research proposal example philosophy

Simon Knutsson

Phd philosophy research proposal (admitted to lse and stockholm).

By Simon Knutsson Written April 18, 2017; published November 17, 2017

This is the research proposal I included in my applications to PhD programs in philosophy. I got admitted to London School of Economics and Stockholm University. [1] As an applicant, it can be difficult to know how a research proposal is supposed to look. Universities’ application guidelines are often brief and unclear. It is also unfair that applicants with the right connections, for example, applicants who know students in top PhD programs, can get help with their proposals and thereby get an edge over those who lack such connections. Hopefully my proposal being public can help those who are planning to apply to PhD programs in philosophy and level the playing field.

Value superiority

Introduction.

Aim and research question

My main research question is, are there value superiorities? I plan to explore at least three aspects of this question: (1) the structure of value if there is superiority, (2) measurement of value in the case of superiority, and (3) sequence arguments and infinity. Tentatively, I expect to argue at least for the following: The structure of value is such that it can be indeterminate whether, for example, a good is superior to another, and this allows one to give convincing replies to challenges that have been made against superiority. Regarding measurement, I expect to argue that vectors can represent value in the case of superiority better than Carlson argues. Finally, a sequence argument against superiority by Arrhenius (and Rabinowicz) has a potential weakness: it is not clear that an analogous argument is successful against an adjusted notion of superiority (superiority*) formulated in terms of both finite amounts and an infinity of a good.

Project description

1.     the structure of superiority.

Which is the most plausible account of the structure of value if there is superiority, and is such an account plausible? Attempts have been made to spell out the structure of value superiority; to explain why there would be superiority and how a theory of value would look like if there is superiority. Temkin and Rachels hold that superiority applies when there is a sufficiently large difference between the goods or bads in question; [5] Klocksiem (2016) defends “threshold lexicality,” according to which superiority between bads sets in at an absolute level of intensity between discomfort and pain; Dorsey (2009) explains superiority in terms of an account of well-being that involves global projects; Carlson (2000) and Rabinowicz (2003) refer to diminishing marginal value; Qizilbash (2005) points to the vagueness of categorical evaluations such as “serious” and “non-serious” illness; Parfit (2016) relies on indeterminacy and the relation “imprecisely equally good”; Lemos (1993) refers to organic unities and Carlson (2015) similarly points to a holistic non-Archimedean objective list theory of welfare.

My main hypothesis about the structure of value related to superiority is that value relations such as “better than” and “superior to” allow for indeterminacy in the sense that it can be indeterminate, for example, whether an amount of some value bearer is better or worse than an amount of another value bearer. Similarly, it can be indeterminate whether a good is superior to another. If this is correct, I hypothesize that it can be the basis for a convincing reply to the sequence argument against superiority that can be found in Arrhenius (2005) and Arrhenius and Rabinowicz (2015), as well as to the kind of spectra presented by Temin, Rachels and others, in which one is, for example, asked to contemplate gradually experiencing milder pain for longer durations.

There are some publications on ideas similar to superiority that also deal with indeterminacy or vagueness (Qizilbash 2005; Knapp 2007; Parfit 2016; Nebel forthcoming, sec. 4.2), but they essentially briefly propose indeterminacy or vagueness as a possible solution to challenges with superiority, without explaining in-depth how that would work and without assessing whether it is plausible when the implications of such a position are spelled out. In general, according to Dougherty (forthcoming, sec. 7), “the topic of ethical vagueness is a relatively neglected topic … on which there is still much work to be done.”

In one of my attached writings sample, which is work in progress, I have started investigating whether pointing to indeterminacy can amount to a convincing reply to sequence arguments. My tentative hypothesis is that rather than bringing in theories of vagueness, such as supervaluationism, epistemicism and many-valued logic, one should, more directly, give an account of evaluative indeterminacy. One plausible way to do that may be in terms of permissible preferences or appropriate attitudes (a “fitting attitudes”-analysis of value) as, for example, Rabinowicz (2008) does. One could introduce indeterminacy in such a model, as Rabinowicz (2009) mentions, by allowing for that it can be indeterminate whether it is permissible to have some preference, or that it is permissible to have indeterminate preferences (c.f., e.g., Aldred (2007) on vague preferences). If there is evaluative indeterminacy, one probably wants to avoid that it has sharp boundaries, similar to how philosophers working on vagueness often want there to be no sharp boundary between colors that are red and those that are borderline red. Here, what we could call higher-order evaluative indeterminacy seems key. For example, the second order of such indeterminacy could say about value bearers a and b that it is indeterminate whether it is indeterminate whether it is permissible to prefer a to b . I am not aware of any thorough philosophical work on such higher-order evaluative indeterminacy, although there is a literature on betterness and vagueness (e.g., Broome 1997; Carlson 2013; Qizilbash 2007, 2012, 2014), which sometimes briefly mentions higher-order vagueness. One should probably not give an account of higher-order evaluative indeterminacy directly in terms of, for example, a supervaluationist account of higher-order vagueness, but one could reason similarly to how philosophers have reasoned about the higher-order vagueness of vague terms such as ‘red.’ (See attached writing sample for more information.)

2.     Representational measurement of value

Which representations of value superiority are possible, and which operations, such as addition, do they allow? Some work on superiority deals with how to measure and compute value if there is superiority. This work can be seen as supporting superiority because one may hold that it is an advantage of a theory of value if it allows for a stronger degree of measurement, for example, on a ratio scale rather than on an ordinal scale. Brülde (2003, p. 24), for instance, lists measurability as an adequacy condition for a theory of well-being, and Klocksiem (2016, p. 1328) mentions the potential adequacy condition for a theory of value that value should be representable by single real numbers. Value can straightforwardly be represented by single reals if one assumes a form of superiority such as the one based on diminishing marginal value, but not if one assumes some other forms of superiority.

Attempts at solutions include Carlson (2007, 2010) and Feit (2001), who suggest representing value by lexical vectors or ordered pairs of real numbers, [6] and Klocksiem (2016, p. 1328), who says that his favored form of superiority can be represented by hyperreals. However, vector representation has been said to have problems and the suggestion to use hyperreals is not sufficiently developed.

Carlson (2001, sec. 3) argues against vector representation for more complex forms of superiority. One of his arguments is that vector representation does not work for weak superiority (i.e., the idea that a sufficient amount of a good g is better than any amount of another good g′ ), in part because if a conjunction of n (or more) g -objects is a superior good of a higher order than m g -objects, where m < n , then n g -objects would also, according to Carlson, be superior to a conjunction of conjunctions of m g -objects, even though that conjunction of conjunctions would have more than n g -objects. This would be absurd, the argument goes. I plan to argue that vector representation can overcome this argument, because such a conjunction of conjunctions (which is probably better understood as a concatenation of concatenations) would be a superior good of the same order as n g -objects. A main challenge, pointed out by Carlson in conversation, is how much of aggregation and additivity one can save if one assumes weak superiority and if one uses vectors to represent value.

Hyperreals have been used to represent non-Archimedean structures (e.g. Narens 1974), but that does not imply that they work well as a representation of value in the case of superiority, especially weak superiority, and philosophers have only pointed in passing to hyperreals as a possible solution (e.g. Klocksiem 2016, p. 1328). It remains to be explored to what extent superiority can be represented by hyperreals.

Finally, the measurement literature includes representation by other mathematical entities, such as intervals, sets and geometric objects, and I plan to investigate what the options are for representing value in the case of superiority by mathematical entities other than single reals, vectors or hyperreals, and whether such alternative representations are plausible.

3.     Superiority, sequence arguments and infinity

The best sequence argument against superiority can be found in Arrhenius (2005) and Arrhenius and Rabinowicz (2015). The argument is roughly that superiority between any two goods in a sequence of goods (a sequence g 1 , …, g n in which g 1 is better than g 2 , which is better than g 3 , …, which is better than g n ) implies that one good needs to be weakly superior to another adjacent good that is only marginally worse, which, according to the argument, is implausible. However, the argument has a potentially important weakness: it is not clear that an analogous conclusion can be established for a different notion of superiority, which we can call ‘superiority*,’ and which includes the idea of an infinity of a type of good. One could argue that superiority* is the more interesting notion. Roughly speaking, my point is that Arrhenius and Rabinowicz’s sequence argument is made in a framework of finite numbers, which allows the authors to derive potentially counterintuitive implications of superiority. But in the case of superiority, one may need to include infinities in the discussion. I plan to expand on and polish this idea.

