philosophy research proposal sample

Simon Knutsson

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

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

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

Value superiority

Introduction.

Aim and research question

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

Project description

1.     the structure of superiority.

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

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

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

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

2.     Representational measurement of value

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

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

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

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

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

3.     Superiority, sequence arguments and infinity

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

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

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

4.     Extra topic: the continuity axiom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[2] Hutcheson (1968, pp. 117–118).

[3] According to Lemos (1993).

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

[5] According to Klocksiem (2016).

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

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

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

Department of Philosophy

The research proposal.

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

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

The points you must address in your proposal are:

Central research question.

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

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

Research methods

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

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

Bibliography

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

Examples of current PhD project titles include:

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

Department of Philosophy

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

Guide to Producing a Research Proposal for Studies in Philosophy

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

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

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

The Preliminary Research proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Full Research proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Postgraduate

Research degrees

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

Examples of research proposals

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

Research proposals

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

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

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

When you write your proposal you need to:

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

Subject specific guidance

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

Our wider work

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

Connect with us

York St John University

Lord Mayor’s Walk

[email protected]

01904 624 624

York St John London Campus

6th Floor Export Building

1 Clove Crescent

[email protected]

01904 876 944

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

© York St John University 2024

Colour Picker

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

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

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

• The Open University
• Guest user / Sign out
• Study with The Open University

My OpenLearn Profile

Personalise your OpenLearn profile, save your favourite content and get recognition for your learning

Writing your research proposal

A doctoral research degree is the highest academic qualification that a student can achieve. The guidance provided in these articles will help you apply for one of the two main types of research degree offered by The Open University.

A traditional PhD, a Doctor of Philosophy, usually studied full-time, prepares candidates for a career in Higher Education.    

A Professional Doctorate is usually studied part-time by mid- to late-career professionals. While it may lead to a career in Higher Education, it aims to improve and develop professional practice.  

We offer two Professional Doctorates:  

• A Doctorate in Education, the EdD and
• a Doctorate in Health and Social Care, the DHSC.

  Achieving a doctorate, whether a PhD, EdD or DHSC confers the title Dr.  

Why write a Research Proposal?  

To be accepted onto a PhD / Professional Doctorate (PD) programme in the Faculty of Wellbeing, Education and Language Studies (WELS) at The Open University, you are required to submit a research proposal. Your proposal will  outline the research project you would like to pursue if you’re offered a place.  

When reviewing your proposal, there are three broad considerations that those responsible for admission onto the programme will bear in mind:    

1.     Is this PhD / PD research proposal worthwhile?

2.     Is this PhD / PD candidate capable of completing a doctorate at this university?

3.     Is this PhD / PD research proposal feasible?  

Writing activity: in your notebook, outline your response to each of the questions below based on how you would persuade someone with responsibility for admission onto a doctoral programme to offer you a place:

• What is your proposed research about & why is it worthy of three or more years of your time to study?
• What skills, knowledge and experience do you bring to this research – If you are considering a PhD, evidence of your suitability will be located in your academic record for the Prof Doc your academic record will need to be complemented by professional experience.
• Can you map out the different stages of your project, and how you will complete it studying i) full-time for three years ii) part-time for four years.

The first sections of the proposal - the introduction, the research question and the context are aimed at addressing considerations one and two.  

Your Introduction

Your Introduction will provide a clear and succinct summary of your proposal. It will include a title, research aims and research question(s), all of which allows your reader to understand immediately what the research is about and what it is intended to accomplish. We recommend that you have one main research question with two or three sub research questions. Sub research questions are usually implied by, or embedded within, your main research question.  

Please introduce your research proposal by completing the following sentences in your notebook: I am interested in the subject of ………………. because ……………… The issue that I see as needing investigation is ………………. because ………………. Therefore, my proposed research will answer or explore [add one main research question and two sub research questions] …... I am particularly well suited to researching this issue because ………………. So in this proposal I will ………………. Completing these prompts may feel challenging at this stage and you are encouraged to return to these notes as you work through this page.

