components of introduction in research proposal

• Thesis Action Plan New
• Academic Project Planner

Literature Navigator

Thesis dialogue blueprint, writing wizard's template, research proposal compass.

• Why students love us
• Rebels Blog
• Why we are different
• All Products
• Coming Soon

Key Components of a Research Proposal: What You Need to Know

A research proposal is like a roadmap for your study. It shows where you're starting, where you want to go, and how you plan to get there. In this article, we'll break down the key parts of a research proposal to help you understand what you need to include.

Key Takeaways

• A clear and catchy title grabs attention and sums up your research.
• An abstract gives a brief overview of your study, including the problem, methods, and goals.
• The introduction and background sections explain the research problem and why it's important.
• A literature review shows what other researchers have found and identifies gaps your study will fill.
• Research objectives and questions guide your study and help keep it focused.

Title and Abstract

Crafting an effective title.

When crafting an effective Ph.D. thesis proposal , your title should be clear and engaging. It must capture the essence of your research while being concise. A good title not only grabs the reader's attention but also gives a glimpse into your study's objectives and scope. Think of it as the first step in your roadmap for your research journey.

Writing a Concise Abstract

An abstract is a brief summary of your study, usually around 300 words. It should include the research problem, objectives, methodology, and potential implications. A well-written abstract is crucial for securing funding and guiding your research journey. Remember, a concise abstract helps readers quickly understand the importance and scope of your work.

Introduction and Background

Stating the research problem.

The introduction sets the stage for your research proposal by providing a clear and compelling overview of the research problem. It should include a background of the issue, highlighting its significance and relevance. Additionally, the introduction should present a research question or hypothesis, explaining why it is important to address it. The introduction should also provide a brief literature review to establish the existing knowledge and identify gaps that the proposed study aims to fill.

Significance of the Study

In general, a compelling research proposal should document your knowledge of the topic and demonstrate your enthusiasm for conducting the study. Approach it by explaining the potential impact of your research. Why does this study matter? What contributions can it make to the field? Addressing these questions will help underline the importance of your work.

Contextual Background

Providing a contextual background is essential for situating your research within a broader framework. This involves discussing the historical, social, or theoretical context that surrounds your research problem. By doing so, you help readers understand the environment in which your study is situated, making it easier to grasp the relevance and necessity of your research.

Literature Review

Reviewing relevant literature.

In this section, you will delve into the existing body of knowledge related to your research problem. A thorough review of relevant literature shows your understanding of the topic and helps justify the need for your study. Look at what other researchers have found, the methods they used, and their conclusions. This will provide a solid foundation for your research.

Identifying Research Gaps

As you review the literature, identify any gaps or inconsistencies in the existing research. Highlighting these gaps is crucial as it shows where your research can contribute new insights. Think about what is missing and how your study can fill these gaps. This step is essential for establishing the significance of your research.

Establishing Theoretical Frameworks

Your literature review should also help you establish the theoretical frameworks that will guide your study. These frameworks are the lenses through which you will view your research problem. They provide a structure for your analysis and help you interpret your findings. Make sure to clearly explain the theories you are using and why they are relevant to your study.

Research Objectives and Questions

Formulating clear objectives.

Your research objectives are the desired outcomes you aim to achieve from your project. These objectives should be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART). Clear objectives help direct your research process and guide data collection and analysis. They can be general, outlining what the project will accomplish, or specific, relating directly to the research questions you aim to answer.

Developing Research Questions

A well-defined research question is crucial for a successful research proposal. It pinpoints the major focus of your research project and guides your study's direction. To develop a strong research question, ensure it is clear, focused, and researchable. This will help you stay on track and make your research more effective.

Hypotheses Formulation

Formulating hypotheses involves making educated guesses about the outcomes of your research. These hypotheses should be testable and based on existing knowledge and theories. They provide a foundation for your research design and help you determine what data to collect and how to analyze it. Hypotheses give your research a clear direction and purpose.

Methodology

The methodology section of your research proposal is crucial as it outlines the research design, methods, and procedures you will use. This section should clearly explain why you have chosen a particular procedure or technique.

Research Design

In this part, you need to describe your overall approach, whether it is qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods. Clearly articulate the reasons for your choice based on your research objectives. For example, if you are conducting a survey, explain why this method is suitable for your study.

Data Collection Methods

Here, you should detail the techniques you will use to gather data. This could include surveys, interviews, or experiments. Make sure to justify your choices and explain how they will help you address your research questions. For instance, if you choose interviews, discuss how they will provide in-depth insights into your topic.

Data Analysis Techniques

In this section, outline the methods you will use to analyze the data you collect. This might involve statistical analysis, thematic analysis, or other techniques. Be sure to explain why these methods are appropriate for your study. For example, if you are using statistical analysis, describe how it will help you identify patterns and relationships in your data.

Timeline and Budget

Creating a research timeline.

A well-structured timeline is essential for the success of your research project. It breaks down the study into manageable phases and specifies the estimated time required for each task. This helps ensure that the research is feasible within the available resources and allows you to monitor progress throughout the project. A realistic timeline is crucial for keeping your research on track.

Budget Estimation

The budget section provides an estimate of the financial resources needed to conduct the research. It includes a breakdown of anticipated expenses, such as equipment, participant recruitment, data analysis software, and travel costs. A well-prepared budget demonstrates the feasibility and practicality of the proposed research. Make sure to include all potential costs to avoid any surprises later on.

Resource Allocation

Resource allocation involves distributing the available resources effectively to different parts of the research project. This includes assigning funds to various categories like personnel, equipment, and supplies. Proper resource allocation ensures that each aspect of the research is adequately funded and can proceed without financial hindrances. This step is vital for the smooth execution of your project.

Preliminary Suppositions and Implications

Initial assumptions.

When starting your research, it's crucial to outline your initial assumptions . These are the beliefs or ideas you hold before collecting any data. Be realistic in stating your anticipated findings . This means you should avoid idle speculation and focus on what you genuinely expect to discover based on existing literature and your research design.

Potential Impact of the Research

Consider how your research might refine, revise, or extend existing knowledge in your field. Think about the possible implications for future research, policies, or theoretical frameworks. For instance, could your study lead to a new policy or a better method for analyzing data? Reflect on how your findings might influence future studies and what they could mean for practitioners working in the field.

Ethical Considerations

Ethical considerations are a vital part of any research proposal. You need to address how you will handle issues like consent, confidentiality, and potential harm to participants. Make sure to outline the steps you will take to ensure your research is conducted ethically. This includes explaining where you believe you will find challenges related to data collection, such as access to participants and information.

Before diving into the details, let's consider some initial thoughts and their effects. Many students feel lost and anxious when starting their thesis. This is where our Thesis Action Plan comes in. It breaks down the process into simple, manageable steps. Ready to conquer your thesis? Visit our website to learn more .

In summary, writing a research proposal involves several key components that together create a solid plan for your study. These components include the title, introduction, objectives, methodology, literature review, timeline, and budget. Each part plays a crucial role in explaining your research idea, its importance, and how you plan to carry it out. By carefully including these elements, you can clearly communicate your research goals and the steps you will take to achieve them. This not only helps in getting approval but also sets a clear path for your research journey.

Frequently Asked Questions

What should be included in a research proposal title.

Your title should be clear and concise, giving a snapshot of your research topic. It should grab attention and reflect the main idea of your study.

How do I write an effective abstract?

An effective abstract summarizes the main points of your proposal. Keep it brief, usually around 150-250 words, and make sure it covers the research problem, objectives, methods, and potential impact.

Why is the introduction important in a research proposal?

The introduction sets the stage for your research. It explains the problem you want to solve, why it's important, and provides background information to help readers understand the context.

What is the purpose of a literature review?

A literature review shows that you understand the existing research on your topic. It helps identify gaps in knowledge and sets up the theoretical framework for your study.

How do I formulate research questions and objectives?

Your research questions should be clear and focused, guiding your study. Objectives are the steps you plan to take to answer these questions. Both should be specific and achievable.

What should be included in the methodology section?

The methodology section outlines how you will conduct your research. This includes your research design, data collection methods, and data analysis techniques. Be detailed to show your plan is feasible.

Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics: A Fun and Informative Guide

Unlocking the Power of Data: A Review of 'Essentials of Modern Business Statistics with Microsoft Excel'

Discovering Statistics Using SAS: A Comprehensive Review

Understanding the Difference Between Research Objectives and Research Questions

Transitioning Beyond Academia: Life After Completing Your Thesis

Trending Topics for Your Thesis: What's Hot in 2024

Thesis Action Plan

• Blog Articles
• Affiliate Program
• Terms and Conditions
• Payment and Shipping Terms
• Privacy Policy
• Return Policy

© 2024 Research Rebels, All rights reserved.

Your cart is currently empty.

Write a Research Proposal

Structure and content, introduction (to topic and problem), research question (or hypothesis, thesis statement, aim), proposed methodology, anticipated findings, contributions - impact and significance, tables and figures (if applicable).

• Questions for Editing and Revisions

Ask Us: Chat, email, visit or call

Video: Cite Your Sources: APA in-text citation

Get assistance

The library offers a range of helpful services.  All of our appointments are free of charge and confidential.

• Book an appointment

The structure and content of a research proposal can vary depending upon the discipline, purpose, and target audience. For example, a graduate thesis proposal and a Tri-Council grant proposal will have different guidelines for length and required sections.

Before you begin writing, be sure to talk with your supervisor to gain a clear understanding of their specific expectations, and continually check in with them throughout the writing process.

• Organizing your Research Proposal - Template This 6-page fillable pdf handout provides writers with a template to begin outlining sections of their own research proposal.

This template can be used in conjunction with the sections below.

What are some keywords for your research?

• Should give a clear indication of your proposed research approach or key question
• Should be concise and descriptive

Writing Tip: When constructing your title, think about the search terms you would use to find this research online.

Important: Write this section last, after you have completed drafting the proposal. Or if you are required to draft a preliminary abstract, then remember to rewrite the abstract after you have completed drafting the entire proposal because some information may need to be revised.

The abstract should provide a brief overview of the entire proposal. Briefly state the research question (or hypothesis, thesis statement, aim), the problem and rationale, the proposed methods, and the proposed analyses or expected results.

The purpose of the introduction is to communicate the information that is essential for the reader to understand the overall area of concern. Be explicit. Outline why this research must be conducted and try to do so without unnecessary jargon or overwhelming detail.

Start with a short statement that establishes the overall area of concern. Avoid too much detail. Get to the point. Communicate only information essential for the reader’s comprehension. Avoid unnecessary technical language and jargon. Answer the question, "What is this study about?"

Questions to consider:

• What is your topic area, and what is the problem within that topic?
• What does the relevant literature say about the problem? – Be selective and focused.
• What are the critical, theoretical, or methodological issues directly related to the problem to be investigated?
• What are the reasons for undertaking the research? – This is the answer to the "so what?" question.

The following sections - listed as part of the introduction - are intended as a guide for drafting a research proposal. Most introductions include these following components. However, be sure to clarify with your advisor or carefully review the grant guidelines to be sure to comply with the proposal genre expectations of your specific discipline.

Broad topic and focus of study

• Briefly describe the broad topic of your research area, and then clearly explain the narrowed focus of your specific study.

Importance of topic/field of study

• Position your project in a current important research area.
• Address the “So what?” question directly, and as soon as possible.
• Provide context for the reader to understand the problem you are about to pose or research question you are asking.

Problem within field of study

• Identify the problem that you are investigating in your study.

Gap(s) in knowledge

• Identify something missing from the literature.
• What is unknown in this specific research area? This is what your study will explore and where you will attempt to provide new insights.
• Is there a reason this gap exists? Where does the current literature agree and where does it disagree? How you fill this gap (at least partially) with your research?
• Convince your reader that the problem has been appropriately defined and that the study is worth doing. Be explicit and detailed.
• Develop your argument logically and provide evidence.
• Explain why you are the person to do this project. Summarize any previous work or studies you may have undertaken in this field or research area.

Research question or hypothesis

• Foreshadow outcomes of your research. What is the question you are hoping to answer? What are the specific hypotheses to be tested and/or issues to be explored?
• Use questions when research is exploratory.
• Use declarative statements when existing knowledge enables predictions.
• List any secondary or subsidiary questions if applicable.

Purpose statement

• State the purpose of your research. Be succinct and simple.
• Why do you want to do this study?
• What is your research trying to find out?

Goals for proposed research

• Write a brief, broad statement of what you hope to accomplish and why (e.g., Improve something… Understand something… ). Are there specific measurable outcomes that you will accomplish in your study? 
• You will have a chance to go into greater detail in the research question and methodology sections.

Background or context (or literature review)

• What does the existing research on this topic say?
• Briefly state what you already know and introduce literature most relevant to your research.
• Indicate main research findings, methodologies, and interpretations from previous related studies.
• Discuss how your question or hypothesis relates to what is already known.
• Position your research within the field’s developing body of knowledge.
• Explain and support your choice of methodology or theoretical framework.

The research question is the question you are hoping to answer in your research project. It is important to know how you should write your research question into your proposal. Some proposals include

• a research question, written as a question
• or, a hypothesis as a potential response to the research question
• or, a thesis statement as an argument that answers the research question
• or, aims and objects as accomplishment or operational statements

Foreshadow the outcomes of your research. Are you trying to improve something? Understand something? Advocate for a social responsibility?

Research question

What is the question you are hoping to answer?

Subsidiary questions (if applicable)

• Does your major research question hinge on a few smaller questions? Which will you address first?

Your hypothesis should provide one (of many) possible answers to your research question.

• What are the specific hypotheses to be tested and/or issues to be explored?
• What results do you anticipate for this experiment?

Usually a hypothesis is written to show the relationship between the independent and dependent variables. Your hypothesis must be

• An expected relationship between variables
• Falsifiable
• Consistent with the existing body of knowledge

Thesis statement

Your thesis statement is a clear, concise statement of what you are arguing and why it is important. For more support on writing thesis statements, check out these following resources:

• 5 Types of Thesis Statements - Learn about five different types of thesis statements to help you choose the best type for your research.
• Templates for Writing Thesis Statements - This template provides a two-step guide for writing thesis statements.
• 5 Questions to Strengthen Your Thesis Statement - Follow these five steps to strengthen your thesis statements.

Aims and objectives

Aims are typically broader statements of what you are trying to accomplish and may or may not be measurable. Objectives are operational statements indicating specifically how you will accomplish the aims of your project.

• What are you trying to accomplish?
• How are you going to address the research question?

Be specific and make sure your aims or objectives are realistic. You want to convey that it is feasible to answer this question with the objectives you have proposed.

Make it clear that you know what you are going to do, how you are going to do it, and why it will work by relating your methodology to previous research. If there isn’t much literature on the topic, you can relate your methodology to your own preliminary research or point out how your methodology tackles something that may have been overlooked in previous studies.

Explain how you will conduct this research. Specify scope and parameters (e.g., geographic locations, demographics). Limit your inclusion of literature to only essential articles and studies.

• How will these methods produce an answer to your research question?
• How do the methods relate to the introduction and literature review?
• Have you done any previous work (or read any literature) that would inform your choices about methodology?
• Are your methods feasible and adequate? How do you know?
• What obstacles might you encounter in conducting the research, and how will you overcome them?

This section should include the following components that are relevant to your study and research methodologies:

Object(s) of study / participants / population

Provide detail about your objects of study (e.g., literary texts, swine, government policies, children, health care systems).

• Who/what are they?
• How will you find, select, or collect them?
• How feasible is it to find/select them?
• Are there any limitations to sample/data collection?
• Do you need to travel to collect samples or visit archives, etc.?
• Do you need to obtain Research Ethics Board (REB) approval to include human participants?

Theoretical frame or critical methodology

• Explain the theories or disciplinary methodologies that your research draws from or builds upon.

Materials and apparatus

• What are your survey or interview methods? (You may include a copy of questionnaires, etc.)
• Do you require any special equipment?
• How do you plan to purchase or construct or obtain this equipment?

Procedure and design

What exactly will you do? Include variables selected or manipulated, randomization, controls, the definition of coding categories, etc.

• Is it a questionnaire? Laboratory experiment? Series of interviews? Systematic review? Interpretative analysis?
• How will subjects be assigned to experimental conditions?
• What precautions will be used to control possible confounding variables?
• How long do you expect to spend on each step, and do you have a backup plan?

Data analysis and statistical procedures

• How do you plan to statistically analyze your data?
• What analyses will you conduct?
• How will the analyses contribute to the objectives?

What are the expected outcomes from your methods? Describe your expected results in relation to your hypothesis. Support these results using existing literature.

• What results would prove or disprove your hypotheses and validate your methodology, and why?
• What obstacles might you encounter in obtaining your results, and how will you deal with those obstacles?
• How will you analyze and interpret your results?

This section may be the most important part of your proposal. Make sure to emphasize how this research is significant to the related field, and how it will impact the broader community, now and in the future.

