why does research proposal fail

• Customer Reviews
• Extended Essays
• IB Internal Assessment
• Theory of Knowledge
• Literature Review
• Dissertations
• Essay Writing
• Research Writing
• Assignment Help
• Capstone Projects
• College Application
• Online Class

Why a Research Proposal Can Rejected (What You Need to Know)

by  Antony W

December 13, 2021

Research proposal rejection is common in academic publishing, and it’s by far the most demotivating and devastating experience in learning. After you’ve spent years researching and months writing and formatting the document perfectly, the very last thing you want is to see your research proposal getting a rejection. The question is why do students get their research proposals rejected?

A review board might reject your research proposal because: 

• You failed to meet the deadline for submission
• The topic you proposed isn’t appropriate for your area of study
• Your proposed question, design, and methods are questionable and unusual
• You failed to follow the research proposal guideline
• The research proposal suggests an unrealistic budget, with the cost to execute the project being greater than the expected benefits
• Your research proposal is not complete
• You don’t have a well-written literature review
• Your proposal seems to be beyond the capacity of the principal investigator 

We’ll look at these reasons in more details in this guide. But as you can already see, it’s clear that you can get a rejection for your research proposal for surprisingly small set of simple and familiar mistakes, which aren’t difficult to fix.

X Reasons Why a Research Proposal Can Get Rejected

If you’ve had your research proposal rejected, it could be because of one or more of the reasons discussed below. 

1. Late Research Proposal Submission

One of the most common reasons for rejecting research proposals is late submission. A student may have written a well-researched and comprehensive proposal, but submitting it late is a clear indication that they either didn’t read the submission guideline or ignored the instructions altogether.

You need to take the deadline of your research proposal seriously. Create a plan that you can use to research, outline, and write your research proposal every day. Stick to the schedule and don’t leave room for procrastination. Working on the proposal everyday will not only get you to complete the work fast but also leave you with enough time for revision.

If you feel overwhelmed because you have many other assignments to complete, consider asking for Research Proposal Writing Service from Help for Assessment. Our team of proposal writers can help you to research, write, and edit the proposal fast. So you don’t have to overwhelm yourself with work when you can ask for help.

2. Failure to Follow the Research Proposal’s Guideline

Instructors give research proposal briefs because they want students to follow recognized academic writing standards to do the work from start to finish. Sadly, some students fail to read these briefs carefully and end up submitting substandard research proposals that fail to meet those guidelines.

You don’t want to be this type of student, or you will end up having your research proposal rejected as well.

The solution here is simple. You need to read the research proposal guideline provided and do so carefully. Spend about an hour or so going through the brief. Note the areas that you don’t understand and write some questions down. Schedule a reflection session with your instructor and go through the questions together to get more insight.

Once you’re certain that you’ve read the whole research proposal guideline and understands what it requires, start writing. It also helps to reference the guidelines as you write because it will help to ensure you write your research proposal by following the instructions to the latter.

3. The Proposal Doesn’t Have an Impact

Many research proposals get rejections either because they don’t reflect a potential positive impact on humanity or because they don’t contribute to the already existing body of knowledge. If you think about it, grant sponsors aren’t interested in funding projects that lack solid value, and this explains why very few proposals get approval.

Before you start working on a research proposal project, determine whether there’s something valuable about your research that will the work stand out from similar works.

4. Poorly Written Literature Review

Every research proposal must have a literature review that looks into already existing research into a specific body of knowledge. Unfortunately, it’s the section of a research proposal that many students don’t write very well, which is a likely explanation for the rejection of their research proposal.

We recommend that you learn everything you can about literature review so you can get this part of the assignment write. Some of the most helpful guides to help you are: 

• How to write a literature review step-by-step
• The importance of a literature review
• The length of a literature review
• Dos and don’ts of literature review

Each guide goes into deep details on what you need to know about the topic. By exploring these resources, you will not only gain more knowledge about literature review but also write review of existing literature that makes your research proposal stand out.

5. The Proposal Is Incomplete 

Writing an incomplete research proposal isn’t any different from not writing a proposal at all. Such a written assignment will get an immediate rejection because it doesn’t meet the expected writing standards as instructed in the proposal guideline.

The last mistake you want to make is fail to write every part of a research proposal from start to finish. Again, this is the point where we insist that you should start the project early so you can cover all the section in-depth. Your proposal should have an introduction, background and significance, literature review, research design and method, preliminary implications, and conclusion.

Make sure you describe each section thoroughly, leaving out what’s irrelevant and sharing only the most useful in formation with the potential reader.

Final Thoughts on Research Proposal Rejection

The reasons why research proposals get rejections aren’t anything extra ordinary. Rather, they are just common mistakes that you can avoid. We recommend that you start working on your proposal as early as possible so that you have enough time to identify potential errors in the document and fix them in the shortest time possible.

About the author 

Antony W is a professional writer and coach at Help for Assessment. He spends countless hours every day researching and writing great content filled with expert advice on how to write engaging essays, research papers, and assignments.

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

• Utility Menu

de5f0c5840276572324fc6e2ece1a882

• How to Use This Site
• Core Competencies
• Common Grant Writing Mistakes

Download PDF

Content from: National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and Harvard Grant Writers

• Are You Ready?
• Know Your Audience
• Provide a Cover Letter
• Make an Impact
• Write Your Specific Aims Page
• Use Style Tips
• Format Your Grant
• Consultations

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

Learning from an Unsuccessful Study Idea: Reflection and Application of Innovative Techniques to Prevent Future Failures

Yuki fujihara.

1 Research Fellow, Section of Plastic Surgery, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI

Taichi Saito

Helen e. huetteman.

4 Research Assistant, Section of Plastic Surgery, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI

Jennifer M. Sterbenz

Kevin c. chung.

5 Professor of Surgery, Section of Plastic Surgery, Assistant Dean for Faculty Affairs, The University of Michigan Medical School

Developing an impactful study design can be a daunting task for researchers of all skill levels. Oftentimes, a failed study can be attributed to an ineffective study design rather than an inferior theme or an uninspiring area of focus. In major medical journals such as The Lancet, BMJ , and Annals of Internal Medicine , only about 6% of submitted papers are accepted, whereas 70% are rejected outright, and 24% are rejected following a peer review. 1 Furthermore, of the studies presented at large conferences hosted by organizations such as the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, or the American Society for Surgery of the Hand, only about 50% are published in peer-reviewed journals. 2 , 3 The “publish or perish” school of thought has permeated through academia since its conception in the early twentieth century. 4 , 5 Consequently, many researchers emphasize quantity over quality of research proposals. As a result, these hastily created study designs often do not withstand scientific scrutiny, or have little to no practical implications. 6

In 2016, our research team, the Michigan Center for Hand Outcomes and Innovation Research, published 41 scientific papers in 11 peer-reviewed journals, with the goal to contribute knowledge to improve the quality of medical care for all patients, but particularly those with hand disorders or injuries. However, we often find it challenging to create a well-organized and impactful study. Consider one of our failed proposals in which we aimed to reveal the economic burden of the treatment of Dupuytren contracture. Our initial idea was to use insurance claims from a nationally representative database to determine the trends in the national total cost of treatment for Dupuytren contractures over time. The idea was put forward because a new treatment option, collagenase injections, has gained popularity in recent years and we wanted to consider the impact of the changing treatment landscape on the national cost of treatment for the disease. 7 - 9 However, upon taking preliminary steps to begin the study, we faced several critical problems resulting in an inability to complete the original proposed study.

This type of scenario is not uncommon when undertaking a new study. Nonetheless, these “failures” should not simply be disregarded, but should be critically examined to impart new insight on why a study was not successful. To understand what makes an effective research proposal, one must also have a deep understanding of the sequence of mistakes that causes an ineffective research proposal. We will present an example of a previous failed study from our laboratory to share our analyses using two innovative techniques, conceptual models and root cause analysis (RCA), to inform researchers how to critically review and learn from a failed research idea. Although the methods described are not new to the fields of research or medicine, the novel application of these strategies on a broad scale is influential in avoiding the time and expenses wasted with future failures.

Conceptual Models

A conceptual model is a researcher’s visual representation of the research questions he or she is tackling and can be used to give direction to a study. They can also be adapted to make experimental flow diagrams that show possible courses through the study that can be used to critically assess the approach to the research problem. 10 , 11 Conceptual models are used in a variety of situations in addition to scientific studies, such as news articles and business meetings. A traditional conceptual model shows connections between broad concepts and the variables affecting them, illustrating relationships between all aspects of a situation.

In addition to illuminating interactions and possible problem areas along with providing a visual overview of an issue, conceptual models can also provide context for understanding the findings of a study. 12 Conceptual models are particularly effective when trying to communicate findings with other colleagues or team members who can then combine various ideas and modify the framework to improve the overall study design. 12 On the other hand, conceptual models may sometimes require too many interconnected variables or become too detailed becoming overcomplicated and ineffective. Conversely, if the researcher errs on the side of simplicity, important variables may be left out, creating a model that lacks accuracy and can lead observers to draw incorrect conclusions from a lack of information.

Our initial conceptual model for our failed proposal on the national costs of treatment for Dupuytren contractures is depicted in Figure 1 . For the purposes of visualizing the effectiveness of our study, we chose to create our conceptual model as an experimental flow diagram. There were two treatment paths that we wanted to investigate: open fasciectomy, which is the surgical option, and the newer collagenase injections. 13 - 15 Therefore, we began our conceptual model by showing these two treatment options. The next step was to list out possible results from our observations. From our initial review of the literature, we already knew that collagenase injections are cheaper than the open fasciectomy procedure. 8 , 9 , 16 , 17

Conceptual model created for the original study idea.

Taking into consideration these variables and the previous knowledge, we began the prospective part of our experimental flow design. Because we were examining national trends in total cost of treatment, there were only three possible outcomes that we could find after analyzing the data; the national cost of treatment would have increased, decreased, or stayed the same. We then needed to consider the conclusions we would draw from each of these cases. In the case that the national cost of treatment for Dupuytren contractures increased over the time period analyzed in the study, we would encourage physicians to treat as many patients as possible with collagenase injections in hope of bringing the total cost down in future years to prevent a continuing upward trend. In the case that the cost had stayed the same, we would still encourage physicians to use injections in hopes that we could actually lower total costs. Finally, in the case that there was a decreasing trend, we would, again, encourage the use of injections in hopes of lowering the total cost further. This exercise highlighted the fact that every outcome led to the same conclusion, leading to a study that would have no impact because, regardless of our findings, there would be no practical application. Furthermore, the creation of the conceptual model clearly unveiled this flaw, as each possible path through the study converged upon the same conclusion.

Root Cause Analysis

RCA is a tool that can be used during an investigation of past events to identify solutions rather than ascertain blame. 18 - 21 Although historically used in the fields of psychology and systems engineering to analyze problems such as national disasters, and failing business models, RCA was introduced into medicine in the mid-1990s to provide a framework for retrospective analysis of errors and problems. 22 , 23 For example, safety errors, such as accidental administration of fast-acting insulin instead of basal insulin, are common problems addressed in medical practice using RCA. 23 There are 3 distinct steps to conduct an RCA: 1) define the problem, 2) break the problem down using a visual map to analyze the root cause, and 3) formulate an action plan to help solve the problem. 20 One helpful tool for creating the visual method is 5-whys method. As the name suggests, the 5-whys method requires investigators to assess cause and effect relationships by asking the question “why” at least five times.

RCA is an effective strategy to identify the underlying cause of a problem. It employs a simple, systematic approach for investigators to visualize the issue and to link concepts from different stages during the progression of the study. Often, the root of a problem is not a direct result of a single action, but rather a compilation of many. Visual maps present the interrelationships of each cause and solution, subsequently facilitating the formulation of an efficient, well-organized action plan. Troubles with RCA may arise if one encounters difficulties formulating corrective actions after identifying a problem. 23 To make a sustainable action plan, authors must first review the existing process and create a plan that not only prevents future problems, but also considers the efficiency of proposed changes. In addition, the actual event or problem on which the RCA was performed cannot be changed with this analysis because RCA draws on past problems as lessons to improve or solve future problems.

We applied RCA to the aforementioned failed proposal on Dupuytren contracture ( Figure 2 ). We began with the initial problem that the “study failed to draw an impactful conclusion.” We subsequently asked “Why?” five times to determine the root cause. The first iteration of “Why?” showed us that our study was not impactful because the possible conclusions will not differ depending on the results. In the second iteration, we determined that this was because conclusions from previous studies already provide more insight into the issue. Previous publications already determined that collagenase injections are a less costly form of treatment for Dupuytren contractures than the surgical procedure. The third “Why?” led us to uncover that we chose an inappropriate aim for our study design. We determined that there were two causes for the weakness in study design; first, the study question lacked depth because it only examined overall trends and disregarded all subsets of treatment and patient characteristics, and, second, there was insufficient detail in the data to analyze certain characteristics. Originally, we intended to use International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes compiled in an administrative claims dataset. However, there are a number of limitations to this coding scheme including an inability to identify clinical details such as the severity of the Dupuytren contracture, the number of the fingers affected, and even the affected hand. As a result, we concluded that the root cause of our original problem of having a study proposal with no impact was lack of knowledge about weaknesses in the dataset we intended to use.

Visual map for root cause analysis done on failed Dupuytren study idea.