Research questions are central to your study. While we are used to asking and answering questions on a daily basis, the research question is quite specific. As well as identifying an issue about which your enthusiasm will last for anything from 3 – 8 years, you also need a question that offers the right scope, is clear and allows for a meaningful answer.  

Research questions matter. They are like the compass you use to find your way through a complicated terrain towards a specific destination. 

A good research proposal centres around a good research question. Your question will determine all other aspects of your research – from the literature you engage with, the methodology you adopt and ultimately, the contribution your research makes to the existing understanding of a subject. How you ask your question, or the kinds of question you ask, matters because there is a direct connection between question and method.  

You may be inclined to think in simplistic terms about methods as either quantitative or qualitative. We will discuss methodology in more detail in section three. At this point, it is more helpful to think of your methods in terms of the kinds of data you aim to generate. Mostly, this falls into two broad categories, qualitative and quantitative (sometimes these can be mixed). Many academics question this distinction and suggest the methodology categories are better understood as unstructured or structured.  

For example, let’s imagine you are asking a group of people about their sugary snack preferences.  

You may choose to interview people and transcribe what they say are their motivations, feelings and experiences about a particular sugary snack choice. You are most likely to do this with a small group of people as it is time consuming to analyse interview data.  

Alternatively, you may choose to question a number of people at some distance to yourself via a questionnaire, asking higher level questions about the choices they make and why.

Once you have a question that you are comfortable with, the rest of your proposal is devoted to explaining, exploring and elaborating your research question. It is probable that your question will change through the course of your study.  

At this early stage it sets a broad direction for what to do next: but you are not bound to it if your understanding of your subject develops, your question may need to change to reflect that deeper understanding. This is one of the few sections where there is a significant difference between what is asked from PhD candidates in contrast to what is asked from those intending to study a PD. There are three broad contexts for your research proposal.  

If you are considering a PD, the first context for your proposal is professional:

This context is of particular interest to anyone intending to apply for the professional doctorate. It is, however, also relevant if you are applying for a PhD with a subject focus on education, health, social care, languages and linguistics and related fields of study.  

You need to ensure your reader has a full understanding of your professional context and how your research question emerges from that context. This might involve exploring the specific institution within which your professionalism is grounded – a school or a care home.  It might also involve thinking beyond your institution, drawing in discussion of national policy, international trends, or professional commitments. There may be several different contexts that shape your research proposal. These must be fully explored and explained.  

Postgraduate researcher talks about research questions, context and why it mattered

The second context for your proposal is you and your life:

Your research proposal must be based on a subject about which you are enthused and have some degree of knowledge. This enthusiasm is best conveyed by introducing your motivations for wanting to undertake the research.  Here you can explore questions such as – what particular problem, dilemma, concern or conundrum your proposal will explore – from a personal perspective. Why does this excite you? Why would this matter to anyone other than you, or anyone who is outside of your specific institution i.e. your school, your care home.  

It may be helpful here to introduce your positionality . That is, let your reader know where you stand in relation to your proposed study. You are invited to offer a discussion of how you are situated in relation to the study being undertaken and how your situation influences your approach to the study.  

The third context for your doctoral proposal is the literature:

All research is grounded in the literature surrounding your subject. A legitimate research question emerges from an identified contribution your work has the potential to make to the extant knowledge on your chosen subject. We usually refer to this as finding a gap in the literature. This context is explored in more detail in the second article.

You can search for material that will help with your literature review and your research methodology using The Open University’s Open Access Research repository  and other open access literature.

Before moving to the next article ‘Defining your Research Methodology’, you might like to explore more about postgraduate study with these links:  

• Professional Doctorate Hub  
• What is a Professional Doctorate? 
• Are you ready to study for a Professional Doctorate? 
• The impact of a Professional Doctorate

Applying to study for a PhD in psychology

• Succeeding in postgraduate study - OpenLearn - Open University
• Are you ready for postgraduate study? - OpenLearn - Open University
• Postgraduate fees and funding | Open University
• Engaging with postgraduate research: education, childhood & youth - OpenLearn - Open University

We want you to do more than just read this series of articles. Our purpose is to help you draft a research proposal. With this in mind, please have a pen and paper (or your laptop and a notebook) close by and pause to read and take notes, or engage with the activities we suggest. You will not have authored your research proposal at the end of these articles, but you will have detailed notes and ideas to help you begin your first draft.