Convince your reader why this project should be funded above the other potential projects. Why is this research useful and relevant? Why is it useful to others? Answer the question “so what?”

Specific contributions

• How will your anticipated results specifically contribute to fulfilling the aims, objectives, or goals of your research?
• Will these be direct or indirect contributions? – theoretical or applied?
• How will your research contribute to the larger topic area or research discipline?

Impact and significance

• How will your research contribute to the research field of study?
• How will your research contribute to the larger topic addressed in your introduction?
• How will this research extend other work that you have done?
• How will this contribution/significance convince the reader that this research will be useful and relevant?
• Who else might find your research useful and relevant? (e.g., other research streams, policy makers, professional fields, etc.)

Provide a list of some of the most important sources that you will need to use for the introduction and background sections, plus your literature review and theoretical framework. 

What are some of the most important sources that you will need to use for the intro/background/lit review/theoretical framework? 

• Find out what style guide you are required to follow (e.g., APA, MLA, Chicago).
• Follow the guidelines in our Cite Your Sources  Libguide to format citations and create a reference list or bibliography.

Attach this list to your proposal as a separate page unless otherwise specified.

This section should include only visuals that help illustrate the preliminary results, methods, or expected results.

• What visuals will you use to help illustrate the methods or expected results?
• << Previous: Start Here
• Next: Questions for Editing and Revisions >>
• Last Updated: Aug 6, 2024 3:22 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.uoguelph.ca/ResearchProposal

Suggest an edit to this guide

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Starting the research process
• How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates

How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates

Published on October 12, 2022 by Shona McCombes and Tegan George. Revised on September 5, 2024.

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:

Introduction

Literature review.

• Research design

Reference list

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 organized and feel confident in the path forward you choose to take.

Table of contents

Research proposal purpose, research proposal examples, research design and methods, contribution to knowledge, research schedule, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about research proposals.

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.

Research proposal length

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

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

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”
• Example research proposal #2: “Medical Students as Mediators of Change in Tobacco Use”

Like your dissertation or thesis, the proposal will usually have a title page that includes:

• The proposed title of your project
• Your supervisor’s name
• Your institution and department

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:

• Introduce your topic
• Give necessary background and context
• Outline your  problem statement  and research questions

To guide your introduction , include information about:

• Who could have an interest in the topic (e.g., scientists, policymakers)
• How much is already known about the topic
• What is missing from this current knowledge
• What new insights your research will contribute
• Why you believe this research is worth doing

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

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:

• Comparing and contrasting the main theories, methods, and debates
• Examining the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches
• Explaining how will you build on, challenge, or synthesize prior scholarship

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.

To finish your proposal on a strong note, explore the potential implications of your research for your field. Emphasize again what you aim to contribute and why it matters.

For example, your results might have implications for:

• Improving best practices
• Informing policymaking decisions
• Strengthening a theory or model
• Challenging popular or scientific beliefs
• Creating a basis for future research

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

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:

• Cost : exactly how much money do you need?
• Justification : why is this cost necessary to complete the research?
• Source : how did you calculate the amount?

To determine your budget, think about:

• Travel costs : do you need to go somewhere to collect your data? How will you get there, and how much time will you need? What will you do there (e.g., interviews, archival research)?
• Materials : do you need access to any tools or technologies?
• Help : do you need to hire any research assistants for the project? What will they do, and how much will you pay them?

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.

Methodology

• Sampling methods
• Simple random sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Cluster sampling
• Likert scales
• Reproducibility

 Statistics

• Null hypothesis
• Statistical power
• Probability distribution
• Effect size
• Poisson distribution

Research bias

• Optimism bias
• Cognitive bias
• Implicit bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Anchoring bias
• Explicit bias

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.

The best way to remember the difference between a research plan and a research proposal is that they have fundamentally different audiences. A research plan helps you, the researcher, organize your thoughts. On the other hand, a dissertation proposal or research proposal aims to convince others (e.g., a supervisor, a funding body, or a dissertation committee) that your research topic is relevant and worthy of being conducted.

Cite this Scribbr article

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. & George, T. (2024, September 05). How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved September 12, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/research-process/research-proposal/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write a problem statement | guide & examples, writing strong research questions | criteria & examples, how to write a literature review | guide, 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”

How to Write a Research Proposal Paper

Table of Contents

What is a research proposal paper, why write a research proposal paper.

• How to Plan a Research Proposal Paper

Components of a Research Proposal Paper

Research proposal examples, help & additional resources, this resource page will help you:.

• Learn what a research proposal paper is.  
• Understand the importance of writing a research proposal paper. 
• Understand the steps in the planning stages of a research proposal paper.  
• Identify the components of a research proposal paper.  

A research proposal paper:   

• includes sufficient information about a research study that you propose to conduct for your thesis (e.g., in an MT, MA, or Ph.D. program) or that you imagine conducting (e.g., in an MEd program). It should help your readers understand the scope, validity, and significance of your proposed study.  
• may be a stand-alone paper or one part of a larger research project, depending on the nature of your assignment. 
• typically follows the citation format of your field, which at OISE is APA .    

Your instructor will provide you with assignment details that can help you determine how much information to include in your research proposal, so you should carefully check your course outline and assignment instructions.  

Writing a research proposal allows you to  

• develop skills in designing a comprehensive research study; 

learn how to identify a research problem that can contribute to advancing knowledge in your field of interest; 

further develop skills in finding foundational and relevant literature related to your topic; 

critically review, examine, and consider the use of different methods for gathering and analyzing data related to the research problem;  

see yourself as an active participant in conducting research in your field of study. 

Writing a research proposal paper can help clarify questions you may have before designing your research study. It is helpful to get feedback on your research proposal and edit your work to be able to see what you may need to change in your proposal. The more diverse opinions you receive on your proposal, the better prepared you will be to design a comprehensive research study. 

How to Plan your Research Proposal

Before starting your research proposal, you should clarify your ideas and make a plan. Ask yourself these questions and take notes:  

What do I want to study? 

Why is the topic important? Why is it important to me? 

How is the topic significant within the subject areas covered in my class? 

What problems will it help solve? 

How does it build on research already conducted on the topic? 

What exactly should I plan to do to conduct a study on the topic? 

It may be helpful to write down your answers to these questions and use them to tell a story about your chosen topic to your classmates or instructor. As you tell your story, write down comments or questions from your listeners. This will help you refine your proposal and research questions. 

This is an example of how to start planning and thinking about your research proposal assignment. You will find a student’s notes and ideas about their research proposal topic - "Perspectives on Textual Production, Student Collaboration, and Social Networking Sites”. This example is hyperlinked in the following Resource Page:&nbsp;

A research proposal paper typically includes: 

• an introduction  
• a theoretical framework 
• a literature review 
• the methodology  
• the implications of the proposed study and conclusion 
• references 

Start your introduction by giving the reader an overview of your study. Include:  

• the research context (in what educational settings do you plan to conduct this study?) 
• the research problem, purpose (What do you want to achieve by conducting this study?) 
• a brief overview of the literature on your topic and the gap your study hopes to fill 
•  research questions and sub-questions 
• a brief mention of your research method (How do you plan to collect and analyze your data?) 
• your personal interest in the topic. 

 Conclude your introduction by giving your reader a roadmap of your proposal. 

 To learn more about paper introductions, check How to write Introductions .  

A theoretical framework refers to the theories that you will use to interpret both your own data and the literature that has come before. Think about theories as lenses that help you look at your data from different perspectives, beyond just your own personal perspective. Think about the theories that you have come across in your courses or readings that could apply to your research topic. When writing the theoretical framework, include 

• A description of where the theories come from (original thinkers), their key components, and how they have developed over time. 
• How you plan to use the theories in your study / how they apply to your topic. 

The literature review section should help you identify topics or issues that will help contextualize what the research has/hasn’t found and discussed on the topic so far and convince your reader that your proposed study is important. This is where you can go into more detail on the gap that your study hopes to fill. Ultimately, a good literature review helps your reader learn more about the topic that you have chosen to study and what still needs to be researched 

To learn more about literature reviews check What is a Literature Review . 

The methods section should briefly explain how you plan to conduct your study and why you have chosen a particular method. You may also include  

• your overall study design (quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods) and the proposed stages 
• your proposed research instruments (e.g. surveys, interviews)  
• your proposed participant recruitment channels / document selection criteria 
• a description of your proposed study participants (age, gender, etc.). 
• how you plan to analyze the data.  

You should cite relevant literature on research methods to support your choices. 

The conclusion section should include a short summary about the implications and significance of your proposed study by explaining how the possible findings may change the ways educators and/or stakeholders address the issues identified in your introduction. 

Depending on the assignment instructions, the conclusion can also highlight next steps and a timeline for the research process. 

To learn more about paper conclusions, check How to write Conclusions . 

List all references you used and format them according to APA style. Make sure that everything in your reference list is cited in the paper, and every citation in your paper is in your reference list.  

To learn more about writing citations and references, check Citations & APA . 

These are detailed guidelines on how to prepare a quantitative research proposal. Adapted from the course APD2293 “Interpretation of Educational Research”. These guidelines are hyperlinked in the following Resource Page:&nbsp;&nbsp;

Related Resource Pages on ASH

• What is a Literature Review?
• How to Prepare a Literature Review
• How to Understand & Plan Assignments
• Citations and APA Style
• How to Integrate Others' Research into your Writing
• How to Write Introductions
• How to Write Conclusions

Additional Resources

• Writing a research proposal– University of Southern California   
• Owl Purdue-Graduate-Specific Genres-Purdue University  
• 10 Tips for Writing a research proposal – McGill University  

On Campus Services

• Book a writing consultation (OSSC)
• Book a Research Consultation (OISE Library)

How To Write A Research Proposal

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 title/topic
• The introduction chapter
• The scope/delimitations
• Preliminary literature review
• Design/ methodology
• Practical considerations and risks 

What Is A Research Proposal?

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 . 

How do I know I’m ready?

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:

• WHAT is my main research question? (the topic)
• WHO cares and why is this important? (the justification)
• WHAT data would I need to answer this question, and how will I analyse it? (the research design)
• HOW will I manage the completion of this research, within the given timelines? (project and risk management)

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.

The 5 Essential Ingredients

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.

Ingredient #1 – Topic/Title Header

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.

Need a helping hand?

Ingredient #2 – Introduction

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:

• An overview of the   broad area   you’ll be researching – introduce the reader to key concepts and language
• An explanation of the   specific (narrower) area   you’ll be focusing, and why you’ll be focusing there
• Your research   aims   and   objectives
• Your   research question (s) and sub-questions (if applicable)

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.

Ingredient #3 – Scope

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.

Ingredient #4 – Literature Review

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:

• Demonstrate that you’ve done your reading and are   familiar with the current state of the research   in your topic area.
• Show that   there’s a clear gap   for your specific research – i.e., show that your topic is sufficiently unique and will add value to the existing research.
• Show how the existing research has shaped your thinking regarding   research design . For example, you might use scales or questionnaires from previous studies.

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.

Ingredient #5 – Research Methodology

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 :

• How   will you design your research? I.e., what research methodology will you adopt, what will your sample be, how will you collect data, etc.
• Why   have you chosen this design? I.e., why does this approach suit your specific research aims, objectives and 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:

• Your intended research philosophy (e.g., positivism, interpretivism or pragmatism )
• What methodological approach you’ll be taking (e.g., qualitative , quantitative or mixed )
• The details of your sample (e.g., sample size, who they are, who they represent, etc.)
• What data you plan to collect (i.e. data about what, in what form?)
• How you plan to collect it (e.g., surveys , interviews , focus groups, etc.)
• How you plan to analyse it (e.g., regression analysis, thematic analysis , etc.)
• Ethical adherence (i.e., does this research satisfy all ethical requirements of your institution, or does it need further approval?)

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 .

Don’t forget the practicalities…

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:

• What are the timelines for each phase of your project?
• Are the time allocations reasonable?
• What happens if something takes longer than anticipated (risk management)?
• What happens if you don’t get the response rate you expect?

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.

Final Touches: Read And Simplify

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!

Let’s Recap: Research Proposal 101

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:

• The purpose of the research proposal is to   convince   – therefore, you need to make a clear, concise argument of why your research is both worth doing and doable.
• Make sure you can ask the critical what, who, and how questions of your research   before   you put pen to paper.
• Title – provides the first taste of your research, in broad terms
• Introduction – explains what you’ll be researching in more detail
• Scope – explains the boundaries of your research
• Literature review – explains how your research fits into the existing research and why it’s unique and valuable
• Research methodology – explains and justifies how you will carry out your own research

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 .

Psst… there’s more!

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 .

30 Comments

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.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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.

• Print Friendly

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Krathwohl (2005) suggests and describes a variety of components to include in a research proposal. The following sections – Introductions, Background and significance, Literature Review; Research design and methods, Preliminary suppositions and implications; and Conclusion present these components in a suggested template for you to follow in the preparation of your research proposal.

Introduction

The introduction sets the tone for what follows in your research proposal – treat it as the initial pitch of your idea. After reading the introduction your reader should:

• understand what it is you want to do;
• have a sense of your passion for the topic; and
• be excited about the study’s possible outcomes.

As you begin writing your research proposal, it is helpful to think of the introduction as a narrative of what it is you want to do, written in one to three paragraphs. Within those one to three paragraphs, it is important to briefly answer the following questions:

• What is the central research problem?
• How is the topic of your research proposal related to the problem?
• What methods will you utilize to analyze the research problem?
• Why is it important to undertake this research? What is the significance of your proposed research? Why are the outcomes of your proposed research important? Whom are they important?

Note : You may be asked by your instructor to include an abstract with your research proposal. In such cases, an abstract should provide an overview of what it is you plan to study, your main research question, a brief explanation of your methods to answer the research question, and your expected findings. All of this information must be carefully crafted in 150 to 250 words. A word of advice is to save the writing of your abstract until the very end of your research proposal preparation. If you are asked to provide an abstract, you should include 5 to 7 key words that are of most relevance to your study. List these in order of relevance.

Background and significance

The purpose of this section is to explain the context of your proposal and to describe, in detail, why it is important to undertake this research. Assume that the person or people who will read your research proposal know nothing or very little about the research problem. While you do not need to include all knowledge you have learned about your topic in this section, it is important to ensure that you include the most relevant material that will help to explain the goals of your research.

While there are no hard and fast rules, you should attempt to address some or all of the following key points:

• State the research problem and provide a more thorough explanation about the purpose of the study than what you stated in the introduction.
• Present the rationale for the proposed research study. Clearly indicate why this research is worth doing. Answer the “so what?” question.
• Describe the major issues or problems to be addressed by your research. Do not forget to explain how and in what ways your proposed research builds upon previous related research.
• Explain how you plan to go about conducting your research.
• Clearly identify the key or most relevant sources of research you intend to use and explain how they will contribute to your analysis of the topic.
• Set the boundaries of your proposed research, in order to provide a clear focus. Where appropriate, state not only what you will study, but what will be excluded from your study.
• Provide clear definitions of key concepts and terms. Since key concepts and terms often have numerous definitions, make sure you state which definition you will be utilizing in your research.

Literature review

This key component of the research proposal is the most time-consuming aspect in the preparation of your research proposal. As described in Chapter 5 , the literature review provides the background to your study and demonstrates the significance of the proposed research. Specifically, it is a review and synthesis of prior research that is related to the problem you are setting forth to investigate. Essentially, your goal in the literature review is to place your research study within the larger whole of what has been studied in the past, while demonstrating to your reader that your work is original, innovative, and adds to the larger whole.

As the literature review is information dense, it is essential that this section be intelligently structured to enable your reader to grasp the key arguments underpinning your study. However, this can be easier to state and harder to do, simply due to the fact there is usually a plethora of related research to sift through. Consequently, a good strategy for writing the literature review is to break the literature into conceptual categories or themes, rather than attempting to describe various groups of literature you reviewed. Chapter 5   describes a variety of methods to help you organize the themes.

Here are some suggestions on how to approach the writing of your literature review:

• Think about what questions other researchers have asked, what methods they used, what they found, and what they recommended based upon their findings.
• Do not be afraid to challenge previous related research findings and/or conclusions.
• Assess what you believe to be missing from previous research and explain how your research fills in this gap and/or extends previous research.

It is important to note that a significant challenge related to undertaking a literature review is knowing when to stop. As such, it is important to know when you have uncovered the key conceptual categories underlying your research topic. Generally, when you start to see repetition in the conclusions or recommendations, you can have confidence that you have covered all of the significant conceptual categories in your literature review. However, it is also important to acknowledge that researchers often find themselves returning to the literature as they collect and analyze their data. For example, an unexpected finding may develop as you collect and/or analyze the data; in this case, it is important to take the time to step back and review the literature again, to ensure that no other researchers have found a similar finding. This may include looking to research outside your field.

