A Guide to Writing a Research Proposal
The following is based on notes drawn from on the guides from various universities, especially:
The University of Salford; The University of Edinburgh; Birkbeck; Queen Mary University of London; University of Exeter
Please note that this is a guide and not a rule for research proposal writing. It will not necessarily fulfil the requirements of particular research centres and universities. You must at all times consult the particular institution and department you are applying to with respect to research requirements. Formulating a solid and sound research proposal is imperative to your future research work. Whether you are studying for a PhD (Doctor of Philosophy), MPhil (Master of Philosophy) or MSc by research, a robust research proposal will allow you to focus your work and find a suitable supervisor; it is therefore a crucial starting point for your research journey, an essential part of your research training.
Simple Structure
Before the deep dive into the challenges of writing a research proposal I shall offer a clear and simple structure to keep in mind:
Title
Abstract / Introduction (200 words)
Research Questions, Aim, and Objectives (240 words)
Methodology (200-50 words)
Critical Literature Review (450 words)
Time Table for Completing Thesis
References / Bibliography
The key lesson is to be clear, coherent, and concise, to make every word count and waste none.
My own view is that it is possible to over-analyze a problem, complicating an issue rather than clarifying it. My advice to readers is to hold on to the structure above, read the main body of text, and then examine the two sample proposals I present as an appendix. I prefer example to explanation, for the way it models the proposal to be written. But explanation is also necessary.
Introduction
This guide provides practical information to those who have been asked to submit a research proposal as part of their application for admissions to a research degree as well as those who are applying to external bodies for postgraduate research funding.
The guide is aimed at helping you to write a good research proposal. It is intended to help you to think about your proposed PhD research in a clear, structured and meaningful way.
It should be stressed that the following is only a general guide and it does not guarantee acceptance onto a PhD programme.
These recommendations do not guarantee a successful research application! They are intended to help you conceptualize and prepare a research proposal, giving the process structure and a timetable for you to develop. Good luck!
Why Writing a Good Research Proposal Matters
Accepting PhD students onto a research programme depends on many factors, including the nature of your proposed research, the quality of your ideas, your ability to commit to an intensive period of research study, the “match” between the proposed research and the potential supervisor and the capacity of the research department and the effectiveness of your research proposal in communicating your ideas.
The key message in this guide is that it is your research proposal and the quality of it that will be a considerable factor used in the university’s decision to accept you onto a PhD programme. In short, the better your proposal, the better your chances of being accepted.
When applying for a research grant or a study scholarship, you are expected to hand in a "detailed and precise description of study or research proposal as well as information on any previous study or research projects of particular relevance to a decision of award."
The Purpose of the Research Proposal
The purpose of the proposal is to ensure that
· the candidates have done sufficient preliminary reading/research in the area of their interest;
· that they have thought about the issues involved and are able to provide more than a broad description of the topic which they are planning to research.
The proposal is not a fixed blueprint. One cannot predict one's findings beforehand or mechanically stick to an argument since the research will inevitably alter or even unseat one's initial expectations. There is no fixed formula for writing a proposal.
However, your challenge is to convince members of the intellectual community that you
· have identified a problem;
· have a theoretical background and a methodical approach to solve the problem;
· within a realistic time frame and at reasonable expenses.
With your research you will add a new aspect to intellectual discourse; your research will make an original and substantial contribution to knowledge.
The Value of a Research Degree
A research degree (e.g. Masters by Research, PhD, EdD, DMus) can be one of the most rewarding experiences of your life. It can be a hard and testing process, but what you gain along the way will serve you well for the rest of life, making you a more confident and knowledgeable person. In addition to making friends, meeting eminent researchers and being part of the research community, it will allow you to develop research skills as well as invaluable transferable skills which you can apply to academic life, your current employment, or a variety of professions outside of academia.
Research Funding
A long list of factors will come into play when it comes to choosing where to do your research degree: academic reputation, research expertise, location, quality of training, and availability of funding.
There are several types of funding for postgraduate research: your own funds; external funding bodies such as charities and Trusts; national/ governmental agencies; employers and the private sector and; University scholarships, funded studentships and projects advertised by supervisors. It is a competitive process and will depend on your qualifications, experience, and research aspirations.
If you already have an idea for your research project or if you are interested in developing your experience in an area of interest within the expertise of a prospective supervisor, you should consider contacting prospective supervisors early on to discuss the possibility of doing a research project under their supervision.
Identifying sources of funds
It takes time to investigate potential funding avenues and to prepare postgraduate research applications, so allow plenty of time. It is not unreasonable to start investigating approximately one year before your proposed start date. Many universities offer a search facility for prospective and existing students, so it is worthwhile checking. It is also worth checking websites of individual departments as they may have additional funding resources and it is where you will find details of research projects. There is also funding available from external funding bodies, including Trusts & charities, research foundations, Government agencies, private sector or your home Government. If you are responding to an advertisement for a defined project, it does not mean that you should not pay attention to the first contact you make with the principal researcher on the project. Be sure to highlight how the project fits with your research aspirations and why the chosen academic unit will help you fulfil them.
Writing your proposal
A crucial part of the MPhil/PhD application process is presenting a clear and concise research proposal that should be between 500 and 2000 words (the length varies according to universities and university departments).
Whether you’re limited to one page (as part of a University application form or an enquiry form) or asked to produce something more substantial for an external funder, the rules about producing a good research proposal are the same. If you want to stand out from the crowd and have the best chances of being selected, your proposal has to stand out. This guide highlights the “Golden Rules” and provides tips on how to write a good research application. Prospective research students may find it of use when asked to provide a research statement as part of their University application or an informal enquiry form.
Why a good research proposal is essential to the application process
As outlined above, your research proposal is an integral part of the PhD application process, so it is certainly worth investing time and energy into it. It needs to outline the nature of your proposed PhD study and give some indication of how you will conduct your research. Remember that a research proposal is about what you want to study; it immediately reflects your initial understanding of, and commitment to, PhD study. A research proposal can and should make a positive and powerful first impression about your potential to become a good researcher. Importantly, the main purpose is to enable a university to assess whether you are a good ‘match’ for their supervisors and areas of research expertise.
In a good research proposal you will need to demonstrate two main things:
1. that you are capable of independent critical thinking and analysis;
2. that you are capable of communicating your ideas clearly.
Remember that you are not applying for a taught programme. Applying for a PhD is like applying for a job. You are applying to enter an organisation. When you start a PhD you will become a valued researcher in an academic department. Through your research proposal your colleagues want to know whether they can work with you, and whether your ideas are focussed, interesting and realistic. Try and impress them!
Writing the Research Proposal
First, consult your advisor on length, layout (typeface, line spacing, font, etc.), format, as well as a table of contents and page numbers. Members of the selection committee may have to read a large number of research proposals so good construction and legibility of your proposal is to your advantage.
A research proposal
· is read by academics with an interest in your field (please note, some schools may not have academics whose interests match your own);
· ranges from 1,000 to 2,000 (or more) words;
· is judged both on content and proposal format.
The appropriate length of a research proposal
A good research proposal is as long as it takes, but a guide would be 1000‐2000 words.
Remember that a research proposal is meant to be an accurate overview, not a thesis, so you need to provide enough detail for the reader to understand it. It should not be too long, or too short.
A paragraph would not be enough, and 5000 words likely too much. Pay careful attention to the word limit. If you exceed the word limit your application will likely be made ineligible, as this would be an unfair advantage over other applicants. A Research Proposal should be no more than 1000-2000 words that give a brief synopsis of your research project.
The perfect research proposal
In addition to the above, an excellent research proposal also needs to:
· follow any university and college/departmental guidance on websites. Conventions can, and do, differ across subjects and therefore across the University of Exeter. Therefore, you must check the college/department website for specific (subject) advice and guidance.
· be refined and edited a number of times before it is submitted. You must demonstrate that you have given your proposal a lot of individual attention and care. Make sure it is well written, without any errors.
· leave the reader with a clear sense of the purpose and direction of your research project. The reader should not have to read it twice to understand it.
· leave the reader interested, excited and wanting to find out more about your ideas, and about you!
