how to write a good phd research proposal

How to Write a PhD Research Proposal

• Applying to a PhD
• A research proposal summarises your intended research.
• Your research proposal is used to confirm you understand the topic, and that the university has the expertise to support your study.
• The length of a research proposal varies. It is usually specified by either the programme requirements or the supervisor upon request. 1500 to 3500 words is common.
• The typical research proposal structure consists of: Title, Abstract, Background and Rationale, Research Aims and Objectives, Research Design and Methodology, Timetable, and a Bibliography.

What is a Research Proposal?

A research proposal is a supporting document that may be required when applying to a research degree. It summarises your intended research by outlining what your research questions are, why they’re important to your field and what knowledge gaps surround your topic. It also outlines your research in terms of your aims, methods and proposed timetable .

What Is It Used for and Why Is It Important?

A research proposal will be used to:

• Confirm whether you understand the topic and can communicate complex ideas.
• Confirm whether the university has adequate expertise to support you in your research topic.
• Apply for funding or research grants to external bodies.

How Long Should a PhD Research Proposal Be?

Some universities will specify a word count all students will need to adhere to. You will typically find these in the description of the PhD listing. If they haven’t stated a word count limit, you should contact the potential supervisor to clarify whether there are any requirements. If not, aim for 1500 to 3500 words (3 to 7 pages).

Your title should indicate clearly what your research question is. It needs to be simple and to the point; if the reader needs to read further into your proposal to understand your question, your working title isn’t clear enough.

Directly below your title, state the topic your research question relates to. Whether you include this information at the top of your proposal or insert a dedicated title page is your choice and will come down to personal preference.

2. Abstract

If your research proposal is over 2000 words, consider providing an abstract. Your abstract should summarise your question, why it’s important to your field and how you intend to answer it; in other words, explain your research context.

Only include crucial information in this section – 250 words should be sufficient to get across your main points.

3. Background & Rationale

First, specify which subject area your research problem falls in. This will help set the context of your study and will help the reader anticipate the direction of your proposed research.

Following this, include a literature review . A literature review summarises the existing knowledge which surrounds your research topic. This should include a discussion of the theories, models and bodies of text which directly relate to your research problem. As well as discussing the information available, discuss those which aren’t. In other words, identify what the current gaps in knowledge are and discuss how this will influence your research. Your aim here is to convince the potential supervisor and funding providers of why your intended research is worth investing time and money into.

Last, discuss the key debates and developments currently at the centre of your research area.

4. Research Aims & Objectives

Identify the aims and objectives of your research. The aims are the problems your project intends to solve; the objectives are the measurable steps and outcomes required to achieve the aim.

In outlining your aims and objectives, you will need to explain why your proposed research is worth exploring. Consider these aspects:

• Will your research solve a problem?
• Will your research address a current gap in knowledge?
• Will your research have any social or practical benefits?

If you fail to address the above questions, it’s unlikely they will accept your proposal – all PhD research projects must show originality and value to be considered.

5. Research Design and Methodology

The following structure is recommended when discussing your research design:

• Sample/Population – Discuss your sample size, target populations, specimen types etc.
• Methods – What research methods have you considered, how did you evaluate them and how did you decide on your chosen one?
• Data Collection – How are you going to collect and validate your data? Are there any limitations?
• Data Analysis – How are you going to interpret your results and obtain a meaningful conclusion from them?
• Ethical Considerations – Are there any potential implications associated with your research approach? This could either be to research participants or to your field as a whole on the outcome of your findings (i.e. if you’re researching a particularly controversial area). How are you going to monitor for these implications and what types of preventive steps will you need to put into place?

6. Timetable

We’ve outlined the various stages of a PhD and the approximate duration of a PhD programme which you can refer to when designing your own research study.

7. Bibliography

Plagiarism is taken seriously across all academic levels, but even more so for doctorates. Therefore, ensure you reference the existing literature you have used in writing your PhD proposal. Besides this, try to adopt the same referencing style as the University you’re applying to uses. You can easily find this information in the PhD Thesis formatting guidelines published on the University’s website.

Finding a PhD has never been this easy – search for a PhD by keyword, location or academic area of interest.

Questions & Answers

Here are answers to some of the most common questions we’re asked about the Research Proposal:

Can You Change a Research Proposal?

Yes, your PhD research proposal outlines the start of your project only. It’s well accepted that the direction of your research will develop with time, therefore, you can revise it at later dates.

Can the Potential Supervisor Review My Draft Proposal?

Whether the potential supervisor will review your draft will depend on the individual. However, it is highly advisable that you at least attempt to discuss your draft with them. Even if they can’t review it, they may provide you with useful information regarding their department’s expertise which could help shape your PhD proposal. For example, you may amend your methodology should you come to learn that their laboratory is better equipped for an alternative method.

How Should I Structure and Format My Proposal?

Ensure you follow the same order as the headings given above. This is the most logical structure and will be the order your proposed supervisor will expect.

Most universities don’t provide formatting requirements for research proposals on the basis that they are a supporting document only, however, we recommend that you follow the same format they require for their PhD thesis submissions. This will give your reader familiarity and their guidelines should be readily available on their website.

Last, try to have someone within the same academic field or discipline area to review your proposal. The key is to confirm that they understand the importance of your work and how you intend to execute it. If they don’t, it’s likely a sign you need to rewrite some of your sections to be more coherent.

Browse PhDs Now

Join thousands of students.

Join thousands of other students and stay up to date with the latest PhD programmes, funding opportunities and advice.

• Log in
• Site search

How to write a successful research proposal

As the competition for PhD places is incredibly fierce, your research proposal can have a strong bearing on the success of your application - so discover how to make the best impression

What is a research proposal?

Research proposals are used to persuade potential supervisors and funders that your work is worthy of their support. These documents setting out your proposed research that will result in a Doctoral thesis are typically between 1,500 and 3,000 words in length.

Your PhD research proposal must passionately articulate what you want to research and why, convey your understanding of existing literature, and clearly define at least one research question that could lead to new or original knowledge and how you propose to answer it.

Professor Leigh Wilson, director of the graduate school at the University of Westminster, explains that while the research proposal is about work that hasn't been done yet, what prospective supervisors and funders are focusing on just as strongly is evidence of what you've done - how well you know existing literature in the area, including very recent publications and debates, and how clearly you've seen what's missing from this and so what your research can do that's new. Giving a strong sense of this background or frame for the proposed work is crucial.

'Although it's tempting to make large claims and propose research that sweeps across time and space, narrower, more focused research is much more convincing,' she adds. 'To be thorough and rigorous in the way that academic work needs to be, even something as long as a PhD thesis can only cover a fairly narrow topic. Depth not breadth is called for.'

The structure of your research proposal is therefore important to achieving this goal, yet it should still retain sufficient flexibility to comfortably accommodate any changes you need to make as your PhD progresses.

Layout and formats vary, so it's advisable to consult your potential PhD supervisor before you begin. Here's what to bear in mind when writing a research proposal.

Your provisional title should be around ten words in length, and clearly and accurately indicate your area of study and/or proposed approach. It should be catchy, informative and interesting.

The title page should also include personal information, such as your name, academic title, date of birth, nationality and contact details.

Aims and objectives

This is a short summary of your project. Your aims should be two or three broad statements that emphasise what you ultimately want to achieve, complemented by several focused, feasible and measurable objectives - the steps that you'll take to answer each of your research questions. This involves clearly and briefly outlining:

• how your research addresses a gap in, or builds upon, existing knowledge
• how your research links to the department that you're applying to
• the academic, cultural, political and/or social significance of your research questions.

Literature review

This section of your PhD proposal discusses the most important theories, models and texts that surround and influence your research questions, conveying your understanding and awareness of the key issues and debates.

It should focus on the theoretical and practical knowledge gaps that your work aims to address, as this ultimately justifies and provides the motivation for your project.

Methodology

Here, you're expected to outline how you'll answer each of your research questions. A strong, well-written methodology is crucial, but especially so if your project involves extensive collection and significant analysis of primary data.

In disciplines such as humanities the research proposal methodology identifies the data collection and analytical techniques available to you, before justifying the ones you'll use in greater detail. You'll also define the population that you're intending to examine.

You should also show that you're aware of the limitations of your research, qualifying the parameters that you plan to introduce. Remember, it's more impressive to do a fantastic job of exploring a narrower topic than a decent job of exploring a wider one.

Concluding or following on from your methodology, your timetable should identify how long you'll need to complete each step - perhaps using bi-weekly or monthly timeslots. This helps the reader to evaluate the feasibility of your project and shows that you've considered how you'll go about putting the PhD proposal into practice.

Bibliography

Finally, you'll provide a list of the most significant texts, plus any attachments such as your academic CV . Demonstrate your skills in critical reflection by selecting only those resources that are most appropriate.

