how to critically evaluate a research proposal

Writing Your Research Proposal

5 Essentials You Need To Keep In Mind

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Reviewer: Eunice Rautenbach (DTech) | June 2023

Writing a high-quality research proposal that “sells” your study and wins the favour (and approval) of your university is no small task. In this post, we’ll share five critical dos and don’ts to help you navigate the proposal writing process.

This post is based on an extract from our online course , Research Proposal Bootcamp . In the course, we walk you through the process of developing an A-grade proposal, step by step, with plain-language explanations and loads of examples. If it’s your first time writing a research proposal, you definitely want to check that out. 

Overview: 5 Proposal Writing Essentials

• Understand your university’s requirements and restrictions
• Have a clearly articulated research problem
• Clearly communicate the feasibility of your research
• Pay very close attention to ethics policies
• Focus on writing critically and concisely

1. Understand the rules of the game

All too often, we see students going through all the effort of finding a unique and valuable topic and drafting a meaty proposal, only to realise that they’ve missed some critical information regarding their university’s requirements. 

Every university is different, but they all have some sort of requirements or expectations regarding what students can and can’t research. For example:

• Restrictions regarding the topic area that can be research
• Restrictions regarding data sources – for example, primary or secondary
• Requirements regarding methodology – for example, qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods-based research
• And most notably, there can be varying expectations regarding topic originality – does your topic need to be super original or not?

The key takeaway here is that you need to thoroughly read through any briefing documents provided by your university. Also, take a look at past dissertations or theses from your program to get a feel for what the norms are . Long story short, make sure you understand the rules of the game before you start playing.

2. Have a clearly articulated research problem

As we’ve explained many times on this blog, all good research starts with a strong research problem – without a problem, you don’t have a clear justification for your research. Therefore, it’s essential that you have clarity regarding the research problem you’re going to address before you start drafting your proposal. From the research problem , the research gap emerges and from the research gap, your research aims , objectives and research questions emerge. These then guide your entire dissertation from start to end. 

Needless to say, all of this starts with the literature – in other words, you have to spend time reading the existing literature to understand the current state of knowledge. You can’t skip this all-important step. All too often, we see students make the mistake of trying to write up a proposal without having a clear understanding of the current state of the literature, which is just a recipe for disaster. You’ve got to take the time to understand what’s already been done before you can propose doing something new.

3. Demonstrate the feasibility of your research

One of the key concerns that reviewers or assessors have when deciding to approve or reject a research proposal is the practicality/feasibility of the proposed research , given the student’s resources (which are usually pretty limited). You can have a brilliant research topic that’s super original and valuable, but if there is any question about whether the project is something that you can realistically pull off, you’re going to run into issues when it comes to getting your proposal accepted.

So, what does this mean for you?

First, you need to make sure that the research topic you’ve chosen and the methodology you’re planning to use is 100% safe in terms of feasibility . In other words, you need to be super certain that you can actually pull off this study. Of greatest importance here is the data collection and analysis aspect – in other words, will you be able to get access to the data you need, and will you be able to analyse it?

Second, assuming you’re 100% confident that you can pull the research off, you need to clearly communicate that in your research proposal. To do this, you need to proactively think about all the concerns the reviewer or supervisor might have and ensure that you clearly address these in your proposal. Remember, the proposal is a one-way communication – you get one shot (per submission) to make your case, and there’s generally no Q&A opportunity . So, make it clear what you’ll be doing, what the potential risks are and how you’ll manage those risks to ensure that your study goes according to plan.

If you have the word count available, it’s a good idea to present a project plan , ideally using something like a Gantt chart. You can also consider presenting a risk register , where you detail the potential risks, their likelihood and impact, and your mitigation and response actions – this will show the assessor that you’ve really thought through the practicalities of your proposed project. If you want to learn more about project plans and risk registers, we cover these in detail in our proposal writing course, Research Proposal Bootcamp , and we also provide templates that you can use. 

Need a helping hand?

4. Pay close attention to ethics policies

This one’s a biggy – and it can often be a dream crusher for students with lofty research ideas. If there’s one thing that will sink your research proposal faster than anything else, it’s non-compliance with your university’s research ethics policy . This is simply a non-negotiable, so don’t waste your time thinking you can convince your institution otherwise. If your proposed research runs against any aspect of your institution’s ethics policies, it’s a no-go.

The ethics requirements for dissertations can vary depending on the field of study, institution, and country, so we can’t give you a list of things you need to do, but some common requirements that you should be aware of include things like:

• Informed consent – in other words, getting permission/consent from your study’s participants and allowing them to opt out at any point
• Privacy and confidentiality – in other words, ensuring that you manage the data securely and respect people’s privacy
• If your research involves animals (as opposed to people), you’ll need to explain how you’ll ensure ethical treatment, how you’ll reduce harm or distress, etc.

One more thing to keep in mind is that certain types of research may be acceptable from an ethics perspective, but will require additional levels of approval . For example, if you’re planning to study any sort of vulnerable population (e.g., children, the elderly, people with mental health conditions, etc.), this may be allowed in principle but requires additional ethical scrutiny. This often involves some sort of review board or committee, which slows things down quite a bit. Situations like this aren’t proposal killers, but they can create a much more rigid environment , so you need to consider whether that works for you, given your timeline.

5. Write critically and concisely

The final item on the list is more generic but just as important to the success of your research proposal – that is, writing critically and concisely . 

All too often, students fall short in terms of critical writing and end up writing in a very descriptive manner instead. We’ve got a detailed blog post and video explaining the difference between these two types of writing, so we won’t go into detail here. However, the simplest way to distinguish between the two types of writing is that descriptive writing focuses on the what , while analytical writing draws out the “so what” – in other words, what’s the impact and relevance of each point that you’re making to the bigger issue at hand.

In the case of a research proposal, the core task at hand is to convince the reader that your planned research deserves a chance . To do this, you need to show the reviewer that your research will (amongst other things) be original , valuable and practical . So, when you’re writing, you need to keep this core objective front of mind and write with purpose, taking every opportunity to link what you’re writing about to that core purpose of the proposal.

The second aspect in relation to writing is to write concisely . All too often, students ramble on and use far more word count than is necessary. Part of the problem here is that their writing is just too descriptive (the previous point) and part of the issue is just a lack of editing .

The keyword here is editing – in other words, you don’t need to write the most concise version possible on your first try – if anything, we encourage you to just thought vomit as much as you can in the initial stages of writing. Once you’ve got everything down on paper, then you can get down to editing and trimming down your writing . You need to get comfortable with this process of iteration and revision with everything you write – don’t try to write the perfect first draft. First, get the thoughts out of your head and onto the paper , then edit. This is a habit that will serve you well beyond your proposal, into your actual dissertation or thesis.

Wrapping Up

To recap, the five essentials to keep in mind when writing up your research proposal include:

If you want to learn more about how to craft a top-notch research proposal, be sure to check out our online course for a comprehensive, step-by-step guide. Alternatively, if you’d like to get hands-on help developing your proposal, be sure to check out our private coaching service , where we hold your hand through the research journey, step by step. 

Psst… there’s more!

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

You Might Also Like:

Thanks alot, I am really getting you right with focus on how to approach my research work soon, Insha Allah, God blessed you.

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

Critical Analysis and Evaluation

Many assignments ask you to   critique   and   evaluate   a source. Sources might include journal articles, books, websites, government documents, portfolios, podcasts, or presentations.

When you   critique,   you offer both negative and positive analysis of the content, writing, and structure of a source.

