‘Might have a relevant impact on patient care, but to what extent does it align with the aims of this programme.’
Short title of aspects in the observation matrix . | Examples of arguments . |
---|---|
Criterion: scientific quality | |
Fit in programme objectives | ‘This disease is underdiagnosed, and undertreated, and therefore fits the criteria of this call very well.’ ‘Might have a relevant impact on patient care, but to what extent does it align with the aims of this programme.’ |
Match science and health-care problem | ‘It is not properly compared to the current situation (standard of care).’ ‘Super relevant application with a fitting plan, perhaps a little too mechanistic.’ |
International competitiveness | ‘Something is done all over the world, but they do many more evaluations, however.’ |
Feasibility of the aims | ‘… because this is a discovery study the power calculation is difficult, but I would recommend to increase the sample size.’ ‘It’s very risky, because this is an exploratory … study without hypotheses.’ ‘The aim is to improve …, but there is no control to compare with.’ ‘Well substantiated that they are able to achieve the objectives.’ |
Plan of work | ‘Will there be enough cases in this cohort?’ ‘The budget is no longer correct.’ ‘Plan is good, but … doubts about the approach, because too little information….’ |
Criterion: societal relevance | |
Health-care problem | ‘Relevant problem for a small group.’ ‘… but is this a serious health condition?’ ‘Prevalence is low, but patients do die, morbidity is very high.’ |
Contribution to solution | ‘What will this add since we already do…?’ ‘It is unclear what the intervention will be after the diagnosis.’ ‘Relevance is not good. Side effects are not known and neither is effectiveness.’ |
Next step in science | ‘What is needed to go from this retrospective study towards implementation?’ ‘It’s not clear whether that work package is necessary or “nice to have”.’ ‘Knowledge utilisation paragraph is standard, as used by copywriters.’ |
Activities towards partners | ‘What do the applicants do to change the current practice?’ ‘Important that the company also contributes financially to the further development.’ ‘This proposal includes a good communication plan.’ |
Participation/diversity | ‘A user committee is described, but it isn’t well thought through: what is their role?’ ‘It’s also important to invite relatives of patients to participate.’ ‘They thought really well what their patient group can contribute to the study plan.’ |
Applicant-related aspects | |
Scientific publication applicant | ‘One project leader only has one original paper, …, focus more on other diseases.’ ‘Publication output not excellent. Conference papers and posters of local meetings, CV not so strong.’ |
Background applicant | ‘… not enough with this expertise involved in the leadership.’ ‘Very good CV, … has won many awards.’ ‘Candidate is excellent, top 10 to 20 in this field….’ |
Reputation applicant | ‘… the main applicant is a hotshot in this field.’ ‘Candidate leads cohorts as …, gets a no.’ |
Societal skills | ‘Impressed that they took my question seriously, that made my day.’ ‘They were very honest about overoptimism in the proposal.’ ‘Good group, but they seem quite aware of their own brilliance.’ |
HTA | |
HTA | ‘Concrete revenues are negative, however improvement in quality-adjusted life years but very shaky.’ |
Committee-related aspects | |
Personal experience with the applicant | ‘This researcher only wants to acquire knowledge, nothing further.’ ‘I reviewed him before and he is not very good at interviews.’ |
Personal/unasserted preference | ‘Excellent presentation, much better than the application.’ (Without further elaboration) ‘This academic lab has advantages, but also disadvantages with regard to independence.’ ‘If it can be done anywhere, it is in this group.’ |
Relation with applicants’ institute/network | ‘May come up with new models, they’re linked with a group in … who can do this very well.’ |
Comparison with other applications | ‘What is the relevance compared to the other proposal? They do something similar.’ ‘Look at the proposals as a whole, portfolio, we have clinical and we have fundamental.’ |
Data were primarily collected through observations. Our observations of review panel meetings were non-participatory: the observer and goal of the observation were introduced at the start of the meeting, without further interactions during the meeting. To aid in the processing of observations, some meetings were audiotaped (sound only). Presentations or responses of applicants were not noted and were not part of the analysis. The observer made notes on the ongoing discussion and scored the arguments while listening. One meeting was not attended in person and only observed and scored by listening to the audiotape recording. Because this made identification of the panel members unreliable, this panel meeting was excluded from the analysis of the third research question on how arguments used differ between panel members with different perspectives.
We gathered and analysed all brochures and assessment forms used by the review panels in order to answer our second research question on the correspondence of arguments used with the formal criteria. Several programmes consisted of multiple grant calls: in that case, the specific call brochure was gathered and analysed, not the overall programme brochure. Additional documentation (e.g. instructional presentations at the start of the panel meeting) was not included in the document analysis. All included documents were marked using the aforementioned observation matrix. The panel-related arguments were not used because this category reflects the personal arguments of panel members that are not part of brochures or instructions. To avoid potential differences in scoring methods, two of the authors independently scored half of the documents that were checked and validated afterwards by the other. Differences were discussed until a consensus was reached.
In order to answer the third research question, background information on panel members was collected. We categorised the panel members into five common types of panel members: scientific, clinical scientific, health-care professional/clinical, patient, and policy. First, a list of all panel members was composed including their scientific and professional backgrounds and affiliations. The theoretical notion that reviewers represent different types of users of research and therefore potential impact domains (academic, social, economic, and cultural) was leading in the categorisation ( Meijer 2012 ; Spaapen and Van Drooge 2011 ). Because clinical researchers play a dual role in both advancing research as a fellow academic and as a user of the research output in health-care practice, we divided the academic members into two categories of non-clinical and clinical researchers. Multiple types of professional actors participated in each review panel. These were divided into two groups for the analysis: health-care professionals (without current academic activity) and policymakers in the health-care sector. No representatives of the private sector participated in the observed review panels. From the public domain, (at-risk) patients and patient representatives were part of several review panels. Only publicly available information was used to classify the panel members. Members were assigned to one category only: categorisation took place based on the specific role and expertise for which they were appointed to the panel.
In two of the four DHF programmes, the assessment procedure included the CSQ. In these two programmes, representatives of this CSQ participated in the scientific panel to articulate the findings of the CSQ meeting during the final assessment meeting. Two grant programmes were assessed by a review panel with solely (clinical) scientific members.
Data were processed using ATLAS.ti 8 and Microsoft Excel 2010 to produce descriptive statistics. All observed arguments were coded and given a randomised identification code for the panel member using that particular argument. The number of times an argument type was observed was used as an indicator for the relative importance of that argument in the appraisal of proposals. With this approach, a practical and reproducible method for research funders to evaluate the effect of policy changes on peer review was developed. If codes or notes were unclear, post-observation validation of codes was carried out based on observation matrix notes. Arguments that were noted by the observer but could not be matched with an existing code were first coded as a ‘non-existing’ code, and these were resolved by listening back to the audiotapes. Arguments that could not be assigned to a panel member were assigned a ‘missing panel member’ code. A total of 4.7 per cent of all codes were assigned a ‘missing panel member’ code.
After the analyses, two meetings were held to reflect on the results: one with the CSQ and the other with the programme coordinators of both organisations. The goal of these meetings was to improve our interpretation of the findings, disseminate the results derived from this project, and identify topics for further analyses or future studies.
Our study focuses on studying the final phase of the peer review process of research applications in a real-life setting. Our design, a non-participant observation of peer review panels, also introduced several challenges ( Liu and Maitlis 2010 ).
First, the independent review phase or pre-application phase was not part of our study. We therefore could not assess to what extent attention to certain aspects of scientific quality or societal relevance and impact in the review phase influenced the topics discussed during the meeting.
Second, the most important challenge of overt non-participant observations is the observer effect: the danger of causing reactivity in those under study. We believe that the consequences of this effect on our conclusions were limited because panellists are used to external observers in the meetings of these two funders. The observer briefly explained the goal of the study during the introductory round of the panel in general terms. The observer sat as unobtrusively as possible and avoided reactivity to discussions. Similar to previous observations of panels, we experienced that the fact that an observer was present faded into the background during a meeting ( Roumbanis 2021a ). However, a limited observer effect can never be entirely excluded.
Third, our design to only score the arguments raised, and not the responses of the applicant, or information on the content of the proposals, has its positives and negatives. With this approach, we could assure the anonymity of the grant procedures reviewed, the applicants and proposals, panels, and individual panellists. This was an important condition for the funders involved. We took the frequency arguments used as a proxy for the relative importance of that argument in decision-making, which undeniably also has its caveats. Our data collection approach limits more in-depth reflection on which arguments were decisive in decision-making and on group dynamics during the interaction with the applicants as non-verbal and non-content-related comments were not captured in this study.
Fourth, despite this being one of the largest observational studies on the peer review assessment of grant applications with the observation of ten panels in eight grant programmes, many variables might explain differences in arguments used within and beyond our view. Examples of ‘confounding’ variables are the many variations in panel composition, the differences in objectives of the programmes, and the range of the funding programmes. Our study should therefore be seen as exploratory and thus warrants caution in drawing conclusions.
The grant programmes included in this study reflected a broad range of biomedical and health funding programmes, ranging from fellowship grants to translational research and applied health research. All formal documents available to the applicants and to the review panel were retrieved for both ZonMw and the DHF. In total, eighteen documents corresponding to the eight grant programmes were studied. The number of proposals assessed per programme varied from three to thirty-three. The duration of the panel meetings varied between 2 h and two consecutive days. Together, this resulted in a large spread in the number of total arguments used in an individual meeting and in a grant programme as a whole. In the shortest meeting, 49 arguments were observed versus 254 in the longest, with a mean of 126 arguments per meeting and on average 15 arguments per proposal.
We found consistency between how criteria were operationalised in the grant programme’s brochures and in the assessment forms of the review panels overall. At the same time, because the number of elements included in the observation matrix is limited, there was a considerable diversity in the arguments that fall within each aspect (see examples in Table 1 ). Some of these differences could possibly be explained by differences in language used and the level of detail in the observation matrix, the brochure, and the panel’s instructions. This was especially the case in the applicant-related aspects in which the observation matrix was more detailed than the text in the brochure and assessment forms.
In interpretating our findings, it is important to take into account that, even though our data were largely complete and the observation matrix matched well with the description of the criteria in the brochures and assessment forms, there was a large diversity in the type and number of arguments used and in the number of proposals assessed in the grant programmes included in our study.
For our first research question, we explored the number and type of arguments used in the panel meetings. Figure 1 provides an overview of the arguments used. Scientific quality was discussed most. The number of times the feasibility of the aims was discussed clearly stands out in comparison to all other arguments. Also, the match between the science and the problem studied and the plan of work were frequently discussed aspects of scientific quality. International competitiveness of the proposal was discussed the least of all five scientific arguments.
The number of arguments used in panel meetings.
Attention was paid to societal relevance and impact in the panel meetings of both organisations. Yet, the language used differed somewhat between organisations. The contribution to a solution and the next step in science were the most often used societal arguments. At ZonMw, the impact of the health-care problem studied and the activities towards partners were less frequently discussed than the other three societal arguments. At the DHF, the five societal arguments were used equally often.
With the exception of the fellowship programme meeting, applicant-related arguments were not often used. The fellowship panel used arguments related to the applicant and to scientific quality about equally often. Committee-related arguments were also rarely used in the majority of the eight grant programmes observed. In three out of the ten panel meetings, one or two arguments were observed, which were related to personal experience with the applicant or their direct network. In seven out of ten meetings, statements were observed, which were unasserted or were explicitly announced as reflecting a personal preference. The frequency varied between one and seven statements (sixteen in total), which is low in comparison to the other arguments used (see Fig. 1 for examples).
The balance in the use of scientific and societal arguments varied strongly per grant programme, panel, and organisation. At ZonMw, two meetings had approximately an equal balance in societal and scientific arguments. In the other two meetings, scientific arguments were used twice to four times as often as societal arguments. At the DHF, three types of panels were observed. Different patterns in the relative use of societal and scientific arguments were observed for each of these panel types. In the two CSQ-only meetings the societal arguments were used approximately twice as often as scientific arguments. In the two meetings of the scientific panels, societal arguments were infrequently used (between zero and four times per argument category). In the combined societal and scientific panel meetings, the use of societal and scientific arguments was more balanced.
In order to answer our second research question, we looked into the relation of the arguments used with the formal criteria. We observed that a broader range of arguments were often used in comparison to how the criteria were described in the brochure and assessment instruction. However, arguments related to aspects that were consequently included in the brochure and instruction seemed to be discussed more frequently than in programmes where those aspects were not consistently included or were not included at all. Although the match of the science with the health-care problem and the background and reputation of the applicant were not always made explicit in the brochure or instructions, they were discussed in many panel meetings. Supplementary Fig. S1 provides a visualisation of how arguments used differ between the programmes in which those aspects were, were not, consistently included in the brochure and instruction forms.
To answer our third question, we looked into the differences in arguments used between panel members representing a scientific, clinical scientific, professional, policy, or patient perspective. In each research programme, the majority of panellists had a scientific background ( n = 35), thirty-four members had a clinical scientific background, twenty had a health professional/clinical background, eight members represented a policy perspective, and fifteen represented a patient perspective. From the total number of arguments (1,097), two-thirds were made by members with a scientific or clinical scientific perspective. Members with a scientific background engaged most actively in the discussion with a mean of twelve arguments per member. Similarly, clinical scientists and health-care professionals participated with a mean of nine arguments, and members with a policy and patient perspective put forward the least number of arguments on average, namely, seven and eight. Figure 2 provides a complete overview of the total and mean number of arguments used by the different disciplines in the various panels.
The total and mean number of arguments displayed per subgroup of panel members.
In meetings of both organisations, we observed a diverse use of arguments by the panel members. Yet, the use of arguments varied depending on the background of the panel member (see Fig. 3 ). Those with a scientific and clinical scientific perspective used primarily scientific arguments. As could be expected, health-care professionals and patients used societal arguments more often.
The use of arguments differentiated by panel member background.
Further breakdown of arguments across backgrounds showed clear differences in the use of scientific arguments between the different disciplines of panellists. Scientists and clinical scientists discussed the feasibility of the aims more than twice as often as their second most often uttered element of scientific quality, which was the match between the science and the problem studied . Patients and members with a policy or health professional background put forward fewer but more varied scientific arguments.
Patients and health-care professionals accounted for approximately half of the societal arguments used, despite being a much smaller part of the panel’s overall composition. In other words, members with a scientific perspective were less likely to use societal arguments. The relevance of the health-care problem studied, activities towards partners , and arguments related to participation and diversity were not used often by this group. Patients often used arguments related to patient participation and diversity and activities towards partners , although the frequency of the use of the latter differed per organisation.
The majority of the applicant-related arguments were put forward by scientists, including clinical scientists. Committee-related arguments were very rare and are therefore not differentiated by panel member background, except comments related to a comparison with other applications. These arguments were mainly put forward by panel members with a scientific background. HTA -related arguments were often used by panel members with a scientific perspective. Panel members with other perspectives used this argument scarcely (see Supplementary Figs S2–S4 for the visual presentation of the differences between panel members on all aspects included in the matrix).
Our observations show that most arguments for scientific quality were often used. However, except for the feasibility , the frequency of arguments used varied strongly between the meetings and between the individual proposals that were discussed. The fact that most arguments were not consistently used is not surprising given the results from previous studies that showed heterogeneity in grant application assessments and low consistency in comments and scores by independent reviewers ( Abdoul et al. 2012 ; Pier et al. 2018 ). In an analysis of written assessments on nine observed dimensions, no dimension was used in more than 45 per cent of the reviews ( Hartmann and Neidhardt 1990 ).
There are several possible explanations for this heterogeneity. Roumbanis (2021a) described how being responsive to the different challenges in the proposals and to the points of attention arising from the written assessments influenced discussion in panels. Also when a disagreement arises, more time is spent on discussion ( Roumbanis 2021a ). One could infer that unambiguous, and thus not debated, aspects might remain largely undetected in our study. We believe, however, that the main points relevant to the assessment will not remain entirely unmentioned, because most panels in our study started the discussion with a short summary of the proposal, the written assessment, and the rebuttal. Lamont (2009) , however, points out that opening statements serve more goals than merely decision-making. They can also increase the credibility of the panellist, showing their comprehension and balanced assessment of an application. We can therefore not entirely disentangle whether the arguments observed most were also found to be most important or decisive or those were simply the topics that led to most disagreement.