Final checks

Before submitting this document along with your PhD application, you'll need to ensure that you've adhered to the research proposal format. This means that:

• every page is numbered
• it's professional, interesting and informative
• the research proposal has been proofread by both an experienced academic (to confirm that it conforms to academic standards) and a layman (to correct any grammatical or spelling errors)
• it has a contents page
• you've used a clear and easy-to-read structure, with appropriate headings.

Research proposal examples

To get a better idea of how your PhD proposal may look, some universities have provided examples of research proposals for specific subjects:

• The Open University - Social Policy and Criminology
• University of Sheffield - Sociological Studies
• University of Sussex
• University of York - Politics

Find out more

• Explore PhD studentships .
• For tips on writing a thesis, see 7 steps to writing a dissertation .
• Read more about PhD study .

How would you rate this page?

On a scale where 1 is dislike and 5 is like

• Dislike 1 unhappy-very
• Like 5 happy-very

Thank you for rating the page

You're viewing this site as a domestic an international student

You're a domestic student if you are:

• a citizen of Australia or New Zealand,
• an Australian permanent resident, or
• a holder of an Australian permanent humanitarian visa.

You're an international student if you are:

• intending to study on a student visa,
• not a citizen of Australia or New Zealand,
• not an Australian permanent resident, or
• a temporary resident (visa status) of Australia.

How to write a good PhD proposal

Study tips Published 3 Mar, 2022  ·  5-minute read

Want to make sure your research degree starts smoothly? We spoke with 2 PhD candidates about overcoming this initial hurdle. Here’s their advice for how to write a good PhD proposal.

Writing your research proposal is an integral part of commencing a PhD with many schools and institutes, so it can feel rather intimidating. After all, how you come up with your PhD proposal could be the difference between your supervisor getting on board or giving your project a miss.

Let’s explore how to make a PhD research proposal with UQ candidates Chelsea Janke and Sarah Kendall. 

Look at PhD proposal examples

Look at other PhD proposals that have been successful. Ask current students if you can look at theirs.

Nobody’s asking you to reinvent the wheel when it comes to writing your PhD proposal – leave that for your actual thesis. For now, while you’re just working out how to write a PhD proposal, examples are a great starting point.

Chelsea knows this step is easier if you’ve got a friend who is already doing a PhD, but there are other ways to find a good example or template.

“Look at other PhD proposals that have been successful,” she says.

“Ask current students if you can look at theirs.”

“If you don’t know anyone doing their PhD, look online to get an idea of how they should be structured.”

What makes this tricky is that proposals can vary greatly by field and disciplinary norms, so you should check with your proposed supervisor to see if they have a specific format or list of criteria to follow. Part of writing a good PhD proposal is submitting it in a style that's familiar to the people who will read and (hopefully) become excited by it and want to bring you into their research area.

Here are some of the key factors to consider when structuring your proposal:

• meeting the expected word count (this can range from a 1-page maximum to a 3,000-word minimum depending on your supervisor and research area)
• making your bibliography as detailed as necessary
• outlining the research questions you’ll be trying to solve/answer
• discussing the impact your research could have on your field
• conducting preliminary analysis of existing research on the topic
• documenting details of the methods and data sources you’ll use in your research
• introducing your supervisor(s)  and how their experience relates to your project.

Please note this isn't a universal list of things you need in your PhD research proposal. Depending on your supervisor's requirements, some of these items may be unnecessary or there may be other inclusions not listed here.

Ask your planned supervisor for advice

Alright, here’s the thing. If sending your research proposal is your first point of contact with your prospective supervisor, you’ve jumped the gun a little.

You should have at least one researcher partially on board with your project before delving too deep into your proposal. This ensures you’re not potentially spending time and effort on an idea that no one has any appetite for. Plus, it unlocks a helpful guide who can assist with your proposal.

PhD research isn’t like Shark Tank – you’re allowed to confer with academics and secure their support before you pitch your thesis to them. Discover how to choose the right PhD supervisor for you.

For a time-efficient strategy, Chelsea recommends you approach your potential supervisor(s) and find out if:

• they have time to supervise you
• they have any funds to help pay for your research (even with a stipend scholarship , your research activities may require extra money)
• their research interests align with yours (you’ll ideally discover a mutual ground where you both benefit from the project).

“The best way to approach would be to send an email briefly outlining who you are, your background, and what your research interests are,” says Chelsea.

“Once you’ve spoken to a potential supervisor, then you can start drafting a proposal and you can even ask for their input.”

Chelsea's approach here works well with some academics, but keep in mind that other supervisors will want to see a research proposal straight away. If you're not sure of your proposed supervisor's preferences, you may like to cover both bases with an introductory email that has a draft of your research proposal attached.

Sarah agrees that your prospective supervisor is your most valuable resource for understanding how to write a research proposal for a PhD application.

“My biggest tip for writing a research proposal is to ask your proposed supervisor for help,” says Sarah.

“Or if this isn’t possible, ask another academic who has had experience writing research proposals.”

“They’ll be able to tell you what to include or what you need to improve on.”

Find the 'why' and focus on it

One of the key aspects of your research proposal is emphasising why your project is important and should be funded.

Your PhD proposal should include your major question, your planned methods, the sources you’ll cite, and plenty of other nitty gritty details. But perhaps the most important element of your proposal is its purpose – the reason you want to do this research and why the results will be meaningful.

In Sarah’s opinion, highlighting the 'why' of your project is vital for your research proposal.

“From my perspective, one of the key aspects of your research proposal is emphasising why your project is important and should be funded,” she says.

“Not only does this impact whether your application is likely to be successful, but it could also impact your likelihood of getting a scholarship .”

Imagine you only had 60 seconds to explain your planned research to someone. Would you prefer they remember how your project could change the world, or the statistical models you’ll be using to do it? (Of course, you’ve got 2,000 words rather than 60 seconds, so do make sure to include those little details as well – just put the why stuff first.)

Proofread your proposal, then proof it again

As a PhD candidate, your attention to detail is going to be integral to your success. Start practising it now by making sure your research proposal is perfect.

Chelsea and Sarah both acknowledge that clarity and writing quality should never be overlooked in a PhD proposal. This starts with double-checking that the questions of your thesis are obvious and unambiguous, followed by revising the rest of your proposal.

“Make sure your research questions are really clear,” says Sarah.

“Ensure all the writing is clear and grammatically correct,” adds Chelsea.

“A supervisor is not going to be overly keen on a prospective student if their writing is poor.”

It might sound harsh, but it’s fair. So, proofread your proposal multiple times – including after you get it back from your supervisor with any feedback and notes. When you think you’ve got the final, FINAL draft saved, sleep on it and read it one more time the next morning.

Still feeling a little overwhelmed by your research proposal? Stay motivated with these reasons why a PhD is worth the effort .

Want to learn more from Chelsea and Sarah? Easy:

• Read about Chelsea’s award-winning PhD thesis on keeping crops healthy.
• Read Sarah’s series on becoming a law academic .

Share this Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email

Related stories

How to get a PhD

4-minute read

How to find a PhD supervisor

5-minute read

How long does a PhD take?

3-minute read

Tips for PhD students from Samantha and Glenn

7-minute read

How to write a research proposal

What is a research proposal.

A research proposal should present your idea or question and expected outcomes with clarity and definition – the what.

It should also make a case for why your question is significant and what value it will bring to your discipline – the why. 

What it shouldn't do is answer the question – that's what your research will do.

Why is it important?

Research proposals are significant because Another reason why it formally outlines your intended research. Which means you need to provide details on how you will go about your research, including:

• your approach and methodology
• timeline and feasibility
• all other considerations needed to progress your research, such as resources.

Think of it as a tool that will help you clarify your idea and make conducting your research easier.

How long should it be?

Usually no more than 2000 words, but check the requirements of your degree, and your supervisor or research coordinator.

Presenting your idea clearly and concisely demonstrates that you can write this way – an attribute of a potential research candidate that is valued by assessors.

What should it include?

Project title.

Your title should clearly indicate what your proposed research is about.

Research supervisor

State the name, department and faculty or school of the academic who has agreed to supervise you. Rest assured, your research supervisor will work with you to refine your research proposal ahead of submission to ensure it meets the needs of your discipline.

Proposed mode of research

Describe your proposed mode of research. Which may be closely linked to your discipline, and is where you will describe the style or format of your research, e.g. data, field research, composition, written work, social performance and mixed media etc. 

This is not required for research in the sciences, but your research supervisor will be able to guide you on discipline-specific requirements.

Aims and objectives

What are you trying to achieve with your research? What is the purpose? This section should reference why you're applying for a research degree. Are you addressing a gap in the current research? Do you want to look at a theory more closely and test it out? Is there something you're trying to prove or disprove? To help you clarify this, think about the potential outcome of your research if you were successful – that is your aim. Make sure that this is a focused statement.

Your objectives will be your aim broken down – the steps to achieving the intended outcome. They are the smaller proof points that will underpin your research's purpose. Be logical in the order of how you present these so that each succeeds the previous, i.e. if you need to achieve 'a' before 'b' before 'c', then make sure you order your objectives a, b, c.

