what to include in background of research proposal

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”

How to Write a Research Proposal

Once you’re in college and really getting into  academic writing , you may not recognize all the kinds of assignments you’re asked to complete. You know what an essay is, and you know how to respond to readings—but when you hear your professor mention a research proposal or a literature review, your mind might do a double take. 

Don’t worry; we’ve got you. Boiled down to its core, a research proposal is simply a short piece of  writing that details exactly what you’ll be covering in a larger research project. You’ll likely be required to write one for your  thesis , and if you choose to continue in academia after earning your bachelor’s degree, you’ll be writing research proposals for your master’s thesis, your dissertation , and all other research you conduct. By then, you’ll be a research proposal pro. But for now, we’ll answer all your questions and help you confidently write your first one. 

Here’s a tip: Want to make sure your writing shines? Grammarly can check your spelling and save you from grammar and punctuation mistakes. It even proofreads your text, so your work is extra polished wherever you write.

Your writing, at its best Grammarly helps you communicate confidently Write with Grammarly

What is the goal of a research proposal?

In a research proposal, the goal is to present the author’s plan for the research they intend to conduct. In some cases, part of this goal is to secure funding for said research. In others, it’s to have the research approved by the author’s supervisor or department so they can move forward with it. In some cases, a research proposal is a required part of a graduate school application. In every one of these circumstances, research proposals follow the same structure.

In a research proposal, the author demonstrates how and why their research is relevant to their field. They demonstrate that the work is necessary to the following:

• Filling a gap in the existing body of research on their subject
• Underscoring existing research on their subject, and/or
• Adding new, original knowledge to the academic community’s existing understanding of their subject

A research proposal also demonstrates that the author is capable of conducting this research and contributing to the current state of their field in a meaningful way. To do this, your research proposal needs to discuss your academic background and credentials as well as demonstrate that your proposed ideas have academic merit. 

But demonstrating your research’s validity and your personal capability to carry it out isn’t enough to get your research proposal approved. Your research proposal also has to cover these things:

• The research methodology you plan to use
• The tools and procedures you will use to collect, analyze, and interpret the data you collect
• An explanation of how your research fits the budget and other constraints that come with conducting it through your institution, department, or academic program

If you’ve already read our post on literature reviews , you may be thinking that a research proposal sounds pretty similar. They’re more than just similar, though—a literature review is part of a research proposal. It’s the section that covers which sources you’re using, how you’re using them, and why they’re relevant. Think of a literature review as a mini-research proposal that fits into your larger, main proposal. 

How long should a research proposal be?

Generally, research proposals for bachelor’s and master’s theses are a few pages long. Research proposals for meatier projects, like Ph.D. dissertations and funding requests, are often longer and far more detailed. A research proposal’s goal is to clearly outline exactly what your research will entail and accomplish, so including the proposal’s word count or page count isn’t nearly as important as it is to ensure that all the necessary elements and content are present. 

Research proposal structure

A research proposal follows a fairly straightforward structure. In order to achieve the goals described in the previous section, nearly all research proposals include the following sections:

Introduction

Your introduction achieves a few goals:

• Introduces your topic
• States your problem statement and the questions your research aims to answer
• Provides context for your research

In a research proposal, an introduction can be a few paragraphs long. It should be concise, but don’t feel like you need to cram all of your information into one paragraph. 

In some cases, you need to include an abstract and/or a table of contents in your research proposal. These are included just before the introduction. 

Background significance

This is where you explain why your research is necessary and how it relates to established research in your field. Your work might complement existing research, strengthen it, or even challenge it—no matter how your work will “play with” other researchers’ work, you need to express it in detail in your research proposal.  

This is also the section where you clearly define the existing problems your research will address. By doing this, you’re explaining why your work is necessary—in other words, this is where you answer the reader’s “so what?” 

In your background significance section, you’ll also outline how you’ll conduct your research. If necessary, note which related questions and issues you won’t be covering in your research. 

Literature review

In your  literature review , you introduce all the sources you plan to use in your research. This includes landmark studies and their data, books, and scholarly articles. A literature review isn’t merely a list of sources (that’s what your bibliography is for); a literature review delves into the collection of sources you chose and explains how you’re using them in your research. 

Research design, methods, and schedule

Following your research review, you’ll discuss your research plans. In this section, make sure you cover these aspects:

• The type of research you will do. Are you conducting qualitative or quantitative research? Are you collecting original data or working with data collected by other researchers?
• Whether you’re doing experimental, correlational, or descriptive research
• The data you’re working with. For example, if you’re conducting research in the social sciences, you’ll need to describe the population you’re studying. You’ll also need to cover how you’ll select your subjects and how you’ll collect data from them. 
• The tools you’ll use to collect data. Will you be running experiments? Conducting surveys? Observing phenomena? Note all data collection methods here along with why they’re effective methods for your specific research.