Following the creation of our visual map and pinpointing of the root cause of our problem, we then created an action plan to prevent similar failed studies in the future The revised study proposal needed to compensate for weaknesses in the dataset, and, in light of the insight we gained from our conceptual model, these compensations would also need to alter the study proposal in such a way that it would lead to multiple conclusions, lending our study impact. To do so we would better educate the team on limitations to administrative data.

Revision of the Study Proposal

Using a conceptual model and RCA to analyze our failed study, we highlighted three major flaws that needed to be addressed to re-work our study design. First, we needed to compensate for the lack of clinical detail in the dataset. Second, we needed to analyze a question with more depth. And third, our new research question had to lead to multiple possible conclusions depending on the outcome.

The lack of clinical data was the most debilitating weakness of our study. This limited both what questions we could investigate and the variety of variables we could analyze to add depth. In some cases, the necessary data are simply not available in any dataset. To prevent this issue from arising in most cases, study ideas should be constructed with known datasets in mind. However, in this case, an alternative dataset does exist. We decided not to use the ICD-9-CM, but rather the tenth revision (ICD-10-CM), which has specific codes that provide information on severity and anatomical information. However, ICD-10-CM only has information from October of 2015 so the study will have to be performed in the near future once there is more data. This solved our first critical flaw of a lack of clinical detail in the dataset.

To add depth to our study, we examined some common variables that are analyzed in observational studies, instead of simply exploring broad overall trends in cost. These included patient age, the number and nature of comorbidities, the recurrence rate, and severity of the contracture. Among these variables, severity is the most subjective in an administrative dataset. Additionally, comorbidities can be difficult to track because they only appear in the data if the patient seeks medical intervention for the comorbidity. Missing or incorrect diagnoses could damage the quality of our study. Accurate data on patient age are readily obtainable; however, for the purposes of our study on Dupuytren contractures, it would not lead to particularly impactful conclusions. Older patients are more likely to require multiple treatments, have more comorbidities, or require more drastic treatment, all of which can be concluded intuitively. The recurrence rate of individual treatments, in other words, how many patients who originally got an injection needed more treatments in the future compared to patients who got open fasciectomies, was an unknown factor that had not been researched before and the necessary data were not obtainable through the dataset.

Analyzing the recurrence rate of treatment also led to an impactful study by reaching multiple possible conclusions as can be seen in Figure 3 . Rather than researching solely the overall national trends in costs for Dupuytren contracture treatments, we decided to examine the total cost for a patient initially treated with a collagenase injection, taking into account the average number of times these patients required subsequent injections of open fasciectomies. We would then compare that cost to the total treatment cost for a patient who was initially treated with an open fasciectomy including the average number of subsequent procedures and injections. If the total average cost per patient including subsequent procedures for recurrence was higher for patients who initially received injections, we would encourage physicians to consider open fasciectomy more often as an initial procedure. Conversely, if the same average cost per patient was higher for those who received open fasciectomy initially was higher, we would encourage physicians to consider injections more often. Finally, if there was no significant difference between the costs, we would encourage physicians not to consider the cost of treatment when making their decision on which procedure to use.

Conceptual model for revised study idea.

There are still a number of weaknesses in this study design. One of the most relevant is that there are many factors that go into deciding which treatment path to follow. There may be confounding variables in which patients who initially receive one treatment or the other are more likely to have initially presented with a more severe contracture, or a number of other variables, leading to a higher likelihood of recurrence. These questions could be answered with further research following our initial study. Finally, the ICD-10 coding system has only been in effect since October, 2015, limiting the amount of relevant data available for analysis.

When used as described and in conjunction with each other, RCA and conceptual models can offset some of their individual limitations. Research-informed design is an emerging school of thought in which prototyping and existing resources are applied to create a final design. 24 Our use of conceptual models and RCA falls into this category. Although conceptual frameworks are traditionally considered useful for investigators to review overarching themes and relationships between ideas, it has value to develop and assess solutions to issues identified from RCA. Conceptual models are also applicable for reviewing studies from a broader, “big picture” perspective. Conversely, RCA is beneficial for examining specific, individual problems, assisting investigators in finding practical solutions to prevent similar, future problems. Additionally, using both of these tools together opens up opportunities for analysis at multiple stages within the study because conceptual models are usually used at the beginning of a study whereas RCA is performed after an event ( Table 1 ). Combining the principles behind these contrasting methods, researchers can identify and address problems from a failed study attempt to create an altered study proposal that is more likely to succeed.

Summary of Steps to Review and Learn from a Failed Research Idea

e.g.; for example

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by a Midcareer Investigator Award in Patient-Oriented Research (2 K24-AR053120-06) (to Dr. Kevin C. Chung). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

What (Exactly) Is A Research Proposal?

A simple explainer with examples + free template.

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

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

Overview: Research Proposal Basics

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

What is a research proposal?

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

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

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

What goes into a research proposal?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Need a helping hand?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How To Structure A Research Proposal

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

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

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

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

Research Proposal Examples/Samples

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

Proposal Writing FAQs

How long should a research proposal be.

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

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

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

How do I choose a topic for my research proposal?

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

How do I write a literature review for my proposal?

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

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

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

Which referencing format should I use in my research proposal?

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

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

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

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

Key Takeaways & Additional Resources

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

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

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

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

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

Psst… there’s more!

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

You Might Also Like:

51 Comments

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

I would be interested in getting some coaching.

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

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

In view of the above, I welcome more coaching.

Wonderful guidelines, thanks

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

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

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

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

Cheruiyot Moses Kipyegon

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

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

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

Very useful. I am grateful.

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

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

You’re welcome 🙂

Thank you, this was so helpful.

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

Thank you, great insights

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

Wow thank you, great insights, thanks a lot

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your effort is much appreciated – you have good articulation.

You have good articulation.

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

This really helping

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

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

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

I need any research proposal

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

Very helpfull

the videos are very good and straight forward

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much.

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

Thank you for the clarity

Thank you. Very helpful.

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

What is JAM? Please explain.

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

very very wonderful…

thank you for the video but i need a written example

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates

Published on October 12, 2022 by Shona McCombes and Tegan George. Revised on November 21, 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 organized 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, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about research proposals.

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

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

Writing 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

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

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 synthesize 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. Emphasize 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?

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

Methodology

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

 Statistics

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

Research bias

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

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.

The best way to remember the difference between a research plan and a research proposal is that they have fundamentally different audiences. A research plan helps you, the researcher, organize your thoughts. On the other hand, a dissertation proposal or research proposal aims to convince others (e.g., a supervisor, a funding body, or a dissertation committee) that your research topic is relevant and worthy of being conducted.

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. & George, T. (2023, November 21). How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved April 3, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/research-process/research-proposal/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write a problem statement | guide & examples, writing strong research questions | criteria & examples, how to write a literature review | guide, examples, & templates, unlimited academic ai-proofreading.

✔ Document error-free in 5minutes ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

How to write a Research Proposal: Common mistakes to avoid

• Components of a research proposal
• Useful videos

Common mistakes to avoid

• Sage Research Methods LibGuide This link opens in a new window
• Managing sources
• Request a literature search
• Research proposal - examples
• Creating a Gantt chart
• Free Apps for Research
• Academic writing

Not following your department’s specific criteria and format for writing research proposals

The research topic is too broad , too narrow or just poorly expressed .

Failure to be concise ; without providing context to show a clear sense of purpose.

The research topic is not well justified .

Failure to provide the proper context to frame the research question.

The research aims, objectives and questions do not align .

Failure to cite landmark/seminal works and authors in the relevant discipline, field of study/research area, in your literature review.

Failure to accurately present the theoretical and empirical contributions by other researchers and as a result the study has a weak theoretical foundation .

The research design is not articulated well enough.

Failure to delimit the contextual boundaries of your research.

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 important issues .

• << Previous: Useful videos
• Next: Sage Research Methods >>
• Last Updated: Dec 19, 2023 12:35 PM
• URL: https://libguides.unisa.ac.za/research_proposal

ACCESS EARLIER POSTS RELATED TO:

• Nat’l Institutes of Health (NIH)
• Nat’l Science Foundation (NSF)
• Other Funding Agencies
• Ask the Experts

Join the GWSW Proposal Writing Community

We invite you to join the GWSW proposal-writing community to receive the latest funding agency updates, grant proposal writing tips and Q&A, information on how to write high-impact research manuscripts, and more.

• Name First Last
• Email This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

GWSW   Workbooks   offer comprehensive, step-by-step instruction for creating proposals for a variety of funding agencies.

30 reasons your grant proposal may not have been funded

February 9, 2017 | Nat'l Institutes of Health (NIH) , Nat'l Science Foundation (NSF) , Other Funding Agencies

Why was my outstanding grant application so intensely disliked by the reviewer panel? Although this is certainly a reasonable question for any failed applicant to ask, at least initially, in the vast majority (but unfortunately, not 100%) of cases, the answer is usually not too difficult to surmise. In our experience, assuming that critiques of proposals or summaries of review panel deliberations are available, a careful, neutral and dispassionate consideration of the comments provided will almost always provide pretty good insight that one or more of the following 30 reasons will be identified:

1. Lack of commitment by applicant (insufficient time allocated) 2. Applicant failure to follow instructions 3. Applicant use of outdated application format/instructions 4. Ideas proposed not relevant to funding agency mission 5. Little or no programmatic relevance because of… 6. Applicant failure to communicate with agency program officer 7. Applicant failure to convince reviewers of the need for the proposed work 8. Applicant failure to provide strong rationale for the project 9. Applicant failure to demonstrate adequate knowledge of published literature 10. Lack of essential applicant experience 11. Proposal “padded” by inclusion of non-essential personnel 12. Missing evidence that environment is conducive to successful completion of the work 13. Unrealistic amount of work proposed 14. Methods proposed not appropriate for questions asked 15. Missing or inappropriate statistical considerations 16. Diffuse, superficial, or unorganized proposal 17. Uncertain outcomes and/or future directions 18. Applicant failure to consider potential problems/alternative strategies 19. Interdependence of aims/goals 20. Some aims irrelevant to testing hypothesis or achievement of overall objective 21. Ideas too complicated to easily understand 22. Applicant failure to consider perspectives/sensitivities of reviewers 23. Too much detail/too many variables 24. Reader-unfriendly application 25. Application written to make applicant happy (but not reviewers) 26. Applicant failure to address all agency review criteria 27. Unrealistic budget proposed 28. Lack of adequate budget justification 29. Misinterpretation of deadline for application 30. Failure to get critical review from colleagues prior to submission!

If you’re a reader of this blog and you’ve experienced proposal rejections, and would be willing to (anonymously) share the key reasons from the above list, we would love to hear from you . If we receive a sufficient number of responses, we will discuss the most common reasons identified by readers, in future blogs, along with our detailed suggestions on how to avoid them. In the meantime, in the absence of such postings, readers will still be faced with answering the question: “How do I avoid making these common mistakes?”  The simplest answer to this question would be to read and precisely follow the detailed instructions and guidelines available in each of our versions of The Grant Application Writers’ Workbook .

Terms of Use

PLEASE REVIEW THIS DOCUMENT CAREFULLY BECAUSE IT AFFECTS YOUR RIGHTS.

Welcome to granttrainingcenter.com. (Hereafter sometimes referred to as "Service" or "Grant Training Center Member Community"), operated by Grant Training Center. (hereafter sometimes referred to as "Service Provider", "us," or "our"). By using the granttrainingcenter.com website (the "Website") you agree to be bound by these Terms of Use (this "Agreement"), when you become a paid subscriber ("Subscriber" or "Member"). If you wish to become a Subscriber and make use of the Grant Training Center Member Community service (the "Service"), please read these Terms of Use. If you object to anything in this Agreement or the Grant Training Center Member Community Privacy Policy (http://granttrainingcenter.com/privacy), do not use the Website or the Service. This Agreement is subject to change by Grant Training Center at any time, effective upon posting on the Website, and your use of the Service after such posting will constitute acceptance by you of such changes. These terms of service govern the relationship between you and Grant Training Center.

Electronic Agreement. This Agreement is an electronic contract that sets out the legally binding terms of your use of and your relationship to the Service. This Agreement may be modified by Grant Training Center from time to time, such modifications to be effective upon posting by Grant Training Center on the Grant Training Center Member Community Website. This Agreement includes Grant Training Center Member Community's Privacy Policy, and any notices regarding the Website. By accessing the Website or becoming a Registrant or Subscriber, you accept this Agreement and agree to the terms, conditions and notices contained or referenced herein.

Electronic Form. By accessing the Website or becoming a Registrant or Subscriber, you consent to have this Agreement provided to you in electronic form. In order to access and retain this electronic Agreement, you must have access to the World Wide Web, either directly or through devices that access web-based content, and pay any service fees associated with such access. In addition, you must have all the equipment necessary to make such connection to the World Wide Web, including a computer and modem or other access device. Please print a copy of this document for your records. To retain an electronic copy of this Agreement, you may save it to into any word processing program. You have a right to a paper copy of this Agreement. If you would like a paper copy, please email [email protected]. If you request a paper copy of the Agreement, your account will be suspended until you return a signed copy of the paper agreement to Grant Training Center.

Description of the Service. Grant Training Center Member Community is a service that provides users with access to a rich collection of resources, including but not limited to aggregation of funding opportunities, aggregation of nonprofit organization data, etc. You also understand that the Service may include certain communications from us, such as service announcements, administrative messages and survey invitations and that these communications are considered part of subscriptions. Unless explicitly stated otherwise, any new features which augment or enhance the current Service, including the release of new features and properties, shall be subject to this Agreement. You are responsible for obtaining access to the Service, and that access may involve third-party fees (such as Internet service provider or airtime charges). Additionally, you must provide and are responsible for all equipment necessary to access the Service.