When   you   evaluate , you assess how successful a source is at presenting information, measured against a standard or certain criteria.

Elements of a critical analysis:

opinion + evidence from the article + justification

Your   opinion   is your thoughtful reaction to the piece.

Evidence from the article  offers some proof to back up your opinion.

The   justification   is an explanation of how you arrived at your opinion or why you think it’s true.

How do you critique and evaluate?

When critiquing and evaluating someone else’s writing/research, your purpose is to reach an   informed opinion   about a source. In order to do that, try these three steps:

• How do you feel?
• What surprised you?
• What left you confused?
• What pleased or annoyed you?
• What was interesting?
• What is the purpose of this text?
• Who is the intended audience?
• What kind of bias is there?
• What was missing?
• See our resource on analysis and synthesis ( Move From Research to Writing: How to Think ) for other examples of questions to ask.
• sophisticated
• interesting
• undocumented
• disorganized
• superficial
• unconventional
• inappropriate interpretation of evidence
• unsound or discredited methodology
• traditional
• unsubstantiated
• unsupported
• well-researched
• easy to understand
• Opinion : This article’s assessment of the power balance in cities is   confusing.
• Evidence:   It first says that the power to shape policy is evenly distributed among citizens, local government, and business (Rajal, 232).
• Justification :  but then it goes on to focus almost exclusively on business. Next, in a much shorter section, it combines the idea of citizens and local government into a single point of evidence. This leaves the reader with the impression that the citizens have no voice at all. It is   not helpful   in trying to determine the role of the common voter in shaping public policy.  

Sample criteria for critical analysis

Sometimes the assignment will specify what criteria to use when critiquing and evaluating a source. If not, consider the following prompts to approach your analysis. Choose the questions that are most suitable for your source.

• What do you think about the quality of the research? Is it significant?
• Did the author answer the question they set out to? Did the author prove their thesis?
• Did you find contradictions to other things you know?
• What new insight or connections did the author make?
• How does this piece fit within the context of your course, or the larger body of research in the field?
• The structure of an article or book is often dictated by standards of the discipline or a theoretical model. Did the piece meet those standards?
• Did the piece meet the needs of the intended audience?
• Was the material presented in an organized and logical fashion?
• Is the argument cohesive and convincing? Is the reasoning sound? Is there enough evidence?
• Is it easy to read? Is it clear and easy to understand, even if the concepts are sophisticated?

• Writing Rules
• Running Head & Page numbers
• Using Quotations
• Citing Sources
• Reference List
• General Reference List Principles
• Structure of the Report

Introduction

• References & Appendices
• Unpacking the Assignment Topic
• Planning and Structuring the Assignment
• Writing the Assignment
• Writing Concisely
• Developing Arguments

Critically Evaluating Research

• Editing the Assignment
• Writing in the Third Person
• Directive Words
• Before You Submit
• Cover Sheet & Title Page
• Academic Integrity
• Marking Criteria
• Word Limit Rules
• Submitting Your Work
• Writing Effective E-mails
• Writing Concisely Exercise
• About Redbook

Some research reports or assessments will require you critically evaluate a journal article or piece of research. Below is a guide with examples of how to critically evaluate research and how to communicate your ideas in writing.

To develop the skill of being able to critically evaluate, when reading research articles in psychology read with an open mind and be active when reading. Ask questions as you go and see if the answers are provided. Initially skim through the article to gain an overview of the problem, the design, methods, and conclusions. Then read for details and consider the questions provided below for each section of a journal article.

• Did the title describe the study?
• Did the key words of the title serve as key elements of the article?
• Was the title concise, i.e., free of distracting or extraneous phrases?
• Was the abstract concise and to the point?
• Did the abstract summarise the study’s purpose/research problem, the independent and dependent variables under study, methods, main findings, and conclusions?
• Did the abstract provide you with sufficient information to determine what the study is about and whether you would be interested in reading the entire article?
• Was the research problem clearly identified?
• Is the problem significant enough to warrant the study that was conducted?
• Did the authors present an appropriate theoretical rationale for the study?
• Is the literature review informative and comprehensive or are there gaps?
• Are the variables adequately explained and operationalised?
• Are hypotheses and research questions clearly stated? Are they directional? Do the author’s hypotheses and/or research questions seem logical in light of the conceptual framework and research problem?
• Overall, does the literature review lead logically into the Method section?
• Is the sample clearly described, in terms of size, relevant characteristics (gender, age, SES, etc), selection and assignment procedures, and whether any inducements were used to solicit subjects (payment, subject credit, free therapy, etc)?
• What population do the subjects represent (external validity)?
• Are there sufficient subjects to produce adequate power (statistical validity)?
• Have the variables and measurement techniques been clearly operationalised?
• Do the measures/instruments seem appropriate as measures of the variables under study (construct validity)?
• Have the authors included sufficient information about the psychometric properties (eg. reliability and validity) of the instruments?
• Are the materials used in conducting the study or in collecting data clearly described?
• Are the study’s scientific procedures thoroughly described in chronological order?
• Is the design of the study identified (or made evident)?
• Do the design and procedures seem appropriate in light of the research problem, conceptual framework, and research questions/hypotheses?
• Are there other factors that might explain the differences between groups (internal validity)?
• Were subjects randomly assigned to groups so there was no systematic bias in favour of one group? Was there a differential drop-out rate from groups so that bias was introduced (internal validity and attrition)?
• Were all the necessary control groups used? Were participants in each group treated identically except for the administration of the independent variable?
• Were steps taken to prevent subject bias and/or experimenter bias, eg, blind or double blind procedures?
• Were steps taken to control for other possible confounds such as regression to the mean, history effects, order effects, etc (internal validity)?
• Were ethical considerations adhered to, eg, debriefing, anonymity, informed consent, voluntary participation?
• Overall, does the method section provide sufficient information to replicate the study?
• Are the findings complete, clearly presented, comprehensible, and well organised?
• Are data coding and analysis appropriate in light of the study’s design and hypotheses? Are the statistics reported correctly and fully, eg. are degrees of freedom and p values given?
• Have the assumptions of the statistical analyses been met, eg. does one group have very different variance to the others?
• Are salient results connected directly to hypotheses? Are there superfluous results presented that are not relevant to the hypotheses or research question?
• Are tables and figures clearly labelled? Well-organised? Necessary (non-duplicative of text)?
• If a significant result is obtained, consider effect size. Is the finding meaningful? If a non-significant result is found, could low power be an issue? Were there sufficient levels of the IV?
• If necessary have appropriate post-hoc analyses been performed? Were any transformations performed; if so, were there valid reasons? Were data collapsed over any IVs; if so, were there valid reasons? If any data was eliminated, were valid reasons given?

Discussion and Conclusion

• Are findings adequately interpreted and discussed in terms of the stated research problem, conceptual framework, and hypotheses?
• Is the interpretation adequate? i.e., does it go too far given what was actually done or not far enough? Are non-significant findings interpreted inappropriately?
• Is the discussion biased? Are the limitations of the study delineated?
• Are implications for future research and/or practical application identified?
• Are the overall conclusions warranted by the data and any limitations in the study? Are the conclusions restricted to the population under study or are they generalised too widely?
• Is the reference list sufficiently specific to the topic under investigation and current?
• Are citations used appropriately in the text?

