this easy – search for a PhD by keyword, location or academic area of interest.

Questions & Answers

Here are answers to some of the most common questions we’re asked about the Research Proposal:

Can You Change a Research Proposal?

Yes, your PhD research proposal outlines the start of your project only. It’s well accepted that the direction of your research will develop with time, therefore, you can revise it at later dates.

Can the Potential Supervisor Review My Draft Proposal?

Whether the potential supervisor will review your draft will depend on the individual. However, it is highly advisable that you at least attempt to discuss your draft with them. Even if they can’t review it, they may provide you with useful information regarding their department’s expertise which could help shape your PhD proposal. For example, you may amend your methodology should you come to learn that their laboratory is better equipped for an alternative method.

How Should I Structure and Format My Proposal?

Ensure you follow the same order as the headings given above. This is the most logical structure and will be the order your proposed supervisor will expect.

Most universities don’t provide formatting requirements for research proposals on the basis that they are a supporting document only, however, we recommend that you follow the same format they require for their PhD thesis submissions. This will give your reader familiarity and their guidelines should be readily available on their website.

Last, try to have someone within the same academic field or discipline area to review your proposal. The key is to confirm that they understand the importance of your work and how you intend to execute it. If they don’t, it’s likely a sign you need to rewrite some of your sections to be more coherent.

Browse PhDs Now

Join thousands of students.

Join thousands of other students and stay up to date with the latest PhD programmes, funding opportunities and advice.

You're viewing this site as a domestic an international student

You're a domestic student if you are:

• a citizen of Australia or New Zealand,
• an Australian permanent resident, or
• a holder of an Australian permanent humanitarian visa.

You're an international student if you are:

• intending to study on a student visa,
• not a citizen of Australia or New Zealand,
• not an Australian permanent resident, or
• a temporary resident (visa status) of Australia.

How to write a good PhD proposal

Study tips Published 3 Mar, 2022  ·  5-minute read

Want to make sure your research degree starts smoothly? We spoke with 2 PhD candidates about overcoming this initial hurdle. Here’s their advice for how to write a good PhD proposal.

Writing your research proposal is an integral part of commencing a PhD with many schools and institutes, so it can feel rather intimidating. After all, how you come up with your PhD proposal could be the difference between your supervisor getting on board or giving your project a miss.

Let’s explore how to make a PhD research proposal with UQ candidates Chelsea Janke and Sarah Kendall. 

Look at PhD proposal examples

Look at other PhD proposals that have been successful. Ask current students if you can look at theirs.

Nobody’s asking you to reinvent the wheel when it comes to writing your PhD proposal – leave that for your actual thesis. For now, while you’re just working out how to write a PhD proposal, examples are a great starting point.

Chelsea knows this step is easier if you’ve got a friend who is already doing a PhD, but there are other ways to find a good example or template.

“Look at other PhD proposals that have been successful,” she says.

“Ask current students if you can look at theirs.”

“If you don’t know anyone doing their PhD, look online to get an idea of how they should be structured.”

What makes this tricky is that proposals can vary greatly by field and disciplinary norms, so you should check with your proposed supervisor to see if they have a specific format or list of criteria to follow. Part of writing a good PhD proposal is submitting it in a style that's familiar to the people who will read and (hopefully) become excited by it and want to bring you into their research area.

Here are some of the key factors to consider when structuring your proposal:

• meeting the expected word count (this can range from a 1-page maximum to a 3,000-word minimum depending on your supervisor and research area)
• making your bibliography as detailed as necessary
• outlining the research questions you’ll be trying to solve/answer
• discussing the impact your research could have on your field
• conducting preliminary analysis of existing research on the topic
• documenting details of the methods and data sources you’ll use in your research
• introducing your supervisor(s)  and how their experience relates to your project.

Please note this isn't a universal list of things you need in your PhD research proposal. Depending on your supervisor's requirements, some of these items may be unnecessary or there may be other inclusions not listed here.

Ask your planned supervisor for advice

Alright, here’s the thing. If sending your research proposal is your first point of contact with your prospective supervisor, you’ve jumped the gun a little.

You should have at least one researcher partially on board with your project before delving too deep into your proposal. This ensures you’re not potentially spending time and effort on an idea that no one has any appetite for. Plus, it unlocks a helpful guide who can assist with your proposal.

PhD research isn’t like Shark Tank – you’re allowed to confer with academics and secure their support before you pitch your thesis to them. Discover how to choose the right PhD supervisor for you.

For a time-efficient strategy, Chelsea recommends you approach your potential supervisor(s) and find out if:

• they have time to supervise you
• they have any funds to help pay for your research (even with a stipend scholarship , your research activities may require extra money)
• their research interests align with yours (you’ll ideally discover a mutual ground where you both benefit from the project).

“The best way to approach would be to send an email briefly outlining who you are, your background, and what your research interests are,” says Chelsea.

“Once you’ve spoken to a potential supervisor, then you can start drafting a proposal and you can even ask for their input.”

Chelsea's approach here works well with some academics, but keep in mind that other supervisors will want to see a research proposal straight away. If you're not sure of your proposed supervisor's preferences, you may like to cover both bases with an introductory email that has a draft of your research proposal attached.

Sarah agrees that your prospective supervisor is your most valuable resource for understanding how to write a research proposal for a PhD application.

“My biggest tip for writing a research proposal is to ask your proposed supervisor for help,” says Sarah.

“Or if this isn’t possible, ask another academic who has had experience writing research proposals.”

“They’ll be able to tell you what to include or what you need to improve on.”

Find the 'why' and focus on it

One of the key aspects of your research proposal is emphasising why your project is important and should be funded.

Your PhD proposal should include your major question, your planned methods, the sources you’ll cite, and plenty of other nitty gritty details. But perhaps the most important element of your proposal is its purpose – the reason you want to do this research and why the results will be meaningful.

In Sarah’s opinion, highlighting the 'why' of your project is vital for your research proposal.

“From my perspective, one of the key aspects of your research proposal is emphasising why your project is important and should be funded,” she says.

“Not only does this impact whether your application is likely to be successful, but it could also impact your likelihood of getting a scholarship .”

Imagine you only had 60 seconds to explain your planned research to someone. Would you prefer they remember how your project could change the world, or the statistical models you’ll be using to do it? (Of course, you’ve got 2,000 words rather than 60 seconds, so do make sure to include those little details as well – just put the why stuff first.)

Proofread your proposal, then proof it again

As a PhD candidate, your attention to detail is going to be integral to your success. Start practising it now by making sure your research proposal is perfect.

Chelsea and Sarah both acknowledge that clarity and writing quality should never be overlooked in a PhD proposal. This starts with double-checking that the questions of your thesis are obvious and unambiguous, followed by revising the rest of your proposal.

“Make sure your research questions are really clear,” says Sarah.

“Ensure all the writing is clear and grammatically correct,” adds Chelsea.

“A supervisor is not going to be overly keen on a prospective student if their writing is poor.”

It might sound harsh, but it’s fair. So, proofread your proposal multiple times – including after you get it back from your supervisor with any feedback and notes. When you think you’ve got the final, FINAL draft saved, sleep on it and read it one more time the next morning.

Still feeling a little overwhelmed by your research proposal? Stay motivated with these reasons why a PhD is worth the effort .

Want to learn more from Chelsea and Sarah? Easy:

• Read about Chelsea’s award-winning PhD thesis on keeping crops healthy.
• Read Sarah’s series on becoming a law academic .

Share this Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email

Related stories

How to get a PhD

4-minute read

How to find a PhD supervisor

5-minute read

How long does a PhD take?

3-minute read

Tips for PhD students from Samantha and Glenn

7-minute read

• Skip to content
• Skip to footer
• Accessibility options

• Business and employers
• Alumni and supporters
• For students

• Postgraduate research degrees
• Our postgraduate research disciplines
• Apply for a PhD
• Funding and studentships
• International
• Support and training
• Research Masters
• Postgraduate info session
• Writing a research proposal for a PhD application

How to write a research proposal for a PhD application

What is a research proposal.

A research proposal gives details of the direction of your future research, usually based on a research question and a chapter-by-chapter approach to answering it.

For PhD applications, this proposal will be assessed to see:

• whether the project is likely to be completed within three years of full-time research
• whether it can be effectively supervised at the university
• whether you are competent and keen enough to complete it.

There may be other factors affecting whether you get a place at the University of Brighton:

• whether the project fits a growing or established research priority of the university
• how the proposal fits with a current cohort and the research environment

A successful proposal will leave the panel in no doubt on these, and you should prepare to show the strength of your idea and demonstrate your suitability.

Within the proposal, you should take the opportunity to clearly outline your research idea; your research methodology and critical approaches; your experience in this field of research where you can; and how your work will be offering an original contribution to knowledge, theories and/or practice. 

Find more details about a PhD in your discipline at the University of Brighton

How to get a prospective supervisor's help with your proposal

The strongest proposals are often ones that have been written jointly between a prospective student and prospective supervisor.

As Professor Pollen states in our film, supervisors have an understanding of the language used in proposals and the skillsets that asessors will want to see -- whether for a university position or a funding application.

To develop a strong proposal, we recommend you  work with a possible supervisor  at the University of Brighton who can help shape your project for feasibility and suitability within our institution. This person may then become your lead supervisor.

Please enable targeting cookies in order to view this video content on our website, or you can watch the video on YouTube .

What journey leads to a PhD application?  This film was made by the University of Brighton for UKRI and features University of Brighton students and academics as well as those from other partner universities.

Finding a PhD theme and understanding the university research environment

You may be responding to an advertised call for a particular project that has already achieved funding. Alternatively, you may want to propose a personally developed project. 

If you are responding to a call then the advertisement will have clear guidance as to what research experience and interest a candidate will need. This should help you structure your PhD research proposal.

If you are proposing a personally developed project then it should be carefully written to show the viability within the university's current research environment and a specific supervisory possibility at the university.

Some applicants have found our repository of theses helpful for the development and refinement of their research idea. You can find over 1000 theses completed at the University of Brighton over the past 40 years at our repository of successful PhD student theses . 

Our research database has useful leads to potential supervisory staff and a strong idea of the university's current research priorities online:

• Explore our PhD disciplinary programme search tools including free search and A-Z 
• Explore our research centres (COREs)  or our research groups (REGs) 
• Visit our research database of staff, projects and organisational units.

Once you have identified a potential lead researcher of a research project most aligned to yours, do not hesitate to email them.

Explain who you are, your motivation to do a PhD in their field of study and with them. They will let you know if they are interested in your project and would be interested in potentially supervising your PhD. If they cannot commit, they may be able to help you identify another researcher who could be available and interested.

By liaising with a suitable supervisor, your proposal will benefit from expert help and be channelled towards the appropriate disciplinary environment.

If you are in doubt about whether we can offer the appropriate supervision, please contact the  Doctoral College .

Find out more about your opportunities for a PHD on our FAQ page

What should a research proposal contain?

A research proposal should include the following:

1. Indicative title of the topic area

This should accurately reflect what it is that you want to study and the central issues that you are going to address.

It may be useful to present this in the format of a statement (perhaps a quote) and a question, separated by a colon. For example: '"The tantalising future of research": how are research proposals developed and assessed?'