Beyond a comprehensive look at your research itself, you’ll also need to include:

• Your research timeline
• Your research budget
• Any potential obstacles you foresee and your plan for handling them

Suppositions and implications

Although you can’t know your research’s results until you’ve actually done the work, you should be going into the project with a clear idea of how your work will contribute to your field. This section is perhaps the most critical to your research proposal’s argument because it expresses exactly why your research is necessary. 

In this section, make sure you cover the following:

• Any ways your work can challenge existing theories and assumptions in your field
• How your work will create the foundation for future research
• The practical value your findings will provide to practitioners, educators, and other academics in your field
• The problems your work can potentially help to fix
• Policies that could be impacted by your findings
• How your findings can be implemented in academia or other settings and how this will improve or otherwise transform these settings

In other words, this section isn’t about stating the specific results you expect. Rather, it’s where you state how your findings will be valuable. 

This is where you wrap it all up. Your conclusion section, just like your conclusion paragraph for an essay , briefly summarizes your research proposal and reinforces your research’s stated purpose. 

Bibliography

Yes, you need to write a bibliography in addition to your literature review. Unlike your literature review, where you explained the relevance of the sources you chose and in some cases, challenged them, your bibliography simply lists your sources and their authors.

The way you write a citation depends on the style guide you’re using. The three most common style guides for academics are MLA , APA , and Chicago , and each has its own particular rules and requirements. Keep in mind that each formatting style has specific guidelines for citing just about any kind of source, including photos , websites , speeches , and YouTube videos .

Sometimes, a full bibliography is not needed. When this is the case, you can include a references list, which is simply a scaled-down list of all the sources you cited in your work. If you’re not sure which to write, ask your supervisor. 

Here’s a tip: Grammarly’s  Citation Generator  ensures your essays have flawless citations and no plagiarism. Try it for citing journal articles in MLA , APA , and Chicago  styles.

How to write a research proposal

Research proposals, like all other kinds of academic writing, are written in a formal, objective tone. Keep in mind that being concise is a key component of academic writing; formal does not mean flowery. 

Adhere to the structure outlined above. Your reader knows how a research proposal is supposed to read and expects it to fit this template. It’s crucial that you present your research proposal in a clear, logical way. Every question the reader has while reading your proposal should be answered by the final section. 

Editing and proofreading a research proposal

When you’re writing a research proposal, follow the same six-step writing process you follow with every other kind of writing you do. 

After you’ve got a first draft written, take some time to let it “cool off” before you start proofreading . By doing this, you’re making it easier for yourself to catch mistakes and gaps in your writing. 

Common mistakes to avoid when writing a research proposal

When you’re writing a research proposal, avoid these common pitfalls: 

Being too wordy

As we said earlier, formal does not mean flowery. In fact, you should aim to keep your writing as brief and to-the-point as possible. The more economically you can express your purpose and goal, the better.   

Failing to cite relevant sources

When you’re conducting research, you’re adding to the existing body of knowledge on the subject you’re covering. Your research proposal should reference one or more of the landmark research pieces in your field and connect your work to these works in some way. This doesn’t just communicate your work’s relevance—it also demonstrates your familiarity with the field. 

Focusing too much on minor issues

There are probably a lot of great reasons why your research is necessary. These reasons don’t all need to be in your research proposal. In fact, including too many questions and issues in your research proposal can detract from your central purpose, weakening the proposal. Save the minor issues for your research paper itself and cover only the major, key issues you aim to tackle in your proposal. 

Failing to make a strong argument for your research

This is perhaps the easiest way to undermine your proposal because it’s far more subjective than the others. A research proposal is, in essence, a piece of persuasive writing . That means that although you’re presenting your proposal in an objective, academic way, the goal is to get the reader to say “yes” to your work. 

This is true in every case, whether your reader is your supervisor, your department head, a graduate school admissions board, a private or government-backed funding provider, or the editor at a journal in which you’d like to publish your work. 

Polish your writing into a stellar proposal

When you’re asking for approval to conduct research—especially when there’s funding involved—you need to be nothing less than 100 percent confident in your proposal. If your research proposal has spelling or grammatical mistakes, an inconsistent or inappropriate tone, or even just awkward phrasing, those will undermine your credibility. 

Make sure your research proposal shines by using Grammarly to catch all of those issues. Even if you think you caught all of them while you were editing, it’s critical to double-check your work. Your research deserves the best proposal possible, and Grammarly can help you make that happen. 

• Manuscript Preparation

What is the Background of a Study and How Should it be Written?