The following is a more detailed description of my point. The sequence argument includes the step that if a good g 1 is not weakly superior to another good g i -1 then there is some number k such that m g 1 -objects are not better than k g i -1 -objects (Arrhenius 2005, p. 110; Arrhenius and Rabinowicz 2015, p. 242). This step can be taken because of their definition of weak superiority: an object g is weakly superior to an object g′ if and only if for some number m , m g -objects are better than any number of g′ -objects (note my emphasis of ‘number’). We can modify the definition by, for example, adding infinity, and get weak superiority*: an object g is weakly superior* to an object g′ if and only if for some number m , m g -objects are better than any number of g′ -objects and an infinity of g′ -objects. Assuming infinity is not a number, the step above can no longer be taken: that a good g 1 is not weakly superior* to another good g i -1 does not imply that there is some number k such that m g 1 -objects are not better than k g i -1 -objects, because it could be that m g 1 -objects are not better than an infinity of g i -1 -objects, while still being better than k g i -1 -objects for any number k . My point does not avoid weak superiority between adjacent goods, but it avoids weak superiority* between adjacent goods, and it could be argued that weak superiority* is the more interesting relation.

An objection, mentioned by Erik Carlson in conversation, is that the sequence argument may still spell trouble for weak superiority* since one could argue that a “principle” such as weak superiority* should avoid implausible implications even if one considers only a subset of its scope (i.e., only finite amounts). This is an interesting objection that I would like to address in a part of my work on sequence arguments and infinities.

4.     Extra topic: the continuity axiom

A continuity axiom is commonly assumed in decision theory as a requirement of rationality. The following is a rough formulation of continuity: a strict preference relation ≻ is continuous if for all consequences a , b and c for which a ≻ b ≻ c , there is a probability p , 0 < p < 1, such that b ∼ ( a , p , c ), where ∼ is indifference, and ( a , p , c ) is a lottery in which consequence a occurs with probability p and consequence c occurs with probability 1 – p . For example, if a is getting 1 SEK, b is getting 0 SEK and c is death, and assuming a ≻ b ≻ c , there is a probability greater than zero that is sufficiently low so that rationality requires that an agent prefers a gamble between death and getting 1 SEK to certainly getting 0 SEK and survive. [7]

The question I am most interested in is whether the continuity axiom is a plausible requirement of rationality. There is a philosophical literature on the plausibility of the continuity axiom (e.g., Temkin 2001; Danielsson 2004; Arrhenius and Rabinowicz 2005; Jensen 2012), but, according to McCarthy (2016), more philosophical work on continuity is needed. For example, there is, as far as I know, nothing written about whether continuity is a plausible requirement of phenomena that are similar to rational preferences and relevant to axiology, such as appropriate pro-attitudes or appropriate emotive attitudes. Continuity is related to superiority, partly because if there is value superiority, it seems implausible that continuity would be a requirement of rationality or appropriate pro-attitudes. But one can reject continuity even if there is no value superiority. Investigating the plausibility of continuity does not obviously help answering my main research question (‘are there value superiorities?’), but it is related and similar arguments are used in both debates. I consider the continuity axiom to be a bonus topic that I would like to do research on if I have time.

Aldred, J. (2007). Intransitivity and Vague Preferences. Journal of Ethics , 11 (4), 377–403.

Arrhenius, G. (2005). Superiority in Value. Philosophical Studies , 123 (1–2), 97–114.

Arrhenius, G., & Rabinowicz, W. (2005). Value and Unacceptable Risk. Economics and Philosophy , 21 (2), 177–197.

Arrhenius, G., & Rabinowicz, W. (2015). Value Superiority. In I. Hirose & J. Olson (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Value Theory (pp. 225–248). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Broome, J. (1997). Is Incommensurability Vagueness? In R. Chang (Ed.), Incommensurability, Incomparability and Practical Reason . Harvard University Press.

Brülde, B. (2003). Teorier om livskvalitet . Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Brülde, B. (2010). Happiness, morality, and politics. Journal of Happiness Studies , 11 (5), 567–583.

Carlson, E. (2000). Aggregating harms – Should we kill to avoid headaches? Theoria , 66 (3), 246–255.

Carlson, E. (2001). Organic Unities, Non-Trade-Off, and the Additivity of Intrinsic Value. Journal of Ethics , 5 (4), 335–360.

Carlson, E. (2007). Higher Values and Non-Archimedean Additivity. Theoria , 73 (1), 3–27.

Carlson, E. (2010). Generalized extensive measurement for lexicographic orders. Journal of Mathematical Psychology , 54 (4), 345–351.

Carlson, E. (2013). Vagueness, Incomparability, and the Collapsing Principle. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice , 16 (3), 449–463.

Carlson, E. (2015, January 30). On some impossibility theorems in population ethics . Draft. https://www.york.ac.uk/media/philosophy/documents/events/Carlson%20On%20Some%20Impossibility%20Theorems%20in%20Population%20Ethics%20-%20Draft%2030%20January%202015.docx

Danielsson, S. (2004). Temkin, Archimedes and the transitivity of “Better.” Patterns of Value: Essays on Formal Axiology and Value Analysis , 2 , 175–179.

Dorsey, D. (2009). Headaches, lives and value. Utilitas , 21 (01), 36–58.

Dougherty, T. (forthcoming). Vagueness and indeterminacy in ethics. In T. McPherson & D. Plunkett (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Metaethics .

Feit, N. (2001). The Structure of Higher Goods. Southern Journal of Philosophy , 39 (1), 47–57.

Hausner, M. (1954). Multidimensional utilities. In R. M. Thrall, C. H. Coombs, & R. L. Davis (Eds.), Decision processes (pp. 167–180). New York: John Wiley.

Hutcheson, F. (1968). A system of moral philosophy (Vols. 1-1). New York: Augustus M Kelley.

Jensen, K. K. (2012). Unacceptable risks and the continuity axiom. Economics and Philosophy , 28 (1), 31–42.

Klocksiem, J. (2016). How to Accept the Transitivity of Better Than. Philosophical Studies , 173 (5), 1309–1334.

Knapp, C. (2007). Trading Quality for Quantity. Journal of Philosophical Research , 32 (1), 211–233.

Lemos, N. M. (1993). Higher Goods and the Myth of Tithonus. Journal of Philosophy , 60 (9), 482–496.

McCarthy, D. (2016). Probability in Ethics. In A. Hajek & C. Hitchcock (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy and Probability . Oxford University Press.

Narens, L. (1974). Measurement without Archimedean Axioms. Philosophy of Science , 41 (4), 374–393.

Nebel, J. M. (forthcoming). The Good, the Bad, and the Transitivity of Better Than. Noûs . https://www.academia.edu/30482496/The_Good_the_Bad_and_the_Transitivity_of_Better_Than

Norcross, A. (2009). Two Dogmas of Deontology: Aggregation, Rights, and the Separateness of Persons. Social Philosophy and Policy , 26 (1), 76–95.

Parfit, D. (2016). Can We Avoid the Repugnant Conclusion? Theoria , 82 (2), 110–127.

Qizilbash, M. (2005). Transitivity and Vagueness. Economics and Philosophy , 21 (1), 109–131.

Qizilbash, M. (2007). The Mere Addition Paradox, Parity and Vagueness. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 75 (1), 129–151.

Qizilbash, M. (2012). Incommensurability or Vagueness? a Comment on Rabinowicz and Sugden. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society , 112 (3), 333–338.

Qizilbash, M. (2014). “Incommensurability” and Vagueness: Is the Vagueness View Defensible? Ethical Theory and Moral Practice , 17 (1), 141–153. 

Rabinowicz, W. (2003). Ryberg’s Doubts About Higher and Lower Pleasures: Put to Rest? Ethical Theory and Moral Practice , 6 (2), 231–237.

Rabinowicz, W. (2008). Value Relations. Theoria , 74 (1), 18–49.

Rabinowicz, W. (2009). Incommensurability and Vagueness. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes , 83 , 71–94.