2. Context / rationale / why is this study important? (300 – 500 words)

Introduce your specific area of study. You should identify the theoretical context within which your research will be developed by discussing the discipline(s) and or field/s of study relevant to your research.

This means outlining the key theoretical area(s) you will draw upon to enable you to find out what it is that you want to know (for example, how it is underpinned from methods in the social sciences; arts and humanities; life, health and physical sciences).

What we are looking for here is an indication that you understand and have done some research into the wider theoretical context.

Developing the context is just one part of this section; you are building a case / rationale for the study area. Why is this study important, which theoretical areas support this? Can you identify any gaps in current understanding that help you build the case for this research study?

For example, this section might take the form of: a series of statements on the current landmark areas of thought; a recognition of what has not yet been done thoroughly enough or where there is territory for research between these landmark studies; and where your study will fill the gaps you have identified.

3. Literature review (approximately 700 – 900 words)

Here you are demonstrating that you are aware of what has been and what is currently being written about your topic.

It will certainly include the up-to-date and relevant past landmark academic literature. It may also include other evidence of current thought and attitude, for example, government documents or media coverage. Practice-led PhD studies may make reference to innovation and trends in industry or professional practice.

We are looking for you to make links between this body of literature and your proposed area of study. This will support the ways you have identified gaps in the current global knowledge-base. A PhD thesis arises from original research leading to new knowledge or a significant contribution to existing knowledge. If, at this stage, you have some thoughts on how your research is likely to contribute to knowledge then include details in your proposal.

This section should include citations which are compiled into a reference list at the end of the document (see point 7).

4. The research questions or hypotheses (approximately 200 words)

Having told us what you want to study and why, and then illustrated these ideas with reference to a body of literature, the next task is to distil your ideas into a tentative set of research questions, hypotheses, aims and objectives (as per the underpinning discipline requires) that are manageable and achievable within a normal PhD timeframe (see 6 below). There are typically between three and ten questions/aims of this kind.

5. Research approach/ methodologies / methods (approximately 400 words)

There will be many research approaches open to you. In your proposal, suggest the methodological approach that you might take and make a reasoned case as to why the research questions you have posed are best addressed by this approach.

You might also suggest what methods you would use to generate data that can help you address your research questions.

6. Timescale/research planning (approximately 200 words)

A full-time PhD should take three years to complete, although you may require more time to acquire the relevant skills prior to commencing your research. Part-time study will take longer (up to five - six years). Within this timeframe, you will need to demonstrate your awareness of time management and planning, for example the length of time for primary research/ fieldwork.

7. Reference list 

You should include a reference list of all the sources that you referred to in the text using a recognised referencing style appropriate to your discipline (for example Harvard or Vancouver for Sciences).

Evidence of thorough background reading might include between ten and twenty citations at this point. They should demonstrate to an expert that you are knowledgeable of the landmark work in your field.

There are a number of books widely available that may help in preparing your research proposal (as well as in completing your research degree), here are a couple to point you in the right direction:

Bell, J (2010, 5th edn) Doing Your Research Project: A Guide for First-time Researchers in Education & Social Science , Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Baxter, L, Hughes, C and Tight, M (2007, 3rd edn) How to Research , Buckingham: Open University Press.

Research proposals in practice-led and professionally-based disciplines

The University of Brighton prides itself on the quality of its research in areas that intersect with professional practices and direct impact through in-the-field relationships with co-producers.

We are very supportive of doctoral projects that bring positive results from these methodolgies and practices.

Some of the subject areas that have supported personal practice as research include: design, art, architecture, media production and creative writing, with successful approaches including autoethnographic methods and public participation or site-specific interventions. 

Some of the areas that have benefited from significant professional practice and industry relationship-focused research have included: engineering, nursing, business administration and teaching. 

The research proposal will still need to demonstrate your capability as a researcher with a project that is workable and fits with the university's interests and capacities. 

You should, however, adapt your proposal to demonstrate the value that your practice can bring to the research. This should be in tandem with a clear understanding of the relationship between practice and research.

A clear competence in practice should be evidenced, but do be aware that your proposal will be judged on its research and the new knowledge that is developed and shared, rather than the quality of practice in and of itself.

Personal practices, experiences and data gained through professional relationships may form part of a standard PhD thesis and proposal as description of work and resulting data. You will only be appyling for a practice-led component to be taken into account if this will form a significant part of the representation and examination of the knowledge-base. In such cases, the thesis is signficantly shorter.

Some pitfalls in the applications for practice-led or practice-focused research include:

• An imbalance between the practical and theoretical elements
• Too arbitrary a divide between the practice and theory
• Using practice to simply provide personal illustrations of established theories or concepts
• Insufficient sense of how the research knowledge will be held and disseminated
• Insufficiently contained scope for a three-year project – for example, where the practice is described as a life-long investigation – with no clarity on an end-point
• A project that could be better or similarly tackled through a standard PhD in terms of efficient response to the research questions. For example where the practice element might be represented as data or results instead of examined practice.

Your potential supervisor will be able to advise where a proposal will include significant elements beyond the traditional thesis. For further information, please contact the Doctoral College .

A set of designed objects submitted as part of a practice-led PhD project in medical therapeutic design, by Dr Tom Ainsworth, who went on to become a teacher, researcher and supervisor at the University of Brighton.

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 .

You Might Also Like:

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

Planning your PhD research: A 3-year PhD timeline example

Planning out a PhD trajectory can be overwhelming. Example PhD timelines can make the task easier and inspire. The following PhD timeline example describes the process and milestones of completing a PhD within 3 years.

Elements to include in a 3-year PhD timeline

The example scenario: completing a phd in 3 years, example: planning year 1 of a 3-year phd, example: planning year 2 of a 3-year phd, example: planning year 3 of a 3-year phd, example of a 3 year phd gantt chart timeline, final reflection.

Every successful PhD project begins with a proper plan. Even if there is a high chance that not everything will work out as planned. Having a well-established timeline will keep your work on track.

What to include in a 3-year PhD timeline depends on the unique characteristics of a PhD project, specific university requirements, agreements with the supervisor/s and the PhD student’s career ambitions.

For instance, some PhD students write a monograph while others complete a PhD based on several journal publications. Both monographs and cumulative dissertations have advantages and disadvantages , and not all universities allow both formats. The thesis type influences the PhD timeline.

Furthermore, PhD students ideally engage in several different activities throughout a PhD trajectory, which link to their career objectives. Regardless of whether they want to pursue a career within or outside of academia. PhD students should create an all-round profile to increase their future chances in the labour market. Think, for example, of activities such as organising a seminar, engaging in public outreach or showcasing leadership in a small grant application.

The most common elements included in a 3-year PhD timeline are the following:

• Data collection (fieldwork, experiments, etc.)
• Data analysis
• Writing of different chapters, or a plan for journal publication
• Conferences
• Additional activities

The whole process is described in more detail in my post on how to develop an awesome PhD timeline step-by-step .

Many (starting) PhD students look for examples of how to plan a PhD in 3 years. Therefore, let’s look at an example scenario of a fictional PhD student. Let’s call her Maria.

Maria is doing a PhD in Social Sciences at a university where it is customary to write a cumulative dissertation, meaning a PhD thesis based on journal publications. Maria’s university regulations require her to write four articles as part of her PhD. In order to graduate, one article has to be published in an international peer-reviewed journal. The other three have to be submitted.

Furthermore, Maria’s cumulative dissertation needs an introduction and conclusion chapter which frame the four individual journal articles, which form the thesis chapters.

In order to complete her PhD programme, Maria also needs to complete coursework and earn 15 credits, or ECTS in her case.

Maria likes the idea of doing a postdoc after her graduation. However, she is aware that the academic job market is tough and therefore wants to keep her options open. She could, for instance, imagine to work for a community or non-profit organisation. Therefore, she wants to place emphasis on collaborating with a community organisation during her PhD.

You may also like: Creating awesome Gantt charts for your PhD timeline

Most PhD students start their first year with a rough idea, but not a well-worked out plan and timeline. Therefore, they usually begin with working on a more elaborate research proposal in the first months of their PhD. This is also the case for our example PhD student Maria.

• Months 1-4: Maria works on a detailed research proposal, defines her research methodology and breaks down her thesis into concrete tasks.
• Month 5 : Maria follows a short intensive course in academic writing to improve her writing skills.
• Months 5-10: Maria works on her first journal paper, which is based on an extensive literature review of her research topic. At the end of Month 10, she submits the manuscript. At the same time, she follows a course connected to her research topic.
• Months 11-12: Maria does her data collection.

Maria completed her first round of data collection according to plan, and starts the second year of her PhD with a lot of material. In her second year, she will focus on turning this data into two journal articles.

• Months 1-2: Maria works on her data analysis.
• Months 3-7: Maria works on her second journal paper.
• Month 7: Maria attends her first conference, and presents the results of her literature-review paper.
• Month 8: Maria received ‘major revisions’ on her first manuscript submission, and implements the changes in Month 8 before resubmitting her first journal paper for publication.
• Month 9: Maria follows a course on research valorisation to learn strategies to increase the societal impact of her thesis.
• Months 9-12: Maria works on her third journal paper. She uses the same data that she collected for the previous paper, which is why she is able to complete the third manuscript a bit faster than the previous one.

Time flies, and Maria finds herself in the last year of her PhD. There is still a lot of work to be done, but she sticks to the plan and does her best to complete her PhD.

• Month 1: Maria starts a second round of data collection, this time in collaboration with a community organisation. Together, they develop and host several focus groups with Maria’s target audience.
• Month 2: Maria starts to analyse the material of the focus group and develops the argumentation for her fourth journal paper.
• Month 3: Maria presents the results of her second journal paper at an international conference. Furthermore, she helps out her supervisor with a grant application. They apply for funding to run a small project that is thematically connected to her PhD.
• Months 4-9: Maria writes her fourth and final journal article that is required for her PhD.
• Month 10: Maria writes her thesis introduction .
• Month 11: Maria works on her thesis conclusion.
• Month 12 : Maria works on the final edits and proof-reading of her thesis before submitting it.

Combining the 3-year planning for our example PhD student Maria, it results in the following PhD timeline:

Creating these PhD timelines, also called Gantt charts, is easy. You can find instructions and templates here.

Completing a PhD in 3 years is not an easy task. The example of our fictional PhD student Maria shows how packed her timeline is, and how little time there is for things to go wrong.

In fact, in real life, many PhD students spend four years full-time to complete a PhD based on four papers, instead of three. Some extend their studies even longer.

Furthermore, plan in some time for thesis editing, which is a legitimate practice and can bring your writing to the next level. Finding a reputable thesis editor can be challenging, so make sure you make an informed choice.

Finishing a PhD in 3 years is not impossible, but it surely is not easy. So be kind to yourself if things don’t work out entirely as planned, and make use of all the help you can get.

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox!

Subscribe and receive Master Academia's quarterly newsletter.

10 amazing benefits of getting a PhD later in life

How to prepare your viva opening speech, related articles.

Character traits of ‘bad’ PhD students

Are summer schools for master’s students worth it?