• 3 minute read

Table of Contents

The background of a study is one of the most important components of a research paper. The quality of the background determines whether the reader will be interested in the rest of the study. Thus, to ensure that the audience is invested in reading the entire research paper, it is important to write an appealing and effective background. So, what constitutes the background of a study, and how must it be written?

What is the background of a study?

The background of a study is the first section of the paper and establishes the context underlying the research. It contains the rationale, the key problem statement, and a brief overview of research questions that are addressed in the rest of the paper. The background forms the crux of the study because it introduces an unaware audience to the research and its importance in a clear and logical manner. At times, the background may even explore whether the study builds on or refutes findings from previous studies. Any relevant information that the readers need to know before delving into the paper should be made available to them in the background.

How is a background different from the introduction?

The introduction of your research paper is presented before the background. Let’s find out what factors differentiate the background from the introduction.

• The introduction only contains preliminary data about the research topic and does not state the purpose of the study. On the contrary, the background clarifies the importance of the study in detail.
• The introduction provides an overview of the research topic from a broader perspective, while the background provides a detailed understanding of the topic.
• The introduction should end with the mention of the research questions, aims, and objectives of the study. In contrast, the background follows no such format and only provides essential context to the study.

How should one write the background of a research paper?

The length and detail presented in the background varies for different research papers, depending on the complexity and novelty of the research topic. At times, a simple background suffices, even if the study is complex. Before writing and adding details in the background, take a note of these additional points:

• Start with a strong beginning: Begin the background by defining the research topic and then identify the target audience.
• Cover key components: Explain all theories, concepts, terms, and ideas that may feel unfamiliar to the target audience thoroughly.
• Take note of important prerequisites: Go through the relevant literature in detail. Take notes while reading and cite the sources.
• Maintain a balance: Make sure that the background is focused on important details, but also appeals to a broader audience.
• Include historical data: Current issues largely originate from historical events or findings. If the research borrows information from a historical context, add relevant data in the background.
• Explain novelty: If the research study or methodology is unique or novel, provide an explanation that helps to understand the research better.
• Increase engagement: To make the background engaging, build a story around the central theme of the research

Avoid these mistakes while writing the background:

• Ambiguity: Don’t be ambiguous. While writing, assume that the reader does not understand any intricate detail about your research.
• Unrelated themes: Steer clear from topics that are not related to the key aspects of your research topic.
• Poor organization: Do not place information without a structure. Make sure that the background reads in a chronological manner and organize the sub-sections so that it flows well.

Writing the background for a research paper should not be a daunting task. But directions to go about it can always help. At Elsevier Author Services we provide essential insights on how to write a high quality, appealing, and logically structured paper for publication, beginning with a robust background. For further queries, contact our experts now!

How to Use Tables and Figures effectively in Research Papers

• Research Process

The Top 5 Qualities of Every Good Researcher

You may also like.

Make Hook, Line, and Sinker: The Art of Crafting Engaging Introductions

Can Describing Study Limitations Improve the Quality of Your Paper?

A Guide to Crafting Shorter, Impactful Sentences in Academic Writing

6 Steps to Write an Excellent Discussion in Your Manuscript

How to Write Clear and Crisp Civil Engineering Papers? Here are 5 Key Tips to Consider

The Clear Path to An Impactful Paper: ②

The Essentials of Writing to Communicate Research in Medicine

Changing Lines: Sentence Patterns in Academic Writing

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Assignments

• Annotated Bibliography
• Analyzing a Scholarly Journal Article
• Group Presentations
• Dealing with Nervousness
• Using Visual Aids
• Grading Someone Else's Paper
• Types of Structured Group Activities
• Group Project Survival Skills
• Leading a Class Discussion
• Multiple Book Review Essay
• Reviewing Collected Works
• Writing a Case Analysis Paper
• Writing a Case Study
• About Informed Consent
• Writing Field Notes
• Writing a Policy Memo
• Writing a Reflective Paper
• Writing a Research Proposal
• Generative AI and Writing
• Acknowledgments

The goal of a research proposal is twofold: to present and justify the need to study a research problem and to present the practical ways in which the proposed study should be conducted. The design elements and procedures for conducting research are governed by standards of the predominant discipline in which the problem resides, therefore, the guidelines for research proposals are more exacting and less formal than a general project proposal. Research proposals contain extensive literature reviews. They must provide persuasive evidence that a need exists for the proposed study. In addition to providing a rationale, a proposal describes detailed methodology for conducting the research consistent with requirements of the professional or academic field and a statement on anticipated outcomes and benefits derived from the study's completion.

Krathwohl, David R. How to Prepare a Dissertation Proposal: Suggestions for Students in Education and the Social and Behavioral Sciences . Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2005.