Ross, W. D. (1930). The right and the good . Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Ryberg, J. (2002). Higher and Lower Pleasures – Doubts on Justification. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice , 5 (4), 415–429.

Temkin, L. (2001). Worries about continuity, transitivity, expected utility theory, and practical reasoning. In D. Egonsson, J. Josefsson, B. Petersson, & T. Rønnow-Rasmusen (Eds.), Exploring Practical Philosophy (pp. 95–108). Aldershot: Ashgate Publishers.

Thrall, Robert M. (1954). Applications of multidimensional utility theory. In R. M. Thrall, C. H. Coombs, & R. L. Davis (Eds.), Decision processes (pp. 181–186). New York: John Wiley.

Voorhoeve, A. (2015). Why Sore Throats Don’t Aggregate Against a Life, but Arms Do. Journal of Medical Ethics , 41 (6), 492–493.

[1] This is the proposal I sent to Stockholm University. The proposal I sent to London School of Economics was similar but had a few differences: it was 25% shorter, less developed, and the fourth sub-project was different—instead of an extra sub-project on the continuity axiom it was a regular (not “extra”) sub-project about the reliability of intuitions related to value superiority.

I applied to Stockholm, LSE, Cambridge, and Oslo. My research plans fit Stockholm and LSE better than Cambridge and Oslo. I would have applied to Uppsala, where my plans also fit very well, but Uppsala did not announce a PhD position at the time. The three universities that I targeted with my application were LSE, Stockholm, and Uppsala.

[2] Hutcheson (1968, pp. 117–118).

[3] According to Lemos (1993).

[4] For more references, see Arrhenius (2005, p. 97).

[5] According to Klocksiem (2016).

[6] Similar work has been done in economics, for example, on multidimensional utilities by Hausner (1954) and Thrall (1954).

[7] One can also formulate continuity in terms of the value of outcomes, as is done by Arrhenius and Rabinowicz (2005, p. 178).

• ← The World Destruction Argument
• Which philosophy PhD programs should you apply to? →

Department of Philosophy

The research proposal.

When you make your application, you will need to submit a detailed research proposal in support of your application. This needs to be a convincing proposal which is sufficiently rigorous, and of sufficient quality to demonstrate that you are ready to begin independent research at PhD level. Typical proposals are 2,000 to 3,000 words long; however, this is only a guideline. The emphasis will be on the quality of the proposal and whether or not it fits with a particular supervisor’s research interests .

We understand that this is a provisional statement of your research. We expect that your research will develop as you carry it out and as you read further into your area of study. It is likely that your supervisor will suggest changes or developments to your research during the course of your study, but you should treat the proposal as an opportunity to show that you have begun to explore an important area of study and that you have a question, or questions, that challenge and develop that area. It is also necessary to demonstrate that you can express your ideas in clear and precise English.

The points you must address in your proposal are:

Central research question.

This should be simply stated in the first instance and then suitably fleshed out to show why it is timely and important for you to be writing a PhD on this topic. The central research question is your first chance to make the case for being accepted onto our programme, by capturing the attention of potential supervisors. You need to set out your research questions as clearly as possible, explain problems that you want to explore and say why it is important to do so.

You must show how your central research question relates to existing academic studies in your field. Think about how to situate your project in the context of your discipline. Refer explicitly to work that is similar to that which you are planning or which is influential to your ideas. What are the key texts and approaches in the field, and how does your proposal differ from existing lines of argument? What distinctive contribution will your research make? How will it extend our understanding of particular questions or topics? Ideally, you should be able to demonstrate how your proposed research fills a gap in the literature, and therefore adds substantively and can make a lasting contribution to academic debates. One key criterion for writing a successful PhD is that it is original work, so you must try to avoid setting out a proposal in a way that simply replicates work which can already be found within the literature.

Research methods

This should set out the methods you will use to conduct your research. This will obviously depend very much on your research topic. What sources will you use? E.g. does your project involve archival sources, or specialist libraries? Is your study interdisciplinary? What theoretical resources do you intend to use and why? How will you set about answering your research questions?

You should reflect on the types of problems you are likely to encounter whilst undertaking your research and how these might be overcome. This will demonstrate that you are forward-thinking in your approach to doctoral studies.

Bibliography

Include a bibliography listing the books and articles to which you refer in the proposal.

Examples of current PhD project titles include:

• Death after Metaphysics?: An Untimely Meditation with Heidegger
• Intersubjectivity in Human-Robot Interaction
• The Ethics of Gift, Reciprocity and Cooperation in Economics
• A New Epistemological Approach to the Delusions in Psychiatry
• The Nature of Knowing How
• Hegel and Spinoza on Thought and Nature

Department of Philosophy

• Philosophy Links
• What is Philosophy?
• Philosophers on Philosophy
• Why study Philosophy?
• The Department
• Introduction to Undergraduate Studies
• Undergraduate Courses
• Requirements for a Major in Philosophy (PHI):
• PPE Humanities: Philosophy, Politics and Economics
• How to Succeed in a Philosophy Course
• How to Write a Philosophy Essay
• Avoiding Plagarism
• Philosophy Exam Tips
• Philosophy Plus
• Marking Criteria
• Plagiarism Policy
• Introduction to Postgraduate Studies
• Postgraduate Courses
• Current Students
• Postgraduate Applications
• Postgraduate Brochure

Guide to Producing a Research Proposal for Studies in Philosophy

• Bernhard Weiss
• Better Never to Have Been
• The Second Sexism
• The Human Predicament
• Selected Papers
• Selected Newspaper & Web Articles
• Affirmative Action
• Antiretrovirals
• Victims of Violence
• Danish Cartoons
• Elisa Galgut
• Jack Ritchie
• Academic papers
• Other writing
• Testimony and submissions
• Unpublished presentations
• Working papers
• Olerato Mogomotsi
• Dean Chapman
• Marchelle Erasmus
• Lara Davison
• Introduction to Tutoring
• Tutor Applications
• Conditions of Service
• Introducing the Philosophy Society
• Next Meeting
• Twenty-five years of the UCT Philosophy Society
• Why was the UCT Philosophy Society started?
• In the Beginning
• A Memorable Meeting
• An Interregnum
• Seminars Overview
• Guidelines for Speakers
• Past Seminars
• Events Overview
• Introduction to the Programme
• Past Programmes
• Next Programme
• Student Feedback
• Conferences
• Annual Awards
• Book Launches
• Humanities PPE Colloquium
• News Archive
• Old News Archive

To download this information in PDF format, please  click here.

The application package for a Research Masters or a PhD in philosophy should contain apreliminary research proposal. If accepted, students then have six months from first registration to produce a full research proposal for submission to the Humanities Faculty office.

The Preliminary Research proposal

The preliminary research proposal is for the department’s postgraduate committee, who will use it in the course of assessing your application. The aim of the assessment is to consider whether you have the necessary philosophical background and abilities to facilitate successful studies with us, and whether we have sufficient expertise in your area of interest to be able to supervise your research. The preliminary research proposal is a critical aid in helping us make that decision, and no application for a research-based degree will be considered without such a proposal.

We are aware that producing this proposal takes time. Further, we are also aware that many people do not have a clearly defined research project at the outset of their studies, and that typically the first few months of research aims to clarify just that. We thus do not hold you to following this preliminary research proposal. We ask you to provide one nonetheless, for three reasons. First, it allows us to assess your ability to conceive of a research project. Second, it provides us with a clear sense of your research interests. Third, the proposal will provide the basis for initial discussions with your research supervisor if you are accepted.

The preliminary research proposal is usually between 1-2 typed pages, and should include the following sections:

1.       A  title  that gives a clear idea of what your thesis may be about.

2.       A  statement of the research problem  you have identified and wish to explore in the thesis.

3.       A  rationale  that explains why the research problem arises or is of interest.

4.       A  sample bibliography  that provides a sense of other thinkers who have written in this area and you take to be relevant to your project.

Before applying, check out the research interests of staff members listed in the Postgraduate Handbook. If there is no one listing interests in your area, then there is little point in applying. If there are, then please do not contact them directly at the outset. Rather, complete the preliminary research proposal along with your application. This will be assessed by a suitable staff member with expertise in this area, who will only contact you should they require further clarification.