General Evaluation

• Is the article objective, well written and organised?
• Does the information provided allow you to replicate the study in all its details?
• Was the study worth doing? Does the study provide an answer to a practical or important problem? Does it have theoretical importance? Does it represent a methodological or technical advance? Does it demonstrate a previously undocumented phenomenon? Does it explore the conditions under which a phenomenon occurs?

How to turn your critical evaluation into writing

Example from a journal article.

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

7.3 Critically Appraising the Literature

Now that you know the parts of a paper, we will discuss how to critically appraise a paper. Critical appraisal refers to the process of carefully and methodically reviewing research to determine its credibility, usefulness, and applicability in a certain context. 6 It is an essential element of evidence-based practice. As stated earlier, you want to ensure that what you read in the literature is trustworthy before considering applying the findings in practice. The key things to consider include the study’s results, if the results match the conclusion (validity) and if the findings will help you in practice (applicability). A stepwise approach to reading and analysing the paper is a good way to highlight important points in the paper. While there are numerous checklists for critical appraisal, we have provided a simple guide for critical appraisal of quantitative and qualitative studies. The guides were adapted from Epidemiology by Petra Buttner (2015) and How to Read a Paper [ the basics of evidence-based medicine and healthcare (2019);  papers that go beyond numbers- qualitative research (1997)] by Trisha Greenhalgh to aid your review of the papers. 5,7,8

A guide to reading scientific articles – Quantitative studies

What is the title of the study?

• Does the title clearly describe the study focus?
• Does it contain details about the population and the study design?

What was the purpose of the study (why was it performed)?

• Identify the research question
• Identify the exposure and outcome

What was the study design?

• Was the design appropriate for the study?

Describe the study population (sample).

• What was the sample size?
• How were participants recruited?
• Where did the research take place?
• Who was included, and who was excluded?
• Are there any potential sources of bias related to the choice of the sample?

What were data collection methods used?

• How were the exposure and outcome variables were measured
• How was data collected- instruments or equipment? Were the tools appropriate?
• Is there evidence of random selection as opposed to systematic or self-selection?
• How was bias minimised or avoided?

For experimental studies

•  How were subjects assigned to treatment or intervention: randomly or by some other method?
•  What control groups were included (placebo, untreated controls, both or neither)
•  How were the treatments compared?
•  Were there dropouts or loss to follow-up?
•  Were the outcomes or effects measured objectively?

For observational studies

• Was the data collection process adequate (including questionnaire design and pre-testing)?
• What techniques were used to handle non-response and/or incomplete data?
•  If a cohort study, was the follow-up rate sufficiently high?
•  If a case-control study, are the controls appropriate and adequately matched?

How was the data analysed?

• Is the statistical analysis appropriate, and is it presented in sufficient detail?

What are the findings?

• What are the main findings of the study? Pay specific attention to the presented text and tables in relation to the study’s main findings .
• Are the numbers consistent? Is the entire sample accounted for?

Experimental study

•  Do the authors find a difference between the treatment and control groups?
•  Are the results statistically significant? If there is a statistically significant difference, is it enough of a difference to be clinically significant?

Observational study

•  Did the authors find a difference between exposed and control groups or cases and controls?
•  Is there a statistically significant difference between groups?
•  Could the results be of public health significance, even though the difference is not statistically significant? (This may highlight the need for a larger study).
• Are the results likely to be affected by confounding? Why or why not?
• What (if any) variables are identified as potential confounders in the study?
• How is confounding dealt with in this study?
• Are there any potential confounders that the authors have not taken into account? What might the likely impact be on the results?

Summing it up

Activity 7.2a

Read the following article:

Chen X, Jiang X, Huang X, He H, Zheng J: Association between probiotic yogurt intake and gestational diabetes mellitus: a case-control study. Iran J Public Health. 2019, 48:1248-1256.

Let’s conduct a critical appraisal of this article.

A guide to reading scientific articles – Qualitative studies

What is the research question?

Was a qualitative approach appropriate?

• Identify the study design and if it was appropriate for the research question.

How were the setting and the subjects selected?

• What sampling strategy was used?
• Where was the study conducted?

Was the sampling strategy appropriate for the approach?

• Consider the qualitative approach used and decide if the sampling strategy or technique is appropriate

What was the researcher’s position, and has this been taken into account?

• Consider the researcher’s background, gender, knowledge, personal experience and relationship with participants

What were the data collection methods?

• How was data collected? What technique was used?

How were data analysed, and how were these checked?

• How did the authors analyse the data? Was this stated?
• Did two or more researchers conduct the analysis independently, and were the outcomes compared (double coding)?
• Did the researchers come to a consensus, and how were disagreements handled?

Are the results credible?

• Does the result answer the research question?
• Are themes presented with quotes and do they relate to the research question or aim?

Are the conclusions justified by the results?

• Have the findings been discussed in relation to existing theory and previous research?
• How well does the interpretation of the findings fit well with what is already known?

Are the findings transferable to other settings?

• Can the findings be applied to other settings? Consider the sample.

Activity 7.2b

Wallisch A, Little L, Pope E, Dunn W. Parent Perspectives of an Occupational Therapy Telehealth Intervention. Int J Telerehabil. 2019 Jun 12;11(1):15-22. doi: 10.5195/ijt.2019.6274. PMID: 31341543; PMCID: PMC6597151.

Let’s conduct a critical appraisal of this article

Now that you know how to critically appraise both quantitative and qualitative papers, it is also important to note that numerous critical appraisal tools exist. Some have different sub-tools for different study designs, while others are designed to be used for multiple study designs. These tools aid the critical appraisal process as they contain different questions to prompt the reader while assessing the study’s quality. 9 Examples of tools commonly used in health professions are listed below in Table 7.2. Please note that this list is not exhaustive, as numerous appraisal tools exist. You can use any of these tools to appraise the quality of an article before choosing to use their findings to inform your own research or to change practice.

Table 7.2 Critical appraisal tools

An Introduction to Research Methods for Undergraduate Health Profession Students Copyright © 2023 by Faith Alele and Bunmi Malau-Aduli is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Assignments

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

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

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

How to Approach Writing a Research Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

Common Mistakes to Avoid

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

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

Structure and Writing Style

Beginning the Proposal Process

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

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

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

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

Most proposals should include the following sections:

I.  Introduction

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

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

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

II.  Background and Significance

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

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

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

III.  Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

IV.  Research Design and Methods

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

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

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

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

V.  Preliminary Suppositions and Implications

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

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

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

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

VI.  Conclusion

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

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

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

VII.  Citations

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

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

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

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

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

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

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper: Writing a Research Proposal

• Purpose of Guide
• Writing a Research Proposal
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• The Research Problem/Question
• Academic Writing Style
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Evaluating Sources
• Reading Research Effectively
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• What Is Scholarly vs. Popular?
• Is it Peer-Reviewed?
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism [linked guide]
• Annotated Bibliography
• Grading Someone Else's Paper

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

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

How to Approach Writing a Research Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

Common Mistakes to Avoid

• Failure to be concise; being "all over the map" without a clear sense of purpose.
• Failure to cite landmark works in your literature review.
• Failure to delimit the contextual boundaries of your research [e.g., time, place, people, etc.].
• Failure to develop a coherent and persuasive argument for the proposed research.
• Failure to stay focused on the research problem; going off on unrelated tangents.
• Sloppy or imprecise writing, or poor grammar.
• Too much detail on minor issues, but not enough detail on major issues.

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

Structure and Writing Style

Beginning the Proposal Process

As with writing a regular academic paper, research proposals are generally organized the same way throughout most social science disciplines. Proposals vary between ten and twenty-five pages in length. However, before you begin, read the assignment carefully and, if anything seems unclear, ask your professor whether there are any specific requirements for organizing and writing the proposal.