Deciding between a one- or a two-year master’s degree

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 22 April 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/the-research-process/research-proposal-explained/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

Part 1. Overview Information

National Institutes of Health ( NIH )

National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute ( NHLBI )

National Institute on Aging ( NIA )

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism ( NIAAA )

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases ( NIAID )

National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases ( NIAMS )

February 14, 2024 - Participation Added ( N0T-HD-24-007 ) Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child and Human Development ( NICHD )

National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders ( NIDCD )

National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research ( NIDCR )

National Institute on Drug Abuse ( NIDA )

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences ( NIEHS )

National Institute of General Medical Sciences ( NIGMS )

National Institute of Mental Health ( NIMH )

National Institute of Nursing Research ( NINR )

National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences ( NCATS )

National Center of Complementary and Integrative Health ( NCCIH )

All applications to this funding opportunity announcement should fall within the mission of the Institutes/Centers. The following NIH Offices may co-fund applications assigned to those Institutes/Centers.

Division of Program Coordination, Planning and Strategic Initiatives, Office of Disease Prevention ( ODP )

Office of Research on Women's Health ( ORWH )

UC2 High Impact Research and Research Infrastructure Cooperative Agreement Programs

• March 20, 2024 - Notice of Informational Webinar for PAR-23-144, STrengthening Research Opportunities for NIH Grants (STRONG): Structured Institutional Needs Assessment and Action Plan Development for Resource Limited Institutions (RLIs) (UC2 - Clinical Trial Not Allowed). See Notice NOT-MD-24-011
• February 14, 2024 - Notice of NICHD Participation in PAR-23-144 "Strengthening Research Opportunities for NIH Grants (STRONG): Structured Institutional Needs Assessment and Action Plan Development for Resource Limited Institutions"). See Notice NOT-HD-24-007
• August 31, 2023 - Notice of Correction to Eligibility Criteria of PAR-23-144, STrengthening Research Opportunities for NIH Grants (STRONG): Structured Institutional Needs Assessment and Action Plan Development for Resource Limited Institutions (RLIs) (UC2). See Notice NOT-MD-23-018
• May 12, 2023 - Notice of Participation of the NIAAA in PAR-23-144. See Notice NOT-AA-23-012 .
• April 25, 2023 - Notice of NCCIH Participation in PAR-23-144, "STrengthening Research Opportunities for NIH Grants (STRONG): Structured Institutional Needs Assessment and Action Plan Development for Resource Limited Institutions (RLIs) (UC2 - Clinical Trial Not Allowed). See Notice NOT-AT-24-004
• August 5, 2022 - Implementation Details for the NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy - see Notice NOT-OD-22-189 .
• August 8, 2022 - New NIH "FORMS-H" Grant Application Forms and Instructions Coming for Due Dates on or after January 25, 2023 - See Notice NOT-OD-22-195 .
• August 31, 2022 - Implementation Changes for Genomic Data Sharing Plans Included with Applications Due on or after January 25, 2023 - See Notice NOT-OD-22-198 .

See Section III. 3. Additional Information on Eligibility .

The STrengthening Research Opportunities for NIH Grants (STRONG): The STRONG-RLI program will support research capacity needs assessments by eligible Resource-Limited Institutions (RLIs). The program will also support the recipient institutions to use the results of the assessments to develop action plans for how to meet the identified needs.

RLIs are defined as institutions with a mission to serve historically underrepresented populations in biomedical research that award degrees in the health professions (and in STEM fields and social and behavioral sciences) and have received an average of $0 to $25 million per year (total costs) of NIH Research Project Grant (RPG) support for the past three fiscal years.

August 18, 2023

All applications are due by 5:00 PM local time of applicant organization.

Applicants are encouraged to apply early to allow adequate time to make any corrections to errors found in the application during the submission process by the due date.

Not Applicable

It is critical that applicants follow the instructions in the Research (R) Instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide , except where instructed to do otherwise (in this NOFO or in a Notice from NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts).

Conformance to all requirements (both in the Application Guide and the NOFO) is required and strictly enforced. Applicants must read and follow all application instructions in the Application Guide as well as any program-specific instructions noted in Section IV . When the program-specific instructions deviate from those in the Application Guide, follow the program-specific instructions.

Applications that do not comply with these instructions may be delayed or not accepted for review.

There are several options available to submit your application through Grants.gov to NIH and Department of Health and Human Services partners. You must use one of these submission options to access the application forms for this opportunity.

• Use the NIH ASSIST system to prepare, submit and track your application online.
• Use an institutional system-to-system (S2S) solution to prepare and submit your application to Grants.gov and eRA Commons to track your application. Check with your institutional officials regarding availability.
• Use Grants.gov Workspace to prepare and submit your application and eRA Commons to track your application.

Part 2. Full Text of Announcement

Section i. notice of funding opportunity description.

Purpose: The purpose of the STRONG-RLI Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) is to invite applications to conduct biomedical research capacity needs assessments by Resource-Limited Institutions (RLIs) and then to use the results of the assessments to create action plans for meeting identified needs. The program’s goal is to increase competitiveness in the biomedical research enterprise and foster institutional environments conducive to research career development. Awards are intended to support RLIs in analyzing their institutional research capacity needs and strengths. Resource-Limited Institutions (RLIs) are defined for this NOFO as institutions with a mission to serve historically underrepresented populations in biomedical research that award degrees in the health professions or the sciences related to health, in STEM fields including social and behavioral sciences, and have received an average of $0 to $25 million (total costs) per year of NIH research project grant (RPG) support for the past three fiscal years (as defined in Section III -Eligibility).

Background:

NIH’s ability to help ensure that the nation remains a global leader in scientific discovery and innovation is dependent upon a pool of highly talented scientists from diverse backgrounds who will help to further NIH's mission (see NOT-OD-20-031 ). NIH recognizes the importance of diversity in biomedical, clinical, behavioral, and social sciences (collectively termed "biomedical") research. This includes the diversification of NIH-funded institutions, where researchers with a wide range of skill sets and viewpoints can bring different perspectives, creativity, and individual enterprise to address complex scientific problems.

RLIs, as defined below, play an important role in supporting scientific research, particularly on diseases or conditions that disproportionately impact racial ethnic minority groups and other U.S. populations that experience health disparities. Although these institutions are uniquely positioned to engage underserved populations in research and in the translation of research advances into culturally competent, measurable and sustained improvements in health outcomes, they may benefit from enhancing their capacity to conduct and sustain cutting-edge health-related research.

NIH is committed to assisting RLIs in building institutional research capacity. Scientists at RLIs are critical to advancing knowledge in the biomedical research enterprise. NIH has many programs designed to support researchers at RLIs and broaden the participation of researchers through inclusive excellence across regions, institutions, and demographic groups. The role of RLIs in the nation’s overall competitiveness in research is integrally related to current resources, departmental and disciplinary strengths and capabilities, and campus research support systems and infrastructure. It is critical that RLIs recognize and utilize their research and organizational capabilities so they can leverage existing strengths and develop strategic approaches in areas that require additional attention. Structured needs assessments to examine research and organizational capabilities can offer metrics for short-term/long-term action plans. These assessments will enable institutions to develop benchmarks and action items to increase their competitiveness for NIH, Federal, and other funding opportunities.

RLIs face unique challenges depending on the institution type, resources, infrastructure, and policies as they seek to acquire NIH or other federal agency funding. The areas at RLIs that need to be identified and addressed to reduce the barriers to scientific advancement and increase independent research funding can best be determined by the institution itself. A fundamental principle for organizational development and change is the use of a structured assessment to understand these barriers.

This Funding Opportunity will provide resources to the institutions to 1) conduct the assessment of research infrastructure and other requirements that will enhance administrative and research resources, institutional policies, and expanded opportunities for faculty and students in the biomedical research enterprise; and 2) Use the results of these institutional assessments to develop action plans that will support the conduct of high-quality biomedical research.

Program Objectives:

The purpose of this NIH-wide initiative, STRONG-RLI, is to support research active RLIs to;1. conduct rigorous research capacity needs assessments.2. use the results of the assessments to develop action plans for how to meet the identified needs.

Because of the significant variability in the types of RLIs, two separate categories have been created for this initiative. Please refer to Section III for eligibility criteria for RLIs.

The two categories of research active RLIs are defined in Section III of the NOFO:

1) Low Research Active (LRA) : An RLI that is an undergraduate or graduate degree granting institution and has had less than six million dollars (total costs) in NIH research project grant (RPG) support per year in three of the last five years. In addition, undergraduate granting institutions must have at least 35% of undergraduate students supported by Pell grants.

2) High Research Active (HRA) : An RLI that grants doctoral degrees and has had between six million and 25 million dollars (total costs) in NIH RPG support per year in three of the last five years.

Both LRA and HRA RLIs must have a historical mission to support underrepresented groups in biomedical sciences. Each institution should describe the specific category into which they fit and provide documentation to verify those requirements.

Each RLI will provide details on how they plan to conduct their needs assessments and create/use/adapt/ instruments to study research capacity at the institution. Please note that institutional climate or culture assessment is not a priority for this funding announcement.

As part of the funding announcement , the recipient institutions are expected to use the results of needs assessments to develop action plans for short term and long term goals, to meet the identified needs . Applicants are encouraged to provide detailed approaches for conducting the needs assessment and action plan development. The action plan should include identification of possible sources of funding for increasing research capacity. The implementation of the action plan is beyond the scope of this funding opportunity.

A. Institutional Needs-Assessment for research capacity

NIH recognizes and values the heterogeneity in institutional settings and the students they serve. Applicants must describe their distinctive biomedical research and research training environment and the current services to support them.

Applicants for this needs assessment can use any available tools, or adapt existing tools, to fit their context and needs.

B. Development of Institutional Action Plans

• After completion of the needs assessment, the recipient institutions are expected to develop an action plan. The Institutional Action Plan for research capacity is intended to serve as a roadmap for enhancing the infrastructure and capacity at the applicant institution.
• The outcomes of the needs assessment should determine the capacity building interventions that the institution can undertake to strengthen the institutional framework and research capacity. The Institutional Action Plan that will be developed is expected to be supported by an institutional leader, e.g., the Provost or President (see Letters of Support).

C. Needs assessment topics may include (but are not limited to):

The institution will determine the needs assessment foci but may include broad categories such as administrative/research/student/faculty.

Administrative topics may include -

• Establishing or enhancing the Office of Sponsored Programs (OSP), examining efficiencies and staffing requirements and personnel needs for administrative support
• Available resources for effective business practices, automation, information dissemination, documentation and tracking progress for research activities,
• Process management and process improvement for grant application, grant award, and grant administration.

Research topics may include-

• Research infrastructure may include physical research facilities, lab equipment, and computing resources, core facility for technology, support staff, professional development, laboratories. Appropriate physical research facilities and skilled research support to enable competitiveness.
• Research readiness in areas, such as basic, behavioral or clinical research, grantsmanship support, seminars and workshops for grant writing, for sharing research ideas to enhance knowledge in the field. Potential and current scientific research areas of interest.
• Capacity to conduct Human Subjects Research
• Capacity for Community Engagement research
• Partnerships/ collaboration with other academic institutions, the public sector, and community-based organizations that are sustainable and equitable

Student and faculty topics may include-

• Training needs, Mentoring/Sponsorship, faculty development.
• Student resources for research, support for research experiences, and for post-bac and graduate career progression in biomedical research and in STEM topics
• Research staff recruitment and benefits packages, retention bonuses,
• Faculty teaching workloads that allow time for research pursuits, and department/college-based research staff and administrative support
• Institutional policies for assessment of teaching versus research assignments and support
• Tenure evaluations of faculty services for research, committee, community engagement, etc., protected time for research program development

Technical Assistance Webinar:

NIH will conduct a Technical Assistance Webinar for prospective applicants on July 21st from 2-3.30pm EST. Please join the webinar using the link below:

Join Zoom Meeting https://nih.zoomgov.com/j/1614627302?pwd=RmVXc0RjWjV2WTZsUzd1WmFSWU1NZz09&from=addon Meeting ID: 161 462 7302 Passcode: 919936 One tap mobile +16692545252,,1614627302#,,,,*919936# US (San Jose) +16468287666,,1614627302#,,,,*919936# US (New York)

See Section VIII. Other Information for award authorities and regulations.