An interesting difference with Roumbanis’ study was the available discussion time per proposal. In our study, most panels handled a limited number of proposals, allowing for longer discussions in comparison with the often 2-min time frame that Roumbanis (2021b) described, potentially contributing to a wider range of arguments being discussed. Limited time per proposal might also limit the number of panellists contributing to the discussion per proposal ( De Bont 2014 ).
We found that the language used for the operationalisation of the assessment criteria in programme brochures and in the observation matrix was much more detailed than in the instruction for the panel, which was often very concise. The exercise also illustrated that many terms were used interchangeably.
This was especially true for the applicant-related aspects. Several panels discussed how talent should be assessed. This confusion is understandable when considering the changing values in research and its assessment ( Moher et al. 2018 ) and the fact that the instruction of the funders was very concise. For example, it was not explicated whether the individual or the team should be assessed. Arensbergen et al. (2014b) described how in grant allocation processes, talent is generally assessed using limited characteristics. More objective and quantifiable outputs often prevailed at the expense of recognising and rewarding a broad variety of skills and traits combining professional, social, and individual capital ( DORA 2013 ).
In addition, committee-related arguments, like personal experiences with the applicant or their institute, were rarely used in our study. Comparisons between proposals were sometimes made without further argumentation, mainly by scientific panel members. This was especially pronounced in one (fellowship) grant programme with a high number of proposals. In this programme, the panel meeting concentrated on quickly comparing the quality of the applicants and of the proposals based on the reviewer’s judgement, instead of a more in-depth discussion of the different aspects of the proposals. Because the review phase was not part of this study, the question of which aspects have been used for the assessment of the proposals in this panel therefore remains partially unanswered. However, weighing and comparing proposals on different aspects and with different inputs is a core element of scientific peer review, both in the review of papers and in the review of grants ( Hirschauer 2010 ). The large role of scientific panel members in comparing proposals is therefore not surprising.
One could anticipate that more consequent language in the operationalising criteria may lead to more clarity for both applicants and panellists and to more consistency in the assessment of research proposals. The trend in our observations was that arguments were used less when the related criteria were not or were consequently included in the brochure and panel instruction. It remains, however, challenging to disentangle the influence of the formal definitions of criteria on the arguments used. Previous studies also encountered difficulties in studying the role of the formal instruction in peer review but concluded that this role is relatively limited ( Langfeldt 2001 ; Reinhart 2010 ).
The lack of a clear operationalisation of criteria can contribute to heterogeneity in peer review as many scholars found that assessors differ in the conceptualisation of good science and to the importance they attach to various aspects of research quality and societal relevance ( Abdoul et al. 2012 ; Geurts 2016 ; Scholten et al. 2018 ; Van den Brink et al. 2016 ). The large variation and absence of a gold standard in the interpretation of scientific quality and societal relevance affect the consistency of peer review. As a consequence, it is challenging to systematically evaluate and improve peer review in order to fund the research that contributes most to science and society. To contribute to responsible research and innovation, it is, therefore, important that funders invest in a more consistent and conscientious peer review process ( Curry et al. 2020 ; DORA 2013 ).
A common conceptualisation of scientific quality and societal relevance and impact could improve the alignment between views on good scientific conduct, programmes’ objectives, and the peer review in practice. Such a conceptualisation could contribute to more transparency and quality in the assessment of research. By involving panel members from all relevant backgrounds, including the research community, health-care professionals, and societal actors, in a better operationalisation of criteria, more inclusive views of good science can be implemented more systematically in the peer review assessment of research proposals. The ZonMw Framework Fostering Responsible Research Practices is an example of an initiative aiming to support standardisation and integration ( Reijmerink et al. 2020 ).
Given the lack of a common definition or conceptualisation of scientific quality and societal relevance, our study made an important decision by choosing to use a fixed set of detailed aspects of two important criteria as a gold standard to score the brochures, the panel instructions, and the arguments used by the panels. This approach proved helpful in disentangling the different components of scientific quality and societal relevance. Having said that, it is important not to oversimplify the causes for heterogeneity in peer review because these substantive arguments are not independent of non-cognitive, emotional, or social aspects ( Lamont and Guetzkow 2016 ; Reinhart 2010 ).
Both funders participating in our study have an outspoken public mission that requests sufficient attention to societal aspects in assessment processes. In reality, as observed in several panels, the main focus of peer review meetings is on scientific arguments. Next to the possible explanations earlier, the composition of the panel might play a role in explaining arguments used in panel meetings. Our results have shown that health-care professionals and patients bring in more societal arguments than scientists, including those who are also clinicians. It is, however, not that simple. In the more diverse panels, panel members, regardless of their backgrounds, used more societal arguments than in the less diverse panels.
Observing ten panel meetings was sufficient to explore differences in arguments used by panel members with different backgrounds. The pattern of (primarily) scientific arguments being raised by panels with mainly scientific members is not surprising. After all, it is their main task to assess the scientific content of grant proposals and fit their competencies. As such, one could argue, depending on how one justifies the relationship between science and society, that health-care professionals and patients might be better suited to assess the value for potential users of research results. Scientific panel members and clinical scientists in our study used less arguments that reflect on opening up and connecting science directly to others who can bring it further (being industry, health-care professionals, or other stakeholders). Patients filled this gap since these two types of arguments were the most prevalent type put forward by them. Making an active connection with society apparently needs a broader, more diverse panel for scientists to direct their attention to more societal arguments. Evident from our observations is that in panels with patients and health-care professionals, their presence seemed to increase the attention placed on arguments beyond the scientific arguments put forward by all panel members, including scientists. This conclusion is congruent with the observation that there was a more equal balance in the use of societal and scientific arguments in the scientific panels in which the CSQ participated. This illustrates that opening up peer review panels to non-scientific members creates an opportunity to focus on both the contribution and the integrative rationality ( Glerup and Horst 2014 ) or, in other words, to allow productive interactions between scientific and non-scientific actors. This corresponds with previous research that suggests that with regard to societal aspects, reviews from mixed panels were broader and richer ( Luo et al. 2021 ). In panels with non-scientific experts, more emphasis was placed on the role of the proposed research process to increase the likelihood of societal impact over the causal importance of scientific excellence for broader impacts. This is in line with the findings that panels with more disciplinary diversity, in range and also by including generalist experts, applied more versatile styles to reach consensus and paid more attention to relevance and pragmatic value ( Huutoniemi 2012 ).
Our observations further illustrate that patients and health-care professionals were less vocal in panels than (clinical) scientists and were in the minority. This could reflect their social role and lower perceived authority in the panel. Several guides are available for funders to stimulate the equal participation of patients in science. These guides are also applicable to their involvement in peer review panels. Measures to be taken include the support and training to help prepare patients for their participation in deliberations with renowned scientists and explicitly addressing power differences ( De Wit et al. 2016 ). Panel chairs and programme officers have to set and supervise the conditions for the functioning of both the individual panel members and the panel as a whole ( Lamont 2009 ).
In future studies, it is important to further disentangle the role of the operationalisation and appraisal of assessment criteria in reducing heterogeneity in the arguments used by panels. More controlled experimental settings are a valuable addition to the current mainly observational methodologies applied to disentangle some of the cognitive and social factors that influence the functioning and argumentation of peer review panels. Reusing data from the panel observations and the data on the written reports could also provide a starting point for a bottom-up approach to create a more consistent and shared conceptualisation and operationalisation of assessment criteria.
To further understand the effects of opening up review panels to non-scientific peers, it is valuable to compare the role of diversity and interdisciplinarity in solely scientific panels versus panels that also include non-scientific experts.
In future studies, differences between domains and types of research should also be addressed. We hypothesise that biomedical and health research is perhaps more suited for the inclusion of non-scientific peers in panels than other research domains. For example, it is valuable to better understand how potentially relevant users can be well enough identified in other research fields and to what extent non-academics can contribute to assessing the possible value of, especially early or blue sky, research.
The goal of our study was to explore in practice which arguments regarding the main criteria of scientific quality and societal relevance were used by peer review panels of biomedical and health research funding programmes. We showed that there is a wide diversity in the number and range of arguments used, but three main scientific aspects were discussed most frequently. These are the following: is it a feasible approach; does the science match the problem , and is the work plan scientifically sound? Nevertheless, these scientific aspects were accompanied by a significant amount of discussion of societal aspects, of which the contribution to a solution is the most prominent. In comparison with scientific panellists, non-scientific panellists, such as health-care professionals, policymakers, and patients, often use a wider range of arguments and other societal arguments. Even more striking was that, even though non-scientific peers were often outnumbered and less vocal in panels, scientists also used a wider range of arguments when non-scientific peers were present.
It is relevant that two health research funders collaborated in the current study to reflect on and improve peer review in research funding. There are few studies published that describe live observations of peer review panel meetings. Many studies focus on alternatives for peer review or reflect on the outcomes of the peer review process, instead of reflecting on the practice and improvement of peer review assessment of grant proposals. Privacy and confidentiality concerns of funders also contribute to the lack of information on the functioning of peer review panels. In this study, both organisations were willing to participate because of their interest in research funding policies in relation to enhancing the societal value and impact of science. The study provided them with practical suggestions, for example, on how to improve the alignment in language used in programme brochures and instructions of review panels, and contributed to valuable knowledge exchanges between organisations. We hope that this publication stimulates more research funders to evaluate their peer review approach in research funding and share their insights.
For a long time, research funders relied solely on scientists for designing and executing peer review of research proposals, thereby delegating responsibility for the process. Although review panels have a discretionary authority, it is important that funders set and supervise the process and the conditions. We argue that one of these conditions should be the diversification of peer review panels and opening up panels for non-scientific peers.
Supplementary material is available at Science and Public Policy online.
Details of the data and information on how to request access is available from the first author.
Joey Gijbels and Wendy Reijmerink are employed by ZonMw. Rebecca Abma-Schouten is employed by the Dutch Heart Foundation and as external PhD candidate affiliated with the Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University.
A special thanks to the panel chairs and programme officers of ZonMw and the DHF for their willingness to participate in this project. We thank Diny Stekelenburg, an internship student at ZonMw, for her contributions to the project. Our sincerest gratitude to Prof. Paul Wouters, Sarah Coombs, and Michiel van der Vaart for proofreading and their valuable feedback. Finally, we thank the editors and anonymous reviewers of Science and Public Policy for their thorough and insightful reviews and recommendations. Their contributions are recognisable in the final version of this paper.
Abdoul H. , Perrey C. , Amiel P. , et al. ( 2012 ) ‘ Peer Review of Grant Applications: Criteria Used and Qualitative Study of Reviewer Practices ’, PLoS One , 7 : 1 – 15 .
Google Scholar
Abma-Schouten R. Y. ( 2017 ) ‘ Maatschappelijke Kwaliteit van Onderzoeksvoorstellen ’, Dutch Heart Foundation .
Alla K. , Hall W. D. , Whiteford H. A. , et al. ( 2017 ) ‘ How Do We Define the Policy Impact of Public Health Research? A Systematic Review ’, Health Research Policy and Systems , 15 : 84.
Benedictus R. , Miedema F. , and Ferguson M. W. J. ( 2016 ) ‘ Fewer Numbers, Better Science ’, Nature , 538 : 453 – 4 .
Chalmers I. , Bracken M. B. , Djulbegovic B. , et al. ( 2014 ) ‘ How to Increase Value and Reduce Waste When Research Priorities Are Set ’, The Lancet , 383 : 156 – 65 .
Curry S. , De Rijcke S. , Hatch A. , et al. ( 2020 ) ‘ The Changing Role of Funders in Responsible Research Assessment: Progress, Obstacles and the Way Ahead ’, RoRI Working Paper No. 3, London : Research on Research Institute (RoRI) .
De Bont A. ( 2014 ) ‘ Beoordelen Bekeken. Reflecties op het Werk van Een Programmacommissie van ZonMw ’, ZonMw .
De Rijcke S. , Wouters P. F. , Rushforth A. D. , et al. ( 2016 ) ‘ Evaluation Practices and Effects of Indicator Use—a Literature Review ’, Research Evaluation , 25 : 161 – 9 .
De Wit A. M. , Bloemkolk D. , Teunissen T. , et al. ( 2016 ) ‘ Voorwaarden voor Succesvolle Betrokkenheid van Patiënten/cliënten bij Medisch Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek ’, Tijdschrift voor Sociale Gezondheidszorg , 94 : 91 – 100 .
Del Carmen Calatrava Moreno M. , Warta K. , Arnold E. , et al. ( 2019 ) Science Europe Study on Research Assessment Practices . Technopolis Group Austria .
Google Preview
Demicheli V. and Di Pietrantonj C. ( 2007 ) ‘ Peer Review for Improving the Quality of Grant Applications ’, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews , 2 : MR000003.
Den Oudendammer W. M. , Noordhoek J. , Abma-Schouten R. Y. , et al. ( 2019 ) ‘ Patient Participation in Research Funding: An Overview of When, Why and How Amongst Dutch Health Funds ’, Research Involvement and Engagement , 5 .
Diabetesfonds ( n.d. ) Maatschappelijke Adviesraad < https://www.diabetesfonds.nl/over-ons/maatschappelijke-adviesraad > accessed 18 Sept 2022 .
Dijstelbloem H. , Huisman F. , Miedema F. , et al. ( 2013 ) ‘ Science in Transition Position Paper: Waarom de Wetenschap Niet Werkt Zoals het Moet, En Wat Daar aan te Doen Is ’, Utrecht : Science in Transition .
Forsyth D. R. ( 1999 ) Group Dynamics , 3rd edn. Belmont : Wadsworth Publishing Company .
Geurts J. ( 2016 ) ‘ Wat Goed Is, Herken Je Meteen ’, NRC Handelsblad < https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2016/10/28/wat-goed-is-herken-je-meteen-4975248-a1529050 > accessed 6 Mar 2022 .
Glerup C. and Horst M. ( 2014 ) ‘ Mapping “Social Responsibility” in Science ’, Journal of Responsible Innovation , 1 : 31 – 50 .
Hartmann I. and Neidhardt F. ( 1990 ) ‘ Peer Review at the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft ’, Scientometrics , 19 : 419 – 25 .
Hirschauer S. ( 2010 ) ‘ Editorial Judgments: A Praxeology of “Voting” in Peer Review ’, Social Studies of Science , 40 : 71 – 103 .
Hughes A. and Kitson M. ( 2012 ) ‘ Pathways to Impact and the Strategic Role of Universities: New Evidence on the Breadth and Depth of University Knowledge Exchange in the UK and the Factors Constraining Its Development ’, Cambridge Journal of Economics , 36 : 723 – 50 .
Huutoniemi K. ( 2012 ) ‘ Communicating and Compromising on Disciplinary Expertise in the Peer Review of Research Proposals ’, Social Studies of Science , 42 : 897 – 921 .
Jasanoff S. ( 2011 ) ‘ Constitutional Moments in Governing Science and Technology ’, Science and Engineering Ethics , 17 : 621 – 38 .
Kolarz P. , Arnold E. , Farla K. , et al. ( 2016 ) Evaluation of the ESRC Transformative Research Scheme . Brighton : Technopolis Group .
Lamont M. ( 2009 ) How Professors Think : Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment . Cambridge : Harvard University Press .
Lamont M. Guetzkow J. ( 2016 ) ‘How Quality Is Recognized by Peer Review Panels: The Case of the Humanities’, in M. Ochsner , S. E. Hug , and H.-D. Daniel (eds) Research Assessment in the Humanities , pp. 31 – 41 . Cham : Springer International Publishing .
Lamont M. Huutoniemi K. ( 2011 ) ‘Comparing Customary Rules of Fairness: Evaluative Practices in Various Types of Peer Review Panels’, in C. Charles G. Neil and L. Michèle (eds) Social Knowledge in the Making , pp. 209–32. Chicago : The University of Chicago Press .