More articles from the research proposal collection

Defining your research methodology

Your research methodology is the approach you will take to guide your research process and explain why you use particular methods. This article explains more.

Level: 1 Introductory

Addressing ethical issues in your research proposal

This article explores the ethical issues that may arise in your proposed study during your doctoral research degree.

Writing your proposal and preparing for your interview

The final article looks at writing your research proposal - from the introduction through to citations and referencing - as well as preparing for your interview.

Free courses on postgraduate study

Are you ready for postgraduate study?

This free course, Are you ready for postgraduate study, will help you to become familiar with the requirements and demands of postgraduate study and ensure you are ready to develop the skills and confidence to pursue your learning further.

Succeeding in postgraduate study

This free course, Succeeding in postgraduate study, will help you to become familiar with the requirements and demands of postgraduate study and to develop the skills and confidence to pursue your learning further.

This free OpenLearn course is for psychology students and graduates who are interested in PhD study at some future point. Even if you have met PhD students and heard about their projects, it is likely that you have only a vague idea of what PhD study entails. This course is intended to give you more information.

Become an OU student

Ratings & comments, share this free course, copyright information, publication details.

• Originally published: Tuesday, 27 June 2023
• Body text - Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0 : The Open University
• Image 'quantitative methods versus qualitative methods - shows 10% of people getting a cat instead of a dog v why they got a cat.' - The Open University under Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0 license
• Image 'Applying to study for a PhD in psychology' - Copyright free
• Image 'Succeeding in postgraduate study' - Copyright: © Everste/Getty Images
• Image 'Addressing ethical issues in your research proposal' - Copyright: Photo 50384175 / Children Playing © Lenutaidi | Dreamstime.com
• Image 'Writing your proposal and preparing for your interview' - Copyright: Photo 133038259 / Black Student © Fizkes | Dreamstime.com
• Image 'Defining your research methodology' - Copyright free
• Image 'Writing your research proposal' - Copyright free
• Image 'Are you ready for postgraduate study?' - Copyright free

Rate and Review

Rate this article, review this article.

Log into OpenLearn to leave reviews and join in the conversation.

Article reviews

For further information, take a look at our frequently asked questions which may give you the support you need.

• A-Z Directory
• Campus Maps
• Faculties and Schools
• International
• People and Departments
• Become A Student
• Give to Memorial
• Faculty & Staff
• Online Learning
• Self Service
• Other MUN Login Services

Philosophy | Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences

• Ph.D. Program

Ph.D. Thesis Proposal

Department of Philosophy

Rationale: to prepare students to successfully defend a thesis proposal in the allotted time span (6 months).

Components: four components make up the in-house thesis proposal protocol. The first is the establishment of a broad topic area; the second is a comprehensive literature review for that topic area; the third is a narrowing down of the topic in the form of a thesis statement. The fourth is the presentation, in writing and orally, of a thesis proposal. The components in detail are as follows:

1) The first component involves student deliberation on the broad topic area. This may already be done by the time the student reaches the comprehensive examination.

2) The second component consists in amassing a sizeable literature. This literature will be reflected in the written proposal. The literature should be comprehensive: it should deal with the issue in terms of its depth (the precise issue that is being discussed) and its breadth (how and where the issue touches other relevant issues). It should cover the secondary literature on a thinker in that particular area under investigation and it should do so historically with 25-50 sources, including the literature relevant to the specific issue at hand.

3) The third component consists in a narrow thesis statement: the statement should specifically delineate the boundaries of the question/issue the student is investigating. The thesis statement will reflect what, and who, that includes (in the primary and secondary literature). The thesis statement should reflect the narrowest possible problem/issue and its solution. The statement should be no more than a few sentences in length. So, for example, the student shouldn’t set out to do a paper on Robert Brandom and Hegel; the student should find a specific problem regarding Brandom’s use of Hegel that has been insufficiently dealt with, either by Brandom or the secondary literature.