Section II. Award Information

Cooperative Agreement: A support mechanism used when there will be substantial Federal scientific or programmatic involvement. Substantial involvement means that, after award, NIH scientific or program staff will assist, guide, coordinate, or participate in project activities. See Section VI.2 for additional information about the substantial involvement for this FOA.

The OER Glossary and the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide provide details on these application types. Only those application types listed here are allowed for this NOFO.

Not Allowed: Only accepting applications that do not propose clinical trials.

Need help determining whether you are doing a clinical trial?

The number of awards is contingent upon NIH appropriations and the submission of a sufficient number of meritorious applications.

Application budgets for direct costs should not exceed $250,000/year.

The scope of the proposed project should determine the project period. The maximum project period is three years

NIH grants policies as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement will apply to the applications submitted and awards made from this NOFO.

Section III. Eligibility Information

1. Eligible Applicants

Higher Education Institutions

• Public/State Controlled Institutions of Higher Education
• Private Institutions of Higher Education

The following types of Higher Education Institutions are always encouraged to apply for NIH support as Public or Private Institutions of Higher Education:

• Hispanic-serving Institutions
• Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs)
• Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCUs)
• Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions
• Asian American Native American Pacific Islander Serving Institutions (AANAPISIs)

For this funding opportunity, an applicant must be a Resource-Limited Institution (RLI), defined as an institution with a mission to serve historically underrepresented populations that awards degrees in the health professions (and related sciences) and has received an average of $0 to $25 million per year (total costs) of NIH Research Project Grants (RPG) support for the past three fiscal years.

A mission to serve historically underrepresented populations may be demonstrated by a documented historical and current mission to educate students from any of the populations that have been identified as underrepresented in biomedical research as defined by the National Science Foundation NSF, see http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/ ) (i.e., African Americans or Blacks, Hispanic or Latino Americans, American Indians, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, U.S. Pacific Islanders, and persons with disabilities) or by a documented record of recruiting, training and/or educating, and graduating underrepresented students as defined by NSF (see above), which has resulted in increasing the institution's contribution to the national pool of graduates from underrepresented backgrounds who pursue biomedical research careers.

RLIs, as defined above, are classified into the following two categories for this opportunity:

Institutional letters will attest to the category of the institution whether they are LRA or HRA and provide information to verify which can be included as an attachment.

Non-domestic (non-U.S.) Entities (Foreign Institutions) are not eligible to apply.

Non-domestic (non-U.S.) components of U.S. Organizations are not eligible to apply.

Foreign components, as defined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement , are not allowed.

Applicant Organizations

Applicant organizations must complete and maintain the following registrations as described in the SF 424 (R&R) Application Guide to be eligible to apply for or receive an award. All registrations must be completed prior to the application being submitted. Registration can take 6 weeks or more, so applicants should begin the registration process as soon as possible. The NIH Policy on Late Submission of Grant Applications states that failure to complete registrations in advance of a due date is not a valid reason for a late submission.

• NATO Commercial and Government Entity (NCAGE) Code Foreign organizations must obtain an NCAGE code (in lieu of a CAGE code) in order to register in SAM.
• Unique Entity Identifier (UEI)- A UEI is issued as part of the SAM.gov registration process. The same UEI must be used for all registrations, as well as on the grant application.
• eRA Commons - Once the unique organization identifier is established, organizations can register with eRA Commons in tandem with completing their Grants.gov registrations; all registrations must be in place by time of submission. eRA Commons requires organizations to identify at least one Signing Official (SO) and at least one Program Director/Principal Investigator (PD/PI) account in order to submit an application.
• Grants.gov Applicants must have an active SAM registration in order to complete the Grants.gov registration.

Program Directors/Principal Investigators (PD(s)/PI(s))

All PD(s)/PI(s) must have an eRA Commons account. PD(s)/PI(s) should work with their organizational officials to either create a new account or to affiliate their existing account with the applicant organization in eRA Commons. If the PD/PI is also the organizational Signing Official, they must have two distinct eRA Commons accounts, one for each role. Obtaining an eRA Commons account can take up to 2 weeks.

Any individual(s) with the skills, knowledge, and resources necessary to carry out the proposed research as the Program Director(s)/Principal Investigator(s) (PD(s)/PI(s)) is invited to work with their organization to develop an application for support. Individuals from diverse backgrounds, including underrepresented racial and ethnic groups, individuals with disabilities, and women are always encouraged to apply for NIH support. See, Reminder: Notice of NIH's Encouragement of Applications Supporting Individuals from Underrepresented Ethnic and Racial Groups as well as Individuals with Disabilities , NOT-OD-22-019 .

For institutions/organizations proposing multiple PDs/PIs, visit the Multiple Program Director/Principal Investigator Policy and submission details in the Senior/Key Person Profile (Expanded) Component of the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

2. Cost Sharing

This NOFO does not require cost sharing as defined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.

3. Additional Information on Eligibility

Number of Applications

Only one application per institution (normally identified by having a unique UEI or NIH IPF number) is allowed

The NIH will not accept duplicate or highly overlapping applications under review at the same time, per 2.3.7.4 Submission of Resubmission Application . This means that the NIH will not accept:

• A new (A0) application that is submitted before issuance of the summary statement from the review of an overlapping new (A0) or resubmission (A1) application.
• A resubmission (A1) application that is submitted before issuance of the summary statement from the review of the previous new (A0) application.
• An application that has substantial overlap with another application pending appeal of initial peer review (see 2.3.9.4 Similar, Essentially Identical, or Identical Applications ).

Only one application per institution (normally identified by having a unique UEI number or NIH IPF number) is allowed.

Section IV. Application and Submission Information

1. Requesting an Application Package

The application forms package specific to this opportunity must be accessed through ASSIST, Grants.gov Workspace or an institutional system-to-system solution. Links to apply using ASSIST or Grants.gov Workspace are available in Part 1 of this NOFO. See your administrative office for instructions if you plan to use an institutional system-to-system solution.

2. Content and Form of Application Submission

It is critical that applicants follow the instructions in the Research (R) Instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide except where instructed in this notice of funding opportunity to do otherwise. Conformance to the requirements in the Application Guide is required and strictly enforced. Applications that are out of compliance with these instructions may be delayed or not accepted for review.

Letter of Intent

Although a letter of intent is not required, is not binding, and does not enter into the review of a subsequent application, the information that it contains allows IC staff to estimate the potential review workload and plan the review.

By the date listed in Part 1. Overview Information , prospective applicants are asked to submit a letter of intent that includes the following information:

• Descriptive title of proposed activity
• Name(s), address(es), and telephone number(s) of the PD(s)/PI(s)
• Names of other key personnel
• Participating institution(s)
• Number and title of this funding opportunity

The letter of intent should be sent to:

Yujing Liu, MD, PhD National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD) Telephone: 301-827-7815 Email: [email protected]

Page Limitations

All page limitations described in the SF424 Application Guide and the Table of Page Limits must be followed.

The following section supplements the instructions found in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide and should be used for preparing an application to this NOFO.

SF424(R&R) Cover

All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.

SF424(R&R) Project/Performance Site Locations

SF424(R&R) Other Project Information

SF424(R&R) Senior/Key Person Profile

All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed, with the following additional instructions:

Travel costs for attending any in-person meetings and STRONG Executive Steering Committee (SESC) meetings must be included.

Funds may not be used for:

• Research infrastructure (such as laboratory supplies, laboratory equipment)
• Alterations or renovations
• Research projects or pilot projects

R&R Subaward Budget

PHS 398 Cover Page Supplement

PHS 398 Research Plan

Research Strategy:

Significance

Explain the needs for institutional research capacity and importance of the problem or critical barrier to progress that the proposed project addresses. Describe the benefits if the proposed aims are achieved with respect to enhanced biomedical research capacity.

Applicants should address the innovative aspects of the proposed needs assessment plans for research capacity. For this program, innovation is considered the use of existing products, tools or processes or creating or adapting evidence-based tools to fit the context and needs of the institutions.

A. Institutional Needs-Assessment for research capacity section describe:

• Physical research facility, research faculty support from institution, faculty teaching workload, human resources, Sponsored program
• Applicant must describe current methods of measuring student/faculty outcomes to take into consideration institutional missions, faculty investment, student populations, student needs, and institutional resource constraints.
• Tools and instruments for needs assessment, monitoring and evaluation of health research capacity development activities at the individual and organizational level
• The types of research facilities available for biomedical research and research training.
• The needs for research infrastructure to conduct biomedical, behavioral or clinical research, potential and current scientific research areas of interest.
• List and describe the outcomes of any capacity-building or infrastructure grants the institution has received over the past ten years, including the source and total costs of each award.
• The investigative team and their relevant expertise in conducting a needs assessment
• Student enrollment in the biomedical areas, including the number and percentage of undergraduate and graduate students, and the enrollment of students who are Pell-grant eligible (for LRA applications); and
• The current level of student and faculty participation in research.
• Describe the sponsored programs administration and how it will inform the needs assessment. The types of services provided by the existing sponsored projects administration (or similar entity). Current levels of sponsored programs productivity (e.g., number of applications submitted, number of applications funded, number of subcontracts).

Describe the approaches for developing an Institutional Action Plan after completing needs assessment for research capacity. The Institutional Action Plan for research capacity is intended to serve as a roadmap for enhancing the infrastructure and capacity at the applicant institution. This section of the application should describe steps that will be undertaken to ensure identified needs assessment activities lead to action plans for the long-term strengthening of research capacity. It must include an institutional commitment to achieving the goals and objectives of the proposed project and activities signed by institutional leadership (e.g., President, Provost, and Deans (see Letters of Support).

C. Governance and structure of steering committees

The Steering Committee (SC) will serve as the primary governing and oversight board for the cooperative agreement funded under this NOFO.

• Describe the composition and the activities of the steering committee. Describe the desired expertise of its members. Include the frequency of meetings and any other relevant information.
• The membership of the SC consists of the PD(s)/PI(s), the NIH Project Coordinator, and any additional stake holders deemed necessary.

Timeline and Milestones:

Describe the timeline for the needs assessment and action plan activities. The timeline should be realistic given the time needed to develop the approaches/tools and collect the proposed data. Describe how the program goals/aims will be aligned with milestones and metrics.

Letters of Support: Provide letters of support for the proposed needs assessment activities following instructions in the SF424 Application Guide.

A. Institutional Eligibility Letter (1-page maximum). S ubmit a letter from the Provost or similar official with institution-wide responsibility that certify that the applicant organization qualifies as one of the following two categories of research active RLI specified in this NOFO:

A mission to serve historically underrepresented populations may be demonstrated by a documented historical and current mission to educate students from underrepresented populations in biomedical research.

