DEVELOPING RESEARCH PROPOSALS

http://www.nrf.ac.za/yenza/proposal.htm

Purpose of research proposals

Why do I need a research proposal?

• To convince others of the value of your research

• To demonstrate expertise• To demonstrate competency• To serve as a contract• To assist you as a planning

tool

Who will evaluate my proposal?• Higher degrees committees• Review panels• Individual reviewers• Specialists• Generalists• Research proposals are often

reviewed by a mixture of experts in the field and reviewers from cognate disciplines

When should the proposal be written?

When should the proposal be written?

• A research proposal (particularly at postgraduate level) is an iterative process

• A substantial amount of work has to be done before a proposal can be written

• Some institutions assume that a research proposal will be written over six or even nine months

• Seek advice on your draft from supervisors and peers

Core components of research proposals

Make sure that these are meaningful, not mechanistic

Core elements• A description of the research

question

• An indication of why the problem is important

• A review of relevant literature

• A description of the proposed methodology

• A time frame

Or in plain English...

• What do you want to do?• Why do you want to do it?• Why is it important?• Who has done similar work?• How are you going to do it?• How long will it take?

Additional components of

research proposals

Depending on the project...• A budget• A description of how the research

findings will be disseminated• An outline of team members’

responsibilities• Capacity development• Ethical statement• Possible problems• Other information required by

funders...

Always try to find out exactly what the

funder or organization expects in a proposal, and do

it

Success and failure indicators for

proposals

NRF (humanities and social sciences) & DACST

NRF success indicators• Clearly defined research question• Appropriate literature provides a background

to the problem• Use of other sources to identify/support the

problem• Objectives clearly specified• Conceptual framework and theoretical

assumptions clearly stated• Appropriate design and methodology• Promotes further research• Preliminary data/pilot study• Necessary resources available

NRF failure indicators• Too long• Poor structure, language use• Inappropriate use of technical terms• Research too ambitious• No literature review• No integration of theory in literature review• Literature review copied• No theoretical foundation• Budget not linked to methodology• Unrealistic costing• Methods not clear• Methods inappropriate• No references or bibliography

DACST Innovation Fund success indicators

• Novelty and innovation• Capability of research team• Market / benefit

DACST Innovation Fund failure indicators

• Misunderstanding the IF purpose

• Choice of project

• Recycling existing project proposals

• Weak skills in proposal writing

• Inadequate prior research

• Weak or non-existent consortia

• Attempting to use the IF to allow existing solutions to find a problem

• Weak project planning skills

IF failure indicators (cont.)

• Weak research design

• Failure to include milestones

• Inadequate consideration of impact assessment

• No consideration of redress criteria

• Poor budgeting skills

• Inflated budgeting

• Weak understanding of the route to market

• Confusion regarding the meaning of innovation

Core components

Describing the research question

First find a research question!

• Researchers get their questions from many different places...

• Observation of the world• Concern with theory• Previous research• Practical concerns• Personal interest

Choosing a research question

• A broad research area is not a research question

• Formulate a number of possible questions, and weigh up the pros and cons

• The proposal must reflect that the issues have been thought through

Criteria for choosing include...• Access to information• Access to resources• Theoretical background• Value of research• Researcher’s skills• Is question big/small enough• External requirements• Overall probability of successful

completion• Interest to researcher

Topic analysis: attribute grids

Setting the limits: definitions• Provide explicit definitions for

key concepts• Terms don’t always have single

meanings understood in the same way by all

• Don’t under- or overestimate your readers

• Don’t provide mechanistic dictionary definitions of all terms

Sample definitions

• “A dependent variable is a variable that is influenced by another variable.”

• The term “social and ethical accounting, auditing and reporting” (SEAAR) has been used to describe a variety of practices relating to corporate social responsibility. For purposes of this study, the term will be used to refer specifically to the formal set of procedures outlined in AccountAbility 1000, while “social audit” will be used to describe the broader set of practices.

Setting the limits: boundaries

• Specify the limits of the research in a way which makes in clear what is and is not to be studied, through, for example,

– definitions – time spans– geographical boundaries– other limits as appropriate to the

field of study

Setting the limits: an example

“How have South African mining regulations changed over the years, and what has been the impact of these changes?”

Setting the limits: example (cont.)

• Restrict to mining safety regulations

• Define “mining safety regulations” (e.g. as Acts of Parliament only)

• Restrict study to gold mining

• Restrict period (e.g. 1911 - 1996)

• Restrict “impact” to effect on cost of gold production

Setting the limits: the revised example

“How did Acts of Parliament regulating mine safety between 1911 and 1996 impact upon the cost of gold production in South Africa?”

Small group discussionsRefining research

questions

Literature review

What purpose does the literature review serve?

• Provides a conceptual framework for the research

• Provides an integrated overview of the field of study

• Helps establish a need for the research• May help clarify the research problem• Helps to demonstrate researcher’s

familiarity with the area under consideration (theory and / or methods)

Skills involved in producing a literature review

• Surveying a comprehensive range of existing material and sources in the general areas of your study

• Selecting those that will be most relevant and significant for your particular project

• Understanding and analyzing the central findings and arguments

• Synthesizing the findings and integrating them into the research proposal

• A good literature review generally contains an argument

How to write a literature review• Indicate the ways in which the authors you are

reviewing will be relevant to your research (information; theory; methodology)

• Demonstrate that you understand the similarities and differences between these works and paradigms (Where do they stand in relation to each other? Where does your research stand in relation to them?)