Writing the Research Proposal
Your writing of a research proposal will depend on a number of factors. Before you commence, it is important that these factors are explored and identified by yourself and if possible are discussed with your prospective research supervisor. A helpful way of viewing the writing of a research proposal is to approach it as a mini project - meaning that your research proposal writing project has its own time deadlines, quality benchmarks and associated costs. Writing a research proposal is a discipline in itself, a microcosm of writing an actual PhD. The information in various examples draws on developing a PhD study research proposal that would be accepted for submission of study in the appropriate school or university.
How long to spend writing your research proposal
Dependent on your experience of the subject area, the average time allocated to writing a proposal could be anything from one day (for someone who has just finished their MSc and plans to develop their MSc thesis into a PhD) to about a month (perhaps where you have found a new area of interest and you want to take your career in this direction). For example, if you have recently graduated with an MSc in an area where you would like to develop your work further, the PhD research proposal could be the natural progression of your MSc dissertation – hence you could start with the conclusions chapter where you reflect on your findings and identify new areas of study. Alternatively, you might have developed a new concept and would like to test it further in different settings such as organisations or other countries or with larger samples of data. So – set yourself realistic expectations.
Research proposal subject area
It is always advisable to see your research proposal writing as a first step to advancing your future career and not simply as writing a research proposal for its own sake. There are a number of reasons for this, not least the financial necessity to fund your work and the potential use of your findings for commercial purposes in the future. Also, unless your work is unique, the contribution to knowledge (which is a requirement of a PhD) would be, difficult to achieve. Although there are exceptions to this, and there are some researchers who simply take their degree to gain a research qualification, it is important that you are interested in the research area yourself and are not considering it simply because of your supervisor or a journal paper that mentioned that specific area as important.
Research proposal quality benchmarks
In answering the question on how to write a research proposal let’s start with a negative: it is not something that should be done without a longer term perspective. There are a number of issues that have to be considered before you finalize your research proposal draft.
The following numbers should be used as a guide and not a rule – there are always exceptions but generally:
· Word count is between 500 to 2000 words (not counting abstract and references);
· Number of references should be about 10 to 20 (recent academic journal publications);
· You should always read the work of those who you intend to supervise you and include your views on their relevant work.
Your Research Proposal is a key part of your application. It is one of the key criteria that the School (and funding bodies) uses to differentiate between different applicants.
Before making your final application it is likely that you will need to revise your proposal several times. Whilst your potential supervisor will help you do this, it is important that you present them with as clear a proposal as you can when you first make contact with them.
Research how to write the Research Proposal
Since you are going to be investing a minimum of three years of your life working hard on your PhD, a few days spent researching and writing a thorough research proposal is a small initial investment to make. In short, a research proposal is an essential first step in your PhD journey. Make sure you give it your fullest consideration and effort. You are not expected to be the expert. Remember, you do not need to have a PhD to write a research proposal! Your proposal should be indicative and it should outline your areas of interest and your general insight into the research topic. You are not expected to be an expert and to be familiar with all the specific details of your subject. However, you are expected to have a good level of knowledge about the subject and where you might make a valuable contribution to research.
Provide Evidence of your Potential for Research
The Research Proposal plays a key part in the assessment of your application. Whilst we recommend that you discuss the content of this section with your proposed Supervisor, it is crucial that the detail of this section is your own work. The assessors are looking for evidence of high quality and strong potential for postgraduate study.
Enthusiasm and interest are important, but panel members are interested in:
· evidence of intellectual purpose and originality;
· details about your reasons for, and approach towards undertaking your proposed study;
· a good awareness of the research context.
The Golden Rules for writing a Research Proposal
Putting together a Research Proposal
A crucial part of the MPhil/PhD application is presenting a clear and concise research proposal.
How you write a research proposal for your research degree will depend on a number of factors, not least the area of study and your previous experience of it. Writing a research proposal is one of the first tasks that has to be undertaken by all research programme students.
The proposal itself should be between 500 and 2000 words (different schools require different length proposals). (The word lengths for each section vary according to the nature of the project).
· It shows you have a good knowledge of the existing work and existing debates and have formulated specific questions which you wish to explore. It shows that you have a research idea which will lead to the creation of new knowledge and understanding.
· It helps universities to see if they have an academic who can offer you supervision.
What to put in your proposal?
Application processes are different for each university, so make sure that you follow the guidelines provided by each university and its particular departments. Whatever the specific guidelines, you may adapt the structure presented below. This is also relevant if you are applying for external funding or trying to get your employer to sponsor you to undertake a research degree.
Writing the proposal
When drafting the proposal, bear in mind that individuals reviewing your application will often have to read a large number of proposals/applications. Well-presented and clearly written proposals are more likely to stick in the reviewer’s mind. Avoid long and convoluted titles. You will get an opportunity to give more detail in your introduction.
The keys to writing a strong research proposal are:
· to formulate a precise, interesting research question; this may take the form of a hypothesis to be tested, or a more open-ended inquiry;
· to clearly define the topic you’re interested in and show you understand your research area;
· to establish the relevance and value of the proposed research question in the context of current academic thinking;
· to show you have started to identify and develop an original and interesting research question;
· to demonstrate you understand how to conduct research;
· to outline a clear and practical methodology which enables you to answer the research question, and to describe and evaluate any data or source material you will draw upon;
· to suggest what you hope to discover at the end of your research and what new areas it might open up;
· to indicate the contribution to knowledge and scholarship your research will make;
· to demonstrate that your research will not take longer than three years;
· look professional – it should be typed, in good English, well-structured with suitable headings and clear and legible;
· include a bibliography, listing the books, articles and websites you have referred to.
Presenting your case
You need to present your case clearly and concisely. Use the subheadings below to set out as clearly as you can the work you intend to undertake. You do not have to address every point listed below; this is intended as a guide to help you structure your case.
The Golden Rules for Postgraduate Research Proposals:
The Process:
· Identify prospective supervisors and discuss your idea with them;
· Avoid blanket general approaches/e-mails to several prospective supervisors!;
· Allow plenty of time – a rushed proposal will show;
· Get feedback from your prospective supervisor. Be prepared to take their comments on board, however critical they may seem;
· If applying to an external funding agency, remember that the reviewer may not be an expert in your field of research;
· Stick to the guidelines and remember the deadline.
Contents:
· Be clear, objective, succinct and realistic in your objectives; state and justify your objectives clearly (“because it is interesting” is not enough!);
· Ask yourself why should anyone fund this research and/or why you are the best person for this project – and answer that question;
· • Ask yourself why this research is important and/or timely – and answer that question;
· • Make sure you answer the questions: how will the research benefit the wider society or contribute to the research community?
Contents and Style of your Research Proposal
Generic proposal structure:
Your research proposal should consist of the following elements.
Example of structure for a research proposal:
· Title and abstract;
· Background information and rationale;
· Research question(s)
· Critical literature review - a brief summary of existing literature and where your research fits;
· The hypothesis and the objectives;
· Research Methodology;
· How will the research be communicated to the wider community;
· The supervisory provision as well as specialist and transferable skills training;
· Ethical considerations;
· Summary and conclusions.
Other considerations
Timescales
Bibliography
What to avoid
Plagiarism
Make sure that you acknowledge the authors of all publications you use to write your proposal. Failure to do so will be considered as plagiarism. Do not copy word for word what an author has said. Whilst the original author has presented the information with what seems to be the best possible words in the best format, it is best to analyze that information/argument and re-write it in your own words. If you absolutely have to quote an author ad verbatim, then make sure that you use quotation marks and italics to indicate it.
Editing: Once you have finished the conceptual work on your proposal, go through a careful editing stage.
Writing/presentation style:
There are stylistic “golden rules” which contribute to a good proposal:
· If space allows, provide a “punchy” project title;
· Verify that the title, the abstract, and the content of your proposal clearly correspond to each other!;
· Maintain a clear structure, an intuitive navigational style throughout the document with headings and summaries, enabling the reader to quickly reference where they are for future commenting; (Have a reader skim your document to verify);
· Structure your text and use section headings (if allowed);
· Summarize significant issues and make no assumptions where possible;
· Be clear, objective and straight to the point (No waffle!)