This situation occurred with one of this textbook’s authors’ research related to community resilience. During the interviews, the researchers heard many participants discuss individual resilience factors and how they believed these individual factors helped make the community more resilient, overall. Sheppard and Williams (2016) had not discovered these individual factors in their original literature review on community and environmental resilience. However, when they returned to the literature to search for individual resilience factors, they discovered a small body of literature in the child and youth psychology field. Consequently, Sheppard and Williams had to go back and add a new section to their literature review on individual resilience factors. Interestingly, their research appeared to be the first research to link individual resilience factors with community resilience factors.

Research design and methods

The objective of this section of the research proposal is to convince the reader that your overall research design and methods of analysis will enable you to solve the research problem you have identified and also enable you to accurately and effectively interpret the results of your research. Consequently, it is critical that the research design and methods section is well-written, clear, and logically organized. This demonstrates to your reader that you know what you are going to do and how you are going to do it. Overall, you want to leave your reader feeling confident that you have what it takes to get this research study completed in a timely fashion.

Essentially, this section of the research proposal should be clearly tied to the specific objectives of your study; however, it is also important to draw upon and include examples from the literature review that relate to your design and intended methods. In other words, you must clearly demonstrate how your study utilizes and builds upon past studies, as it relates to the research design and intended methods. For example, what methods have been used by other researchers in similar studies?

While it is important to consider the methods that other researchers have employed, it is equally, if not more, important to consider what methods have not been but could be employed. Remember, the methods section is not simply a list of tasks to be undertaken. It is also an argument as to why and how the tasks you have outlined will help you investigate the research problem and answer your research question(s).

Tips for writing the research design and methods section:

Specify the methodological approaches you intend to employ to obtain information and the techniques you will use to analyze the data.

Specify the research operations you will undertake and the way you will interpret the results of those operations in relation to the research problem.

Go beyond stating what you hope to achieve through the methods you have chosen. State how you will actually implement the methods (i.e., coding interview text, running regression analysis, etc.).

Anticipate and acknowledge any potential barriers you may encounter when undertaking your research, and describe how you will address these barriers.

Explain where you believe you will find challenges related to data collection, including access to participants and information.

Preliminary suppositions and implications

The purpose of this section is to argue how you anticipate that your research will refine, revise, or extend existing knowledge in the area of your study. Depending upon the aims and objectives of your study, you should also discuss how your anticipated findings may impact future research. For example, is it possible that your research may lead to a new policy, theoretical understanding, or method for analyzing data? How might your study influence future studies? What might your study mean for future practitioners working in the field? Who or what might benefit from your study? How might your study contribute to social, economic or environmental issues? While it is important to think about and discuss possibilities such as these, it is equally important to be realistic in stating your anticipated findings. In other words, you do not want to delve into idle speculation. Rather, the purpose here is to reflect upon gaps in the current body of literature and to describe how you anticipate your research will begin to fill in some or all of those gaps.

The conclusion reiterates the importance and significance of your research proposal, and provides a brief summary of the entire proposed study. Essentially, this section should only be one or two paragraphs in length. Here is a potential outline for your conclusion:

Discuss why the study should be done. Specifically discuss how you expect your study will advance existing knowledge and how your study is unique.

Explain the specific purpose of the study and the research questions that the study will answer.

Explain why the research design and methods chosen for this study are appropriate, and why other designs and methods were not chosen.

State the potential implications you expect to emerge from your proposed study,

Provide a sense of how your study fits within the broader scholarship currently in existence, related to the research problem.

Citations and references

As with any scholarly research paper, you must cite the sources you used in composing your research proposal. In a research proposal, this can take two forms: a reference list or a bibliography. A reference list lists the literature you referenced in the body of your research proposal. All references in the reference list must appear in the body of the research proposal. Remember, it is not acceptable to say “as cited in …” As a researcher you must always go to the original source and check it for yourself. Many errors are made in referencing, even by top researchers, and so it is important not to perpetuate an error made by someone else. While this can be time consuming, it is the proper way to undertake a literature review.

In contrast, a bibliography , is a list of everything you used or cited in your research proposal, with additional citations to any key sources relevant to understanding the research problem. In other words, sources cited in your bibliography may not necessarily appear in the body of your research proposal. Make sure you check with your instructor to see which of the two you are expected to produce.

Overall, your list of citations should be a testament to the fact that you have done a sufficient level of preliminary research to ensure that your project will complement, but not duplicate, previous research efforts. For social sciences, the reference list or bibliography should be prepared in American Psychological Association (APA) referencing format. Usually, the reference list (or bibliography) is not included in the word count of the research proposal. Again, make sure you check with your instructor to confirm.

Research Methods, Data Collection and Ethics Copyright © 2020 by Valerie Sheppard is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

How to write a Research Proposal: Components of a research proposal

Components of a research proposal.

• Useful videos
• Common mistakes to avoid
• Sage Research Methods LibGuide This link opens in a new window
• Managing sources
• Request a literature search
• Research proposal - examples
• Creating a Gantt chart
• Free Apps for Research
• Academic writing

Research proposals differ in terms of their presentation depending on what each University department requires. In other words, there is no set template  for a research proposal. Please contact your lecturer regarding the format you are expected to use for your research proposal.Thus, the components of a research proposal include, but are not limited to those mentioned in this guide.

1. The title

Try to come up with a title that is unique and at the same time easy to remember. It should also make a lasting impression to the reader and make them want to come back and read your proposal.  The title must also capture the main concepts of the study . As the research process is lengthy, it is   important that you choose a topic that you are   so curious about  that you remain motivated for the duration of the research process.  Select a topic that you will be able to complete within the time frame that you have for your research. 

3. The background

The background to the topic of your intended research must be clear and precise. It must not only include an in-depth explanation of the key points of your subject but also all the developments in the field as well as their timelines . The researcher must also explain the compelling interest in the research issue as well as the personal interest (if any) in the topic. This section must also indicate the specific area within which the topic falls in your particular field of study or subject . Aslo, how will the proposed study contribute to a particular field? In other words, the impact and the significance in a subject area must be clearly outlined. The target audience must also be clearly described.

5. Objectives of the research

It is important that the objectives are in alignment with the research questions. The objectives must indicate what the aim of the research study is.  In fact, objectives give you a clear indication of the steps that you will take to achieve the aim of the research. The objectives must be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound.

7. Literature review

Collect and present relevant literature on your topic of choice. It is important to include all the main authors or experts in a particular field.  Depending on your field of study or topic, ensure that you include recent literature as well as literature that presents counterarguments to the topic. The justification for the study needs to based on existing literature. Click here for more information on how to write a literature review.

8. Limitations and delimitations of the study

The researcher must indicate the limitations of the study which are what the researcher cannot do or factors that are beyond the researcher's control, as well as delimitations that the researcher chooses not to address for the purposes of the study. Delimitations are boundaries that the researcher has set for the study. The r easons  both for limitations and delimitations must be discussed in this section.

10. Work plan

Your schedule for the research must be stated clearly including the projected timelines for the various stages of your study.

11. Bibliography

All the sources that you have used for your proposal must be listed in alphabetical order using a referencing style that your lecturer has prescribed for your subject field.

Click here for more information on the various reference styles.

2. Introduction to the research

This section of the proposal must provide a broad overview of the topic. The jargon and key terms used in the particular topic must also be thoroughly explained in order to avoid confusion. The interest of the researcher in the particular topic must also be clearly outlined while at the same time mentioning, albeit briefly at this point, a critical review of the main literature that covers the topic.  The researcher must also provide the aim of the research by clearly and concisely stating the problem,  as well as the research questions to be dealt with.  This section must also indicate what the research study will not be covering .

4. The research questions

The research questions must state clearly what your proposed study is meant to address or answer. Ensure that you use simple language that is easy to understand, while being cognisant of the level of  your intended audience . 

6. Research methodology / research methods

This section outlines the approach which the researcher will follow in order to address the research problem and to answer all the research questions from the researcher. The research design must be clearly defined, e.g., is the research  Descriptive, Correlational, Causal-Comparative/Quasi-Experimental, Experimental, Diagnostic or Explanatory.

State clearly

• how the research will be conducted in terms of the theoretical resources that will be used
• the theoretical framework for conducting the research, which is the theoretical approach drawn from your literature review to support your research study
• proposed research method(s)
• a comparison of the advantages, limitations and suitability of the available approaches and methods for conducting your research
• participants, instruments, procedure, analysis, etc.

Research design

Selecting the approach to use

Research approach

Research design and methodology

Importance of research

Attributes of a good research scholar

Summary of different research methodologies

9. Significance of the research

The researcher must provide justification for the need to conduct the study. What is the gap that the study will fill, and what is its contribution to the  existing body of knowledge? The originality and importance of the research which will be  level appropriate, must be clearly described, for instance, the required level of originality for a fourth year research project is different to that of a doctoral candidate. 

The impact of the study for the subject field must be indicated. In other words, how will the research improve the field, who will it impact, how will it make changes in your industy or field etc.? Lastly, the proposed resaerch must be relatable , interesting and engaging .

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Books >>
• Last Updated: Aug 30, 2024 9:03 AM
• URL: https://libguides.unisa.ac.za/research_proposal

• Privacy Policy

Home » Research Proposal – Types, Template and Example

Research Proposal – Types, Template and Example

Table of Contents

Research Proposal

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.

Types of Research Proposal

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:

Academic Research Proposal

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.

Grant Proposal

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.

Dissertation or Thesis Proposal

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.

Research Project Proposal

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.

Research Fellowship Proposal

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.

Collaborative Research Proposal

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.

Research Proposal Outline

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:

• Title of the research proposal
• Name of the researcher(s) or principal investigator(s)
• Affiliation or institution
• Date of submission
• A concise summary of the research proposal, typically limited to 200-300 words.
• Briefly introduce the research problem or question, state the objectives, summarize the methodology, and highlight the expected outcomes or significance of the research.
• Provide an overview of the subject area and the specific research problem or question.
• Present relevant background information, theories, or concepts to establish the need for the research.
• Clearly state the research objectives or research questions that the study aims to address.
• Indicate the significance or potential contributions of the research.
• Summarize and analyze relevant studies, theories, or scholarly works.
• Identify research gaps or unresolved issues that your study intends to address.
• Highlight the novelty or uniqueness of your research.
• Describe the overall approach or research design that will be used (e.g., experimental, qualitative, quantitative).
• Justify the chosen approach based on the research objectives and question.
• Explain how data will be collected (e.g., surveys, interviews, experiments).
• Describe the sampling strategy and sample size, if applicable.
• Address any ethical considerations related to data collection.
• Outline the data analysis techniques or statistical methods that will be applied.
• Explain how the data will be interpreted and analyzed to answer the research question(s).
• Provide a detailed schedule or timeline that outlines the various stages of the research project.
• Specify the estimated duration for each stage, including data collection, analysis, and report writing.
• State the potential outcomes or results of the research.
• Discuss the potential significance or contributions of the study to the field.
• Address any potential limitations or challenges that may be encountered.
• Identify the resources required to conduct the research, such as funding, equipment, or access to data.
• Specify any collaborations or partnerships necessary for the successful completion of the study.
• Include a list of cited references in the appropriate citation style (e.g., APA, MLA).

———————————————————————————————–

Research Proposal Example Template

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:

• To examine the association between social media use and mental health outcomes among adolescents.
• To explore the influence of peer relationships and social comparison on online behaviors.
• To identify strategies and interventions to foster positive social media use and enhance adolescent well-being.

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

Research Proposal Writing Guide

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:

• Understand the requirements: Familiarize yourself with the guidelines and requirements provided by your institution, funding agency, or program. Pay attention to formatting, page limits, specific sections or headings, and any other instructions.
• Identify your research topic: Choose a research topic that aligns with your interests, expertise, and the goals of your program or funding opportunity. Ensure that your topic is specific, focused, and relevant to the field of study.
• Conduct a literature review : Review existing literature and research relevant to your topic. Identify key theories, concepts, methodologies, and findings related to your research question. This will help you establish the context, identify research gaps, and demonstrate the significance of your proposed study.
• Define your research objectives and research question(s): Clearly state the objectives you aim to achieve with your research. Formulate research questions that address the gaps identified in the literature review. Your research objectives and questions should be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART).
• Develop a research methodology: Determine the most appropriate research design and methodology for your study. Consider whether quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods approaches will best address your research question(s). Describe the data collection methods, sampling strategy, data analysis techniques, and any ethical considerations associated with your research.
• Create a research plan and timeline: Outline the various stages of your research project, including tasks, milestones, and deadlines. Develop a realistic timeline that considers factors such as data collection, analysis, and report writing. This plan will help you stay organized and manage your time effectively throughout the research process.
• A. Introduction: Provide background information on the research problem, highlight its significance, and introduce your research objectives and questions.
• B. Literature review: Summarize relevant literature, identify gaps, and justify the need for your proposed research.
• C . Methodology: Describe your research design, data collection methods, sampling strategy, data analysis techniques, and any ethical considerations.
• D . Expected outcomes and significance: Explain the potential outcomes, contributions, and implications of your research.
• E. Resources: Identify the resources required to conduct your research, such as funding, equipment, or access to data.
• F . References: Include a list of cited references in the appropriate citation style.
• Revise and proofread: Review your proposal for clarity, coherence, and logical flow. Check for grammar and spelling errors. Seek feedback from mentors, colleagues, or advisors to refine and improve your proposal.
• Finalize and submit: Make any necessary revisions based on feedback and finalize your research proposal. Ensure that you have met all the requirements and formatting guidelines. Submit your proposal within the specified deadline.

Research Proposal Length

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.

Purpose of Research Proposal

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:

• Demonstrate the significance of the research: A research proposal explains the importance and relevance of your research project. It outlines the research problem or question, highlights the gaps in existing knowledge, and explains how your study will contribute to the field. By clearly articulating the significance of your research, you can convince others of its value and potential impact.
• Provide a clear research plan: A research proposal outlines the methodology, design, and approach you will use to conduct your study. It describes the research objectives, data collection methods, data analysis techniques, and potential outcomes. By presenting a clear research plan, you demonstrate that your study is well-thought-out, feasible, and likely to produce meaningful results.
• Secure funding or support: For researchers seeking funding or support for their projects, a research proposal is essential. It allows you to make a persuasive case for why your research is deserving of financial resources or institutional backing. The proposal explains the budgetary requirements, resources needed, and potential benefits of the research, helping you secure the necessary funding or support.
• Seek feedback and guidance: Presenting a research proposal provides an opportunity to receive feedback and guidance from experts in your field. It allows you to engage in discussions and receive suggestions for refining your research plan, improving the methodology, or addressing any potential limitations. This feedback can enhance the quality of your study and increase its chances of success.
• Establish ethical considerations: A research proposal also addresses ethical considerations associated with your study. It outlines how you will ensure participant confidentiality, obtain informed consent, and adhere to ethical guidelines and regulations. By demonstrating your awareness and commitment to ethical research practices, you build trust and credibility in your proposed study.

Importance of Research Proposal

The research proposal holds significant importance in the research process. Here are some key reasons why research proposals are important:

• Planning and organization: A research proposal requires careful planning and organization of your research project. It forces you to think through the research objectives, research questions, methodology, and potential outcomes before embarking on the actual study. This planning phase helps you establish a clear direction and framework for your research, ensuring that your efforts are focused and purposeful.
• Demonstrating the significance of the research: A research proposal allows you to articulate the significance and relevance of your study. By providing a thorough literature review and clearly defining the research problem or question, you can showcase the gaps in existing knowledge that your research aims to address. This demonstrates to others, such as funding agencies or academic institutions, why your research is important and deserving of support.
• Obtaining funding and resources: Research proposals are often required to secure funding for your research project. Funding agencies and organizations need to evaluate the feasibility and potential impact of the proposed research before allocating resources. A well-crafted research proposal helps convince funders of the value of your research and increases the likelihood of securing financial support, grants, or scholarships.
• Receiving feedback and guidance: Presenting a research proposal provides an opportunity to seek feedback and guidance from experts in your field. By sharing your research plan and objectives with others, you can benefit from their insights and suggestions. This feedback can help refine your research design, strengthen your methodology, and ensure that your study is rigorous and well-informed.
• Ethical considerations: A research proposal addresses ethical considerations associated with your study. It outlines how you will protect the rights and welfare of participants, maintain confidentiality, obtain informed consent, and adhere to ethical guidelines and regulations. This emphasis on ethical practices ensures that your research is conducted responsibly and with integrity.
• Enhancing collaboration and partnerships: A research proposal can facilitate collaborations and partnerships with other researchers, institutions, or organizations. When presenting your research plan, you may attract the interest of potential collaborators who share similar research interests or possess complementary expertise. Collaborative partnerships can enrich your study, expand your resources, and foster knowledge exchange.
• Establishing a research trajectory: A research proposal serves as a foundation for your research project. Once approved, it becomes a roadmap that guides your study’s implementation, data collection, analysis, and reporting. It helps maintain focus and ensures that your research stays on track and aligned with the initial objectives.