How to Approach Writing a Research Proposal

Your professor may assign the task of writing a research proposal for the following reasons:

• Develop your skills in thinking about and designing a comprehensive research study;
• Learn how to conduct a comprehensive review of the literature to determine that the research problem has not been adequately addressed or has been answered ineffectively and, in so doing, become better at locating pertinent scholarship related to your topic;
• Improve your general research and writing skills;
• Practice identifying the logical steps that must be taken to accomplish one's research goals;
• Critically review, examine, and consider the use of different methods for gathering and analyzing data related to the research problem; and,
• Nurture a sense of inquisitiveness within yourself and to help see yourself as an active participant in the process of conducting scholarly research.

A proposal should contain all the key elements involved in designing a completed research study, with sufficient information that allows readers to assess the validity and usefulness of your proposed study. The only elements missing from a research proposal are the findings of the study and your analysis of those findings. Finally, an effective proposal is judged on the quality of your writing and, therefore, it is important that your proposal is coherent, clear, and compelling.

Regardless of the research problem you are investigating and the methodology you choose, all research proposals must address the following questions:

• What do you plan to accomplish? Be clear and succinct in defining the research problem and what it is you are proposing to investigate.
• Why do you want to do the research? In addition to detailing your research design, you also must conduct a thorough review of the literature and provide convincing evidence that it is a topic worthy of in-depth study. A successful research proposal must answer the "So What?" question.
• How are you going to conduct the research? Be sure that what you propose is doable. If you're having difficulty formulating a research problem to propose investigating, go here for strategies in developing a problem to study.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

• Failure to be concise . A research proposal must be focused and not be "all over the map" or diverge into unrelated tangents without a clear sense of purpose.
• Failure to cite landmark works in your literature review . Proposals should be grounded in foundational research that lays a foundation for understanding the development and scope of the the topic and its relevance.
• Failure to delimit the contextual scope of your research [e.g., time, place, people, etc.]. As with any research paper, your proposed study must inform the reader how and in what ways the study will frame the problem.
• Failure to develop a coherent and persuasive argument for the proposed research . This is critical. In many workplace settings, the research proposal is a formal document intended to argue for why a study should be funded.
• Sloppy or imprecise writing, or poor grammar . Although a research proposal does not represent a completed research study, there is still an expectation that it is well-written and follows the style and rules of good academic writing.
• Too much detail on minor issues, but not enough detail on major issues . Your proposal should focus on only a few key research questions in order to support the argument that the research needs to be conducted. Minor issues, even if valid, can be mentioned but they should not dominate the overall narrative.

Procter, Margaret. The Academic Proposal.  The Lab Report. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Sanford, Keith. Information for Students: Writing a Research Proposal. Baylor University; Wong, Paul T. P. How to Write a Research Proposal. International Network on Personal Meaning. Trinity Western University; Writing Academic Proposals: Conferences, Articles, and Books. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Writing a Research Proposal. University Library. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Structure and Writing Style

Beginning the Proposal Process

As with writing most college-level academic papers, research proposals are generally organized the same way throughout most social science disciplines. The text of proposals generally vary in length between ten and thirty-five pages, followed by the list of references. However, before you begin, read the assignment carefully and, if anything seems unclear, ask your professor whether there are any specific requirements for organizing and writing the proposal.

A good place to begin is to ask yourself a series of questions:

• What do I want to study?
• Why is the topic important?
• How is it significant within the subject areas covered in my class?
• What problems will it help solve?
• How does it build upon [and hopefully go beyond] research already conducted on the topic?
• What exactly should I plan to do, and can I get it done in the time available?

In general, a compelling research proposal should document your knowledge of the topic and demonstrate your enthusiasm for conducting the study. Approach it with the intention of leaving your readers feeling like, "Wow, that's an exciting idea and I can’t wait to see how it turns out!"

Most proposals should include the following sections:

I.  Introduction

In the real world of higher education, a research proposal is most often written by scholars seeking grant funding for a research project or it's the first step in getting approval to write a doctoral dissertation. Even if this is just a course assignment, treat your introduction as the initial pitch of an idea based on a thorough examination of the significance of a research problem. After reading the introduction, your readers should not only have an understanding of what you want to do, but they should also be able to gain a sense of your passion for the topic and to be excited about the study's possible outcomes. Note that most proposals do not include an abstract [summary] before the introduction.

Think about your introduction as a narrative written in two to four paragraphs that succinctly answers the following four questions :

• What is the central research problem?
• What is the topic of study related to that research problem?
• What methods should be used to analyze the research problem?
• Answer the "So What?" question by explaining why this is important research, what is its significance, and why should someone reading the proposal care about the outcomes of the proposed study?