· Keep a reasonable, clear, declarative writing style (active verbs!) throughout the document;
· Justify your objectives: “because it is interesting” is not enough!
· Present the information in short paragraphs rather than a long solid block of text;
· Write short sentences;
· If allowed, provide images/charts/diagrams which may help break up the text;
· Breakup the narrative with bulleted lists, visuals, etc. demonstrating a command of abstract concepts and relationships. Use white space to highlight and emphasize important sections;
· Make sure your proposal does not contain any grammatical/spelling mistakes or typos; bear in mind how difficult it is to be your own proofreader; if possible, engage a proofreader or have a friend read for you;
· Request an experienced academic to proofread your proposal in order to ensure the proposal conforms to institutional and international academic standards.
Partially adapted from:
Olk, Dr. Harald. (October 2009). How to Write a Research Proposal. In Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst Dienst (DAAD). Retrieved January 28, 2011
Your research project
Your Research Proposal should use clear and concise language, avoiding jargon. Bear in mind that the assessors might not be experts in your particular specialist field. You should identify the research problems or questions you intend to address in your doctoral study. These should be clearly defined in your proposal.
You should describe:
· the research problems or questions you intend to address;
· the research context (background) in which those problems or questions are located. In describing the context, you should refer to the current state of knowledge and any recent debate on the subject;
· the particular contribution to knowledge and understanding in this area that you hope to make. You should explain why the work is important. The fact that an area has not been studied previously is not, in itself, a case for the work to be supported. We are also seeking a description of relevance beyond the development of your own skills or experience, though this is important too;
· the methods and critical approaches that you plan to use to address the problems or questions you have set. We don't just need to know what you are going to work on, we need to know how you plan to go about it;
· the sources that you will use, if appropriate. You will need to state where these sources and materials are located and how these will be accessed. For example, if you are undertaking an archaeological project, do you need a permit to access a particular site, and how will this be obtained? It is sometimes helpful to put forward alternative strategies or approaches if you are aware that problems might arise;
· you should say, as far as you can, how the project will develop or how you will structure the work over the period envisaged;
· you should identify and address any ethical issues relating to the research project;
· if you have already begun your doctoral study, it is important that you give some indication of the work you have undertaken to date, e.g. information on any chapters or major pieces of work you have completed;
· preparation and previous experience: you should give a brief indication of any previous experience or preparation that is relevant to your proposed doctoral study. For example, you may wish to highlight key areas of your Master's study. Where applicable, you should also include training and preparation, additional to the formal undergraduate and postgraduate qualifications already listed, which is relevant to your proposed study;
· for practice-led subjects, you should include details of your professional or work experience (including relevant voluntary work or exhibitions), as the panel will be looking at your track record. For example, if your application is for doctoral study in creative writing, please describe the kind of writing (published or unpublished) you have undertaken. If your work experience was completed over several short periods, it would be helpful to give an overall number of weeks or months, e.g. 3 months' gallery experience.
The Sections of a Research Proposal
Steps to a successful research proposal
Some people seem to think a research proposal is too complicated and an inconvenient part of the application process. A good research proposal should not be complicated. However, it can be challenging to write and it is important to get right. A PhD is challenging, so it is good training working on your research proposal. Although there is no exact prescribed format for a general research proposal (across all subjects), there are certain common considerations. You need to check your own subject’s particular conventions and expectations. In summary though, a research proposal should generally include six main sections, as detailed below.
1. Title and Abstract / Introduction
Title Page:
· Personal data (name, academic title, your position at your own university, date of birth, nationality, your contact information, institutional contact;
· A (Working) Title of your planned dissertation or research report. words in the title should be chosen with great care, and their association with one another must be carefully considered. While the title should be brief, it should be accurate, descriptive and comprehensive, clearly indicating the subject of the investigation;
· Be concise; key words are essential.
A clear working title for your research project.
The title should immediately give a clear idea of the proposed research project or the study. The title should be descriptive and focused. Try to include the key words in the title. What will you call your project? What key words would describe your proposal?
In order to develop a clear title, you must also be clear about the focus of your research! Strive for the title to be ten words or 60 characters: focus on or incorporate keywords that reference the classification of the research subject
Abstract/Introduction – a summary statement of the research project:
· Abstract: summarising What? Why? and How? you are proposing to undertake this research.
An abstract is a brief summary written in the same style as the rest of your application. It will provide your reader with the main points and conclusion of your proposal. This summary focuses on the research topic, its new, current and relevant aspects. Strive for clarity; your greatest challenge might be narrowing the topic.
Introduction
Every research project is aimed at solving a problem. The introduction gives the necessary background to the research problem so that the reader can understand the context of what you plan to do.
· Introduction (c150/300 words)
This should provide a brief introduction to the topic, identifying the main field and academic debates within that field that your research relates to. You might want to refer to the ways in which your own background gives you competences in this area.
An introduction to the proposal, identifying the subject for research in terms of theoretical issues and relevant empirical applications.
Although you will develop your ideas further in the main body of the text, your introduction may also include a short summary of your aims and objectives, your methodology and the expected outcomes/benefits of your research as well as who it will benefit and who will be able to use it. (Given space constraints, it is better to avoid too much signposting, and always best to avoid repetition. Economy is of the essence).
A well-written introduction is the most efficient way to hook your reader and set the context of your proposed research. Get your reader’s attention early on and do no waste space with obvious and general statements. Your proposal does not have to be worthy of a Nobel prize but it has to be based on sound hypotheses and reasoning.
2. Background and Rationale
This should be a clear statement about what you want to work on and why it is important, interesting, relevant and realistic:
· what are your main research objectives? These could be articulated as hypotheses, propositions, research questions, or problems to solve;
· what difference do you think your research will make?;
· why does this research excite you?;
· how might your research ‘add value’ to the subject?;
· is your research achievable in the time allocated? (e.g. 3 years full‐time);
All of six sections are important, but this section is particularly important because in any research project, establishing your main purpose represents the whole basis for completing the research programme. Therefore, the value of your proposed research is assessed in relation to your research aims and objectives.
Your history/preparation
Summarize the most important impact of your own work on the topic (if applicable). Attach copies of your own publications that might be seen in relation to your research project.
3. Research question(s)
Research Questions, Aim, and Objectives
Objective of the research project (c 100 words)
Give a concise and clear outline of the academicobjectives (possibly also non-academic, e.g. social and political) that you want to achieve through your project. Your proposal needs to show why the intended research is important and justifies the search effort. Here you outline the significance (theoretical or practical) or relevance of the topic.
Such justification may either be of an empirical nature (you hope to add to, or extend an existing body of knowledge) or of a theoretical nature (you hope to elucidate contentious areas in a body of knowledge or to provide new conceptual insights into such knowledge). All research is part of a larger scholarly enterprise and candidates should be able to argue for the value and positioning of their work.
Some background knowledge and context of the area in which you wish to work, including key literature, key people, key research findings:
· Here you need to formulate your research question(s) clearly. Explain what problems or issues you wish to explore and why you wish to explore them.
· how does your work link to the work of others in the same or related fields?
· would your work support or contest the work of others?
· how does your work relate to the expertise within the department you are applying to?
These questions may take the form of a hypothesis to be tested, or a more open-ended set of questions. If identifying multiple research questions these should be clearly related to each other. One of the keys to a successful PhD is identifying a manageable project that can explore an issue in sufficient depth – rather than too general/wide ranging a project/research questions:
· discuss the subjects of your research – individuals? Groups? Companies? And why?
· an indication on how you envisage your research will contribute to debates and discussions in your particular subject area. Will it make an original contribution? How might it fill gaps in existing work or extend understanding of particular topics?
Review of research literature
A short and precise overview about the current state of research that is immediately connected with your research project.
· Reference the most important contributions of others;
· Discuss the theoretical scope or the framework of ideas that will be used to back the research;
· Indicate any gaps in current knowledge and how you propose to fill them;
· Demonstrate that you are fully conversant with the ideas you are dealing with and that you grasp their methodological implications;
· Indicate the open problem which then will be the motive for your project. State clearly how your research will contribute to the existing research.