Beta Services. From time to time, new features may be added to Grant Training Center Member Community which might be described as "beta" ("Beta Features"). Registrants and Members acknowledge that Beta Features may be untested, non-functional, and/or partly functional features of the Service. If you elect to use a Beta Feature, you do so at your own risk. NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING ELSE IN THIS AGREEMENT TO THE CONTRARY, GRANT TRAINING CENTER DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE BETA FEATURES WILL BE PROVIDED WITH DUE CARE. Do not rely on the Beta Features for any purpose whatsoever. Beta Features may harm and/or interrupt the regular running of your software and/or hardware. Beta Features will be considered part of the Service and all provisions of this Agreement relating to the Service will apply to the Beta Features.

Proprietary Rights. Grant Training Center Member Community owns and retains all proprietary rights in the Website and the Service. The Website contains the copyrighted material, trademarks, and other proprietary information of Grant Training Center Member Community. Except for that information which is in the public domain or for which you have been given written permission, you may not copy, modify, publish, transmit, distribute, perform, display, or sell any such proprietary information. You may not post, distribute, or reproduce in any way any copyrighted material, trademarks, or other proprietary information without obtaining the prior written consent of the owner of such proprietary rights.

No Resale or Redistribution of Service. Except as expressly authorized by Grant Training Center Member Community, you agree not to reproduce, duplicate, copy, sell, trade, resell, modify, create derivative works, or exploit for any commercial purposes, any portion of the Service or the Software, use of the Service, or access to the Service or computer code that powers the Service (hereafter sometimes "Software").

Copyright Abuse. We respond expeditiously to notices of claimed copyright infringement and terminate users or account holders who are "repeat infringers." Pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we respond to notices of copyright infringement if they conform to the requirements of 17 USC 512(c) by including the following information:

a. The signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the infringed copyright;

b. Identification of the copyrighted work or works claimed to have been infringed;

c. Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed;

d. Information reasonably sufficient to permit the us to contact you (e.g., the address, telephone number, or email address);

e. A statement that you have a good faith belief that use of the material is not authorized by the copyright owner; and

f. A statement signed under penalty of perjury, that information in the complaint is accurate and that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the copyright owner.

Notices must be sent to Grant Training Center 1901 N Fort Myer Drive, Suite 1016, Arlington, VA 22209 or via email to [email protected]

Account Access. You must provide your legal full name, a valid email address, and any other information requested in order to complete subscription process. You must provide a valid email address to become a Registrant. Your login may only be used by one person. A single login shared by multiple people is not permitted. You are responsible for maintaining the security of your account and password. Grant Training Center cannot and will not be liable for any loss or damage from your failure to comply with this security obligation.

Age Requirements. This website's content is intended for adults and we will not knowingly collect personal information from children under 13 years of age. If you are a parent or legal guardian of a child under age 13 who you believe has submitted personal information to this site, please contact us at [email protected] immediately. You must be at least eighteen (18) years of age to subscribe to Grant Training Center Member Community. Membership in the Service is void where prohibited. By using the Website, you represent and warrant that you have the right, authority and capacity to enter into this Agreement and to abide by all of the terms and conditions of this Agreement.

Unauthorized Users. You must be a human. Accounts registered by "bots" or other automated methods are not permitted.

Unauthorized Uses. You must not modify, adapt or hack the Service or modify another website so as to falsely imply that it is associated with the Service or Grant Training Center. You may not reverse engineer or reuse source code that is in public view. This includes any and all javascript. The code is Grant Training Center's copyright. You shall not transmit any worms or viruses or any code of a destructive nature. You agree neither to modify the Software in any manner or form, nor to use modified versions of the Software, including (without limitation) for the purpose of obtaining unauthorized access to the Service. You agree not to access the Service by any means other than through the interface that is provided by Grant Training Center for use in accessing the Service. You acknowledge that the Service is not intended for permanent storage and agree not to use the Service for archiving or back-up purposes. If Grant Training Center determines, in its sole discretion, that you are violating any of these Terms, we may use technical measures to block or restrict your access or use of the Services.

User Spam. Grant Training Center Member Community provides a facility that enables users to send email messages / private messages to others. Users must not use this facility to send unsolicited, bulk or indiscriminate messages, whether or not for commercial purposes. Only messages for the purpose of grant collaboration are allowed.

Receipt of Unwanted Messages. In the unlikely event that you receive any message from Grant Training Center Member Community or sent using Grant Training Center Member Community's systems that may be considered to be spam, please contact Grant Training Center Member Community at [email protected] and the matter will be investigated.

Blocking of IP Addresses. In order to protect the integrity of the Service, Grant Training Center reserves the right at any time in its sole discretion to block Registrants and Members from certain IP addresses from accessing the Website.

Subscription; Pricing. In order to access features and services, including the ability to use many of our tools, you must become a paying Subscriber to the service by agreeing to enter into a subscription with us. Please see our granttrainingcenter.com/membership_description for a description of the current subscription plans and their prices (hereafter "Subscription Policies").

Please note that the Subscription Policies that are disclosed to you in subscribing to the service are deemed part of this Agreement. Further, Grant Training Center may change Service features and functionality from time to time. For purposes of this Agreement the term "Member" includes all paying subscribers, regardless of renewal term or price level, unless where its usage indicates otherwise. The Subscription Fee is payable in United States dollars (including, if any, all applicable taxes).

Subscriptions; Charges on your Billing Account.

a. General. You agree to pay Grant Training Center the subscription fee ("Subscription Fee") specified in the granttrainingcenter.com/membership_description during the subscription period ("Subscription Period"). The Subscription Period varies depending on the plan you sign up for. We currently offer annual subscriptions.

b. Payment Method. A valid credit card or other allowed payment type is required to subscribe to the Service. Payment is made to Grant Training Center through Paypal. Your complete billing information is not stored on Grant Training Center servers. You agree to make payment using that selected Payment Method. Grant Training Center reserves the right to correct any errors or mistakes that it makes even if it has already requested or received payment.

c. Auto-Renewal of Your Subscription Period. You will be entitled to receive the Service only during the subscription period ("Subscription Period"). The subscription will not automatically renew at the end of your subscription period.

h. Cancellation. You may cancel your account at any time by contacting us (granttrainingcenter.com/about_contact). If you are a Registrant, all of your Content (text and files) will be immediately deleted from the Service upon cancellation. This information cannot be recovered once your account is cancelled. If you are a Subscriber and cancel your Subscription prior to the end of the Subscription Period, then Grant Training Center will terminate your access to the Service and delete all your Content (text and files) at the end of the subscription period, and cease billing you for the Service for the consequent Subscription Periods. However, you remain responsible for all charges incurred prior to Grant Training Center terminating access to your account.

i. Collection. Members will pay on all amounts past due, that have not been disputed specifically in writing and in reasonable good faith, an interest charge of one and one-half percent (1.5%) per month computed from the due date of each payment, or the maximum rate permitted by law. Member will be liable for attorneys' fees and collection costs arising from Grant Training Center's efforts to collect unpaid balances.

Modifications to Service. Grant Training Center reserves the right at any time to modify or discontinue, temporarily or permanently, the Service (or any part thereof) with or without notice. You agree that Grant Training Center shall not be liable to you or to any third party for any modification, suspension or discontinuance of the Service.

Reliance on Content, Advice, Etc. Any content that may be posted on the Website is for informational and entertainment purposes only and is not intended to replace or substitute for any professional, financial, legal, or other advice. If you have specific concerns or a situation arises in which you require professional advice, you should consult with an appropriately trained and qualified specialist. Grant Training Center does not: (i) guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information on the Service, or (ii) adopt, endorse or accept responsibility for the accuracy or reliability of any opinion, advice, or statement made by any party that appears on the Website. Under no circumstances will Grant Training Center be responsible for any loss or damage resulting from your reliance on information or other content posted on the Website or transmitted to or by any Members.

DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES. THE WEBSITE AND THE SERVICE ARE PROVIDED "AS-IS" AND ON AN "AS-AVAILABLE" BASIS. TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, GRANT TRAINING CENTER, ITS SUBSIDIARIES, AFFILIATES, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND OTHER PARTNERS AND EMPLOYEES, EXPRESSLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THOSE OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WARRANTY OF TITLE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. GRANT TRAINING CENTER CANNOT GUARANTEE AND DOES NOT PROMISE ANY SPECIFIC RESULTS FROM THE USE OF THE WEBSITE AND/OR SERVICE. SPECIFICALLY, BUT NOT BY WAY OF LIMITATION, GRANT TRAINING CENTER DOES NOT WARRANT RECOVERY OF DATA RESULTING FROM DELAYS OR SERVICE INTERRUPTION CAUSED BY GRANT TRAINING CENTER'S OR YOUR NEGLIGENCE, ERRORS AND OMISSIONS. GRANT TRAINING CENTER SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ACCURACY, MARKETABILITY OR QUALITY OF ANY OF THE INFORMATION OBTAINED AND/OR SERVICES PROVIDED UNDER THIS AGREEMENT. YOU AGREE THAT YOU MUST EVALUATE, AND BEAR ALL RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH, THE USE OF ANY WEBSITE CONTENT AND SERVICES, INCLUDING ANY RELIANCE ON THE ACCURACY, COMPLETENESS, OR USEFULNESS OF SUCH CONTENT. IN THIS REGARD, YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU MAY NOT RELY ON ANY CONTENT CREATED BY GRANT TRAINING CENTER OR SUBMITTED TO GRANT TRAINING CENTER. USE OF THE WEBSITE AND THE SERVICES MAY RESULT IN TECHNICAL MALFUNCTION, DELAY, MISDELIVERY, OR OTHER PROBLEMS WITH OTHER SYSTEMS, PROGRAMS, OR COMPUTER HARDWARE. GRANT TRAINING CENTER CANNOT AND DOES NOT GUARANTEE COMPATIBILITY WITH OTHER SYSTEMS AND HARDWARE.

Third-Party Content. Certain content, Products, and services available via the Service may include materials from third parties. In addition, Grant Training Center may provide links to certain third-party Websites. You acknowledge and agree that Grant Training Center is not responsible for examining or evaluating the content or accuracy of any such third-party material or Websites. Links to other Websites are provided solely as a convenience to you. Because Grant Training Center has no control over such sites and resources, you acknowledge and agree that Grant Training Center is not responsible for the availability of such external sites or resources, and does not endorse and is not responsible or liable for any Content, advertising, products or other materials on or available from such sites or resources. You agree that you will not use any third-party materials in a manner that would infringe or violate the rights of any other party, and that Grant Training Center is not in any way responsible for any such use by you.

LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. EXCEPT IN JURISDICTIONS WHERE SUCH PROVISIONS ARE RESTRICTED, IN NO EVENT WILL GRANT TRAINING CENTER, ITS SUBSIDIARIES, AFFILIATES, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND OTHER PARTNERS AND EMPLOYEES, BE LIABLE TO YOU OR ANY THIRD PERSON FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, EXEMPLARY, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF GRANT TRAINING CENTER HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (I) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE SERVICE; (II) THE COST OF PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS AND SERVICES RESULTING FROM YOUR INABILITY TO ACCESS OR OBTAIN ANY GOODS, DATA, INFORMATION OR SERVICES THROUGH OR FROM THE SERVICE; (III) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (IV) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE SERVICE; (V) ANY CONTENT POSTED ON THE WEBSITE OR TRANSMITTED TO REGISTRANTS OR MEMBERS; (VI) ANY INACCURATE OR OUT-OF-DATE CONTENT PRODUCED BY THE TOOLS OR PUBLISHED IN THE GUIDES OR WEBSITE; (VII) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE SERVICE. NOTHWITHSTANDING ANY PROVISION TO THE CONTRARY, GRANT TRAINING CENTER'S LIABILITY TO YOU FOR ANY CAUSE WHATSOEVER, AND REGARDLESS OF THE FORM OF THE ACTION, WILL AT ALL TIMES BE LIMITED TO THE AMOUNT PAID, IF ANY, BY YOU TO GRANT TRAINING CENTER IN THE TWELVE (12) MONTHS PRIOR TO THE CLAIMED INJURY OR DAMAGE.

Disclaimers and Limitations. Some jurisdictions do not allow the exclusion of certain warranties or the limitation or exclusion of liability for incidental or consequential damages. Accordingly, some of the above limitations and disclaimers of warranties may not apply to you to the extent such jurisdiction's law is applicable to you and these terms.

Indemnity by You. You agree to indemnify and hold Grant Training Center, its subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, agents, and other partners and employees, harmless from any loss, liability, claim, or demand, including reasonable attorneys' fees, made by any third party due to or arising out of your use of the Service in violation of this Agreement and/or arising from a breach of this Agreement and/or any breach of your representations and warranties and/or your negligent or willful acts, and/or the violation by you of Grant Training Center's or any third party's rights, including without limitation privacy rights, other property rights, trade secret, proprietary information, trademark, copyright, or patent rights, and claims for libel slander, or unfair trade practices in connection with the use or operation of the Service. Your obligation to indemnify will survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement by either party for any reason.

No Third Party Beneficiaries. You agree that, except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, there shall be no third party beneficiaries to this Agreement.