The Full Research proposal

Within six months of registration you will be asked to produce a full research proposal. This gets submitted to the Faculty Office and the title gets officially registered by the University. The Faculty have produced a formal guide for such proposals. Their guide is reproduced below, modified so that it is suitable for philosophical research.

A research proposal is a plan of action; it sets out the aims of your research project and how you intend to achieve these aims. The proposal for a Master’s thesis is usually between 3 and 6 typed pages; that for a Doctoral thesis, between 6 and 12 pages. The following headings are intended to assist you in writing a proposal. You may find that in writing your proposal, you want to use different headings, and order your account differently. This is perfectly in order, as long as the basic issues set out here are covered.

1. TITLE : As indicated above, the title of your thesis will be registered, so the title needs to be brief and descriptive. It should provide a fairly clear idea of what your thesis is about.

2. RESEARCH QUESTION : A thesis or dissertation is the investigation of a problem. This research problem or question provides the focus for the entire project. What is it that you wish to investigate? Can you specify crisply the question (or problem) that your thesis sets out to address? You should aim to state a single research question, which you may then choose to flesh out through a number of sub-questions. Bear in mind that a dissertation (PhD, Masters, mini or full) should be a well-contained, tightly-focused and coherent piece of work that examines an issue in some depth.

3. RATIONALE : Having identified the question or problem you wish to address through your research project, you need to say something about how/why this question has arisen. For some students, the research project emerges out of a theoretical interest, for others it emerges out of issues of practice. Whatever the case, you should signal briefly why you have chosen the question that you have, and what contribution you think the completed research project might make to our understanding of the field.

4. LITERATURE REVIEW : When you have registered your proposal and got into the swing of the research project, you will need to undertake a thorough review of the literature pertaining to your research question. For the purposes of the research proposal, you need to have read sufficiently in the field to justify your research question (Why is it important? Have other academics taken up this question in the same or similar ways? How do current debates in your own field of study bear on your research question? Your literature review must assist you in addressing these issues. It will provide information on how your own, or related, research questions have been investigated by other academics in your own (and other, related) fields. It will also provide you with resources to build your own conceptual framework. The literature review thus has two broad aims, to familiarise you with both the theoretical and empirical work which can inform your study.

5. TIME LINE : Try and develop a plan of work for the completion of your thesis, so that you set aside time for conducting a literature review and writing up the report. This will assist you in pacing your progress through the thesis, and also in planning a manageable project.

6. SAMPLE BIBLIOGRAPHY : The last part of your research proposal should contain a sample bibliography. This provides a guide to reading you have already done, or plan to do, in developing your research project. Put down the key theoretical and methodological texts you have drawn on, or intend to draw on, as well as that literature, both theoretical and empirical, which bears on your own study. The sample bibliography should not be longer than a page.

Jump to Content Jump to Resources

• Three Columns

Information on Thesis Proposals

Creating a Thesis Committee

The first step in creating a thesis committee is for a committee chair or advisor to agree to supervise your thesis. Minimally, the committee chair must be a tenured or tenure-track faculty of the CSULB Philosophy Department. Your committee must additionally consist of at least two other faculty members, at least one of whom must also be a tenured or tenure-track faculty of the CSULB Philosophy Department. The department strongly recommends that your third member also be tenured or tenure-track in Philosophy, although it’s possible for the third member to be a part-time faculty member or a person with appropriate qualifications from another university department or another university. Please consult with your committee chair in determining appropriate persons to invite to serve on your committee. (Although many part-time lecturers in the department are generous in volunteering their time for committee service, we request that you remember that the University does not compensate them for it, and most have heavy teaching scheduleshere and on other campuses.) Your committee must be approved by the department.

Writing Your Thesis Proposal

The goal of your thesis proposal is to present the tenured and tenure-track faculty members of the department with a general outline of your intended thesis project together with a brief justification of its merit as a research project warranting a master’s degree. Take as your goal the creation of a concise, well-written document clearly articulating your project and its relationship to the philosophical literature. In general you should aim for 6-8 pages of text and a bibliography of 1-2 pages. A good thesis proposal will have three elements: (1) A clear and concise statement of the position you intend to articulate and defend in the thesis. (2) A well-researched statement relating your position to the philosophical literature indicating how your position connects with important thought on the subject by other philosophers. (3) An outline of how exactly you intend to structure your exposition in the thesis. This outline should present a chapter-by-chapter account, indicating how each chapter relates to the overall project.

The best strategy for writing your thesis proposal is to start early and interact regularly with your committee. Your committee is your resource for advice and feedback on your proposal while you develop it. The director of your committee is responsible for deciding when the proposal is ready for review, and the committee members must agree. Your committee members are also the ones who will present the proposal and defend it to the department. Thus, the more constructive interaction you have with them while writing the proposal the better. It is important to note that a student cannot submit a proposal to the department on his/her initiative without the approval of the thesis committee.

Some Common Proposal Difficulties

Writing a book report: Your thesis should make a modest contribution to the philosophical literature. A mere summary of the positions and arguments is inadequate. There are many ways you can contribute to philosophical thought: Your contribution could consist of finding a significant thesis or type of argument to constructively criticize. You could find an original extension of, or argument for, another person’s theory. You can develop a critical discussion of a view’s underlying methodological, epistemic, or ontological commitments. You can explore what is really at stake in a philosophical debate or the implications of a view. You can propose a useful organization of the positions in a debate. Whatever you choose, it must signify a step forward – an original contribution – albeit a modest one.

Cutting from whole cloth: While your thesis should contain your contribution to philosophical thinking on your thesis topic, your thesis is unlikely to introduce a totally novel and important way to conceive of or solve a problem in philosophy. Good research in philosophy is almost always grounded in a thorough understanding of the ways in which other people have thought about a philosophical topic or problem. Your thesis should build on the tradition.

Rushing to market: Think of your proposal as something that will take numerous drafts and some serious research to complete. Don’t try to slap together a document in order to meet a deadline. The timeline of an advanced degree is dictated exclusively by the amount of time it takes you to acquire and demonstrate a high level of competence in the field. When your proposal is ready for departmental review, you should be well on your way to writing the thesis itself.

Technical language: In general, it is better to state your thesis without technical language for a couple of reasons. First, expressing your project without reliance on technical jargon is an indicator that you have a good grasp of the issues. Second, not everyone in the department will necessarily be familiar with the terms you use. Of course, sometimes it is important to refer to technical terms in framing a view or problem. When you use technical language, you should always explicate its meaning.

Long historical exegesis: When relating your thesis topic to the philosophical literature the most important facts to include are the ones that indicate how your project connects to recent work on the topic. A proposal need not contain a lengthy synopsis of the history of your topic.

Personal histories: However you came to your topic, that story is not relevant to assessing its philosophical merit or its viability as a thesis project.

Submitting Your Thesis Proposal

Once your advisor and all committee members have accepted your proposal, the next step is for your proposal to be submitted to the department for review. Both your proposal and your thesis committee will be reviewed (solely) by tenured and tenure-track members of the department, and will be voted upon at a faculty meeting.

To prepare your proposal, first add a cover sheet including the title, the date, and the names of your committee members with the advisor identified and listed first. Each member of the committee will sign the cover sheet of your proposal, so include a signature line for each member. Once you have collected the committee signatures, you should prepare hard copies of your proposal for distribution to the faculty mailboxes in MHB seven days before the meeting where your proposal will be considered. (Under some circumstances, electronic distribution of your proposal may be possible; please consult your thesis advisor). All the tenured and tenure-track members of the department must receive a copy of your proposal.

Please note that you are responsible for all printing and photocopying of your proposal. The Department does not provide photocopying services for students for this or other purposes.

Some Example Thesis Proposals

Example 1: Back to the Future: Natural Law and the Original Meaning of the Alien Tort Claims Act

Example 2: Conceivability and Possibility Studies in Frege and Kripke

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 .

You Might Also Like:

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

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

• Essay Database >
• Essays Samples >
• Essay Types >
• Research Proposal Example

Philosophy Research Proposals Samples For Students

30 samples of this type

Do you feel the need to examine some previously written Research Proposals on Philosophy before you begin writing an own piece? In this free collection of Philosophy Research Proposal examples, you are given an exciting opportunity to discover meaningful topics, content structuring techniques, text flow, formatting styles, and other academically acclaimed writing practices. Using them while composing your own Philosophy Research Proposal will definitely allow you to finish the piece faster.