Langfeldt L. ( 2001 ) ‘ The Decision-making Constraints and Processes of Grant Peer Review, and Their Effects on the Review Outcome ’, Social Studies of Science , 31 : 820 – 41 .
——— ( 2006 ) ‘ The Policy Challenges of Peer Review: Managing Bias, Conflict of Interests and Interdisciplinary Assessments ’, Research Evaluation , 15 : 31 – 41 .
Lee C. J. , Sugimoto C. R. , Zhang G. , et al. ( 2013 ) ‘ Bias in Peer Review ’, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology , 64 : 2 – 17 .
Liu F. Maitlis S. ( 2010 ) ‘Nonparticipant Observation’, in A. J. Mills , G. Durepos , and E. Wiebe (eds) Encyclopedia of Case Study Research , pp. 609 – 11 . Los Angeles : SAGE .
Luo J. , Ma L. , and Shankar K. ( 2021 ) ‘ Does the Inclusion of Non-academix Reviewers Make Any Difference for Grant Impact Panels? ’, Science & Public Policy , 48 : 763 – 75 .
Luukkonen T. ( 2012 ) ‘ Conservatism and Risk-taking in Peer Review: Emerging ERC Practices ’, Research Evaluation , 21 : 48 – 60 .
Macleod M. R. , Michie S. , Roberts I. , et al. ( 2014 ) ‘ Biomedical Research: Increasing Value, Reducing Waste ’, The Lancet , 383 : 101 – 4 .
Meijer I. M. ( 2012 ) ‘ Societal Returns of Scientific Research. How Can We Measure It? ’, Leiden : Center for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University .
Merton R. K. ( 1968 ) Social Theory and Social Structure , Enlarged edn. [Nachdr.] . New York : The Free Press .
Moher D. , Naudet F. , Cristea I. A. , et al. ( 2018 ) ‘ Assessing Scientists for Hiring, Promotion, And Tenure ’, PLoS Biology , 16 : e2004089.
Olbrecht M. and Bornmann L. ( 2010 ) ‘ Panel Peer Review of Grant Applications: What Do We Know from Research in Social Psychology on Judgment and Decision-making in Groups? ’, Research Evaluation , 19 : 293 – 304 .
Patiëntenfederatie Nederland ( n.d. ) Ervaringsdeskundigen Referentenpanel < https://www.patientenfederatie.nl/zet-je-ervaring-in/lid-worden-van-ons-referentenpanel > accessed 18 Sept 2022.
Pier E. L. , M. B. , Filut A. , et al. ( 2018 ) ‘ Low Agreement among Reviewers Evaluating the Same NIH Grant Applications ’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 115 : 2952 – 7 .
Prinses Beatrix Spierfonds ( n.d. ) Gebruikerscommissie < https://www.spierfonds.nl/wie-wij-zijn/gebruikerscommissie > accessed 18 Sep 2022 .
( 2020 ) Private Non-profit Financiering van Onderzoek in Nederland < https://www.rathenau.nl/nl/wetenschap-cijfers/geld/wat-geeft-nederland-uit-aan-rd/private-non-profit-financiering-van#:∼:text=R%26D%20in%20Nederland%20wordt%20gefinancierd,aan%20wetenschappelijk%20onderzoek%20in%20Nederland > accessed 6 Mar 2022 .
Reneman R. S. , Breimer M. L. , Simoons J. , et al. ( 2010 ) ‘ De toekomst van het cardiovasculaire onderzoek in Nederland. Sturing op synergie en impact ’, Den Haag : Nederlandse Hartstichting .
Reed M. S. , Ferré M. , Marin-Ortega J. , et al. ( 2021 ) ‘ Evaluating Impact from Research: A Methodological Framework ’, Research Policy , 50 : 104147.
Reijmerink W. and Oortwijn W. ( 2017 ) ‘ Bevorderen van Verantwoorde Onderzoekspraktijken Door ZonMw ’, Beleidsonderzoek Online. accessed 6 Mar 2022.
Reijmerink W. , Vianen G. , Bink M. , et al. ( 2020 ) ‘ Ensuring Value in Health Research by Funders’ Implementation of EQUATOR Reporting Guidelines: The Case of ZonMw ’, Berlin : REWARD|EQUATOR .
Reinhart M. ( 2010 ) ‘ Peer Review Practices: A Content Analysis of External Reviews in Science Funding ’, Research Evaluation , 19 : 317 – 31 .
Reinhart M. and Schendzielorz C. ( 2021 ) Trends in Peer Review . SocArXiv . < https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/nzsp5 > accessed 29 Aug 2022.
Roumbanis L. ( 2017 ) ‘ Academic Judgments under Uncertainty: A Study of Collective Anchoring Effects in Swedish Research Council Panel Groups ’, Social Studies of Science , 47 : 95 – 116 .
——— ( 2021a ) ‘ Disagreement and Agonistic Chance in Peer Review ’, Science, Technology & Human Values , 47 : 1302 – 33 .
——— ( 2021b ) ‘ The Oracles of Science: On Grant Peer Review and Competitive Funding ’, Social Science Information , 60 : 356 – 62 .
( 2019 ) ‘ Ruimte voor ieders talent (Position Paper) ’, Den Haag : VSNU, NFU, KNAW, NWO en ZonMw . < https://www.universiteitenvannederland.nl/recognitionandrewards/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Position-paper-Ruimte-voor-ieders-talent.pdf >.
( 2013 ) San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment . The Declaration . < https://sfdora.org > accessed 2 Jan 2022 .
Sarewitz D. and Pielke R. A. Jr. ( 2007 ) ‘ The Neglected Heart of Science Policy: Reconciling Supply of and Demand for Science ’, Environmental Science & Policy , 10 : 5 – 16 .
Scholten W. , Van Drooge L. , and Diederen P. ( 2018 ) Excellent Is Niet Gewoon. Dertig Jaar Focus op Excellentie in het Nederlandse Wetenschapsbeleid . The Hague : Rathenau Instituut .
Shapin S. ( 2008 ) The Scientific Life : A Moral History of a Late Modern Vocation . Chicago : University of Chicago press .
Spaapen J. and Van Drooge L. ( 2011 ) ‘ Introducing “Productive Interactions” in Social Impact Assessment ’, Research Evaluation , 20 : 211 – 8 .
Travis G. D. L. and Collins H. M. ( 1991 ) ‘ New Light on Old Boys: Cognitive and Institutional Particularism in the Peer Review System ’, Science, Technology & Human Values , 16 : 322 – 41 .
Van Arensbergen P. and Van den Besselaar P. ( 2012 ) ‘ The Selection of Scientific Talent in the Allocation of Research Grants ’, Higher Education Policy , 25 : 381 – 405 .
Van Arensbergen P. , Van der Weijden I. , and Van den Besselaar P. V. D. ( 2014a ) ‘ The Selection of Talent as a Group Process: A Literature Review on the Social Dynamics of Decision Making in Grant Panels ’, Research Evaluation , 23 : 298 – 311 .
—— ( 2014b ) ‘ Different Views on Scholarly Talent: What Are the Talents We Are Looking for in Science? ’, Research Evaluation , 23 : 273 – 84 .
Van den Brink , G. , Scholten , W. , and Jansen , T. , eds ( 2016 ) Goed Werk voor Academici . Culemborg : Stichting Beroepseer .
Weingart P. ( 1999 ) ‘ Scientific Expertise and Political Accountability: Paradoxes of Science in Politics ’, Science & Public Policy , 26 : 151 – 61 .
Wessely S. ( 1998 ) ‘ Peer Review of Grant Applications: What Do We Know? ’, The Lancet , 352 : 301 – 5 .
Month: | Total Views: |
---|---|
April 2023 | 723 |
May 2023 | 266 |
June 2023 | 152 |
July 2023 | 130 |
August 2023 | 355 |
September 2023 | 189 |
October 2023 | 198 |
November 2023 | 181 |
December 2023 | 153 |
January 2024 | 197 |
February 2024 | 222 |
March 2024 | 227 |
April 2024 | 218 |
May 2024 | 229 |
June 2024 | 134 |
July 2024 | 123 |
August 2024 | 118 |
Citing articles via.
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide
Sign In or Create an Account
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only
For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.
The goal of a research proposal is twofold: to present and justify the need to study a research problem and to present the practical ways in which the proposed study should be conducted. The design elements and procedures for conducting research are governed by standards of the predominant discipline in which the problem resides, therefore, the guidelines for research proposals are more exacting and less formal than a general project proposal. Research proposals contain extensive literature reviews. They must provide persuasive evidence that a need exists for the proposed study. In addition to providing a rationale, a proposal describes detailed methodology for conducting the research consistent with requirements of the professional or academic field and a statement on anticipated outcomes and benefits derived from the study's completion.
Krathwohl, David R. How to Prepare a Dissertation Proposal: Suggestions for Students in Education and the Social and Behavioral Sciences . Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2005.
Your professor may assign the task of writing a research proposal for the following reasons:
A proposal should contain all the key elements involved in designing a completed research study, with sufficient information that allows readers to assess the validity and usefulness of your proposed study. The only elements missing from a research proposal are the findings of the study and your analysis of those findings. Finally, an effective proposal is judged on the quality of your writing and, therefore, it is important that your proposal is coherent, clear, and compelling.
Regardless of the research problem you are investigating and the methodology you choose, all research proposals must address the following questions:
Common Mistakes to Avoid
Procter, Margaret. The Academic Proposal. The Lab Report. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Sanford, Keith. Information for Students: Writing a Research Proposal. Baylor University; Wong, Paul T. P. How to Write a Research Proposal. International Network on Personal Meaning. Trinity Western University; Writing Academic Proposals: Conferences, Articles, and Books. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Writing a Research Proposal. University Library. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Beginning the Proposal Process
As with writing most college-level academic papers, research proposals are generally organized the same way throughout most social science disciplines. The text of proposals generally vary in length between ten and thirty-five pages, followed by the list of references. However, before you begin, read the assignment carefully and, if anything seems unclear, ask your professor whether there are any specific requirements for organizing and writing the proposal.
A good place to begin is to ask yourself a series of questions:
In general, a compelling research proposal should document your knowledge of the topic and demonstrate your enthusiasm for conducting the study. Approach it with the intention of leaving your readers feeling like, "Wow, that's an exciting idea and I can’t wait to see how it turns out!"
Most proposals should include the following sections:
I. Introduction
In the real world of higher education, a research proposal is most often written by scholars seeking grant funding for a research project or it's the first step in getting approval to write a doctoral dissertation. Even if this is just a course assignment, treat your introduction as the initial pitch of an idea based on a thorough examination of the significance of a research problem. After reading the introduction, your readers should not only have an understanding of what you want to do, but they should also be able to gain a sense of your passion for the topic and to be excited about the study's possible outcomes. Note that most proposals do not include an abstract [summary] before the introduction.
Think about your introduction as a narrative written in two to four paragraphs that succinctly answers the following four questions :
II. Background and Significance
This is where you explain the scope and context of your proposal and describe in detail why it's important. It can be melded into your introduction or you can create a separate section to help with the organization and narrative flow of your proposal. Approach writing this section with the thought that you can’t assume your readers will know as much about the research problem as you do. Note that this section is not an essay going over everything you have learned about the topic; instead, you must choose what is most relevant in explaining the aims of your research.
To that end, while there are no prescribed rules for establishing the significance of your proposed study, you should attempt to address some or all of the following:
III. Literature Review
Connected to the background and significance of your study is a section of your proposal devoted to a more deliberate review and synthesis of prior studies related to the research problem under investigation . The purpose here is to place your project within the larger whole of what is currently being explored, while at the same time, demonstrating to your readers that your work is original and innovative. Think about what questions other researchers have asked, what methodological approaches they have used, and what is your understanding of their findings and, when stated, their recommendations. Also pay attention to any suggestions for further research.
Since a literature review is information dense, it is crucial that this section is intelligently structured to enable a reader to grasp the key arguments underpinning your proposed study in relation to the arguments put forth by other researchers. A good strategy is to break the literature into "conceptual categories" [themes] rather than systematically or chronologically describing groups of materials one at a time. Note that conceptual categories generally reveal themselves after you have read most of the pertinent literature on your topic so adding new categories is an on-going process of discovery as you review more studies. How do you know you've covered the key conceptual categories underlying the research literature? Generally, you can have confidence that all of the significant conceptual categories have been identified if you start to see repetition in the conclusions or recommendations that are being made.
NOTE: Do not shy away from challenging the conclusions made in prior research as a basis for supporting the need for your proposal. Assess what you believe is missing and state how previous research has failed to adequately examine the issue that your study addresses. Highlighting the problematic conclusions strengthens your proposal. For more information on writing literature reviews, GO HERE .
To help frame your proposal's review of prior research, consider the "five C’s" of writing a literature review:
IV. Research Design and Methods
This section must be well-written and logically organized because you are not actually doing the research, yet, your reader must have confidence that you have a plan worth pursuing . The reader will never have a study outcome from which to evaluate whether your methodological choices were the correct ones. Thus, the objective here is to convince the reader that your overall research design and proposed methods of analysis will correctly address the problem and that the methods will provide the means to effectively interpret the potential results. Your design and methods should be unmistakably tied to the specific aims of your study.
Describe the overall research design by building upon and drawing examples from your review of the literature. Consider not only methods that other researchers have used, but methods of data gathering that have not been used but perhaps could be. Be specific about the methodological approaches you plan to undertake to obtain information, the techniques you would use to analyze the data, and the tests of external validity to which you commit yourself [i.e., the trustworthiness by which you can generalize from your study to other people, places, events, and/or periods of time].
When describing the methods you will use, be sure to cover the following:
V. Preliminary Suppositions and Implications
Just because you don't have to actually conduct the study and analyze the results, doesn't mean you can skip talking about the analytical process and potential implications . The purpose of this section is to argue how and in what ways you believe your research will refine, revise, or extend existing knowledge in the subject area under investigation. Depending on the aims and objectives of your study, describe how the anticipated results will impact future scholarly research, theory, practice, forms of interventions, or policy making. Note that such discussions may have either substantive [a potential new policy], theoretical [a potential new understanding], or methodological [a potential new way of analyzing] significance. When thinking about the potential implications of your study, ask the following questions:
NOTE: This section should not delve into idle speculation, opinion, or be formulated on the basis of unclear evidence . The purpose is to reflect upon gaps or understudied areas of the current literature and describe how your proposed research contributes to a new understanding of the research problem should the study be implemented as designed.
ANOTHER NOTE : This section is also where you describe any potential limitations to your proposed study. While it is impossible to highlight all potential limitations because the study has yet to be conducted, you still must tell the reader where and in what form impediments may arise and how you plan to address them.
VI. Conclusion
The conclusion reiterates the importance or significance of your proposal and provides a brief summary of the entire study . This section should be only one or two paragraphs long, emphasizing why the research problem is worth investigating, why your research study is unique, and how it should advance existing knowledge.
Someone reading this section should come away with an understanding of:
VII. Citations
As with any scholarly research paper, you must cite the sources you used . In a standard research proposal, this section can take two forms, so consult with your professor about which one is preferred.
In either case, this section should testify to the fact that you did enough preparatory work to ensure the project will complement and not just duplicate the efforts of other researchers. It demonstrates to the reader that you have a thorough understanding of prior research on the topic.
Most proposal formats have you start a new page and use the heading "References" or "Bibliography" centered at the top of the page. Cited works should always use a standard format that follows the writing style advised by the discipline of your course [e.g., education=APA; history=Chicago] or that is preferred by your professor. This section normally does not count towards the total page length of your research proposal.
