WRITING A THESIS PROPOSAL

(Henrike Korner, 1997 Learning Assistance entre, T!e "ni#ersit$ o% S$&ne$' Length, scope, depth and originality of the thesis depend on the degree which it is for. The following table presents an overview of the general expectations of a thesis at Honours, Masters and PhD level.
HONO"RS D !"#"T"$# (ASTERS (INOR THESIS % substantial ( %n ordered, critical pro&ect which exposition of de'onstrates an )nowledge gained understanding of the through students own research process and effort* scholarly ( de'onstrate sound conventions of the understanding of discipline research process (ASTERS (A)OR THESIS 'ar)s possession of advanced )nowledge in a specialist field PH* (candidate has conducted a substantial piece of research* ( has been conceived, conducted and reported by the candidate under acade'ic supervision in an acade'ic environ'ent for a prescribed period si'ilar to Masters /esearch degree, but deeper, 'ore co'prehensive treat'ent of sub&ect

+,$P

+i'ilar to Masters 'inor thesis

+,H$L%/+H"P

( not necessarily new line of en-uiry or contribution to )nowledge, but still. locate topic in context of critical review* ( de'onstrate )nowledge of appropriate 'ethodology de'onstrate ability to present study in a disciplined way in scholarly conventions of the discipline

not necessarily new line of en-uiry, but shows that student has 'astered research and synthesising s)ills in producing a contribution to )nowledge

( shows evidence of independent investigation and testing of hypotheses* ( ability to 'a)e critical use of published wor)* ( appreciation of relationship of topic to wider field of )nowledge* ( co'petence in independent wor)* - understanding of - approaches and techni-ues appropriate to research -uestion* - should draw generalisations or further hypotheses for testing

L #0TH

1aries by depart'ent* depends on weighting against coursewor) 6adapted fro' Powels, 2778.48(459

23,333 43,333 words, depends on weighting against coursewor)

varies by faculty* 'ax. 53,333 words

( de'onstrates authority in candidates field and shows evidence of )nowledge in relevant cognate field* ( 'astery of appropriate 'ethodological techni-ues and awareness of li'itations* ( 'a)es a distinct contribution to )nowledge* ( originality of approach or interpretation* ( ability to co''unicate research findings effectively in professional and international contexts* ( research apprenticeship is co'plete and holder is ad'itted to the co''unity of scholars in the discipline 'ax. 233,333

*i%%erences Accor&ing To *isci+,ines

There are also considerable differences between the sciences, the hu'anities and the social sciences as far

as students range of topic choice, students degree of freedo' in choosing specific research -uestions, and the overall ti'ing of the research pro&ect is concerned. The following table provides an overview of disciplinary influences on topic selection.

+," #, + /%#0 restricted range of choice* suitable topics 'ade available by depart'ent according to staff expertise, research interest and research funding students 'ay have 'ore freedo' on deciding research -uestion, but often close direction by supervisor research -uestion decided early* schedules, ti'elines, deadlines are i'portant

H:M%#"T" + students usually re-uired to initiate own topics* ta)e into account supervisors interests and availability of data supervisor reluctant to interfere in topic choice, theoretical perspective, 'ethod, specific research -uestion supervisor guides student in understanding how the chosen theoretical fra'ewor) is situated against existing theoretical develop'ent in the field or in related fields

D 0/ $! !/ D$M 0:"D%#, T"M"#0

+$,"%L +," #, +; %PPL" D P/$! ++"$#%L !" LD+ wide range of practices. fro' close direction of science 'odel to deliberate absence of direction of the hu'anities 'odel topics and research -uestions often derived fro' field of students professional practice identification of specific research -uestion 'ay ta)e considerable ti'e as students re-uire a good deal of disciplinary and 'ethodological grounding before they are able to for'ulate specific research -uestions

Pro+osa, Hea&ings.io,og$ (P!*' %i' 2. to describe 4. to test theory ... Ant!ro+o,og$ (P!*' 6<hy is research i'portant ( show gaps9 Po,it/ Science (P!*' Proble' E&0cation ((E&'

=ac)ground

%dditional -uestions Theory Ti'etable

". The proble' 2.2 =ac)ground 2.4 "ntroduction 2.> Purpose of study 2.8 Hypotheses 2.5 Definitions 2.? Deli'itations and Li'itations Literature review 6short9 +ubproble's 6@ -uestions9 4. Theoretical fra'ewor) and lit, review 4.2 AA 4.4 AA. Method Hypotheses 689 >. Methodology >.2 >.4 Map Deli'itations 8. %pplication of findings =ibliography Definitions of ter's 5. ,onclusion Methodology /eferences =asic reading list

Length. ? pages

Proposal. B pages =ibliography. 27 pages

Length. 7 pages

Length. 27 pages

E1AL"ATION O2 THE PROPOSAL

The following list shows the criteria that co''ittees and exa'iners loo) for in proposals and finished theses. "t would be useful to )eep those criteria in 'ind as you are writing your proposal and your thesis to

focus on the relevant criteria 6The ite's 'ar)ed C are used to evaluate the final thesis, not proposals.9 HARA TERISTI S .EING E1AL"ATE* ". Title is clear and concise. 4. Proble' is significant and clearly stated. >. Li'itations and deli'itations of the study are stated. 8. Deli'itations are well defined and appropriate to solutions of the proble'. 5. %ssu'ptions are clearly stated. ?. %ssu'ptions are tenable. @. The research pro&ected by the proposal does not violate hu'an rights or confidence. B. "'portant ite's are well defined. 7. +pecific -uestions to be studied are clearly stated. 23. Hypotheses, ele'ents, or research -uestions are clearly stated. 22 Hypotheses, ele'ents, or research -uestions are testable, discoverable or answerable. 24. Hypotheses, ele'ents, or research -uestions derive fro' the review of the literature. 2>. /elationship of study to previous research is clear. 28. /eview of literature is efficiently su''arised. 25. Procedures are described in detail. 2?. Procedures are appropriate for the solution of the proble'. 2@. Population and sa'ple are clearly described. 2B. Method of sa'pling is appropriate. 27. 1ariables have been controlled. 43. Data gathering 'ethods are described 42. Data gathering 'ethods are appropriate to solution of the proble'. 44. 1alidity and reliability of data gathering are explained. 4>. %ppropriate 'ethods are used to analyse data. 48. +entence structure and punctuation are correct. 45. Mini'u' of typographical errors. 4?. +pelling and gra''ar are correct. 4@. Material is clearly written. 4B. Tone is unbiased and i'partial. 47. $verall rating of creativity and significance of the proble'. >3. C Tables and figures are used effectively. >2. C /esults of analysis are presented clearly. >4. C Ma&or findings are discussed clearly and related to previous research. >>. C "'portance of findings is explained. >8. CThe relationship between the research and the findings is de'onstrated with tight, logical reasoning. >5. C ,onclusions are clearly stated. >?. C ,onclusions are based on the results. >@. C0eneralisations are confir'ed. >B. CLi'itations and wea)nesses of study is discussed. >7. C "'plications of findings for the field are discussed. 83 .C +uggestions for further research are cited. 82. C $verall rating of the conduct of the study and the final docu'ent. 6Mauch and =irch, 27B7.72(7>9 C#ot evaluated in proposal but in finished thesis only.