Interstate Nature of Communications on Grant Training Center Network. When you register or subscribe with Grant Training Center Member Community, you acknowledge that in using Grant Training Center Member Community services to send electronic communications (including but not limited to search queries, sending messages to the knowledge base, uploading files and photos, and other Internet activities), you will be causing communications to be sent through Grant Training Center's computer networks located in various locations in the United States. As a result, and also as a result of Grant Training Center's network architecture and business practices and the nature of electronic communications, even communications that seem to be intrastate in nature can result in the transmission of interstate communications regardless of where you are physically located at the time of transmission. According, by agreeing to this Agreement, you acknowledge that use of the service results in interstate data transmissions.

Export Control. Each party agrees that it will comply with all applicable export control laws and regulations with respect to the Deliverables.

Term. This Agreement will remain in full force and effect while you use the Website and/or are a Member. You may cancel your Subscription at any time, for any reason. Grant Training Center may terminate your Subscription by sending notice to you at the email address you provide in your application for membership, or such other email address as you may later provide to Grant Training Center. If Grant Training Center terminates your membership in this Service because you have breached this Agreement, you will not be entitled to any refund of unused Subscription Fees. All decisions regarding the termination of accounts shall be made in the sole discretion of Grant Training Center. Grant Training Center is not required, and may be prohibited, from disclosing a reason for the termination of your account. Even after your membership or subscription is terminated, this Agreement will remain in effect. All terms that by their nature may survive termination of this Agreement shall be deemed to survive such termination. Such termination of the Service will result in the deactivation or deletion of your Account or your access to your Account, and the forfeiture and relinquishment of all Content in your Account. Grant Training Center reserves the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason at any time.

Dispute Resolution. All disputes related to or arising out of Services performed pursuant to this Agreement shall be resolved exclusively by binding arbitration in Virginia, USA in accordance with the JAMS Streamlined Arbitration Rules & Procedures, by one commercial arbitrator with substantial experience resolving intellectual property and commercial contract disputes, who shall be selected from the appropriate list of JAMS arbitrators, and judgment on the award rendered by the arbitrator may be entered in any court of competent jurisdiction. Each party hereby consents to arbitration in Virginia, USA for the foregoing purposes.

Relationship of Parties. For all purposes under this Agreement Grant Training Center and you shall not be construed as being parties to a joint venture, franchise, partnership or agency relationship. Neither you nor Grant Training Center have authority, apparent or otherwise, to represent, contract for or on behalf of, or in any other way legally bind the other party hereto in any fashion. Essentially there is no relationship at all beyond Grant Training Center providing the services mentioned in this agreement.

Assignment. Neither party shall have the right to assign this Agreement to another person or entity, except that Service Provider may assign and transfer its rights and obligations or this Agreement without consent to a successor to all or substantially all its relevant assets or business.

Governing Law; The parties consent to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of the federal and state courts located in the state of Virginia, USA, without regard to the conflicts of law provisions thereof, in any action arising out of or relating to this Agreement. The parties waive any other jurisdiction to which either party might be entitled by domicile or otherwise.

Attorneys' Fees: In any litigation, arbitration, or other proceeding arising out of or related to this Agreement wherein the Service Provider is required to use legal means and/or the services of a collection agency in order to enforce its rights under this Agreement or seeks a declaration of any rights or obligations under this Agreement, the Service Provider shall be awarded its reasonable attorney fees, and costs and expenses incurred.

Other: The failure of Grant Training Center to exercise or enforce any right or provision of the Terms of Service shall not constitute a waiver of such right or provision. If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid, the remainder of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. The Terms of Service constitutes the entire agreement between you and Grant Training Center and govern your use of the Service, superseding any prior agreements between you and Grant Training Center (including, but not limited to, any prior versions of the Terms of Service).

Questions about the Terms of Service should be sent to [email protected]

Your privacy is important to Grant Training Center. This privacy statement provides information about the personal information that Grant Training Center collects, and the ways in which Grant Training Center uses that personal information.

Personal information collection

Grant Training Center may collect and use the following kinds of personal information:

• information about your use of this website (including login activity and usage data);
• information about transactions carried out over this website (including communications with other members);
• information that you provide for the purpose of subscribing to the website services (including name, location, phone number, professional profile); and
• any other information that you send to Grant Training Center.

Using personal information

Grant Training Center may use your personal information to:

• administer this website;
• personalize the website for you;
• enable your access to and use of the website services;
• publish information about you on the website;
• send to you products that you purchase;
• supply to you services that you purchase;
• send to you statements and invoices;
• collect payments from you; and
• send you marketing communications.

Where Grant Training Center discloses your personal information to its agents or sub-contractors for these purposes, the agent or sub-contractor in question will be obligated to use that personal information in accordance with the terms of this privacy statement.

In addition to the disclosures reasonably necessary for the purposes identified elsewhere above, Grant Training Center may disclose your personal information to the extent that it is required to do so by law, in connection with any legal proceedings or prospective legal proceedings, and in order to establish, exercise or defend its legal rights.

Securing your data

Grant Training Center will take reasonable technical and organisational precautions to prevent the loss, misuse or alteration of your personal information.

Grant Training Center will store all the personal information you provide on its secure servers.

Cross-border data transfers

Information that Grant Training Center collects may be stored and processed in and transferred between any of the countries in which Grant Training Center operates to enable the use of the information in accordance with this privacy policy.

In addition, personal information that you submit for publication on the website will be published on the internet and may be available around the world.

You agree to such cross-border transfers of personal information.

Updating this statement

Grant Training Center may update this privacy policy by posting a new version on this website.

You should check this page occasionally to ensure you are familiar with any changes.

Other websites

This website contains links to other websites.

Grant Training Center is not responsible for the privacy policies or practices of any third party.

Contact Grant Training Center

If you have any questions about this privacy policy or Grant Training Center's treatment of your personal information, please write:

• by email to [email protected]; or
• by post to Grant Training Center, 1901 N Fort Myer Drive, Suite 1016, Arlington VA 22209.

Why Did My Research Proposal Fail?

The success rate for research proposals submitted to the National Science Foundation (NSF) is in the teens. So why do more than 80% of submissions fail? The reasons vary from poor writing, to not following directions, to a lack of examples. The major cause, however, is that many submissions are not research projects at all. For those that are, clear explanations of the need and methodology are missing or flawed. Here are the five most common reasons why research proposals are rejected:

1. Failure to follow submission guidelines

Many Federal agencies, including the NSF, will return proposals without review. The simple reason given is that the guidelines were not followed. Few events are as frustrating as losing a grant competition because the margins on your proposal were a quarter-inch too wide or a mandatory section was missing. This is perhaps the easiest flaw to address in a rejected proposal. Researchers must become students of the Request for Application (RFA) to ensure their applications do not stop at this stage.

2. Poorly written proposals

Proposals that make the reviewers question the author’s credibility as a researcher are fatal. Poorly written proposals, including mistakes such as poor grammar and misspellings, can detract from your idea. If you have a good idea, you must present it in the best possible light to beat the competition. Ideally you can have your proposal professionally reviewed and edited . Alternatively, you should send it to a naïve reader and a grammarian. Each will provide necessary information that pertains to the readability and communication of your ideas to the reviewers.

3. Failure to immediately address the purpose of the proposal

The first sentence of the first paragraph should be what the proposal is about. Unfortunately, it is not unusual to not see the purpose of the research until several sentences into the first paragraph. Since the ratings of your proposal often depend on the ease of finding the information about your request, you must be obvious and direct. It is imperative that you begin the first paragraph with: “The research objective of this proposal is…”

4. The scientific investigation is not methodical, repeatable and verifiable

The probability of reaching your objectives depends on your methodology. You must be able to clearly state how your project will unfold, and describe how you will conduct your research. Success also depends on your project being repeatable by other researchers. With the wave of rescinded grants and questionable research results making their way into mainstream news, accountability and complete objectivity are absolute necessities. Your research must be verifiable. In other words, can you show that the results you claim are true?

5. Not stating the research objectives appropriately

The statement of your research objective should lead you directly to your methodology. If it does not, you don’t have a clear statement of your research objective. To quote the NSF, the acceptable ways to state a research objective are:

• The research objective of this proposal is to test the hypothesis H.
• The research objective of this proposal is to measure parameter P with accuracy A.
• The research objective of this proposal is to prove the conjecture C.
• The research objective of this proposal is to apply method M from disciplinary area D to solve problem P in disciplinary area E.

At the end of the day, it is important to understand that a research proposal submitted for funding is not a manuscript, a paper for publication, nor a novel. It is a request with clear objectives and methodology. Also, adhering to the RFA guidelines may require sections that are not directly related to your research, such as Broader Impacts and the inclusion of underrepresented groups. Selling your idea depends on remembering that you have to convince the reviewers of the need for your research in the clearest, most understandable, and logical manner. As the NIH asks us to remember: “Think of yourself as a used car salesman, selling a used car to a group of seasoned used car salesmen.”

• Latest Posts

Mathilda Harris

Latest posts by mathilda harris ( see all ).

• Can AI Write your Grant Proposal? - January 8, 2024
• Three Essentials for Grant Success: Ingredients, Preparation, and Presentation - December 11, 2023
• How Does Grant Writing Experience Help Me Get a Job? - August 21, 2023

2 comments on “ Why Did My Research Proposal Fail? ”

I am definitely in favor of supporting young investigators through administration of handicaps where new investigators are recognized at the time of grant review or by the Institutes providing funding. We need more resources put into K awards and training programs and less in Centers and Collaborative awards (U) that are very expensive. The best accounting of our research dollars comes from programs that are small enough that each investigators must be accountable for what they produce. We all know of large scale programs where some researchers are highly productivity while other researchers are along for the ride. Why can t we investigate these and other ways to save research dollars for young investigators rather than assuming everyone with past histories of grant-getting success should quit doing the very thing they are good at doing.

And Happy New Year!

Thanks for this post. In my opinion, it is really helpful. Are there any more articles on research proposal writing?

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

Common errors in proposal development and how to avoid them

Below is an example list of errors commonly found in applications and proposals for external funding routed to ORA/ORS for institutional approval that can cause delays in review and submission (or prevent submission altogether).  It is important to follow all applicable guidelines, policies, processes and regulations to ensure that an application can be accepted by the sponsor and considered for funding; therefore, those errors denoted with (**) could prevent submission of the application to the sponsor if not addressed. 

The best way to ensure a smooth submission is to complete the required Intent to Submit at least fifteen (15) business days in advance of the submission date to alert your grant manager and ORA/ORS that a submission is forthcoming.  This way, the appropriate administrative support is aware and can plan / help you navigate the steps to submission as early as possible. 

If you have questions or need help navigating the proposal submission process, please work with your departmental research administrators and/or contact [email protected] . 

Errors that will prevent an application from being submitted, include: 

• Final documents are not received 
• The internal deadline was not met 
• Proposal attestation  is not completed 
• Proposed Principal Investigator is not  eligible to serve as PI  
• There is an irreconcilable issue from the  required changes list   
• The application ( with approved waiver ) is received with less than two days for review  

Utilize the myRESEARCHpath feedback survey  to share additional ideas or suggestions for avoiding common errors

Common errors by category

Coming soon!

Writing a Research Proposal for Sponsorship or Funding

• First Online: 14 November 2019

Cite this chapter

• Debra Nestel 7 , 6 ,
• Kevin Kunkler 8 ,
• Joshua Hui 9 ,
• Aaron W. Calhoun 10 &
• Mark W. Scerbo 11  

2227 Accesses

1 Citations

A main reason for writing a research proposal is to obtain funding or other non-monetary support. For this chapter, the purpose and predominant theme of writing a research proposal is for obtaining funds to support the research project. Many of our readers already know there is no one research proposal “formula” that can be applied to all funding applications. Many of the opportunities and application processes have similar steps and may request much of the same information, however one should not “cut and paste” a previous proposal into another organization’s or agency’s application process as there are significant differences. Proposals will need some degree of repackaging to properly align to what the organization or funding agency is seeking. This chapter will offer just a glimpse of some of those common steps, and address items that make healthcare simulation unique from a research application process. It will explore some common pitfalls that can result in a research proposal’s rejection.

• Research-grant
• Grant-application
• Research-proposal
• Sponsored-research

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Al-Riyami A. How to prepare a research proposal. Oman Med J. 2008;23(2):66–9.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Bradshaw CJA. Twenty tips for writing a research proposal. https://conservationbytes.com/2015/05/04/twenty-tips-for-writing-a-research-proposal/ .

How to write a research proposal. https://www.wikihow.com/Write-a-Research-Proposal .

How to write your research proposal. https://www.westminster.ac.uk/study/postgraduate/research-degrees/how-to-apply/entry-requirements/how-to-write-your-research-proposal .

Patel A. Research in simulation: research and grant writing 101. https://www.laerdal.com/usa/sun/presentations/phoenix/day1/8-patel.pdf .

Study Guide and Strategies. How to write a research proposal. http://www.studygs.net/proposal.htm .

Sudheesh K, et al. How to write a research proposal? Indian J Anaesth. 2016;60(9):631–4.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Center for innovation in research and teaching. Developing a research proposal. https://cirt.gcu.edu/research/developmentresources/tutorials/researchproposal .

Defense Acquisition University. Research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) funds. Created 19-Apr-2015; last reviewed 20-June-2018. https://www.dau.mil/acquipedia/Pages/ArticleDetails.aspx?aid=e933639e-b773-4039-9a17-2eb20f44cf79 .

von Hippel T, von Hippel C. To apply or not to apply: a survey analysis of grant writing costs and benefits. PLoS One. 2015;10(3):e0118494. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118494 .