Develop a Research Proposal: Writing the Proposal. Office of Library Information Services. Baltimore County Public Schools; Heath, M. Teresa Pereira and Caroline Tynan. “Crafting a Research Proposal.” The Marketing Review 10 (Summer 2010): 147-168; Jones, Mark. “Writing a Research Proposal.” In MasterClass in Geography Education: Transforming Teaching and Learning . Graham Butt, editor. (New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2015), pp. 113-127; Juni, Muhamad Hanafiah. “Writing a Research Proposal.” International Journal of Public Health and Clinical Sciences 1 (September/October 2014): 229-240; Krathwohl, David R. How to Prepare a Dissertation Proposal: Suggestions for Students in Education and the Social and Behavioral Sciences . Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2005; Procter, Margaret. The Academic Proposal. The Lab Report. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Punch, Keith and Wayne McGowan. "Developing and Writing a Research Proposal." In From Postgraduate to Social Scientist: A Guide to Key Skills . Nigel Gilbert, ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2006), 59-81; Wong, Paul T. P. How to Write a Research Proposal. International Network on Personal Meaning. Trinity Western University; Writing Academic Proposals: Conferences , Articles, and Books. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Writing a Research Proposal. University Library. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Writing an evaluation plan.
An evaluation plan is an integral part of a grant proposal that provides information to improve a project during development and implementation.
For small projects, the Office of the Vice President for Research can help you develop a simple evaluation plan. If you are writing a proposal for larger center grant, using a professional external evaluator is recommended. We can provide recommendations of external evaluators; please contact [email protected] ; for BioMed faculty visit the BioMed Evaluation Services webpage .
Do all grant proposals require an evaluation plan?
Not all grant proposals require an evaluation plan; however, many program announcements and funding opportunities stipulate and evaluation strategy with specific milestones are important elements that should be considered. If an evaluation plan is required, it will generally be listed in the program announcement. Most often, larger, more involved grant proposals will require an evaluation plan, while a smaller, single-investigator proposals will not. If you are unsure whether your proposal requires an evaluation plan, please contact us.
It is worth noting there is a difference between evaluation and research although there are several commonalities. Most simply:
There are two types of evaluation typically requested by funders--formative and summative—and which you use is largely dictated by the purpose of the evaluation. Do you want to prove that you achieved the outcomes as intended (summative) or are you doing evaluation to monitor if you are doing what you said you would in your grant application (formative)? Or both? We can help you prepare and review both types of evaluations outlined below.
Formative or Process Evaluation does the following:
Summative or Outcomes Evaluation does the following:
What does the evaluation process entail?
The evaluation process can be broken down into a series of steps, from preparation to implementation and interpretation.
A Straightforward How-To Guide (With Examples)
By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Reviewed By: Dr. Eunice Rautenbach | August 2019 (Updated April 2023)
Writing up a strong research proposal for a dissertation or thesis is much like a marriage proposal. It’s a task that calls on you to win somebody over and persuade them that what you’re planning is a great idea. An idea they’re happy to say ‘yes’ to. This means that your dissertation proposal needs to be persuasive , attractive and well-planned. In this post, I’ll show you how to write a winning dissertation proposal, from scratch.
Before you start:
– Understand exactly what a research proposal is – Ask yourself these 4 questions
The 5 essential ingredients:
The research proposal is literally that: a written document that communicates what you propose to research, in a concise format. It’s where you put all that stuff that’s spinning around in your head down on to paper, in a logical, convincing fashion.
Convincing is the keyword here, as your research proposal needs to convince the assessor that your research is clearly articulated (i.e., a clear research question) , worth doing (i.e., is unique and valuable enough to justify the effort), and doable within the restrictions you’ll face (time limits, budget, skill limits, etc.). If your proposal does not address these three criteria, your research won’t be approved, no matter how “exciting” the research idea might be.
PS – if you’re completely new to proposal writing, we’ve got a detailed walkthrough video covering two successful research proposals here .
Before starting the writing process, you need to ask yourself 4 important questions . If you can’t answer them succinctly and confidently, you’re not ready – you need to go back and think more deeply about your dissertation topic .
You should be able to answer the following 4 questions before starting your dissertation or thesis research proposal:
If you can’t answer these questions clearly and concisely, you’re not yet ready to write your research proposal – revisit our post on choosing a topic .
If you can, that’s great – it’s time to start writing up your dissertation proposal. Next, I’ll discuss what needs to go into your research proposal, and how to structure it all into an intuitive, convincing document with a linear narrative.
Research proposals can vary in style between institutions and disciplines, but here I’ll share with you a handy 5-section structure you can use. These 5 sections directly address the core questions we spoke about earlier, ensuring that you present a convincing proposal. If your institution already provides a proposal template, there will likely be substantial overlap with this, so you’ll still get value from reading on.
For each section discussed below, make sure you use headers and sub-headers (ideally, numbered headers) to help the reader navigate through your document, and to support them when they need to revisit a previous section. Don’t just present an endless wall of text, paragraph after paragraph after paragraph…
Top Tip: Use MS Word Styles to format headings. This will allow you to be clear about whether a sub-heading is level 2, 3, or 4. Additionally, you can view your document in ‘outline view’ which will show you only your headings. This makes it much easier to check your structure, shift things around and make decisions about where a section needs to sit. You can also generate a 100% accurate table of contents using Word’s automatic functionality.
Your research proposal’s title should be your main research question in its simplest form, possibly with a sub-heading providing basic details on the specifics of the study. For example:
“Compliance with equality legislation in the charity sector: a study of the ‘reasonable adjustments’ made in three London care homes”
As you can see, this title provides a clear indication of what the research is about, in broad terms. It paints a high-level picture for the first-time reader, which gives them a taste of what to expect. Always aim for a clear, concise title . Don’t feel the need to capture every detail of your research in your title – your proposal will fill in the gaps.
In this section of your research proposal, you’ll expand on what you’ve communicated in the title, by providing a few paragraphs which offer more detail about your research topic. Importantly, the focus here is the topic – what will you research and why is that worth researching? This is not the place to discuss methodology, practicalities, etc. – you’ll do that later.
You should cover the following:
Importantly, you should aim to use short sentences and plain language – don’t babble on with extensive jargon, acronyms and complex language. Assume that the reader is an intelligent layman – not a subject area specialist (even if they are). Remember that the best writing is writing that can be easily understood and digested. Keep it simple.
Note that some universities may want some extra bits and pieces in your introduction section. For example, personal development objectives, a structural outline, etc. Check your brief to see if there are any other details they expect in your proposal, and make sure you find a place for these.
Next, you’ll need to specify what the scope of your research will be – this is also known as the delimitations . In other words, you need to make it clear what you will be covering and, more importantly, what you won’t be covering in your research. Simply put, this is about ring fencing your research topic so that you have a laser-sharp focus.
All too often, students feel the need to go broad and try to address as many issues as possible, in the interest of producing comprehensive research. Whilst this is admirable, it’s a mistake. By tightly refining your scope, you’ll enable yourself to go deep with your research, which is what you need to earn good marks. If your scope is too broad, you’re likely going to land up with superficial research (which won’t earn marks), so don’t be afraid to narrow things down.
In this section of your research proposal, you need to provide a (relatively) brief discussion of the existing literature. Naturally, this will not be as comprehensive as the literature review in your actual dissertation, but it will lay the foundation for that. In fact, if you put in the effort at this stage, you’ll make your life a lot easier when it’s time to write your actual literature review chapter.
There are a few things you need to achieve in this section:
When you write up your literature review, keep these three objectives front of mind, especially number two (revealing the gap in the literature), so that your literature review has a clear purpose and direction . Everything you write should be contributing towards one (or more) of these objectives in some way. If it doesn’t, you need to ask yourself whether it’s truly needed.
Top Tip: Don’t fall into the trap of just describing the main pieces of literature, for example, “A says this, B says that, C also says that…” and so on. Merely describing the literature provides no value. Instead, you need to synthesise it, and use it to address the three objectives above.
Now that you’ve clearly explained both your intended research topic (in the introduction) and the existing research it will draw on (in the literature review section), it’s time to get practical and explain exactly how you’ll be carrying out your own research. In other words, your research methodology.
In this section, you’ll need to answer two critical questions :
In other words, this is not just about explaining WHAT you’ll be doing, it’s also about explaining WHY. In fact, the justification is the most important part , because that justification is how you demonstrate a good understanding of research design (which is what assessors want to see).
Some essential design choices you need to cover in your research proposal include:
This list is not exhaustive – these are just some core attributes of research design. Check with your institution what level of detail they expect. The “ research onion ” by Saunders et al (2009) provides a good summary of the various design choices you ultimately need to make – you can read more about that here .
In addition to the technical aspects, you will need to address the practical side of the project. In other words, you need to explain what resources you’ll need (e.g., time, money, access to equipment or software, etc.) and how you intend to secure these resources. You need to show that your project is feasible, so any “make or break” type resources need to already be secured. The success or failure of your project cannot depend on some resource which you’re not yet sure you have access to.
Another part of the practicalities discussion is project and risk management . In other words, you need to show that you have a clear project plan to tackle your research with. Some key questions to address:
A good way to demonstrate that you’ve thought this through is to include a Gantt chart and a risk register (in the appendix if word count is a problem). With these two tools, you can show that you’ve got a clear, feasible plan, and you’ve thought about and accounted for the potential risks.
Tip – Be honest about the potential difficulties – but show that you are anticipating solutions and workarounds. This is much more impressive to an assessor than an unrealistically optimistic proposal which does not anticipate any challenges whatsoever.
The final step is to edit and proofread your proposal – very carefully. It sounds obvious, but all too often poor editing and proofreading ruin a good proposal. Nothing is more off-putting for an assessor than a poorly edited, typo-strewn document. It sends the message that you either do not pay attention to detail, or just don’t care. Neither of these are good messages. Put the effort into editing and proofreading your proposal (or pay someone to do it for you) – it will pay dividends.
When you’re editing, watch out for ‘academese’. Many students can speak simply, passionately and clearly about their dissertation topic – but become incomprehensible the moment they turn the laptop on. You are not required to write in any kind of special, formal, complex language when you write academic work. Sure, there may be technical terms, jargon specific to your discipline, shorthand terms and so on. But, apart from those, keep your written language very close to natural spoken language – just as you would speak in the classroom. Imagine that you are explaining your project plans to your classmates or a family member. Remember, write for the intelligent layman, not the subject matter experts. Plain-language, concise writing is what wins hearts and minds – and marks!
And there you have it – how to write your dissertation or thesis research proposal, from the title page to the final proof. Here’s a quick recap of the key takeaways:
Hopefully, this post has helped you better understand how to write up a winning research proposal. If you enjoyed it, be sure to check out the rest of the Grad Coach Blog . If your university doesn’t provide any template for your proposal, you might want to try out our free research proposal template .
This post is an extract from our bestselling short course, Research Proposal Bootcamp . If you want to work smart, you don't want to miss this .
Thank you so much for the valuable insight that you have given, especially on the research proposal. That is what I have managed to cover. I still need to go back to the other parts as I got disturbed while still listening to Derek’s audio on you-tube. I am inspired. I will definitely continue with Grad-coach guidance on You-tube.
Thanks for the kind words :). All the best with your proposal.
First of all, thanks a lot for making such a wonderful presentation. The video was really useful and gave me a very clear insight of how a research proposal has to be written. I shall try implementing these ideas in my RP.
Once again, I thank you for this content.
I found reading your outline on writing research proposal very beneficial. I wish there was a way of submitting my draft proposal to you guys for critiquing before I submit to the institution.
Hi Bonginkosi
Thank you for the kind words. Yes, we do provide a review service. The best starting point is to have a chat with one of our coaches here: https://gradcoach.com/book/new/ .
Hello team GRADCOACH, may God bless you so much. I was totally green in research. Am so happy for your free superb tutorials and resources. Once again thank you so much Derek and his team.
You’re welcome, Erick. Good luck with your research proposal 🙂
thank you for the information. its precise and on point.
Really a remarkable piece of writing and great source of guidance for the researchers. GOD BLESS YOU for your guidance. Regards
Thanks so much for your guidance. It is easy and comprehensive the way you explain the steps for a winning research proposal.
Thank you guys so much for the rich post. I enjoyed and learn from every word in it. My problem now is how to get into your platform wherein I can always seek help on things related to my research work ? Secondly, I wish to find out if there is a way I can send my tentative proposal to you guys for examination before I take to my supervisor Once again thanks very much for the insights
Thanks for your kind words, Desire.
If you are based in a country where Grad Coach’s paid services are available, you can book a consultation by clicking the “Book” button in the top right.
Best of luck with your studies.
May God bless you team for the wonderful work you are doing,
If I have a topic, Can I submit it to you so that you can draft a proposal for me?? As I am expecting to go for masters degree in the near future.
Thanks for your comment. We definitely cannot draft a proposal for you, as that would constitute academic misconduct. The proposal needs to be your own work. We can coach you through the process, but it needs to be your own work and your own writing.
Best of luck with your research!
I found a lot of many essential concepts from your material. it is real a road map to write a research proposal. so thanks a lot. If there is any update material on your hand on MBA please forward to me.
GradCoach is a professional website that presents support and helps for MBA student like me through the useful online information on the page and with my 1-on-1 online coaching with the amazing and professional PhD Kerryen.
Thank you Kerryen so much for the support and help 🙂
I really recommend dealing with such a reliable services provider like Gradcoah and a coach like Kerryen.
Hi, Am happy for your service and effort to help students and researchers, Please, i have been given an assignment on research for strategic development, the task one is to formulate a research proposal to support the strategic development of a business area, my issue here is how to go about it, especially the topic or title and introduction. Please, i would like to know if you could help me and how much is the charge.
This content is practical, valuable, and just great!
Thank you very much!
Hi Derek, Thank you for the valuable presentation. It is very helpful especially for beginners like me. I am just starting my PhD.
This is quite instructive and research proposal made simple. Can I have a research proposal template?
Great! Thanks for rescuing me, because I had no former knowledge in this topic. But with this piece of information, I am now secured. Thank you once more.
I enjoyed listening to your video on how to write a proposal. I think I will be able to write a winning proposal with your advice. I wish you were to be my supervisor.
Dear Derek Jansen,
Thank you for your great content. I couldn’t learn these topics in MBA, but now I learned from GradCoach. Really appreciate your efforts….
From Afghanistan!
I have got very essential inputs for startup of my dissertation proposal. Well organized properly communicated with video presentation. Thank you for the presentation.
Wow, this is absolutely amazing guys. Thank you so much for the fruitful presentation, you’ve made my research much easier.
this helps me a lot. thank you all so much for impacting in us. may god richly bless you all
How I wish I’d learn about Grad Coach earlier. I’ve been stumbling around writing and rewriting! Now I have concise clear directions on how to put this thing together. Thank you!
Fantastic!! Thank You for this very concise yet comprehensive guidance.
Even if I am poor in English I would like to thank you very much.
Thank you very much, this is very insightful.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.
Learning objectives.
Writing a good research paper takes time, thought, and effort. Although this assignment is challenging, it is manageable. Focusing on one step at a time will help you develop a thoughtful, informative, well-supported research paper.
Your first step is to choose a topic and then to develop research questions, a working thesis, and a written research proposal. Set aside adequate time for this part of the process. Fully exploring ideas will help you build a solid foundation for your paper.
When you choose a topic for a research paper, you are making a major commitment. Your choice will help determine whether you enjoy the lengthy process of research and writing—and whether your final paper fulfills the assignment requirements. If you choose your topic hastily, you may later find it difficult to work with your topic. By taking your time and choosing carefully, you can ensure that this assignment is not only challenging but also rewarding.
Writers understand the importance of choosing a topic that fulfills the assignment requirements and fits the assignment’s purpose and audience. (For more information about purpose and audience, see Chapter 6 “Writing Paragraphs: Separating Ideas and Shaping Content” .) Choosing a topic that interests you is also crucial. You instructor may provide a list of suggested topics or ask that you develop a topic on your own. In either case, try to identify topics that genuinely interest you.
After identifying potential topic ideas, you will need to evaluate your ideas and choose one topic to pursue. Will you be able to find enough information about the topic? Can you develop a paper about this topic that presents and supports your original ideas? Is the topic too broad or too narrow for the scope of the assignment? If so, can you modify it so it is more manageable? You will ask these questions during this preliminary phase of the research process.
Sometimes, your instructor may provide a list of suggested topics. If so, you may benefit from identifying several possibilities before committing to one idea. It is important to know how to narrow down your ideas into a concise, manageable thesis. You may also use the list as a starting point to help you identify additional, related topics. Discussing your ideas with your instructor will help ensure that you choose a manageable topic that fits the requirements of the assignment.