The two categories of research active RLIs are:

1) Low Research Active (LRA): An RLI that is an undergraduate or graduate degree granting institution, with at least 35% of undergraduate students supported by Pell grants, and that has had less than six million dollars in NIH research project grant (RPG) support per year in three of the last five years.

2) High Research Active (HRA): An RLI that grants doctoral degrees and has had less than 25 million dollars in NIH RPG support in three of the last five years.

B. Institutional Commitment Letter. The application must include an Institutional Commitment Letter from the President or designated high-ranking official such as the Provost, Vice President or Dean. Describe how the proposed project aligns with the broad institutional vision for enhancing biomedical research. The letter should include a commitment to achieving the goals and objectives of the proposed project and activities.

The letters of support must be included with the application. Applications which lack this letter will be considered incomplete and will be withdrawn and will not be reviewed.

Resource Sharing Plan : Individuals are required to comply with the instructions for the Resource Sharing Plans as provided in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

The following modifications also apply:

Generally, Resource Sharing Plans are expected, but they are not applicable for this FOA.

• A Data Management and Sharing Plan is not applicable for this NOFO.

Appendix: Only limited Appendix materials are allowed. Follow all instructions for the Appendix as described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

• No publications or other material, with the exception of blank questionnaires or blank surveys, may be included in the Appendix.

PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information

When involving human subjects research, clinical research, and/or NIH-defined clinical trials (and when applicable, clinical trials research experience) follow all instructions for the PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information form in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide, with the following additional instructions:

If you answered Yes to the question Are Human Subjects Involved? on the R&R Other Project Information form, you must include at least one human subjects study record using the Study Record: PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information form or Delayed Onset Study record.

Study Record: PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information

Delayed Onset Study

Note: Delayed onset does NOT apply to a study that can be described but will not start immediately (i.e., delayed start).All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.

PHS Assignment Request Form

3. Unique Entity Identifier and System for Award Management (SAM)

See Part 1. Section III.1 for information regarding the requirement for obtaining a unique entity identifier and for completing and maintaining active registrations in System for Award Management (SAM), NATO Commercial and Government Entity (NCAGE) Code (if applicable), eRA Commons, and Grants.gov

4. Submission Dates and Times

Part I. Overview Information contains information about Key Dates and times. Applicants are encouraged to submit applications before the due date to ensure they have time to make any application corrections that might be necessary for successful submission. When a submission date falls on a weekend or Federal holiday , the application deadline is automatically extended to the next business day.

Organizations must submit applications to Grants.gov (the online portal to find and apply for grants across all Federal agencies). Applicants must then complete the submission process by tracking the status of the application in the eRA Commons , NIH’s electronic system for grants administration. NIH and Grants.gov systems check the application against many of the application instructions upon submission. Errors must be corrected and a changed/corrected application must be submitted to Grants.gov on or before the application due date and time. If a Changed/Corrected application is submitted after the deadline, the application will be considered late. Applications that miss the due date and time are subjected to the NIH Policy on Late Application Submission.

Applicants are responsible for viewing their application before the due date in the eRA Commons to ensure accurate and successful submission.

Information on the submission process and a definition of on-time submission are provided in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

5. Intergovernmental Review (E.O. 12372)

This initiative is not subject to intergovernmental review.

6. Funding Restrictions

All NIH awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement .

Pre-award costs are allowable only as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement .

7. Other Submission Requirements and Information

Applications must be submitted electronically following the instructions described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide. Paper applications will not be accepted.

Applicants must complete all required registrations before the application due date. Section III. Eligibility Information contains information about registration.

For assistance with your electronic application or for more information on the electronic submission process, visit How to Apply Application Guide . If you encounter a system issue beyond your control that threatens your ability to complete the submission process on-time, you must follow the Dealing with System Issues guidance. For assistance with application submission, contact the Application Submission Contacts in Section VII.

Important reminders:

All PD(s)/PI(s) must include their eRA Commons ID in the Credential field of the Senior/Key Person Profile form . Failure to register in the Commons and to include a valid PD/PI Commons ID in the credential field will prevent the successful submission of an electronic application to NIH. See Section III of this NOFO for information on registration requirements.

The applicant organization must ensure that the unique entity identifier provided on the application is the same identifier used in the organization’s profile in the eRA Commons and for the System for Award Management. Additional information may be found in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

See more tips for avoiding common errors.

Upon receipt, applications will be evaluated for completeness and compliance with application instructions by the Center for Scientific Review, NIH. Applications that are incomplete or non-compliant will not be reviewed.

In order to expedite review, applicants are requested to notify the NIMHD Referral Office by email at [email protected] when the application has been submitted. Please include the NOFO number and title, PD/PI name, and title of the application.

Post Submission Materials

Applicants are required to follow the instructions for post-submission materials, as described in the policy

Section V. Application Review Information

1. Criteria

Only the review criteria described below will be considered in the review process. Applications submitted to the NIH in support of the NIH mission are evaluated for scientific and technical merit through the NIH peer review system.

Reviewers will provide an overall impact score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved, in consideration of the following review criteria and additional review criteria (as applicable for the project proposed).

Reviewers will consider each of the review criteria below in the determination of scientific merit and give a separate score for each. An application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact. For example, a project that by its nature is not innovative may be essential to advance a field.

Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? Is the prior research that serves as the key support for the proposed project rigorous? If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved? How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field?

In addition, specific to this NOFO:

How well does the application provide a vision for how the project will serve as a foundation for future research capacity building? To what degree the application describes clear pathways between the need assessment and action plan development research activities and future research efforts? To what extent is the proposed project likely to enhance institutional research capacity to conduct biomedical research?

Are the PD(s)/PI(s), collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project? If Early Stage Investigators or those in the early stages of independent careers, do they have appropriate experience and training? If established, have they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced their field(s)? If the project is collaborative or multi-PD/PI, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance, and organizational structure appropriate for the project?

To what extent do the PDs/PIs have the appropriate expertise to conduct the needs assessment, implement the proposed project, analyze the outcomes, and develop action plans?

Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions? Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense? Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed?

How well does the applicant create approaches to fit their context and needs? Does the application employ novel approaches or methods to fulfill its purpose?

Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project? Have the investigators included plans to address weaknesses in the rigor of prior research that serves as the key support for the proposed project? Have the investigators presented strategies to ensure a robust and unbiased approach, as appropriate for the work proposed? Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success presented? If the project is in the early stages of development, will the strategy establish feasibility and will particularly risky aspects be managed? Have the investigators presented adequate plans to address relevant biological variables, such as sex, for studies in vertebrate animals or human subjects?

If the project involves human subjects and/or NIH-defined clinical research, are the plans to address 1) the protection of human subjects from research risks, and 2) inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals on the basis of sex/gender, race, and ethnicity, as well as the inclusion or exclusion of individuals of all ages (including children and older adults), justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed?

To what extent does the applicant describe the tools and instruments for needs assessment, monitoring and evaluation of research capacity development activities? To what degree does the applicant identify metrics and indicators of success that will be used to assess the anticipated outcomes? Is the duration of the initial needs assessment stage adequate to develop action plans for short-term goals? To what degree isthe structure and governance plan likely to lead to implementation of the proposed plan? Are these goals feasible and well developed on the timeline of the award? How well are the program goals/aims aligned with yearly milestones and are the details provided adequate?

Will the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Are the institutional support, equipment, and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed? Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements?

How strong is the level of institutional commitment to the project, including administrative and scientific support, to ensure the success of the project?

How well do the letters of support demonstrate a strong commitment to the proposed activities?

As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will evaluate the following additional items while determining scientific and technical merit, and in providing an overall impact score, but will not give separate scores for these items.

For research that involves human subjects but does not involve one of the categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, the committee will evaluate the justification for involvement of human subjects and the proposed protections from research risk relating to their participation according to the following five review criteria: 1) risk to subjects, 2) adequacy of protection against risks, 3) potential benefits to the subjects and others, 4) importance of the knowledge to be gained, and 5) data and safety monitoring for clinical trials.

For research that involves human subjects and meets the criteria for one or more of the categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, the committee will evaluate: 1) the justification for the exemption, 2) human subjects involvement and characteristics, and 3) sources of materials. For additional information on review of the Human Subjects section, please refer to the Guidelines for the Review of Human Subjects .

When the proposed project involves human subjects and/or NIH-defined clinical research, the committee will evaluate the proposed plans for the inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals on the basis of sex/gender, race, and ethnicity, as well as the inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals of all ages (including children and older adults) to determine if it is justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed. For additional information on review of the Inclusion section, please refer to the Guidelines for the Review of Inclusion in Clinical Research .

The committee will evaluate the involvement of live vertebrate animals as part of the scientific assessment according to the following criteria: (1) description of proposed procedures involving animals, including species, strains, ages, sex, and total number to be used; (2) justifications for the use of animals versus alternative models and for the appropriateness of the species proposed; (3) interventions to minimize discomfort, distress, pain and injury; and (4) justification for euthanasia method if NOT consistent with the AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals. Reviewers will assess the use of chimpanzees as they would any other application proposing the use of vertebrate animals. For additional information on review of the Vertebrate Animals section, please refer to the Worksheet for Review of the Vertebrate Animals Section .

Reviewers will assess whether materials or procedures proposed are potentially hazardous to research personnel and/or the environment, and if needed, determine whether adequate protection is proposed.

For Resubmissions, the committee will evaluate the application as now presented, taking into consideration the responses to comments from the previous scientific review group and changes made to the project.

Not applicable

As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will consider each of the following items, but will not give scores for these items, and should not consider them in providing an overall impact score.

Reviewers will assess whether the project presents special opportunities for furthering research programs through the use of unusual talent, resources, populations, or environmental conditions that exist in other countries and either are not readily available in the United States or augment existing U.S. resources.

Reviewers will assess the information provided in this section of the application, including 1) the Select Agent(s) to be used in the proposed research, 2) the registration status of all entities where Select Agent(s) will be used, 3) the procedures that will be used to monitor possession use and transfer of Select Agent(s), and 4) plans for appropriate biosafety, biocontainment, and security of the Select Agent(s).

Reviewers will comment on whether the Resource Sharing Plan(s) (e.g., Sharing Model Organisms ) or the rationale for not sharing the resources, is reasonable.

For projects involving key biological and/or chemical resources, reviewers will comment on the brief plans proposed for identifying and ensuring the validity of those resources.

Reviewers will consider whether the budget and the requested period of support are fully justified and reasonable in relation to the proposed research.

2. Review and Selection Process

Applications will be evaluated for scientific and technical merit by (an) appropriate Scientific Review Group(s) convened by NIMHD, in accordance with NIH peer review policy and procedures , using the stated review criteria . Assignment to a Scientific Review Group will be shown in the eRA Commons.

As part of the scientific peer review, all applications will receive a written critique.

Applications may undergo a selection process in which only those applications deemed to have the highest scientific and technical merit (generally the top half of applications under review) will be discussed and assigned an overall impact score.