II.  Background and Significance

This is where you explain the scope and context of your proposal and describe in detail why it's important. It can be melded into your introduction or you can create a separate section to help with the organization and narrative flow of your proposal. Approach writing this section with the thought that you can’t assume your readers will know as much about the research problem as you do. Note that this section is not an essay going over everything you have learned about the topic; instead, you must choose what is most relevant in explaining the aims of your research.

To that end, while there are no prescribed rules for establishing the significance of your proposed study, you should attempt to address some or all of the following:

• State the research problem and give a more detailed explanation about the purpose of the study than what you stated in the introduction. This is particularly important if the problem is complex or multifaceted .
• Present the rationale of your proposed study and clearly indicate why it is worth doing; be sure to answer the "So What? question [i.e., why should anyone care?].
• Describe the major issues or problems examined by your research. This can be in the form of questions to be addressed. Be sure to note how your proposed study builds on previous assumptions about the research problem.
• Explain the methods you plan to use for conducting your research. Clearly identify the key sources you intend to use and explain how they will contribute to your analysis of the topic.
• Describe the boundaries of your proposed research in order to provide a clear focus. Where appropriate, state not only what you plan to study, but what aspects of the research problem will be excluded from the study.
• If necessary, provide definitions of key concepts, theories, or terms.

III.  Literature Review

Connected to the background and significance of your study is a section of your proposal devoted to a more deliberate review and synthesis of prior studies related to the research problem under investigation . The purpose here is to place your project within the larger whole of what is currently being explored, while at the same time, demonstrating to your readers that your work is original and innovative. Think about what questions other researchers have asked, what methodological approaches they have used, and what is your understanding of their findings and, when stated, their recommendations. Also pay attention to any suggestions for further research.

Since a literature review is information dense, it is crucial that this section is intelligently structured to enable a reader to grasp the key arguments underpinning your proposed study in relation to the arguments put forth by other researchers. A good strategy is to break the literature into "conceptual categories" [themes] rather than systematically or chronologically describing groups of materials one at a time. Note that conceptual categories generally reveal themselves after you have read most of the pertinent literature on your topic so adding new categories is an on-going process of discovery as you review more studies. How do you know you've covered the key conceptual categories underlying the research literature? Generally, you can have confidence that all of the significant conceptual categories have been identified if you start to see repetition in the conclusions or recommendations that are being made.

NOTE: Do not shy away from challenging the conclusions made in prior research as a basis for supporting the need for your proposal. Assess what you believe is missing and state how previous research has failed to adequately examine the issue that your study addresses. Highlighting the problematic conclusions strengthens your proposal. For more information on writing literature reviews, GO HERE .

To help frame your proposal's review of prior research, consider the "five C’s" of writing a literature review:

• Cite , so as to keep the primary focus on the literature pertinent to your research problem.
• Compare the various arguments, theories, methodologies, and findings expressed in the literature: what do the authors agree on? Who applies similar approaches to analyzing the research problem?
• Contrast the various arguments, themes, methodologies, approaches, and controversies expressed in the literature: describe what are the major areas of disagreement, controversy, or debate among scholars?
• Critique the literature: Which arguments are more persuasive, and why? Which approaches, findings, and methodologies seem most reliable, valid, or appropriate, and why? Pay attention to the verbs you use to describe what an author says/does [e.g., asserts, demonstrates, argues, etc.].
• Connect the literature to your own area of research and investigation: how does your own work draw upon, depart from, synthesize, or add a new perspective to what has been said in the literature?

IV.  Research Design and Methods

This section must be well-written and logically organized because you are not actually doing the research, yet, your reader must have confidence that you have a plan worth pursuing . The reader will never have a study outcome from which to evaluate whether your methodological choices were the correct ones. Thus, the objective here is to convince the reader that your overall research design and proposed methods of analysis will correctly address the problem and that the methods will provide the means to effectively interpret the potential results. Your design and methods should be unmistakably tied to the specific aims of your study.

Describe the overall research design by building upon and drawing examples from your review of the literature. Consider not only methods that other researchers have used, but methods of data gathering that have not been used but perhaps could be. Be specific about the methodological approaches you plan to undertake to obtain information, the techniques you would use to analyze the data, and the tests of external validity to which you commit yourself [i.e., the trustworthiness by which you can generalize from your study to other people, places, events, and/or periods of time].