In this chapter, you will follow a writer named Jorge, who is studying health care administration, as he prepares a research paper. You will also plan, research, and draft your own research paper.
Jorge was assigned to write a research paper on health and the media for an introductory course in health care. Although a general topic was selected for the students, Jorge had to decide which specific issues interested him. He brainstormed a list of possibilities.
If you are writing a research paper for a specialized course, look back through your notes and course activities. Identify reading assignments and class discussions that especially engaged you. Doing so can help you identify topics to pursue.
Set a timer for five minutes. Use brainstorming or idea mapping to create a list of topics you would be interested in researching for a paper about the influence of the Internet on social networking. Do you closely follow the media coverage of a particular website, such as Twitter? Would you like to learn more about a certain industry, such as online dating? Which social networking sites do you and your friends use? List as many ideas related to this topic as you can.
Once you have a list of potential topics, you will need to choose one as the focus of your essay. You will also need to narrow your topic. Most writers find that the topics they listed during brainstorming or idea mapping are broad—too broad for the scope of the assignment. Working with an overly broad topic, such as sexual education programs or popularized diets, can be frustrating and overwhelming. Each topic has so many facets that it would be impossible to cover them all in a college research paper. However, more specific choices, such as the pros and cons of sexual education in kids’ television programs or the physical effects of the South Beach diet, are specific enough to write about without being too narrow to sustain an entire research paper.
A good research paper provides focused, in-depth information and analysis. If your topic is too broad, you will find it difficult to do more than skim the surface when you research it and write about it. Narrowing your focus is essential to making your topic manageable. To narrow your focus, explore your topic in writing, conduct preliminary research, and discuss both the topic and the research with others.
“How am I supposed to narrow my topic when I haven’t even begun researching yet?” In fact, you may already know more than you realize. Review your list and identify your top two or three topics. Set aside some time to explore each one through freewriting. (For more information about freewriting, see Chapter 8 “The Writing Process: How Do I Begin?” .) Simply taking the time to focus on your topic may yield fresh angles.
Jorge knew that he was especially interested in the topic of diet fads, but he also knew that it was much too broad for his assignment. He used freewriting to explore his thoughts so he could narrow his topic. Read Jorge’s ideas.
Another way writers may focus a topic is to conduct preliminary research . Like freewriting, exploratory reading can help you identify interesting angles. Surfing the web and browsing through newspaper and magazine articles are good ways to start. Find out what people are saying about your topic on blogs and online discussion groups. Discussing your topic with others can also inspire you. Talk about your ideas with your classmates, your friends, or your instructor.
Jorge’s freewriting exercise helped him realize that the assigned topic of health and the media intersected with a few of his interests—diet, nutrition, and obesity. Preliminary online research and discussions with his classmates strengthened his impression that many people are confused or misled by media coverage of these subjects.
Jorge decided to focus his paper on a topic that had garnered a great deal of media attention—low-carbohydrate diets. He wanted to find out whether low-carbohydrate diets were as effective as their proponents claimed.
At work, you may need to research a topic quickly to find general information. This information can be useful in understanding trends in a given industry or generating competition. For example, a company may research a competitor’s prices and use the information when pricing their own product. You may find it useful to skim a variety of reliable sources and take notes on your findings.
The reliability of online sources varies greatly. In this exploratory phase of your research, you do not need to evaluate sources as closely as you will later. However, use common sense as you refine your paper topic. If you read a fascinating blog comment that gives you a new idea for your paper, be sure to check out other, more reliable sources as well to make sure the idea is worth pursuing.
Review the list of topics you created in Note 11.18 “Exercise 1” and identify two or three topics you would like to explore further. For each of these topics, spend five to ten minutes writing about the topic without stopping. Then review your writing to identify possible areas of focus.
Set aside time to conduct preliminary research about your potential topics. Then choose a topic to pursue for your research paper.
Collaboration
Please share your topic list with a classmate. Select one or two topics on his or her list that you would like to learn more about and return it to him or her. Discuss why you found the topics interesting, and learn which of your topics your classmate selected and why.
Your freewriting and preliminary research have helped you choose a focused, manageable topic for your research paper. To work with your topic successfully, you will need to determine what exactly you want to learn about it—and later, what you want to say about it. Before you begin conducting in-depth research, you will further define your focus by developing a research question , a working thesis, and a research proposal.
In forming a research question, you are setting a goal for your research. Your main research question should be substantial enough to form the guiding principle of your paper—but focused enough to guide your research. A strong research question requires you not only to find information but also to put together different pieces of information, interpret and analyze them, and figure out what you think. As you consider potential research questions, ask yourself whether they would be too hard or too easy to answer.
To determine your research question, review the freewriting you completed earlier. Skim through books, articles, and websites and list the questions you have. (You may wish to use the 5WH strategy to help you formulate questions. See Chapter 8 “The Writing Process: How Do I Begin?” for more information about 5WH questions.) Include simple, factual questions and more complex questions that would require analysis and interpretation. Determine your main question—the primary focus of your paper—and several subquestions that you will need to research to answer your main question.
Here are the research questions Jorge will use to focus his research. Notice that his main research question has no obvious, straightforward answer. Jorge will need to research his subquestions, which address narrower topics, to answer his main question.
Using the topic you selected in Note 11.24 “Exercise 2” , write your main research question and at least four to five subquestions. Check that your main research question is appropriately complex for your assignment.
A working thesis concisely states a writer’s initial answer to the main research question. It does not merely state a fact or present a subjective opinion. Instead, it expresses a debatable idea or claim that you hope to prove through additional research. Your working thesis is called a working thesis for a reason—it is subject to change. As you learn more about your topic, you may change your thinking in light of your research findings. Let your working thesis serve as a guide to your research, but do not be afraid to modify it based on what you learn.
Jorge began his research with a strong point of view based on his preliminary writing and research. Read his working thesis statement, which presents the point he will argue. Notice how it states Jorge’s tentative answer to his research question.
One way to determine your working thesis is to consider how you would complete sentences such as I believe or My opinion is . However, keep in mind that academic writing generally does not use first-person pronouns. These statements are useful starting points, but formal research papers use an objective voice.
Write a working thesis statement that presents your preliminary answer to the research question you wrote in Note 11.27 “Exercise 3” . Check that your working thesis statement presents an idea or claim that could be supported or refuted by evidence from research.
A research proposal is a brief document—no more than one typed page—that summarizes the preliminary work you have completed. Your purpose in writing it is to formalize your plan for research and present it to your instructor for feedback. In your research proposal, you will present your main research question, related subquestions, and working thesis. You will also briefly discuss the value of researching this topic and indicate how you plan to gather information.
When Jorge began drafting his research proposal, he realized that he had already created most of the pieces he needed. However, he knew he also had to explain how his research would be relevant to other future health care professionals. In addition, he wanted to form a general plan for doing the research and identifying potentially useful sources. Read Jorge’s research proposal.
Before you begin a new project at work, you may have to develop a project summary document that states the purpose of the project, explains why it would be a wise use of company resources, and briefly outlines the steps involved in completing the project. This type of document is similar to a research proposal. Both documents define and limit a project, explain its value, discuss how to proceed, and identify what resources you will use.
Now you may write your own research proposal, if you have not done so already. Follow the guidelines provided in this lesson.
Writing for Success Copyright © 2015 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.
Search This Site
When is Formal Review Required?
Student & Campus Life research projects that will use substantial resources of the Cornell community must be formally reviewed by the committee before they can be initiated. At a minimum, this includes research that draws participants from a major institutional data base, for example, those maintained by the University Registrar; Office of the Dean of Students; Fraternity, Sorority and Independent Living; and Class Councils. Regardless of how potential participants are to be identified, research that meets the following criteria will also require formal review by the committee:
Conversely, research projects that are very limited in scope, and research that is conducted exclusively for program evaluation purposes (i.e., research that examines the program-related experiences of students who participate in a specific program or event) will generally be exempt from formal review by the committee.
Submitting a Proposal for Formal Review
The committee meets monthly during the fall, winter and spring semesters to formally review research proposals and conduct related business. At least eight weeks before the anticipated launch date of the project, researchers should submit a SCLRG research proposal form to Leslie Meyerhoff or Marne Einarson . The proposal form asks for information about the purpose and proposed design of the study, as well as draft versions of data collection instruments. Samples of completed research proposals are available here and here .
The following criteria will be used by the committee to evaluate research proposals:
Based on their evaluation of the research proposal, the committee may decide to:
IRB Approval
If research results will not be used exclusively for internal purposes (e.g., they will be presented or published beyond Cornell; or used for an undergraduate honors thesis, master’s thesis or doctoral dissertation), researchers may also be required to obtain approval from Cornell’s Institutional Review Board for Human Participants (IRB). IRB approval should be sought after the proposal has been reviewed by the SAS Research Group. The committee should subsequently be informed of the decision of the IRB.
© 2024 Cornell University
If you have a disability and are having trouble accessing information on this website or need materials in an alternate format, contact [email protected] for assistance.
Comparing proposals “apples-to-apples” is crucial to establishing which one will best meet your needs. Consider these ideas to help you focus on the details that contribute to a successful survey.
The proposal process begins well before you ask any research firm for quote. The process really begins with the discussions you and your team have about objectives. What are your goals? What are the decisions you want to make when the project is done and you have data in hand?
Once you have a solid vision of the survey, then it’s time to start talking with potential partners Throughout your conversations, take note: Do the various firms ask you specific questions about your objectives, the group of people you’d like to survey, and your ultimate goals? Do they, indeed, ask about decisions that you wish to make? Details regarding your specific need should always be front and center during the conversations.
When reviewing the sampling plan, make sure the proposal mentions sample size, response rate estimates, number of responses, and maximum sampling error. If you’re unsure of the impact these figures have on the quality of your results, ask the researcher. They should be able to explain them in terms you can understand.
The quantity and types of information sought from respondents will impact cost. Quantity encompasses the number of questions and number of variables to process. Type refers to how the questions will be processed, the data entry involved and whether all or just some data will be cleaned.
No evaluation is complete until you know the approximate number and types of questions planned for the survey. The number of open-ended questions should be included as well because open-ended questions that capture verbatim responses can impact the response rate and possibly the price of your survey, especially if done by mail.
In addition, make sure the proposal clearly indicates who will develop the questionnaire content. Also, determine if it includes enough collaboration time to be sufficiently customized to meet your particular needs.
For online surveys paying attention to the data collection series and who is responsible for sending survey invitations. Multiple emails to sample members can encourage response. As well, the invitation process should be sensitive to data privacy issues such as those indicated by GDPR and others. Proposals for mailed surveys should clearly outline the data collection series and each component of the survey kit.
Any proposal you receive should highlight the steps the research company will take to make sure that the data is accurate and representative. Depending on the type of survey, checking logic, consistency, and outliers can take a significant amount of time. You must have some process noted to identify inconsistent answers for surveys that collect a significant amount of numerical data (salary survey, market studies, budget planning). Finally, some percentage of mailed surveys need to be verified for data entry accuracy.
A straightforward analysis of survey data can meet many objectives. In other cases, a multivariate statistical analysis will provide deeper insights to achieve your objectives— making results easier to use. If your objectives include learning about separate segments of your circulation, crosstabulations should be specified.
A variety of reporting options exist for a survey. These include but are not limited to data tables, a summary of the results, in-depth analysis, and graphed presentations. As a result, you need to understand exactly what you’ll receive following your survey and in what format.
Make sure the proposal covers all the bases: what you need to do and provide, what the firm will do when they will do it and how much it will cost. There should be no surprises in what you need to supply. No “you need how much letterhead and envelopes?” a week before your survey is scheduled to mail. Review the price carefully and understand what it includes and doesn’t include. As with many things in life, you usually get what you pay for.
Related posts:, notes on the pre- and post-survey.
Notes on the Pre- and Post-Survey The Pre-Post survey is used to look at how things may change over time. It may be how brand awareness levels change after a new ad campaign is introduced or how opinions of a political candidate move after a speech. The catalyst to potential change, sometimes called the event […]
The Importance of Questionnaire Design Planning a survey requires many steps and decisions along the way: “How many people do I need to survey? How am I going to distribute the survey?” And, while people often figure out what questions they want to ask, many overlook the importance of expert, unbiased questionnaire design. When you […]
Will Color Printing Give Your Survey a Boost? Occasionally we are asked if color printing (versus black and white) is better to use as part of a survey mailing? Will this treatment generate more attention and ultimately a better response? Our Opinion: If you’re looking to use color to boost your survey’s response rate, it […]
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .
Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.
Methodology
Published on January 2, 2023 by Shona McCombes . Revised on September 11, 2023.
What is a literature review? A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic. It provides an overview of current knowledge, allowing you to identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research that you can later apply to your paper, thesis, or dissertation topic .
There are five key steps to writing a literature review:
A good literature review doesn’t just summarize sources—it analyzes, synthesizes , and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.
Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes
What is the purpose of a literature review, examples of literature reviews, step 1 – search for relevant literature, step 2 – evaluate and select sources, step 3 – identify themes, debates, and gaps, step 4 – outline your literature review’s structure, step 5 – write your literature review, free lecture slides, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions, introduction.
When you write a thesis , dissertation , or research paper , you will likely have to conduct a literature review to situate your research within existing knowledge. The literature review gives you a chance to:
Writing literature reviews is a particularly important skill if you want to apply for graduate school or pursue a career in research. We’ve written a step-by-step guide that you can follow below.
Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:
See an example
Writing literature reviews can be quite challenging! A good starting point could be to look at some examples, depending on what kind of literature review you’d like to write.
You can also check out our templates with literature review examples and sample outlines at the links below.
Download Word doc Download Google doc
Before you begin searching for literature, you need a clearly defined topic .
If you are writing the literature review section of a dissertation or research paper, you will search for literature related to your research problem and questions .
Start by creating a list of keywords related to your research question. Include each of the key concepts or variables you’re interested in, and list any synonyms and related terms. You can add to this list as you discover new keywords in the process of your literature search.
Use your keywords to begin searching for sources. Some useful databases to search for journals and articles include:
You can also use boolean operators to help narrow down your search.
Make sure to read the abstract to find out whether an article is relevant to your question. When you find a useful book or article, you can check the bibliography to find other relevant sources.
You likely won’t be able to read absolutely everything that has been written on your topic, so it will be necessary to evaluate which sources are most relevant to your research question.
For each publication, ask yourself:
Make sure the sources you use are credible , and make sure you read any landmark studies and major theories in your field of research.
You can use our template to summarize and evaluate sources you’re thinking about using. Click on either button below to download.
As you read, you should also begin the writing process. Take notes that you can later incorporate into the text of your literature review.
It is important to keep track of your sources with citations to avoid plagiarism . It can be helpful to make an annotated bibliography , where you compile full citation information and write a paragraph of summary and analysis for each source. This helps you remember what you read and saves time later in the process.
To begin organizing your literature review’s argument and structure, be sure you understand the connections and relationships between the sources you’ve read. Based on your reading and notes, you can look for:
This step will help you work out the structure of your literature review and (if applicable) show how your own research will contribute to existing knowledge.
There are various approaches to organizing the body of a literature review. Depending on the length of your literature review, you can combine several of these strategies (for example, your overall structure might be thematic, but each theme is discussed chronologically).
The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time. However, if you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order.
Try to analyze patterns, turning points and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred.
If you have found some recurring central themes, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic.
For example, if you are reviewing literature about inequalities in migrant health outcomes, key themes might include healthcare policy, language barriers, cultural attitudes, legal status, and economic access.
If you draw your sources from different disciplines or fields that use a variety of research methods , you might want to compare the results and conclusions that emerge from different approaches. For example:
A literature review is often the foundation for a theoretical framework . You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts.
You might argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach, or combine various theoretical concepts to create a framework for your research.
Like any other academic text , your literature review should have an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion . What you include in each depends on the objective of your literature review.
The introduction should clearly establish the focus and purpose of the literature review.
Depending on the length of your literature review, you might want to divide the body into subsections. You can use a subheading for each theme, time period, or methodological approach.
As you write, you can follow these tips:
In the conclusion, you should summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance.