Bourne PE, Chalupa LM. Ten simple rules for getting grants. PLoS Comput Biol. 2006;2(2):e12.

Article   Google Scholar  

Proctor EK, et al. Writing implementation research grant proposals: ten key ingredients. Implement Sci IS. 7 96. 12 Oct 2012 doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-96 .

Kunkler K. The role of medical simulation: an overview. Int J Med Robot. 2006;2(3):203–10.

Morrison T. How simulation can transform regulatory pathways. 9-Aug-2018. https://www.fda.gov/ScienceResearch/AboutScienceResearchatFDA/ucm616822.htm .

Microsoft. Surgeons use Microsoft HoloLens to ‘see inside’ patients before they operate on them, 8-Feb-2018. https://news.microsoft.com/en-gb/2018/02/08/surgeons-use-microsoft-hololens-to-see-inside-patients-before-they-operate-on-them/ .

Novarad. OpenSight augmented reality system is the first solution for Microsoft HoloLens 510(k) cleared by the FDA for medical use, 24-Oct-2018. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20181024005714/en/Novarad%E2%80%99s-OpenSight-Augmented-Reality-System-Solution-Microsoft .

Harris M. Why did my research proposal fail. https://granttrainingcenter.com/blog/research-proposal-fail/ .

National Institutes of health, success rates. https://report.nih.gov/success_rates/ .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Monash Institute for Health and Clinical Education, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia

Debra Nestel

Austin Hospital, Department of Surgery, Melbourne Medical School, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry & Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Heidelberg, VIC, Australia

School of Medicine – Medical Education, Texas Christian University and University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, TX, USA

Kevin Kunkler

Emergency Medicine, Los Angeles Medical Center, Kaiser Permanente, Los Angeles, CA, USA

Department of Pediatrics, University of Louisville School of Medicine, Louisville, KY, USA

Aaron W. Calhoun

Department of Psychology, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA

Mark W. Scerbo

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kevin Kunkler .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Emergency Medicine, Kaiser Permanente, Los Angeles Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA

Department of Surgery, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Baltimore, MD, USA

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Nestel, D., Kunkler, K., Hui, J., Calhoun, A.W., Scerbo, M.W. (2019). Writing a Research Proposal for Sponsorship or Funding. In: Nestel, D., Hui, J., Kunkler, K., Scerbo, M., Calhoun, A. (eds) Healthcare Simulation Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26837-4_33

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26837-4_33

Published : 14 November 2019

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-26836-7

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-26837-4

eBook Packages : Biomedical and Life Sciences Biomedical and Life Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

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 2 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.

• High-impact business writing
• Effective email writing
• Bid, tender and sales-proposal writing
• Technical writing
• Writing for customer service

• Customer-service writing
• Effective report writing

Bids and proposals

Why grant proposals are rejected (and what to do if yours is)

Richard leggatt.

12 minute read

If you’re new to writing funding bids, you may be wondering if there’s a closely guarded silver bullet that will guarantee success for every proposal.

Well, I’m sorry to say, there’s no such thing.

But the good news is, ask 100 funders the most common reasons they refuse funding requests and they’ll mostly agree on the same ‘classic’ mistakes. That means you can easily avoid falling into any of the worst traps.

A quick note: not all the content coming up will apply equally for every kind of funder. You’d focus more on some areas over others depending on whether you were writing for a government department or a company’s CSR team, for example. I compiled this list with a medium-sized charitable foundation in mind, as that’s probably the least ‘niche’ type of philanthropic audience.

Let’s get started.

1 The project doesn't fit with the funder's priorities

In that poll of why funders (especially large, influential funders) refuse requests for funding, the reason you’ll always find top of the bill is: ‘The proposal doesn’t fit with our priorities.’

Look out for those priorities listed or described on the funder’s website. And while you’re there, also check under ‘guidelines’, ‘themes’, ‘programmes’ or ‘strategy’. Hopefully, you’ll find language that closely mirrors certain key aspects of your project. If you don’t, then it may well be that this is not the funding source for you on this occasion.

When you find those key phrases, do your best to echo them back in your own text. In many ways, you are playing a game here. But, if the fit is natural, then it’s a game that the funder won’t mind seeing. To an extent, they’ll expect it.

It can be tempting to ‘give it a go’ with funders whose grant-making priorities don’t fit squarely with your own objectives, especially if the heat is on to find that elusive, game-changing grant. But if your instincts are telling you there’s a mismatch, trust them. If the problem is clear enough for you to see it yourself, then it almost certainly spells failure.

If the alignment is unclear but you still want to try your luck, summarise your project in an exploratory email or a brief letter of enquiry as a first step. Diving straight into a lengthy, potentially misguided proposal will drain not only your time but also the funder’s. Be aware it won’t take long to gain a reputation for not paying close enough attention to detailed funder guidelines.

Finally, a quick word on innovation. Many funders express a desire to support work that is breaking new ground. There’s a tricky balance to strike on this.

On the one hand, your proposal is unlikely to succeed if it essentially outlines a continuation of business-as-usual operations. On the other hand, funders are likely to turn away from funding work that is so new and left-field that there’s no way (as they see it) of predicting its outcomes. So the optimum proposal lies somewhere in between those extremes. And it would ideally highlight one or two pertinent projects that have been shown to work.

2 You're not yet on the funder's radar

Naturally, every organisation is new at some point. Being new or unknown to your target funder doesn’t guarantee your proposal will fail. But it can diminish your odds. And, conversely, being a known (and respected) quantity will increase your chances of success.

Does the funder you want to approach already know of your organisation and your excellent work? If not, it’s important to pause and ask yourself whether now is the best time to be putting in your proposal at all.

Might it instead be worth investing some time in cultivating more of a relationship with their team first? You could do this by inviting them to an event or two, sending them some examples of your thought leadership or impact reports, or just trying to arrange an introductory meeting.

But, of course, the need for your funding might be so pressing that you can’t wait around for such luxuries. So judge this case by case.

3 The need isn't well defined or compelling

To you, the acute need for your project is probably blindingly clear, but don’t assume that everyone else already sees it that way too. Your proposal has to clearly define the central need for the requested funding and make it compelling. If it doesn’t, then the all-important grant cheque will never be written.

It’s essential to get away from thinking in terms of your needs or your organisation’s needs. Focus instead on the needs of your beneficiaries or target audiences.

A statement like, ‘Our charity desperately needs your support to ensure continued service in the year ahead,’ is unlikely to grab a funder’s attention in the right way. Instead, the reader needs to know exactly how that service will make a positive difference to people’s lives. And ideally you should provide evidence – quantitative or qualitative (or both) – to support your statement of need.

Often, funding requests must be tailored to fit prescriptive application forms. In those cases, you won’t be able to make your own choices about the order in which the content appears. But, when you do have that freedom, always place your compelling explanation of the need for the proposed project up front.

Don’t be tempted to build steadily towards this as a kind of punchline – the reader may never get that far. Whenever possible, start the ball rolling with a strong problem/needs statement .

And try not to focus solely on the positive developments that are needed. Sometimes, you’ll paint a more persuasive picture by turning the lens around to focus on the negative things that could happen if the requested funding doesn’t come in. It’s often easier to be more direct and include a stronger element of urgency in this way.

Consider the following: ‘If this trend continues, and without more funding being made available, we anticipate that in the next year another 5,000 households in the target area will slide into fuel poverty.’ Sentences like this should help the funder to see that allowing the status quo to continue will mean the scale of the problem intensifying. And this could ultimately mean the need for twice as much funding.

4 It isn’t clear how your work will solve the problem

Once you’ve clearly established the problem in your proposal, then you need to make the convincing case that you have the solution to this problem. This means you need to build a clear and logical pathway from the problem, via your project, to the resolution. If you don’t do this properly, then the funder won’t see you as the most worthwhile funding recipient.

We’ve looked before at navigating the hierarchy of terms , including ‘aims’ and ‘outcomes’, that articulate how change happens. It’s essential that you can clearly express how the various activities included in your proposal will achieve a well-defined set of outcomes. These outcomes are what will ultimately stand as evidence that you’ve achieved your project aims and therefore helped to tackle the problem in question.

However you arrive at your particular outcomes, you should always aim to describe impacts that can be lasting and sustainable. The most compelling proposals include an element of impact rolling on into the future.

Think of the ‘Teach a man to fish’ proverb. If the funding you’re requesting will lead to positive outcome X, that’s all well and good. But if outcome X will, in turn, lead to positive outcomes Y and Z, then you may have a far stronger case on your hands.

Wherever possible, try to ensure that all these results will be measurable. It may well be that, because of the nature of the project, you can only hope to evaluate success anecdotally. But remember: any kind of evaluation will be better than none in the eyes of the funder.

As we’ve said, it’s best to avoid focusing on organisational needs. But you should still make sure that the project you’re proposing clearly aligns with your organisation’s mission. Aim to make it abundantly clear that no other group of people is as well positioned as yours to deliver the necessary solution. If your organisation doesn’t have the necessary experience on its own, then make sure you can involve the right partners to complete the picture.

5 There are too many questions about your budget

When you’re asking someone to entrust you with funding, naturally it’s vital to make it clear where that money will go (and why).

This is all about resources – the resources you already have at your disposal and those that you’re requesting in the proposal.

How you propose allocating those resources needs to be justified, which explains why you’ll often come across a required section called ‘Justification of resources’ in funding application forms. But you might be left to your own devices with the document structure. If you are, make sure that you always include that section anyway.

It should help to think of this as a narrative explanation of your budget. You need to clearly and concisely explain how each item of input will contribute to the desired outcomes.

Those inputs can range from the time allocation of a staff member or consultant to the provision of a physical thing (for example, three minibuses or 20 water pumps).

You need to make clear links between the resources going into the project and the resulting outputs. For example: ‘Two project officers working for a month to install 20 water pumps will enable running water for 500 villagers in the target area.’ You should focus on spelling these connections out as clearly as possible in the justification narrative. Then make sure you can support your justification in the way you present your costs in the budget section itself.

You need to work hard in this section to help the reader connect the various pieces together. If you don’t, your proposal could be heading for the ‘We regret to inform you’ pile.

Being ultra-clear in defining the various activities you are proposing is also essential. Ideally, every activity should have a start and end date and a clear place in the overall jigsaw alongside all of the other activities.

If you’re proposing a reasonably complex project, consider grouping your activities under individual outcomes to mirror the structure of your budget. Doing this will give the reader a clearer picture of the areas their funds will support.

So let’s imagine your project aims to improve availability of running water and solar energy in a particular location. Staff time will be shared between delivering those two outcomes. Here, aim to make sure that the time allocation is clearly quantified under each outcome, rather than being left as a single, generalised budget item.

And, if you really want to impress, try creating a Gantt chart to show the sequence of the various activities. This should highlight overlaps and potential bottlenecks, for transparency. Colour-code the chart either to distinguish between your work packages or to reflect areas of responsibility of your personnel.

6 You missed the deadline

This is perhaps the most obvious reason, and one that is sure to result in rejection: failing to get your proposal in on time.

Of course, any of us could spend a year developing and polishing the finest funding proposal ever created – but if you miss the deadline, you won’t win the grant.

The proposal-development process can often be a pretty complex one, especially if it needs to involve multiple contributors and external partners. You might need to secure testimonials or letters of support. Or you might need to source a number of estimates to inform your budget. Navigating these stepping stones can soak up a lot of time.

So always start by creating a timetable, working backwards from the ultimate submission deadline. Build in unambiguous internal deadlines along the way. And make sure everyone involved is clear about their roles and the timing expectations.

If you’ll be leaning on others to check and sign off drafts or if you’re expecting contributions from external partners, make sure you allow enough time for those process loops.

And if the proposal submission process involves an online platform of any kind, avoid submitting on the day of the deadline. Websites can crash under pressure!

What to do if your proposal is rejected

Follow all of this advice in full and you increase your odds of winning. But there’s nothing that can guarantee a win. Sometimes success will be out of your reach through no fault of your own.

You could produce the most polished proposal imaginable, but if the funder’s portfolio is full up or they’ve already allocated all the available funds, your project won’t get the go-ahead.

Whenever this happens, you need to stop and do two things.

First, try everything under the sun to glean some feedback. Feedback is like gold dust, even if the funder sends only a few sentences.

Ideally, try to secure a brief conversation to learn more about the reasons for their decision. Be warned: you’ll often need to work hard to get anywhere. But it is hugely worthwhile if you can gather some insights at this point. It might also pave the way for another, slightly reworked, attempt at a later date.

And that connects with the other thing to always remember if you fail at the first (or second, or third) attempt: be resilient and never give up!

It’s all too easy to file unsuccessful proposals in a drawer labelled ‘No good’. But instead you should be thinking about where else you can take the same ideas. You may need to adjust and repurpose them and apply different nuances to align with another funder’s aims and rationale, but it’s always worth trying. And it’s often possible to go round again with the same funder when the timing works better for them.

The truth is that it’s a highly competitive landscape and you’ve got to work hard to pull the spotlight away from your competitors. But the good news is that all of the variables we’ve covered in this article are entirely under your control. So, accept all those factors you can’t change and focus your mind on those you can.

Good luck and may you nail that next proposal.  

  Want to equip your team of fundraisers with the skills to write grant proposals that win over funders? Take a look at our Grant proposal writing course or get in touch to talk about your needs.  