Applications will be assigned on the basis of established PHS referral guidelines to the appropriate NIH Institute or Center. Applications will compete for available funds with all other recommended applications . Following initial peer review, recommended applications will receive a second level of review by the appropriate national Advisory Council or Board. The following will be considered in making funding decisions:

• Scientific and technical merit of the proposed project as determined by scientific peer review.
• Availability of funds.
• Relevance of the proposed project to program priorities.
• Geographical distribution of the portfolio
• Balance between HRA and LRA awards

3. Anticipated Announcement and Award Dates

After the peer review of the application is completed, the PD/PI will be able to access his or her Summary Statement (written critique) via the eRA Commons . Refer to Part 1 for dates for peer review, advisory council review, and earliest start date.

Information regarding the disposition of applications is available in the NIH Grants Policy Statement .

Section VI. Award Administration Information

1. Award Notices

If the application is under consideration for funding, NIH will request "just-in-time" information from the applicant as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement .

A formal notification in the form of a Notice of Award (NoA) will be provided to the applicant organization for successful applications. The NoA signed by the grants management officer is the authorizing document and will be sent via email to the recipient's business official.

Recipients must comply with any funding restrictions described in Section IV.6. Funding Restrictions. Selection of an application for award is not an authorization to begin performance. Any costs incurred before receipt of the NoA are at the recipient's risk. These costs may be reimbursed only to the extent considered allowable pre-award costs.

Any application awarded in response to this NOFO will be subject to terms and conditions found on the Award Conditions and Information for NIH Grants website. This includes any recent legislation and policy applicable to awards that is highlighted on this website.

Institutional Review Board or Independent Ethics Committee Approval: Recipient institutions must ensure that protocols are reviewed by their IRB or IEC. To help ensure the safety of participants enrolled in NIH-funded studies, the recipient must provide NIH copies of documents related to all major changes in the status of ongoing protocols.

2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements

All NIH grant and cooperative agreement awards include the NIH Grants Policy Statement as part of the NoA. For these terms of award, see the NIH Grants Policy Statement Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart A: General and Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart B: Terms and Conditions for Specific Types of Grants, Recipients, and Activities , including of note, but not limited to:

• Federal wide Research Terms and Conditions
• Prohibition on Certain Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services or Equipment
• Acknowledgment of Federal Funding

If a recipient is successful and receives a Notice of Award, in accepting the award, the recipient agrees that any activities under the award are subject to all provisions currently in effect or implemented during the period of the award, other Department regulations and policies in effect at the time of the award, and applicable statutory provisions.

Should the applicant organization successfully compete for an award, recipients of federal financial assistance (FFA) from HHS will be required to complete an HHS Assurance of Compliance form (HHS 690) in which the recipient agrees, as a term and condition of receiving the grant, to administer their programs in compliance with federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex and disability, and agreeing to comply with federal conscience laws, where applicable. This includes ensuring that entities take meaningful steps to provide meaningful access to persons with limited English proficiency; and ensuring effective communication with persons with disabilities. Where applicable, Title XI and Section 1557 prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and gender identity. The HHS Office for Civil Rights provides guidance on complying with civil rights laws enforced by HHS. Please see https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-providers/provider-obligations/index.html and https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/nondiscrimination/index.html

HHS recognizes that research projects are often limited in scope for many reasons that are nondiscriminatory, such as the principal investigator’s scientific interest, funding limitations, recruitment requirements, and other considerations. Thus, criteria in research protocols that target or exclude certain populations are warranted where nondiscriminatory justifications establish that such criteria are appropriate with respect to the health or safety of the subjects, the scientific study design, or the purpose of the research. For additional guidance regarding how the provisions apply to NIH grant programs, please contact the Scientific/Research Contact that is identified in Section VII under Agency Contacts of this NOFO.

• Recipients of FFA must ensure that their programs are accessible to persons with limited English proficiency. For guidance on meeting the legal obligation to take reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access to programs or activities by limited English proficient individuals see https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/special-topics/limited-english-proficiency/fact-sheet-guidance/index.html and https://www.lep.gov .
• For information on an institution’s specific legal obligations for serving qualified individuals with disabilities, including providing program access, reasonable modifications, and to provide effective communication, see https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/disability/index.html .
• HHS funded health and education programs must be administered in an environment free of sexual harassment, see https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/sex-discrimination/index.html . For information about NIH's commitment to supporting a safe and respectful work environment, who to contact with questions or concerns, and what NIH's expectations are for institutions and the individuals supported on NIH-funded awards, please see https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/harassment.htm .
• For guidance on administering programs in compliance with applicable federal religious nondiscrimination laws and applicable federal conscience protection and associated anti-discrimination laws see https://www.hhs.gov/conscience/conscience-protections/index.html and https://www.hhs.gov/conscience/religious-freedom/index.html .

Please contact the HHS Office for Civil Rights for more information about obligations and prohibitions under federal civil rights laws at https://www.hhs.gov/ocr/about-us/contact-us/index.html or call 1-800-368-1019 or TDD 1-800-537-7697.

In accordance with the statutory provisions contained in Section 872 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417), NIH awards will be subject to the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) requirements. FAPIIS requires Federal award making officials to review and consider information about an applicant in the designated integrity and performance system (currently FAPIIS) prior to making an award. An applicant, at its option, may review information in the designated integrity and performance systems accessible through FAPIIS and comment on any information about itself that a federal agency previously entered and is currently in FAPIIS. The Federal awarding agency will consider any comments by the applicant, in addition to other information in FAPIIS, in making a judgement about the applicant’s integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards when completing the review of risk posed by applicants as described in 45 CFR Part 75.205 and 2 CFR Part 200.206 Federal awarding agency review of risk posed by applicants. This provision will apply to all NIH grants and cooperative agreements except fellowships.

The following special terms of award are in addition to, and not in lieu of, otherwise applicable U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) administrative guidelines, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) grant administration regulations at 45 CFR Part 75 and 2 CFR Part 200, and other HHS, PHS, and NIH grant administration policies. The administrative and funding instrument used for this program will continue as a cooperative agreement, an "assistance" mechanism (rather than an "acquisition" mechanism), in which substantial NIH programmatic involvement with the recipients is anticipated during the performance of the activities. Under the cooperative agreement, the NIH purpose is to support and stimulate the recipients' activities by involvement in and otherwise working jointly with the award recipients in a partnership role; it is not to assume direction, prime responsibility, or a dominant role in the activities. Consistent with this concept, the dominant role and prime responsibility resides with the recipients for the project as a whole, although specific tasks and activities may be shared among the recipients and the NIH as defined below.

The individual STRONG-RLI recipients will establish steering committees at their institutions with defined roles.

In addition, the PIs of the STRONG-RLI awards and involved NIH staff, and others as needed (ex-officio), will form a STRONG-RLI Executive Steering Committee (SESC) which will oversee the activities of the STRONG-RLI program recipients. There will be a yearly rotating chair of the SESC who will be nominated and selected from the PIs of the awards.

The PDs/PIs will have the primary responsibility for:

• Plan, organize, coordinate, and administer the described activities of the program, including setting project milestones with specific timelines and criteria for Institutional needs assessment and developing action plans.
• Establish Steering Committee, organize, and coordinate SESC meetings
• Ensure compliance with the applicable mandatory NIH regulations and policies
• Participate in the STRONG SESC meetings is a requirement for the PI/PDs.The purpose of the meeting is to share progress, best practices, and address common challenges.
• Work closely with the NIH Program Official and Project Coordinator (see below) in project coordination and management.
• Establish a separate site specific steering committee that will comprise of PI, institute leadership and NIH staff
• Evaluate progress using defined milestones and metrics. Recipients will provide NIH with progress reports at regular intervals as requested.
• Share needs assessment and action plan with the NIH during the award period.
• Recipients will retain custody of and have primary rights to the data and software developed under these awards, subject to Government rights of access consistent with current DHHS, PHS, and NIH policies.

NIH staff will have substantial programmatic involvement that is above and beyond the normal stewardship role in awards, as described below:

The NIH Project Coordinator will :

Work closely with individual PIs and NIH program officials (POs) to facilitate collaborations.

• Interact with each recipient, help coordinate approaches, and contribute to the adjustment of projects/programs or approaches as warranted.
• Advise the recipient in performing project activities (e.g., coordination among RLI recipients for needs assessments; provide access to NIH supported resources; identify other resources for the project);
• Facilitate, not direct, activities.
• Participate on the Steering Committee (see below) or in other functions to help guide the course of the program (e.g., Annual Program Meeting and other Program related meetings).
• Ensure that the directions taken are consistent with the NIH missions and goals.

The Project Coordinator will not participate in the oversight of the funding opportunity announcement, application review, or programmatic and budgetary stewardship of the award.

The Program Official will be responsible for the normal programmatic stewardship of the award, including funding decisions, and will be named in the award notice. The Program Official will not serve as a voting member of the Steering Committee or partake of the duties of the Project Coordinator.

Areas of joint responsibility

The SECS is the governing and oversight body for the Program. Members, who are appointed by the PDs/PIs of the award, will be comprised of the following:

• The PI of each award will serve as the SESC member.
• NIH Project Coordinators.
• Additional members from the NIH may be appointed, but the total number of NIH votes may not exceed 1/3 of the Executive Steering Committee voting membership. Other government staff may attend the Steering Committee meetings, if their expertise is required for specific discussions.
• Each recipient must plan regular meetings (no less frequently than monthly) to discuss the progress and direction of its activities and to ensure that the necessary interactions are taking place. Recipients will be expected to participate in STRONG RLI program-wide meetings. These meetings may be in the form of phone teleconferencing, videoconferencing, and/or web conferencing, as well as face-to-face meetings. Unwillingness or a consistent inability of a PD/PI to attend may be the basis for administrative action including termination of the award.

The SESC will:

• Serve as the primary steering and oversight board for the awards funded under this NOFO.
• Decide on the schedule of regular and annual meetings. The Executive Steering Committee may also call meetings to address urgent needs and will participate in network meetings and teleconferences as needed.
• Contribute to the development of a cohesive and sustainable program.
• Provide advice on key issues such as needs assessment administration, approaches, and tools for research capacity, and opportunities for growth.
• Ensure that the implementation of the Institutional Needs Assessments and Development of Sustainable Action Plan is occurring on schedule and continues to align with the applicant institution's strategic vision for biomedical research and/or research training.
• Alert NIH to emerging needs and impediments.
• Prepare concise (1-2 page) summaries of the Executive Steering Committee recommendations, which will be delivered to the PDs/PIs and members of the group within 30 days after each meeting.

Dispute Resolution:

Any disagreements that may arise in scientific or programmatic matters (within the scope of the award) between award recipients and the NIH may be brought to dispute resolution. A Dispute Resolution Panel composed of three members will be convened. The three members will be a designee of the STRONG Executive Steering Committee chosen without NIH staff voting, one NIH designee, and a third designee with expertise in the relevant area who is chosen by the other two. In the case of individual disagreement, the first member may be chosen by the individual recipient. This special dispute resolution procedure does not alter the recipient's right to appeal an adverse action that is otherwise appealable in accordance with PHS regulation 42 CFR Part 50, Subpart D and DHHS regulation 45 CFR Part 16.

The NIH reserves the right to withhold funding or curtail the program (of an individual award) in accordance with NIH policy.

3. Data Management and Sharing

Note: The NIH Policy for Data Management and Sharing is effective for due dates on or after January 25, 2023.