A concise summary of what your research is about. It outlines the key aspects of what you will investigate as well as the expected outcomes. It briefly covers the what, why and how of your research. 

A good way to evaluate if you have written a strong synopsis, is to get somebody to read it without reading the rest of your research proposal. Would they know what your research is about?

Now that you have your question clarified, it is time to explain the why. Here, you need to demonstrate an understanding of the current research climate in your area of interest.

Providing context around your research topic through a literature review will show the assessor that you understand current dialogue around your research, and what is published.

Demonstrate you have a strong understanding of the key topics, significant studies and notable researchers in your area of research and how these have contributed to the current landscape.

Expected research contribution

In this section, you should consider the following:

• Why is your research question or hypothesis worth asking?
• How is the current research lacking or falling short?
• What impact will your research have on the discipline?
• Will you be extending an area of knowledge, applying it to new contexts, solving a problem, testing a theory, or challenging an existing one?
• Establish why your research is important by convincing your audience there is a gap.
• What will be the outcome of your research contribution?
• Demonstrate both your current level of knowledge and how the pursuit of your question or hypothesis will create a new understanding and generate new information.
• Show how your research is innovative and original.

Draw links between your research and the faculty or school you are applying at, and explain why you have chosen your supervisor, and what research have they or their school done to reinforce and support your own work. Cite these reasons to demonstrate how your research will benefit and contribute to the current body of knowledge.

Proposed methodology

Provide an overview of the methodology and techniques you will use to conduct your research. Cover what materials and equipment you will use, what theoretical frameworks will you draw on, and how will you collect data.

Highlight why you have chosen this particular methodology, but also why others may not have been as suitable. You need to demonstrate that you have put thought into your approach and why it's the most appropriate way to carry out your research. 

It should also highlight potential limitations you anticipate, feasibility within time and other constraints, ethical considerations and how you will address these, as well as general resources.

A work plan is a critical component of your research proposal because it indicates the feasibility of completion within the timeframe and supports you in achieving your objectives throughout your degree.

Consider the milestones you aim to achieve at each stage of your research. A PhD or master's degree by research can take two to four years of full-time study to complete. It might be helpful to offer year one in detail and the following years in broader terms. Ultimately you have to show that your research is likely to be both original and finished – and that you understand the time involved.

Provide details of the resources you will need to carry out your research project. Consider equipment, fieldwork expenses, travel and a proposed budget, to indicate how realistic your research proposal is in terms of financial requirements and whether any adjustments are needed.

Bibliography

Provide a list of references that you've made throughout your research proposal. 

Apply for postgraduate study

New hdr curriculum, find a supervisor.

Search by keyword, topic, location, or supervisor name

• 1800 SYD UNI ( 1800 793 864 )
• or +61 2 8627 1444
• Open 9am to 5pm, Monday to Friday
• Student Centre Level 3 Jane Foss Russell Building Darlington Campus

Scholarships

Find the right scholarship for you

Research areas

Our research covers the spectrum – from linguistics to nanoscience

Our breadth of expertise across our faculties and schools is supported by deep disciplinary knowledge. We have significant capability in more than 20 major areas of research.

Research facilities

High-impact research through state-of-the-art infrastructure

Research Proposal Example/Sample

Detailed Walkthrough + Free Proposal Template

If you’re getting started crafting your research proposal and are looking for a few examples of research proposals , you’ve come to the right place.

In this video, we walk you through two successful (approved) research proposals , one for a Master’s-level project, and one for a PhD-level dissertation. We also start off by unpacking our free research proposal template and discussing the four core sections of a research proposal, so that you have a clear understanding of the basics before diving into the actual proposals.

• Research proposal example/sample – Master’s-level (PDF/Word)
• Research proposal example/sample – PhD-level (PDF/Word)
• Proposal template (Fully editable) 

If you’re working on a research proposal for a dissertation or thesis, you may also find the following useful:

• Research Proposal Bootcamp : Learn how to write a research proposal as efficiently and effectively as possible
• 1:1 Proposal Coaching : Get hands-on help with your research proposal

FAQ: Research Proposal Example

Research proposal example: frequently asked questions, are the sample proposals real.

Yes. The proposals are real and were approved by the respective universities.

Can I copy one of these proposals for my own research?

As we discuss in the video, every research proposal will be slightly different, depending on the university’s unique requirements, as well as the nature of the research itself. Therefore, you’ll need to tailor your research proposal to suit your specific context.

You can learn more about the basics of writing a research proposal here .

How do I get the research proposal template?

You can access our free proposal template here .

Is the proposal template really free?

Yes. There is no cost for the proposal template and you are free to use it as a foundation for your research proposal.

Where can I learn more about proposal writing?

For self-directed learners, our Research Proposal Bootcamp is a great starting point.

For students that want hands-on guidance, our private coaching service is recommended.

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:

10 Comments

I am at the stage of writing my thesis proposal for a PhD in Management at Altantic International University. I checked on the coaching services, but it indicates that it’s not available in my area. I am in South Sudan. My proposed topic is: “Leadership Behavior in Local Government Governance Ecosystem and Service Delivery Effectiveness in Post Conflict Districts of Northern Uganda”. I will appreciate your guidance and support

GRADCOCH is very grateful motivated and helpful for all students etc. it is very accorporated and provide easy access way strongly agree from GRADCOCH.

Proposal research departemet management

I am at the stage of writing my thesis proposal for a masters in Analysis of w heat commercialisation by small holders householdrs at Hawassa International University. I will appreciate your guidance and support

please provide a attractive proposal about foreign universities .It would be your highness.

comparative constitutional law

Kindly guide me through writing a good proposal on the thesis topic; Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Financial Inclusion in Nigeria. Thank you

Kindly help me write a research proposal on the topic of impacts of artisanal gold panning on the environment

I am in the process of research proposal for my Master of Art with a topic : “factors influence on first-year students’s academic adjustment”. I am absorbing in GRADCOACH and interested in such proposal sample. However, it is great for me to learn and seeking for more new updated proposal framework from GRADCAOCH.

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

School of Sociology, Politics and International Studies

How to write a phd research proposal.

In order to help you with your application, the information below aims to give some guidance on how a typical research proposal might look.

Your research proposal is a concise statement (up to 3,000 words) of the rationale for your research proposal, the research questions to be answered and how you propose to address them. We know that during the early stages of your PhD you are likely to refine your thinking and methodology in discussion with your supervisors.

However, we want to see that you can construct a fairly rigorous, high quality research proposal.

We use your research proposal to help us decide whether you would be a suitable candidate to study at PhD level. We therefore assess your proposal on its quality, originality, and coherence. It also helps us to decide if your research interests match those of academics in the School of Sociology, Politics and International Studies (SPAIS) and whether they would be able to provide suitably qualified supervision for your proposed research.

Format of the research proposal

Your proposal should include the following:

Title. A short, indicative title is best.

Abstract. This is a succinct summary of your research proposal (approximately 200-300 words) that will present a condensed outline, enabling the reader to get a very quick overview of your proposed project, lines of inquiry and possible outcomes. An abstract is often written last, after you have written the proposal and are able to summarise it effectively.

Rationale for the research project. This might include a description of the question/debate/phenomenon of interest; an explanation of why the topic is of interest to you; and an outline of the reasons why the topic should be of interest to research and/ or practice (the 'so what?' question).

Aims and initial research question. What are the aims and objectives of the research? State clearly the puzzle you are addressing, and the research question that you intend to pursue. It is acceptable to have multiple research questions, but it is a good idea to clarify which is the main research question. If you have hypotheses, discuss them here. A research proposal can and should make a positive and persuasive first impression and demonstrate your potential to become a good researcher. In particular, you need to demonstrate that you can think critically and analytically as well as communicate your ideas clearly.

Research context for your proposed project. Provide a short introduction to your area of interest with a succinct, selective and critical review of the relevant literature. Demonstrate that you understand the theoretical underpinnings and main debates and issues in your research area and how your proposed research will make an original and necessary contribution to this. You need to demonstrate how your proposed research will fill a gap in existing knowledge.

Intended methodology. Outline how you plan to conduct the research and the data sources that you will use. We do not expect you to have planned a very detailed methodology at this stage, but you need to provide an overview of how you will conduct your research (qualitative and/or quantitative methods) and why this methodology is suited for your proposed study. You need to be convincing about the appropriateness and feasibility of the approaches you are suggesting, and reflective about problems you might encounter (including ethical and data protection issues) in collecting and analysing your data.

Expected outcomes and impact. How do you think the research might add to existing knowledge; what might it enable organisations or interested parties to do differently? Increasingly in academia (and this is particularly so for ESRC-funded studentships), PhD students are being asked to consider how their research might contribute to both academic impact and/or economic and societal impact. (This is well explained on the ESRC website if you would like to find out more.) Please consider broader collaborations and partnerships (academic and non-academic) that will support your research. Collaborative activity can lead to a better understanding of the ways in which academic research can translate into practice and it can help to inform and improve the quality of your research and its impact.