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

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

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

In general your proposal should include the following sections:

I.  Introduction

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

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

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

II.  Background and Significance

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

To that end, while there are no hard and fast rules, you should attempt to address some or all of the following key points:

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

III.  Literature Review

Connected to the background and significance of your study is a section of your proposal devoted to a more deliberate review and synthesis of prior studies related to the research problem under investigation . The purpose here is to place your project within the larger whole of what is currently being explored, while demonstrating to your readers that your work is original and innovative. Think about what questions other researchers have asked, what methods they have used, and what is your understanding of their findings and, where stated, their recommendations. Do not be afraid to challenge the conclusions of prior research. Assess what you believe is missing and state how previous research has failed to adequately examine the issue that your study addresses. For more information on writing literature reviews, GO HERE .

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

To help frame your proposal's literature review, here are the "five C’s" of writing a literature review:

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

IV.  Research Design and Methods

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

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

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

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

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

• << Previous: Purpose of Guide
• Next: Types of Research Designs >>
• Last Updated: Sep 8, 2023 12:19 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.txstate.edu/socialscienceresearch

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

11.2 Steps in Developing a Research Proposal

Learning objectives.

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

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

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

Choosing a Topic

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

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

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

Identifying Potential Topics

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

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

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

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

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

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

Narrowing Your Topic

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

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

Exploring Your Topic in Writing

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

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

Conducting Preliminary Research

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

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

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

Writing at Work

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

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

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

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

Collaboration

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

A Plan for Research

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

Formulating a Research Question

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

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

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

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

Constructing a Working ThesIs

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

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

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

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

Creating a Research Proposal

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

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

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

Writing Your Own Research Proposal

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

Key Takeaways

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

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

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates

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

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

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

Introduction

Literature review.

• Research design

Reference list

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

Table of contents

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

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

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

Research proposal length

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

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

Download our research proposal template

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

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

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

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

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

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

Your introduction should:

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

To guide your introduction , include information about:

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

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

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

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

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

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

For example, your results might have implications for:

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

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

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

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

Download our research schedule template

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

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

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

To determine your budget, think about:

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

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

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

I will compare …

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

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

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

• Privacy Policy

Buy Me a Coffee

Home » How To Write A Research Proposal – Step-by-Step [Template]

How To Write A Research Proposal – Step-by-Step [Template]

Table of Contents

How To Write a Research Proposal

Writing a Research proposal involves several steps to ensure a well-structured and comprehensive document. Here is an explanation of each step:

1. Title and Abstract

• Choose a concise and descriptive title that reflects the essence of your research.
• Write an abstract summarizing your research question, objectives, methodology, and expected outcomes. It should provide a brief overview of your proposal.

2. Introduction:

• Provide an introduction to your research topic, highlighting its significance and relevance.
• Clearly state the research problem or question you aim to address.
• Discuss the background and context of the study, including previous research in the field.

3. Research Objectives

• Outline the specific objectives or aims of your research. These objectives should be clear, achievable, and aligned with the research problem.

4. Literature Review:

• Conduct a comprehensive review of relevant literature and studies related to your research topic.
• Summarize key findings, identify gaps, and highlight how your research will contribute to the existing knowledge.

5. Methodology:

• Describe the research design and methodology you plan to employ to address your research objectives.
• Explain the data collection methods, instruments, and analysis techniques you will use.
• Justify why the chosen methods are appropriate and suitable for your research.

6. Timeline:

• Create a timeline or schedule that outlines the major milestones and activities of your research project.
• Break down the research process into smaller tasks and estimate the time required for each task.

7. Resources:

• Identify the resources needed for your research, such as access to specific databases, equipment, or funding.
• Explain how you will acquire or utilize these resources to carry out your research effectively.

8. Ethical Considerations:

• Discuss any ethical issues that may arise during your research and explain how you plan to address them.
• If your research involves human subjects, explain how you will ensure their informed consent and privacy.

9. Expected Outcomes and Significance:

• Clearly state the expected outcomes or results of your research.
• Highlight the potential impact and significance of your research in advancing knowledge or addressing practical issues.

10. References:

• Provide a list of all the references cited in your proposal, following a consistent citation style (e.g., APA, MLA).

11. Appendices:

• Include any additional supporting materials, such as survey questionnaires, interview guides, or data analysis plans.

Research Proposal Format

The format of a research proposal may vary depending on the specific requirements of the institution or funding agency. However, the following is a commonly used format for a research proposal:

1. Title Page:

• Include the title of your research proposal, your name, your affiliation or institution, and the date.

2. Abstract:

• Provide a brief summary of your research proposal, highlighting the research problem, objectives, methodology, and expected outcomes.

3. Introduction:

• Introduce the research topic and provide background information.
• State the research problem or question you aim to address.
• Explain the significance and relevance of the research.
• Review relevant literature and studies related to your research topic.
• Summarize key findings and identify gaps in the existing knowledge.
• Explain how your research will contribute to filling those gaps.

5. Research Objectives:

• Clearly state the specific objectives or aims of your research.
• Ensure that the objectives are clear, focused, and aligned with the research problem.

6. Methodology:

• Describe the research design and methodology you plan to use.
• Explain the data collection methods, instruments, and analysis techniques.
• Justify why the chosen methods are appropriate for your research.

7. Timeline:

8. Resources:

• Explain how you will acquire or utilize these resources effectively.

9. Ethical Considerations:

• If applicable, explain how you will ensure informed consent and protect the privacy of research participants.

10. Expected Outcomes and Significance:

11. References:

12. Appendices:

Research Proposal Template

Here’s a template for a research proposal:

1. Introduction:

2. Literature Review:

3. Research Objectives:

4. Methodology:

5. Timeline:

6. Resources:

7. Ethical Considerations:

8. Expected Outcomes and Significance:

9. References:

10. Appendices:

Research Proposal Sample

Title: The Impact of Online Education on Student Learning Outcomes: A Comparative Study

1. Introduction

Online education has gained significant prominence in recent years, especially due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This research proposal aims to investigate the impact of online education on student learning outcomes by comparing them with traditional face-to-face instruction. The study will explore various aspects of online education, such as instructional methods, student engagement, and academic performance, to provide insights into the effectiveness of online learning.

2. Objectives

The main objectives of this research are as follows:

• To compare student learning outcomes between online and traditional face-to-face education.
• To examine the factors influencing student engagement in online learning environments.
• To assess the effectiveness of different instructional methods employed in online education.
• To identify challenges and opportunities associated with online education and suggest recommendations for improvement.

3. Methodology

3.1 Study Design

This research will utilize a mixed-methods approach to gather both quantitative and qualitative data. The study will include the following components:

3.2 Participants

The research will involve undergraduate students from two universities, one offering online education and the other providing face-to-face instruction. A total of 500 students (250 from each university) will be selected randomly to participate in the study.

3.3 Data Collection

The research will employ the following data collection methods:

• Quantitative: Pre- and post-assessments will be conducted to measure students’ learning outcomes. Data on student demographics and academic performance will also be collected from university records.
• Qualitative: Focus group discussions and individual interviews will be conducted with students to gather their perceptions and experiences regarding online education.

3.4 Data Analysis

Quantitative data will be analyzed using statistical software, employing descriptive statistics, t-tests, and regression analysis. Qualitative data will be transcribed, coded, and analyzed thematically to identify recurring patterns and themes.