Main image credit: theshots.co  /  Shutterstock

Your go-to guide to better writing

Get your own PDF copy of The Write Stuff , the definitive guide for everyone who writes at work.

Richard is a proposal writer and fundraising expert with over 20 years’ experience in the charity sector. He's also one of our specialist business-writing trainers. His fundraising career has seen him engage with individual donors, government funding agencies and international foundations. This experience honed his ability to communicate specific messages to a wide range of audiences – a skill which has helped him lead teams to win multiple seven-figure bids. He shares his experience and insights in the training room and here on the Emphasis Knowledge Hub.

Was this article helpful?

This helps us make better content for you

You might also like

How to write a compelling needs statement for a grant proposal

Goals, objectives, outcomes and more: navigating the language of grant proposals

A guide to social value and how to respond to social value questions in tenders

How to create strong tender responses with subject matter experts

Get expert advice, how-tos and resources for good writing (and great work).

• Search in https://www.helenbrowngroup.com/ Search
• 617-393-1983
• [email protected]

Helen Brown Group

May 31, 2018 By Helen Brown

When Research fails (& what to do about it)

An alumna of the university/donor to the museum/former grateful patient and her husband made a jaw-droppingly significant charitable gift that was in all the newspapers.

There were two problems with this:

• The gift was made across town.
• The alumna/donor/former patient hadn’t been a rated prospect.

Everybody asks: why wasn’t she on the organization’s radar? Her evident wealth should have been surfaced long before. Why hadn’t it? What was Research doing wrong?

They were experiencing significant FOMO: Fear of Missing Out

As it turns out, there are multiple good reasons why the information didn’t bubble up, and it usually goes like this:

• The donor was in the database under her maiden name. She’d neglected to mention her marriage to her alma mater/museum/hospital, so the couple were not “married” on the institution’s database of record.
• The organization (therefore) had no record of her husband.
• As a relatively small donor, the donor wasn’t being actively tracked.
• And, as you’d expect, her alma mater/museum giving/hospital stay didn’t appear in the PR surrounding the gift, so news alerts on the university’s/museum’s/hospital’s name wouldn’t have caught it.

So there are always lots of good reasons, and a certain amount of relief on the part of Research that it wasn’t all their “fault.” But, as we discuss it, I always ask myself (and the client), is this really just a Research-Missing-Something issue? Do the reasons point to multiple gaps?

Fundraising is a team activity. We all have eyes and ears and a collective responsibility to keep our organization’s records up to date. If information like that is somehow missed, External Relations as a team missed it. If we’re working with a university, that’s Research, Records, the Alumni Office, the Annual Fund, Class agents, front-line fundraisers who gather peer information…everybody misses the information about the alumna, because any one of them could have discovered it.

Or maybe nobody missed it. Maybe the “fault” (if there is any fault to be assigned) was with the donor for not updating the organization when she got married (and honestly, she probably had more important things on her mind at the time, no?)

The fact is that it eventually did get found by someone on the team performing the function of prospect researcher (at least for that moment). And even though the donor and her husband made a monumental gift across town, there is probably more where that came from if they want to be generous again. Cultivation can now begin (and after the news report, it’s no secret at what level the couple are comfortable giving!).

Still, everybody top to bottom on the org chart is rightly freaked out that something so large has been missed, and everyone wants to prevent it from happening again.

So as you begin (or continue) to try and build up the best, most dynamically current, portfolios you can for your fundraising team, how can you be sure that you’re not missing anything …or anyone? Here are a few suggestions:

Wealth screen as often as you can, using different products

I know, I know, the wealth screening companies are going to bonk me on the head for this one, but honestly, screening using the same company for years on end is just nuts.

Why? The top companies work hard to innovate and offer new resources as part of their product suite, so one service might just turn up a prospect another company misses simply due to their sources, or matching algorithm, or coding system.

Also, do it more often than every 5 years. Not only does our economy vastly shift on a much swifter cycle than ever before, but people change jobs, amass wealth (and give it away) much more quickly, too. Even if you only screen rotating portions, if you need to build portfolios and pipelines, you’ll need to be sure that screenings are in your budget.

But just screening isn’t enough. You’ve got to…

Validate and analyze your screening results

If you don’t budget a person’s time to do this post-screening you are definitely going to miss out on prospects.

Why? Screenings don’t find everything. In fact, these days screenings may find fewer hard assets because high net wealth folks have wealth managers to help them stay under the radar. For example:

• Money that a few years ago would have gone into a foundation is now going into donor advised funds instead.
• Real estate is increasingly being held in trusts which don’t bear the name or address of the owner. Screenings match on name and address.
• Off-shoring assets is now convenient for people even in the $2 million+ wealth bracket.
• Information on privately-held companies (which make up ~90% of all wealth in America) is unavailable.
• Assets such as art, inheritances, and family wealth are never found in a screening. That all has to be found through a visit or through good old-fashioned elbow-grease prospect research.

In years previous, finding someone’s relative wealth was much easier than it is now. We may have more data, but we have less information. What screenings can increasingly help you find is someone’s philanthropy, which is valuable on a number of levels.

Also, they’re great at providing you with clues to wealth, if you know how to look for them. The fact that someone is connected to 15 privately-held LLCs, even if they’re all listed as having no reported sales, is a potential wealth indicator. Validating and analyzing the results means looking into people whose assets may (appear to) equal zero on paper, but whose potential is top notch.

Use a multitude of alert services

In order to be on top of breaking News You Need To Know, you will want to set up alerts. That being said, keeping track of alerts is really time consuming, so be thoughtful about where you concentrate. I’d suggest starting with your top 50 or 100 prospects; your board; top volunteers; organizational leadership; and the institution name itself. If you have a “competitor” across town, maybe add their name to catch top donors. And don’t just use one service.

Why? Again, different services track different sources and you’ll want to use a variety so you don’t miss anything. Start with tools like Lexis Nexis for Development Professionals, Mention, Mosaic, Relationship Science, and search engines, and pay attention to where you get the most hits. Is it news? Social media? Where do your donors turn up?

Caveat emptor: As I say, keeping up with alerts is super time consuming, so I always recommend that you start by keeping your Boolean logic tight and then loosening it if you’re not getting as much as you think you should be – otherwise you’re going to be drowning in a sea of alerts.

Spread the responsibility amongst a few people, and find direct and creative ways of communicating the best hits to the assigned frontline fundraiser in a way that works best for them. You can do this in a multitude of ways, including via email, setting up an internal web page, or using a service like StartMe * to build RSS feeds.

Alerts are one of the best ways I know to catch late-breaking news about prospects. That being said, you have to get their names and relationships right. SO:

Get your database in order

You know the old saying, “if it’s not in the database, it didn’t happen” right? Well, it’s true. A sad, neglected, database is the easiest way to lose track of people (and also the easiest way for constituents to get frustrated with you). Also there may be legal requirements regarding your responsibility for maintaining or holding certain pieces of data, so there’s that, too.

Just a few suggestions: (and there are many, many, many more I could add here)

• Make sure your AlumniFinder/NCOA updates are run regularly, keeping your addresses current.
• Marry people/combine records.
• Connect records between families, business partners, and people and companies.
• Be consistent with company names, and with coding.
• Enter pertinent information from contact reports.
• Track event invitations, attendance, and non-attendance.

Making sure these data are in your system will help support a robust fundraising program (not to mention light or in-depth data analysis for prospect identification now or in the future). Also, the cleaner your database is, the better your wealth screenings will be.

Speaking of clean – watch your personal (data) hygiene

I know that you probably know by now that search engines don’t contain everything, and so you use multiple search engines besides just Google, like DuckDuckGo and Bing to be sure that you’re casting the widest net possible.

And you’ve probably heard that, with all of the personalization that search engines do based on your past searching, that they’ve built up a filter bubble around you that means that you will see less and less unless you clear out your cache and cookies on a weekly basis.

And I’m guessing that you know that you can sit next to someone and do the exact same search on the exact same search engine and see different results because of this personalization, so you sign out of Google and use Incognito mode in Chrome to get the least filtered results.

But just in case you didn’t know all that, I wanted to make sure you did. Because it’s important that we’re all on board with the fact that we all see different results in Google, and that’s frustrating for prospect researchers who need and want to see all of it and make our own decisions about what’s important.

Every research report deserves to have the most relevant information we can find, and it’s frustrating for us researchers when we’re hampered by technology that’s supposed to be helping us. So please understand that if you find something in your first page of results that a(nother) researcher didn’t, it may not be (just) her.

Communicate better

Some organizations are blessed to have that one person who has worked at the organization for 20+ years and who remembers the name of every prospect who has ever been considered by any fundraiser at any time. Usually employed in Alumni/Constituent Records or Research, they know the reason why proposals moved forward or were stalled. Who is related to whom. Who divorced whom and why certain people shouldn’t be seated at the same table at an event. That person has a value beyond diamonds and should be part of the onboarding for every new fundraiser to go over their new portfolio.

Many times I’m surprised to find that that person is not included in those discussions. In fact, sometimes there’s little to no communication between frontline fundraisers and researchers at all. In every on-site consultation I’ve done, at least one fundraiser has said to me, “I’ve worked here x months/years and have never met the research team/my researcher.”

It seems pretty evident to me that people who are naturally brilliant at building strong relationships should be naturals at cultivating a person or group of people whose very job is to help support their efforts to be successful, if for no other reason than enlightened self-interest.

Fortunately, those noncommunicative folks are the exception rather than the rule, but, still. There’s a lot more communicating that can happen. Even if your organization doesn’t have an institutional memory person (yet), feeding information back to the researcher/research team from donor/prospect meetings will help build that institutional memory.

That two-way flow of information will help you and your team to avoid missing out on prospective donors, simply because you have more pairs of eyes paying attention – and making connections.

What does your organization do to avoid missing information?

*StartMe didn’t pay me to include them in this article. I use StartMe myself and I really like it.

Tara began working in the development field in 2002 at Simmons College in Boston, where she was hired as a major gifts and development research assistant and ultimately went on to serve as Assistant Director of Prospect Research. Later in her career, she worked as a Senior Research Analyst at MIT, as Associate Director of Prospect Management & Research at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, and as Director of Development Research at Combined Jewish Philanthropies (CJP).

Tara originally joined The Helen Brown Group in 2007 as a Research Associate and ShareTraining Coordinator. She rejoined the Group as a Senior Researcher in 2013, and has since gone on to serve as Assistant Director of Research and Consulting; Assistant Director & Data Insight Lead; Associate Director of Research and Consulting; and Director, Research & Consulting, her current role.

She has also been an active volunteer with NEDRA for many years. From 2010-2016, she served on NEDRA’s Board of Directors and was Vice President, Secretary, Editor of NEDRA News, and Chair of the Website & Technology and Volunteer Committees. Since 2020, Tara has been a member of NEDRA’s Research Basics Bootcamp faculty, co-teaching a tri-annual course on the essentials of prospect research. In the past, she was also a volunteer with Apra International, serving stints on the Membership Committee, Chapters Committee, and Bylaws Task Force.

In 2022, Tara received NEDRA’s Ann Castle Award, which acknowledges outstanding effort or achievement in the field of development research and related fields.

She earned a B.A. degree in fine arts, education, and psychology from Smith College.

Tara joined The Helen Brown Group in 2007.

Prior to joining The Helen Brown Group, Michelle served as Director of Prospect Research at the University of Oklahoma Foundation, where she worked with the leadership team to build out the Prospect Research & Strategy team. She started her career in development in 2008 at the Texas Tech University School of Law as the Alumni Relations Coordinator, working with the Alumni Relations Director and the Director of Development. In 2010, Michelle moved to the Texas Tech University System and into the Prospect Development field as a Senior Research Specialist in the Office of Research & Prospect Management. She also served in the roles of Associate Director of Research and Prospect Management and Chief Analyst.

Michelle is a member-at-large of Apra-North Texas and is a member of Apra International and CASE. She received a BA in Sociology and teacher certification from Texas Tech in 2001 and 2007, respectively.

Michelle joined The Helen Brown Group in 2022.

Christine began her career in development in 2014 as a senior prospect research analyst at the Museum of Science in Boston. Since then, she has served as the data and research analyst for Connecticut Children’s Medical Center and as assistant director of research and prospect management at Facing History and Ourselves. Beginning in 2020, Christine worked as a freelance researcher and writer before joining The Helen Brown Group.

She earned her bachelor of arts in English from Boston University in 2010 and her master’s degree in library science from Rutgers University in 2013.

Christine joined The Helen Brown Group in 2022.

Chelsea began her career in development and alumni relations in 2019 as a Constituent Engagement Specialist at Rice University. After working closely with the prospect research and analysis team for two years, she shifted her focus from alumni engagement to research.

She is a member of the New England Development Research Association (NEDRA).

Chelsea has a Bachelor’s Degree in Sociology and Policy Studies from Rice University.

She joined The Helen Brown Group in 2022.

Jessica began her career in development in 2010 as a prospect researcher for the New Jersey Performing Arts Center (NJPAC), culminating her tenure there as manager of prospect management. In 2016, she joined The Juilliard School as associate director of research and prospect management and went on to serve as director of prospect research at Holy Name Medical Center in Teaneck, New Jersey.

Jessica received her BM with a concentration in the music industry from James Madison University and her MBA from William Paterson University.

Avery began their career in development in 2019. They previously worked as an Administrative Assistant at the Massachusetts Audubon Society, and worked with donor data across the statewide Development Department.