A research proposal will contain a brief review of relevant literature or outline the areas of the current literature that they wish to review. The purpose of the critical literature review is to demonstrate your knowledge of the topic and the key issues within it. It helps to place your study in the larger context of previous studies. The information is useful to the researcher in designing the study to avoid pitfalls and replication of previous studies. The review also makes it clear the study is new, useful, and extends the current knowledge on the topic – a requirement of any higher degree.
Academic Context/Review of the Literature (c500–700 words) Here, you should develop your proposal to demonstrate that you are aware of the debates and issues raised in the relevant literature(s) and show how and why your proposed research matters. A Critical Literature Review identifies what research ‘gaps’ will you be filling by undertaking your project.
A review of relevant literature and theories relating to your proposed research area that shows you understand the major lines of argument that have been developed and the ideas and findings of key researchers working on your topic.
Research Context: - setting out the “research problem” area and what others have done about it thus far;
This section need to explain the background and issues of your proposed research – identify the discipline, summarise what you know of the existing literature and demonstrate how your background gives you competence to work on this subject.
A PhD is an original piece of research, so you should be able to show a knowledge of the field in order to demonstrate that your proposed research has not been done before, how your work will build upon existing research, and its potential contribution to the field. Any literature should be fully cited, using the Harvard referencing system.
This section is your opportunity to demonstrate that your research has not been done before and that the proposed project will really add something new to the existing body of literature.
This section must outline the significance or the rationale of the study. Unless the study is seen to advance the knowledge in an area, your application will not be approved. In this section you have to convince the reader that your study will answer the research questions or solve the problem you have raised and thus further the understanding in the area.
Research problem statement: - why is this still a problem warranting your research; highlighting limitations or weaknesses of other studies and identifying what is necessary to address these limitations. This leads you to stating your research questions.
Main body of text
Honesty is one of the most important aspects in proposal development so avoid making overly ambitious claims about the intended research, since what is proposed must be realistically achievable.
When drafting the proposal, it is worth asking yourself the following questions and trying to answer them in the text:
• Why should anyone spend public, charity or corporate funds on my research and my research training?
• Who is my research going to benefit (the stakeholders) or being of use to (the end users)? Stakeholders and end-users include, for example, the research community, a professional body or groups of researchers, a particular group of people such as children, older people or doctors, the government, the industry, health services, social workers…... Try and be specific: stating that your research will “benefit the world” is perhaps a bit too vague!
• Is there evidence, for example in the literature, that my research will fill a gap in knowledge or a market demand? How will it build on the existing body of evidence?
• Is my research timely, innovative and/or responding to a new trend?
• How will my research proposal address my training needs as well as, if applicable, the needs of my current employer?
You will have to provide background information in the form of a literature review which helps you set the context for your research to help the reader understanding the questions and objectives. You will also be expected to show that you have a good knowledge of the body of literature, the wider context in which your research belongs and that you have awareness of methodologies, theories and conflicting evidence in your chosen field.
Research proposals have a limit on words or pages so you won’t be able to analyze the whole existing body of literature. Choose key research papers or public documents and explain clearly how your research will either fill a gap, complete or follow on from previous research even if it is a relatively new field or if you are applying a known methodology to a different field. Journal articles, books, PhD theses, public policies, government and learned society reports are better than non-peer-reviewed information you may find on the internet.
Further practical information on how to conduct a literature review using bibliographic resources can be found on the web: www.ucs.ed.ac.uk/usd/student/courses/library/LRhandout07.pdfwww.lib.ed.ac.uk/howto/searchstrat.html
Outline the project
This is the central part of your research outline.
· Detail your research procedure within the given time.
· List sources and quality of evidence you will consult, the analytical technique you will employ, and the timetable you will follow. Depending on the topic, suitable research strategies should be defined to ensure that enough and adequate empirical data will be gathered for a successful research project.
· Describe the intended methods of data gathering, the controls you will introduce, the statistical methods to be used, the type of literature or documentary analysis to be followed, etc.
Consider your work to be a Work-in-Progress and allow yourself a flexible planning: Stay ready to revise the proposal according to new insights and newly aroused questions and keep on modifying the working hypothesis according to new insights while formulating the proposal and the working hypothesis. Once you have a useful working hypothesis, concentrate on pursuing the project within the limits of the topic.
4. Research Methodology
This section is logically derived from your research questions, aim and objectives and deals with the practical implementation of your data collection, data analysis and conclusions’ drawing.
In this section you will normally write the detailed steps you would take to find the answers to the questions you have posed. The steps taken are sometimes preceded by considerations of theoretical and/or conceptual framework and how these considerations fit and guide your methods.
Demonstrate a thoughtful consideration of the methods/approach you might use
· how will you achieve the research aims?
· how will you conduct your research?
· will you use existing theories, new methods/approaches or develop new methods/ approaches?
· how might you design your project to get the best results/findings?
It is important to present the proposed research methodology (e.g. techniques, sample size, target populations, species choice, equipment and data analysis) and explain why is the most appropriate to effectively answer the research question.
If space allows, it may be a good idea to justify the methodology by explaining what alternatives have been considered and why these have been disregarded. You could also point out how your project fits with the research environment of your prospective place of research and why your chosen university is the best place to conduct your research, in particular if you have access to unique expertise, pieces of equipment or data.
Methodology (c500–700 words)
Your proposal should show that you are aware of the methodologies, and specific methods/techniques, appropriate to your research questions. As such, your outline methodology should provide a clearly reasoned and realistic research design including: a clear justification of your chosen methodology (whether qualitative, quantitative, or mixed); a description of your chosen research methods/techniques (are these appropriate? why these methods rather than others?); the identification of your main sources of data; and an outline account of your proposed data analysis. You should also consider the ethical implications of your research and identify any potential difficulties in collecting your data.
· an indication of the research methods you will use and the form and location of any empirical work you plan to undertake; where and for how long might you collect any relevant data?
· outline the sources of information you might need
· You should clarify the theoretical resources you will be drawing on and why.
· You should demonstrate your knowledge of the research problems and issues related to your research questions and their relevance and usefulness to your particular project.
· Explain the contribution made by existing scholars who have laid the groundwork for your research and explain what further issues are left to be developed by your research.
This section is very important because it informs the research admissions committee how you plan to tackle your research problem. It is your work plan: how you intend to go about your research. It demonstrates that you have an awareness of the methodological tools available in your subject and that you have some understanding of which would be suitable for your research.
You need to specify the approach you feel will be most appropriate.
It is important to differentiate that the term ‘method’ is sometimes interchangeable to mean methodology, research approach or research strategy – dependent on which research methods books you are following. Since you are only at the proposal stage of your study it is not expected that you make statements here about the philosophical stance of your work. For example, discussion of your philosophic beliefs (such as positivist, interpretive or critical research paradigms) and hence the methodological considerations are not necessary at this stage.
However, it is useful to demonstrate your appreciation of some consideration to the methods you are planning to use – i.e. is it going to be action research, case study, experiment, grounded theory or other widely accepted information systems research methods. At this stage, the following information systems research book is recommended reading and would be a good companion for your PhD studies:
On a more practical note you also need to consider the primary data collection tools (assuming that you are planning to use these) such as questionnaires, observations, interviews, document analysis, focus groups etc. Finally, your section on research methods could end on the discussion of data access – that is how you are planning to negotiate access to primary data collection.
While the actual empirical work you undertake may differ to your proposal, it is essential you have an understanding of the issues associated with conducting research and the potential to design a research study to address a specific set of issues.
You can still make changes to your proposal once you have been accepted for a research degree, however as it is the foundation of your working relationship with your supervisor, it cannot be radically altered without discussion and consultation.
5. Research Plan and Time Frame for Research
In some proposals the periods of time you would be engaging in various activities of the project are listed. This informs the academic/research committee that you are aware of the magnitude of the tasks and have a plan of action.
Give some indication of the strategy and timetable for your research project and any research challenges you may face:
· what would be the main stages of your project?
· what would you be expecting to do in each year of your PhD?
· what challenges might you encounter and how might you overcome these?
The last section could be a brief reminder of what it is that you are going to achieve and what will follow from your research method and research objectives. For example, each objective could be broken down into smaller tasks that would guide you in allocating time to your work.