Presenting high-quality samples isn't the only way our free essays service can aid students in their writing endeavors – our experts can also create from point zero a fully customized Research Proposal on Philosophy that would make a genuine foundation for your own academic work.

Gustav Klimt Faculty Painting Research Proposals Example

Gustav Klimt is well remembered for the immense role he played in shaping painting. In particular, the series of paintings he did on University of Vienna’s ceiling in the Great Hall stand out as his best work. These paintings on the ceiling of the university addressed the fields of medicine, philosophy and jurisprudence (Klimt, 23). However, he would later be attacked for pornography allegations in the paintings. Because of this, the paintings were not displayed in the university (Klimt, 34). This paper analyzes the paintings that caused controversy in his life (philosophy, jurisprudence and medicine).

The Research Project Research Proposal Examples

Doctor candidate:.

Philosophy of Transformation: Differentiation or Subtraction Summary in Key Words Philosophy of transformation; Deleuze; Badiou; differentiation, subtraction, (re-, de-) territorialization; folding; plane of consistency; events (interventions); truth procedure; subject; the capitalism; the democratic materialism

Summary of the Theme and the Aim of the Project

Example of process theory research proposal, research paper proposal on process theology.

The importance of research being done in this branch of religion is so as to clearly bring out the relationship that exists between religious thoughts and the dynamic aspects of human life2. Additionally it brings out the relationship and comparisons that exist between traditions and religious practices. Several studies have shown that there exists a strong and inseparable relationship between traditions and contemporary religion. Historically, process theology has aroused various opinions from various schools of thought3. It is generally accepted that process theology originated from Europe, especially Great Britain and spread out through to the United States.

Don't waste your time searching for a sample.

Get your research proposal done by professional writers!

Just from $10/page

Assessing The Feasibility Of Opening An Hm Store In Almaty Kazakhstan Research Proposal Examples

Assessing the feasibility of opening an h and m store in almaty, kazakhstan 1.

Abstract 2 1. Introduction 5 1.1 Introduction 5 2. Problem /Opportunity 7 2.1 Business problem (opportunity) 7 2.2 Research Question 8 2.3 Research Purpose 8 2.4 Research Objectives 8 2.5 Research Scope 8 3. Literature Review 10 4. Proposed Methodology 13 4.1 Research Methodology 13 4.2 Ethical Considerations 17 5. Project Work Plan and Deliverables 18

References ... Read more Business Education Marketing Company Commerce Trade Study Information Store Data Philosophy Finance 12 Pages Draw Topic & Writing Ideas From This Research Proposal On Lord Of The Flies

Golding, W. (1954). Lord of the Flies. New York, NY: Penguin. (Pp. 1-297)

Good Research Proposal About Ideology and Religion in the Life of a Samurai

Ideology and religion in the life of a samurai, good research proposal about wabi sabi the japanese art, refurbishing.

<Lecturer’s Name and Course Number>

Introduction

Good example of novice nurses experience of preceptoring students with support of expert nurses research proposal, research report, american sanctions on russia: the impacts of sanctions to russia after the annexation research proposals examples.

After the Russian takeover of the Ukraine- controlled Crimea on March 14, 2014, sanctions were immediately imposed by the Americans as an attempt to control Russia’s continuous attempts to destabilize Ukraine. However, many question as to what effects these Americans sanctions have on the economy, business sector and people. In order to answer this question, this study proposes to use observational and narrative research in order to discuss the overall nature of the issue and analyze the changes within the duration of the issue.

Abstract: 2

Free research proposal about provided by mental health nurses, implementation of total quality management and the balanced score card by sme research proposal examples, dissertation proposal, causes of the increasing rates of cardiovascular disease research proposal template for faster writing.

Thesis: Unhealthy lifestyle habits are the main reason for the increasing rates of cardiovascular disease. Research question: What are the causes of the increasing rates of cardiovascular disease? Research aim: The aim of the research is to provide solutions to reduce the rates of cardiovascular disease. Research objectives: The first research objective is to examine the risk factors for the occurrence of cardiovascular disease. The second research objective is to evaluate the impact of the increasing rates of cardiovascular disease on society.

Literature review

Good example of research proposal on the underlying research will revolve around the following research question:, impact of media technologies on society, good sexism in the workplace in saudi arabia research proposal example, free research proposal about sample.

Would it benefit CrossFit affiliate gyms when it comes to existing members and recruiting new members to turn towards a more functional fitness gym that incorporated more boot camp and cardio type classes and less heavy lifting?

Greek History Greek Mythology Archetypes Research Proposal Example

Statement of the topic, example of research proposal on justification.

Leadership Development Programs as a Tool to Facilitate Successful Management Performance in Local Companies in Russia after the Introduction of a Market-Oriented Economy

Example Of Research Proposal On Concept Paper

Research proposal on diversity management in contemporary companies, i: introduction, direct practice improvement project prospectus research proposal sample.

<Insert Title here> <Insert Name> <Insert Submission Date> <Insert Chairperson Name>

Relationship Between Depression And Suicide Among Youth: A Sample Research Proposal For Inspiration & Mimicking

Purpose of the study.

The purpose of this study is to find the connection between depression and suicide among youth, identify the percentage of young people that are affected by the depressive disorder and the percentage of those suffering from depression that have suicidal intentions. It is important to study this issue because mental illness and following suicide attempts is a wide-spread complicated problem all around the world nowadays.

Research Question/Hypothesis

Expertly written research proposal on social challenges faced by indian studentsaim: to follow, methodological paradigm, sample research proposal on prison rights and corporal punishment, should victims determine the sentencing of the perpetrator research proposals example, good example of research proposal on the rise of the nation state system - impact of church and feudalism on europe's, sample research proposal on building brand image by outsourcing online reputation, marketing research proposal, research proposal on face reconstruction and recognition technology in 3d format, new directions in non-market strategy in the middle east post research proposal sample, introduction, effectiveness of crm use in hilton hotel, singapore research proposal sample, effectiveness of crm use in hilton hotel, singapore, pacem research proposal sample.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

• Postgraduate

Research degrees

• Examples of Research proposals
• Apply for 2024
• Find a course
• Accessibility

Examples of research proposals

How to write your research proposal, with examples of good proposals.

Research proposals

Your research proposal is a key part of your application. It tells us about the question you want to answer through your research. It is a chance for you to show your knowledge of the subject area and tell us about the methods you want to use.

We use your research proposal to match you with a supervisor or team of supervisors.

In your proposal, please tell us if you have an interest in the work of a specific academic at York St John. You can get in touch with this academic to discuss your proposal. You can also speak to one of our Research Leads. There is a list of our Research Leads on the Apply page.

When you write your proposal you need to:

• Highlight how it is original or significant
• Explain how it will develop or challenge current knowledge of your subject
• Identify the importance of your research
• Show why you are the right person to do this research
• Research Proposal Example 1 (DOC, 49kB)
• Research Proposal Example 2 (DOC, 0.9MB)
• Research Proposal Example 3 (DOC, 55.5kB)
• Research Proposal Example 4 (DOC, 49.5kB)

Subject specific guidance

• Writing a Humanities PhD Proposal (PDF, 0.1MB)
• Writing a Creative Writing PhD Proposal (PDF, 0.1MB)
• About the University
• Our culture and values
• Academic schools
• Academic dates
• Press office

Our wider work

• Business support
• Work in the community
• Donate or support

Connect with us

York St John University

Lord Mayor’s Walk

[email protected]

01904 624 624

York St John London Campus

6th Floor Export Building

1 Clove Crescent

[email protected]

01904 876 944

• Policies and documents
• Module documents
• Programme specifications
• Quality gateway
• Admissions documents
• Access and Participation Plan
• Freedom of information
• Accessibility statement
• Modern slavery and human trafficking statement

© York St John University 2024

Colour Picker

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Dui id ornare arcu odio.

Felis bibendum ut tristique et egestas quis ipsum. Et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. Faucibus pulvinar elementum integer enim neque volutpat ac. Hac habitasse platea dictumst vestibulum rhoncus.