Consistent with the NIH Policy for Data Management and Sharing, when data management and sharing is applicable to the award, recipients will be required to adhere to the Data Management and Sharing requirements as outlined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement . Upon the approval of a Data Management and Sharing Plan, it is required for recipients to implement the plan as described.

4. Reporting

When multiple years are involved, recipients will be required to submit the Research Performance Progress Report (RPPR) annually and financial statements as required in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.

A final RPPR, invention statement, and the expenditure data portion of the Federal Financial Report are required for closeout of an award, as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement . NIH NOFOs outline intended research goals and objectives. Post award, NIH will review and measure performance based on the details and outcomes that are shared within the RPPR, as described at 45 CFR Part 75.301 and 2 CFR Part 200.301.

The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Transparency Act), includes a requirement for recipients of Federal grants to report information about first-tier subawards and executive compensation under Federal assistance awards issued in FY2011 or later. All recipients of applicable NIH grants and cooperative agreements are required to report to the Federal Subaward Reporting System (FSRS) available at www.fsrs.gov on all subawards over the threshold. See the NIH Grants Policy Statement for additional information on this reporting requirement.

In accordance with the regulatory requirements provided at 45 CFR 75.113 and 2 CFR Part 200.113 and Appendix XII to 45 CFR Part 75 and 2 CFR Part 200, recipients that have currently active Federal grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from all Federal awarding agencies with a cumulative total value greater than $10,000,000 for any period of time during the period of performance of a Federal award, must report and maintain the currency of information reported in the System for Award Management (SAM) about civil, criminal, and administrative proceedings in connection with the award or performance of a Federal award that reached final disposition within the most recent five-year period. The recipient must also make semiannual disclosures regarding such proceedings. Proceedings information will be made publicly available in the designated integrity and performance system (currently FAPIIS). This is a statutory requirement under section 872 of Public Law 110-417, as amended (41 U.S.C. 2313). As required by section 3010 of Public Law 111-212, all information posted in the designated integrity and performance system on or after April 15, 2011, except past performance reviews required for Federal procurement contracts, will be publicly available. Full reporting requirements and procedures are found in Appendix XII to 45 CFR Part 75 and 2 CFR Part 200 Award Term and Condition for Recipient Integrity and Performance Matters.

Section VII. Agency Contacts

We encourage inquiries concerning this funding opportunity and welcome the opportunity to answer questions from potential applicants.

eRA Service Desk (Questions regarding ASSIST, eRA Commons, application errors and warnings, documenting system problems that threaten submission by the due date, and post-submission issues)

Finding Help Online: https://www.era.nih.gov/need-help (preferred method of contact) Telephone: 301-402-7469 or 866-504-9552 (Toll Free)

General Grants Information (Questions regarding application instructions, application processes, and NIH grant resources) Email: [email protected] (preferred method of contact) Telephone: 301-480-7075

Grants.gov Customer Support (Questions regarding Grants.gov registration and Workspace) Contact Center Telephone: 800-518-4726 Email: [email protected]

Brett Miller, PhD Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Telephone: 301-496-9849 Email: [email protected]

Rina Das, PhD. National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD) Telephone: 301-496-3996 Email: [email protected]

Behrous Davani, PhD. National Cancer Institute (NCI) Telephone: 240-276-6170 Email: [email protected]

Olga Kovbasnjuk, Ph.D. National Institutes of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) E-mail: [email protected]

Kristopher Bough, PhD National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR) Telephone: 301-337-1372 Email: [email protected]

Anissa F Brown, PhD NIDCR - NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DENTAL & CRANIOFACIAL RESEARCH Phone: 301-594-5006 E-mail: [email protected]

Melissa C. Green Parker, Ph.D. Office of Disease Prevention (ODP) Phone: 301-480-1161 E-mail: [email protected]

Erica K Rosemond NCATS - NATIONAL CENTER FOR ADVANCING TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCES Phone: (301) 594-8927 E-mail: [email protected]

Kristy M. Nicks, PhD National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Tel: 301-594-5055 Email: [email protected]

Carol Shreffler, PhD National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) Phone: 984-287-3322 E-mail: s [email protected]

Aria Crump NIDA - NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE Phone: 301-443-6504 E-mail: [email protected]

Diane Adger-Johnson, MPH Office of Research Training and Special Programs (ORTSP) National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Telephone: 301-594-5945 Email: [email protected]

Damiya Eve Whitaker, PsyD, MA ORWH - Office of Research on Women's Health Phone: 301-451-8206 E-mail: [email protected]

Damali Martin, Ph.D., MPH NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON AGING (NIA) Division of Neuroscience (DN) Phone: 301-402-8310 E-mail: [email protected]

Judith Cooper NIDCD - NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DEAFNESS AND OTHER COMMUNICATION DISORDERS Phone: (301) 496-5061 E-mail: [email protected]

Xinzhi Zhang, M.D. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Phone: 301-435-6865 Email: [email protected]

Brittany Haynes, Ph.D. National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Telephone: 301-496-2767 Email: [email protected]

Beda Jean-Francois, Ph.D. National Center for Complementary & Integrative Health (NCCIH) Phone: 202-313-2144 Email: [email protected]

Elizabeth Powell, PhD National Institute on Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse ( NIAAA ) Telephone: 301-443-0786 Email: [email protected]

Margaret Young Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Telephone: 301-642-4552 Email: [email protected]

Priscilla Grant, JD National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD) Telephone: 301-594-8412 Email: [email protected]

Alania Foster NIGMS - NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES E-mail: [email protected]

Randi Freundlich National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR) Telephone: 301-594-5974 Email: [email protected]

Gabriel Hidalgo, MBA NIDCR - NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DENTAL & CRANIOFACIAL RESEARCH Phone: 301-827-4630 E-mail: [email protected]

Leslie Le NCATS - NATIONAL CENTER FOR ADVANCING TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCES Phone: (301) 435-0856 E-mail: [email protected]

Jenny L Greer NIEHS - NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES Phone: 984.287.3332 E-mail: [email protected]

Pamela G Fleming NIDA - NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE Phone: 301-480-1159 E-mail: [email protected]

Samuel Ashe National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases ( NIAID ) Telephone: 301-435-4799 Email: [email protected]

Jeni Smits NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON AGING (NIA) E-mail: [email protected]

Anthony Agresti NHLBI - NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE Phone: 301-827-8014 E-mail: [email protected]

Tamara Kees National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Telephone: 301-443-8811 Email: [email protected]

Debbie Chen, Ph.D. National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) Telephone: 301-594-3788 Email: [email protected]

Judy Fox National Institute on Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse (NIAAA) Telephone: 301-443-4704 Email: [email protected]

Section VIII. Other Information

Recently issued trans-NIH policy notices may affect your application submission. A full list of policy notices published by NIH is provided in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts . All awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement .

Awards are made under the authorization of Sections 301 and 405 of the Public Health Service Act as amended (42 USC 241 and 284) and under Federal Regulations 42 CFR Part 52 and 45 CFR Part 75 and 2 CFR Part 200.

Note: For help accessing PDF, RTF, MS Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Audio or Video files, see Help Downloading Files .

Department of Economics

Aeasp 2024 scholar james sieja.

A third-year student at Mississippi State University studying business economics with a minor in data science. I've always been fascinated by all things economics and plan to pursue a graduate degree in the future. It seems as if every field within economics interests me to some extent, but the fields that fascinate me the most are econometrics and behavioral economics. I'm beyond grateful for this opportunity and am excited to develop my academic and research skills even further!

Underground carbon storage top of mind for student team

• Travis Williams

22 Apr 2024

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Copy address link to clipboard

Researching how to successfully store carbon underground is helping a group of Virginia Tech students reach new heights.

“Carbon sequestration is really kind of an elegant solution for global warming,” said Lars Koehn, a third-year Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Geosciences. “Normally, we pull carbon out of the ground in the form of fossil fuels, use it for energy, and then put it into the air. But with carbon sequestration, we’re going to put it straight back into the ground into the same types of rocks we pulled it from. So it’s kind of like a circular economy for carbon.”

Koehn is one of eight Virginia Tech graduate students who recently teamed up to research and create a plan for a carbon sequestration project off the coast of Louisiana as a part of the Society of Exploration Geophysicists’ (SEG) EVOLVE Carbon Solutions Professional Program . After students presented their work at the Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage Conference in March, the global not-for-profit organization selected Virginia Tech as the host of the first virtual version of its U.S. regional geoscience trivia contests, officially titled “Challenge Bowl.”  

“Some of the SEG EVOLVE teams really require a mentor to provide detailed guidance through the project, but this team has been extremely self-driven,” said Annabella Betancourt, managing director of programs for the society. “They were so diligent and responsible. If they could energize every team with the same spirit and enthusiasm, it would show others how to find the most success within this program.”

The Virginia Tech chapter of the Society of Exploration Geophysicists’ will host the bowl on April 29. The event will feature two-person teams from universities and colleges spanning the country competing for the opportunity to advance to the International Challenge Bowl Finals at IMAGE, the International Meeting for Applied Geoscience and Energy , in Houston this August. Participation in the event is free for qualifying students with the top three teams earning cash prizes.

Hosting the virtual competition marks a milestone for the Virginia Tech SEG EVOLVE team, which consists of four students from the Department of Geosciences and four from the Department of Mining and Minerals Engineering . Armed with seismic and oil drilling data donated by industry partner Fairfield Geotechnologies, the team was tasked with developing a full plan for the implementation of a carbon sequestration site, including the transportation of the carbon, adherence to government regulations, and projections of economic impacts.

“They did a full-blown feasibility study for carbon storage along the Gulf of Mexico, and it was peer-reviewed by their industry mentors,” said Ryan Pollyea, associate professor in the Department of Geosciences and the team’s faculty advisor. “It speaks volumes that this group did such a good job, that SEG is seeking deeper engagement with Virginia Tech.”

Jessica Dostal, a student and early career advisor with the society, said connecting SEG EVOLVE teams with mentors from industry was a critical part of the program’s goal of providing the type of real-life experience that empowers students to “hit the ground running” once they graduate.

“The whole point of the program is to develop those professional practices that help bridge the gap between what you learn in school and industry, and really learn to apply what you’ve learned,” Dostal said.

Providing students with real-world learning opportunities is also in line with the mission of Virginia Tech Advantage.

Koehn said the project did help bridge that classroom-to-workplace gap by posing the team with questions and concerns outside the scope of the traditional classroom or textbook.

“We were addressing things we don’t normally address as students,” he said. “Stuff like, how could this project make money, what are the costs of the project, and how would you get this project approved by the state.”

Along with the opportunities for individual growth, the students said they also see a collective opportunity for the university in this field of research and the SEG U.S. Regional Challenge Bowl is just the tip of the iceberg.

“Virginia Tech can be a major player in carbon sequestration, if we play our cards right,” said Matt Tascione, a Ph.D. student studying geophysics, team member, and president of the Virginia Tech student chapter of the society. “The opportunities are here for us to really latch on to it, we just have to make the most of that. And I think this is a really great way to start doing that.”

