Writing a research proposal: structure and worked example

What a proposal is actually for

It is not a summary of what you intend to write. It is an argument that the study is worth doing and that you can do it.

Two readers assess it: a supervisor asking 'is this feasible?' and an ethics committee asking 'is this safe and proper?'. Write for both. Proposals that only address the first are the ones that come back with conditions.

The sections, with word budgets

For a 2,000-word proposal. Scale proportionally.

• Title (25w) — specific enough that a reader knows the population and the outcome.
• Background and rationale (400w) — the problem, and why it matters now.
• Literature review (400w) — what is known, and the gap you are entering. Not a survey; an argument toward your question.
• Research question and objectives (150w) — one main question, two to four objectives that together answer it.
• Methodology (600w) — design, participants or data, instruments, analysis, and the limitations you already accept. The largest section, and rightly.
• Ethical considerations (200w) — consent, confidentiality, data storage, risk and mitigation.
• Timeline (150w) — a Gantt chart or a month-by-month table.
• References (uncounted) — in your required style.

The methodology section decides it

This is where proposals are approved or sent back. It must show that your design can actually answer your question — not merely that it is a design you know how to describe.

Say what, then say why. 'A cross-sectional survey' is a choice; 'a cross-sectional survey, because the question concerns prevalence at a point in time rather than change, and a longitudinal design is not feasible within nine months' is a justified choice.

Name the analysis specifically. 'The data will be analysed' tells a supervisor nothing. 'Responses will be analysed using hierarchical multiple regression, with belonging entered at step two after controlling for prior attainment' tells them you have thought it through.

The timeline is not decoration

Supervisors read the timeline to find out whether you understand how long things take. Two weeks for ethics approval is a red flag; most committees take four to eight, and a resubmission adds more.

Build in slack. A timeline with no contingency is a timeline that has never survived contact with a slow recruitment period.

A worked rationale paragraph

Weak: 'Student mental health is an important topic that has received much attention. This study will investigate student mental health at university.'

Strong: 'Reported anxiety among UK undergraduates rose substantially over the last decade, and universities have responded largely with individual counselling provision. Yet the evidence base for institutional rather than individual interventions remains thin, and almost all of it comes from research-intensive institutions. Whether findings about belonging transfer to post-1992 providers, whose students are more likely to commute and work part-time, is unknown — and it matters, because those institutions serve the largest share of widening-participation entrants.'

The second version establishes a problem, identifies a specific gap, and states who is affected by the gap remaining open. That is a rationale.

Ethics: write it as though the committee will read it, because they will

Cover consent (how obtained, and how withdrawal works), confidentiality (how data is anonymised and stored, and for how long), risk (to participants and to you), and any vulnerability in your sample.

Where a risk genuinely exists — distress during an interview about a sensitive topic, for instance — name it and name the mitigation. Proposals that claim no risks at all are the ones committees query, because every study involving people has some.

Common reasons proposals come back

• The question and the method do not match — a qualitative design proposed for a question about prevalence.
• The sample size has no justification, and no power calculation where one is expected.
• Data access is asserted rather than confirmed.
• The timeline is optimistic to the point of implausibility.
• The literature review summarises sources rather than arguing toward a gap.
• Ethics is treated as a form to complete rather than a section to write.