When describing the methods you will use, be sure to cover the following:

• Specify the research process you will undertake and the way you will interpret the results obtained in relation to the research problem. Don't just describe what you intend to achieve from applying the methods you choose, but state how you will spend your time while applying these methods [e.g., coding text from interviews to find statements about the need to change school curriculum; running a regression to determine if there is a relationship between campaign advertising on social media sites and election outcomes in Europe ].
• Keep in mind that the methodology is not just a list of tasks; it is a deliberate argument as to why techniques for gathering information add up to the best way to investigate the research problem. This is an important point because the mere listing of tasks to be performed does not demonstrate that, collectively, they effectively address the research problem. Be sure you clearly explain this.
• Anticipate and acknowledge any potential barriers and pitfalls in carrying out your research design and explain how you plan to address them. No method applied to research in the social and behavioral sciences is perfect, so you need to describe where you believe challenges may exist in obtaining data or accessing information. It's always better to acknowledge this than to have it brought up by your professor!

V.  Preliminary Suppositions and Implications

Just because you don't have to actually conduct the study and analyze the results, doesn't mean you can skip talking about the analytical process and potential implications . The purpose of this section is to argue how and in what ways you believe your research will refine, revise, or extend existing knowledge in the subject area under investigation. Depending on the aims and objectives of your study, describe how the anticipated results will impact future scholarly research, theory, practice, forms of interventions, or policy making. Note that such discussions may have either substantive [a potential new policy], theoretical [a potential new understanding], or methodological [a potential new way of analyzing] significance.   When thinking about the potential implications of your study, ask the following questions:

• What might the results mean in regards to challenging the theoretical framework and underlying assumptions that support the study?
• What suggestions for subsequent research could arise from the potential outcomes of the study?
• What will the results mean to practitioners in the natural settings of their workplace, organization, or community?
• Will the results influence programs, methods, and/or forms of intervention?
• How might the results contribute to the solution of social, economic, or other types of problems?
• Will the results influence policy decisions?
• In what way do individuals or groups benefit should your study be pursued?
• What will be improved or changed as a result of the proposed research?
• How will the results of the study be implemented and what innovations or transformative insights could emerge from the process of implementation?

NOTE:   This section should not delve into idle speculation, opinion, or be formulated on the basis of unclear evidence . The purpose is to reflect upon gaps or understudied areas of the current literature and describe how your proposed research contributes to a new understanding of the research problem should the study be implemented as designed.

ANOTHER NOTE : This section is also where you describe any potential limitations to your proposed study. While it is impossible to highlight all potential limitations because the study has yet to be conducted, you still must tell the reader where and in what form impediments may arise and how you plan to address them.

VI.  Conclusion

The conclusion reiterates the importance or significance of your proposal and provides a brief summary of the entire study . This section should be only one or two paragraphs long, emphasizing why the research problem is worth investigating, why your research study is unique, and how it should advance existing knowledge.

Someone reading this section should come away with an understanding of:

• Why the study should be done;
• The specific purpose of the study and the research questions it attempts to answer;
• The decision for why the research design and methods used where chosen over other options;
• The potential implications emerging from your proposed study of the research problem; and
• A sense of how your study fits within the broader scholarship about the research problem.

VII.  Citations

As with any scholarly research paper, you must cite the sources you used . In a standard research proposal, this section can take two forms, so consult with your professor about which one is preferred.

• References -- a list of only the sources you actually used in creating your proposal.
• Bibliography -- a list of everything you used in creating your proposal, along with additional citations to any key sources relevant to understanding the research problem.

In either case, this section should testify to the fact that you did enough preparatory work to ensure the project will complement and not just duplicate the efforts of other researchers. It demonstrates to the reader that you have a thorough understanding of prior research on the topic.

Most proposal formats have you start a new page and use the heading "References" or "Bibliography" centered at the top of the page. Cited works should always use a standard format that follows the writing style advised by the discipline of your course [e.g., education=APA; history=Chicago] or that is preferred by your professor. This section normally does not count towards the total page length of your research proposal.

Develop a Research Proposal: Writing the Proposal. Office of Library Information Services. Baltimore County Public Schools; Heath, M. Teresa Pereira and Caroline Tynan. “Crafting a Research Proposal.” The Marketing Review 10 (Summer 2010): 147-168; Jones, Mark. “Writing a Research Proposal.” In MasterClass in Geography Education: Transforming Teaching and Learning . Graham Butt, editor. (New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2015), pp. 113-127; Juni, Muhamad Hanafiah. “Writing a Research Proposal.” International Journal of Public Health and Clinical Sciences 1 (September/October 2014): 229-240; Krathwohl, David R. How to Prepare a Dissertation Proposal: Suggestions for Students in Education and the Social and Behavioral Sciences . Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2005; Procter, Margaret. The Academic Proposal. The Lab Report. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Punch, Keith and Wayne McGowan. "Developing and Writing a Research Proposal." In From Postgraduate to Social Scientist: A Guide to Key Skills . Nigel Gilbert, ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2006), 59-81; Wong, Paul T. P. How to Write a Research Proposal. International Network on Personal Meaning. Trinity Western University; Writing Academic Proposals: Conferences , Articles, and Books. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Writing a Research Proposal. University Library. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