4. Ethical Considerations

The study will adhere to ethical guidelines, ensuring the privacy and confidentiality of participants. Informed consent will be obtained, and participants will have the right to withdraw from the study at any time.

5. Significance and Expected Outcomes

This research will contribute to the existing literature by providing empirical evidence on the impact of online education on student learning outcomes. The findings will help educational institutions and policymakers make informed decisions about incorporating online learning methods and improving the quality of online education. Moreover, the study will identify potential challenges and opportunities related to online education and offer recommendations for enhancing student engagement and overall learning outcomes.

6. Timeline

The proposed research will be conducted over a period of 12 months, including data collection, analysis, and report writing.

The estimated budget for this research includes expenses related to data collection, software licenses, participant compensation, and research assistance. A detailed budget breakdown will be provided in the final research plan.

8. Conclusion

This research proposal aims to investigate the impact of online education on student learning outcomes through a comparative study with traditional face-to-face instruction. By exploring various dimensions of online education, this research will provide valuable insights into the effectiveness and challenges associated with online learning. The findings will contribute to the ongoing discourse on educational practices and help shape future strategies for maximizing student learning outcomes in online education settings.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

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

Grant Proposal – Example, Template and Guide

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

Business Proposal – Templates, Examples and Guide

Proposal – Types, Examples, and Writing Guide

How to choose an Appropriate Method for Research?

• How it works

Critically Evaluating Your Dissertation

Published by Owen Ingram at January 27th, 2023 , Revised On October 11, 2023

Pursuing undergraduate, Masters, or Ph.D. degree? You cannot expect your tutor to review, edit and improve your dissertation . You’re the author of your dissertation, thus it is solely your responsibility to ensure that your dissertation is free of all types of errors.

While reviewing your dissertation, you are likely to come across structural and grammatical errors that you might’ve made. When you’re working, you’re much focused on the topic  of your research and making sure that whatever you’re writing is of high quality.

Correcting your mistakes isn’t your priority at that point in time. Reviewing and editing your work gives you a chance to make sure that a flawless final draft is prepared for submission.

Proofreading, editing, and improving your dissertation paper is tricky. The practice can help you create an outstanding dissertation and negligence can weaken the overall quality of your work.

Here are some useful tips as to how you can perfectly edit your dissertation and score an A grade.

Review our other informative articles in library section.

Review your work as a whole.

Once you’re done writing and have completed all sections/chapters of your dissertation, go through the dissertation and check for any missing sections. There are high chances that you might not find anything missing in your dissertation at this point in time.

So, here’s a tip: Once you’ve finished with the writing part, DO NOT go through the dissertation the same day. Yes! Your mind is exhausted, and so you might be unable to pick up missing sections and errors.

Relax, and go through your work the next day when your mind is fresh. This way you’ll be in a much better position to critically review your work and improve your dissertation.

Compare your work with the  outline  that you created in the initial  stages of writing your dissertation . See if all points, aspects, theories, models have been discussed. This way you’ll have a clear idea as to what has been discussed and what has been missed.

Review Each Section

Now that you’ve reviewed your work as a whole, it is time that you closely review the  sections of your dissertation . Not only would this help in analyzing your sections in detail, but it would also help in covering the aspects that you might have left for completion at a later stage.

This is a common practice that, students leave a particular section or a topic to be covered in the end. There are many reasons for this. Some students might be unable to focus on the topic at that time due to various reasons such as lack of available literature.

Thus, they decide to move on and come back to that section at a later stage. This is not a bad practice, instead, it saves time and will help you move on to the next section.

Or else, you might spend hours looking and searching for some piece of information that would present itself as you progress, whereas you would’ve completed another topic in the given time.

Thus, looking into such aspects, in the end, will offer you appropriate time to research the topic, and there are high chances that you might find something relevant.

Make sure that your sections are in a logical manner and the content in those sections is structured appropriately. Not doing so might confuse your readers and your research might be considered as vague.

Hire an Expert Writer

Orders completed by our expert writers are

• Formally drafted in an academic style
• Free Amendments and 100% Plagiarism Free – or your money back!
• 100% Confidential and Timely Delivery!
• Free anti-plagiarism report
• Appreciated by thousands of clients. Check client reviews

Critical Analysis

You can’t get away without a critical analysis of your dissertation! As much you dislike this aspect, critically analyzing your dissertation can work wonders for your research. Not only can it help in improving the quality of your dissertation, but it also creates an incredible impact on your readers.

Analyzing your own work critically is easier said than done, and we at ResearchProspect understand that. But, considering certain aspects and looking into them, can definitely help you in understanding how you’ve tacked  your research topic .

You must’ve received a checklist from your university or college regarding your dissertation. Compare your dissertation with the checklist and see if you have completed all parts in accordance with that checklist. This way you can take a step closer to getting a good grade.

If writing your dissertation has taken up much of your time and you have no time left for a proper critical analysis, and there’s no way you could do without it, you may get help from a professional UK based dissertation editing and improvement service. ResearchProspect is one of the most reliable editing and improvement companies that offer dissertation editing services  at extremely affordable rates.

Proofreading

Now comes the final part of reviewing and editing your dissertation – proofreading. Not much attention is paid to this practice, but it holds a lot of importance. While writing you might not realize what mistakes you’ve made, and some errors are overlooked at that time.

Proofreading gives you a chance to go through your work; read each and every sentence; and get rid of errors, mistakes, and typos that you’ve made while writing. You can even seek professional help in this regard. Proofreading services are where a team of experts evaluate your work, review and edit it, and also proofread your dissertation. There are chances that you might not find any major issues in your own work. Thus, asking someone to review your work will help you in getting the best results.

Dissertation Proofreading and Editing Services

If you’re seeking professional help with regards to dissertation proofreading or editing, get in touch with ResearchProspect . We offer extremely reliable and affordable proofreading and editing services.

About ResearchProspect

ResearchProspect offers help with all types of academic projects. We specialize in completing your dissertations ,  literature reviews ,  essays ,  reports ,  coursework , exam notes,  statistical analysis , primary and empirical research, and case studies.

Frequently Asked Questions

How to critically evaluate a dissertation.

To critically evaluate a dissertation, assess research methods, data analysis, and citation quality. Scrutinize arguments, relevance, and overall contribution to the field.

You May Also Like

The best font for a dissertation is clear and readable, such as Times New Roman, Arial, or Calibri, typically in size 12 for the main text.

It can be difficult to choose a suitable topic for your dissertation. Find out the tips to help you to decide the best dissertation topic in this article.

Here are the five most popular degrees in Australia based on the interest shown by the students and student bodies. 