Nec ullamcorper sit amet risus nullam eget felis eget. Eget felis eget nunc lobortis mattis aliquam faucibus purus.

Research Philosophy

Research philosophy is a vast topic and here we will not be discussing this topic in great details. Research philosophy is associated with assumption, knowledge and nature of the study. It deals with the specific way of developing knowledge. This matter needs to be addressed because researchers may have different assumptions about the nature of truth and knowledge and philosophy helps us to understand their assumptions.

In business and economics dissertations at Bachelor’s level, you are not expected to discuss research philosophy in a great level of depth, and about one page in methodology chapter devoted to research philosophy usually suffices. For a business dissertation at Master’s level, on the other hand, you may need to provide more discussion of the philosophy of your study. But even there, about two pages of discussions are usually accepted as sufficient by supervisors.

Discussion of research philosophy in your dissertation should include the following:

• You need to specify the research philosophy of your study. Your research philosophy can be pragmatism , positivism , realism or interpretivism as discussed below in more details.
• The reasons behind philosophical classifications of the study need to be provided.
• You need to discuss the implications of your research philosophy on the research strategy in general and the choice of primary data collection methods in particular.

The Essence of Research Philosophy

Research philosophy deals with the source, nature and development of knowledge [1] . In simple terms, research philosophy is belief about the ways in which data about a phenomenon should be collected, analysed and used.

Although the idea of knowledge creation may appear to be profound, you are engaged in knowledge creation as part of completing your dissertation. You will collect secondary and primary data and engage in data analysis to answer the research question and this answer marks the creation of new knowledge.

In respect to business and economics philosophy has the following important three functions [2] :

• Demystifying : Exposing, criticising and explaining the unsustainable assumptions, inconsistencies and confusions these may contain.
• Informing : Helping researchers to understand where they stand in the wider field of knowledge-producing activities, and helping to make them aware of potentialities they might explore.
• Method-facilitating : Dissecting and better understanding the methods which economists or, more generally, scientists do, or could, use, and thereby to refine the methods on offer and/or to clarify their conditions of usage.

In essence, addressing research philosophy in your dissertation involves being aware and formulating your beliefs and assumptions.  As illustrated in figure below, the identification of research philosophy is positioned at the outer layer of the ‘research onion’. Accordingly it is the first topic to be clarified in research methodology chapter of your dissertation.

Research philosophy in the ‘research onion’ [2]

Each stage of the research process is based on assumptions about the sources and the nature of knowledge. Research philosophy will reflect the author’s important assumptions and these assumptions serve as base for the research strategy. Generally, research philosophy has many branches related to a wide range of disciplines. Within the scope of business studies in particular there are four main research philosophies:

• Interpretivism (Interpretivist)

The Choice of Research Philosophy

The choice of a specific research philosophy is impacted by practical implications. There are important philosophical differences between studies that focus on facts and numbers such as an analysis of the impact of foreign direct investment on the level of GDP growth and qualitative studies such as an analysis of leadership style on employee motivation in organizations.

The choice between positivist and interpretivist research philosophies or between quantitative and qualitative research methods has traditionally represented a major point of debate. However, the latest developments in the practice of conducting studies have increased the popularity of pragmatism and realism philosophies as well.

Moreover, as it is illustrated in table below, there are popular data collection methods associated with each research philosophy.

 Research philosophies and data collection methods [3]

My e-book,  The Ultimate Guide to Writing a Dissertation in Business Studies: a step by step assistance contains discussions of theory and application of research philosophy. The e-book also explains all stages of the  research process  starting from the  selection of the research area  to writing personal reflection. Important elements of dissertations such as  research philosophy ,  research approach ,  research design ,  methods of data collection  and  data analysis  are explained in this e-book in simple words.

John Dudovskiy

[1] Bajpai, N. (2011) “Business Research Methods” Pearson Education India

[2] Tsung, E.W.K. (2016) “The Philosophy of Management Research” Routledge

[3] Table adapted from Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2012) “Research Methods for Business Students” 6 th  edition, Pearson Education Limited

• Skip to content
• About Accessibility on our website

• Staff Directory
• How to Write a Research Proposal
• University Home
• The School of Divinity, History, Philosophy & Art History
• Degrees, Programmes and Courses
• Postgraduate Research

The School of

Divinity, History, Philosophy & Art History

Maintaining a tradition of teaching & learning dating back over 500 years

Applicants must submit a detailed research proposal. The full proposal, preferably between 1,000 and 1,500 words, should include at least the following elements:

• a clear description of the proposed thesis topic, indicating the research problem and expected scope of the investigation;
• a description of how the proposed topic fits into the existing field;
• an indication of how the research is to be carried out (e.g. study of written sources, social surveys, fieldwork);
• an indication of why the University of Aberdeen is suited to the proposed research (e.g. staff expertise, library or archival resources).

Candidates admitted to PhD study will not be bound by the proposal that accompanies the application. Its purpose is to reveal something of the applicant’s preparation and insight. During their first months of work doctoral students often adjust their proposals in consultation with their advisors, who may also request a fuller proposal (e.g. with chapter outlines and provisional bibliography) as the project takes shape.

In Aberdeen as elsewhere in the UK, the dissertation is examined by internal and external examiners other than the candidate’s supervisor. They will expect a dissertation that makes an original and significant contribution to knowledge.

Research proposals should be uploaded online with your application.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Research Methods in Philosophy - How to Write a Research Proposal

Related Papers

Education India: A Quarterly Refereed Journal of Dialogues on Education

Shubham kumar Sanu , Vishwa Raj Sharma , Dr Mukesh Kumar , Smriti Shreya

Writing a research proposal for an early career researcher is one of the toughest part of research work. A research proposal is a blueprint to conduct research work and a well-structured proposal provides smooth functioning for the proposed research. Generally, young researchers face various types of problem in structuring a good research proposal in absence of proper guidelines, steps and strategies. This paper aims to provide a general guideline to the students and researchers to develop a wellstructured research proposal for the purpose of PhD/dissertation/research projects, etc. The concept and significance of a research proposal, how to start research work, the process of producing and appropriate sections for a good research proposal has been discussed in great detail.

abasynuniv.edu.pk

Flora Maleki

Langley, BC: Trinity Western University. …

Paul T P Wong

S M Mukarram Jahan

A research proposal is a serious statement that addresses a researcher’s intent to conduct a study on a phenomenon and a plan about how to perform the research. Students usually undertake research under the guidance of a supervisor from faculty in tandem with assistance and supervision of other faculty members. Thus, the proposal should be a clear statement of intent that aims at elucidating the plan of research to make it feasible and acceptable for all parties concerned. The most essential characteristic of a research proposal is that it should be sufficient to present the researcher’s idea or question and expected outcomes with clarity and definition (the what). It should also make a case for the reason the researcher’s focus of study is significant and the value that it will bring to the discipline under study (the why).

abdul rahim

S Vasantha Kumari

A research proposal is a written document specifying what a researcher intends to study and written before beginning the research which communicate research problem and proposed methods of solving it. A research proposal should be built on a concrete plan to conduct academic or scientific research. Types of proposals include internal, external, solicited, unsolicited, preproposals, continuation or non-competing and renewal or competing. Purpose of a Research Proposal is to convince the organization and readers .Characteristics need to be based on attention, interest, desire and action. Qualities of good proposal include specific scope, realistic nature, appropriate credentials, fulfill needs, beneficial, short and simple. Need for good preparation of proposal is vital in formulating proposal, assisting researcher and improving the research quality. Functions of Proposal consists to synthesize critical thinking, clarifies own thinking, refine proposed research, communicate ideas, open thinking and negotiation between researcher and involved parties. Basic composition of Proposal needs a beginning, middle and an end. Typical proposal format includes title, abstract, introduction, background, preliminary studies, research methodology, budget, curriculum vitae for principal investigators, appendix and human subjects. Proposal development strategies and writing tips includes use of outline , listings, visuals, forecasting , internal summaries , significant issues , sequencing components , review , edit , proof read , avoiding overkill point and errors. Proposals are turned down when problems are trivial, complex, nebulous, diffuse without clear aim, lack of sufficient evidence, imagination and originality.