• << Previous: Writing a Reflective Paper
• Next: Generative AI and Writing >>
• Last Updated: Mar 6, 2024 1:00 PM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/assignments

How To Write A Research Proposal

A Straightforward How-To Guide (With Examples)

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Reviewed By: Dr. Eunice Rautenbach | August 2019 (Updated April 2023)

Writing up a strong research proposal for a dissertation or thesis is much like a marriage proposal. It’s a task that calls on you to win somebody over and persuade them that what you’re planning is a great idea. An idea they’re happy to say ‘yes’ to. This means that your dissertation proposal needs to be   persuasive ,   attractive   and well-planned. In this post, I’ll show you how to write a winning dissertation proposal, from scratch.

Before you start:

– Understand exactly what a research proposal is – Ask yourself these 4 questions

The 5 essential ingredients:

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

What Is A Research Proposal?

The research proposal is literally that: a written document that communicates what you propose to research, in a concise format. It’s where you put all that stuff that’s spinning around in your head down on to paper, in a logical, convincing fashion.

Convincing   is the keyword here, as your research proposal needs to convince the assessor that your research is   clearly articulated   (i.e., a clear research question) ,   worth doing   (i.e., is unique and valuable enough to justify the effort), and   doable   within the restrictions you’ll face (time limits, budget, skill limits, etc.). If your proposal does not address these three criteria, your research won’t be approved, no matter how “exciting” the research idea might be.

PS – if you’re completely new to proposal writing, we’ve got a detailed walkthrough video covering two successful research proposals here . 

How do I know I’m ready?

Before starting the writing process, you need to   ask yourself 4 important questions .  If you can’t answer them succinctly and confidently, you’re not ready – you need to go back and think more deeply about your dissertation topic .

You should be able to answer the following 4 questions before starting your dissertation or thesis research proposal:

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

If you can’t answer these questions clearly and concisely,   you’re not yet ready   to write your research proposal – revisit our   post on choosing a topic .

If you can, that’s great – it’s time to start writing up your dissertation proposal. Next, I’ll discuss what needs to go into your research proposal, and how to structure it all into an intuitive, convincing document with a linear narrative.

The 5 Essential Ingredients

Research proposals can vary in style between institutions and disciplines, but here I’ll share with you a   handy 5-section structure   you can use. These 5 sections directly address the core questions we spoke about earlier, ensuring that you present a convincing proposal. If your institution already provides a proposal template, there will likely be substantial overlap with this, so you’ll still get value from reading on.

For each section discussed below, make sure you use headers and sub-headers (ideally, numbered headers) to help the reader navigate through your document, and to support them when they need to revisit a previous section. Don’t just present an endless wall of text, paragraph after paragraph after paragraph…

Top Tip:   Use MS Word Styles to format headings. This will allow you to be clear about whether a sub-heading is level 2, 3, or 4. Additionally, you can view your document in ‘outline view’ which will show you only your headings. This makes it much easier to check your structure, shift things around and make decisions about where a section needs to sit. You can also generate a 100% accurate table of contents using Word’s automatic functionality.

Ingredient #1 – Topic/Title Header

Your research proposal’s title should be your main research question in its simplest form, possibly with a sub-heading providing basic details on the specifics of the study. For example:

“Compliance with equality legislation in the charity sector: a study of the ‘reasonable adjustments’ made in three London care homes”

As you can see, this title provides a clear indication of what the research is about, in broad terms. It paints a high-level picture for the first-time reader, which gives them a taste of what to expect.   Always aim for a clear, concise title . Don’t feel the need to capture every detail of your research in your title – your proposal will fill in the gaps.

Need a helping hand?

Ingredient #2 – Introduction

In this section of your research proposal, you’ll expand on what you’ve communicated in the title, by providing a few paragraphs which offer more detail about your research topic. Importantly, the focus here is the   topic   – what will you research and why is that worth researching? This is not the place to discuss methodology, practicalities, etc. – you’ll do that later.

You should cover the following:

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

Importantly, you should aim to use short sentences and plain language – don’t babble on with extensive jargon, acronyms and complex language. Assume that the reader is an intelligent layman – not a subject area specialist (even if they are). Remember that the   best writing is writing that can be easily understood   and digested. Keep it simple.

Note that some universities may want some extra bits and pieces in your introduction section. For example, personal development objectives, a structural outline, etc. Check your brief to see if there are any other details they expect in your proposal, and make sure you find a place for these.