USEFUL LINKS

LEARNING RESOURCES

COMPANY DETAILS

• How It Works

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

How Do I Review Thee? Let Me Count the Ways: A Comparison of Research Grant Proposal Review Criteria Across US Federal Funding Agencies

While Elizabeth Barrett Browning counted 25 ways in which she loves her husband in her poem, “How Do I Love Thee? Let me Count the Ways,” we identified only eight ways to evaluate the potential for success of a federal research grant proposal. This may be surprising, as it seems upon initial glance of the review criteria used by various federal funding agencies that each has its own distinct set of “rules” regarding the review of grant proposals for research and scholarship. Much of the grantsmanship process is dependent upon the review criteria, which represent the funders’ desired impact of the research. But since most funders that offer research grants share the overarching goals of supporting research that (1) fits within its mission and (2) will bring a strong return on its financial investment, the review criteria used to evaluate research grant proposals are based on a similar set of fundamental questions. In this article, we compare the review criteria of 10 US federal agencies that support research through grant programs, and demonstrate that there are actually only a small and finite number of ways that a grant proposal can be evaluated. Though each funding agency may use slightly different wording, we found that the majority of the agencies’ criteria address eight key questions. Within the highly competitive landscape of research grant funding, new researchers must find support for their research agendas and established investigators and research development offices must consider ways to diversify their funding portfolios, yet all may be discouraged by the apparent myriad of differences in review criteria used by various funding agencies. Guided by research administrators and research development professionals, recognizing that grant proposal review criteria are similar across funding agencies may help lower the barrier to applying for federal funding for new and early career researchers, or facilitate funding portfolio diversification for experienced researchers. Grantmakers are furthermore provided valuable guidance to develop and refine their own proposal review criteria.

Introduction

The research funding landscape in the United States is highly competitive, with flat or shrinking budgets for investigator-initiated research programs at most federal agencies ( American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), 2014) . Taking biomedical research as an example, in 2014, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) budgeted $15 billion to fund research project grants, an amount that has essentially remained the same since 2003 ( AAAS, 2014 ; Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, 2014 ). At the same time, the number of research grant applications has steadily increased, from close to 35,000 in 2003 to 51,000 in 2014. The result has been a stunning 30% drop in funding success rates, from 30.2% in 2003 to 18.8% in 2014. Other federal agencies that fund research, including the National Science Foundation (NSF), Office of Veterans Affairs (VA), and Department of Defense (DoD), are feeling the similar sting of budget restrictions.

Within this tenuous funding environment, it has become essential that investigators and research development offices sustain their research programs by continuing to encourage new researchers to apply for grant support and encouraging established researchers to diversify their funding portfolios. New researchers benefit from clear information about the federal grant process, and experienced researchers benefit from considering funding opportunities from federal funding agencies, national organizations and advocacy groups, state agencies, private philanthropic organizations, regional or local special interest groups, corporations, and internal institutional grant competitions that may not be their typical targets for support. With increasing competition for grant funding, investigators who might be accustomed to one set of rules for preparing grant proposals may become quickly overwhelmed by the prospect of learning entirely new sets of rules for different funding agencies.

Yet this process is not as daunting if we start from the perspective that any funder that offers research grants has essentially the same goal: to support research that fits within its mission and will bring a strong return on its financial investment ( Russell & Morrison, 2015 ). The review criteria used to evaluate research grant proposals reflect the funder’s approach to identifying the most relevant and impactful research to support ( Geever, 2012 ; Gerin & Kapelewski, 2010 ; Kiritz, 2007 ). Thus, planning and preparing a successful grant proposal depends on a clear understanding of the review criteria that will be used. These criteria directly inform how the proposal content should be presented and how much space should be afforded to each section of the proposal, as well as which keywords should be highlighted. It may seem that each funder—federal, state, local, private—has its own distinct set of rules regarding the preparation and review of grant proposals, and that each funder uses specific jargon in its review process. However, because all funders aim to support research that is relevant and impactful, we suggest that the mandatory review criteria used to evaluate research grant proposals are based on a set of fundamental questions, such as: Does this research fit within the funder’s mission? Will the results of this research fill a gap in knowledge or meet an unmet need? Do the investigators have the skills and resources necessary to carry out the research?

In this article, we examine the research grant proposal review criteria used by 10 US federal agencies to demonstrate that there exist only a small and finite number of ways that federal research grant proposals are actually evaluated. Our goal is to help research administrators and research development professionals empower investigators to more confidently navigate funder review criteria, thereby lowering the barrier to first-time applicants or to grant portfolio diversification for more established researchers. Recognizing that research proposal review criteria are aligned across federal funding agencies can also help proposal writers who might be faced with other funding opportunities in which the review criteria are not clearly defined. On the flip side of that equation, understanding that review criteria are based on the same core goals can help grantmakers as they develop and refine review criteria for their funding opportunities.

Observations

We performed an online search of 10 US federal agencies’ (NIH, NSF, VA, Department of Education [ED], DoD, National Aeronautics and Space Administration [NASA], Department of Energy [DOE], United States Department of Agriculture [USDA], National Endowment for the Humanities [NEH], and National Endowment for the Arts [NEA]) websites to identify policies and procedures related to their research grant proposal review process. The NIH Office of Extramural research (OER) website provided the greatest detail and transparency with regard to the review criteria and review process used for evaluating research grant proposals ( National Institutes of Health, 2008a ; 2008b ; 2015a ), and served as a starting point for our analysis of the review criteria for the other nine agencies. We developed key questions corresponding to each of the NIH review criteria, and then aligned the review criteria of the remaining nine agencies with these key questions.

Federal grant program guidance and policy changes occur frequently; the links to online resources for research grant proposal policies for each of the various funding agencies included in our analysis were current as of August 10, 2015. Note that our analysis includes information from the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) program as administered by ED. On June 1, 2015, the NIDRR was transferred from ED to the Administration for Community Living (ACL) in the US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), and is now called the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR) Field-Initiated Program. Our analysis of NIDRR was current as of May 4, 2015.

Also note that there is variability between different research grant programs within each federal agency. We included in our analysis review criteria from the DoD Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (CDMRP), the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, the NEH Digital Humanities Start-up program, and the NEA ART WORKS program. Criteria for NASA research programs were compiled from numerous NASA Research Announcements.

The NIH review criteria

The NIH criteria emphasize clinical, interdisciplinary, and translational biomedical research ( National Institutes of Health, 2008a ). Reviewers are instructed to evaluate research grant proposals based on how well five core review criteria are met: Significance, Innovation, Approach, Investigator(s), and Environment ( Table 1 ) ( National Institutes of Health, 2015a ; 2015b ). Assigned reviewers consider each of the five core review criteria and assign a separate score for each using a 9-point scale. These ratings are included in a summary statement that is provided to the researcher, whether or not the entire study section ultimately discusses the proposal.

The NIH core review criteria for research project grant proposals a

NIH, National Institutes of Health.

Each of the five core review criteria can be simplified into a general question. The Significance criterion asks reviewers to consider “Why does the research matter?” Reviewers look for whether the proposed project will address an important problem or critical barrier to progress in the field, and whether the knowledge gained from the proposed research will advance scientific knowledge, technical capacity, or clinical practice to drive the field forward. Innovation translates into “How is the research new?” Reviewers consider how the proposed research challenges current thinking with novel concepts, approaches, tools, or treatments. Approach asks, “How will the research be done?” Reviewers assess the proposed research strategy, methodology, and analyses and determine whether they are appropriate to achieve the aims of the project, and how riskier aspects of the proposal might be handled with alternative approaches. The remaining two core criteria evaluate the context in which the research will be done—defined as the collective set of resources, equipment, institutional support, and facilities available (Environment)—and what is special about the people doing the research (Investigator). For the Environment criterion, reviewers evaluate whether the resources and institutional support available to the investigators are sufficient to ensure successful completion of the research aims, including any unique features such as access to specific subject populations or collaborative arrangements. For the Investigator criterion, reviewers determine whether the primary investigator (PI), other researchers, and any collaborators have the experience and training needed to complete the proposed research, as well as how collaborators will combine their skills and work together.

