WRITING QUALITY RESEARCH PROPOSALS

Setting the right perspective

The BIG questions first –

 What do we prepare proposals for?

 Why do we conduct research?
 What do we wish to achieve in doing research?

The end-products/outputs of research:

 Publication

 Patent

Research process: proposal preparation – publication

Think research proposal, think publication!

What publication?

- abstract, book/monograph, book chapter, conference

proceedings, journal article

Dominant form: journal article – why?

 peer-review/refereeing: quality of material
 timeline of publication: quick dissemination
 readable: short, highly and clearly structured
Hence:

Research publication = journal publication

Not just any journal = refereed or peer-reviewed journal

(VALID PUBLICATION)

If not published in a refereed journal = gray literature

No VALID PUBLICATION, no IMPACT:

 Discipline’s body of knowledge

 Policy/practice
 Professional career
 Institutional profile
 National profile

What passes for a publishable journal manuscript?

Areas of assessment:
 Form – format and elements
 Substance – content
A. FORMAT: The structure/logic of a journal article

 What is the paper all about? – Title

 What is the problem? Why is it a problem? – Introduction
 How did you solve the problem? – Materials/Methods
 What did you find out? – Results
 What does it all mean? – Discussion
 What did you learn? – Conclusions
 Whose work did you refer to? – References
 Who helped you out? – Acknowledgements 

No. of pages: 10-15 average

B. SUBSTANCE

1. a CLEAR PROBLEM (issue)

- Is there an issue being addressed? Is there a well-defined
problem?
- Is the background/context of the issue/problem elaborated
through an adequate review of literature?

2. an ARGUMENT (thesis)
- Does the manuscript propound a thesis vis-à-vis the
problem?
3. a NOVEL/DISTINCT CLAIM (scholarly significance/contribution)
- Is there something new in the thesis/argument?
- Does it contribute to the theoretical and methodological
discussions on the topic?

4. a SOUND EVIDENCE (method/design: logic)

- Is the claim adequately supported? Is it well argued?

5. an AUTHORITATIVE/ REPRESENTATIVE reference list

- Is the list of references exhaustive and up-to-date?
Why research outputs are hardly publishable –

 FORMAT
- non-conformity with journal format requirements

Interventions:
1. Familiarization with journal format. Read journal articles.
2. Follow closely the target journal’s ‘author guidelines.’
 SUBSTANCE: problems with –

1. PROBLEM (issue)
2. ARGUMENT (thesis)
3. NOVELTY (scholarly significance/contribution)
4. SOUND EVIDENCE (method/design: logic)
5. ADEQUATE reference list

Intervention:

Ensure that these key criteria are addressed right in the

proposal stage itself.

A publishable research starts from a quality proposal.

Why research proposals are rejected –

1. research idea is not scholarly enough

 developmental and intervention studies
 assessment or feasibility studies

EXAMPLES:
 Developing research culture in a private Higher Education
Institutions: The XXX University Experience  
 Needs assessment of the employees of the Company XXX
 Prospect for cooperative entrepreneurship
 The comparative efficiency and cost effectiveness of the
selected academic programs in five State Universities and
Colleges
 The ecological status of XXX river
 Improving water productivity in water-scarce areas of XXX

2. ill-defined problem or there’s no problem at all

- research with clear objectives but hardly explained WHY

E.g.: Statement of the problem

- This study aims to determine the prevalence of drug use
among high school students in XXX

3. the key elements of the research proposal are not

aligned/integrated: PROBLEM, OBJECTIVE/S, METHODS,
DATA ANALYSIS
4. methods faulty, inappropriate or insufficient

5. low significance or contribution of study to the discipline (no

novelty)

 the research problem is not arising from the literature

(VALID PUBLICATIONS)
 research objectives not grounded on or touching base with
issues raised in the discipline (VALID PUBLICATIONS)

6. ‘very local’ issues and problems: insufficient literature review

HEART OF A GOOD PROPOSAL: Problem conceptualization

Step 1: Choose a topic.

Step 2: Survey the literature (VALID PUBLICATIONS).

Basic questions to answer:

 What studies were done on this topic? What’s known and not
known?
 What did these studies look at? Issues? Findings? Methods?
Locus? Limitations?

Step 3. Identify and state your problem. HOW?

‘Problem’ signals: On the basis of the literature, ask –

 Are the findings conclusive?

 Are there unresolved issues? Controversies?
 Are there deficiencies in data and method?
 Are there areas not tackled?
 RESEARCH PROBLEM vis-à-vis RESEARCH CONTRIBUTION

A problem revolves around: research contribution

(novelty):
- a gap in the literature on the
topic
- a controversy in the claims
made by various studies
- a deficiency or error in data
and interpretation
- a deficiency in method or
design
- a lack of integration in data,
methods
- a new study addressing the
gap
- a solution to the controversy
- additional data; rectified
data; re-interpretation
- a superior method; an
improved design
- a synthesis of data, methods
If you want your research to end up into a VALID
PUBLICATION, start from and build your research
upon VALID PUBLICATIONS!

It’s the ONLY WAY to go.