Timetable. What is your initial estimation of the timetable of the dissertation? When will each of the key stages start and finish (refining proposal; literature review; developing research methods; fieldwork; analysis; writing the draft; final submission). There are likely to overlaps between the stages.

Why Bristol? Why – specifically – do you want to study for your PhD at Bristol ? How would you fit into the School's  research themes and research culture . You do not need to identify supervisors at the application stage although it can be helpful if you do.

Bibliography. Do make sure that you cite what you see as the key readings in the field. This does not have to be comprehensive but you are illustrating the range of sources you might use in your research.

We expect your research proposal to be clear, concise and grammatically correct. Prior to submitting your research proposal, please make sure that you have addressed the following issues:

• Have you included a clear summary of what the proposed research is about and why it is significant?
• Have you clearly identified what your proposed research will add to our understanding of theory, knowledge or research design?
• Does it state what contributions it will make to policy and/or practice?
• Does the proposal clearly explain how you will do the research?
• Is the language clear and easy to understand by someone who is not an expert in the field?
• Is the grammar and spelling correct?

• Privacy Policy

Home » How To Write A Research Proposal – Step-by-Step [Template]

How To Write A Research Proposal – Step-by-Step [Template]

Table of Contents

How To Write a Research Proposal

Writing a Research proposal involves several steps to ensure a well-structured and comprehensive document. Here is an explanation of each step:

1. Title and Abstract

• Choose a concise and descriptive title that reflects the essence of your research.
• Write an abstract summarizing your research question, objectives, methodology, and expected outcomes. It should provide a brief overview of your proposal.

2. Introduction:

• Provide an introduction to your research topic, highlighting its significance and relevance.
• Clearly state the research problem or question you aim to address.
• Discuss the background and context of the study, including previous research in the field.

3. Research Objectives

• Outline the specific objectives or aims of your research. These objectives should be clear, achievable, and aligned with the research problem.

4. Literature Review:

• Conduct a comprehensive review of relevant literature and studies related to your research topic.
• Summarize key findings, identify gaps, and highlight how your research will contribute to the existing knowledge.

5. Methodology:

• Describe the research design and methodology you plan to employ to address your research objectives.
• Explain the data collection methods, instruments, and analysis techniques you will use.
• Justify why the chosen methods are appropriate and suitable for your research.

6. Timeline:

• Create a timeline or schedule that outlines the major milestones and activities of your research project.
• Break down the research process into smaller tasks and estimate the time required for each task.

7. Resources:

• Identify the resources needed for your research, such as access to specific databases, equipment, or funding.
• Explain how you will acquire or utilize these resources to carry out your research effectively.

8. Ethical Considerations:

• Discuss any ethical issues that may arise during your research and explain how you plan to address them.
• If your research involves human subjects, explain how you will ensure their informed consent and privacy.

9. Expected Outcomes and Significance:

• Clearly state the expected outcomes or results of your research.
• Highlight the potential impact and significance of your research in advancing knowledge or addressing practical issues.

10. References:

• Provide a list of all the references cited in your proposal, following a consistent citation style (e.g., APA, MLA).

11. Appendices:

• Include any additional supporting materials, such as survey questionnaires, interview guides, or data analysis plans.

Research Proposal Format

The format of a research proposal may vary depending on the specific requirements of the institution or funding agency. However, the following is a commonly used format for a research proposal:

1. Title Page:

• Include the title of your research proposal, your name, your affiliation or institution, and the date.

2. Abstract:

• Provide a brief summary of your research proposal, highlighting the research problem, objectives, methodology, and expected outcomes.

3. Introduction:

• Introduce the research topic and provide background information.
• State the research problem or question you aim to address.
• Explain the significance and relevance of the research.
• Review relevant literature and studies related to your research topic.
• Summarize key findings and identify gaps in the existing knowledge.
• Explain how your research will contribute to filling those gaps.

5. Research Objectives:

• Clearly state the specific objectives or aims of your research.
• Ensure that the objectives are clear, focused, and aligned with the research problem.

6. Methodology:

• Describe the research design and methodology you plan to use.
• Explain the data collection methods, instruments, and analysis techniques.
• Justify why the chosen methods are appropriate for your research.

7. Timeline:

8. Resources:

• Explain how you will acquire or utilize these resources effectively.

9. Ethical Considerations:

• If applicable, explain how you will ensure informed consent and protect the privacy of research participants.

10. Expected Outcomes and Significance:

11. References:

12. Appendices:

Research Proposal Template

Here’s a template for a research proposal:

1. Introduction:

2. Literature Review:

3. Research Objectives:

4. Methodology:

5. Timeline:

6. Resources:

7. Ethical Considerations:

8. Expected Outcomes and Significance:

9. References:

10. Appendices:

Research Proposal Sample

Title: The Impact of Online Education on Student Learning Outcomes: A Comparative Study

1. Introduction

Online education has gained significant prominence in recent years, especially due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This research proposal aims to investigate the impact of online education on student learning outcomes by comparing them with traditional face-to-face instruction. The study will explore various aspects of online education, such as instructional methods, student engagement, and academic performance, to provide insights into the effectiveness of online learning.

2. Objectives

The main objectives of this research are as follows:

• To compare student learning outcomes between online and traditional face-to-face education.
• To examine the factors influencing student engagement in online learning environments.
• To assess the effectiveness of different instructional methods employed in online education.
• To identify challenges and opportunities associated with online education and suggest recommendations for improvement.

3. Methodology

3.1 Study Design

This research will utilize a mixed-methods approach to gather both quantitative and qualitative data. The study will include the following components:

3.2 Participants

The research will involve undergraduate students from two universities, one offering online education and the other providing face-to-face instruction. A total of 500 students (250 from each university) will be selected randomly to participate in the study.

3.3 Data Collection

The research will employ the following data collection methods:

• Quantitative: Pre- and post-assessments will be conducted to measure students’ learning outcomes. Data on student demographics and academic performance will also be collected from university records.
• Qualitative: Focus group discussions and individual interviews will be conducted with students to gather their perceptions and experiences regarding online education.

3.4 Data Analysis

Quantitative data will be analyzed using statistical software, employing descriptive statistics, t-tests, and regression analysis. Qualitative data will be transcribed, coded, and analyzed thematically to identify recurring patterns and themes.

4. Ethical Considerations

The study will adhere to ethical guidelines, ensuring the privacy and confidentiality of participants. Informed consent will be obtained, and participants will have the right to withdraw from the study at any time.

5. Significance and Expected Outcomes

This research will contribute to the existing literature by providing empirical evidence on the impact of online education on student learning outcomes. The findings will help educational institutions and policymakers make informed decisions about incorporating online learning methods and improving the quality of online education. Moreover, the study will identify potential challenges and opportunities related to online education and offer recommendations for enhancing student engagement and overall learning outcomes.

6. Timeline

The proposed research will be conducted over a period of 12 months, including data collection, analysis, and report writing.

The estimated budget for this research includes expenses related to data collection, software licenses, participant compensation, and research assistance. A detailed budget breakdown will be provided in the final research plan.

8. Conclusion

This research proposal aims to investigate the impact of online education on student learning outcomes through a comparative study with traditional face-to-face instruction. By exploring various dimensions of online education, this research will provide valuable insights into the effectiveness and challenges associated with online learning. The findings will contribute to the ongoing discourse on educational practices and help shape future strategies for maximizing student learning outcomes in online education settings.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

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

Grant Proposal – Example, Template and Guide

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

Business Proposal – Templates, Examples and Guide

Proposal – Types, Examples, and Writing Guide

How to choose an Appropriate Method for Research?

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates

Published on 30 October 2022 by Shona McCombes and Tegan George. Revised on 13 June 2023.

A research proposal describes what you will investigate, why it’s important, and how you will conduct your research.

The format of a research proposal varies between fields, but most proposals will contain at least these elements:

Introduction

Literature review.

• Research design

Reference list

While the sections may vary, the overall objective is always the same. A research proposal serves as a blueprint and guide for your research plan, helping you get organised and feel confident in the path forward you choose to take.

Table of contents

Research proposal purpose, research proposal examples, research design and methods, contribution to knowledge, research schedule, frequently asked questions.

Academics often have to write research proposals to get funding for their projects. As a student, you might have to write a research proposal as part of a grad school application , or prior to starting your thesis or dissertation .

In addition to helping you figure out what your research can look like, a proposal can also serve to demonstrate why your project is worth pursuing to a funder, educational institution, or supervisor.

Research proposal length

The length of a research proposal can vary quite a bit. A bachelor’s or master’s thesis proposal can be just a few pages, while proposals for PhD dissertations or research funding are usually much longer and more detailed. Your supervisor can help you determine the best length for your work.