When you’ve finished writing and revising your literature review, don’t forget to proofread thoroughly before submitting. Not a language expert? Check out Scribbr’s professional proofreading services !
This article has been adapted into lecture slides that you can use to teach your students about writing a literature review.
Scribbr slides are free to use, customize, and distribute for educational purposes.
Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint
If you want to know more about the research process , methodology , research bias , or statistics , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.
Statistics
Research bias
A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources (such as books, journal articles, and theses) related to a specific topic or research question .
It is often written as part of a thesis, dissertation , or research paper , in order to situate your work in relation to existing knowledge.
There are several reasons to conduct a literature review at the beginning of a research project:
Writing the literature review shows your reader how your work relates to existing research and what new insights it will contribute.
The literature review usually comes near the beginning of your thesis or dissertation . After the introduction , it grounds your research in a scholarly field and leads directly to your theoretical framework or methodology .
A literature review is a survey of credible sources on a topic, often used in dissertations , theses, and research papers . Literature reviews give an overview of knowledge on a subject, helping you identify relevant theories and methods, as well as gaps in existing research. Literature reviews are set up similarly to other academic texts , with an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion .
An annotated bibliography is a list of source references that has a short description (called an annotation ) for each of the sources. It is often assigned as part of the research process for a paper .
If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.
McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved August 26, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/
Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".
I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”
Table of Contents
Before conducting a study, a research proposal should be created that outlines researchers’ plans and methodology and is submitted to the concerned evaluating organization or person. Creating a research proposal is an important step to ensure that researchers are on track and are moving forward as intended. A research proposal can be defined as a detailed plan or blueprint for the proposed research that you intend to undertake. It provides readers with a snapshot of your project by describing what you will investigate, why it is needed, and how you will conduct the research.
Your research proposal should aim to explain to the readers why your research is relevant and original, that you understand the context and current scenario in the field, have the appropriate resources to conduct the research, and that the research is feasible given the usual constraints.
This article will describe in detail the purpose and typical structure of a research proposal , along with examples and templates to help you ace this step in your research journey.
A research proposal¹ ,² can be defined as a formal report that describes your proposed research, its objectives, methodology, implications, and other important details. Research proposals are the framework of your research and are used to obtain approvals or grants to conduct the study from various committees or organizations. Consequently, research proposals should convince readers of your study’s credibility, accuracy, achievability, practicality, and reproducibility.
With research proposals , researchers usually aim to persuade the readers, funding agencies, educational institutions, and supervisors to approve the proposal. To achieve this, the report should be well structured with the objectives written in clear, understandable language devoid of jargon. A well-organized research proposal conveys to the readers or evaluators that the writer has thought out the research plan meticulously and has the resources to ensure timely completion.
A research proposal is a sales pitch and therefore should be detailed enough to convince your readers, who could be supervisors, ethics committees, universities, etc., that what you’re proposing has merit and is feasible . Research proposals can help students discuss their dissertation with their faculty or fulfill course requirements and also help researchers obtain funding. A well-structured proposal instills confidence among readers about your ability to conduct and complete the study as proposed.
Research proposals can be written for several reasons:³
Research proposals should aim to answer the three basic questions—what, why, and how.
The What question should be answered by describing the specific subject being researched. It should typically include the objectives, the cohort details, and the location or setting.
The Why question should be answered by describing the existing scenario of the subject, listing unanswered questions, identifying gaps in the existing research, and describing how your study can address these gaps, along with the implications and significance.
The How question should be answered by describing the proposed research methodology, data analysis tools expected to be used, and other details to describe your proposed methodology.
Here is a research proposal sample template (with examples) from the University of Rochester Medical Center. 4 The sections in all research proposals are essentially the same although different terminology and other specific sections may be used depending on the subject.
If you want to know how to make a research proposal impactful, include the following components:¹
1. Introduction
This section provides a background of the study, including the research topic, what is already known about it and the gaps, and the significance of the proposed research.
2. Literature review
This section contains descriptions of all the previous relevant studies pertaining to the research topic. Every study cited should be described in a few sentences, starting with the general studies to the more specific ones. This section builds on the understanding gained by readers in the Introduction section and supports it by citing relevant prior literature, indicating to readers that you have thoroughly researched your subject.
3. Objectives
Once the background and gaps in the research topic have been established, authors must now state the aims of the research clearly. Hypotheses should be mentioned here. This section further helps readers understand what your study’s specific goals are.
4. Research design and methodology
Here, authors should clearly describe the methods they intend to use to achieve their proposed objectives. Important components of this section include the population and sample size, data collection and analysis methods and duration, statistical analysis software, measures to avoid bias (randomization, blinding), etc.
5. Ethical considerations
This refers to the protection of participants’ rights, such as the right to privacy, right to confidentiality, etc. Researchers need to obtain informed consent and institutional review approval by the required authorities and mention this clearly for transparency.
6. Budget/funding
Researchers should prepare their budget and include all expected expenditures. An additional allowance for contingencies such as delays should also be factored in.
7. Appendices
This section typically includes information that supports the research proposal and may include informed consent forms, questionnaires, participant information, measurement tools, etc.
8. Citations
Writing a research proposal begins much before the actual task of writing. Planning the research proposal structure and content is an important stage, which if done efficiently, can help you seamlessly transition into the writing stage. 3,5
Key Takeaways
Here’s a summary of the main points about research proposals discussed in the previous sections:
Q1. How is a research proposal evaluated?
A1. In general, most evaluators, including universities, broadly use the following criteria to evaluate research proposals . 6
Q2. What is the difference between the Introduction and Literature Review sections in a research proposal ?
A2. The Introduction or Background section in a research proposal sets the context of the study by describing the current scenario of the subject and identifying the gaps and need for the research. A Literature Review, on the other hand, provides references to all prior relevant literature to help corroborate the gaps identified and the research need.
Q3. How long should a research proposal be?
A3. Research proposal lengths vary with the evaluating authority like universities or committees and also the subject. Here’s a table that lists the typical research proposal lengths for a few universities.
Arts programs | 1,000-1,500 | |
University of Birmingham | Law School programs | 2,500 |
PhD | 2,500 | |
2,000 | ||
Research degrees | 2,000-3,500 |
Q4. What are the common mistakes to avoid in a research proposal ?
A4. Here are a few common mistakes that you must avoid while writing a research proposal . 7
Thus, a research proposal is an essential document that can help you promote your research and secure funds and grants for conducting your research. Consequently, it should be well written in clear language and include all essential details to convince the evaluators of your ability to conduct the research as proposed.
This article has described all the important components of a research proposal and has also provided tips to improve your writing style. We hope all these tips will help you write a well-structured research proposal to ensure receipt of grants or any other purpose.
References
Paperpal is a comprehensive AI writing toolkit that helps students and researchers achieve 2x the writing in half the time. It leverages 21+ years of STM experience and insights from millions of research articles to provide in-depth academic writing, language editing, and submission readiness support to help you write better, faster.
Get accurate academic translations, rewriting support, grammar checks, vocabulary suggestions, and generative AI assistance that delivers human precision at machine speed. Try for free or upgrade to Paperpal Prime starting at US$19 a month to access premium features, including consistency, plagiarism, and 30+ submission readiness checks to help you succeed.
Experience the future of academic writing – Sign up to Paperpal and start writing for free!
How to write a phd research proposal.
The future of academia: how ai tools are changing the way we do research, you may also like, dissertation printing and binding | types & comparison , what is a dissertation preface definition and examples , how to write your research paper in apa..., how to choose a dissertation topic, how to write an academic paragraph (step-by-step guide), maintaining academic integrity with paperpal’s generative ai writing..., research funding basics: what should a grant proposal..., how to write an abstract in research papers..., how to write dissertation acknowledgements.
An official website of the United States government
The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.
The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.
Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .
Department of Anaesthesiology, Bangalore Medical College and Research Institute, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
Writing the proposal of a research work in the present era is a challenging task due to the constantly evolving trends in the qualitative research design and the need to incorporate medical advances into the methodology. The proposal is a detailed plan or ‘blueprint’ for the intended study, and once it is completed, the research project should flow smoothly. Even today, many of the proposals at post-graduate evaluation committees and application proposals for funding are substandard. A search was conducted with keywords such as research proposal, writing proposal and qualitative using search engines, namely, PubMed and Google Scholar, and an attempt has been made to provide broad guidelines for writing a scientifically appropriate research proposal.
A clean, well-thought-out proposal forms the backbone for the research itself and hence becomes the most important step in the process of conduct of research.[ 1 ] The objective of preparing a research proposal would be to obtain approvals from various committees including ethics committee [details under ‘Research methodology II’ section [ Table 1 ] in this issue of IJA) and to request for grants. However, there are very few universally accepted guidelines for preparation of a good quality research proposal. A search was performed with keywords such as research proposal, funding, qualitative and writing proposals using search engines, namely, PubMed, Google Scholar and Scopus.
Five ‘C’s while writing a literature review
A proposal needs to show how your work fits into what is already known about the topic and what new paradigm will it add to the literature, while specifying the question that the research will answer, establishing its significance, and the implications of the answer.[ 2 ] The proposal must be capable of convincing the evaluation committee about the credibility, achievability, practicality and reproducibility (repeatability) of the research design.[ 3 ] Four categories of audience with different expectations may be present in the evaluation committees, namely academic colleagues, policy-makers, practitioners and lay audiences who evaluate the research proposal. Tips for preparation of a good research proposal include; ‘be practical, be persuasive, make broader links, aim for crystal clarity and plan before you write’. A researcher must be balanced, with a realistic understanding of what can be achieved. Being persuasive implies that researcher must be able to convince other researchers, research funding agencies, educational institutions and supervisors that the research is worth getting approval. The aim of the researcher should be clearly stated in simple language that describes the research in a way that non-specialists can comprehend, without use of jargons. The proposal must not only demonstrate that it is based on an intelligent understanding of the existing literature but also show that the writer has thought about the time needed to conduct each stage of the research.[ 4 , 5 ]
The contents or formats of a research proposal vary depending on the requirements of evaluation committee and are generally provided by the evaluation committee or the institution.
In general, a cover page should contain the (i) title of the proposal, (ii) name and affiliation of the researcher (principal investigator) and co-investigators, (iii) institutional affiliation (degree of the investigator and the name of institution where the study will be performed), details of contact such as phone numbers, E-mail id's and lines for signatures of investigators.
The main contents of the proposal may be presented under the following headings: (i) introduction, (ii) review of literature, (iii) aims and objectives, (iv) research design and methods, (v) ethical considerations, (vi) budget, (vii) appendices and (viii) citations.[ 4 ]
It is also sometimes termed as ‘need for study’ or ‘abstract’. Introduction is an initial pitch of an idea; it sets the scene and puts the research in context.[ 6 ] The introduction should be designed to create interest in the reader about the topic and proposal. It should convey to the reader, what you want to do, what necessitates the study and your passion for the topic.[ 7 ] Some questions that can be used to assess the significance of the study are: (i) Who has an interest in the domain of inquiry? (ii) What do we already know about the topic? (iii) What has not been answered adequately in previous research and practice? (iv) How will this research add to knowledge, practice and policy in this area? Some of the evaluation committees, expect the last two questions, elaborated under a separate heading of ‘background and significance’.[ 8 ] Introduction should also contain the hypothesis behind the research design. If hypothesis cannot be constructed, the line of inquiry to be used in the research must be indicated.
It refers to all sources of scientific evidence pertaining to the topic in interest. In the present era of digitalisation and easy accessibility, there is an enormous amount of relevant data available, making it a challenge for the researcher to include all of it in his/her review.[ 9 ] It is crucial to structure this section intelligently so that the reader can grasp the argument related to your study in relation to that of other researchers, while still demonstrating to your readers that your work is original and innovative. It is preferable to summarise each article in a paragraph, highlighting the details pertinent to the topic of interest. The progression of review can move from the more general to the more focused studies, or a historical progression can be used to develop the story, without making it exhaustive.[ 1 ] Literature should include supporting data, disagreements and controversies. Five ‘C's may be kept in mind while writing a literature review[ 10 ] [ Table 1 ].
The research purpose (or goal or aim) gives a broad indication of what the researcher wishes to achieve in the research. The hypothesis to be tested can be the aim of the study. The objectives related to parameters or tools used to achieve the aim are generally categorised as primary and secondary objectives.
The objective here is to convince the reader that the overall research design and methods of analysis will correctly address the research problem and to impress upon the reader that the methodology/sources chosen are appropriate for the specific topic. It should be unmistakably tied to the specific aims of your study.
In this section, the methods and sources used to conduct the research must be discussed, including specific references to sites, databases, key texts or authors that will be indispensable to the project. There should be specific mention about the methodological approaches to be undertaken to gather information, about the techniques to be used to analyse it and about the tests of external validity to which researcher is committed.[ 10 , 11 ]
The components of this section include the following:[ 4 ]
Population refers to all the elements (individuals, objects or substances) that meet certain criteria for inclusion in a given universe,[ 12 ] and sample refers to subset of population which meets the inclusion criteria for enrolment into the study. The inclusion and exclusion criteria should be clearly defined. The details pertaining to sample size are discussed in the article “Sample size calculation: Basic priniciples” published in this issue of IJA.
The researcher is expected to give a detailed account of the methodology adopted for collection of data, which include the time frame required for the research. The methodology should be tested for its validity and ensure that, in pursuit of achieving the results, the participant's life is not jeopardised. The author should anticipate and acknowledge any potential barrier and pitfall in carrying out the research design and explain plans to address them, thereby avoiding lacunae due to incomplete data collection. If the researcher is planning to acquire data through interviews or questionnaires, copy of the questions used for the same should be attached as an annexure with the proposal.
This addresses the strength of the research with respect to its neutrality, consistency and applicability. Rigor must be reflected throughout the proposal.
It refers to the robustness of a research method against bias. The author should convey the measures taken to avoid bias, viz. blinding and randomisation, in an elaborate way, thus ensuring that the result obtained from the adopted method is purely as chance and not influenced by other confounding variables.
Consistency considers whether the findings will be consistent if the inquiry was replicated with the same participants and in a similar context. This can be achieved by adopting standard and universally accepted methods and scales.
Applicability refers to the degree to which the findings can be applied to different contexts and groups.[ 13 ]
This section deals with the reduction and reconstruction of data and its analysis including sample size calculation. The researcher is expected to explain the steps adopted for coding and sorting the data obtained. Various tests to be used to analyse the data for its robustness, significance should be clearly stated. Author should also mention the names of statistician and suitable software which will be used in due course of data analysis and their contribution to data analysis and sample calculation.[ 9 ]
Medical research introduces special moral and ethical problems that are not usually encountered by other researchers during data collection, and hence, the researcher should take special care in ensuring that ethical standards are met. Ethical considerations refer to the protection of the participants' rights (right to self-determination, right to privacy, right to autonomy and confidentiality, right to fair treatment and right to protection from discomfort and harm), obtaining informed consent and the institutional review process (ethical approval). The researcher needs to provide adequate information on each of these aspects.
Informed consent needs to be obtained from the participants (details discussed in further chapters), as well as the research site and the relevant authorities.
When the researcher prepares a research budget, he/she should predict and cost all aspects of the research and then add an additional allowance for unpredictable disasters, delays and rising costs. All items in the budget should be justified.
Appendices are documents that support the proposal and application. The appendices will be specific for each proposal but documents that are usually required include informed consent form, supporting documents, questionnaires, measurement tools and patient information of the study in layman's language.
As with any scholarly research paper, you must cite the sources you used in composing your proposal. Although the words ‘references and bibliography’ are different, they are used interchangeably. It refers to all references cited in the research proposal.
Successful, qualitative research proposals should communicate the researcher's knowledge of the field and method and convey the emergent nature of the qualitative design. The proposal should follow a discernible logic from the introduction to presentation of the appendices.
Conflicts of interest.
There are no conflicts of interest.
Home » Research Proposal – Types, Template and Example
Table of Contents
Research proposal is a document that outlines a proposed research project . It is typically written by researchers, scholars, or students who intend to conduct research to address a specific research question or problem.