Develop a time table (if possible in table form), indicating the sequence of research phases and the time that you will probably need for each phase. Take into account that at this stage, it can only be estimated, but make clear that you have an idea about the time span that will be needed for each step.
Indicate a realistic time frame toward project completion, followed by the name(s) of your supervisor(s), the university department where you hope to do your research and, if applicable, information about other academics with whom you plan to collaborate.
When developing timelines, you have to be aware of the timelines frameworks as set out by the university. At the time of writing this guide, a PhD normally takes three years full-time or five years part-time study. The MRes or MPhil programmes usually last at least one year, if studied full-time and two or more years if studied part-time.
A plan is a communication medium for you and your supervisor and it is always worth trying to keep the balance between too much detail and too little – for example, you don’t want to have too many detailed tasks for all years but perhaps at the beginning of your work you might want to be explicit about your first year and keep the latter stages more generic since they are likely to change based on your work in the first year.
Timetable for Research
This should set out the key stages of your research through the 3 year period, paying particular attention to the timetable associated with any field work/data collection.
You need to demonstrate an awareness of the need for planning and have a realistic idea of the proposed timescale.
Also have a thorough think about expected outputs to be achieved by the research such as a new database, fundamental knowledge of a new or existing field, publications, attendance at conferences, contribution to a new policy, development of a new technology or service….. It is also very useful to describe the milestones of your research projects (a time plan for every 6 months, for Year 1, 2, 3 or a Gantt chart). This will demonstrate to the reviewer or prospective supervisor that you have really thought of how you are intending on conducting your research. But be realistic!
Examples of a plan of activities could include:
Objective 1 – literature review tasks:
· Attend research training on undertaking a literature review
· Identify 10 most recent authors in the area and critically review their work – Month 1
· Identify 10 most frequently cited journal articles in the area and critically review their work – Month 2
· Identify 10 most relevant journals and conferences in the area and quarterly review their recent publications – Month 4
· Present your literature review drafts to peers – Month 5
· Mile Stone: Produce a draft literature review chapter of circa 20,000 words and 100 references. – Month 6
6. Selective References / Research Bibliography
A list of the key references which support your research proposal
You should include a complete list of citations, using the Harvard referencing system. You may not need to include this bibliography in the word count. (But check, because I had to!)
You should include a short list of references to key articles and texts within your statement.
List academic works mentioned in your research outline as well as other important works to which you will refer during your research (space allowing).
References
References should be listed in the appropriate convention for your subject area (e.g. Harvard). Such references should be used throughout your research proposal to demonstrate that you have read and understood the work of others.
Other relevant material that you are aware of, but not actually used in writing your proposal, can also be added as a bibliography
Work is mostly published using the Harvard referencing standard. This means that in the body of your research proposal you need to state the author’s last name and the year of publication, for example (Bell & Heinze 2004), and at the end of your proposal in the references section you have to state the full reference stating the title, journal details and the page numbers such as this:
Bell, F., & Heinze, A. (2004). With regard to respect: a framework for governance of educational virtual communities. International Journal Web Based Communities, 1(1), 19- 34.
Additional information on how to reference can be found on the University of Salford library support pages.
Summaries and Conclusions
Well-written summaries and conclusions at the end of the proposal and/or at the end of each section can help a reviewer identify the important information. Do not waffle and make sure these are concise, clear and informative – some reviewers will start by reading the conclusions. Reviewers tend to have a large number of applications to review and/or to be very busy people. As a result, each proposal will only receive a short time. Your proposal has to stand out!
Other considerations
About You
The quality of your ideas combined with your ability to carry out the project successfully within your chosen Department/ School/Institute will be a useful addition to your research proposal. You may wish to provide a small section/paragraph to present how your research interests, previous achievements, relevant professional experience and qualifications will support the completion of your research project. Remember to highlight any project management, data analysis and critical thinking experience you may have gained previously. You could also highlight how a further period of research training will help you achieve your personal and professional development.
Avoid overly personal or vague statements but do try to point out:
· the most important achievements of your (academic) career: degrees you have obtained, IT skills, societies you were part of, work experience, successful projects you have been involved and,
· your best characteristics, e. g. motivation, enthusiasm, an inquiring mind, ability to carry out analytical work, a keen approach to research or ability to work independently;
· comment on the geographical area in which the study will take place – what are the advantages and disadvantages of this choice?
Dissemination
If space allows, indicate how you will be communicating with colleagues and your supervisors as well as with the wider community and, if applicable the funding body supporting your research.
Dissemination (c100 words)
Briefly outline the main potential users of your research, and any dissemination strategies you have.
Examples of dissemination activities are:
• Internal seminars
• Regular reporting to stakeholders (e.g. health service, industrial partner, Government
• Publications (eg. journal articles, reviews, book chapters)
• Conference presentations
• Exhibitions
· Broad topic areas that would be unmanageable as PhD topics.
· Vague descriptions of research area.
· Stating that 'no work has been done on a particular subject'.
· Subject areas where academics have no expertise.
The 3 Cs Rule
Follow the ‘3 Cs’ rule: When you have written your research proposal, ask a friend to read it critically and provide you with feedback. Also, ask yourself whether it follows the ‘3Cs’ rule: CLEAR: is what you have written intelligible and clearly articulated? Does it make sense, or is it vague and confusing? CONCISE: have you written your proposal in a succinct and focussed way? COHERENT: does your proposal link together well so that it tells the reader a short story about what you want to do, why you want to do it and how you will do it? If you can answer all of these ‘3C’ questions with confidence, you have probably put together a good proposal. Last thoughts… Remember that your research proposal should leave a positive first impression upon the reader about your ‘fitness’ to study a PhD. It is your project, so it is important to demonstrate leadership in this first stage of the application process. An ideal proposal should leave the reader feeling in no doubt that you have done some preliminary research about your subject and that you are knowledgeable and ready to tackle the challenges of the PhD. Give your proposal your utmost attention and time, but also be realistic ‐ you are not expected to know everything at this stage. Your proposal can also be flexible. It is not a contract. Always ask someone else to read your proposal before you submit it, and to offer you some critical but supportive feedback. Finally, remember that a research proposal instantly reflects your potential competence to undertake a PhD effectively. A proposal is ultimately about your ability to demonstrate that you are capable of PhD study, so you should put time and effort into it.
Where People Lose Points
A number of common errors result in the loss of points. Thus, you should pay attention to these pointers to avoid that happening to you.
1. A badly written paper will mask even good research. Leave time to do at least two drafts. NEVER TURN IN A FIRST DRAFT.
2. A paper that does not follow directions, that is, one that is purely descriptive instead of analytical, does not fulfill the assignment. Therefore, FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO YOU, AND IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND, THEN ASK.
3. A paper that does not use the correct format for note and bibliography loses points. Again, I don't care what system you use, but do it correctly. There are numerous guides to consult, and you can always ask me. I consider the failure to render the correct format as laziness, for which there is no excuse.
Common rejection reasons
The National Institute of Health (NIH) analyzed the reasons why over 700 research proposal applications were denied. Their findings as to the cause of rejection are worth reviewing:
I. Nature of the Problem (18%)
A. It is doubtful that new or useful information will result from the project (14%).
B. The basic hypothesis is unsound (3.5%).
C. The proposed research is scientifically premature due to the present inadequacy of supporting knowledge (0.6%).
I. Approach to the Problem (38.9%)
A. The research plan is nebulous, diffuse and not presented in concrete detail (8.6%).
B. The planned research is not adequately controlled (3.7%).
C. Greater care in planning is needed (25.2%). 1. The research plan has not been carefully designed (11.8%). 2. The proposed methods will not yield accurate results (8.8%). 3. The procedures to be used should be spelled out in more detail (4.6%).
D. A more thorough statistical treatment is needed (0.7%).
E. The proposed tests require more individual subjects than the number given (0.7%).
I. Competence of the Investigators (38.2%)
A. The applicants need to acquire greater familiarity with the pertinent literature (7.2%).
B. The problems to be investigated are more complex than the applicants realize (10.5%).
C. The applicants propose to enter an area of research for which they are not adequately trained (12.8%).
D. The principal investigator intends to give actual responsibility for the direction of a complex project to an inexperienced co-investigator (0.9%).