When to Write Research Proposal

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:

• Academic research: If you are a student pursuing a research degree, such as a Ph.D. or Master’s by research, you will typically be required to write a research proposal as part of the application process. This is usually done before starting the research program to outline your proposed study and seek approval from the academic institution.
• Funding applications: When applying for research grants, scholarships, or funding from organizations or institutions, you will often need to submit a research proposal. Funding agencies require a detailed description of your research project, including its objectives, methodology, and expected outcomes. Writing a research proposal in this context is necessary to secure financial support for your study.
• Research collaborations: When collaborating with other researchers, institutions, or organizations on a research project, it is common to prepare a research proposal. This helps outline the research objectives, roles and responsibilities, and expected contributions from each party. Writing a research proposal in this case allows all collaborators to align their efforts and ensure a shared understanding of the project.
• Research project within an organization: If you are conducting research within an organization, such as a company or government agency, you may be required to write a research proposal to gain approval and support for your study. This proposal outlines the research objectives, methodology, resources needed, and expected outcomes, ensuring that the project aligns with the organization’s goals and objectives.
• Independent research projects: Even if you are not required to write a research proposal, it can still be beneficial to develop one for your independent research projects. Writing a research proposal helps you plan and structure your study, clarify your research objectives, and anticipate potential challenges or limitations. It also allows you to communicate your research plans effectively to supervisors, mentors, or collaborators.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Proposal – Types, Examples, and Writing Guide

How To Write A Proposal – Step By Step Guide...

How To Write A Grant Proposal – Step-by-Step...

How To Write A Business Proposal – Step-by-Step...

How To Write A Research Proposal – Step-by-Step...

Grant Proposal – Example, Template and Guide

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

9 Components of a Research Proposal

A research proposal can be divided into many different steps but all of these configurations serve to demonstrate two qualities to your reader: that (1) there is an important question which needs answering; and (2) you have the capacity to answer that question. All the steps of a proposal must serve either or both of these goals (Wong, n.d.).

Before we delve into the substantive details of the research proposal, we want to briefly discuss two often overlooked components: title page and abstract. The first component of presenting a topic is developing a title page that accurately reflects your topic. Make sure that your title highlights the focus of your study and the expected outcomes (e.g., do you expect to discover lessons, insights, implementation strategies, improved understandings etc.). It is best to keep your title short (usually no more than two lines) and specific to your research concerns. For more tips on writing effective titles, see Hartley (2017). Apart from the actual words in your title, you should ensure that your title page aligns with the referencing style used in the rest of the proposal (e.g., check out APA convention on title pages). Regardless of the referencing style used, a good title page usually has the following information: title of the proposal, author’s name, institution and/department, program/course and the date. Including a running header and page number are optional.

Hartley, J. (2007). There‘s more to the title than meets the eye: Exploring the possibilities. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication , 37(1), 95-101. https://doi.org/10.2190/BJ16-8385-7Q73-1162

Wong, Paul T. P. (n.d.). How to Write a Research Proposal . Meaning.ca. http://www.meaning.ca/archives/archive/art_how_to_write_P_Wong.htm

Practicing and Presenting Social Research Copyright © 2022 by Oral Robinson and Alexander Wilson is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Research process
• How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates

How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates

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:

Introduction

Literature review.

• Research design

Reference list

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.

Table of contents

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.

Research proposal length

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

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

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’
• Example research proposal #2: ‘ Medical Students as Mediators of Change in Tobacco Use’

Like your dissertation or thesis, the proposal will usually have a title page that includes:

• The proposed title of your project
• Your supervisor’s name
• Your institution and department

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:

• Introduce your topic
• Give necessary background and context
• Outline your  problem statement  and research questions

To guide your introduction , include information about:

• Who could have an interest in the topic (e.g., scientists, policymakers)
• How much is already known about the topic
• What is missing from this current knowledge
• What new insights your research will contribute
• Why you believe this research is worth doing

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:

• Comparing and contrasting the main theories, methods, and debates
• Examining the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches
• Explaining how will you build on, challenge, or synthesise prior scholarship

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.

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:

• Improving best practices
• Informing policymaking decisions
• Strengthening a theory or model
• Challenging popular or scientific beliefs
• Creating a basis for future research

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

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:

• Cost : exactly how much money do you need?
• Justification : why is this cost necessary to complete the research?
• Source : how did you calculate the amount?

To determine your budget, think about:

• Travel costs : do you need to go somewhere to collect your data? How will you get there, and how much time will you need? What will you do there (e.g., interviews, archival research)?
• Materials : do you need access to any tools or technologies?
• Help : do you need to hire any research assistants for the project? What will they do, and how much will you pay them?

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.

Cite this Scribbr article

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 9 September 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/the-research-process/research-proposal-explained/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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.

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.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Pharmacol Pharmacother
• v.4(2); Apr-Jun 2013

The critical steps for successful research: The research proposal and scientific writing: (A report on the pre-conference workshop held in conjunction with the 64 th annual conference of the Indian Pharmaceutical Congress-2012)

Pitchai balakumar.

Pharmacology Unit, Faculty of Pharmacy, AIMST University, Semeling, 08100 Bedong. Kedah Darul Aman, Malaysia

Mohammed Naseeruddin Inamdar

1 Department of Pharmacology, Al-Ameen College of Pharmacy, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India

Gowraganahalli Jagadeesh

2 Division of Cardiovascular and Renal Products, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, USA

An interactive workshop on ‘The Critical Steps for Successful Research: The Research Proposal and Scientific Writing’ was conducted in conjunction with the 64 th Annual Conference of the Indian Pharmaceutical Congress-2012 at Chennai, India. In essence, research is performed to enlighten our understanding of a contemporary issue relevant to the needs of society. To accomplish this, a researcher begins search for a novel topic based on purpose, creativity, critical thinking, and logic. This leads to the fundamental pieces of the research endeavor: Question, objective, hypothesis, experimental tools to test the hypothesis, methodology, and data analysis. When correctly performed, research should produce new knowledge. The four cornerstones of good research are the well-formulated protocol or proposal that is well executed, analyzed, discussed and concluded. This recent workshop educated researchers in the critical steps involved in the development of a scientific idea to its successful execution and eventual publication.

INTRODUCTION

Creativity and critical thinking are of particular importance in scientific research. Basically, research is original investigation undertaken to gain knowledge and understand concepts in major subject areas of specialization, and includes the generation of ideas and information leading to new or substantially improved scientific insights with relevance to the needs of society. Hence, the primary objective of research is to produce new knowledge. Research is both theoretical and empirical. It is theoretical because the starting point of scientific research is the conceptualization of a research topic and development of a research question and hypothesis. Research is empirical (practical) because all of the planned studies involve a series of observations, measurements, and analyses of data that are all based on proper experimental design.[ 1 – 9 ]

The subject of this report is to inform readers of the proceedings from a recent workshop organized by the 64 th Annual conference of the ‘ Indian Pharmaceutical Congress ’ at SRM University, Chennai, India, from 05 to 06 December 2012. The objectives of the workshop titled ‘The Critical Steps for Successful Research: The Research Proposal and Scientific Writing,’ were to assist participants in developing a strong fundamental understanding of how best to develop a research or study protocol, and communicate those research findings in a conference setting or scientific journal. Completing any research project requires meticulous planning, experimental design and execution, and compilation and publication of findings in the form of a research paper. All of these are often unfamiliar to naïve researchers; thus, the purpose of this workshop was to teach participants to master the critical steps involved in the development of an idea to its execution and eventual publication of the results (See the last section for a list of learning objectives).

THE STRUCTURE OF THE WORKSHOP

The two-day workshop was formatted to include key lectures and interactive breakout sessions that focused on protocol development in six subject areas of the pharmaceutical sciences. This was followed by sessions on scientific writing. DAY 1 taught the basic concepts of scientific research, including: (1) how to formulate a topic for research and to describe the what, why , and how of the protocol, (2) biomedical literature search and review, (3) study designs, statistical concepts, and result analyses, and (4) publication ethics. DAY 2 educated the attendees on the basic elements and logistics of writing a scientific paper and thesis, and preparation of poster as well as oral presentations.

The final phase of the workshop was the ‘Panel Discussion,’ including ‘Feedback/Comments’ by participants. There were thirteen distinguished speakers from India and abroad. Approximately 120 post-graduate and pre-doctoral students, young faculty members, and scientists representing industries attended the workshop from different parts of the country. All participants received a printed copy of the workshop manual and supporting materials on statistical analyses of data.

THE BASIC CONCEPTS OF RESEARCH: THE KEY TO GETTING STARTED IN RESEARCH

A research project generally comprises four key components: (1) writing a protocol, (2) performing experiments, (3) tabulating and analyzing data, and (4) writing a thesis or manuscript for publication.

Fundamentals in the research process

A protocol, whether experimental or clinical, serves as a navigator that evolves from a basic outline of the study plan to become a qualified research or grant proposal. It provides the structural support for the research. Dr. G. Jagadeesh (US FDA), the first speaker of the session, spoke on ‘ Fundamentals in research process and cornerstones of a research project .’ He discussed at length the developmental and structural processes in preparing a research protocol. A systematic and step-by-step approach is necessary in planning a study. Without a well-designed protocol, there would be a little chance for successful completion of a research project or an experiment.

Research topic

The first and the foremost difficult task in research is to identify a topic for investigation. The research topic is the keystone of the entire scientific enterprise. It begins the project, drives the entire study, and is crucial for moving the project forward. It dictates the remaining elements of the study [ Table 1 ] and thus, it should not be too narrow or too broad or unfocused. Because of these potential pitfalls, it is essential that a good or novel scientific idea be based on a sound concept. Creativity, critical thinking, and logic are required to generate new concepts and ideas in solving a research problem. Creativity involves critical thinking and is associated with generating many ideas. Critical thinking is analytical, judgmental, and involves evaluating choices before making a decision.[ 4 ] Thus, critical thinking is convergent type thinking that narrows and refines those divergent ideas and finally settles to one idea for an in-depth study. The idea on which a research project is built should be novel, appropriate to achieve within the existing conditions, and useful to the society at large. Therefore, creativity and critical thinking assist biomedical scientists in research that results in funding support, novel discovery, and publication.[ 1 , 4 ]

Elements of a study protocol

Research question

The next most crucial aspect of a study protocol is identifying a research question. It should be a thought-provoking question. The question sets the framework. It emerges from the title, findings/results, and problems observed in previous studies. Thus, mastering the literature, attendance at conferences, and discussion in journal clubs/seminars are sources for developing research questions. Consider the following example in developing related research questions from the research topic.

Hepatoprotective activity of Terminalia arjuna and Apium graveolens on paracetamol-induced liver damage in albino rats.

How is paracetamol metabolized in the body? Does it involve P450 enzymes? How does paracetamol cause liver injury? What are the mechanisms by which drugs can alleviate liver damage? What biochemical parameters are indicative of liver injury? What major endogenous inflammatory molecules are involved in paracetamol-induced liver damage?

A research question is broken down into more precise objectives. The objectives lead to more precise methods and definition of key terms. The objectives should be SMART-Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Time-framed,[ 10 ] and should cover the entire breadth of the project. The objectives are sometimes organized into hierarchies: Primary, secondary, and exploratory; or simply general and specific. Study the following example:

To evaluate the safety and tolerability of single oral doses of compound X in normal volunteers.

To assess the pharmacokinetic profile of compound X following single oral doses.

To evaluate the incidence of peripheral edema reported as an adverse event.

The objectives and research questions are then formulated into a workable or testable hypothesis. The latter forces us to think carefully about what comparisons will be needed to answer the research question, and establishes the format for applying statistical tests to interpret the results. The hypothesis should link a process to an existing or postulated biologic pathway. A hypothesis is written in a form that can yield measurable results. Studies that utilize statistics to compare groups of data should have a hypothesis. Consider the following example:

• The hepatoprotective activity of Terminalia arjuna is superior to that of Apium graveolens against paracetamol-induced liver damage in albino rats.

All biological research, including discovery science, is hypothesis-driven. However, not all studies need be conducted with a hypothesis. For example, descriptive studies (e.g., describing characteristics of a plant, or a chemical compound) do not need a hypothesis.[ 1 ]

Relevance of the study

Another important section to be included in the protocol is ‘significance of the study.’ Its purpose is to justify the need for the research that is being proposed (e.g., development of a vaccine for a disease). In summary, the proposed study should demonstrate that it represents an advancement in understanding and that the eventual results will be meaningful, contribute to the field, and possibly even impact society.

Biomedical literature

A literature search may be defined as the process of examining published sources of information on a research or review topic, thesis, grant application, chemical, drug, disease, or clinical trial, etc. The quantity of information available in print or electronically (e.g., the internet) is immense and growing with time. A researcher should be familiar with the right kinds of databases and search engines to extract the needed information.[ 3 , 6 ]

Dr. P. Balakumar (Institute of Pharmacy, Rajendra Institute of Technology and Sciences, Sirsa, Haryana; currently, Faculty of Pharmacy, AIMST University, Malaysia) spoke on ‘ Biomedical literature: Searching, reviewing and referencing .’ He schematically explained the basis of scientific literature, designing a literature review, and searching literature. After an introduction to the genesis and diverse sources of scientific literature searches, the use of PubMed, one of the premier databases used for biomedical literature searches world-wide, was illustrated with examples and screenshots. Several companion databases and search engines are also used for finding information related to health sciences, and they include Embase, Web of Science, SciFinder, The Cochrane Library, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Scopus, and Google Scholar.[ 3 ] Literature searches using alternative interfaces for PubMed such as GoPubMed, Quertle, PubFocus, Pubget, and BibliMed were discussed. The participants were additionally informed of databases on chemistry, drugs and drug targets, clinical trials, toxicology, and laboratory animals (reviewed in ref[ 3 ]).

Referencing and bibliography are essential in scientific writing and publication.[ 7 ] Referencing systems are broadly classified into two major types, such as Parenthetical and Notation systems. Parenthetical referencing is also known as Harvard style of referencing, while Vancouver referencing style and ‘Footnote’ or ‘Endnote’ are placed under Notation referencing systems. The participants were educated on each referencing system with examples.

Bibliography management

Dr. Raj Rajasekaran (University of California at San Diego, CA, USA) enlightened the audience on ‘ bibliography management ’ using reference management software programs such as Reference Manager ® , Endnote ® , and Zotero ® for creating and formatting bibliographies while writing a manuscript for publication. The discussion focused on the use of bibliography management software in avoiding common mistakes such as incomplete references. Important steps in bibliography management, such as creating reference libraries/databases, searching for references using PubMed/Google scholar, selecting and transferring selected references into a library, inserting citations into a research article and formatting bibliographies, were presented. A demonstration of Zotero®, a freely available reference management program, included the salient features of the software, adding references from PubMed using PubMed ID, inserting citations and formatting using different styles.

Writing experimental protocols

The workshop systematically instructed the participants in writing ‘ experimental protocols ’ in six disciplines of Pharmaceutical Sciences.: (1) Pharmaceutical Chemistry (presented by Dr. P. V. Bharatam, NIPER, Mohali, Punjab); (2) Pharmacology (presented by Dr. G. Jagadeesh and Dr. P. Balakumar); (3) Pharmaceutics (presented by Dr. Jayant Khandare, Piramal Life Sciences, Mumbai); (4) Pharmacy Practice (presented by Dr. Shobha Hiremath, Al-Ameen College of Pharmacy, Bengaluru); (5) Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry (presented by Dr. Salma Khanam, Al-Ameen College of Pharmacy, Bengaluru); and (6) Pharmaceutical Analysis (presented by Dr. Saranjit Singh, NIPER, Mohali, Punjab). The purpose of the research plan is to describe the what (Specific Aims/Objectives), why (Background and Significance), and how (Design and Methods) of the proposal.

The research plan should answer the following questions: (a) what do you intend to do; (b) what has already been done in general, and what have other researchers done in the field; (c) why is this worth doing; (d) how is it innovative; (e) what will this new work add to existing knowledge; and (f) how will the research be accomplished?

In general, the format used by the faculty in all subjects is shown in Table 2 .

Elements of a research protocol

Biostatistics

Biostatistics is a key component of biomedical research. Highly reputed journals like The Lancet, BMJ, Journal of the American Medical Association, and many other biomedical journals include biostatisticians on their editorial board or reviewers list. This indicates that a great importance is given for learning and correctly employing appropriate statistical methods in biomedical research. The post-lunch session on day 1 of the workshop was largely committed to discussion on ‘ Basic biostatistics .’ Dr. R. Raveendran (JIPMER, Puducherry) and Dr. Avijit Hazra (PGIMER, Kolkata) reviewed, in parallel sessions, descriptive statistics, probability concepts, sample size calculation, choosing a statistical test, confidence intervals, hypothesis testing and ‘ P ’ values, parametric and non-parametric statistical tests, including analysis of variance (ANOVA), t tests, Chi-square test, type I and type II errors, correlation and regression, and summary statistics. This was followed by a practice and demonstration session. Statistics CD, compiled by Dr. Raveendran, was distributed to the participants before the session began and was demonstrated live. Both speakers worked on a variety of problems that involved both clinical and experimental data. They discussed through examples the experimental designs encountered in a variety of studies and statistical analyses performed for different types of data. For the benefit of readers, we have summarized statistical tests applied frequently for different experimental designs and post-hoc tests [ Figure 1 ].