Research proposals can vary depending on the nature of the research project and the specific requirements of the funding agency, academic institution, or research program. Here are some common types of research proposals:
This is the most common type of research proposal, which is prepared by students, scholars, or researchers to seek approval and funding for an academic research project. It includes all the essential components mentioned earlier, such as the introduction, literature review , methodology , and expected outcomes.
A grant proposal is specifically designed to secure funding from external sources, such as government agencies, foundations, or private organizations. It typically includes additional sections, such as a detailed budget, project timeline, evaluation plan, and a description of the project’s alignment with the funding agency’s priorities and objectives.
Students pursuing a master’s or doctoral degree often need to submit a proposal outlining their intended research for their dissertation or thesis. These proposals are usually more extensive and comprehensive, including an in-depth literature review, theoretical framework, research questions or hypotheses, and a detailed methodology.
This type of proposal is often prepared by researchers or research teams within an organization or institution. It outlines a specific research project that aims to address a particular problem, explore a specific area of interest, or provide insights for decision-making. Research project proposals may include sections on project management, collaboration, and dissemination of results.
Researchers or scholars applying for research fellowships may be required to submit a proposal outlining their proposed research project. These proposals often emphasize the novelty and significance of the research and its alignment with the goals and objectives of the fellowship program.
In cases where researchers from multiple institutions or disciplines collaborate on a research project, a collaborative research proposal is prepared. This proposal highlights the objectives, responsibilities, and contributions of each collaborator, as well as the overall research plan and coordination mechanisms.
A research proposal typically follows a standard outline that helps structure the document and ensure all essential components are included. While the specific headings and subheadings may vary slightly depending on the requirements of your institution or funding agency, the following outline provides a general structure for a research proposal:
———————————————————————————————–
Here’s an example of a research proposal to give you an idea of how it can be structured:
Title: The Impact of Social Media on Adolescent Well-being: A Mixed-Methods Study
This research proposal aims to investigate the impact of social media on the well-being of adolescents. The study will employ a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews to gather comprehensive data. The research objectives include examining the relationship between social media use and mental health, exploring the role of peer influence in shaping online behaviors, and identifying strategies for promoting healthy social media use among adolescents. The findings of this study will contribute to the understanding of the effects of social media on adolescent well-being and inform the development of targeted interventions.
1. Introduction
1.1 Background and Context:
Adolescents today are immersed in social media platforms, which have become integral to their daily lives. However, concerns have been raised about the potential negative impact of social media on their well-being, including increased rates of depression, anxiety, and body dissatisfaction. It is crucial to investigate this phenomenon further and understand the underlying mechanisms to develop effective strategies for promoting healthy social media use among adolescents.
1.2 Research Objectives:
The main objectives of this study are:
2. Literature Review
Extensive research has been conducted on the impact of social media on adolescents. Existing literature suggests that excessive social media use can contribute to negative outcomes, such as low self-esteem, cyberbullying, and addictive behaviors. However, some studies have also highlighted the positive aspects of social media, such as providing opportunities for self-expression and social support. This study will build upon this literature by incorporating both quantitative and qualitative approaches to gain a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between social media and adolescent well-being.
3. Methodology
3.1 Research Design:
This study will adopt a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews. The quantitative phase will involve administering standardized questionnaires to a representative sample of adolescents to assess their social media use, mental health indicators, and perceived social support. The qualitative phase will include in-depth interviews with a subset of participants to explore their experiences, motivations, and perceptions related to social media use.
3.2 Data Collection Methods:
Quantitative data will be collected through an online survey distributed to schools in the target region. The survey will include validated scales to measure social media use, mental health outcomes, and perceived social support. Qualitative data will be collected through semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of participants. The interviews will be audio-recorded and transcribed for thematic analysis.
3.3 Data Analysis:
Quantitative data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics and regression analysis to examine the relationships between variables. Qualitative data will be analyzed thematically to identify common themes and patterns within participants’ narratives. Integration of quantitative and qualitative findings will provide a comprehensive understanding of the research questions.
4. Timeline
The research project will be conducted over a period of 12 months, divided into specific phases, including literature review, study design, data collection, analysis, and report writing. A detailed timeline outlining the key milestones and activities is provided in Appendix A.
5. Expected Outcomes and Significance
This study aims to contribute to the existing literature on the impact of social media on adolescent well-being by employing a mixed-methods approach. The findings will inform the development of evidence-based interventions and guidelines to promote healthy social media use among adolescents. This research has the potential to benefit adolescents, parents, educators, and policymakers by providing insights into the complex relationship between social media and well-being and offering strategies for fostering positive online experiences.
6. Resources
The resources required for this research include access to a representative sample of adolescents, research assistants for data collection, statistical software for data analysis, and funding to cover survey administration and participant incentives. Ethical considerations will be taken into account, ensuring participant confidentiality and obtaining informed consent.
7. References
Writing a research proposal can be a complex task, but with proper guidance and organization, you can create a compelling and well-structured proposal. Here’s a step-by-step guide to help you through the process:
The length of a research proposal can vary depending on the specific guidelines provided by your institution or funding agency. However, research proposals typically range from 1,500 to 3,000 words, excluding references and any additional supporting documents.
The purpose of a research proposal is to outline and communicate your research project to others, such as academic institutions, funding agencies, or potential collaborators. It serves several important purposes:
The research proposal holds significant importance in the research process. Here are some key reasons why research proposals are important:
The timing of when to write a research proposal can vary depending on the specific requirements and circumstances. However, here are a few common situations when it is appropriate to write a research proposal:
Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer
Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.
Published on 30 October 2022 by Shona McCombes and Tegan George. Revised on 13 June 2023.
A research proposal describes what you will investigate, why it’s important, and how you will conduct your research.
The format of a research proposal varies between fields, but most proposals will contain at least these elements:
Literature review.
While the sections may vary, the overall objective is always the same. A research proposal serves as a blueprint and guide for your research plan, helping you get organised and feel confident in the path forward you choose to take.
Research proposal purpose, research proposal examples, research design and methods, contribution to knowledge, research schedule, frequently asked questions.
Academics often have to write research proposals to get funding for their projects. As a student, you might have to write a research proposal as part of a grad school application , or prior to starting your thesis or dissertation .
In addition to helping you figure out what your research can look like, a proposal can also serve to demonstrate why your project is worth pursuing to a funder, educational institution, or supervisor.
Show your reader why your project is interesting, original, and important. | |
Demonstrate your comfort and familiarity with your field. Show that you understand the current state of research on your topic. | |
Make a case for your . Demonstrate that you have carefully thought about the data, tools, and procedures necessary to conduct your research. | |
Confirm that your project is feasible within the timeline of your program or funding deadline. |
The length of a research proposal can vary quite a bit. A bachelor’s or master’s thesis proposal can be just a few pages, while proposals for PhD dissertations or research funding are usually much longer and more detailed. Your supervisor can help you determine the best length for your work.
One trick to get started is to think of your proposal’s structure as a shorter version of your thesis or dissertation , only without the results , conclusion and discussion sections.
Download our research proposal template
Writing a research proposal can be quite challenging, but a good starting point could be to look at some examples. We’ve included a few for you below.
Like your dissertation or thesis, the proposal will usually have a title page that includes:
The first part of your proposal is the initial pitch for your project. Make sure it succinctly explains what you want to do and why.
Your introduction should:
To guide your introduction , include information about:
As you get started, it’s important to demonstrate that you’re familiar with the most important research on your topic. A strong literature review shows your reader that your project has a solid foundation in existing knowledge or theory. It also shows that you’re not simply repeating what other people have already done or said, but rather using existing research as a jumping-off point for your own.
In this section, share exactly how your project will contribute to ongoing conversations in the field by:
Following the literature review, restate your main objectives . This brings the focus back to your own project. Next, your research design or methodology section will describe your overall approach, and the practical steps you will take to answer your research questions.
? or ? , , or research design? | |
, )? ? | |
, , , )? | |
? |
To finish your proposal on a strong note, explore the potential implications of your research for your field. Emphasise again what you aim to contribute and why it matters.
For example, your results might have implications for:
Last but not least, your research proposal must include correct citations for every source you have used, compiled in a reference list . To create citations quickly and easily, you can use our free APA citation generator .
Some institutions or funders require a detailed timeline of the project, asking you to forecast what you will do at each stage and how long it may take. While not always required, be sure to check the requirements of your project.
Here’s an example schedule to help you get started. You can also download a template at the button below.
Download our research schedule template
Research phase | Objectives | Deadline |
---|---|---|
1. Background research and literature review | 20th January | |
2. Research design planning | and data analysis methods | 13th February |
3. Data collection and preparation | with selected participants and code interviews | 24th March |
4. Data analysis | of interview transcripts | 22nd April |
5. Writing | 17th June | |
6. Revision | final work | 28th July |
If you are applying for research funding, chances are you will have to include a detailed budget. This shows your estimates of how much each part of your project will cost.
Make sure to check what type of costs the funding body will agree to cover. For each item, include:
To determine your budget, think about:
Once you’ve decided on your research objectives , you need to explain them in your paper, at the end of your problem statement.
Keep your research objectives clear and concise, and use appropriate verbs to accurately convey the work that you will carry out for each one.
I will compare …
A research aim is a broad statement indicating the general purpose of your research project. It should appear in your introduction at the end of your problem statement , before your research objectives.
Research objectives are more specific than your research aim. They indicate the specific ways you’ll address the overarching aim.
A PhD, which is short for philosophiae doctor (doctor of philosophy in Latin), is the highest university degree that can be obtained. In a PhD, students spend 3–5 years writing a dissertation , which aims to make a significant, original contribution to current knowledge.
A PhD is intended to prepare students for a career as a researcher, whether that be in academia, the public sector, or the private sector.
A master’s is a 1- or 2-year graduate degree that can prepare you for a variety of careers.
All master’s involve graduate-level coursework. Some are research-intensive and intend to prepare students for further study in a PhD; these usually require their students to write a master’s thesis . Others focus on professional training for a specific career.
Critical thinking refers to the ability to evaluate information and to be aware of biases or assumptions, including your own.
Like information literacy , it involves evaluating arguments, identifying and solving problems in an objective and systematic way, and clearly communicating your ideas.
If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.
McCombes, S. & George, T. (2023, June 13). How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved 26 August 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/the-research-process/research-proposal-explained/
Other students also liked, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, what is a literature review | guide, template, & examples, how to write a results section | tips & examples.
The Research Proposal Analyzer is an AI tool designed to streamline the research process by evaluating research objectives and methodologies. By leveraging advanced natural language processing techniques, it provides valuable insights and suggestions to enhance the clarity and effectiveness of research proposals. This tool empowers researchers to optimize their objectives and methodologies for a more impactful and rigorous study.
Check out more AI tool .
Elevate Guest Experience with RoomGenie
Invest your money effortlessly 🚀 Try the NewsGenie tool!
84 J Sector A Scheme no 71
Indore (MP)
India 452009
Email: [email protected]
Textify's NewsGenie uses Generative AI to analyze real-time news, offering deep insights for informed decisions. Ideal for financial analysts, business owners, banks, and college students to stay ahead of trends and opportunities.
20,000+ Professional Language Experts Ready to Help. Expertise in a variety of Niches.
API Solutions
Unmatched expertise at affordable rates tailored for your needs. Our services empower you to boost your productivity.
GoTranscript is the chosen service for top media organizations, universities, and Fortune 50 companies.
One of the Largest Online Transcription and Translation Agencies in the World. Founded in 2005.
Speaker 1: One of the most frequently asked questions that I am asked all the time across my social media platforms, across my YouTube, across my comments, is about the research process. So how do you start? Where do you even begin? You need to submit a dissertation, you need to submit a research proposal, you need to think of a hypothesis, you need to think of a problem statement, you need to find a gap in literature where do you even begin with the whole research process now it isn't as hard as it seems it's just one of those things that you're never told or you're never taught how to do it's one of those things that you just kind of figure out so hopefully in today's video i will be talking to you about the overview and kind of a quick beginner's guide to the research process, giving you the steps of how you get from zero to having something, having a question, having a hypothesis, having somewhere to start. I'm going to be making this into a bit of a series so in today's video I'm going to be giving you an overview as to the different chapters, the different sections of the process, how you get from nothing to something and then in the following videos I will be going through each of those sections in a bit more detail and hopefully if you are someone who is within one of those kind of parts you can just jump to that video and have a have a quick quick watch if you are someone who is just starting off then this is the best place for you to begin have a little think about how you're going to navigate your research process and how you're going to get from the start to the end it is not difficult but it does require a few steps, a few technicalities, which I'll talk you through today. I'll leave the timestamps down below so you feel free to go and jump to the different sections that you are interested in watching. And if you do enjoy this kind of video and you want to see the rest of the videos from me, then don't forget to subscribe to see more on my channel. So step number one is to choose a topic. Now this is the beginning of something beautiful. This is where you choose what you're actually going to be studying and when you're actually going to be reading about now it's really important that you have chosen a topic that you are interested in that there is an interest in within the research space that has something missing so you don't want to choose a topic that we know everything about you want to choose a topic that we don't know everything about and there are things that we want to try to find more about you want to choose a topic that is within your university guidelines so as much as i would love to do a research on the solar system about space well if my course is to do with cell biology well then i can't so you have to think about your limits think about what you are allowed to do within your university guidelines as well but you do need to think about taking that broad topic and making it into something a bit more narrow so it's not good enough to just say i want to do research on alzheimer's okay alzheimer's fine you've got a topic, but you now need to narrow it down. So what about it are you looking at? Are you looking at the risk factors? Are you looking at what happens once you have Alzheimer's? Are you looking at a specific group of people? Are you looking at a specific cell type? What is it that you are looking at? You need to narrow that down. In order to narrow it down, you need to do a bit of a literature search. So whilst choosing a topic, whilst in this first stage, you need to look at literature. So to find literature you want to go to different websites where you have literature and this could be for example Google Scholar is a good place to start, PubMed is a good place to start. These are places where you can find literature about that topic and kind of read around the subject and identify whether firstly is it something that you are actually interested in and secondly is there enough information for you to gather to be able to write your literature review in the future so that first step your first step of your research process is thinking about the topic because without a topic you there's nothing you can't do anything else so the first step has to always be to find a topic and think about it now once you've thought about a topic and you've narrowed it down to the thing that you're interested in at this stage you will then go to your supervisor to your lecturer to your professor to your mentor to your tutor and you will ask them do you think this is a good topic and that is where you will get some feedback and most likely you'll have to go back have another think or try to refine a bit more or try to think about it in a different way but that is always the first step. In the video that I make about finding a good topic we'll talk about it in a lot more depth but to start off with to introduce this is always the first step. So the second step is to identify a problem and this is what we like to call in as you know in research the gap in literature. So a problem slash gap in literature is the part of research that we that is missing. So when you do research in fact in order to graduate from a PhD you have to and this is one of the criteria you have to produce research it has to be in a thesis or in a in a published paper it has to be research it has to be a finding that is new something that we do not know before we did not know before your research right and that is the number one criteria for for actually getting a phd it is the fact that it has to be something new has to be something novel that you have discovered okay so you need to think about the gap in literature where is there a missing piece i understand this i understand that we know this we know that but what is there that we don't quite know and that is the bit that you are then going to try to identify during your research process right chosen a topic now we need to find the problem where is the missing information now in order to do this you need to have read a lot of papers around your topic. So that's why I said initially, you need to have had approval from your committee, from your tutor, your supervisor to say, right, that's okay. It's good for me to go there. Now you've got that topic that you're looking at. You then want to try to find the gap. Where are you going to slot in? What is it that you are going to provide in terms of knowledge? Now, the identifying a problem is actually quite an important and quite critical part of the research process it's almost impossible you to continue on with your research without having identified the problem because if you don't have a problem you don't know what it is you're looking at you don't know what methods you're using you don't know what your research question is going to be or your hypothesis so at this stage you have to have a very well-defined research problem and your question in order to continue on to the next steps so when i say research problem and we'll talk about this more in in the following video that i'm going to produce about it but when i talk about research problem it could be a number of different things so it could be that we understand or we have the knowledge of a certain situation but now you're comparing it to a different situation so it could be more theoretical where you're comparing two things to each other that haven't been compared before so that would be fine as long as what you have is something original or you may be trying to explore a specific relationship let's say for example in my case with my PhD I was looking at two different proteins and the relationship between them so that is one type of research that you can do as well and so just think about your topic and think about where the gap is in the literature you have to read a lot to be able to find this and a question I get a lot emailed to me and directed to me is about this problem so how do I find a problem like how do i find a gap in literature and it's almost impossible for me to to give you any answers because i have to have read all the papers within your topic in order to answer that question which is almost impossible so it's something that you have to do independently and you can always discuss with me you can discuss kind of trying to refine that question but for the most part you need to read around your subject yourself to get that question then step number three is to actually write down your research question now this is usually in the form maybe of a hypothesis or maybe it could be just a you know a standalone question so this is just you saying this is what i'm looking at so i'm looking at whether actin and myosin bind together to have an impact on the motility of the cortex like that is my question and then i'll have a hypothesis saying actin and myosin bind together and they do this so this is just my question and you're just following on from your problem so you've identified your topic you found the problem the gap in literature and then you write down what your question is so what it is exactly that you are looking for and this will be like your guiding star this will be the thing the question the statement that you have at the top you know at the top of your mind whenever you are looking at literature whenever you're writing a literature review whenever you speak to someone you have that question in mind and so that needs to be something that's really well defined it should also be really specific so it can't just be saying is obesity caused by i don't know fatty food i'm just giving a random example that is too vague is obesity in children in male in female different ages what fatty foods what like you need to be very very specific so specific that someone else should be able to pick up your research question and know what it is you're looking at they need to be able to know sort of what methods you're using is it qualitative or is it quantitative what type of research are you actually doing that should really be in the research question so a good research question is one where that is really well defined then step number four is to write a research design so this is where you're kind of creating a bit of a method a bit of a process within a process so you are now writing down and you're now thinking about how you're going to conduct this research so to follow this will be the research proposal but at this stage here you're just thinking about your research design so how are you going to get this research done what are the factors that you need to think about who are the people the participants that you may need are you doing a lab-based thing do you need cells are you you know what do you need humans do you need animals is it just a review paper so do you just need to think about researchers out there what kind of study are you going to conduct in order to find out the results and the answer to your question essentially the research design is a practical framework so it's giving laying out that frame for you in order to answer your research question. And here, it's more of a thinking process. It's more of a discussion. You might want to ask your supervisor, you might want to ask your tutor to talk about it. How are we going to get the answer to this question? And then to finish off the research process, you now want to write a research proposal. And I have a really good video about this, and I'll leave the link for it down below, where you are detailing all the steps for your research so you're detailing your the background of your research the literature review and you're justifying that there is a need for this research you then want to detail your methods your materials the aim your you know your timeline how long it's going to take you to do these things and then that document is what you take with you to your supervisor and say look this is my research proposal you might take it to a potential phd supervisor and say look this is what i've found and this is what i'm really interested in and here is the proposal and you have it all outlined there for you or it's a document that you're able to use in order to build upon your dissertation and so if you're writing an essay dissertation you are able to use that as well so with your research proposal you are detailing the context you are detailing the purpose the plan and your aims the whole process going from finding a topic finding a problem finding the research question defining the actual research and then now you're compiling all of that and you're putting it into a document called the research proposal and all of this information is in there someone should be able to pick that up see what you found find the review of the literature and say right this is a good study this is a good bit of research we are going to approve this and then you can go on and plan the rest of your research so i hope this video helped you summarizing the steps of the research process to begin with and as i mentioned i'm going to be doing each of these five steps as single videos so i can expand on them and i'll make it into a playlist so you're able to sort of follow up and click on the next couple videos but for now i hope this did help with thinking about the research process and thinking about maybe what stage you are at if you are at any of them if you do want further support you can contact me on thepagedoctor.com where i give support and we have a team of consultants top consultants and top editors that can support you through the process of writing your research proposal or even through the post process of thinking about how you're going to find a gap in literature how you're going to find you know your hypothesis and define that for you so don't forget to leave me a comment and let me know if this was helpful and don't forget to leave me a thumbs up and subscribe to see more from me and I'll see you in my next one. Bye.