E. The reviewers do not have sufficient confidence in the applicants to approve the present application, largely based on the past efforts of the applicants (6.8%).
I. Conditions of the Research Environment (4.8%)
A. The investigators will be required to devote too much time to teaching or other non-research duties (0.9%).
B. Better liaison is needed with colleagues in collateral disciplines (0.4%).
C. Requested expansion on continuation of a currently supported research project would result in failure to achieve the main goal of the work (3.5%).
Based on the above analysis, a carefully designed, well-reasoned proposal will overcome these common pitfalls. It also represents and important credibility statement about the investigator.
The Bureau of Occupational and Vocational Education comparable study.
Based on a sample of 353 research grant applications:
-- 18% forgot to number the pages. -- 73% forgot to include a table of contents. -- 81% had no abstract. -- 92% failed to provide resumes of proposed consultants. -- 25% had no resume for the principal investigator. -- 66% included no plan for project evaluation. -- 17% forgot to identify the project director by name. -- 20% failed to list the objectives of the project.
Appendix 1 – sample proposals
I present two examples of research proposals below. In each case I have put the key lines in bold, establishing purpose, focus, intent, and direction.
EXAMPLE 1
Title
Abstract / Introduction (200 words)
Introduction
Teachers and researchers have noted that students continue to hold onto naïve ideas about natural phenomena even after they have been instructed on them. These naïve ideas are in marked contrast with scientific conceptions and have been called misconceptions (Osborne & Wittrock, 1985). Misconceptions have been shown to be very resistant to change and many students complete their schooling while still clinging to these misconceptions. They may use the scientific explanations in examinations, but in their beliefs the misconceptions linger on (Novak, 1988). The literature on misconceptions can be divided into three types: descriptive studies that try to catalogue misconceptions in a given subject or topic; explanatory studies that try to explain the reasons for conceptual stability and change and third type which attempts to foster conceptual change using the theoretical basis for conceptual change.
The crucial role misconceptions play in impeding concept learning is well established. Many studies continue to document misconceptions in various science topics. However, very few explanatory studies have been conducted to investigate the nature of conceptual change and stability. Practical instructional strategies based on conceptual change theories have not been fully researched and their curriculum implications remain in the realm of the unknown.
Research Questions, Aim, and Objectives (240 words)
The purpose of this study is twofold. First, to develop a computer‐assisted instructional (CAI) strategy based on a model of conceptual change to challenge previously identified misconceptions in a topic which is generally found to be difficult to learn. Second, to determine the effectiveness of the developed strategy in a sample of 500 Year‐12 students who have misconceptions in that area. The topic area chosen is chemical equilibrium– an area in which earlier researchers have identified 14 different misconceptions. (Hackling & Garnett, 1985). Chemical equilibrium is recognized as of the most difficult topics of Chemistry at school level. Non‐traditional methods of remediating misconceptions, especially the use of CAI, have not been pursued. This study, therefore, may suggest useful ways of teaching this topic. Additionally, the study may contribute towards improving the way students are taught and curriculum materials are produced.
More specifically, the research questions of the study are the following:
(a) What misconceptions are held about chemical equilibrium by Year‐12 chemistry students across Western Australia?
(b) What are the challenges in developing a CAI package to address the misconceptions in chemical equilibrium? What features are judged by the students as most effective?
(c) To what extent are misconceptions of chemical equilibrium changed by working through the CAI package?
(d) How does the incidence of misconceptions about chemical equilibrium compare with previous studies?
(f) What are the views of chemistry teachers on the utility of such a CAI package?
Methodology (200-50 words)
In this study, I propose to use a mix of quantitative and qualitative methods to gather data.
The incidences of misconceptions are more amenable to data collection by quantitative methods. Participant observation, interviews and reflection are more suited when the data need to be richer, as for example, in the case of attitudes to use the CAI package.
Subjects. The subjects for this study will be Year‐12 students in Western Australia studying for the School Board examinations. My plan is to sample all schools where there are Year‐12 students and computer laboratories. Instruments. Pencil and paper tests and an interview instrument developed by Hackling and Garnett (1985) will be used in pretest and posttest phases of the research. An interview instrument will be developed for the teachers, piloted and used.
CAI Package. The CAI package will be developed to address each misconception identified by Hackling and Garnett (1985). The nature of the misconception will be analyzed to identify the chemical propositions misunderstood by the students. Then the strategy of Posner et al. (1982) would be implemented to bring about the conceptual change.
Procedure. Students will be exposed to traditional instruction in chemical equilibrium and then tested to identify misconceptions. Students will then work through CAI package. A post test will be administered. The data from these will be triangulated by interviews with students and teachers. Control groups may be used.
Data analysis. The data will be analyzed by statistical packages, interviews transcribed, and coded to obtain the outcomes.
Critical Literature Review (450 words)
In the past two decades researchers have found out that by the time students meet scientific explanations of natural phenomena in the classroom, they have already developed their own naïve explanations of these phenomena. Further, these preconceptions are often at odds with scientific explanations, resistant to change and impede the acquisition of scientifically correct conceptions (Cosgrove & Osborne, 1985). Researchers have catalogued these misconceptions in many topics of science, found their nature and acquisition, persistence and change (Posner, Strike, Hewson & Gertzog, 1982; Osborne and Witrock , 1985).
White (1988) defines concept as a collection of memory elements that together can be grouped under a label and the pattern of the links between the elements (p.24).
Concepts that differ from scientifically correct ones have been variously called misconceptions, preconceptions and alternate conceptions (Pines & Leith, 1981). Novak (1988) noted that misconceptions are learnt very early in life from daily experiences.
Hashweh (1986) has given explanations for the persistence of misconceptions.
Misconceptions about chemical equilibrium are found to be common in high school students (Hackling and Garnett, 1985). In particular, Camacho and Good (1989) and Hackling and Garnett (1985) have found over 14 misconceptions in chemistry students. Because misconceptions are highly resistant to change, they are likely to persist into adulthood unless successful intervention strategies occur. According to Posner, et. al. (1982) there are four important conditions for conceptual change: (1) there must be dissatisfaction with the existing misconception as result of accumulated store of unsolved puzzles and anomalies; (2) a new conception must be intelligible to the student; (3) a new conception must appear initially plausible and (4) a new conception should lead to new insights and discoveries.
Hashweh (1986) proposed a model of conceptual change which stressed the conflict between misconception and scientific conception within the cognitive structure itself. Van Hise (1988) suggested a method of engendering conceptual change based on three steps: (1) provide opportunities to make student ideas explicit and give them opportunities to test those ideas; (2) confront them with situations where their misconceptions cannot be used as explanation, (3) help them accommodate the new conception by providing opportunities to test them and experience their fruitfulness.
Several researchers have suggested the use of computers in conceptual change instruction (Reif, 1987). The unique capabilities of computers can be exploited to implement instructional strategies impossible with other teaching methods. They include the capability to show time‐dependent processes, dynamic graphics and maintain records of student activity on the package. They can also focus on particular misconceptions depending on student. Thus, it seems very plausible that a computer package especially developed to teach chemical equilibrium can effect conceptual change in students using them.
Time Table for Completing Thesis
References / Bibliography
EXAMPLE 2
Project Title
Exploring the relationship between climate change, violence and inequality under
contemporary neoliberalism: A case study of Papua, Indonesia
Project description
Abstract / Introduction
I plan to situate my PhD project within the well-established research field that explores the social impacts of environmental degradation. My project focuses on how climate change interplays with inequality and violence. I will address this primary research question through analysing the understudied case of Papua, Indonesia which has rich natural resources that are extracted and has experienced high levels of inequality and violence. The research will focus on Indonesia because it is both a key regional power with the largest and fastest-growing economy in Southeast Asia, but also one that relies heavily on its natural resources (Krampe and Nordqvist, 2018).
The Papua region is made of two provinces named, according to the official government terms, Papua and Papua Barat.