Holuphumiee Adegbaju

British Journal of Midwifery

Valerie Fleming

Aksha Memon

A research proposal is a pre-written document which gives an overview of the research tactics. It gives a general idea of the objectives to be achieved and the ways and means to achieve it. Writing research proposal is however a challenging feat. Due to lack of clear guidance from any source, there are many substandard research proposals which are placed before evaluation committee. The researcher came across various people who had no clear understanding of the process and structure of research proposal or research design. This problem has led the researcher to develop a framework to guide the prospective researchers in framing their research design based on the following research questions.1) what is the procedure of writing the research proposal 2) what are the components of the research proposal.So, to give a clear picture about the problem the paper is divided into two parts I) Procedure of writing the research proposal II) Components of the research proposal. The procedure for writing the research proposal is discussed with regards to: 1) Identifying the problem 2) Deciding on the topic 3) Deciding the locale of study 4) Deciding on the data needs 5) Planning the source of data collection 6) Plotting down ways to collect data 7) Identifying methods for analyzing data collection 8) Establishing a basis for designing the Proposal. While the components of research proposal are discussed with regards to : 1) Cover page 2) Abstract 3) Keywords 4) Introduction 5) Review of literature 6) Statement of problem 7) Objectives of the study 8) Hypothesis of the study 9) Period of study 10) Methodology 11) Data analysis 12) Limitation of the study 13) Chapter framework 14) References 15) Appendices.

Parlindungan Pardede

RELATED PAPERS

Chemistry: A European Journal

Erhard Kemnitz

Kwartalnik Filmowy

Andrzej Pitrus

Kevin Anzzolin

Conor Cradden

ABM Mahfuz ul Alam

Aleksandar Mikic

Nurcahya A I R I N Putri

hgjtrgg hjjghyfg

Informe No. 2 “Frente común anti-AMLO” y el discurso de odio en plataformas digitales

Seminario sobre Violencia y Paz

Journal of Craniovertebral Junction and Spine

sudhirkumar srivastava

Applied Catalysis B: Environmental

Sadia Parveen

Kristin Weed

Remote Sensing

Veraldo Liesenberg

Russian Journal of Agricultural and Socio-Economic Sciences

Muhammad Naparin

Basal Ganglia

George Rebec

Current Sustainable/Renewable Energy Reports

Abhishek Anand

Revista de la Asociación Geológica Argentina

Luis Fauque

Molecular Biology of the Cell

Richard Morimoto

Wayne Kelly

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• Free Samples
• Premium Essays
• Editing Services Editing Proofreading Rewriting
• Extra Tools Essay Topic Generator Thesis Generator Citation Generator GPA Calculator Study Guides Donate Paper
• Essay Writing Help
• About Us About Us Testimonials FAQ
• Philosophy Research Proposal
• Samples List

An research proposal examples on philosophy is a prosaic composition of a small volume and free composition, expressing individual impressions and thoughts on a specific occasion or issue and obviously not claiming a definitive or exhaustive interpretation of the subject.

Some signs of philosophy research proposal:

• the presence of a specific topic or question. A work devoted to the analysis of a wide range of problems in biology, by definition, cannot be performed in the genre of philosophy research proposal topic.
• The research proposal expresses individual impressions and thoughts on a specific occasion or issue, in this case, on philosophy and does not knowingly pretend to a definitive or exhaustive interpretation of the subject.
• As a rule, an essay suggests a new, subjectively colored word about something, such a work may have a philosophical, historical, biographical, journalistic, literary, critical, popular scientific or purely fiction character.
• in the content of an research proposal samples on philosophy , first of all, the author’s personality is assessed - his worldview, thoughts and feelings.

The goal of an research proposal in philosophy is to develop such skills as independent creative thinking and writing out your own thoughts.

Writing an research proposal is extremely useful, because it allows the author to learn to clearly and correctly formulate thoughts, structure information, use basic concepts, highlight causal relationships, illustrate experience with relevant examples, and substantiate his conclusions.

• Studentshare
• Research Proposal

Examples List on Philosophy Research Proposal

• TERMS & CONDITIONS
• PRIVACY POLICY
• COOKIES POLICY

NASA Announces List Of Finalists With Proposals For Mars Sample Return Mission

This is not investment advice. The author has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. Wccftech.com has a disclosure and ethics policy.

After it decided to seek alternatives to an $11 billion plan that would have seen a rocket fire off of the Martian surface to return samples collected by the Perseverance rover, NASA shared the list of firms that submitted approved proposals for a new initiative earlier today.

The space agency announced that it will offer a " contract for up to $1.5 million " to seven proposers out of a list of ten finalists selected after a request released in April. Some firms on this list are SpaceX and Lockheed Martin, two key players in NASA's multi billion dollar initiative to kick start lunar exploration after the Apollo program.

Related Story NASA Astronaut That Took First Colored Photo Of Earth From The Moon Dies In Plane Crash

Nasa selects seven firms to conduct research on recovering samples from mars.

NASA's latest announcement follows a strong fourth test flight for SpaceX's Starship program. Starship, which is also the backbone of NASA's efforts to land the first humans on the Moon since the Apollo program, survived atmospheric reentry despite losing heat shield tiles during its descent and experiencing problems with its flaps yesterday.

SpaceX's overarching goal with Starship is to conduct crewed flights to Mars when possible, and along with Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, the firm is one of seven whose proposals NASA approved to evaluate for the contract award. This list also includes Blue Origin, Amazon founder and retail billionaire Jeff Bezos' aerospace and launch transportation systems provider.

Blue Origin's proposal seeks to leverage the Artemis program to return samples from Mars. Like SpaceX, its rocket and lander designs are also targeted to land crew on the Moon. Blue Origin is developing its New Glenn rocket along with the Blue Moon lunar lander, which is slated to fly to the Moon after the initial landings by Starship.

Another ambitious participant in NASA's Artemis program is defense contractor Lockheed Martin. Lockheed plans to develop a fully functioning base on the Moon, complete with a nuclear reactor and 5G internet connectivity . The firm is having a busy June on the space front, as it announced earlier this week that it will buy as many as 25 rocket launches from small lift rocket operator Firefly Aerospace.

The award seeks to leverage Firefly's low launch costs, according to Lockheed, and it expands Firefly's industry partnerships since it is also a key partner for NASA's low Earth orbit (LEO) contractor Northrop Grumman.

As for SpaceX, its proposal seeks to leverage Starship for NASA's Mars sample return. Starship's HLS variant is designed to lift off from the lunar surface, and early tests focused on its landing legs as part of vertical land landings. These legs are also important for Starship's Mars flights, and SpaceX's latest renders of the lander released in April saw an upgraded leg design. Instead of earlier variants that had housed the legs inside the ship, the latest images show them placed against its body.

NASA's engine contractor for the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket, Aerojet Rocketdyne, is another major industry player selected for the Mars sample return mission proposals. Rocketdyne's engines have powered the Space Shuttle and are also being used on the SLS. Along with the engine manufacturer, startups Quantum Space and Whittinghill Aerospace also made the cut.

Deal of the Day

Further Reading

NASA Astronaut Who Cried When Leaving Space Is Going Back Today On Boeing’s Starliner

Boeing Ready To Launch Astronauts To Space This Wednesday After Nail Biting Scrubs

NASA & Boeing’s First Astronaut Launch Canceled Less Than Four Minutes Before Launch

NASA Says Entire “Community” Will Review Data Before Boeing’s Upcoming Astronaut Mission

Trending stories, steve jobs announced 19 years ago today that apple would switch to intel processors for various macs, ditching the powerpc range forever, spacex starship missed its landing spot by 6 kilometers says musk, apple’s craig federighi was so impressed with the github copilot code that it led the company to productize ai features, dragon age: the veilguard features companions ability wheel for strategic combat; romance has no limitations, tsmc believes its impossible for huawei “china” to catch up in the semiconductor race.