One trick to get started is to think of your proposal’s structure as a shorter version of your thesis or dissertation , only without the results , conclusion and discussion sections.

Download our research proposal template

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Writing a research proposal can be quite challenging, but a good starting point could be to look at some examples. We’ve included a few for you below.

• Example research proposal #1: ‘A Conceptual Framework for Scheduling Constraint Management’
• Example research proposal #2: ‘ Medical Students as Mediators of Change in Tobacco Use’

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

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

The first part of your proposal is the initial pitch for your project. Make sure it succinctly explains what you want to do and why.

Your introduction should:

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

To guide your introduction , include information about:

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

As you get started, it’s important to demonstrate that you’re familiar with the most important research on your topic. A strong literature review  shows your reader that your project has a solid foundation in existing knowledge or theory. It also shows that you’re not simply repeating what other people have already done or said, but rather using existing research as a jumping-off point for your own.

In this section, share exactly how your project will contribute to ongoing conversations in the field by:

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

Following the literature review, restate your main  objectives . This brings the focus back to your own project. Next, your research design or methodology section will describe your overall approach, and the practical steps you will take to answer your research questions.

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

For example, your results might have implications for:

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

Last but not least, your research proposal must include correct citations for every source you have used, compiled in a reference list . To create citations quickly and easily, you can use our free APA citation generator .

Some institutions or funders require a detailed timeline of the project, asking you to forecast what you will do at each stage and how long it may take. While not always required, be sure to check the requirements of your project.

Here’s an example schedule to help you get started. You can also download a template at the button below.

Download our research schedule template

If you are applying for research funding, chances are you will have to include a detailed budget. This shows your estimates of how much each part of your project will cost.

Make sure to check what type of costs the funding body will agree to cover. For each item, include:

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

To determine your budget, think about:

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

Once you’ve decided on your research objectives , you need to explain them in your paper, at the end of your problem statement.

Keep your research objectives clear and concise, and use appropriate verbs to accurately convey the work that you will carry out for each one.

I will compare …

A research aim is a broad statement indicating the general purpose of your research project. It should appear in your introduction at the end of your problem statement , before your research objectives.

Research objectives are more specific than your research aim. They indicate the specific ways you’ll address the overarching aim.

A PhD, which is short for philosophiae doctor (doctor of philosophy in Latin), is the highest university degree that can be obtained. In a PhD, students spend 3–5 years writing a dissertation , which aims to make a significant, original contribution to current knowledge.

A PhD is intended to prepare students for a career as a researcher, whether that be in academia, the public sector, or the private sector.

A master’s is a 1- or 2-year graduate degree that can prepare you for a variety of careers.

All master’s involve graduate-level coursework. Some are research-intensive and intend to prepare students for further study in a PhD; these usually require their students to write a master’s thesis . Others focus on professional training for a specific career.

Critical thinking refers to the ability to evaluate information and to be aware of biases or assumptions, including your own.

Like information literacy , it involves evaluating arguments, identifying and solving problems in an objective and systematic way, and clearly communicating your ideas.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

McCombes, S. & George, T. (2023, June 13). How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved 22 April 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/the-research-process/research-proposal-explained/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, what is a literature review | guide, template, & examples, how to write a results section | tips & examples.

Writing a good PhD research proposal

The purpose of your proposal is to show that you have a relevant theme, a viable project and the competence to carry it out. The information is vital when we evaluate your proposed study and decide if we have the right staff expertise to supervise you.

The format and length of the proposal is likely to vary according to the type of project. Typically a proposal is no less than 1500 words (3-4 pages) long and will cover the following points.

• Provisional title (max 50 words ): the title should indicate the central focus of the research and should contain the key words associated with proposed work.
• Central question/hypothesis for investigation (max 15-50 words): State the central question/hypothesis of your proposed research. Eg. 'This thesis asks…' or 'This thesis examines the hypothesis that….'.
• Key aims of the research (max 200 words): Set out a number of specific aims (3-5) of the research which indicate the intended contribution and impact of the PhD. They should answer the question: 'what will the PhD achieve'?
• Literature review (max 700-1,000 words): This section should situate your chosen topic in the existing research and should show that you are familiar with the key works in the area. Explain how the current literature addresses the issue you have identified, give a summary of recent debates in the area and explain the current shortcomings in the existing scholarship.
• Description of your topic (max 300-700 words): Explain how your research will address the gap or shortcomings in knowledge, why it is original and why further research in the area is important.
• Methodology (max 300 words) Explain how you will obtain the information necessary to write your thesis. Include an explanation of the approach(es) will you be taking to the research (library-based? empirical?) and any relevant quantitative/qualitative methods (interviews, questionnaires, survey and to whom etc). Outline any ethical concerns (eg interviewing children/prisoners/refugees  etc).
• Resources and ethical clearance: Will your research comply with the agreed international standards for good practise in social research? Using published ethical guidelines show that you are aware of the specific documents and clearances you will need.
• Project management: You should map out a schedule for your project, from the start date onwards, showing when you expect to conduct periods of fieldwork (if applicable) and the time required for data analysis and writing up your results.
• References: You should include a list of the references cited in your proposal, using Harvard notation. This will be useful for potential supervisors to evaluate your knowledge of the research topic.

It looks like you’re visiting from outside the UK, would you like to be redirected to the international page?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Granting access: Development of a formal course to demystify and promote predoctoral fellowship applications for graduate students

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Project administration, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected] (PKG); [email protected] (CMB)

Affiliations Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, United States of America, Medical Scientist Training Program, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, United States of America

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations Medical Scientist Training Program, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, United States of America, Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, United States of America

Roles Project administration, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Scientific Editing and Research Communication Core, Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, United States of America

• Pamela K. Geyer, 
• Darren S. Hoffmann, 
• Jennifer Y. Barr, 
• Heather A. Widmayer, 
• Christine M. Blaumueller

• Published: April 26, 2024
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301480
• Reader Comments

Strong scientific writing skills are the foundation of a successful research career and require training and practice. Although these skills are critical for completing a PhD, most students receive little formal writing instruction prior to joining a graduate program. In 2015, the University of Iowa Medical Scientist Training Program (MSTP) addressed this issue by developing the scientific writing course Grant Writing Basics (GWB). Here we describe the structure of this course and its effectiveness. GWB is an interactive, workshop-based course that uses a National Institutes of Health (NIH) F30 predoctoral fellowship proposal as a platform for building writing expertise. GWB incorporates established pedagogical principles of adult learning, including flipped classrooms, peer teaching, and reiterative evaluation. Time spent in class centers on active student analysis of previously submitted fellowship applications, discussion of writing resources, active writing, facilitated small group discussion of critiques of student writing samples, revision, and a discussion with a panel of experienced study section members and a student who completed a fellowship submission. Outcomes of GWB include a substantial increase in the number of applications submitted and fellowships awarded. Rigorous evaluation provides evidence that learning objectives were met and that students gained confidence in both their scientific writing skills and their ability to give constructive feedback. Our findings show that investment in formal training in written scientific communication provides a foundation for good writing habits, and the knowledge and skills needed to succeed in this vital aspect of a scientific research career. Furthermore, they highlight that evaluation is valuable in guiding course evolution. Strategies embedded in GWB can be adapted for use in any graduate program to advance scientific writing skills among its trainees.

Citation: Geyer PK, Hoffmann DS, Barr JY, Widmayer HA, Blaumueller CM (2024) Granting access: Development of a formal course to demystify and promote predoctoral fellowship applications for graduate students. PLoS ONE 19(4): e0301480. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301480

Editor: Rea Lavi, Massachusetts Institute of Technology School of Engineering, UNITED STATES

Received: December 27, 2023; Accepted: March 16, 2024; Published: April 26, 2024

Copyright: © 2024 Geyer et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.

Funding: This publication was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health, T32 GM139776 to PKG. https://search.usa.gov/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&affiliate=grants.nih.gov&query=t32&commit=Search The funding agency did not participate in study design.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Effective written communication is central to success in a scientific career. Scientists must share their research findings to garner funds and build successful research teams. Yet, writing scientific papers and grant proposals is inherently complex and requires considerable time and effort. Self-reported barriers to engagement in scientific writing, especially for early-career scientists, include lack of sufficient time and aptitude [ 1 ].

Effective writing is shaped by instruction and practice. Although such training should begin early in a scientific career, most undergraduate curricula include little formal instruction in scientific writing [ 2 ]. This deficit reflects the attitude that time spent learning writing skills is less important than time spent learning foundational scientific concepts. As a result, students enter graduate programs with limited practice in scientific writing, a core competency of PhD training programs [ 3 ]. This gap continues during graduate training, evidenced by a recent survey of MD-PhD programs revealing that few programs include writing courses in their curricula [ 4 ]. Indeed, in a recent survey of alumni of a molecular medicine PhD program, participants ranked “proficiency in academic and professional writing” as very important (4/4) for career success but ranked satisfaction with their preparation lower (3/4; [ 5 ]). These observations about gaps in training highlight a need for dedicated coursework in scientific writing.