I plan to explore three key sub questions within this region:
1. What impact has climate change had on the Papuan population in terms of rising violence and inequalities?
2. How has Indonesia’s status as an ‘emerging market’ affected responses to climate change in Papua?
3. What gendered, ethnicised and racialised impact has long-term extractive industrialisation had in Papua?
My hypotheses include that climate change has exacerbated violence and inequality in the region of Papua due to the undercurrent of extractive capitalism, which is based on a long history of colonialism, racism, and sexism. I will consider how climate-related violence and inequality has escalated between groups in society but also between the state and society, subjugating the marginalised indigenous population further. The three proposed questions will enable me to explore the interplay and intersections of various factors driving extractive capitalism globally and specifically, in Papua, Indonesia.
Approach – the problematic
To explore these questions, I propose to take a framework of postcolonial feminism and intimacy-geopolitics. This combined approach will enable me to conduct intersectional analyses. Intimacy-geopolitics as a framework highlights that conservation efforts aimed at local people may overlook the role of global structural violence and inequality, whilst placing disproportionate blame onto local people (Howson, 2018). The research will also draw upon an analytical framework, developed by a group of scholars from the University of Hamburg (Scheffran et al., 2012), to analyse how climate change interconnects with violence and inequality. The framework highlights interactions of factors associated with climate change that can contribute to collective violence under four main categories: natural resources, human security, societal stability, and the climate system. The project also builds on research showing how climate change has exacerbated violence and inequality against vulnerable minority groups, whose voices tend to be overlooked at every stage of climate policy (Levy et al., 2017: p.241; Baird, 2008: p.1, 11; UNGA, 2018: p.12). This situation is clear when looking at the case of indigenous peoples and local communities in Indonesia who, as the UN Special Rapporteur in 2018 established, “face disproportionate barriers to accessing land”, particularly the Malind people in Papua (UNGA, 2018: p.12).
Literature Review
The key sources I plan to consult include academic literature surrounding problems of environmental racism, which show how climate change disproportionately impacts the marginalised in the Global South and former colonies based upon extraction and inequality. In particular, Tilley’s (2020) and Pulido’s (2017) postcolonial work will be central to this project. Further, the research draws on literature surrounding racial capitalism and super-exploitation based upon race, ethnicity, gender and geopolitics (Sassen, 2014; Jackson, 2014; Bhattacharyya, 2018; Mies, 2014; Federici, 2012; Virdee, 2019). Many scholars within postcolonial feminist literature have outlined the relationship between climate change, violence and inequality as one inextricably linked to extractive capitalism, which will provide a basis for the research. The project proposes to focus on a case study from Southeast Asia given the lack of research into the security impact of environmental degradation within this region, despite being particularly susceptible to climate change and its socio-economic impacts, especially at local levels (Krampe and Nordqvist, 2018: p.9). A report by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) in 2015 estimated that Southeast Asia could face more socio-economic losses than most regions in the world due to the climate crisis (Raitzer et al., 2015). As the Hamburg framework highlights, the negative impact (and likely exacerbation) such a trend has on human security and societal stability could lead to an increase in collective violence (Scheffran et al., 2012). Indonesia has an important role to play in advancing climate policy, particularly in protecting Papua’s forests as the region contains the largest virgin rainforest left in Indonesia and therefore Southeast Asia (RFN, 2020). Indonesia’s colonial history and rich extractive resources have resulted in its status as an ‘emerging market’ (Tilley, 2020), which has influenced (and restricted) its response to the climate crisis. For
example, Indonesia strives to maintain its position as the world’s largest palm oil producer, a product which increasingly comes from Papua since forests in the Western archipelago (such as Sumatra and Java) have already been largely depleted or were too densely developed for new oil palm plantations (Kesaulija et al., 2014).
While the connections between climate change, extractive industries and harm to indigenous and vulnerable communities is a global problem, Papua presents a particularly severe but also understudied case. I seek to investigate this case because Papua has had enduring conflict and violence across the region for over 50 years (Blades, 2020), extremely high levels of inequality - in 2017, poverty rates in Indonesia were the highest in Papua and Papua Barat (BPS, 2018: p.212) - and has consistently experienced some of the worst impacts of climate change across the Pacific and Southeast Asia, particularly in relation to its deforestation for palm oil (350 Pacific, 2016). Further examples of climate impacts include Southern Papua’s particular susceptibility to flooding, and across Papua the occurrence of disease is the highest in Indonesia alongside the region of Nusa Tenggara (UNDP, 2009). According to 350 Pacific (2016), a grassroots NGO based in Fiji, there has been insufficient research into the impact of climate change in Papua overall. My research project aims to contribute to an emerging body of work focusing on the social and security impact of climate change in Papua in relation to violence and inequality.
Methodology
I propose to use an interdisciplinary and mixed methods approach to explore my core research questions, using both quantitative and qualitative analyses. I will draw on academic literature and local climate and government records, and propose to develop a unique analysis via data collection from archives, and surveys or interviews with local people within Papua as appropriate. I will likely use descriptive statistics but where feasible, I would like to create a database from data gathered through surveys. Archival data collection will be needed to examine the trends of climate change in Papua over time, particularly comparing the late colonial, post-independence and post-democratic government regimes, and correlate this with data on violence and inequality. Much of this data is only available in the state and NGO archives in the Netherlands, Jakarta and local collections in Papua itself. Crucially, surveys and interviews will be gathered via a participatory approach, working with local and regional NGOs such as Jaringan Advokasi Sosial dan Lingkungan Tanah Papua (JASOIL) – a local NGO, working with regional NGOs like PUSAKA and international NGOs such as Forest Peoples Programme, to support indigenous and farming communities impacted by palm oil plantations in Papua (Forest Peoples, 2011). Working in partnership with local NGOs to formulate questions will enable the research to be guided by people’s wants and needs, since local people best know the land, power structures and the changes they want to see (if any) to their environment (Murray Li, 2008). Each interview or survey would be designed specifically to the locality, taking account of cultural, lingual and structural differences. I will discuss in detail with my supervisor the ethical and practical considerations and ensure that I conduct the research in the most appropriate and least invasive way possible.
My proposed research project is important, timely and original. I hope that my research will have an impact on both theory and policy. The research particularly seeks to raise awareness of the importance of Papua’s forests, which must be recognised urgently by the Indonesian government. There has been a lack of research into the impact of climate change on the security of Papua specifically and Southeast Asia more widely (350 Pacific, 2016; Krampe and Nordqvist, 2018). This needs addressing with the aim of tangible transformation, creating changes in perspective on climate change as a real and important threat to humanity (anthropocentric) and not just our environment (ecocentric).
Timescale:
Year Months Goals Activities
1 1-3 - Writing the introduction and structure (this will change as the research develops) [approx. 8,000 words]
- Reading each week
- Write first chapter (introduction)
- Continue with learning Indonesian throughout first year of PhD project
3-10 - Literature review and reading, analysing and writing around as much literature as possible on the topic [approx. 12,000 words]
- Drafting ethics forms and planning interviews (identifying gaps in the literature/data)
- Reading each week
- Begin second chapter (literature review)
10-12 - Methodology and research questions section [approx. 10-12,000 words]
- Reading each week
- Finish second chapter (methodology)
2 1-3 - Preparing for fieldwork in Indonesia
- Revising methods and focus
- Plan fieldwork
- Submit ethics application
- Apply for a research visa
3-9 - Spending time in Indonesia, collating primary data
- Conduct interviews and surveys as appropriate by working with local NGOs, and meeting government and local officials
9-12 - Writing section one of results and discussion (main body of the thesis) [approx. 12,500 words]
- Write third chapter (section one of results and discussion):
● Outline the relationship between climate change, violence and inequality
● Climate change in Papua – what are the impacts?
● The response at local, national, regional and international levels
3 1-3 - Writing section two of results and discussion (main body of the thesis) [approx. 12,500 words]
- Write fourth chapter (section two of results and discussion):
● Indonesia’s position as an extractive/emerging market
● Economic and environmental impacts of extractive industry in Papua
● Cultural identity, philosophical debate
3-6 - Writing section three of results and discussion (main body of the thesis) [approx. 12,500 words]
- Write fifth chapter (section three of results and discussion):
● Discussion on gender, ethnicity, race and geopolitical position in relation to extractive capitalism
● Findings of fieldwork research – who is most impacted? What is the response and what is needed?