Photo by MIND AND I/ Shutterstock
If you are looking to expand your business, government contracting bids present a massive opportunity, with billions of dollars up for grabs.
Doing business with the government through contracting can be a game-changer in terms of credibility and prospects. However, the road to success is far from easy, as only less than 5% of U.S. businesses engage with the government.
Table of Contents
A government contract bid is like a job application for a specific project or to provide goods and services for the government.
The bid is a public request from the government—a competitive process public entities use to procure goods and services from private suppliers. To make a bid, you must follow a reasonable price based on the government’s regulations.
While some new companies offer lower prices to get started with government contracting, the government actually looks beyond the price; it prefers those who can guarantee good quality work on time and within budget.
Here are some of the most effective formal methods of competitive bidding.
A request for information is a formal process to get information from potential suppliers. It starts with a table of contents that outlines what the buyer needs. The RFI is typically used early in the buying process to learn about supplier capabilities and gather data for future decisions.
For example, the Department of Defense used an RFI to ask for ideas on sharing spectrum for better 5G deployment.
A request for proposal is a comprehensive document that asks potential suppliers to submit their ideas and prices for a project. It’s used across public and private sectors to find the best solutions at the best prices.
RFPs are often used for construction, where subcontractors, materials, machinery, and project timelines need to be specified. They include a section explaining the scope of work and deadlines.
For example, the State Department used an RFP to find IT services for a $10 billion project, EVOLVE .
A request for quote is the first step in getting a price quote for a project. It’s similar to an RFP but focuses more on getting a comprehensive pricing quote. RFQs are often used for standard products where the quantity is known, while RFPs are for niche projects where details aren’t as clear.
For example, the General Services Administration used an RFQ to get price quotes for janitorial and sanitation supplies to support federal agencies.
Companies new to contracting can easily become confused during the bidding process. Here are detailed steps to help beginners successfully bid on government contracts.
Businesses must complete several foundational requirements to establish credibility and eligibility before starting with government contracting bids.
The first thing to obtain is the Unique Entity ID . It is an identifier that standardizes entities conducting business with the federal government. The UEID is unique to the business and is used for all transactions with the federal government. It does not expire but must be renewed on SAM.gov annually.
The second requirement is to update SAM registration . The business must renew and validate its registration every 12 months. To avoid inconvenience, start the renewal process at least 60 days before your registration expires.
The third is to look for the business’ NAICS codes . The North American Industry Classification System codes analyze industries, follow regulations, and find potential suppliers in the procurement process. Each NAICS code is a six-digit number that describes a business’s main industry based on its products or services. If the business is involved in multiple types of work, use more than one NAICS code.
Contractors should conduct market research to understand the federal government. Knowing the needs of government agencies can help businesses tailor their offerings to meet these needs effectively.
Market research also helps develop competitive strategies and reduce risks. Contractors can study their competition, find gaps in the market, and create unique selling points to stand out in the government contracting bidding process.
There are several websites and tools that contractors can use for market research.
A common mistake for beginner contractors is bidding on every contract opportunity, spreading their resources too thin and resulting in subpar proposals. Only bid on projects that align with your company’s core competencies and meet the necessary resources to execute the projects effectively.
Another mistake is underestimating the competition, leading to unrealistic bids. Contractors should pay attention to their past performance to determine their strengths and expertise, which can impact their chances of winning new contracts.
For example, if a company excels in environmental engineering, its proposal for a government project should focus on environmental restoration and should be backed by its previous successful projects and portfolio.
Lastly, forming strategic subcontracting partnerships with industry-specific firms can enhance a proposal’s attractiveness, especially when dealing with specialized knowledge or capabilities that primary contractors lack.
Preparing a winning proposal requires attention to detail, strategic planning, and a deep understanding of the government’s needs. Some of the key elements your proposal must include are:
Submit your proposal on time and in the required format. Engage in follow-up communications to clarify doubts and demonstrate your commitment to the project.
Read more: How to Write a Proposal for a Government Contract
Before setting prices for a government contract, conduct a thorough cost analysis for all direct and indirect costs associated with the contract, such as labor, materials, overhead, and petty cash.
Perform market research to determine the pricing range for similar contracts. Analyze past contracts awarded by the government agency and prices offered by competitors. The Federal Procurement Data System and online government contracting news sources can provide insights into current market rates and competitive pricing strategies.
Consider value-based pricing , where the price is set based on the perceived or estimated value of the services to the government. It is applicable to highly valued government services, such as advanced cybersecurity measures or innovative, eco-friendly materials for construction projects.
Lastly, leverage economies of scale to reduce per-unit costs. It is achievable by bidding on multiple or larger contracts where the cost of production decreases as the quantity increases.
Here are the four stages of the bidding process, from preparation to contract awarding.
This planning and preparation stage occurs when the federal buyer creates a detailed Project Procurement Management Plan (PPMP) based on the project’s budget. It outlines the procurement needs and schedules, ensuring all activities align with the project’s goals.
For example, the Department of Defense uses a Capability Development Document (CDD) to outline requirements. If the DOD decides to procure a new aircraft system, this stage assesses the current fleet’s capabilities, identifies gaps, and determines how the new system can address these gaps.
After the planning phase, the federal agency releases a document asking for bids or proposals. This document outlines all the project details, including specifications, terms and conditions, and evaluation criteria.
Bidders need to understand this document to ensure their bids meet requirements. They can also ask questions in the Q&A section of the procurement website for clarifications on specific requirements.
During this stage, vendors submit their bids based on the rules in the bid request. They detail proposals on how to fulfill the requirements, how long it takes, how much it costs, and how to ensure overall compliance.
Here are a few important things to consider when preparing a bid:
Most importantly, vendors must follow the submission guidelines carefully:
In the final stage of the bidding process, bids are evaluated based on the criteria in the bid request. The contract is awarded to the bidder who best meets the criteria and provides the best value.
The evaluation focuses on specific criteria:
The government may conduct a pre-award survey to ensure the proposed award winner meets the solicitation requirements. Upon completion of the evaluation, the contract is awarded to the bidder who best meets the evaluation criteria.
Register Here
COMMENTS
Definition: Evaluating Research refers to the process of assessing the quality, credibility, and relevance of a research study or project. This involves examining the methods, data, and results of the research in order to determine its validity, reliability, and usefulness. Evaluating research can be done by both experts and non-experts in the ...
Criteria for Evaluating Research Propossl.s You are asked to evaluate a proposed study, one that has been actually submitted to the Office of Education, Bureau of' Education for the Handicappedo Your professor was one of the Office of Education consultants, evaluating that research. The decision to support or disapprove this proposal has
The peer review of research proposals (grants) aims to judge the merit of projects and researchers and enable the best to be contemplated. The director of an institution in the United Kingdom shared on Twitter his struggle in evaluating the numerous proposals received and started a discussion forum from which ideas and suggestions emerged.
Research proposal examples. Writing a research proposal can be quite challenging, but a good starting point could be to look at some examples. We've included a few for you below. Example research proposal #1: "A Conceptual Framework for Scheduling Constraint Management".
To assess research proposals, funders rely on the services of peer experts to review the thousands or perhaps millions of research proposals seeking funding each year. While often associated with scholarly publishing, peer review also includes the ex ante assessment of research grant and fellowship applications ( Abdoul et al. 2012 ).
The purpose of the research proposal (its job, so to speak) is to convince your research supervisor, committee or university that your research is suitable (for the requirements of the degree program) and manageable (given the time and resource constraints you will face). The most important word here is "convince" - in other words, your ...
A research proposal must be focused and not be "all over the map" or diverge into unrelated tangents without a clear sense of purpose. ... The reader will never have a study outcome from which to evaluate whether your methodological choices were the correct ones. Thus, the objective here is to convince the reader that your overall research ...
Writing an Evaluation Plan. An evaluation plan is an integral part of a grant proposal that provides information to improve a project during development and implementation. For small projects, the Office of the Vice President for Research can help you develop a simple evaluation plan. If you are writing a proposal for larger center grant, using ...
Overview: 5 Proposal Writing Essentials. Understand your university's requirements and restrictions. Have a clearly articulated research problem. Clearly communicate the feasibility of your research. Pay very close attention to ethics policies. Focus on writing critically and concisely. 1. Understand the rules of the game.
Make sure you can ask the critical what, who, and how questions of your research before you put pen to paper. Your research proposal should include (at least) 5 essential components : Title - provides the first taste of your research, in broad terms. Introduction - explains what you'll be researching in more detail.
The review criteria used to evaluate research grant proposals reflect the funder's approach to identifying the most relevant and impactful research to support (Geever, 2012; Gerin & Kapelewski, 2010; Kiritz, 2007). Thus, planning and preparing a successful grant proposal depends on a clear understanding of the review criteria that will be used.
Developing a research proposal involves the following preliminary steps: identifying potential ideas, choosing ideas to explore further, choosing and narrowing a topic, formulating a research question, and developing a working thesis. A good topic for a research paper interests the writer and fulfills the requirements of the assignment.
The proposal form asks for information about the purpose and proposed design of the study, as well as draft versions of data collection instruments. Samples of completed research proposals are available here and here. The following criteria will be used by the committee to evaluate research proposals:
Here is an explanation of each step: 1. Title and Abstract. Choose a concise and descriptive title that reflects the essence of your research. Write an abstract summarizing your research question, objectives, methodology, and expected outcomes. It should provide a brief overview of your proposal. 2.
Comparing proposals "apples-to-apples" is crucial to establishing which one will best meet your needs. Consider these ideas to help you focus on the details that contribute to a successful survey. Make sure the proposal responds to your objectives. The proposal process begins well before you ask any research firm for quote.
Examples of literature reviews. Step 1 - Search for relevant literature. Step 2 - Evaluate and select sources. Step 3 - Identify themes, debates, and gaps. Step 4 - Outline your literature review's structure. Step 5 - Write your literature review.
A quality example of a research proposal shows one's above-average analytical skills, including the ability to coherently synthesize ideas and integrate lateral and vertical thinking. Communication skills. The proposal also demonstrates your proficiency to communicate your thoughts in concise and precise language.
Before conducting a study, a research proposal should be created that outlines researchers' plans and methodology and is submitted to the concerned evaluating organization or person. Creating a research proposal is an important step to ensure that researchers are on track and are moving forward as intended. A research proposal can be defined as a detailed plan or blueprint for the proposed ...
A proposal needs to show how your work fits into what is already known about the topic and what new paradigm will it add to the literature, while specifying the question that the research will answer, establishing its significance, and the implications of the answer. [ 2] The proposal must be capable of convincing the evaluation committee about ...
Research proposals can vary depending on the nature of the research project and the specific requirements of the funding agency, academic institution, or research program. ... Funding agencies and organizations need to evaluate the feasibility and potential impact of the proposed research before allocating resources. A well-crafted research ...
Research proposal examples. Writing a research proposal can be quite challenging, but a good starting point could be to look at some examples. We've included a few for you below. Example research proposal #1: 'A Conceptual Framework for Scheduling Constraint Management'.
A research proposal is intended to convince others that you have a worthwhile research project, and that your have the competence and the work-plan to complete it. Generally, a research proposal should contain all the keys elements involved in the research process, and include sufficient information for the readers to evaluate the proposed study.
The Research Proposal Analyzer is an AI tool designed to streamline the research process by evaluating research objectives and methodologies. By leveraging advanced natural language processing techniques, it provides valuable insights and suggestions to enhance the clarity and effectiveness of research proposals.
Discover the essential steps of the research process in this beginner's guide. Learn how to choose a research topic, identify gaps in literature, formulate research questions, design your study, and write a compelling research proposal. Perfect for students and researchers at any stage.
Perform market research to determine the pricing range for similar contracts. Analyze past contracts awarded by the government agency and prices offered by competitors.
Proposal Evaluation All proposals will be evaluated with respect to: the importance or significance of the type of project proposed, 1 its relevance to the current funding opportunity and focal area and the Commission's mission and goals, 2 the technical and resource adequacy of the proposal, 3 and the likelihood that the project will achieve ...