Recognizing the importance of writing in scientific careers, the leadership of the National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded University of Iowa Medical Scientist Training Program (MSTP) developed a course entitled Grant Writing Basics (GWB) to augment training of their MD-PhD dual-degree students, a cohort of talented trainees whose career goals include advancing the science of medicine and its translation into clinical practice. GWB uses the NIH F30 predoctoral fellowship application as a platform for instruction, given that this type of application is a relevant exercise, is a likely next step for many MSTP trainees, and represents an authentic learning experience. We reasoned that early participation in GWB would motivate students to develop key questions pertinent to their research interests, boost the amount of concentrated time that they spend on reading and critically analyzing the literature, increase their understanding of experimental design, and fine-tune their research goals. Additionally, students would practice delivering well-reasoned and concise scientific arguments to a knowledgeable but broad peer audience, building upon concepts that peer learning increases engagement and enhances knowledge [ 6 ]. These design choices align with principles of adult learning, including relevance, self-direction, ownership, and learning by doing [ 7 ]. Finally, submission of a fellowship proposal should provide students the opportunity to understand the mechanics of, and time commitments required for, the grant writing process, as well provide eligibility for institutional monetary recognition. GWB occurs early during the PhD training and helps establish a foundation for continued formal and informal writing instruction as students advance through their PhD programs.

The University of Iowa MSTP is not alone in adopting grant writing as a platform for instruction of scientific writing. Surveys of the landscape of grant writing instruction reveal that multiple formats are used, ranging from focused singular workshops to longitudinal courses and writing communities [ 4 , 8 – 11 ]. Common instructional features include identifying funding sources, decoding grant-specific language (e.g., specific aims, training plans), introducing students to the mechanics of the grant review process, and providing dedicated time for iterative writing that is focused on the application [ 9 , 11 ]. Notably, each grant writing course is highly contextualized, and built to suit the student population and grant writing norms of the discipline.

Here, we describe key aspects of GWB, including the evaluation process and our findings that resulted in the current course structure. We report that students have gained confidence in their grantsmanship and scientific writing abilities, have become more willing to seek feedback on their own work and are more assured about providing useful feedback to others, skills with long-lasting benefits. Our findings also highlight the value of rigorous evaluation in guiding iterative evolution of curricula. Together, our observations provide strong support for early training in written scientific communication.

Course participants

GWB is a one-credit course that is required for all third year MSTP students. This course was developed with the goals of building a learner’s autonomy, encouraging active learning experiences, inspiring ownership, and providing the structure needed to achieve learning objectives. Embedded in GWB are milestones that mark students’ progress, and opportunities for engagement as peer educators. These design features align with principles outlined in adult learning theory [ 7 , 12 , 13 ].

Each year, the course is taken by six to eleven students who are members of a single MSTP entering class. MSTP students have strong scientific backgrounds. In recent MSTP entering classes (2015 to 2019), most (~75%) students had completed one or more “gap years” during which they engaged in scientific research, and over half (55%) were co-authors on at least one paper. MSTP students have diverse scientific interests, evidenced by their enrollment in one of fifteen PhD programs across three colleges ( Table 1 ). The MSTP class composition has two major advantages. First, students have a shared history of training that provides the social capital and trust needed for giving and receiving honest and productive feedback. Second, given the diverse nature of research interests, the students are forced to write to a broad audience, in language that is clear and concise.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301480.t001

Course description

GWB uses the NIH predoctoral F30 National Research Service Award (a funding mechanism specific to physician-scientists in training) as a platform for building writing expertise. Students take GWB in the spring semester of their first year of graduate training, after having completed two years of preclinical medical school requirements. At this stage, students have identified a research mentor, and most have begun research relevant to their dissertation topic. The third year of the MSTP is equivalent to the second semester of the second year of graduate training for most PhD students. The objectives of GWB are: 1) to learn the scientific logic that underlies effective grant writing; 2) to learn the value of revision; 3) to develop skills in providing and applying constructive feedback; and 4) to assume ownership of a research project. An additional expectation is that students will gain a better understanding of how to assemble a predoctoral fellowship. An unofficial expectation is that students will submit a full proposal for extramural funding. The final GWB writing product is a polished Specific Aims page that serves as a roadmap for a fellowship submission, and ideally for the student’s dissertation research.

GWB is taught by a team of instructors who integrate expertise in scientific investigation and communication. This team includes a member of the MSTP PhD training faculty (PKG) and scientists (henceforth referred to as “editors”) on the staff of the Scientific Editing and Research Communication Core in the Carver College of Medicine (CMB, JYB, HAW). We have found that this combination of trainers is highly effective, with the faculty member putting greater emphasis on scientific issues and the editors additionally providing substantive advice on effective writing strategies.

Course format

Weekly course sessions are one-and-a-half hours in length and are held over a three-month semester (11 weeks). Classes are interactive, workshop based, and delivered in four formats, as indicated in Table 2 . Five sessions are held in a large group setting and cover foundational material related to writing components of the F30 application and strategies for clarity in writing; four sessions are held in a small group setting (writing groups) and focus on peer driven critiques of Specific Aims pages submitted by the students; one session combines small and large group formats to help students sharpen the logic underlying their proposal; and one session is a panel discussion that features faculty who have reviewed fellowship applications as members of study sections and an MSTP student who has submitted a fellowship application.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301480.t002

The five course sessions that cover foundational material are delivered using a flipped-classroom model, a teaching modality found to increase students’ motivation and engagement in learning [ 14 ]. Self-directed student learning includes review of pre-recorded lectures and two key resources: grant writing templates and examples of grant sections. Templates contain prompts and guidelines for each section of the fellowship and were developed by the editors based on NIH resources, the editors’ own experiences, and well-regarded grant writing workbooks [ 15 , 16 ]. Example texts are excerpts from previous NIH-funded fellowship proposals that either model effective scientific writing or could use improvement. Students are expected to be prepared to participate in a facilitated discussion of lessons learned from these examples and the lecture materials. Each session includes about one hour of group discussion on topics such as the Specific Aims page, Research Strategy, Biographical Sketch, or Training Plan ( Table 2 ) and thirty minutes during which students brainstorm and begin to write a section of the grant using the relevant template. Each session ends with a brief wrap-up discussion.

The four course sessions devoted to critiquing Specific Aims pages use a small group format with a high degree of structure that enables rounds of feedback from diverse sources. Each student submits a draft for two of these sessions. In an early session, they submit an initial draft, and in a follow up session, they submit a revised draft that addresses feedback received during the earlier discussion. Groups include one facilitator (an editor) and three to four students. Early in the course, students are introduced to concepts of giving and receiving feedback [ 17 ], and instructors emphasize the value of, and strategies for, doing so effectively. Examples of constructive feedback are provided to guide the written critiques the students prepare. They submit their draft of the Specific Aims page to members of their writing group (including the facilitator) and the faculty instructor one week before it is discussed. Writers are encouraged to include a letter outlining areas on which they wish to obtain feedback. Each Specific Aims page is pre-assigned to a primary reviewer, who provides detailed written and verbal feedback; the remaining students and facilitator also provide written and verbal commentary. Feedback from other students is not expected to be as detailed as that of the primary reviewer; feedback from the instructors is typically thorough. During the session, the primary reviewer introduces the proposed research project to the group and then summarizes the strengths of the writing and areas needing improvement. Next, other student reviewers contribute their ideas, and finally the facilitator provides comments and synthesizes the collective feedback. Students also receive written feedback from the faculty instructor. During the review of each Specific Aims page, the writer is present but initially silent; after the review is completed, the writer is invited to ask questions and share ideas for addressing the issues that were raised. Setting boundaries for the participation of the writer allows reviewers to complete their assessment of the document without the discussion digressing into the author’s intended meaning. The small size of the writing group ensures that the feedback provided to writers is manageable and comes from trusted peers and a facilitator. This approach fosters productive discussions. A revised version of the Specific Aims page is reviewed several weeks later, following the same structured format. In this session, discussion includes an assessment of how effectively the feedback from the first session was addressed.

Early in GWB, a single session is devoted to an exercise in refining the logic of the students’ research proposal through a storytelling approach [ 18 ]. This session is a supplement to the foundational presentation about the Specific Aims page, which is held the previous week ( Table 2 ). During this exercise, students are asked to think about the current status of their field of study, how they envision the field will advance in the future, and how their proposed research will promote change. Students are initially paired with a partner for a ten-minute discussion during which each presents their story to the other, switching off as “storyteller” and “reporter.” The large group then reconvenes, and each reporter retells the story they heard. In many cases, this exercise reveals logic gaps that the storyteller needs to fill when writing their Specific Aims page. This teaching exercise builds on what the students have already learned about writing a Specific Aims page, by requiring them to consider the logic underlying their proposal from a new angle and from a listener’s (and reader’s) perspective. This session has proven to be particularly helpful in refining the Specific Aims page, and it has helped students start thinking about the Significance section of the Research Strategy.