4) The fourth component is a presentation, both oral and written, to the supervisory committee. The presentation will include the following:

a) Written document, including Introduction (why this issue?), literature review, gaps in the literature/un-or under-investigated issues or problems/misleading or mistaken exegeses, the reason for this contribution, thesis statement, outline of chapters, working bibliography. I anticipate the final written document to be approximately 10-12 pages in length, plus working bibliography. While the working bibliography should at this state be fairly comprehensive (25-50 sources), this does not need to be directly reflected in the written statement, which will concentrate on the issues and problems directly germane to the thesis statement. The written assignment must be vetted by the supervisory committee before the student undertakes her oral presentation.

b) Oral presentation to Supervisory Committee. This will include a brief introduction/summary of the proposal. The student will then entertain questions from the supervisory committee. At the end of the presentation (approximately 2 hours), the candidate will be ranked according to the following criteria: Pass with distinction, Pass, Revise/resubmit c) Public presentation of Thesis Proposal. This will occur approximately 1-3 months after the Oral presentation to the Supervisory Committee and will be open to the public. Timeframe: 6 months from initiation to completion (oral examination). The timeframe is flexible, but it is to be hoped that the student will have amassed a significant literature and developed a comprehensive thesis statement by the end of the time frame. Supervisory Committee Interaction: This is the most important phase of dissertation writing, and the student should expect weekly/bi-weekly meetings with members of the supervisory committee during the assemblage of the literature and (particularly) the writing and revising of the thesis proposal.

• Undergraduate Programs
• M.A. Program
• Doctoral Coursework
• Second Language Requirement
• Comprehensive Examination
• Current Doctoral Students
• Graduate Student Handbook
• Upcoming Graduate Courses

Related Content

• Skip to content
• About Accessibility on our website

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

The School of

Divinity, History, Philosophy & Art History

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

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

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

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

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

Research proposals should be uploaded online with your application.

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates

Published on October 12, 2022 by Shona McCombes and Tegan George. Revised on November 21, 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 organized and feel confident in the path forward you choose to take.

Table of contents

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

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

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

Research proposal length

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

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

Download our research proposal template

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

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 synthesize prior scholarship

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

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

For example, your results might have implications for:

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

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

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

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

Download our research schedule template

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

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

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

To determine your budget, think about:

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

If you want to know more about the research process , methodology , research bias , or statistics , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

Methodology

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

 Statistics

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

Research bias

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

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

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

I will compare …

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. & George, T. (2023, November 21). How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved April 15, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/research-process/research-proposal/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write a problem statement | guide & examples, writing strong research questions | criteria & examples, how to write a literature review | guide, examples, & templates, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

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

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

Philosophy Research Proposals Samples For Students

30 samples of this type

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

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

Gustav Klimt Faculty Painting Research Proposals Example

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

The Research Project Research Proposal Examples

Doctor candidate:.

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

Summary of the Theme and the Aim of the Project

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

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

Don't waste your time searching for a sample.

Get your research proposal done by professional writers!

Just from $10/page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<Lecturer’s Name and Course Number>

Introduction

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

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

Abstract: 2

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

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

Literature review

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

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

Greek History Greek Mythology Archetypes Research Proposal Example

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

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

Example Of Research Proposal On Concept Paper

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

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

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

Purpose of the study.

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

Research Question/Hypothesis

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

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

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

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

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

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

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

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

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

Jump to Content Jump to Resources

• Three Columns

Information on Thesis Proposals

Creating a Thesis Committee

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

Writing Your Thesis Proposal

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

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

Some Common Proposal Difficulties

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

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

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

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

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

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

Submitting Your Thesis Proposal

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

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

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

Some Example Thesis Proposals

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

Example 2: Conceivability and Possibility Studies in Frege and Kripke

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

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

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

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Research Methods in Philosophy - How to Write a Research Proposal