Avery joined The Helen Brown Group in 2022.

Before joining the Helen Brown Group, Maura created a prospect research and management program at the Rochester Area Community Foundation. She was part of a team of fundraisers that successfully completed the Foundation’s first-ever campaign to increase unrestricted endowment. Maura began her career in research and development in 2011 at Our Lady of Mercy School for Young Women as part of a capital campaign leadership team.

She received a BA in English Literature from St. Lawrence University in Canton, New York, and an MS in Education from Nazareth College in Rochester, New York.

Maura joined the Helen Brown Group in 2022.

Debbi’s first position in prospect research was at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Since then, she has worked in the field for various organizations, including the Morgan Library & Museum. A past director-at-large of Apra GNY, Debbi also has worked as a public librarian for the New York Public Library and in marketing for Queens Library.

She earned a master’s degree in English from Fordham University.

Debbi joined the Helen Brown Group in 2022.

Susan has worked in the nonprofit sector in development and administration for nearly 20 years, working with arts/culture and economic development organizations. She entered the field of prospect research in 2015 while working at Samford University, where she was a member of an advancement team that raised both the largest amount to date through a campaign and the largest gift in the history of the university.

She is a member of Apra International, and earned a BA in Merchandising from the University of Montevallo.

Susan joined the Helen Brown Group in 2022.

After several years working in the museum membership and development worlds, Anne entered the prospect research field in 2018 when she joined the research team at the University of Puget Sound. A researcher by nature, Anne loves the thrill of the informational hunt, connecting the dots between data and people, and curating opportunities for altruistic change. She is a past board member for Apra Northwest and a two-time graduate of the University of Washington, having earned a B.A. in History and Public Health and an M.A. in Museology.

Anne joined the Helen Brown Group in 2023.

Melissa Bank Stepno has worked in the fundraising and development fields for more than two decades, spending the majority of her time consulting with non-profit organizations on using wealth screenings, predictive modeling and other analytics to drive prospecting efforts and strategic decision making. She previously worked for Blackbaud, Boston University and Boston Ballet. She also serves as an instructor for the Rice University Center for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Leadership.

As a frequent speaker at industry events and contributor to white papers and articles, Melissa’s areas of interest include the effective use of data and analytics to drive fundraising growth, the impact of high-net-worth philanthropy on major giving programs, and developing best practices for prospect research and prospect management.

Based in NH, Melissa is currently serving in her final year on the Apra board, having led the organization as President from 2021-2022. Melissa has also served on the boards of NEDRA, AFP NNE, and the Brandeis University Alumni Association. Melissa received NEDRA’s Ann Castle Award in 2021, which acknowledges outstanding effort or achievement in the field of development research or related fields.

Melissa received a BA degree from Brandeis University and master’s degrees in both Arts Administration and Higher Education Administration from Boston University.

Melissa joined The Helen Brown Group in 2023.

Helen has been a development professional since 1987. Her previous experience includes The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Albert Einstein Institution, Boston College, the Harvard School of Public Health and Northeastern University.

Currently she works with a variety of clients to establish, benchmark and re-align research departments; identify major gift prospects; and train researchers and other fundraisers through on-site and web-based training services.Helen is a former member of the board of the Association of Professional Researchers for Advancement (APRA) and is past president of the New England Development Research Association (NEDRA). In 2006 she received the NEDRA Ann Castle Award for service to the prospect research community.

Helen is Special Advisor on Fundraising to the North American Foundation for the University of Manchester and is a member of the board of directors of Factary Ltd. (Bristol, UK). She is a member of NEDRA, APRA, the Association of Independent Information Professionals (AIIP), Women In Development, the Association of Fundraising Professionals (AFP) and Researchers in Fundraising (UK).

Helen is a frequent speaker and has led seminars for a number of professional associations, including Action Planning, AFP, APRA, the Council for Advancement and Support of Education (CASE), NEDRA, RIF, the Planned Giving Council of Central Massachusetts, the Georgia Center on Nonprofits, the International Fundraising Congress and Resource Alliance.

Helen is also co-author (with Jen Filla) of the book, Prospect Research for Fundraisers (Wiley & Sons, 2013).

Heather began her career in 2002 as a prospect research coordinator for the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and then moved to Carroll College in 2004. In 2005, she began working on her own as a freelancer and eventually started her own consulting firm, Willis Research Services, in 2007.

Heather is a member of Apra and the Montana Nonprofit Association.

She joined The Helen Brown Group in 2012.

Jennifer began her career in development at her alma mater, Wheaton College, where she was an administrative assistant for the major gifts department.

She is a member of Apra and NEDRA.

Jennifer earned a master’s degree in library science from the Southern Connecticut State University in May 2009.

She joined The Helen Brown Group in 2008.

Prior to joining the Helen Brown Group, Lucy previously worked as a consultant for nonprofit organizations, as a prospect researcher for the University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA), and as a librarian for two of the five Alamo Community Colleges. Prior to her work with non-profits, her career was in Advertising and Marketing Communications.

Lucy previously served as Membership Director for the Central Texas Chapter of Apra and is a member of Apra International.

She earned a bachelor’s degree in Art with a minor in Music from Texas A&M University Corpus Christi, a master’s degree in Library Science from Texas Woman’s University, and a master’s degree in Communication Studies from St. Mary’s University.

Lucy joined The Helen Brown Group in February 2022.

Heather began her career in development in 2001 as a prospect researcher for National Wildlife Federation (NWF). She was with NWF for more than thirteen years, including nearly five years as director of research and analytics.

Heather is a former secretary of the board of directors of APRA-Metro DC.

She joined The Helen Brown Group in 2014.

Angie began her career in development in 1999 at Virginia Tech in Corporate and Foundation Relations and later in prospect research at the University of Connecticut Foundation. Her past experience also includes grants management at the University of South Carolina, program evaluation for South Carolina Research Authority, and human resources analysis for Nissan North America. She returned to development in 2007 and worked in various prospect research positions at Vanderbilt University, including as Associate Director. She was named Director for Vanderbilt University Medical Center’s research office in 2015.

Angie is a graduate of the University of Tennessee at Martin.

She joined The Helen Brown Group in 2016.

In March 2017, Kristina joined the Helen Brown Group as a Research Associate. Before joining HBG, she was the Research Manager at Pratt Institute in Brooklyn and an Associate Manager of Prospect Research at City Harvest, a food rescue organization. Kristina started her non-profit career as a legal assistant at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in 2004. 

She is a member of Apra and Apra Greater New York and she was Apra Greater New York’s Director of Programming from June 2014 to May 2016.

Kristina graduated from The University of Chicago and the Bard Graduate Center.

She joined The Helen Brown Group in 2017.

After a decade of working as an academic librarian, Karla began her career in development in 2008. She served as a Prospect Research Specialist at St. Olaf College, a Prospect Research Analyst at Feeding America, and a Prospect Information Analyst at Northwestern University.

She earned her bachelor’s degree in English and her master’s degree in Library Science from Wayne State University.

Karla joined The Helen Brown Group in 2021.

Maureen has been a part of the non-profit world since 1991. She started out in annual giving at Harvard Law School and continued her career as director of annual/special gifts at UC Santa Cruz.

In 1999, Maureen made the switch from front-line fundraising to serve as director of prospect research/management at Bentley University and in 2001 began her role as administrator for the North American Foundation for the University of Manchester.

She joined The Helen Brown Group in 2011.

Kenny is a senior consultant and a member of the Data Insight team at The Helen Brown Group. He has more than 20 years of experience working in prospect development and research. Prior to joining The Helen Brown Group, Kenny was the director of donor and prospect research at the United Way of Massachusetts Bay.

He is a member of Apra and NEDRA.

Kenny is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth.

He joined The Helen Brown Group in 2006.

Michele began her career in development in 2012 as a Development Analyst with the University of California, Berkeley Corporate and Foundation Relations team. She went on to serve as a Prospect Analyst at the University of California, Davis and then as a Senior Prospect Analyst at the George Washington University.

Michele has been a member of NEDRA, Apra Florida, and Apra International, and previously served as the Social Media Chair for Apra Metro DC.

She received her B.A. in creative writing from Florida State University and studied higher education leadership at California State University, Sacramento.

Michele joined The Helen Brown Group in 2018.

David began his career in development at The Gunnery school in northwest Connecticut in 2011, where he worked in database management and prospect research. Subsequently, he joined the College of Saint Rose as a development research analyst before leading Albany Medical Center Foundation’s prospect research efforts as Associate Director of Prospect Research.

David is a member of Apra and CASE.

He has a Bachelor’s Degree in Sociology from Siena College.

David joined The Helen Brown Group in 2018.

Jayme began her career in development in 2008 at the Rutgers University Foundation, where she spent the next seven years, first in prospect management and then prospect research. She spent several years at Monmouth University as their senior prospect research analyst, working with the fundraising staff, university president, and top leadership.

Jayme has worked as both a volunteer and consultant for non-profits in the areas of research and writing. She is a member of APRA-NY, Apra International, and serves on Apra’s Online Content Committee.

She earned a bachelor of arts degree from Drew University and a master of communication and information sciences from Rutgers University. 

Jayme joined The Helen Brown Group in 2019.

Kelly began her career in development in 2008 as an administrative assistant in Major Gifts at Wheaton College. In 2010, she became a research analyst at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in the Division of Development & Jimmy Fund as part of the prospect identification team.

Kelly joined The Helen Brown Group in 2013.

Mandi has worked in prospect research and management since 2006. She began her development career as a research analyst in development research at City of Hope, an NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center in Los Angeles. From there, Mandi became the manager of prospect development at Huntington Memorial Hospital, a community hospital in Pasadena, CA. Most recently, she was the associate director of prospect research and management at Occidental College, a private liberal arts college in LA.

Mandi has a BA degree in print journalism from Southern Methodist University and a master’s degree of library and information science from UCLA.

She joined the Helen Brown Group in 2019.

Prior to joining The Helen Brown Group, Rick was director of research at St. Paul’s School in Concord, New Hampshire. He has worked in development since 1996, both in prospect research and major gifts fundraising. Other past experience includes the University of Vermont and Phillips Exeter Academy.

He is past president of NEDRA and is a member of and frequent volunteer for Apra.

Rick joined The Helen Brown Group in 2005.

Grace began her career in development in 2001 as Executive Assistant to the Chief Development Officer with Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH), a Harvard Medical School-affiliated academic medical center. In 2003, she became a prospect researcher for the BWH principal and major gifts team and spent the next 11 years in various research positions with BWH, culminating as Assistant Director of Prospect Research.

Josh began his career in development as the Phonathon Coordinator at Keene State College. He then worked at non-profit consulting firm Schultz & Williams in Philadelphia. Josh started his research career at the University of Pennsylvania as a Research Assistant in 2005. He then moved over to the Wharton School of Business, where he became the Associate Director, Research and Prospect Management.

Josh is also a Colorado licensed Realtor and graduate of Lehigh University.

He joined The Helen Brown Group in 2016.

Viola Henning has been working in the nonprofit sector for over 20 years, with over 13 years specializing in prospect research, most recently for Yellowstone National Park’s official fundraising and education partner. She has worked for nonprofits in human services, animal care, education, arts/culture, and the environment. Viola began her career as a nonprofit generalist, learning all aspects of nonprofit operation, before becoming a specialist that built/solely managed prospect research programs to support nonprofit fundraising. She serves on the board of directors of her local cultural center where she is chair of the fundraising committee.

Viola holds a Master’s Degree in Public Administration with a concentration in Nonprofit Management.

She joined The Helen Brown Group in 2021.

Monique began her career in 2012 as a prospect researcher for Hampshire College. She then moved into Institutional Research, most recently for Amherst College.

Monique holds a Master of Arts in Sociology from Memorial University of Newfoundland.

Most recently Steve was the Assistant Director of NYC Mayor’s Office of Data Analytics (MODA). Here, he provided guidance and supervision to the Office’s data scientists and analytic portfolio. As the City’s center for data analytic excellence, he regularly interacted with City leadership, other Mayor’s Offices, City agencies, and NYC’s data science community.

Previously, he was the Director of Development Analytics and Strategy at Jazz at Lincoln Center (JALC) producing reporting and analysis needs for senior leadership. Before JALC, he joined the ACLU as the Prospect Research Analyst working with the Principal Gifts team in the national office at the beginning of the Trump administration.

In a previous life he pursued academia as a doctoral fellow at Rutgers University, focusing his research on labor relations, intimacy, and visual sociology. When the time allowed, he taught various courses on social inequality, social research, and the sociology of emotions.

He received a bachelor’s degree in psychology from SUNY at Old Westbury, a master’s degree in sociology from St. John’s University, and a second master’s degree in media studies from CUNY at Brooklyn College. He currently sits on the board of the New York State Coalition Against Domestic Violence, served as a director of APRAGNY, served on Apra committees, and was co-host of a now defunct podcast on prospect research.

He is a fan of video games, gummy bears, and history.

Steve joined The Helen Brown Group in 2021.

Kendra previously worked in hospitality management for a decade – she now supports the HBG team as Operations Manager.

Kendra joined The Helen Brown Group in 2019.

Josh began his career in development as the Phonathon Coordinator at Keene State College. He then worked at non-profit consulting firm Schultz & Williams in Philadelphia. He started his research career at the University of Pennsylvania as a Research Assistant in 2005 and then moved over to the Wharton School of Business, where he became the Associate Director, Research and Prospect Management.

He joined the Helen Brown Group in 2016.