Conceptual framework for statistical analyses of data. Of the two kinds of variables, qualitative (categorical) and quantitative (numerical), qualitative variables (nominal or ordinal) are not normally distributed. Numerical data that come from normal distributions are analyzed using parametric tests, if not; the data are analyzed using non-parametric tests. The most popularly used Student's t -test compares the means of two populations, data for this test could be paired or unpaired. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) is used to compare the means of three or more independent populations that are normally distributed. Applying t test repeatedly in pair (multiple comparison), to compare the means of more than two populations, will increase the probability of type I error (false positive). In this case, for proper interpretation, we need to adjust the P values. Repeated measures ANOVA is used to compare the population means if more than two observations coming from same subject over time. The null hypothesis is rejected with a ‘ P ’ value of less than 0.05, and the difference in population means is considered to be statistically significant. Subsequently, appropriate post-hoc tests are used for pairwise comparisons of population means. Two-way or three-way ANOVA are considered if two (diet, dose) or three (diet, dose, strain) independent factors, respectively, are analyzed in an experiment (not described in the Figure). Categorical nominal unmatched variables (counts or frequencies) are analyzed by Chi-square test (not shown in the Figure)

Research and publication ethics

The legitimate pursuit of scientific creativity is unfortunately being marred by a simultaneous increase in scientific misconduct. A disproportionate share of allegations involves scientists of many countries, and even from respected laboratories. Misconduct destroys faith in science and scientists and creates a hierarchy of fraudsters. Investigating misconduct also steals valuable time and resources. In spite of these facts, most researchers are not aware of publication ethics.

Day 1 of the workshop ended with a presentation on ‘ research and publication ethics ’ by Dr. M. K. Unnikrishnan (College of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Manipal University, Manipal). He spoke on the essentials of publication ethics that included plagiarism (attempting to take credit of the work of others), self-plagiarism (multiple publications by an author on the same content of work with slightly different wordings), falsification (manipulation of research data and processes and omitting critical data or results), gift authorship (guest authorship), ghostwriting (someone other than the named author (s) makes a major contribution), salami publishing (publishing many papers, with minor differences, from the same study), and sabotage (distracting the research works of others to halt their research completion). Additionally, Dr. Unnikrishnan pointed out the ‘ Ingelfinger rule ’ of stipulating that a scientist must not submit the same original research in two different journals. He also advised the audience that authorship is not just credit for the work but also responsibility for scientific contents of a paper. Although some Indian Universities are instituting preventive measures (e.g., use of plagiarism detecting software, Shodhganga digital archiving of doctoral theses), Dr. Unnikrishnan argued for a great need to sensitize young researchers on the nature and implications of scientific misconduct. Finally, he discussed methods on how editors and peer reviewers should ethically conduct themselves while managing a manuscript for publication.

SCIENTIFIC COMMUNICATION: THE KEY TO SUCCESSFUL SELLING OF FINDINGS

Research outcomes are measured through quality publications. Scientists must not only ‘do’ science but must ‘write’ science. The story of the project must be told in a clear, simple language weaving in previous work done in the field, answering the research question, and addressing the hypothesis set forth at the beginning of the study. Scientific publication is an organic process of planning, researching, drafting, revising, and updating the current knowledge for future perspectives. Writing a research paper is no easier than the research itself. The lectures of Day 2 of the workshop dealt with the basic elements and logistics of writing a scientific paper.

An overview of paper structure and thesis writing

Dr. Amitabh Prakash (Adis, Auckland, New Zealand) spoke on ‘ Learning how to write a good scientific paper .’ His presentation described the essential components of an original research paper and thesis (e.g., introduction, methods, results, and discussion [IMRaD]) and provided guidance on the correct order, in which data should appear within these sections. The characteristics of a good abstract and title and the creation of appropriate key words were discussed. Dr. Prakash suggested that the ‘title of a paper’ might perhaps have a chance to make a good impression, and the title might be either indicative (title that gives the purpose of the study) or declarative (title that gives the study conclusion). He also suggested that an abstract is a succinct summary of a research paper, and it should be specific, clear, and concise, and should have IMRaD structure in brief, followed by key words. Selection of appropriate papers to be cited in the reference list was also discussed. Various unethical authorships were enumerated, and ‘The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship’ was explained ( http://www.icmje.org/ethical_1author.html ; also see Table 1 in reference #9). The session highlighted the need for transparency in medical publication and provided a clear description of items that needed to be included in the ‘Disclosures’ section (e.g., sources of funding for the study and potential conflicts of interest of all authors, etc.) and ‘Acknowledgements’ section (e.g., writing assistance and input from all individuals who did not meet the authorship criteria). The final part of the presentation was devoted to thesis writing, and Dr. Prakash provided the audience with a list of common mistakes that are frequently encountered when writing a manuscript.

The backbone of a study is description of results through Text, Tables, and Figures. Dr. S. B. Deshpande (Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India) spoke on ‘ Effective Presentation of Results .’ The Results section deals with the observations made by the authors and thus, is not hypothetical. This section is subdivided into three segments, that is, descriptive form of the Text, providing numerical data in Tables, and visualizing the observations in Graphs or Figures. All these are arranged in a sequential order to address the question hypothesized in the Introduction. The description in Text provides clear content of the findings highlighting the observations. It should not be the repetition of facts in tables or graphs. Tables are used to summarize or emphasize descriptive content in the text or to present the numerical data that are unrelated. Illustrations should be used when the evidence bearing on the conclusions of a paper cannot be adequately presented in a written description or in a Table. Tables or Figures should relate to each other logically in sequence and should be clear by themselves. Furthermore, the discussion is based entirely on these observations. Additionally, how the results are applied to further research in the field to advance our understanding of research questions was discussed.

Dr. Peush Sahni (All-India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi) spoke on effectively ‘ structuring the Discussion ’ for a research paper. The Discussion section deals with a systematic interpretation of study results within the available knowledge. He said the section should begin with the most important point relating to the subject studied, focusing on key issues, providing link sentences between paragraphs, and ensuring the flow of text. Points were made to avoid history, not repeat all the results, and provide limitations of the study. The strengths and novel findings of the study should be provided in the discussion, and it should open avenues for future research and new questions. The Discussion section should end with a conclusion stating the summary of key findings. Dr. Sahni gave an example from a published paper for writing a Discussion. In another presentation titled ‘ Writing an effective title and the abstract ,’ Dr. Sahni described the important components of a good title, such as, it should be simple, concise, informative, interesting and eye-catching, accurate and specific about the paper's content, and should state the subject in full indicating study design and animal species. Dr. Sahni explained structured (IMRaD) and unstructured abstracts and discussed a few selected examples with the audience.

Language and style in publication

The next lecture of Dr. Amitabh Prakash on ‘ Language and style in scientific writing: Importance of terseness, shortness and clarity in writing ’ focused on the actual sentence construction, language, grammar and punctuation in scientific manuscripts. His presentation emphasized the importance of brevity and clarity in the writing of manuscripts describing biomedical research. Starting with a guide to the appropriate construction of sentences and paragraphs, attendees were given a brief overview of the correct use of punctuation with interactive examples. Dr. Prakash discussed common errors in grammar and proactively sought audience participation in correcting some examples. Additional discussion was centered on discouraging the use of redundant and expendable words, jargon, and the use of adjectives with incomparable words. The session ended with a discussion of words and phrases that are commonly misused (e.g., data vs . datum, affect vs . effect, among vs . between, dose vs . dosage, and efficacy/efficacious vs . effective/effectiveness) in biomedical research manuscripts.

Working with journals

The appropriateness in selecting the journal for submission and acceptance of the manuscript should be determined by the experience of an author. The corresponding author must have a rationale in choosing the appropriate journal, and this depends upon the scope of the study and the quality of work performed. Dr. Amitabh Prakash spoke on ‘ Working with journals: Selecting a journal, cover letter, peer review process and impact factor ’ by instructing the audience in assessing the true value of a journal, understanding principles involved in the peer review processes, providing tips on making an initial approach to the editorial office, and drafting an appropriate cover letter to accompany the submission. His presentation defined the metrics that are most commonly used to measure journal quality (e.g., impact factor™, Eigenfactor™ score, Article Influence™ score, SCOPUS 2-year citation data, SCImago Journal Rank, h-Index, etc.) and guided attendees on the relative advantages and disadvantages of using each metric. Factors to consider when assessing journal quality were discussed, and the audience was educated on the ‘green’ and ‘gold’ open access publication models. Various peer review models (e.g., double-blind, single-blind, non-blind) were described together with the role of the journal editor in assessing manuscripts and selecting suitable reviewers. A typical checklist sent to referees was shared with the attendees, and clear guidance was provided on the best way to address referee feedback. The session concluded with a discussion of the potential drawbacks of the current peer review system.

Poster and oral presentations at conferences

Posters have become an increasingly popular mode of presentation at conferences, as it can accommodate more papers per meeting, has no time constraint, provides a better presenter-audience interaction, and allows one to select and attend papers of interest. In Figure 2 , we provide instructions, design, and layout in preparing a scientific poster. In the final presentation, Dr. Sahni provided the audience with step-by-step instructions on how to write and format posters for layout, content, font size, color, and graphics. Attendees were given specific guidance on the format of text on slides, the use of color, font type and size, and the use of illustrations and multimedia effects. Moreover, the importance of practical tips while delivering oral or poster presentation was provided to the audience, such as speak slowly and clearly, be informative, maintain eye contact, and listen to the questions from judges/audience carefully before coming up with an answer.

Guidelines and design to scientific poster presentation. The objective of scientific posters is to present laboratory work in scientific meetings. A poster is an excellent means of communicating scientific work, because it is a graphic representation of data. Posters should have focus points, and the intended message should be clearly conveyed through simple sections: Text, Tables, and Graphs. Posters should be clear, succinct, striking, and eye-catching. Colors should be used only where necessary. Use one font (Arial or Times New Roman) throughout. Fancy fonts should be avoided. All headings should have font size of 44, and be in bold capital letters. Size of Title may be a bit larger; subheading: Font size of 36, bold and caps. References and Acknowledgments, if any, should have font size of 24. Text should have font size between 24 and 30, in order to be legible from a distance of 3 to 6 feet. Do not use lengthy notes

PANEL DISCUSSION: FEEDBACK AND COMMENTS BY PARTICIPANTS

After all the presentations were made, Dr. Jagadeesh began a panel discussion that included all speakers. The discussion was aimed at what we do currently and could do in the future with respect to ‘developing a research question and then writing an effective thesis proposal/protocol followed by publication.’ Dr. Jagadeesh asked the following questions to the panelists, while receiving questions/suggestions from the participants and panelists.

• Does a Post-Graduate or Ph.D. student receive adequate training, either through an institutional course, a workshop of the present nature, or from the guide?
• Are these Post-Graduates self-taught (like most of us who learnt the hard way)?
• How are these guides trained? How do we train them to become more efficient mentors?
• Does a Post-Graduate or Ph.D. student struggle to find a method (s) to carry out studies? To what extent do seniors/guides help a post graduate overcome technical difficulties? How difficult is it for a student to find chemicals, reagents, instruments, and technical help in conducting studies?
• Analyses of data and interpretation: Most students struggle without adequate guidance.
• Thesis and publications frequently feature inadequate/incorrect statistical analyses and representation of data in tables/graphs. The student, their guide, and the reviewers all share equal responsibility.
• Who initiates and drafts the research paper? The Post-Graduate or their guide?
• What kind of assistance does a Post-Graduate get from the guide in finalizing a paper for publication?
• Does the guide insist that each Post-Graduate thesis yield at least one paper, and each Ph.D. thesis more than two papers, plus a review article?

The panelists and audience expressed a variety of views, but were unable to arrive at a decisive conclusion.

WHAT HAVE THE PARTICIPANTS LEARNED?

At the end of this fast-moving two-day workshop, the participants had opportunities in learning the following topics:

• Sequential steps in developing a study protocol, from choosing a research topic to developing research questions and a hypothesis.
• Study protocols on different topics in their subject of specialization
• Searching and reviewing the literature
• Appropriate statistical analyses in biomedical research
• Scientific ethics in publication
• Writing and understanding the components of a research paper (IMRaD)
• Recognizing the value of good title, running title, abstract, key words, etc
• Importance of Tables and Figures in the Results section, and their importance in describing findings
• Evidence-based Discussion in a research paper
• Language and style in writing a paper and expert tips on getting it published
• Presentation of research findings at a conference (oral and poster).

Overall, the workshop was deemed very helpful to participants. The participants rated the quality of workshop from “ satisfied ” to “ very satisfied .” A significant number of participants were of the opinion that the time allotted for each presentation was short and thus, be extended from the present two days to four days with adequate time to ask questions. In addition, a ‘hands-on’ session should be introduced for writing a proposal and manuscript. A large number of attendees expressed their desire to attend a similar workshop, if conducted, in the near future.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

We gratefully express our gratitude to the Organizing Committee, especially Professors K. Chinnasamy, B. G. Shivananda, N. Udupa, Jerad Suresh, Padma Parekh, A. P. Basavarajappa, Mr. S. V. Veerramani, Mr. J. Jayaseelan, and all volunteers of the SRM University. We thank Dr. Thomas Papoian (US FDA) for helpful comments on the manuscript.

The opinions expressed herein are those of Gowraganahalli Jagadeesh and do not necessarily reflect those of the US Food and Drug Administration

Source of Support: Nil

Conflict of Interest: None declared.

Stanford Research Development Office

What Makes a Successful Proposal

Grant proposals are a distinct genre compared to other academic writing. At its heart, a compelling proposal focuses on posing an exciting research question or problem and offering a convincing narrative for how you will use grant funds to answer or solve it. 

Strong proposals typically exhibit several key characteristics:

• Define a specific, compelling, and carefully vetted concept.
• Explain its relevance to the academic community and society.
• Highlight the potential impact and why the research is timely and necessary.
• Present an innovative and original approach or access to a new corpus/data.
• Some funding programs are more interested in incremental accomplishments, while others (many that we work with) want more transformative potential.
• Provide a well-defined and practical plan for carrying out the project, including contingency plans.
• Clearly outline as applicable the research design, theoretical approach, data collection methods, analysis techniques, and include necessary preliminary data or proof of concept to demonstrate feasibility.
• Establish clear, achievable goals and objectives.
• Outline a realistic timeline with milestones.
• Provide a strategy for continuous evaluation and adaptation.
• Highlight the expertise of a well-rounded project team with clear roles and responsibilities in the project.
• Demonstrate strong collaboration and cohesion within the team, showcasing previous related work and publications to reinforce credibility.
• Tailor the proposal to align with the program’s objectives and priorities.
• Show how the research fits within the broader mission of the funding agency.
• Write concisely and avoid jargon. Define specialized terminology if necessary.
• Ensure that the proposal is accessible to a diverse audience, including non-specialists who may be involved in the review process.
• Use storytelling techniques to create a compelling narrative.
• Incorporate visual elements, such as graphics, charts, and figures, to effectively convey complex information.
• Provide a detailed and realistic budget, demonstrating a clear understanding of resource needs.
• Justify all expenses, showing how they support the project's success.
• Outline how you will share results with the academic community and beyond.
• Include plans for publications, conferences, and using other dissemination channels.
• Strictly follow the funder’s guidelines, ensuring all required components, including supporting documents and signatures, are included.
• Consider using strategic formatting elements, such as headers, bold text, and figures or tables, to make key elements easy to locate.

Addressing these key characteristics will help position your proposal for success. The Stanford Research Development Office is here to work with you throughout the process, from developing a compelling narrative to ensuring alignment with funder priorities. Our team offers expert guidance, resources, and support to enhance the competitiveness of your proposal for external funding.

Contact us at  [email protected] to learn how we can help you.

Created: 02/06/24

Updated: 09/12/24

Transform teamwork with Confluence. See why Confluence is the content collaboration hub for all teams.  Get it free

• Project management
• Project planning
• Proposal outline

What is a project proposal outline? Steps and best practices

Browse topics.

Every significant project begins with a proposal. But before you learn how to write a project proposal , you must master how to build an effective outline. 

To create a project proposal outline, start by understanding the project goal and scope , its key stakeholders, their concerns, and the project's anticipated benefits. This will help provide a framework for the outline.

This article explores the importance and key components of a project proposal outline, highlights best practices for creating a solid outline, and explains how to write one. Write your project proposal outline in Confluence for free.