Related Papers

Education India: A Quarterly Refereed Journal of Dialogues on Education

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

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

abasynuniv.edu.pk

Flora Maleki

Langley, BC: Trinity Western University. …

Paul T P Wong

S M Mukarram Jahan

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

abdul rahim

S Vasantha Kumari

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

Holuphumiee Adegbaju

British Journal of Midwifery

Valerie Fleming

Aksha Memon

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

Parlindungan Pardede

RELATED PAPERS

Adrian Lenardic

Revista de Chimie

Laura Mihai

Pascale Erhart

Asian Journal of Literature Culture and Society

Pramita Sidhu

ANZ Journal of Surgery

Jornal Brasileiro de Patologia e Medicina Laboratorial

Leonardo Testagrossa

Revista da Rede de Enfermagem do Nordeste

Dayze de Galiza

Jose Cornejo Rengifo

New biotechnology

Lucia Grenga

luca businaro

Journal of Electron Spectroscopy and Related Phenomena

Gianfranco Rovida

Lavinia Iliescu

Sofie Goormachtig

ACM SIGBED Review

Ashok K. Agrawala

Intelligent Automation &amp; Soft Computing

Arwa Mashat

European Neuropsychopharmacology

maja simonovic

INDIANA 40.2 (2023): 195-220

Carlos Masotta

International Journal of Food Science

Dr maha Ali

IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility

Giampiero Lovat

Journal of Materials Processing Technology

Ankita Bhattacharyya

Computer Physics Communications

Prace Komisji Geografii Komunikacji PTG

Andrei Bezruchonak

2011 Fifth International Conference on Secure Software Integration and Reliability Improvement

Ladan Tahvildari

RELATED TOPICS

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

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

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

Some signs of philosophy research proposal:

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

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

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

• Studentshare
• Research Proposal

Examples List on Philosophy Research Proposal

• TERMS & CONDITIONS
• PRIVACY POLICY
• COOKIES POLICY

Research Philosophy & Paradigms

Positivism, Interpretivism & Pragmatism, Explained Simply

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Reviewer: Eunice Rautenbach (DTech) | June 2023

Research philosophy is one of those things that students tend to either gloss over or become utterly confused by when undertaking formal academic research for the first time. And understandably so – it’s all rather fluffy and conceptual. However, understanding the philosophical underpinnings of your research is genuinely important as it directly impacts how you develop your research methodology.

In this post, we’ll explain what research philosophy is , what the main research paradigms  are and how these play out in the real world, using loads of practical examples . To keep this all as digestible as possible, we are admittedly going to simplify things somewhat and we’re not going to dive into the finer details such as ontology, epistemology and axiology (we’ll save those brain benders for another post!). Nevertheless, this post should set you up with a solid foundational understanding of what research philosophy and research paradigms are, and what they mean for your project.

Overview: Research Philosophy

• What is a research philosophy or paradigm ?
• Positivism 101
• Interpretivism 101
• Pragmatism 101
• Choosing your research philosophy

What is a research philosophy or paradigm?

Research philosophy and research paradigm are terms that tend to be used pretty loosely, even interchangeably. Broadly speaking, they both refer to the set of beliefs, assumptions, and principles that underlie the way you approach your study (whether that’s a dissertation, thesis or any other sort of academic research project).

For example, one philosophical assumption could be that there is an external reality that exists independent of our perceptions (i.e., an objective reality), whereas an alternative assumption could be that reality is constructed by the observer (i.e., a subjective reality). Naturally, these assumptions have quite an impact on how you approach your study (more on this later…).

The research philosophy and research paradigm also encapsulate the nature of the knowledge that you seek to obtain by undertaking your study. In other words, your philosophy reflects what sort of knowledge and insight you believe you can realistically gain by undertaking your research project. For example, you might expect to find a concrete, absolute type of answer to your research question , or you might anticipate that things will turn out to be more nuanced and less directly calculable and measurable . Put another way, it’s about whether you expect “hard”, clean answers or softer, more opaque ones.

So, what’s the difference between research philosophy and paradigm?

Well, it depends on who you ask. Different textbooks will present slightly different definitions, with some saying that philosophy is about the researcher themselves while the paradigm is about the approach to the study . Others will use the two terms interchangeably. And others will say that the research philosophy is the top-level category and paradigms are the pre-packaged combinations of philosophical assumptions and expectations.

To keep things simple in this video, we’ll avoid getting tangled up in the terminology and rather focus on the shared focus of both these terms – that is that they both describe (or at least involve) the set of beliefs, assumptions, and principles that underlie the way you approach your study .