The five core review criteria ratings, in addition to other proposal-specific criteria, are then used to determine an Overall Impact/Priority Score ( National Institutes of Health, 2015a ; 2015b ). This score reflects the reviewers’ assessment of the “likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved.” An application does not need to have exemplary scores in all criteria in order to be judged as likely to have a high overall impact. For example, a project that by its nature is not highly innovative may nevertheless be deemed essential to advance knowledge within a field. A 2011 study by the National Institutes of General Medicine Science (NIGMS) examined the correlation between the core review criteria scores and the Overall Impact score and found that reviewers weighted certain criteria more heavily than others, in the following order: Approach > Significance > Innovation > Investigator > Environment ( Rockey, 2011 ). Thus, the quality of ideas appeared to matter more than investigator reputation, a particularly good finding for new investigators ( Berg, 2010a ; 2010b ; 2010c ). These findings of relative importance of the core review criteria by reviewers also suggest that, in terms of space, it makes sense for proposers to utilize more pages of the proposal narrative to address aspects of their approach and the research project’s significance than on the environment supporting the project.

Other agencies have formalized systems for weighting grant proposal review criteria. For example, the ED NIDRR standard selection criteria are weighted using a points designation ( US Department of Education, 2014 ): Design of Research Activities (50 pts); Importance of the Problem (15 pts); Project Staff (15 pts); Plan of Evaluation (10 pts); and Adequacy and Accessibility of Resources (10 pts). Similar to NIH reviewers, ED weights research design and the importance of the problem more heavily than staff or resources when evaluating grant proposals ( Committee on the External Evaluation of NIDRR and Its Grantees, National Research Council, Rivard, O’Connell, & Wegman, 2011 ).

How do the NIH review criteria compare to those of other federal agencies?

The most straightforward comparison of research grant review criteria is between the NIH and NSF, which together make up 25% of the research and development budget in the US ( AAAS, 2014 ). The NSF criteria emphasize transformative and interdisciplinary research ( National Science Foundation, 2007 ), and involve three (3) guiding principles , two (2) review criteria , and five (5) review elements ( National Science Foundation, 2014 ). The two review criteria used by the NSF are Intellectual Merit, which encompasses the potential to advance the field, and Broader Impacts, which encompasses the potential to benefit society and contribute to the achievement of specific, desired societal outcomes. Within each of these two review criteria are five review elements ( Figure 1 ). These five review elements line up remarkably well with the NIH core review criteria ( Table 2 ), with both agencies’ criteria addressing a similar set of concepts but using distinct language to describe each criterion.

NSF Merit Review Criteria ( National Science Foundation, 2014 )

Comparison of the NIH and NSF research grant proposal review criteria

NIH, National Institutes of Health; NSF, National Science Foundation; PD, program director; PI, principal investigator.

What about a non-science funding agency like the NEH? While there is some variability between individual NEH grant programs, the NEH application review criteria are: Humanities Significance, Project Feasibility and Work Plan, Quality of Innovation, Project Staff Qualifications, and Overall Value to Humanities Scholarship ( National Endowment for the Humanities, 2015a ; 2015b ). The significance of the project includes its potential to enhance research, teaching, and learning in the humanities. The quality of innovation is evaluated in terms of the idea, approach, method, or digital technology (and the appropriateness of the technology) that will be used in the project. Reviewers also examine the qualifications, expertise, and levels of commitment of the project director and key project staff or contributors. The quality of the conception, definition, organization, and description of the project and the applicant’s clarity of expression, as well as the feasibility of the plan of work are also assessed. Finally, reviewers consider the likelihood that the project will stimulate or facilitate new research of value to scholars and general audiences in the humanities. Table 3 shows the NEH review criteria compared with those used by the NIH and NSF. Though there is not an exact match for the key question “In what context will the research be done?” (i.e., the research environment and available resources), this is evaluated in NEH proposals as part of the Project Feasibility and Work Plan.

Comparison of research grant proposal review criteria used by the NIH, NSF, and NEH

NIH, National Institutes of Health; NSF, National Science Foundation; NEH, National Endowment for the Humanities.

Comparing review criteria across federal agencies: Eight key questions

In addition to the core review criteria mentioned above, funding agencies also typically ask reviewers to consider the project budget and the approach that will be used to evaluate project success. When we expanded the comparison of research grant proposal review criteria across 10 US federal agencies, and included the budget and evaluation criteria, we revealed that all of the agencies’ review criteria aligned with a consistent set of eight key questions that reviewers consider when evaluating any type of research proposal ( Table 4 ).

Eight key questions considered by reviewers of research grant proposals and the associated review criteria terms used by 10 US federal funding agencies

The research grant proposal review criteria used by the 10 federal funding agencies are associated with these eight key questions ( Table 5 ). We have already demonstrated that the question, “Why does it matter?”—which addresses the importance or significance of the proposed project— applies to similar review criteria from the NIH (Significance), NSF (Intellectual Merit), and the NEH (Humanities Significance) ( National Endowment for the Humanities, 2015a ; 2015b ; National Institutes of Health, 2015a , 2015b ; National Science Foundation, 2014 ). Likewise, ED evaluates the “Importance of the Problem” ( US Department of Education, 2014 ); the DoD application review criteria includes “Importance” ( Department of Defense, 2015 ); the VA and NASA each evaluate “Significance” ( National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2015 ; US Department of Veterans Affairs, 2015 ); the DOE looks at “Scientific and Technological Merit” ( US Department of Energy, 2015 ); the USDA evaluates “Project Relevance” ( United States Department of Agriculture, 2015 ); and the NEA assesses “Artistic Excellence” ( National Endowment for the Arts, 2015 ). There are also parallels in the language used by each of the funders as they ask reviewers to assess proposed research project innovation or novelty, the approach or methodology to be used, the investigators or personnel involved, the environment and resources available, and the overall impact or value of the project ( Table 5 ).

Comparison of research grant proposal review criteria across 10 US federal funding agencies

NIH, National Institutes of Health; NSF, National Science Foundation; VA, Department of Veterans Affairs; ED, Department of Education; DoD, Department of Defense; NASA, National Aeronautics and Space Administration; DOE, Department of Education; USDA, US Department of Agriculture; NEH, National Endowment for the Humanities; NEA, National Endowment for the Arts; N/A, not applicable.

While all the agencies’ collective review criteria fall within the eight key questions, there is some variability across agencies. For example, the DOE does not have a clear review criterion for evaluating the overall impact or value of a project, equivalent to the key question “What is the return on investment?” Some agencies to do not explicitly include the budget as part of their review criteria, such as the NSF, VA, and USDA, while other agencies do not specifically ask for a plan to evaluate success of the project, including the NIH, VA, DoD, DOE, USDA, or NEH. Funders may also have unique review criteria. Unlike the other nine agencies evaluated, the DoD uses the review criterion “Application Presentation,” which assesses the writing, clarity, and presentation of the application components. Agencies may also have mission- or program-specific review criteria; for example, for certain applications, the NEA may evaluate the potential to reach underserved populations as part of “Artistic Merit.” Despite these differences, it is clear that for the 10 federal funding agencies examined, the review criteria used to evaluate research grant proposals are extraordinarily aligned.

If we remember that all funding agencies are trying to evaluate research grant proposals to reach the same goals—to determine which projects fit within their mission and will provide a return on their financial investment—it is perhaps not all that surprising that the review criteria that federal funding agencies use are aligned. We further propose that funding announcements from any funder, including state agencies, local groups, and private philanthropic organizations, similarly ask for research grant proposals to answer some, if not all, of the eight key questions that emerged from our analysis of US federal funding agencies. Keeping these key questions in mind can help research administrators and research development offices, as well as proposal writers, decipher research grant proposal review criteria from almost any funding agency, thereby facilitating proposal development.