540-231-6468

• Climate Action
• College of Engineering
• College of Science
• Geosciences
• Graduate Education
• Graduate Research
• Mining and Minerals Engineering
• Responsible Consumption and Production

Related Content

New Research in Psychological Science

• Political Psychology
• Psychological Science
• Visual Attention

Compassion Fatigue as a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy: Believing Compassion Is Limited Increases Fatigue and Decreases Compassion Izzy Gainsburg and Julia Lee Cunningham  

Compassion has health and well-being benefits for the self and others. Unfortunately, people sometimes experience compassion fatigue—a decreased ability to feel compassion—when they are repeatedly exposed to people suffering. Thus, the present research explores a factor that can mitigate compassion fatigue: changing people’s compassion mindsets. Our research suggests that when people believe compassion is fatiguing and a limited resource, they experience more compassion fatigue and provide lower-quality social support; however, when people believe compassion is energizing and not limited, they feel less compassion fatigue and provide higher-quality social support. We also show that people can change their limited-compassion mindsets and become less susceptible to compassion fatigue. Altogether, this research cautions people against assuming they will experience compassion fatigue and to allow for the possibility that compassion for someone in need can be an energizing experience that motivates people to care about others in need, too. 

Different Representational Mechanisms for Imagery and Perception: Modulation Versus Excitation Thomas Pace, Roger Koenig-Robert, and Joel Pearson  

Imagine trying to describe a favorite memory to a friend. The mental image is not as defined or strong as the original experience, right? Our research delved into this phenomenon, showing that the process of mental imagery and visual perception are quite different. When we imagine something, we create a sort of picture in our mind, but without the sensory input that comes from the eyes. To help create this mental picture, our brain employs a clever strategy: It dims the activity related to elements we do not imagine, rather like turning down the background noise to focus on a conversation. This paradigm shift in our understanding might explain why mental imagery is seldom experienced as richly as perception and may put an upper limit to its strength. 

Gaze-Triggered Communicative Intention Compresses Perceived Temporal Duration Yiwen Yu, Li Wang, and Yi Jiang 

Our experience of time is not the authentic representation of physical time and can be distorted by the properties of the stimuli. In this research, we report a novel temporal illusion: that eye gaze, being a crucial social cue, can distort subjective time perception of unchanged objects. Specifically, adult participants compared the duration of two objects before and after they had implicitly seen that one object was consistently under gaze whereas the other object was never under gaze. We found that gaze-associated objects were perceived as having a shorter duration than nonassociated ones. This effect was driven by intention processing elicited by social cues, as nonsocial cues (i.e., arrows) and blocked gaze failed to induce such time distortions. Notably, individuals lower in autistic traits showed greater susceptibility to gaze-induced time distortions. This research highlights the role of high-level social function in time perception. Time flies faster when observers are confronted with objects that fell under others’ gaze. 

The Role of Humor Production and Perception in the Daily Life of Couples: An Interest-Indicator Perspective Kenneth Tan, Bryan Choy, and Norman Li  

Humor has typically been shown to promote attraction and is highly desired by potential mates, but the day-to-day unfolding of how humor affects relationship maintenance has rarely been examined. In this research, we tested whether relationship quality on a daily basis precedes humor or the other way around, using a sample of college students in Singapore. We found consistent evidence that individuals engaged in humorous interactions to the extent that they reported greater relationship quality on the previous day, but not the other way around. These findings enhance our understanding of the role of humor in relationship maintenance and highlight the importance of examining bidirectional processes between relationship quality and humor in interpersonal interactions.  

Listen to related Under the Cortex episode .

Numerical Representation for Action in Crows Obeys the Weber-Fechner Law Maximilian Kirschhock and Andreas Nieder  

Whereas the laws governing the judgment of perceived numbers of objects by the “number sense” have been studied in detail, the behavioral principles of equally important number representations for action are largely unexplored. We trained crows to judge numerical values of instruction stimuli from one to five and to flexibly perform a matching number of pecks. Our quantitative behavioral data show an impressive correspondence of number representations found in the motor domain with those described earlier in the sensory system. We report that nonsymbolic number production obeys the psychophysical Weber-Fechner law. Our report helps to resolve a classical debate in psychophysics. It suggests that this way of coding numerical information is not constrained to sensory or memory processes but constitutes a general principle of nonsymbolic number representations. Thus, logarithmic relationships between objective number and subjective numerical representations pervade not only sensation but also motor production.  

Feedback on this article? Email  [email protected]  or login to comment.

APS regularly opens certain online articles for discussion on our website. Effective February 2021, you must be a logged-in APS member to post comments. By posting a comment, you agree to our Community Guidelines and the display of your profile information, including your name and affiliation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations present in article comments are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect the views of APS or the article’s author. For more information, please see our Community Guidelines .

Please login with your APS account to comment.

Latin American Psychological Science: Will the Global North Make Room?

Seven authors outline factors that influence scientific advancements in Latin America and identify potential avenues for reframing research conducted in the region, especially by Latin American researchers, in the global scientific landscape.

New APS Board Members Look to Strategic Plan, Emerging Researchers to Advance the Science

Three influential psychological scientists known for their work involving behavior change, intergroup relations, and memory have joined the APS Board of Directors for 2022–2023.

The Burden of the COVID-19 Pandemic May Motivate Outbreaks of Violent Protest and Antigovernment Sentiment

Civil unrest and political violence may be related to the psychological burden of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Privacy Overview

Facility for Rare Isotope Beams

At michigan state university, frib researchers lead team to merge nuclear physics experiments and astronomical observations to advance equation-of-state research, world-class particle-accelerator facilities and recent advances in neutron-star observation give physicists a new toolkit for describing nuclear interactions at a wide range of densities..

For most stars, neutron stars and black holes are their final resting places. When a supergiant star runs out of fuel, it expands and then rapidly collapses on itself. This act creates a neutron star—an object denser than our sun crammed into a space 13 to  18 miles wide. In such a heavily condensed stellar environment, most electrons combine with protons to make neutrons, resulting in a dense ball of matter consisting mainly of neutrons. Researchers try to understand the forces that control this process by creating dense matter in the laboratory through colliding neutron-rich nuclei and taking detailed measurements.

A research team—led by William Lynch and Betty Tsang at FRIB—is focused on learning about neutrons in dense environments. Lynch, Tsang, and their collaborators used 20 years of experimental data from accelerator facilities and neutron-star observations to understand how particles interact in nuclear matter under a wide range of densities and pressures. The team wanted to determine how the ratio of neutrons to protons influences nuclear forces in a system. The team recently published its findings in Nature Astronomy .

“In nuclear physics, we are often confined to studying small systems, but we know exactly what particles are in our nuclear systems. Stars provide us an unbelievable opportunity, because they are large systems where nuclear physics plays a vital role, but we do not know for sure what particles are in their interiors,” said Lynch, professor of nuclear physics at FRIB and in the Michigan State University (MSU) Department of Physics and Astronomy. “They are interesting because the density varies greatly within such large systems.  Nuclear forces play a dominant role within them, yet we know comparatively little about that role.” 

When a star with a mass that is 20-30 times that of the sun exhausts its fuel, it cools, collapses, and explodes in a supernova. After this explosion, only the matter in the deepest part of the star’s interior coalesces to form a neutron star. This neutron star has no fuel to burn and over time, it radiates its remaining heat into the surrounding space. Scientists expect that matter in the outer core of a cold neutron star is roughly similar to the matter in atomic nuclei but with three differences: neutron stars are much larger, they are denser in their interiors, and a larger fraction of their nucleons are neutrons. Deep within the inner core of a neutron star, the composition of neutron star matter remains a mystery. 

  “If experiments could provide more guidance about the forces that act in their interiors, we could make better predictions of their interior composition and of phase transitions within them. Neutron stars present a great research opportunity to combine these disciplines,” said Lynch.

Accelerator facilities like FRIB help physicists study how subatomic particles interact under exotic conditions that are more common in neutron stars. When researchers compare these experiments to neutron-star observations, they can calculate the equation of state (EOS) of particles interacting in low-temperature, dense environments. The EOS describes matter in specific conditions, and how its properties change with density. Solving EOS for a wide range of settings helps researchers understand the strong nuclear force’s effects within dense objects, like neutron stars, in the cosmos. It also helps us learn more about neutron stars as they cool.

“This is the first time that we pulled together such a wealth of experimental data to explain the equation of state under these conditions, and this is important,” said Tsang, professor of nuclear science at FRIB. “Previous efforts have used theory to explain the low-density and low-energy end of nuclear matter. We wanted to use all the data we had available to us from our previous experiences with accelerators to obtain a comprehensive equation of state.”   

Researchers seeking the EOS often calculate it at higher temperatures or lower densities. They then draw conclusions for the system across a wider range of conditions. However, physicists have come to understand in recent years that an EOS obtained from an experiment is only relevant for a specific range of densities. As a result, the team needed to pull together data from a variety of accelerator experiments that used different measurements of colliding nuclei to replace those assumptions with data. “In this work, we asked two questions,” said Lynch. “For a given measurement, what density does that measurement probe? After that, we asked what that measurement tells us about the equation of state at that density.”   

In its recent paper, the team combined its own experiments from accelerator facilities in the United States and Japan. It pulled together data from 12 different experimental constraints and three neutron-star observations. The researchers focused on determining the EOS for nuclear matter ranging from half to three times a nuclei’s saturation density—the density found at the core of all stable nuclei. By producing this comprehensive EOS, the team provided new benchmarks for the larger nuclear physics and astrophysics communities to more accurately model interactions of nuclear matter.

The team improved its measurements at intermediate densities that neutron star observations do not provide through experiments at the GSI Helmholtz Centre for Heavy Ion Research in Germany, the RIKEN Nishina Center for Accelerator-Based Science in Japan, and the National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory (FRIB’s predecessor). To enable key measurements discussed in this article, their experiments helped fund technical advances in data acquisition for active targets and time projection chambers that are being employed in many other experiments world-wide.   

In running these experiments at FRIB, Tsang and Lynch can continue to interact with MSU students who help advance the research with their own input and innovation. MSU operates FRIB as a scientific user facility for the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science (DOE-SC), supporting the mission of the DOE-SC Office of Nuclear Physics. FRIB is the only accelerator-based user facility on a university campus as one of 28 DOE-SC user facilities .  Chun Yen Tsang, the first author on the Nature Astronomy  paper, was a graduate student under Betty Tsang during this research and is now a researcher working jointly at Brookhaven National Laboratory and Kent State University. 

“Projects like this one are essential for attracting the brightest students, which ultimately makes these discoveries possible, and provides a steady pipeline to the U.S. workforce in nuclear science,” Tsang said.

The proposed FRIB energy upgrade ( FRIB400 ), supported by the scientific user community in the 2023 Nuclear Science Advisory Committee Long Range Plan , will allow the team to probe at even higher densities in the years to come. FRIB400 will double the reach of FRIB along the neutron dripline into a region relevant for neutron-star crusts and to allow study of extreme, neutron-rich nuclei such as calcium-68. 

Eric Gedenk is a freelance science writer.

Michigan State University operates the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams (FRIB) as a user facility for the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science (DOE-SC), supporting the mission of the DOE-SC Office of Nuclear Physics. Hosting what is designed to be the most powerful heavy-ion accelerator, FRIB enables scientists to make discoveries about the properties of rare isotopes in order to better understand the physics of nuclei, nuclear astrophysics, fundamental interactions, and applications for society, including in medicine, homeland security, and industry.

The U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science is the single largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the United States and is working to address some of today’s most pressing challenges. For more information, visit energy.gov/science.