Importantly, your research philosophy and/or paradigm form the foundation of your study . More specifically, they will have a direct influence on your research methodology , including your research design , the data collection and analysis techniques you adopt, and of course, how you interpret your results. So, it’s important to understand the philosophy that underlies your research to ensure that the rest of your methodological decisions are well-aligned .

So, what are the options?

We’ll be straight with you – research philosophy is a rabbit hole (as with anything philosophy-related) and, as a result, there are many different approaches (or paradigms) you can take, each with its own perspective on the nature of reality and knowledge . To keep things simple though, we’ll focus on the “big three”, namely positivism , interpretivism and pragmatism . Understanding these three is a solid starting point and, in many cases, will be all you need.

Paradigm 1: Positivism

When you think positivism, think hard sciences – physics, biology, astronomy, etc. Simply put, positivism is rooted in the belief that knowledge can be obtained through objective observations and measurements . In other words, the positivist philosophy assumes that answers can be found by carefully measuring and analysing data, particularly numerical data .

As a research paradigm, positivism typically manifests in methodologies that make use of quantitative data , and oftentimes (but not always) adopt experimental or quasi-experimental research designs. Quite often, the focus is on causal relationships – in other words, understanding which variables affect other variables, in what way and to what extent. As a result, studies with a positivist research philosophy typically aim for objectivity, generalisability and replicability of findings.

Let’s look at an example of positivism to make things a little more tangible.

Assume you wanted to investigate the relationship between a particular dietary supplement and weight loss. In this case, you could design a randomised controlled trial (RCT) where you assign participants to either a control group (who do not receive the supplement) or an intervention group (who do receive the supplement). With this design in place, you could measure each participant’s weight before and after the study and then use various quantitative analysis methods to assess whether there’s a statistically significant difference in weight loss between the two groups. By doing so, you could infer a causal relationship between the dietary supplement and weight loss, based on objective measurements and rigorous experimental design.

As you can see in this example, the underlying assumptions and beliefs revolve around the viewpoint that knowledge and insight can be obtained through carefully controlling the environment, manipulating variables and analysing the resulting numerical data . Therefore, this sort of study would adopt a positivistic research philosophy. This is quite common for studies within the hard sciences – so much so that research philosophy is often just assumed to be positivistic and there’s no discussion of it within the methodology section of a dissertation or thesis.

Paradigm 2: Interpretivism

 If you can imagine a spectrum of research paradigms, interpretivism would sit more or less on the opposite side of the spectrum from positivism. Essentially, interpretivism takes the position that reality is socially constructed . In other words, that reality is subjective , and is constructed by the observer through their experience of it , rather than being independent of the observer (which, if you recall, is what positivism assumes).

The interpretivist paradigm typically underlies studies where the research aims involve attempting to understand the meanings and interpretations that people assign to their experiences. An interpretivistic philosophy also typically manifests in the adoption of a qualitative methodology , relying on data collection methods such as interviews , observations , and textual analysis . These types of studies commonly explore complex social phenomena and individual perspectives, which are naturally more subjective and nuanced.

Let’s look at an example of the interpretivist approach in action:

Assume that you’re interested in understanding the experiences of individuals suffering from chronic pain. In this case, you might conduct in-depth interviews with a group of participants and ask open-ended questions about their pain, its impact on their lives, coping strategies, and their overall experience and perceptions of living with pain. You would then transcribe those interviews and analyse the transcripts, using thematic analysis to identify recurring themes and patterns. Based on that analysis, you’d be able to better understand the experiences of these individuals, thereby satisfying your original research aim.

As you can see in this example, the underlying assumptions and beliefs revolve around the viewpoint that insight can be obtained through engaging in conversation with and exploring the subjective experiences of people (as opposed to collecting numerical data and trying to measure and calculate it). Therefore, this sort of study would adopt an interpretivistic research philosophy. Ultimately, if you’re looking to understand people’s lived experiences , you have to operate on the assumption that knowledge can be generated by exploring people’s viewpoints, as subjective as they may be.