● Local power networks and local people’s role in climate activism
6-9 - Conclusion [approx. 10,000 words]
- Write sixth chapter (conclusion)
9-12 - Proofreading
- Final discussions with supervisor
- Estimated total word count:
77-79,500 words
- Revise and fill gaps
- Any interviews to follow up with?
- Ensure the thesis is up to date with all current literature and data
- Rewriting the introduction with updated findings if needed
Bibliography:
Appendix 2
You have written your research proposal: what next?
Now that you have written your research proposal, you have to check that you have all the other necessary documents for your application. The main thing is not to worry if you find that your proposal is still not perfect - it is a proposal and during the first year of your study you will refine it and when it comes to the final submission it might be a totally different document, which is not uncommon. It is often the case that once you get into the area of research you will refine and re-focus your work in light of the feedback from the supervisor and others to whom you present your work as part of your research training – this would include seminar presentations, conferences etc.
The Process of Applying to External Funding Providers
1) Rules, Guidelines, Eligibility and Deadlines
A surprisingly large percentage of proposals are rejected simply because they do not follow the rules and guidelines specified by the funding body. Deadlines are nearly always firm (unless called “rolling”) and it is highly unlikely that they would be amended for anyone. Follow the rules, guidelines and eligibility criteria to the letter! The funder has produced them for a reason and failure to follow these will almost guarantee the rejection of your proposal.
2) Screening process
The most popular funding bodies will have a very strict screening process which will be carried out before the reviewer gets to see the proposals. Any application which does not comply with rules and regulations, including editorial ones such as font size or number of pages will not be accepted. The number of proposals will almost always exceed the number of awards available by several folds so do not provide reasons for your application to be rejected on format.
3) The application process
Bear in mind that some funders have closing dates early in the year so it is a good idea to start the studentship application as soon as possible (about a year before your proposed start date). External funders will often ask you to have, at least, a conditional offer of admission at the proposed university or to have an endorsement from the university you are planning to go to. Some funding will only be tenable at the university stated in the application so make sure you read all the guidelines.
3a) Discuss and develop your idea
You may start the funding application process by identifying a suitable supervisor and discussing the idea for your research project with him/her. Your prospective supervisor will be an integral part of your application and should be able to offer further support with your application. You can look for potential supervisors by visiting the prospective University website, review the research expertise which fits your chosen field best and then search for researchers who could be potential supervisors.
It is a good idea to have a good general overview of your supervisor’s research expertise as a courtesy to them when you contact them for the first time. This will also allow you to ensure that they are the best person to advise you on your proposal. More information is provided in the previous section on how to write a good research proposal/postgraduate research application.
You may wish to send an abstract of your research idea or a draft research proposal to prospective supervisors prior to submitting your application, meeting them or talking to them over the phone or by e-mail. Make sure your draft is of good quality and it is best not to send the same proposal to all potential supervisors. Be prepared to listen to their advice and to answer questions. Critical appraisal is a skill that academic staff have developed over many years so don’t be offended if you get a lot of comments and take advantage of the expertise and experience of your prospective supervisor. Finally and very importantly, do not assume that your prospective supervisor will or should do all the hard work for you. It is YOUR proposal!
Fellow students, friends and colleagues can also act as lay readers/ proofreaders and give a different perspective on your proposal in particular on the aims of your research.
Student Recruitment & Admissions www.ed.ac.uk/student-recruitment
3b) Find a potential research studentship funder If you are seeking external funding for your own project, the next step is to find the most appropriate funding body and funding stream for your particular research project. Your prospective supervisor and previous undergraduate/Masters study advisors will be excellent sources of knowledge in this area. Other members of staff in university’s scholarships offices, careers services, research support offices or student recruitment and admissions (if they have staff specialising in postgraduate studies) may be able to help you.
Before you start developing the research proposal, it is worth researching your chosen funding body (whether it is a university or an external funding agency) and the web is a good place to start. Once an opportunity has been identified, you should ensure that you have checked:
• that your research idea is in a research area supported by the prospective funder; • that you are eligible to apply (e.g. nationality, affiliation, qualifications); • that you have allowed sufficient time for drafting the research proposal; • that you understand fully the funder’s selection process; • that you have allowed sufficient time to complete the proposal for the closing date and; • how the application should be submitted to the funder. Some funders (eg. AHRC and ESRC) require that you register on their system and may require approval from your prospective University.
3c) Before you start writing All funders (government funded research councils, universities, research charities, or private companies) have objectives to fulfil set by the people and organisations that they answer to, including stakeholders and financial supporters. When they invest in research, they are looking for that investment to help them achieve those objectives. For private sector employers, it may be to improve their business processes, increase their R&D potential or to train employees. For research charities, it may be to find ways to help particular groups of people such as those in unemployment or those affected by a medical condition.
All funders, universities and prospective supervisors want good applications. However, they will have different ways of reviewing your application and may have strict criteria against which to assess your proposal. Try and be objective. For example, if your research proposal involves a 10-year geological survey, it is unlikely that the funder will want to fund it as a PhD studentship which is set to last for a defined and shorter period of time. Similarly, if your proposal contains too few or too many research activities for the period of proposed research training, they will be reluctant to fund it. The former will not be considered good value for money and the latter will be perceived as having a risk of failure against the objectives planned at the beginning of the project.
Make sure you consider how best to present the ideas/objectives of the research project and their value clearly as there is stiff competition for postgraduate research awards. A proposal should not just be “good enough” but one of the best.
3d) Lay summary In addition to an abstract and an introduction, you may be asked to produce a lay summary, the impact of which is not to be under-estimated. While funders may use expert panels to assess research proposal, the final decision may rest with individuals (for example: Trustees from a charity) who will not necessarily have the expertise in your proposed field of research. Make sure you “grab” the reader attention by presenting a clear and succinct summary. As an indication, some Research Councils advise that the lay summary be written in a style which should allow reasonable understanding by an interested 14-year old.
Student Recruitment & Admissions www.ed.ac.uk/student-recruitment
3e) Training and supervision The training and supervision of research students is an important consideration. Prospective PGR student applicants will be expected to bear great importance to their gaining of specialist and transferable skills so, if the funder requires it, indicate what provisions are in place at your proposed University. The University runs one of the best and most proactive transferable skills programmes: www.transkills.ed.ac.uk The University’s website will also be provide information regarding the facilities and structure for your specialist training e.g. skills in a particular technique, access to archives, a seminar programme (to which you may be asked to contribute), a mentoring scheme (if in place) or access to a Graduate School.
3f) Dissemination Funders want others to be helped and inspired by the research that they support, therefore proposals which highlight what the expected benefits of the research are and how the research findings will be communicated to the wider community, have a greater chance of success. Please note that some funders have strict rules about reporting but it does no harm to indicate that you will comply with that. Other funders such the private sector may sometimes request an embargo period for your research to be published so you must check, with your supervisor, what the terms and conditions are. Examples of dissemination activities are provided in section 2.2.7.
3g) Ethical considerations Funding bodies have strict rules and expectations of the standards with which the research they fund should be carried out. Project proposals must therefore include potential ethical issues raised by the conduct of the research and funders will want to see how these will be addressed should they occur. This is particularly important if your research project is deemed “high risk” i.e.: if it involves animals, sensitive materials or vulnerable groups such as children or adults with disabilities. You may also be asked to indicate what the ethical approval system is in your prospective School. Your supervisor will be able to provide you with this information.
Student Recruitment & Admissions www.ed.ac.uk/student-recruitment
Other resources
*The Postgraduate Companion (2008). Chapters 4-7; Hall G. and Longman J. Eds, Sage Publications London, UK.
*The PhD Application Handbook (2006). Bentley PJ. Eds, Open University Press, Maidenhead, UK.
*Vitae (formerly UKGRAD): http://www.vitae.ac.uk/
*”What do PhDs do”: Link to WDPD; Link to “What motivates PhD students”; Link to “Getting the most out of your PhD”
Student Recruitment & Admissions www.ed.ac.uk/student-recruitment
This leaflet is available to download in PDF format on our website: www.ed.ac.uk/studying/postgraduate
Comments