For this article, we limited our analysis to the review criteria used across different US federal funders to evaluate research grant proposals, and did not include criteria used for other federal funding mechanisms, such as training grants or contract proposals. NIH has compared the review criteria used across their various funding mechanisms, including research grants, grants for conferences and scientific meetings, small business innovation or technology transfer grants, fellowship and career development grants, and training grants, among others ( National Institutes of Health, 2014 ). Again, while there are differences in the language used to describe each core review criterion across the various grant mechanisms, the concepts being reviewed—what is being done, why it is being done, how it is new, who is doing the work, and where it will be done—are essentially the same across each mechanism.

We have demonstrated that research grant proposal review criteria are remarkably aligned across 10 US federal funding agencies, despite the differences in their missions and the terminology each uses for its own review process ( Table 5 ). Moreover, a set of only eight key questions summarizes the collective research grant proposal review criteria across all these federal agencies. While the sheer number of non-federal funding opportunities makes a similar comparative analysis of their review criteria impractical, we suggest that the eight key questions emerging from our analysis provide a starting point for researchers, research administrators, and funders to assess the review criteria used by most, if not all, other research funding opportunities. This is reasonable given that each funder is trying to achieve the same goal during the grant review process: find those research projects that fit the funder’s mission and are worth its investment. Through this lens, the review criteria used for research proposals across agencies are easier to understand and address, which may encourage new investigators to apply for funding, and seasoned investigators and research development offices to consider a diversified set of funding sources for their research portfolios. We also hope that this analysis provides guidance to other grantmakers as they develop review criteria for their own funding opportunities. For the 10 US federal agencies included here, we hope that the analysis serves as a starting point to develop even greater consistency across the review criteria—perhaps even a single canonic, cross-agency set of review criteria—used to evaluate federal research grant proposals.

Acknowledgments

Author’s Note

The authors would like to thank Amy Lamborg, MS, MTSC, for providing invaluable insights and for reviewing the manuscript.

The work is based on material developed by HJF-K for the Grantsmanship for the Research Professionals course at Northwestern University School of Professional Studies (SCS PHIL_ NP 380-0), and was presented in part at the National Organization of Research Development Professionals 7th Annual Research Development Conference in Bethesda, MD, April 29- May 1, 2015.

• American Association for the Advancement of Science Intersociety Working Group. AAAS report XXXIX: Research and development FY 2015. 2014 Retrieved from http://www.aaas.org/page/aaas-report-xxxix-research-and-development-fy-2015 .
• Berg J. Even more on criterion scores: Full regression and principal component analysis. NIGMS Feedback Loop Blog. 2010a Retrieved June 17, 2015, from https://loop.nigms.nih.gov/2010/07/even-more-on-criterion-scores-full-regression-and-principal-component-analyses/
• Berg J. Model organisms and the significance of significance. NIGMS Feedback Loop Blog. 2010b Retrieved June 17, 2015, from https://loop.nigms.nih.gov/2010/07/model-organisms-and-the-significance-of-significance/
• Berg J. More on criterion scores. NIGMS Feedback Loop Blog. 2010c Retrieved June 17, 2015, from https://loop.nigms.nih.gov/2010/07/more-on-criterion-scores/
• Committee on the External Evaluation of NIDRR and Its Grantees, National Research Council . In: Review of disability and rehabilitation research: NIDRR grantmaking processes and products. Rivard JC, O’Connell ME, Wegman DH, editors. National Academies Press; Washington, DC: 2011. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Department of Defense Congressionally directed medical research programs: Funding opportunities. 2015 Retrieved June 17, 2015, from http://cdmrp.army.mil/funding/ prgdefault.shtml .
• Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) NIH research funding trends: FY1995-2014. 2014 Retrieved June 17, 2015, from http://www.faseb.org/Policy- and-Government-Affairs/Data-Compilations/NIH-Research-Funding-Trends.aspx .
• Geever JC. Guide to proposal writing. 6th The Foundation Center; New York, NY: 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gerin W, Kapelewski CH. Writing the NIH grant proposal: A step-by-step guide. 2nd SAGE Publications, Inc.; Thousand Oaks, CA: 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kiritz NJ. Program planning and proposal writing. Grantsmanship Center; Los Angeles, CA: 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• National Aeronautics and Space Administration Guidebook for proposers responding to a NASA Research Announcement (NRA) or Cooperative Agreement Notice (CAN) 2015 Retrieved June 17, 2015, from http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/nraguidebook/ proposer2015.pdf .
• National Endowment for the Arts ART WORKS guidelines: Application review. 2015 Retrieved June 17, 2015, from http://arts.gov/grants-organizations/art-works/ application-review .
• National Endowment for the Humanities NEH’s application review process. 2015a Retrieved June 17, 2015, from http://www.neh.gov/grants/application-process#panel .
• National Endowment for the Humanities Office of Digital Humanities: Digital humanities start-up grants. 2015b Retrieved August 10, 2015, from http://www.neh.gov/files/ grants/digital-humanities-start-sept-16-2015.pdf .
• National Institutes of Health Enhancing peer review: The NIH announces enhanced review criteria for evaluation of research applications received for potential FY2010 funding. 2008a Retrieved June 17, 2015, from https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-09-025.html .
• National Institutes of Health Enhancing peer review: The NIH announces new scoring procedures for evaluation of research applications received for potential FY2010 funding. 2008b Retrieved June 17, 2015, from http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-09-024.html .
• National Institutes of Health Review criteria at a glance. 2014 Retrieved June 17, 2015, from https://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer/Review_Criteria_at_a_Glance_MasterOA.pdf .
• National Institutes of Health Office of Extramural Research Support: Peer review process. 2015a Retrieved September 10, 2015, from http://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer_review_process.htm .
• National Institutes of Health Scoring system and procedure. 2015b Retrieved June 17, 2015, from https://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer/guidelines_general/scoring_system_and_procedure.pdf .
• National Science Foundation Important notice no. 130: Transformative research. 2007 Retrieved June 17, 2015, from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2007/in130/in130.jsp .
• National Science Foundation Chapter III - NSF proposal processing and review. Grant proposal guide. 2014 Retrieved September 10, 2015, from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/ pappguide/nsf15001/gpg_3.jsp#IIIA .
• Rockey S. Correlation between overall impact scores and criterion scores. Rock Talk. 2011 Retrieved June 17, 2015, from http://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2011/03/08/overall-impact-and-criterion-scores/
• Russell SW, Morrison DC. The grant application writer’s workbook: Successful proposals to any agency. Grant Writers’ Seminars and Workshops, LLC; Buellton, CA: 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• U.S. Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) peer review process for competitive grant applications. 2015 Retrieved June 17, 2015, from http://nifa.usda.gov/resource/nifa-peer-review-process-competitive-grant-applications .
• U.S. Department of Education. Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services FY 2014 application kit for new grants under the National Instutite on Disability and Rehabilitation: Field initiated program (research or development) 2014 Retrieved July 8, 2015, from https://www2.ed.gov/programs/fip/2014-133g1-2.doc .
• U.S. Department of Energy Merit review guide. 2015 Retrieved June 17, 2015, from http://energy.gov/management/downloads/merit-review-guide .
• U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Research & Development BLR&D/ CSR&D merit review program. 2015 Retrieved June 17, 2015, from http://www.research.va.gov/ services/shared_docs/merit_review.cfm .