Popular Discussions

Amd ryzen 9000 desktop cpus official: zen 5 achieves 16% ipc uplift, 9950x, 9900x, 9700x, 9600x skus, up to 16 cores at 5.7 ghz, july launch, intel lunar lake cpu architecture deep-dive: lion cove +14% ipc, skymont ipc more than raptor cove, next-gen power managment & scheduling, watch the amd ceo, dr. lisa su, computex 2024 opening keynote live here, amd ryzen 9 9900x “zen 5” demoed in avatar frontier of pandora game benchmark, ryzen 9 9950x flagship spotted, intel achieves panther lake “power on” on crucial 18a node, next-gen is all about ipc & panther lake supports several segments & more memory flexibility.

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.

Dear Colleague Letter: Planning Proposals for the NSF Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) Research Incubators for STEM Excellence (E-RISE) and Collaborations for Optimizing Research Ecosystems (E-CORE) Research Infrastructure Improvement (RII) Programs

June 7, 2024

Dear Colleagues:

With this Dear Colleague Letter (DCL), NSF EPSCoR announces its intent to accept planning proposals to support planning of future submissions to the  E-RISE RII or E-CORE RII programs. E-RISE RII focuses on the development and sustainability of an EPSCoR-eligible jurisdiction’s research capacity and competitiveness in a scientific topic area by supporting the incubation of research teams and products in a scientific topical area. E-CORE RII supports jurisdictions in building capacity in one or more targeted research infrastructure cores that underlie the jurisdiction’s research ecosystem. Both E-RISE RII and E-CORE RII projects are expected to align with research priorities identified in the approved Science and Technology (S&T) plan of the jurisdiction.

PLANNING PROPOSAL PURPOSE

NSF EPSCoR is utilizing the planning type of proposal to engage institutions and organizations that may be interested in submitting proposals to future E-RISE RII or E-CORE RII competitions. NSF EPSCoR is especially interested in planning activities that would catalyze new collaborations and partnerships in EPSCoR-eligible jurisdictions and that broaden the participation of individuals or organizations underrepresented in the NSF EPSCoR award portfolio.

The planning proposal will allow up to one year of support to provide, as applicable, the PI, collaborating institutions(s), and planning team with the time and resources needed for submission of a meritorious project to E-RISE RII or E-CORE RII programs.

EPSCoR RII planning proposals are not intended to provide seed funding for research activities. Planning proposals for the collection of research data will be returned without review. Rather, for EPSCoR RII, the planning type of proposal is appropriate for the development of a complex, jurisdiction-wide, four-year, capacity-building research infrastructure or research and education proposal that is aligned with the Science & Technology (S&T) plan of the jurisdiction.

In preparation for a future submission to the E-RISE RII program, the planning proposal should include:

• a review of the selected research focus area, including the rationale and justification for enhancing research capacity in that topic area within the jurisdiction;
• an assessment of the jurisdiction's existing research capacity and infrastructure (including cyberinfrastructure and research personnel) for enabling research in the chosen topic area;
• the initial coordination and planning of future jurisdiction-wide research and capacity-building efforts; and
• an analysis of the workforce development efforts needed to support the jurisdiction's future expertise in the research topic area(s).

In preparation for a future submission to the E-CORE RII program, the planning proposal should include:

• the integration of multi-disciplinary approaches, expertise, and organizations within the jurisdiction in order to develop a management plan for a future E-CORE project that optimizes research and capacity-building efforts while acknowledging and minimizing risks;
• identification of additional infrastructure that may be needed to support research efforts of relevance to the jurisdictional S&T plan;
• an analysis of the workforce development efforts needed to support the jurisdiction's S&T plan.

For examples of possible EPSCoR RII planning activities, see the Examples of Appropriate Planning Activities section below.

ELIGIBILITY

To be eligible for submission of a planning proposal or receipt of a planning award, the submitting institution or organization must be in an EPSCoR-eligible jurisdiction and must not be a funded collaborator on a pending or active E-RISE RII or E-CORE RII award.

Institutions or collaborators with a lead or collaborating role in a current EPSCoR RII Track-1 award are also eligible to submit a planning proposal.

IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS

Before preparing and submitting a planning proposal, the PI must contact an NSF EPSCoR RII Program Director  to provide a one-page concept outline of the project and to discuss the types of activities for which funding would be requested in the proposal. If approved, the NSF Program Director will invite submission of the planning proposal by email. The email confirming approval to submit a planning proposal must be uploaded as a document entitled "EPSCoR RII Planning - Program Director Concurrence Email" in the Program Officer Concurrence Email(s) section of  Research.gov .

PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

Planning proposals must be prepared and submitted in Research.gov in accordance with the guidance for Planning Proposals specified in Chapter II.F.1 of the  NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG) and the additional guidance below.

• Select the Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide as the Funding Opportunity;
• In the "Where to Apply" section, select "Office of the Director" as the Directorate, "Office of Integrative Activities" as the Division and either "EPSCoR CORE RII" or “EPSCoR RISE RII” as the Program;
• On the Select Proposal Type screen, select "Planning" as the proposal type.

The Project Description must not exceed eight pages in length and must include the following:

• A brief paragraph on the purpose of the planning proposal, specifying whether the proposal is in preparation for submission to the E-RISE RII program or to the E-CORE RII program.
• A description of goals and activities for the project, including the basis for their inclusion and their relevance for a future E-RISE RII or E-CORE RII proposal submission. The narrative should include activities that would be expected to culminate in one or more jurisdiction-wide, in-person, hybrid, or virtual gathering(s) of key participants. Preliminary consultation with an EPSCoR RII Program Director may help identify the optimal activities for a particular project and at what points would best help the jurisdiction in the planning process.

When preparing the budget and budget justification, some considerations are:

• The budget may not exceed $100,000 for a period of up to one year.
• The budget should allow for at least one meeting for key participants to work together toward envisioning a future E-CORE or E-RISE RII project. This meeting may engage an external facilitator to direct participants toward a product that can be developed into an E-CORE or E-RISE RII proposal. If included, the facilitator must be listed in Section G (Consultant Services).
• The budget justification should explain how the budget allocation supports the overall goal of the planning proposal. Note that the funds are not intended to be used for research activities, such as preliminary data collection, or for proposal writing.

EXAMPLES OF APPROPRIATE PLANNING ACTIVITIES

Examples of activities appropriate during an EPSCoR RII planning award are provided below. Proposals may include activities like those described below or different activities more suitable for the submitting jurisdiction’s specific needs.

• Developing a plan for structuring the administrative core of a planned E-CORE RII project to allow for the transitioning of an EPSCoR State Office to the administrative core.
• Reviewing the existing research infrastructure in the jurisdiction that is needed to address the chosen focus area of the planning proposal, including an analysis of the personnel and equipment already available in the jurisdiction, or what personnel and equipment would need to be acquired to do the future work.
• Determining the future work's critical path and the timeline for when the needed infrastructure would be in place to ensure the overall success of the future project.
• Developing a detailed schematic illustrating how the future project would involve a coordinated, collaborative approach to the proposed problem, including using multiple investigators and organizations.
• Creating a logic model to describe the shared relationships among the resources, activities, outputs, outcomes, and impacts of the future project.
• Analyzing the potential sustainability of efforts, particularly in terms of commitments from the jurisdiction to sustain infrastructure after completion of the E-RISE RII or E-CORE RII award.
• Developing a management plan for the future project that includes human resource management, particularly in showing how potential new faculty hires would be included in the project plan, and a risk analysis of how the project would succeed if the required new faculty could not be hired for any reason.
• Ascertaining resources available at institutions across the jurisdiction, including research-intensive universities, primarily undergraduate institutions, community colleges, minority-serving institutions, and tribal colleges and universities, indicating how the chosen institutions could best fit into a four-year project as full-time, part-time, or seasonal research partners and/or sites of workforce development in the topic area of the project.
• Determining the baseline demographics of science, technology, education, and mathematics (STEM) participation in the jurisdiction and planning for increasing the participation from the full spectrum of diverse talent that society has to offer, which includes underrepresented and underserved communities, in the future project.

POINTS OF CONTACT

Questions about this DCL may be directed to:

• Casonya M. Johnson ( [email protected] ), Program Director
• Jeanne Small ( [email protected] ), Program Director
• Chinonye Nnakwe Whitley ( [email protected] ), Program Director

Sandra Richardson Section Head, Research Capacity and Competitiveness U.S. National Science Foundation

Alicia Knoedler Office Head, Office of Integrative Activities U.S. National Science Foundation