Midway through GWB, a single course session is devoted to a panel discussion. This session occurs in a large group setting and is facilitated by the faculty instructor. The panel consists of three to four faculty members who have served on predoctoral review panels for the NIH or private foundations and one senior MSTP student who has experience submitting a fellowship application. The panel session is held after students have been introduced to all sections of the fellowship application and have had the first draft of their Specific Aims page critiqued. This discussion provides insights into the score-driving components of a proposal, from both a faculty member’s and a student’s perspective. Notably, the panel discussion highlights that grant evaluation is subjective and reviewer-dependent; this helps overcome a commonly held misperception that reviews are necessarily objective. In addition, panelists share information about local resources and real-life experiences that have helped them develop successful proposals.

Evaluations of the GWB course

Evaluation procedures in this study included anonymous electronic course surveys and pre- and post-course interviews that were conducted by the editors and broadly evaluated a student’s experience. Evaluations were completed by students in nine classes of GWB students between 2015 and 2023. All interview notes and survey data were anonymized.

In years 2015 and 2016 (n = 19 students), course evaluation was conducted in class, during the final course session. In years 2017 to 2023 (n = 63 students), anonymous electronic surveys were administered at the end of the course. Survey questions were answered using a five-point Likert agreement scale. Scaled response items are summarized in Table 3 . In addition, three open field questions were asked, including 1) What strategies do you find most useful? 2) What changes might improve the templates? and 3) Have you overcome problems that you previously experienced in writing? The response rate for electronic course evaluations was 97% (61/63).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301480.t003

In years 2020 to 2023 (n = 32 students), pre- and post-course interviews were conducted by the team of editors, who interviewed each individual student. During the interviews, students were reminded that responses would be made confidential and held no weight in their standing in the program. Notably, the interviewers did not hold an ongoing authoritative role with the students, reducing impacts of perceived power dynamics. An open-question format was used to develop an understanding of students’ experience, in their own words. Pre-course interviews enabled the instructional team to informally assess student expectations and experiences, and to develop trust that promoted honest class discussions. Post-course interviews enabled a deeper exploration of the extent to which GWB fostered knowledge and skill development in grant writing, areas for continued personal growth, and other course outcomes. Post-course interview questions touched on strengths of the course format and areas for improvement. One member of the interview team (CMB) took detailed notes during the interviews. After the interview, notes were reviewed by the interview team to fill any gaps that were missed. Then, the interview note taker determined the frequency of responses to establish initial response codes. Subsequently, the MSTP program evaluator (DSH) conducted a thematic analysis of consolidated data that involved clustering themes into categories and re-analyzing the data in a focused coding step. Pre- and post-course interview scripts are provided in S1 Appendix .

Ethics statement

The University of Iowa institutional review board determined that the evaluation of GWB impact did not meet the regulatory definition of human subjects research after review (IRB #202302103).

Electronic evaluations and changes to course structure

Anonymous electronic course evaluations revealed enthusiastic endorsement of GWB ( Table 3 ). Of the 63 students surveyed, most (95%) agreed that their knowledge of how to write a grant proposal had improved. Most (92%) also found that the grant-writing templates developed by the editing core were useful, with answers to free-form questions indicating that these resources effectively prompted development of sections of the proposal. For example, students indicated that the template for the Specific Aims page “Helps with blank page anxiety” and “Provides a place to get started,” endorsing the use of grant writing templates in aiding the writing process.

A cornerstone of GWB is the use of peer driven feedback and revision to develop a polished Specific Aims page. Electronic evaluations indicated that most students found receiving (88%) and giving (91%) feedback was useful, even though fewer (83%) reported satisfaction with their skills in providing feedback. Written comments included statements such as, “Having the requirement to write and revise in this course greatly improved the outcome of my writing.” These observations support the inclusion of opportunities for revision in any scientific writing course.

Early evaluations revealed that some structural aspects of the course were not effective (see S1 Table for additional details). One issue related to the timing of GWB sessions. Initially, one-hour sessions were held twice per week over a one-and-a-half-month period. When queried, most participants (58%) preferred holding longer sessions over a semester (three months). The course was adapted accordingly. A second issue concerned the delivery of course content. Comments included “Lectures were good, but we got the information all at the same time, with no active participation component, so I retained very little of the lecture” and “A webinar style lecture where we look at some of those examples or PowerPoints at home with a recorded lecture would allow us to spend more time writing and revising.” In response, the GWB format was changed to a fully flipped-classroom style [ 14 ]; this allows for more extensive discussion and inclusion of a short in-class writing period, advancing alignment of GWB with adult learning theory [ 7 , 12 ]. A third issue centered on critique sessions. During the early years, these sessions included all eight to eleven students plus the instructors. Course evaluations revealed that the amount of feedback received was overwhelming and that some students were confused by inconsistencies in feedback. As summarized by one student, “Honestly, I didn’t look at everyone’s reviews because it was just too much for me to consider.” Based on these perspectives, small writing groups were adopted, and the composition of each group remained constant throughout the semester. This gave students a better sense of the strides they had made through the revision process. A fourth concern, voiced by nearly a third of students, was that they did not feel prepared to submit the full proposal. Indeed, in recent evaluations, several respondents stated that they wished the course was longer so that they could receive feedback on every section of the proposal. Whereas the GWB instructors appreciated these views, they recognized that such a labor-intensive approach would be untenable, requiring more time than members of the instructional team could commit to this course. Instructors share the opinion that writing a Specific Aims page effectively illustrates principles of scientific writing. As such, the critique sessions have remained focused on this section of a fellowship proposal. Nonetheless, this feedback motivated the team to provide class time for students to brainstorm and/or write individual sections; this adaptation was intended to meet the students halfway.

The value of pre- and post-course interviews

Themes from the interviews are summarized in Table 4 . Pre-course interviews revealed that many students had little to no grant writing experience prior to GWB. Further, their broader experience with scientific writing was often restricted to writing a section of a manuscript. When students were asked to identify writing strengths, the responses fell into three thematic categories: management of the writing process; skills with technical language; and scientific literacy (most commonly expressed as being able to communicate the broader picture of their scientific research). When students were asked to identify writing weaknesses, the most frequent response was productivity practices (e.g., outlining, organizing, drafting). Self-described areas for improvement fell into four clusters: technical language skills; management of the writing process (organization of the writing process); inner dynamics of writing (e.g., internal criticism, self-doubt, spending too long in planning mode); and scientific literacy (thinking broadly about their science). These improvement areas were strongly aligned with the objectives of GWB.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301480.t004

Post-course interview commentary corroborated data from anonymous surveys. For example, of the 32 students interviewed, 100% felt that their knowledge of how to write a grant had improved, and most (94%) reported that their confidence in grant writing had grown ( Table 4 ). Participants described acquiring knowledge of grant-specific elements (e.g., components required, interconnections within a grant), as well as improving their awareness of writing processes (e.g., how to start, time management) and their skills in technical language (style, word choice, expert and novice audiences). Learners spoke of an increase in their confidence because they became more aware of their own writing style, quirks, and preferences. They described writing techniques and strategies that stuck with them and had become individual norms: structuring time and defining tasks for writing work; writing in waves; and starting with grant writing templates to generate a bulleted outline and ensure that the big picture is apparent from the beginning.

Post-course interviews also indicated that most students (67%) were more willing to seek feedback than they were before the course, and that nearly all (97%) felt that their ability to provide feedback had improved ( Table 4 ). Acquiring knowledge of good writing mechanics and the structure and function necessary for grant writing enabled them to be more specific in the feedback they provided. Also, providing feedback within the context of a writing group allowed the students to see which of their contributions were consistent with those of others, building confidence in this skill. They recognized the high value of peer feedback and were less resistant to criticism. Many students noted that feedback from readers outside their area of scientific expertise was particularly valuable. These latter findings differ from students’ views expressed in other grant writing courses [ 19 ], suggesting that feedback in the context of small writing groups might successfully increase perceptions of the value of peer feedback.

When students were asked which aspects of GWB were most enjoyable ( Table 4 ), most (67%) mentioned the interactive feedback sessions. In addition, students stated that they appreciated the following: 1) developing a Specific Aims page from start to finish and having confidence in it; 2) learning about each other’s research projects; 3) discussing examples of sections from previously submitted fellowship applications in class; 4) having templates to use when starting to write a Specific Aims page and other sections of grants; 5) receiving validation that writing is intimidating; 6) brainstorming potential solutions to overcome barriers; 7) developing confidence as a reviewer, especially when the facilitator agreed with their point and built on it; and 8) hearing from faculty reviewers with diverse backgrounds and opinions. One student commented that GWB “was the highlight of my week!”