David’s career in prospect research began in 2009, as a graduate research assistant at the Shippensburg University Foundation. In 2011, He became a development researcher for the University of Virginia. In 2015, David became assistant director of prospect research at the University of Baltimore, serving for 3 years. Recently, he was the director of development for Trees Forever. David Joined the Helen Brown Group as a research assistant in January 2020. He earned a B.A. in Theater at Indiana University of Pennsylvania and a M.A. in Applied History at Shippensburg University. David is a member of APRA and APRA Great Plains.

jdsahjhDJDJHJSH

Julie has managed finances for The Helen Brown Group since its founding.

In her spare time, she is an editor for the PBS series  Masterpiece  at WGBH. Julie was nominated twice for an Emmy award for her work on the PBS show  Zoom .

Angie has worked in development since 2002, partnering with a wide range of nonprofit institutions. She began her professional career at Vanderbilt University in research and prospect development.

She has also worked with a number of community nonprofits in front-line fundraising, grant-writing, and event management. Angie holds an MPA in Nonprofit Management from the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy and a BS in Journalism from Middle Tennessee State University. She resides in Nashville, Tennessee, and is a member of AFP Nashville and APRA MidSouth, where she has been active on the executive team.

She joined The Helen Brown Group in October 2015.

• What We Believe
• Helen Brown
• Meet the Team
• HBG Privacy Policy
• A la carte research
• Data Insight
• Dedicated Consulting
• Wealth Screening Assistance
• Resource Dashboard
• Learning Media Library
• Wealth Lists
• Prospect Research Links
• Prospect Research for Fundraisers

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• 02 April 2024

Impact factors are outdated, but new research assessments still fail scientists

• Kelly Cobey 0

Kelly Cobey is a scientist at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute, an associate professor in the University of Ottawa School of Epidemiology and Public Health and co-chair of the Declaration on Research Assessment.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

You have full access to this article via your institution.

Last September, while completing a grant application, I faltered at a section labelled ‘summary of progress’. This section, written in a narrative style, was meant to tell reviewers about who I was and why I should be funded. Among other things, it needed to outline any family leave I’d taken; to spell out why my budget was reasonable, given my past funding; and to include any broad ‘activities, contributions and impacts’ that would support the application.

How could I sensibly combine an acknowledgement of two maternity leaves with a description of my engagement with open science and discuss why I was worthy of the funding I’d requested? There was no indication of the criteria reviewers would use to evaluate what I wrote. I was at a loss.

Bring PhD assessment into the twenty-first century

When my application was rejected in January, the reviewers didn’t comment on my narrative summary. Yet they did mention my publication record, part of the conventional academic CV that I was also required to submit. So I’m still none the wiser as to how the summary was judged — or if it was considered at all.

As co-chair of the Declaration On Research Assessment (DORA) — a global initiative that aims to improve how research is evaluated — I firmly believe in using narrative reflections for job applications, promotions and funding. Narratives make space for broad research impacts, from diversity, equity and inclusion efforts to educational outreach, which are hard to include in typical CVs. But I hear stories like mine time and again. The academic community is attempting, in good faith, to move away from narrow assessment metrics such as publications in high-impact journals. But institutes are struggling to create workable narrative assessments, and researchers struggling to write them .

The problem arises because new research assessment systems are not being planned and implemented properly. This must change. Researchers need explicit evaluation criteria that help them to write narratives by spelling out how different aspects of the text will be weighted and judged.

Research communities must be involved in designing these criteria. All too often, researchers tell me about assessment systems being imposed from the top down, with no consultation. This risks these new systems being no better than those they are replacing.

How to boost your research: take a sabbatical in policy

Assessments should be mission-driven and open to change over time. For example, if an institute wants to increase awareness and implementation of open science, its assessments of which researchers should be promoted could reward those who have undertaken relevant training or implemented practices such as data sharing. As open science becomes more mainstream, assessments could reduce the weight given to such practices.

The value of different research outputs will vary between fields, institutes and countries. Funding bodies in Canada, where I work, might favour grants that prioritize Indigenous engagement and perspectives in research — a key focus of diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in the Canadian scientific community. But the same will not apply in all countries.

Organizations must understand that reform can’t be done well on the cheap. They should invest in implementation scientists, who are trained to investigate the factors that stop new initiatives succeeding and find ways to overcome them. These experts can help to get input from the research community, and to bring broad perspectives together into a coherent assessment framework.

Some might argue that it would be better for cash-strapped research organizations to rework existing assessments to suit their needs rather than spend money on experts to develop a new one. Yes, sharing resources and experiences is often useful. But because each research community is unique, copying a template is unlikely to produce a useful assessment. DORA is creating tools to help. One is Reformscape (see go.nature.com/4ab8aky ) — an organized database of mini case studies that highlight progress in research reform, including policies and sample CVs that can be adapted for use in fresh settings. This will allow institutions to build on existing successes.

The postdoc experience is broken. Funders such as the NIH must help to reimagine it

Crucially, implementation scientists are also well placed to audit how a new system is doing, and to make iterative changes. No research evaluation system will work perfectly at first — organizations must commit sustained resources to monitoring and improving it.

The Luxembourg National Research Fund (FNR) shows the value of this iterative approach. In 2021, it began requesting a narrative CV for funding applications, rather than a CV made up of the usual list of affiliations and publications. Since then, it has been studying how well this system works. It has had mostly positive feedback, but researchers in some fields are less satisfied, and there is evidence that institutes aren’t providing all researchers with the guidance they need to complete the narrative CV. In response, the FNR is now investigating how to adapt the CV to better serve its communities.

Each institution has its own work to do, if academia is truly to reform research assessment. Those institutions that drag their feet are sending a message that they are prepared to continue supporting a flawed system that wastes research time and investment.

Nature 628 , 9 (2024)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00899-8

Reprints and permissions

Competing Interests

K.C. is the co-chair of DORA (Declaration On Research Assessment) — this in an unpaid role.

Related Articles

• Scientific community

Exclusive: official investigation reveals how superconductivity physicist faked blockbuster results

News 06 APR 24

Will the Gates Foundation’s preprint-centric policy help open access?

News 04 APR 24

The EU’s ominous emphasis on ‘open strategic autonomy’ in research

Editorial 03 APR 24

How can we make PhD training fit for the modern world? Broaden its philosophical foundations

Correspondence 02 APR 24

Allow researchers with caring responsibilities ‘promotion pauses’ to make research more equitable

How scientists are making the most of Reddit

Career Feature 01 APR 24

Africa’s postdoc workforce is on the rise — but at what cost?

Career Feature 02 APR 24

Overcoming low vision to prove my abilities under pressure

Career Q&A 28 MAR 24

High-Level Talents at the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University

For clinical medicine and basic medicine; basic research of emerging inter-disciplines and medical big data.

Nanchang, Jiangxi, China

The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University

POSTDOCTORAL Fellow -- DEPARTMENT OF Surgery – BIDMC, Harvard Medical School

The Division of Urologic Surgery in the Department of Surgery at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School invites applicatio...

Boston, Massachusetts (US)

Director of Research

Applications are invited for the post of Director of Research at Cancer Institute (WIA), Chennai, India.

Chennai, Tamil Nadu (IN)

Cancer Institute (W.I.A)

Postdoctoral Fellow in Human Immunology (wet lab)

Join Atomic Lab in Boston as a postdoc in human immunology for universal flu vaccine project. Expertise in cytometry, cell sorting, scRNAseq.

Boston University Atomic Lab

Research Associate - Neuroscience and Respiratory Physiology

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• SCHOLARSHIPS
• FELLOWSHIPS
• INTERNSHIPS

10 Reasons Why Research Proposals Fail: A Must Read

10 Reasons Why Research Proposals Fail: A Must Read : Writing a good research proposal is an important research skill required of a 21 st century researcher to be able to attract research funding and research grants .

The task can be very tedious for an early-career researcher as he/she is learning the art of proposal writing. More discouraging is the fact that a researcher will spend the time and resources required to write a proposal and get it thrown out or thrashed because he/she did not do what he/she was supposed to do.

The following points listed below are the few reasons why research proposals fail. This is to guard against future occurrence. If you want to learn the effective ways how to write research proposal the you should note these points;

• Proposal deadlines not met
• Guidelines not Followed
• Proposal not Intriguing
• Proposal did not Meet Priorities
• Proposal Not Complete
• Poorly written Literature Review
• Proposal Appears to be Beyond the Capacity of the Principal Investigator
• Proposal with weak Methodology
• Unrealistic Budget
• Cost Greater than Benefits

Now are you ready to explore these points in details? Let’s discuss them.

• Proposal deadlines not met:

Some researchers get their proposals rejected because they did not meet up with the proposal submission deadline. Just like while applying for scholarships , an application submitted after the deadline will not be considered irrespective of how qualified that applicant is. There may be several reasons why researchers don’t meet up with deadlines, one of such may the that the submission deadline was totally forgotten or that the proposal was not completed before the deadline. So to avoid this setback, researchers are to keep accurate track of the application process and prepare his/her proposals ahead of time.

• Guidelines not Followed:

Proposals are not generic and as such appropriate guidelines as provided by the funding organizations should be followed. Some funders will require that applicants follow their guidelines to the later and being that the funding will be given to limited number of applicants, not following appropriate guidelines may be one of the disqualifying factor that will get your proposal rejected.

• Proposal not Intriguing:

Funders or grants sponsors are not just looking for a way to throw money around in the name of funding proposals, but they are interested in funding proposals that are captivating and has the potential to impact positively on humanity and contribute to the body of knowledge. So when next you are writing a proposal ensure that there is something unique about your proposal that will make it stand out amongst others.

• Proposal did not Meet Priorities:

A research is tailored to answer a particular question or questions and there are key deliverables expected of a research outcome. Writing a proposal that does not meet with the priorities of the funders will see the proposal not considered. So when writing proposals or writing for grants , ensure to understand the key themes or thematic areas that the funders are interested in and tailor your proposal to address such issues. No institution or body will fund a proposal that does not meet up with the priorities expected of such research but would rather go for a proposal that meets the priority areas that the funders are interested in.

• Proposal Not Complete:

When thinking how to write research proposal and not fail! Some researchers may be caught in the web while trying to submit a proposal. Submitting an incomplete proposal is as good as not submitting a proposal at all because the key issues that the assessors of the proposals will be looking out for will not be captured in an incomplete proposal. It is therefore advised to ensure that all the areas required by the funders are duly captured in the proposal for it to be eligible for consideration.

• Poorly written Literature Review:

Writing a literature review in a proposal is key to making your proposed funders know that you have a grasp of what you are doing in its entirety. So a poorly written literature review exposes the researcher’s knowledge base about the subject matter and no sponsor will commit funds to someone who barely understands what he/she is going.

• Proposal Appears to be Beyond the Capacity of the Principal Investigator:

When the proposal appears to be bigger than the capacity of the principal investigator entails that the such researcher lacks the ability and the technical know-how to conduct such research and such proposal will not sail through the first screening stage. A researcher must show that he/she has what it takes to conduct a research of certain magnitude by showing with proofs past researches conducted. Doing so will give a boost to the proposal and convince the funders of the ability of the principal investigator to handle such research.

Check: Steps to Writing and Accessing a Research Grant with Ease

• Proposal with weak Methodology:

How good or successful a research is largely dependent on the methodologies employed. A poorly designed methodology will generate poor research output and therefore funding for such proposal will not come through. A research methodology should be sound and robust enough to generate great and excellent research outcomes. So when next a proposal is written, the methodology should be critique extensively to ensure that it will lead to the generation of an excellent research output which funders will be willing to fund.

• Unrealistic Budget:

A good proposal must have a budgetary allocation that is feasible and realistic. Attaching a budgetary allocation that is not realistic to a proposal will see to it that the proposal fails. So budgetary allocations should not be written in a hurry but rather the services of experienced researchers could be sought if one is not really abreast with budgetary allocations.  And the last but not the least…

• Cost Greater than Benefits:

Performing a research is aimed at solving a particular problem in the society that will benefit humanity. So committing resources to ventures that far outweighs the benefits is not economical. So funders will sponsor research with huge benefits as compared to the cost of carrying out such research in terms of human resources and funds and laboratory supplies.

Also See: UN Scholarships and Research Grants for International Students

Still worried on how to write research proposal and get acceptance, then you are encouraged to take into consideration the points raised above when next they are submitting proposals to funders so that the energy invested in writing a proposal will not be wasted. Also, students applying for postgraduate scholarships that require proposals should learn how to structure their research proposals appropriately. However, researchers should not be discouraged when their proposals get turned down, but they should strive to know why their proposals were not accepted and make amends.

Also Recommended:

10+ commonly available jobs in canada for international students, scholarships in singapore without ielts for international students 2024, 2 tuition free online universities offering free education.

• How to Write Research Proposal
• research proposal
• Research Proposal Writing

I love this program

I love your info briefings

LEAVE A REPLY Cancel reply

Log in to leave a comment

Related Opportunities

Fellowships to study abroad in the world’s top medical universities, top canadian scholarships for nigerian students 2024, stay updated.

Enter your email address:

We Are Social

Recent posts, learn africa postgraduate scholarship 2024 [fully funded], scholarship program for studying in kazakhstani universities 2024, unicef usa national youth council volunteer program [paid position], stanford university knight-hennessy scholars fellowships 2024 (fully-funded), top categories.

© Copyright 2022 - Studygreen.info, All Rights Reserved