Understanding a project proposal outline

A project proposal outline aims to clearly explain a project in a way that convinces readers to support it. An effective project proposal outline is essential to strategic planning and influences your company’s decision-making process . 

To create an effective project proposal outline, you must understand the stakeholders' primary goals and concerns. Draft your proposal outline to align with and address what those stakeholders care about and can expect from your project. 

That effort begins with the outline’s title, which should persuade your audience to continue reading the outline. This approach will result in a project proposal outline that engages and persuades participants, stakeholders, and influencers to support your project.

Types of proposals

There are multiple types of project proposals, including academic proposals, business proposals, project proposals, and research proposals. 

• Academic proposals intend to gain support for creating a specific dissertation, research paper, or thesis. 
• Business proposals aim to secure funding from investors, persuade clients to sign a contract or gain support for a project. 
• Research proposals aim to gain resources and support for a specific research project. 
• Project proposals intend to garner support for a particular project from colleagues, decision-makers, and stakeholders. 

The structure and components of each project proposal outline may vary depending on the type of proposal involved. Most of your proposals will likely be project management proposals, which aim to address a specific operational business need or pursue a specific business opportunity.

Components of a proposal outline

Every project proposal outline should include several key components. Use this project proposal format to write an effective outline: 

• Title : Give your outline a title that captures the critical focus of your project. Don’t try to summarize the entire project; instead, provide a few words of incentive for people to continue reading the outline.
• Executive summary : This succinct project proposal overview focuses on its goals, objectives, and anticipated outcomes. This should be no more than one to two short paragraphs.
• Introduction : This section should cover the same grounds as the executive summary and provide more details centered on the content of the proposal outline. It should be brief and encourage further reading.
• Problem statement : Include a brief, clear statement of the business problem or opportunity the proposed project intends to address.
• Objectives : Provide details of the specific goals of the proposed project. Focus on stakeholder and company-wide benefits.
• Methodology : Briefly describe how the proposed project will achieve its objectives. Give information on which roles and teams will be active participants, and list all stakeholders.
• Budget : Detail the money, people, and other resources needed to complete the proposed project successfully. Where appropriate, include information about the source or sources of budgeted resources.
• Timeline : Detail the planned schedule for all stages of the proposed project. Highlight any anticipated decision or inflection points.
• Evaluation : Describe how you’ll evaluate the results and outcomes of the proposed project and what the next steps will be.
• Conclusion : Summarize the key points and include a call to action requesting feedback and questions from readers.
• Appendices : Add any appropriate supporting documents and links to online resources. Label each appendix and include a brief description of why you included it.

Steps to create a project proposal outline

Now that you have a usable structure, you can start creating your outline. Here’s a summary of the critical steps.

Conduct preliminary research

Start by researching your audience, their primary goals and concerns, and how your proposed project can align most closely with these. Gather information through surveys, interviews, and informal conversations to shape the structure and content of your proposal outline.

Take good notes and record conversations where possible, which will help ensure you capture all the valuable information your research unearths.

Structure the outline

Structure your outline by using your primary research and the list of components above. Organize information logically and create headings and subheadings for each section to help enhance readability. Focus on presenting your project proposal outline clearly and concisely.

Write the proposal outline

Once you have a structure in place, start writing. Draft each section in clear and professional language while incorporating terms familiar to or essential to your primary audience wherever appropriate. 

Review and revise each outline section to achieve maximum accuracy and completeness. If time and circumstances permit, try to get at least one or two members of your primary audience to review and comment on your outline before developing and sharing your final version.

Best practices for creating proposal outlines

When creating a project proposal outline, it’s crucial to keep your work concise, focused, and aligned with your goals and objectives (and those of your primary audience). Use familiar, comfortable language and include credible supporting data within the body of your outline or as appendices. Use consistent formatting and fonts to prevent visual disruption and focus your readers’ experience on the content of your outline.

Create effective project proposal outlines with Confluence

The right software can ease and speed up your entire project proposal creation process, including collaborative review and editing. This is where Confluence shines.

Confluence brings everyone together in a connected workspace to move projects forward. Teams can create, edit, and share project plans so everyone is on the same page. Every project, proposal, and outline can include multiple types of information, including action items, assignees, dates, tables, and more.  Confluence offers a range of available templates, including a project proposal template , to help you start quickly and efficiently. Explore the project poster template in Confluence, and use Confluence to write your project proposal outline for free .

Proposal outline: Frequently asked questions

Why is a proposal outline important.

A project proposal outline helps you organize your thoughts and ensure that you cover all critical points. It also makes the writing process more efficient and enables you to clearly communicate the proposal's objectives and methodology to reviewers and stakeholders. A solid project proposal outline can benefit all of your project management phases , including project planning .

Can you use the same proposal outline for different types of proposals?

You can use the same basic proposal outline structure for different types of proposals. Tailor each outline to fit the specific context and goals of each proposal and the needs and expectations of your primary audience and stakeholders. Primary research can help you select the best proposal type and structure for your specific outline.

What common mistakes should you avoid when creating a proposal outline?

Some common mistakes to avoid when creating a proposal outline include overloading the outline with information, unclear directions, or a lack of precision. Others include ignoring your primary audience's needs and expectations, lack of cohesion, and poor information flow.

Sticking closely to a well-crafted structure such as the one outlined in this article can help you avoid these and other pitfalls. Soliciting reviews and comments from select audience members and stakeholders while crafting your outline can help ensure that your final version resonates with and positively persuades your audience.

You may also like

Project poster template.

A collaborative one-pager that keeps your project team and stakeholders aligned

Project Management templates collection

Use this collection of Confluence templates to create and execute a project

Enable faster content collaboration for every team with Confluence

Copyright © 2024 Atlassian

• Systematic review
• Open access
• Published: 11 September 2024

Evaluation of research co-design in health: a systematic overview of reviews and development of a framework

• Sanne Peters   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6235-1752 1 ,
• Lisa Guccione 2 , 3 ,
• Jill Francis 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ,
• Stephanie Best 1 , 2 , 3 , 5 ,
• Emma Tavender 6 , 7 ,
• Janet Curran 8 , 9 ,
• Katie Davies 10 ,
• Stephanie Rowe 1 , 8 ,
• Victoria J. Palmer 11 &
• Marlena Klaic 1  

Implementation Science volume  19 , Article number:  63 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

13 Altmetric

Metrics details

Co-design with consumers and healthcare professionals is widely used in applied health research. While this approach appears to be ethically the right thing to do, a rigorous evaluation of its process and impact is frequently missing. Evaluation of research co-design is important to identify areas of improvement in the methods and processes, as well as to determine whether research co-design leads to better outcomes. We aimed to build on current literature to develop a framework to assist researchers with the evaluation of co-design processes and impacts.

A multifaceted, iterative approach, including three steps, was undertaken to develop a Co-design Evaluation Framework: 1) A systematic overview of reviews; 2) Stakeholder panel meetings to discuss and debate findings from the overview of reviews and 3) Consensus meeting with stakeholder panel. The systematic overview of reviews included relevant papers published between 2000 and 2022. OVID (Medline, Embase, PsycINFO), EBSCOhost (Cinahl) and the Cochrane Database of Systematic reviews were searched for papers that reported co-design evaluation or outcomes in health research. Extracted data was inductively analysed and evaluation themes were identified. Review findings were presented to a stakeholder panel, including consumers, healthcare professionals and researchers, to interpret and critique. A consensus meeting, including a nominal group technique, was applied to agree upon the Co-design Evaluation Framework.

A total of 51 reviews were included in the systematic overview of reviews. Fifteen evaluation themes were identified and grouped into the following seven clusters: People (within co-design group), group processes, research processes, co-design context, people (outside co-design group), system and sustainment. If evaluation methods were mentioned, they mainly included qualitative data, informal consumer feedback and researchers’ reflections. The Co-Design Evaluation Framework used a tree metaphor to represent the processes and people in the co-design group (below-ground), underpinning system- and people-level outcomes beyond the co-design group (above-ground). To evaluate research co-design, researchers may wish to consider any or all components in the tree.

Conclusions

The Co-Design Evaluation Framework has been collaboratively developed with various stakeholders to be used prospectively (planning for evaluation), concurrently (making adjustments during the co-design process) and retrospectively (reviewing past co-design efforts to inform future activities).

Peer Review reports

Contributions to the literature

While stakeholder engagement in research seems ethically the right thing to do, a rigorous evaluation of its process and outcomes is frequently missing.

Fifteen evaluation themes were identified in the literature, of which research process , cognitive and emotional factors were the most frequently reported.

The Co-design Evaluation Framework can assist researchers with research co-design evaluation and provide guidance regarding what and when to evaluate.

The framework can be used prospectively, concurrently, and retrospectively to make improvements to existing and future research co-design projects.

Introduction

Lots of money is wasted in health research that does not lead to meaningful benefits for end-users, such as healthcare professionals and consumers [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. One contributor to this waste is that research often focusses on questions and outcomes that are of limited importance to end-users [ 4 , 5 ]. Engaging relevant people in research co-design has increased in order to respond to this issue. There is a lack of consensus in the literature on the definition and processes involved in undertaking a co-design approach. For the purposes of this review, we define research co-design as meaningful end-user engagement that occurs across any stage of the research process , from the research planning phase to dissemination of research findings [ 6 ]. Meaningful end-user engagement refers to an explicit and measurable responsibility, such as contributing to writing a study proposal [ 6 ]. The variety of research co-design methods can be seen as a continuum ranging from limited involvement, such as consulting with end-users, to the much higher effort research approaches in which end-users and researchers aim for equal decision-making power and responsibility across the entire research process [ 6 ]. Irrespective of the intensity of involvement, it is generally recommended that a co-design approach should be based on several important principles such as equity, inclusion and shared ownership [ 7 ].

Over time, increasing attention has been given to research co-design [ 6 , 8 ]. Funding bodies encourage its use and it is recommended in the updated UK MRC framework on developing and evaluating complex interventions [ 9 ]. End-user engagement has an Equator reporting checklist [ 10 ] and related work has been reported by key organisations, such as the James Lind Alliance in the UK ( www.jla.nihr.ac.uk ), Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute in the US ( www.pcori.org ) and Canadian Institutes of Health Research ( https://cihrirsc.gc.ca/e/41592.html ). In addition, peer reviewed publications involving co-design have risen from 173 per year in 2000 to 2617 in 2022 (PubMed), suggesting a growing importance in research activities.

Engaging end-users in the health research process is arguably the right thing to do, but the processes and outcomes of co-design have rarely been evaluated in a rigorous way [ 6 ]. Existing anecdotal evidence suggests that research co-design can benefit researchers, end-users and lead to more robust research processes [ 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 ]. Both researchers and end-users have reported positive experiences of engaging in the co-design process. Potential benefits include a better understanding of community needs, more applicable research questions, designs and materials and improved trust between the researchers and end-users. Several reviews on conducting research co-design have concluded that co-design can be feasible, though predominantly used in the early phases of research, for example formulating research questions and developing a study protocol [ 6 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 ]. However, these reviews highlighted that engagement of end-users in the research process required extra time and funding and had the risk of becoming tokenistic [ 6 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 ].

The use of resources in co-design studies might need to be justified to the funder as well as its impacts. A rigorous evaluation of research co-design processes and outcomes is needed to identify areas of potential improvement and to determine the impact of research co-design. Several overviews of reviews on research co-design have been published but with no or limited focus on evaluation [ 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 ]. Moreover, current literature provides little guidance around how and what to evaluate, and which outcomes are key.

This study thus had two aims:

To conduct a systematic overview of reviews to identify evaluation methods and process and outcome variables reported in the published health research co-design literature.

To develop a framework to assist researchers with the evaluation of co-design processes and impacts.

This project used a multifaceted, iterative approach to develop a Co-design Evaluation Framework. It consisted of the following steps: 1) A systematic overview of reviews; 2) Stakeholder panel meetings to discuss and debate findings from the overview of reviews and 3) Consensus meeting with stakeholder panel. The reporting checklist for overviews of reviews was applied in Additional file 1 [ 24 ].

Step 1: A systematic overview of reviews

We conducted a systematic overview of reviews [ 25 ], reviewing literature reviews rather than primary studies, to investigate the following question: What is known in the published literature about the evaluation of research co-design in health research? The protocol of our systematic overview of reviews was published in the PROSPERO database (CRD42022355338).

Sub questions:

What has been co-designed and what were the objectives of the co-design process?

Who was involved and what was the level of involvement?

What methods were used to evaluate the co-design processes and outcomes?

What was evaluated (outcome and process measures) and at what timepoint (for example concurrently, or after, the co-design process)?

Was a co-design evaluation framework used to guide evaluation?

Search strategy

We searched OVID (Medline, Embase, PsycINFO), EBSCOhost (Cinahl) and the Cochrane Database of Systematic reviews on the 11th of October 2022 for literature reviews that reported co-design evaluation or outcomes in health research. The search strategy was based on previous reviews on co-design [ 6 , 14 , 26 ] and refined with the assistance of a research librarian and the research team (search terms in Additional file 2). Papers published from January 2000 to September 2022 were identified and retrieved by one author (SP).

Study selection

Database records were imported into EndNote X9 (The EndNote Team, Philadelphia, 2013) and duplicates removed. We managed the study selection process in the software program Covidence (Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia). Two independent reviewers (SP, MK or LG) screened the titles and abstracts of all studies against the eligibility criteria (Table  1 ). Discrepancies were resolved through discussion or with a third reviewer (either SP, MK or LG, depending on which 2 reviewers disagreed). If there was insufficient information in the abstract to decide about eligibility, the paper was retained to the full-text screening phase. Full-text versions of studies not excluded at the title and abstract screening phase were retrieved and independently screened by two reviewers (SP, MK or LG) against eligibility criteria. Disagreements were resolved through discussion, or with a third reviewer, and recorded in Covidence.

Data extraction of included papers was conducted by one of three reviewers (SP, MK or LG). A second reviewer checked a random sample of 20% of all extracted data (LG or SP). Disagreements were resolved through regular discussion. Data were extracted using an excel spreadsheet developed by the research team and included review characteristics (such as references, type of review, number of included studies, review aim), details about the co-design process (such as who was involved in the co-design, which topics the co-design focused on, what research phase(s) the co-design covered, in which research phase the co-design took place and what the end-users’ level of involvement was) and details about the co-design evaluation (what outcomes were reported, methods of data collection, who the participants of the evaluation were, the timepoint of evaluation, whether an evaluation framework was used or developed and conclusions about co-design evaluation).

Types of end-users’ involvement were categorised into four groups based on the categories proposed by Hughes et al. (2018): 1. Targeted consultation; 2. Embedded consultation; 3. Collaboration and co-production and 4. User-led research, see Table  2 .

Data extraction and analysis took place in three iterative phases (Fig.  1 ), with each phase containing one third of the included studies. Each phase of data extraction and analysis was followed by stakeholder panel meetings (see step 2 below). This stepwise approach enabled a form of triangulation wherein themes that emerged through each phase were discussed with the stakeholder panel and incorporated both retrospectively (re-coding data in the prior phase) and prospectively (coding new data in the next phase).

Iterative phases in the process of the Co-design evaluation framework development

All reported outcomes of research co-design in the first phase (one third of all data) were inductively coded into themes, according to the principles of thematic analysis [ 28 ]. Two researchers (SP and MK) double coded 10% of all data and reached consensus through discussion. Given that consensus was high, one researcher (SP) continued the coding while having frequent discussions and reviews within the research team. In phase 2 (also one third of all data), deductive coding was based on the themes identified in the first round. Data of the first phase were re-coded, if new codes emerged during the stakeholder panel meeting. The same process took place for the third phase.

Step 2: Stakeholder panel meetings to discuss and debate findings from the overview of reviews

Results from step 1 were presented to the stakeholder panel to interpret and critique the review findings. The panel consisted of ten people, including a mix of consumers, healthcare professionals and researchers. Stakeholders were selected for their experience or expertise in research co-design. The number of meetings was not pre-determined, rather, it was informed by the outcomes from step 1. The number of stakeholders in each meeting ranged from six to ten.

A core group from the broader stakeholder panel (SP, MK, LG, JF) with a breadth of research experience and methodological expertise discussed the themes arising from both steps 1 and 2 and considered various ways of presenting them. Multiple design options were considered and preliminary frameworks were developed. Following discussion with the stakeholder panel, it was agreed that the evaluation themes could be grouped into several clusters to make the framework more comprehensible. The grouping of evaluation themes into clusters was informed by reported proposed associations between evaluation themes in the literature as well as the stakeholder panel’s co-design experience and expertise. Evaluation themes as well as clusters were agreed upon during the stakeholder panel meetings.