Paradigm 3: Pragmatism

Now that we’ve looked at the two opposing ends of the research philosophy spectrum – positivism and interpretivism, you can probably see that both of the positions have their merits , and that they both function as tools for different jobs . More specifically, they lend themselves to different types of research aims, objectives and research questions . But what happens when your study doesn’t fall into a clear-cut category and involves exploring both “hard” and “soft” phenomena? Enter pragmatism…

As the name suggests, pragmatism takes a more practical and flexible approach, focusing on the usefulness and applicability of research findings , rather than an all-or-nothing, mutually exclusive philosophical position. This allows you, as the researcher, to explore research aims that cross philosophical boundaries, using different perspectives for different aspects of the study .

With a pragmatic research paradigm, both quantitative and qualitative methods can play a part, depending on the research questions and the context of the study. This often manifests in studies that adopt a mixed-method approach , utilising a combination of different data types and analysis methods. Ultimately, the pragmatist adopts a problem-solving mindset , seeking practical ways to achieve diverse research aims.

Let’s look at an example of pragmatism in action:

Imagine that you want to investigate the effectiveness of a new teaching method in improving student learning outcomes. In this case, you might adopt a mixed-methods approach, which makes use of both quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis techniques. One part of your project could involve comparing standardised test results from an intervention group (students that received the new teaching method) and a control group (students that received the traditional teaching method). Additionally, you might conduct in-person interviews with a smaller group of students from both groups, to gather qualitative data on their perceptions and preferences regarding the respective teaching methods.

As you can see in this example, the pragmatist’s approach can incorporate both quantitative and qualitative data . This allows the researcher to develop a more holistic, comprehensive understanding of the teaching method’s efficacy and practical implications, with a synthesis of both types of data . Naturally, this type of insight is incredibly valuable in this case, as it’s essential to understand not just the impact of the teaching method on test results, but also on the students themselves!

Wrapping Up: Philosophies & Paradigms

Now that we’ve unpacked the “big three” research philosophies or paradigms – positivism, interpretivism and pragmatism, hopefully, you can see that research philosophy underlies all of the methodological decisions you’ll make in your study. In many ways, it’s less a case of you choosing your research philosophy and more a case of it choosing you (or at least, being revealed to you), based on the nature of your research aims and research questions .

• Research philosophies and paradigms encapsulate the set of beliefs, assumptions, and principles that guide the way you, as the researcher, approach your study and develop your methodology.
• Positivism is rooted in the belief that reality is independent of the observer, and consequently, that knowledge can be obtained through objective observations and measurements.
• Interpretivism takes the (opposing) position that reality is subjectively constructed by the observer through their experience of it, rather than being an independent thing.
• Pragmatism attempts to find a middle ground, focusing on the usefulness and applicability of research findings, rather than an all-or-nothing, mutually exclusive philosophical position.

If you’d like to learn more about research philosophy, research paradigms and research methodology more generally, be sure to check out the rest of the Grad Coach blog . Alternatively, if you’d like hands-on help with your research, consider our private coaching service , where we guide you through each stage of the research journey, step by step.

Psst… there’s more (for free)

This post is part of our dissertation mini-course, which covers everything you need to get started with your dissertation, thesis or research project. 

You Might Also Like:

13 Comments

was very useful for me, I had no idea what a philosophy is, and what type of philosophy of my study. thank you

Thanks for this explanation, is so good for me

You contributed much to my master thesis development and I wish to have again your support for PhD program through research.

the way of you explanation very good keep it up/continuous just like this

Very precise stuff. It has been of great use to me. It has greatly helped me to sharpen my PhD research project!

Very clear and very helpful explanation above. I have clearly understand the explanation.

Very clear and useful. Thanks

Thanks so much for your insightful explanations of the research philosophies that confuse me

I would like to thank Grad Coach TV or Youtube organizers and presenters. Since then, I have been able to learn a lot by finding very informative posts from them.

thank you so much for this valuable and explicit explanation,cheers

Hey, at last i have gained insight on which philosophy to use as i had little understanding on their applicability to my current research. Thanks

Tremendously useful

thank you and God bless you. This was very helpful, I had no understanding before this.

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