Post-course interviews also uncovered common, enduring fears about the uncertainties of grant writing. First, many students expressed concerns about their readiness to complete grant proposal sections other than the Specific Aims page (e.g., the Research Strategy, Biographical Sketch, Training Plan). These concerns reflect that these sections were discussed but were not extensively critiqued. Second, students often said that they would miss the routine peer feedback and the structure provided in the course as they continued to work on their fellowship applications, noting they would need to establish their own deadlines and writing routines. These concerns were allayed by providing students with information about additional resources that would be available to them after GWB ended.

The results of this study demonstrate that providing formal course-based training in grant writing to graduate students leads to consistent positive outcomes. These include increased knowledge and skills in grant writing fundamentals; an expanded repertoire of strategies for organizing and managing a grant writing project; and increased willingness to seek and provide feedback on writing, even outside of their own area of expertise.

A comparison of students’ self-identified pre- and post-course strengths reveals that they had developed more specific and action-based language to describe their strengths (e.g., pre-course: “organization” versus post-course: “defining task lists, scheduling time, drafting in bullet points”). Interestingly, no student identified giving and receiving feedback as a writing-related strength before the course, but most commented on their capacity to provide and receive feedback as nascent strengths after the course. Students had also developed more specific language to describe their weaknesses, likely informed by the language they acquired in the course. Notably, although many students described weaknesses related to self-doubt, anxiety, and difficulty with motivation before taking the course, none identified these as current weaknesses afterwards. The structures and scaffolds provided in this course likely helped create a path to overcome internal challenges. Finally, when students talked about the difficulty of explaining the big picture of their work after the course, they most often referred to the needs of the reader and the importance of explaining their science to a non-specialist audience. This was rarely mentioned as a development area before students took the course.

Pre-course interviews provided students with an understanding of course expectations. Post-course interviews provided an opportunity to explore whether expectations were met, as well as to determine whether students experienced any unexpected outcomes. Strikingly, the expectations expressed in pre-course interviews were frequently described as outcomes during post-course interviews. Often the language was nuanced, reflecting new perspectives that students gained. Several unexpected outcomes were also described, including a reduction in the emotional challenges of writing (e.g., anxiety), development of confidence around writing work, and increased willingness and capacity to both give and receive feedback.

One metric for judging the success of GWB is the numbers of fellowship submissions and awards, a common benchmark among grant writing courses [ 4 , 10 , 19 , 20 ]. As noted above, MSTP students are encouraged but not required to submit a fellowship application. This decision reflects the diversity of research topics, the structure of the graduate programs (which can make timely submission a challenge), and the fact that only a subset of relevant funding agencies offer fellowship grants. For example, not all NIH Institutes participate in the F30 NRSA funding mechanism. Thus, the scope of research areas covered by these awards is somewhat limited. F31 applications are another option (all PhD students are eligible). Private foundations provide additional funding opportunities, but these do not broaden the options substantially. Notwithstanding these limitations, most GWB students who took the course from 2015 to 2021 (77%, n = 66) submitted predoctoral fellowship applications ( Table 1 ); this represents an increase over the number of submissions from MSTP cohorts over the prior 7-year period (2008 to 2014; 62%, n = 66). Funding rates depend upon multiple factors, including the NIH Institute for submission. Our student success rates are high (49%; Table 1 ) and exceed the overall F30 success rate at NIH over the same period (39%; [ 21 ]). Anecdotally, completion of GWB also improved outcomes of our students’ comprehensive exams, which often take the form of an NIH predoctoral fellowship or small research (e.g., R21) proposal. Notably, one of the GWB instructors was contacted by the chair of an MSTP student’s comprehensive exam committee because he was “impressed by the clarity and reader-friendliness of her [the student’s] written proposal. And when [the student was] asked about how she learned how to write, she mentioned the MSTP GWB class.” Perhaps the most gratifying review of GWB came from a student who stated, “I found grants really intimidating before this class, but now feel empowered, even excited, about grant writing.”

Limitations to this study relate mainly to study design. First, no concurrent control group was included. Second, because this is an observational study, it is not possible to definitively claim cause-effect, i.e., although successful grant funding is a useful indicator of writing quality, a funded grant is also a product of external forces that are outside the control of the student/writer. One strength of the study is inclusion of multiple cohorts in the overall data set, yet the fact that the course evolved during the study period makes it impossible to know the individual impacts of each incremental change in the program.

One observation that might be considered a limitation of GWB is that most students continue to feel insufficiently prepared to write a full proposal. A continued need for writing instruction aligns with the increased awareness across disciplines that writing in subject-matter courses needs to occur routinely throughout training [ 22 , 23 ]. This need was further supported by a senior MSTP student’s observation that for her the “rest” of the grant came together in a later grant writing course provided in her graduate training program (University of Iowa Interdisciplinary Graduate Program in Immunology). Continued formal training in writing is possible for many students, as other University of Iowa graduate programs also offer courses in grant writing. Notably, a grant writing program for MSTP students at the University of Alabama described pairing a grant writing course early in a student’s plan of study with a seminar series that provides both advice on how to write grant sections and the opportunity to receive feedback on drafts [ 4 ]. Similarly, we encourage students to build on what they learn in GWB by continuing to both meet with members of their writing groups and work with the editors on the instructional team when writing new sections of their grants. Notably, the skills needed in preparing grants and research articles differ, emphasizing that it is important for students to continue to seek advice concerning scientific writing from research mentors and others in the research community. Thus, we provide the students with information about university resources, including editing services.

The benefits of GWB are not limited to the MSTP. We have shared our course materials with instructors of other PhD training programs to encourage submission of NIH F31 applications, and this has had a positive impact on their courses. GWB also represents an excellent example of how program evaluation contributes to a healthy education ecosystem. Evaluation data have provided insight into the impact of the course and encouraged its iterative evolution. Moreover, participation in the evaluation process has enabled students to become engaged with the educational process and the leadership team, a step that is necessary for developing a feeling of belonging and value in academic culture.

Conclusions: Return on investment

The findings presented here illustrate the value of a dedicated writing course to “jump-start” students’ grant writing and prepare them for a career that will require extensive scientific writing. In particular, GWB supports the value of using a grant application as a guiding structure in teaching scientific writing. Our course evaluations highlight the value of using a flipped-classroom model that allows more time for active learning. Aspects of this model that were especially effective were the initial requirement for students to evaluate example sections from previously submitted grants and the subsequent requirement to participate in intensive, iterative rounds of critiquing the students’ own writing samples. Notably, the most popular outcomes reported by the students were their increased confidence in providing feedback and their newfound appreciation for feedback from a broad audience.

The GWB course represents a substantial investment of both student and instructor time. We estimate that it requires at least two skilled facilitators with complementary expertise in scientific writing and experimental design. Nevertheless, the positive outcomes are clear, and they strongly support the use of similar approaches by other science training programs.

Supporting information

S1 appendix. pre-course interview questions..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301480.s001

S2 Appendix. Post-course interview questions.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301480.s002

S1 Table. Evolution of GWB course structure from 2015 to 2023.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301480.s003

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Ashley J. Hood, Richard G. Barajas, and Linda M. Varvel for managing the logistics of this course during the period of this study, and especially AJH for generating valuable resources used by MSTP students during GWB. We also thank Jess L. Jensen for her assistance with course evaluation and tracking of student fellowship applications.

• View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar
• 2. Arum R, Roksa J. Academically adrift: limited learning on college campuses. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 2011.
• 7. Knowles MS, Holton EF, Swanson RA. The adult learner: the definitive classic in adult education and human resource development. Burlington, MA: Elsevier; 2005.
• 8. Professionals. NOoRD. Grant Writing Courses. https://www.nordp.org/assets/resources-docs/grant_writing_courses.pdf .
• 15. Robertson JD, Russell SW, Morrison DC. The Grant Application Writer’s Workbook; National Institute of Health. Buelton, CA: Grant Writers’ Seminars and Workshops, LLC; 2019.
• 16. AtKisson MS. The Handbook for Planning and Writing Successful Grant Proposals2021.
• 17. Grant A. How to love criticism 2018. https://www.ted.com/talks/worklife_with_adam_grant_how_to_love_criticism/transcript?language=en .
• 18. Kellems KC, Monson C, Mitchell J. Maximizing Grant Proposal Writing for Success Using “The Baseline Logic Model”. https://www.nordp.org/assets/RDConf2019/presentations/nordp-2019_conf-monson.pdf .
• 21. Success Rates RePORT: Fellowships (Fs): Competing applications a, success rates and funding, by activity code and Institute Center. 2013–2023. https://report.nih.gov/funding/nih-budget-and-spending-data-past-fiscal-years/success-rates .
• 22. Melzer D, Bean J, editors. Engaging Ideas: The Professor’s Guide to Integrating Writing, Critical Thinking, and Active Learning in the Classroom. ProQuest Ebook Central: John Wiley & Sons; 2021.
• 23. Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) Clearinghouse. https://wac.colostate.edu/repository/resources/teaching/intro/include/ .