Step 3: Consensus meeting with stakeholder panel

The consensus meeting included the same stakeholder panel as in step 2. The meeting was informed by a modified Nominal Group Technique (NGT). The NGT is a structured process for obtaining information and reaching consensus with a target group who have some association or experience with the topic [ 29 ]. Various adaptations of the NGT have been used and additional pre-meeting information has been suggested to enable more time for participants to consider their contribution to the topic [ 30 ]. The modified NGT utilised in this study contained the following: (i) identification of group members to include experts with depth and diverse experiences. They were purposively identified at the start of this study for their expertise or experience in research co-design and included: a patient consumer, a clinician, three clinician researchers and six researchers with backgrounds in behavioural sciences, psychology, education, applied ethics and participatory design. All authors on this paper were invited by e-mail to attend an online meeting; (ii) provision of information prior to the group meeting included findings of the overview of reviews, a draft framework and objectives of the meeting. Five authors with extensive research co-design experience were asked to prepare a case example of one of their co-design projects for sharing at the group meeting. The intention of this exercise was to discuss the fit between a real-world example and the proposed framework; (iii) hybrid meeting facilitated by two researchers (SP & JF) who have experience in facilitating consensus meetings. Following presentation of the meeting materials, including the preliminary framework, group members were invited to silently consider the preliminary framework and generate ideas and critiques; iv) participants sharing their ideas and critiques; v) clarification process where group members shared their co-design example project and discussed the fit with components of the initial framework, and vi) silent voting and/or agreement on the framework via a personal email to one of the researchers (SP).

Step 1: Systematic overview of reviews

The database searches identified a total of 8912 papers. After removing 3016 duplicates and screening 5896 titles and abstracts, 148 full texts were sought for retrieval. Sixteen were not retrieved as they were not available in English ( n  = 2) or full-text was not available ( n  = 14). Of the remaining 132 papers assessed for eligibility, 81 were excluded. The final number of papers included in this overview of reviews was 51 (See Fig.  2 ).

PRISMA flow chart (based on [ 31 ]) of overview of reviews

Characteristics of the included studies

Of the 51 included reviews [ 11 , 12 , 14 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 ], 17 were systematic reviews, 12 were scoping reviews, 14 did not report the type or method of review, three were narrative reviews, two were qualitative evidence synthesis, another two were a structured literature search and one was a realist review. The number of studies included in the reviews ranged from 7 to 260. Nineteen reviews focused on co-design with specific populations, for example older people, people with intellectual disabilities, people living with dementia and 32 reviews included co-design with a range of end-users. The co-design focused in most cases on a mix of topics ( n  = 31). Some reviews were specifically about one clinical topic, for example critical care or dementia. In ten cases, the clinical topics were not reported. Co-design took place during multiple research phases. Thirty-six reviews covered co-design in agenda/priority setting, 36 in study design, 30 in data collection, 25 in data analysis and 27 in dissemination. With regards to the research translation continuum, most of the co-design was reported in practice and community-based research ( n  = 32), three reviews were conducted in basic research and 11 in human research. The types of end-users’ involvement in co-design ranged from targeted consultation ( n  = 14) to embedded consultation ( n  = 20), collaboration and co-production ( n  = 14) to end-user- led research ( n  = 6), including papers covering multiple types of involvement. Seventeen papers did not report the types of involvement. The reported co-design included a variety of time commitments, from a minimum of a one-off 60-min meeting to multiple meetings over multiple years. Twenty-seven reviews did not report details about the end-users’ types of involvement.

Identified evaluation themes

Fifteen evaluation themes were identified and were arranged into two higher level groups: 1. within the co-design team and 2. broader than co-design team (Table  3 ). The themes related to the first group (within the co-design team) included: Structure and composition of the co-design group, contextual enablers/barriers, interrelationships between group members, decision making process, emotional factors, cognitive factors, value proposition, level/ quality of engagement, research process, health outcomes for co-design group and sustainment of the co-design team or activities. The themes within the second group (broader than co-design team) included: Healthcare professional-level outcomes, healthcare system level outcomes, organisational level outcomes and patient and community outcomes.

The research process was the most frequently reported evaluation theme in the reviews ( n  = 44, 86% of reviews), followed by cognitive factors ( n  = 35, 69%) and emotional factors ( n  = 34, 67%) (Table  4 ). Due to variability in reporting practices, it was not possible to specify the number of primary studies that reported specific evaluation themes. Evaluation methods for the themes were not reported in the majority of reviews ( n  = 43, 84%). If evaluation methods were mentioned, they were mainly based on qualitative data, including interviews, focus groups, field notes, document reviews and observations (see overview with references in Additional file 3). Survey data was mentioned in three reviews. Many reviews reported informal evaluation based on participant experiences (e.g. informal feedback), reflection meetings, narrative reflections and authors’ hypotheses (Additional file 3). The timing of the evaluation was only mentioned in two papers: 1. Before and after the co-design activities and 2. Post co-design activities. One paper suggested that continuous evaluation might be helpful to improve the co-design process (Additional file 3).

The systematic overview of reviews found that some authors reported proposed positive associations between evaluation themes (Table  5 ). The most frequently reported proposed association was between level/quality of engagement and emotional factors ( n  = 5, 10%). However, these proposed associations did not seem to have any empirical evidence and evaluation methods were not reported.

All evaluation themes were grouped into the following clusters (Table  6 ): People (within co-design group), group processes, research processes, co-design context, people (outside co-design group), system and sustainment.

Only one paper reported the evaluation in connection to the research phases (Agenda/priority setting, study design, data collection, data analysis and dissemination). This paper reported the following outcomes for the following research phases [ 58 ]:

Agenda/priority setting: Research process; Level/quality of engagement; Cognitive factors; Attributes of the co-design group; Interrelationships between group members; Sustainment of the co-design team or activities; Patient and community outcomes.

Study design: Attributes of the co-design group; Interrelationships between group members; Level/quality of engagement; Cognitive factors; Emotional factors; Research process.

The various research phases in which consumers could be involved, as well as the clusters of evaluation themes, informed the design of the co-design evaluation framework.

Two main options were voted on and discussed within the stakeholder panel. The two main options can be found in Additional file 4. Draft 2 was the prefered option as it was perceived as more dynamic than draft 1, representing a clearer interplay between the two contexts. The stakeholder panel suggested a few edits to the draft, such as the inclusion of bi-directional arrows in the tree trunk and a vertical arrow from underground to above ground with the label ‘impact’.

The final version of the Co-design Evaluation framework is presented in Fig.  3 .

Research Co-design evaluation framework

Figure  3 presents co-design evaluation as the below-ground and above-ground structures of a tree. The tree metaphor presents the processes and people in the co-design group (below-ground) as the basis for system- and people-level outcomes beyond the co-design group (above-ground). To evaluate research co-design, researchers may wish to consider any or all components in this Figure. These evaluation components relate to the methods, processes, and outcomes of consumer involvement in research.

The context within the co-design group (the roots of the tree) consists of the people, group processes and research processes, with various evaluation themes (dot points) related to them, as well as contextual barriers and enablers that relate to situational aspects that might enable or hinder consumer engagement. The context outside the co-design group, i.e., the wider community (the branches and leaves of the tree), comprises people who were not involved in the research co-design process, the system-level and sustainment-related outcomes. These above ground groups are potential beneficiaries or targets of the co-design activities.

The arrows in the middle of the trunk represent the potential mutual influence of the two contexts, suggesting that an iterative approach to evaluation might be beneficial. For example, when deciding the composition of the co-design group, it may be important to have an appropriate representation of the people most impacted by the problem issue or topic at hand. Or, if a co-designed healthcare intervention does not achieve the desired outcomes in the wider context, the co-design group might consider potential ways to improve the intervention or how it was delivered. Evaluation of a research co-design process might start with the foundations (the roots of the tree) and progress to above ground (the tree grows and might develop fruit). Yet, depending on the aim of the evaluation, a focus on one of the two contexts, either below or above ground, might be appropriate.

Which, and how many, components are appropriate to evaluate depends on the nature of the co-design approach and the key questions of the evaluation. For example, if a co-design approach is used in the very early stages of a research program, perhaps to identify priorities or to articulate a research question, then 'below' the ground components are key. While a randomised study comparing the effects of a co-designed intervention versus a researcher-designed intervention might only consider 'above' the ground components.

The white boxes on the right-hand side of Fig.  3 indicate the research phases, from agenda/priority setting to dissemination, in which consumers can and should be involved. This co-design evaluation framework may be applied at any phase of the research process or applied iteratively with a view to improving future co-design activities.

This systematic overview of reviews aimed to build on current literature and develop a framework to assist researchers with the evaluation of research co-design. Fifty-one included reviews reported on fifteen evaluation themes, which were grouped into the following clusters: People (within co-design group), group processes, research processes, co-design context, people (outside co-design group), system and sustainment. Most reviews did not report measurement methods for the evaluation themes. If methods were mentioned, they mostly included qualitative data, informal consumer feedback and researchers’ reflections. This finding strengthens our argument that a framework may be helpful in supporting methodologically robust studies to assess co-design processes and impacts. The Co-Design Evaluation Framework has adopted a tree metaphor. It presents the processes and people in the co-design group (below-ground) as the underpinning system- and people-level outcomes beyond the co-design group (above-ground). To evaluate stakeholder involvement in research, researchers may wish to consider any or all components in the tree. Which, and how many, components are appropriate to evaluate depends on the nature of the co-design approach and the key questions that stakeholders aim to address. Nonetheless, it will be important that evaluations delineate what parts of the research project have incorporated a co-design approach.

The Equator reporting checklist for Research Co-Design, GRIPP2, provides researchers with a series of concepts that should be considered and reported on when incorporating patient and public involvement in research [ 10 ]. These concepts include, but are not limited to, methods of involving patients and the public in research and intensity of engagement. The Co-Design Evaluation Framework is not intended as a replacement for the GRIPP2, rather, it can be used prospectively to inform development of the co-design project or retropsectively to inform completion of the GRIPP2. Table 7 provides hypothetical examples of research questions that co-design evaluation projects might address. The framework could be used at multiple points within co-design projects, including prospectively (planning for evaluation before the co-design process has started), concurrently ( incorporating improvements during the co-design process) and retrospectively (reviewing past co-design efforts to inform future projects).

Our systematic overview of reviews identified multiple evaluation themes. Some of these overlapped with reported values associated with public involvement in research [ 80 ], community engagement measures [ 15 ] and reported impacts of patient and public involvement in research, as described by others [ 16 , 81 , 82 ]. The added value of our systematic overview of reviews is that we went beyond a list of items and took it one step further by looking at evaluation themes, potential associations between evaluation themes, clusters of evaluation themes and ultimately developed a framework to assist others with research co-design evaluation.

Some reviews in our overview of reviews proposed potential associations between evaluation themes. Yet, these proposed associations were not empirically tested. One of the included studies [ 58 ] proposed conditions and mechanisms involved in co-design processes and outcomes related to diabetes research. Although it is a promising starting point, this should be further explored. A realist evaluation including other research topics and other approaches, such as the use of logic models, which was also recognised in the updated MRC framework [ 9 ], might help to build on explorations of included mechanisms of action [ 83 ] and give insight into how core ingredients contribute to certain co-design processes and outcomes. As recognised by others [ 6 , 84 ], the reporting practice of research co-design in the literature could be improved as details about context, mechanisms and expected outcomes are frequently missing. This will also help us to gain a better understanding of what works for whom, why, how and in which circumstances.

The lack of a consistent definition of co-design makes it challenging to identify and synthesise the literature, as recognised by others [ 6 ]. Given that there are so many different terms used in the literature, there is a risk that we might have missed some relevant papers in our overview of reviews. Nevertheless, we tried to capture as many as possible synonyms of co-design in our search terms. The absence of quality assessment of included studies in our overview of reviews can be seen as a limitation. However, our overview of reviews did not aim to assess existing literature on the co-design process, but rather focused on what to evaluate, how and when. We did note whether the reported evaluation themes were based on empirical evidence or authors’ opinions. Primary studies reported in the included reviews were not individually reviewed as this was outside the scope of this paper. A strength in our methods was the cyclical process undertaken between steps 1 and 2. Analysis of the data extracted from the overview was refined over three phases following rigorous discussions with a diverse and experienced stakeholder panel. It was a strength of our project that a mix of stakeholders were involved, including consumers, healthcare professionals and researchers.

Stakeholders are frequently engaged in research but if research co-design processes and outcomes are not evaluated, there will be limited learning from past experiences. Evaluation is essential to make refinements during existing projects and improve future co-design activities. It is also critical for ensuring commitments to the underpinning values of c-odesign are embedded within activities.

A systematic review of all primary studies within the included reviews of this overview of reviews, would allow greater depth relating to the practicalities of how to evaluate certain themes. It would lead to a better understanding of existing measures and methods and which evaluation areas need further development. Future research should also focus on whether co-design leads to better outcomes than no co-design (only researcher-driven research). To our knowledge, this has not been explored yet. Moreover, future research could gain better insight into the mechanisms of change within co-design and explore potential associations between evaluation themes for example, those proposed in the included reviews between level/quality of engagement and emotional factors.

We followed a systematic, iterative approach to develop a Co-Design Evaluation Framework that can be applied to various phases of the research co-design process. Testing of the utility of the framework is an important next step. We propose that the framework could be used at multiple points within co-design projects, including prospectively (planning for evaluation before the co-design process has started), concurrently (to incorporate improvements during the co-design process) and retrospectively (reviewing past co-design efforts to inform future projects).

Availability of data and materials

All data generated during this study are included either within the text or as a supplementary file.

Abbreviations

Medical Research Council

Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public

Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Systematic reviews and research waste. Lancet. 2016;387(10014):122–3.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet. 2009;374(9683):86–9.

Glasziou P, Altman DG, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Clarke M, Julious S, et al. Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet. 2014;383(9913):267–76.

Ioannidis JP. Why Most Clinical Research Is Not Useful. PLoS Med. 2016;13(6):e1002049.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Oliver S. Patient involvement in setting research agendas. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006;18(9):935–8.

Slattery P, Saeri AK, Bragge P. Research co-design in health: a rapid overview of reviews. Health Res Policy Syst. 2020;18(1):17.

Ní Shé É, Harrison R. Mitigating unintended consequences of co-design in health care. Health Expect. 2021;24(5):1551–6.

Peters S, Sukumar K, Blanchard S, Ramasamy A, Malinowski J, Ginex P, et al. Trends in guideline implementation: an updated scoping review. Implement Sci. 2022;17:50.

Skivington K, Matthews L, Simpson SA, Craig P, Baird J, Blazeby JM, et al. A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: update of Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2021;374:n2061.

Staniszewska S, Brett J, Simera I, Seers K, Mockford C, Goodlad S, et al. GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research. BMJ. 2017;358:j3453.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Domecq JP, Prutsky G, Elraiyah T, Wang Z, Nabhan M, Shippee N, et al. Patient engagement in research: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:89.

Manafo E, Petermann L, Mason-Lai P, Vandall-Walker V. Patient engagement in Canada: a scoping review of the “how” and “what” of patient engagement in health research. Health Res Policy Syst. 2018;16(1):5.

Fergusson D, Monfaredi Z, Pussegoda K, Garritty C, Lyddiatt A, Shea B, et al. The prevalence of patient engagement in published trials: a systematic review. Res Involv Engagem. 2018;4:17.

Vat LE, Finlay T, Jan Schuitmaker-Warnaar T, Fahy N, Robinson P, Boudes M, et al. Evaluating the “return on patient engagement initiatives” in medicines research and development: A literature review. Health Expect. 2020;23(1):5–18.

Luger TM, Hamilton AB, True G. Measuring Community-Engaged Research Contexts, Processes, and Outcomes: A Mapping Review. Milbank Q. 2020;98(2):493–553.

Modigh A, Sampaio F, Moberg L, Fredriksson M. The impact of patient and public involvement in health research versus healthcare: A scoping review of reviews. Health Policy. 2021;125(9):1208–21.

Clavel N, Paquette J, Dumez V, Del Grande C, Ghadiri DPS, Pomey MP, et al. Patient engagement in care: A scoping review of recently validated tools assessing patients’ and healthcare professionals’ preferences and experience. Health Expect. 2021;24(6):1924–35.

Newman B, Joseph K, Chauhan A, Seale H, Li J, Manias E, et al. Do patient engagement interventions work for all patients? A systematic review and realist synthesis of interventions to enhance patient safety. Health Expect. 2021;24:1905 No Pagination Specified.

Lowe D, Ryan R, Schonfeld L, Merner B, Walsh L, Graham-Wisener L, et al. Effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership on health services planning, delivery and evaluation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;9:CD013373.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Price A, Albarqouni L, Kirkpatrick J, Clarke M, Liew SM, Roberts N, et al. Patient and public involvement in the design of clinical trials: An overview of systematic reviews. J Eval Clin Pract. 2018;24(1):240–53.

Sarrami-Foroushani P, Travaglia J, Debono D, Braithwaite J. Implementing strategies in consumer and community engagement in health care: results of a large-scale, scoping meta-review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:402.

Abrams R, Park S, Wong G, Rastogi J, Boylan A-M, Tierney S, et al. Lost in reviews: Looking for the involvement of stakeholders, patients, public and other non-researcher contributors in realist reviews. Research Synthesis Methods. 2021;12(2):239–47.