• The works that you refer to should reflect recent scholarship as well as those considered of seminal importance

• If the study is cross-disciplinary or comparative you need to describe how the different areas of research can be drawn together in a meaningful way

Questions to help you in compiling a literature review

• What are the broad bodies of literature that have relevance for your research topic (local and international)?

• What theoretical model/s relate to your research topic?

• What theories, methods & results have previous researchers in your field produced? What is the history of your area of study? (cont.)

Questions to help you in compiling a literature review (cont.)

• What are the most recent findings in your area of study?

• What gaps or contradictions exist among these findings?

• What new research questions do these findings suggest?

• What structure suits my literature review best?

• What should I leave out?

The literature review is not• Part of the research project (although

there may be an ongoing review of literature throughout the project, funders expect a solid preliminary review to have been carried out before a proposal is submitted).

• A bibliography

• A series of descriptions of pieces of previous research with no apparent connection to each other or your project

Significance of the research

The research must be of value, e.g.

• Practical value in solving problems

• Value to policy development

• Contribution to theory • Contribution to body of knowledge

within discipline• Funders often specify the nature of

the “value” they are looking for in research.

Methodology

What does the methodology section do? What should it contain?

• The methodology section shows the reader how you are going to set about looking for answers to the research question (including, if appropriate, materials and methods to be used)

• It must include enough detail to demonstrate that you are competent and the project is feasible

• The proposed methods must be appropriate to the type of research

Methodology section: “traditional” empirical social

research• Hypothesis• Research design• Sampling• Measurement instruments• Data collection procedures• Data analysis

Empirical research methodology format: a caveat

• Appropriate for traditional empirical research

• Don’t force either the terminology or the methods of empirical research onto proposals for other types of research

Time frame

Time frames

•Be realistic - novice researchers tend to underestimate how long the stages of research will take

Additional components

Budget

Budget• Include a detailed budget

breakdown if required

• Follow the requirements of the organization to which you are submitting the proposal

• Motivate for any exceptions falling outside prescribed tariffs

Budget detail example

Research Assistance• Two full-time research assistants

(with Masters degrees), 2 x 32 days @ R120/day = R 7680

• Two part-time research assistants (with Honours degrees), 2 x 25 days @ R100/day = R 5000

• One part-time research assistant (with Matric), 12 days @ R70 = R 840

Dissemination of research findings

Dissemination of findings

• If funders want to fund valuable research, they also want to see that the research results will be disseminated

• If research is intended to assist a community, it is of little use to publish it only as an internal research report

Team members’ responsibilities

Team members’ responsibilities

• Give an overview of what section/s of the project each team member will be responsible for - not just a list of team members’ names

Capacity development

Capacity development• If capacity development is a

requirement to qualify for funding, indicate what research capacities will be developed, and how

• Funders are generally not looking for tokenism

Sample evaluation criteria

Sample evaluation criteriaCategory 1. Quality of the research proposal

1.1 Problem Identification:

• 1.1.1 Is the problem/line of inquiry clearly identified?

• 1.1.2 Has appropriate literature been examined in order to provide a background to the problem?

• 1.1.3 Have other relevant sources been used to identify the problem?

• 1.1.4 Are the aims and/or objectives of the inquiry clearly specified?

Sample evaluation criteria (cont.)

1.2 Approach:

• 1.2.1 To what extent are the conceptual framework and theoretical assumptions clearly stated?

• 1.2.2 Is the project design, methods of data collection and analysis appropriate to the aims of the research?

Sample evaluation criteria (cont.)

• 1.3 Significance:

• 1.3.1 To what extent will the research make an original contribution or be an innovative application of knowledge to its disciplinary field and/or across disciplines?

• 1.3.2 Is the proposed research a new line of inquiry?

• 1.3.3 Is the proposed research likely to promote further investigation within and/or across disciplines and fields?

Sample evaluation criteria (cont.)

• 1.4 Feasibility:

• 1.4.1 Do the preliminary data and the available resources support the feasibility of the project?

• 1.4.2 Does the researcher’s track record or potential, support his/her ability to successfully accomplish the project?

• 1.5 Budget:

• 1.5.1 Is the budget justified in relation to the proposed research activities and in terms of NRF’s regulations on permissible expenditure?

• 1.5.2 Does the project include a plan for research and budget management?

Sample evaluation criteria (cont.)

Category 2. Impact of the proposed research

2.1 Within the research community:

• 2.1.1 Does the research promote teaching or does it have the potential to do so?

• 2.1.2 Does the research project promote research training?• 2.1.3 Does the project include the participation of researchers, junior

researchers and postgraduate students from historically disadvantaged institutions, race and gender groups?

• 2.1.4 Is the research likely to create networks and partnerships locally, regionally and/or internationally?

• 2.1.5 Is the research likely to promote the acquisition of new databases, literature collections, computer software and hardware or to promote the development of existing databases and literature collections?

• 2.1.6 Is there a plan to disseminate the research findings within the discipline and across disciplines?

Sample evaluation criteria (cont.)

2.2 Outside the research community:

• 2.2.1 Is there a plan to disseminate the research findings amongst stakeholders and the wider public?

• 2.2.3 Does the research project have a potential social impact, i.e. promote problem solving, social policy development or evaluation, etc.?

Evaluation of sample proposals