Zych MM, Berta WB, Gagliardi AR. Conceptualising the initiation of researcher and research user partnerships: a meta-narrative review. Health Res Policy Syst. 2020;18(1):24.

Gates M, Gates A, Pieper D, Fernandes RM, Tricco AC, Moher D, et al. Reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions: development of the PRIOR statement. BMJ. 2022;378:e070849.

Pollock A, Campbell P, Brunton G, Hunt H, Estcourt L. Selecting and implementing overview methods: implications from five exemplar overviews. Syst Rev. 2017;6(1):145.

Greenhalgh T, Hinton L, Finlay T, Macfarlane A, Fahy N, Clyde B, et al. Frameworks for supporting patient and public involvement in research: Systematic review and co-design pilot. Health Expectations: An International Journal of Public Participation in Health Care & Health Policy. 2019;22(4):785–801.

Article   Google Scholar  

Hughes M, Duffy C. Public involvement in health and social sciences research: A concept analysis. Health Expectations: An International Journal of Public Participation in Health Care & Health Policy. 2018;21(6):1183–90.

Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2008;3(2):77–101.

Waggoner J, Carline JD, Durning SJ. Is There a Consensus on Consensus Methodology? Descriptions and Recommendations for Future Consensus Research. Acad Med. 2016;91(5):663–8.

Harvey N, Holmes CA. Nominal group technique: an effective method for obtaining group consensus. Int J Nurs Pract. 2012;18(2):188–94.

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.

Baldwin JN, Napier S, Neville S, Clair VAWS. Impacts of older people’s patient and public involvement in health and social care research: a systematic review. Age Ageing. 2018;47(6):801–9.

Bench S, Eassom E, Poursanidou K. The nature and extent of service user involvement in critical care research and quality improvement: A scoping review of the literature. Int J Consum Stud. 2018;42(2):217–31.

Bethell J, Commisso E, Rostad HM, Puts M, Babineau J, Grinbergs-Saull A, et al. Patient engagement in research related to dementia: a scoping review. Dementia. 2018;17(8):944–75.

Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, Herron-Marx S, Hughes J, Tysall C, et al. A systematic review of the impact of patient and public involvement on service users, researchers and communities. The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research. 2014;7(4):387–95.

Di Lorito C, Birt L, Poland F, Csipke E, Gove D, Diaz-Ponce A, et al. A synthesis of the evidence on peer research with potentially vulnerable adults: how this relates to dementia. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2017;32(1):58–67.

Di Lorito C, Bosco A, Birt L, Hassiotis A. Co-research with adults with intellectual disability: A systematic review. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil. 2018;31(5):669–86.

Fox G, Fergusson DA, Daham Z, Youssef M, Foster M, Poole E, et al. Patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research: A scoping review. EBioMedicine. 2021;70:103484.

Frankena TK, Naaldenberg J, Cardol M, Linehan C, van Schrojenstein Lantman-de Valk H. Active involvement of people with intellectual disabilities in health research - a structured literature review. Res Dev Disabil. 2015;45–46:271–83.

Fudge N, Wolfe CD, McKevitt C. Involving older people in health research. Age Ageing. 2007;36(5):492–500.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

George AS, Mehra V, Scott K, Sriram V. Community participation in health systems research: A systematic review assessing the state of research, the nature of interventions involved and the features of engagement with communities. PLoS One. 2015;10(10):ArtID e0141091.

Legare F, Boivin A, van der Weijden T, Pakenham C, Burgers J, Legare J, et al. Patient and public involvement in clinical practice guidelines: A knowledge synthesis of existing programs. Med Decis Making. 2011;31(6):E45–74.

McCarron TL, Clement F, Rasiah J, Moran C, Moffat K, Gonzalez A, et al. Patients as partners in health research: a scoping review. Health Expect. 2021;24:1378 No Pagination Specified.

Miller J, Knott V, Wilson C, Roder D. A review of community engagement in cancer control studies among indigenous people of Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA. Eur J Cancer Care. 2012;21(3):283–95.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Shen S, Doyle-Thomas KAR, Beesley L, Karmali A, Williams L, Tanel N, et al. How and why should we engage parents as co-researchers in health research? A scoping review of current practices. Health Expect. 2017;20(4):543–54.

Velvin G, Hartman T, Bathen T. Patient involvement in rare diseases research: a scoping review of the literature and mixed method evaluation of Norwegian researchers’ experiences and perceptions. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2022;17(1):212.

Wiles LK, Kay D, Luker JA, Worley A, Austin J, Ball A, et al. Consumer engagement in health care policy, research and services: A systematic review and meta-analysis of methods and effects. PLoS One. 2022;17:e0261808.no pagination

Cook N, Siddiqi N, Twiddy M, Kenyon R. Patient and public involvement in health research in low and middle-income countries: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2019;9(5):e026514.

Chambers E, Gardiner C, Thompson J, Seymour J. Patient and carer involvement in palliative care research: An integrative qualitative evidence synthesis review. Palliat Med. 2019;33(8):969–84.

Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, Herron-Marx S, Hughes J, Tysall C, et al. Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review. Health Expect. 2014;17(5):637–50.

Boaz A, Hanney S, Jones T, Soper B. Does the engagement of clinicians and organisations in research improve healthcare performance: a three-stage review. BMJ Open. 2015;5(12):e009415.

Boivin A, L’Esperance A, Gauvin FP, Dumez V, Macaulay AC, Lehoux P, et al. Patient and public engagement in research and health system decision making: A systematic review of evaluation tools. Health Expect. 2018;21(6):1075–84.

Anderst A, Conroy K, Fairbrother G, Hallam L, McPhail A, Taylor V. Engaging consumers in health research: a narrative review. Aust Health Rev. 2020;44(5):806–13.

Arnstein L, Wadsworth AC, Yamamoto BA, Stephens R, Sehmi K, Jones R, et al. Patient involvement in preparing health research peer-reviewed publications or results summaries: a systematic review and evidence-based recommendations. Res Involv Engagem. 2020;6:34.

Becerril-Montekio V, Garcia-Bello LA, Torres-Pereda P, Alcalde-Rabanal J, Reveiz L, Langlois EV. Collaboration between health system decision makers and professional researchers to coproduce knowledge, a scoping review. Int J Health Plann Manage. 2022;28:28.

Google Scholar  

Bird M, Ouellette C, Whitmore C, Li L, Nair K, McGillion MH, et al. Preparing for patient partnership: A scoping review of patient partner engagement and evaluation in research. Health Expect. 2020;23:523 No Pagination Specified.

Dawson S, Campbell SM, Giles SJ, Morris RL, Cheraghi-Sohi S. Black and minority ethnic group involvement in health and social care research: A systematic review. Health Expect. 2018;21(1):3–22.

Harris J, Haltbakk J, Dunning T, Austrheim G, Kirkevold M, Johnson M, et al. How patient and community involvement in diabetes research influences health outcomes: A realist review. Health Expectations: An International Journal of Public Participation in Health Care & Health Policy. 2019;22(5):907–20.

Hubbard G, Kidd L, Donaghy E. Involving people affected by cancer in research: a review of literature. Eur J Cancer Care. 2008;17(3):233–44.

Hubbard G, Kidd L, Donaghy E, McDonald C, Kearney N. A review of literature about involving people affected by cancer in research, policy and planning and practice. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;65(1):21–33.

Jones EL, Williams-Yesson BA, Hackett RC, Staniszewska SH, Evans D, Francis NK. Quality of reporting on patient and public involvement within surgical research: a systematic review. Ann Surg. 2015;261(2):243–50.

Drahota A, Meza RD, Brikho B, Naaf M, Estabillo JA, Gomez ED, et al. Community-Academic Partnerships: A Systematic Review of the State of the Literature and Recommendations for Future Research. Milbank Q. 2016;94(1):163–214.

Forsythe LP, Szydlowski V, Murad MH, Ip S, Wang Z, Elraiyah TA, et al. A systematic review of approaches for engaging patients for research on rare diseases. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29(Suppl 3):788–800.

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Lander J, Hainz T, Hirschberg I, Strech D. Current practice of public involvement activities in biomedical research and innovation: a systematic qualitative review. PLoS One [Electronic Resource]. 2014;9(12):e113274.

Lee DJ, Avulova S, Conwill R, Barocas DA. Patient engagement in the design and execution of urologic oncology research. Urol Oncol. 2017;35(9):552–8.

Malterud K, Elvbakken KT. Patients participating as co-researchers in health research: A systematic review of outcomes and experiences. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health. 2020;48(6):617–28.

Miah J, Dawes P, Edwards S, Leroi I, Starling B, Parsons S. Patient and public involvement in dementia research in the European Union: a scoping review. BMC geriatr. 2019;19(1):220.

Nilsen ES, Myrhaug HT, Johansen M, Oliver S, Oxman AD. Methods of consumer involvement in developing healthcare policy and research, clinical practice guidelines and patient information material. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;2006(3):CD004563.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Oliver S, Clarke-Jones L, Rees R, Milne R, Buchanan P, Gabbay J, et al. Involving consumers in research and development agenda setting for the NHS: developing an evidence-based approach. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8(15):1-148 III-IV.

Orlowski SK, Lawn S, Venning A, Winsall M, Jones GM, Wyld K, et al. Participatory Research as One Piece of the Puzzle: A Systematic Review of Consumer Involvement in Design of Technology-Based Youth Mental Health and Well-Being Interventions. JMIR Hum Factors. 2015;2(2):e12.

Pii KH, Schou LH, Piil K, Jarden M. Current trends in patient and public involvement in cancer research: A systematic review. Health Expectations: An International Journal of Public Participation in Health Care & Health Policy. 2019;22(1):3–20.

Sandoval JA, Lucero J, Oetzel J, Avila M, Belone L, Mau M, et al. Process and outcome constructs for evaluating community-based participatory research projects: a matrix of existing measures. Health Educ Res. 2012;27(4):680–90.

Sangill C, Buus N, Hybholt L, Berring LL. Service user’s actual involvement in mental health research practices: A scoping review. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2019;28(4):798–815.

Schelven F, Boeije H, Marien V, Rademakers J. Patient and public involvement of young people with a chronic condition in projects in health and social care: A scoping review. Health Expect. 2020;23:789 No Pagination Specified.

Schilling I, Gerhardus A. Methods for Involving Older People in Health Research-A Review of the Literature. International Journal of Environmental Research & Public Health [Electronic Resource]. 2017;14(12):29.

Shippee ND, Domecq Garces JP, Prutsky Lopez GJ, Wang Z, Elraiyah TA, Nabhan M, et al. Patient and service user engagement in research: a systematic review and synthesized framework. Health Expect. 2015;18(5):1151–66.

Vaughn LM, Jacquez F, Lindquist-Grantz R, Parsons A, Melink K. Immigrants as research partners: A review of immigrants in community-based participatory research (CBPR). J Immigr Minor Health. 2017;19(6):1457–68.

Walmsley J, Strnadova I, Johnson K. The added value of inclusive research. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil. 2018;31(5):751–9.

Weschke S, Franzen DL, Sierawska AK, Bonde LS, Strech D. Schorr SG. Reporting of patient involvement: A mixed-methods analysis of current practice in health research publications. medRxiv; 2022. p. 21.

Gradinger F, Britten N, Wyatt K, Froggatt K, Gibson A, Jacoby A, et al. Values associated with public involvement in health and social care research: A narrative review. Health Expectations: An International Journal of Public Participation in Health Care & Health Policy. 2015;18(5):661–75.

Hoekstra F, Mrklas KJ, Khan M, McKay RC, Vis-Dunbar M, Sibley KM, et al. A review of reviews on principles, strategies, outcomes and impacts of research partnerships approaches: A first step in synthesising the research partnership literature. Health Res Pol Syst. 2020;18(1):51 no pagination.

Stallings SC, Boyer AP, Joosten YA, Novak LL, Richmond A, Vaughn YC, et al. A taxonomy of impacts on clinical and translational research from community stakeholder engagement. Health Expect. 2019;22(4):731–42.

Grindell C, Coates E, Croot L, O’Cathain A. The use of co-production, co-design and co-creation to mobilise knowledge in the management of health conditions: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22(1):877.

Staley K. “Is it worth doing?” Measuring the impact of patient and public involvement in research. Res Involv Engagem. 2015;1:6.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the graphic designers, Jenni Quinn and Kevin Calthorpe, for their work on Fig. 3 .

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

Sanne Peters, Jill Francis, Stephanie Best, Stephanie Rowe & Marlena Klaic

Department of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia

Lisa Guccione, Jill Francis & Stephanie Best

Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

Centre for Implementation Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada

Jill Francis

Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

Stephanie Best

Emergency Research, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia

Emma Tavender

Department of Critical Care, The University of Melbourne , Melbourne, Australia

School of Nursing, Faculty of Health, Ottawa, Canada

Janet Curran & Stephanie Rowe

Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Ottawa, Canada

Janet Curran

Neurological Rehabilitation Group Mount Waverley, Mount Waverley, Australia

Katie Davies

The ALIVE National Centre for Mental Health Research Translation, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

Victoria J. Palmer

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

SP coordinated the authorship team, completed the systematic literature searches, synthesis of data, framework design and substantial writing. MK and LG were the second reviewers for the systematic overview of reviews. MK, LG and JF assisted with framework design.  SP, LG, JF, SB, ET, JC, KD, SR, VP and MK participated in the stakeholder meetings and the consensus process. All authors commented on drafts and approved the final submitted version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sanne Peters .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary material 1., supplementary material 2., supplementary material 3., supplementary material 4., rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Peters, S., Guccione, L., Francis, J. et al. Evaluation of research co-design in health: a systematic overview of reviews and development of a framework. Implementation Sci 19 , 63 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-024-01394-4

Download citation

Received : 01 April 2024

Accepted : 31 August 2024

Published : 11 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-024-01394-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Research co-design
• Stakeholder involvement
• End-user engagement
• Consumer participation
• Outcome measures

Implementation Science

ISSN: 1748-5908

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS. A lock ( Lock Locked padlock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Mathematical and Physical Sciences Ascending Postdoctoral Research Fellowships (MPS-Ascend)

View guidelines, important information about nsf’s implementation of the revised 2 cfr.

NSF Financial Assistance awards (grants and cooperative agreements) made on or after October 1, 2024, will be subject to the applicable set of award conditions, dated October 1, 2024, available on the NSF website . These terms and conditions are consistent with the revised guidance specified in the OMB Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance published in the Federal Register on April 22, 2024.

Important information for proposers

All proposals must be submitted in accordance with the requirements specified in this funding opportunity and in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) that is in effect for the relevant due date to which the proposal is being submitted. It is the responsibility of the proposer to ensure that the proposal meets these requirements. Submitting a proposal prior to a specified deadline does not negate this requirement.

Supports postdoctoral fellows performing impactful research in MPS fields while broadening the participation of groups that are underrepresented in the mathematical and physical sciences.

The purpose of the Mathematical and Physical Sciences Ascending Postdoctoral Research Fellowship (MPS-Ascend) program is to support postdoctoral Fellows who will broaden the participation of members of g roups that are historically excluded and currently underrepresented in MPS fields in the U.S., defined in this solicitation as Blacks or African Americans, Hispanics, Latinos, Indigenous and Native Americans, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians and other Native Pacific Islanders,  as future leaders in MPS fields. The program is intended to recognize beginning investigators of significant potential and provide them with experience in research that will broaden perspectives, facilitate interdisciplinary interactions, and help broaden participation within MPS fields. The program funds postdoctoral Fellows in research environments that will have maximal impact on their future scientific development and facilitates their transition into a faculty appointment. Awards will support research in any scientific area within the purview of the five MPS Divisions: the Divisions of Astronomical Sciences (AST), Chemistry (CHE), Materials Research (DMR), Mathematical Sciences (DMS), and Physics (PHY). Fellowships are awards to individuals, not institutions, and are administered by the Fellows.

Program contacts

Program events

• November 17, 2022 - MPS ASCEND Webinar (11/17/22)
• November 10, 2021 - MPS-Ascend Webinar
• May 14, 2021 - DMS Virtual Office Hours

Additional program resources

• September 18, 2023 – MPS ASCEND Webinar
• Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) for Mathematical and Physical Sciences Ascending Postdoctoral Research Fellowships (MPS-Ascend) (NSF 23-501)

Awards made through this program

Related programs.

• NSF Astronomy and Astrophysics Postdoctoral Fellowships (AAPF)
• Mathematical Sciences Postdoctoral Research Fellowships (MSPRF)

Organization(s)

• Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MPS)
• Division of Astronomical Sciences (MPS/AST)
• Division of Chemistry (MPS/CHE)
• Division of Materials Research (MPS/DMR)
• Division of Mathematical Sciences (MPS/DMS)
• Division of Physics (MPS/PHY)
• Office of Strategic Initiatives (MPS/OSI)