Ingredient #3 – Scope

Next, you’ll need to specify what the scope of your research will be – this is also known as the delimitations . In other words, you need to make it clear what you will be covering and, more importantly, what you won’t be covering in your research. Simply put, this is about ring fencing your research topic so that you have a laser-sharp focus.

All too often, students feel the need to go broad and try to address as many issues as possible, in the interest of producing comprehensive research. Whilst this is admirable, it’s a mistake. By tightly refining your scope, you’ll enable yourself to   go deep   with your research, which is what you need to earn good marks. If your scope is too broad, you’re likely going to land up with superficial research (which won’t earn marks), so don’t be afraid to narrow things down.

Ingredient #4 – Literature Review

In this section of your research proposal, you need to provide a (relatively) brief discussion of the existing literature. Naturally, this will not be as comprehensive as the literature review in your actual dissertation, but it will lay the foundation for that. In fact, if you put in the effort at this stage, you’ll make your life a lot easier when it’s time to write your actual literature review chapter.

There are a few things you need to achieve in this section:

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

When you write up your literature review, keep these three objectives front of mind, especially number two (revealing the gap in the literature), so that your literature review has a   clear purpose and direction . Everything you write should be contributing towards one (or more) of these objectives in some way. If it doesn’t, you need to ask yourself whether it’s truly needed.

Top Tip:  Don’t fall into the trap of just describing the main pieces of literature, for example, “A says this, B says that, C also says that…” and so on. Merely describing the literature provides no value. Instead, you need to   synthesise   it, and use it to address the three objectives above.

Ingredient #5 – Research Methodology

Now that you’ve clearly explained both your intended research topic (in the introduction) and the existing research it will draw on (in the literature review section), it’s time to get practical and explain exactly how you’ll be carrying out your own research. In other words, your research methodology.

In this section, you’ll need to   answer two critical questions :

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

In other words, this is not just about explaining WHAT you’ll be doing, it’s also about explaining WHY. In fact, the   justification is the most important part , because that justification is how you demonstrate a good understanding of research design (which is what assessors want to see).

Some essential design choices you need to cover in your research proposal include:

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

This list is not exhaustive – these are just some core attributes of research design. Check with your institution what level of detail they expect. The “ research onion ” by Saunders et al (2009) provides a good summary of the various design choices you ultimately need to make – you can   read more about that here .

Don’t forget the practicalities…

In addition to the technical aspects, you will need to address the   practical   side of the project. In other words, you need to explain   what resources you’ll need   (e.g., time, money, access to equipment or software, etc.) and how you intend to secure these resources. You need to show that your project is feasible, so any “make or break” type resources need to already be secured. The success or failure of your project cannot depend on some resource which you’re not yet sure you have access to.

Another part of the practicalities discussion is   project and risk management . In other words, you need to show that you have a clear project plan to tackle your research with. Some key questions to address:

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

A good way to demonstrate that you’ve thought this through is to include a Gantt chart and a risk register (in the appendix if word count is a problem). With these two tools, you can show that you’ve got a clear, feasible plan, and you’ve thought about and accounted for the potential risks.

Tip – Be honest about the potential difficulties – but show that you are anticipating solutions and workarounds. This is much more impressive to an assessor than an unrealistically optimistic proposal which does not anticipate any challenges whatsoever.

Final Touches: Read And Simplify

The final step is to edit and proofread your proposal – very carefully. It sounds obvious, but all too often poor editing and proofreading ruin a good proposal. Nothing is more off-putting for an assessor than a poorly edited, typo-strewn document. It sends the message that you either do not pay attention to detail, or just don’t care. Neither of these are good messages. Put the effort into editing and proofreading your proposal (or pay someone to do it for you) – it will pay dividends.

When you’re editing, watch out for ‘academese’. Many students can speak simply, passionately and clearly about their dissertation topic – but become incomprehensible the moment they turn the laptop on. You are not required to write in any kind of special, formal, complex language when you write academic work. Sure, there may be technical terms, jargon specific to your discipline, shorthand terms and so on. But, apart from those,   keep your written language very close to natural spoken language   – just as you would speak in the classroom. Imagine that you are explaining your project plans to your classmates or a family member. Remember, write for the intelligent layman, not the subject matter experts. Plain-language, concise writing is what wins hearts and minds – and marks!

Let’s Recap: Research Proposal 101

And there you have it – how to write your dissertation or thesis research proposal, from the title page to the final proof. Here’s a quick recap of the key takeaways:

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

Hopefully, this post has helped you better understand how to write up a winning research proposal. If you enjoyed it, be sure to check out the rest of the Grad Coach Blog . If your university doesn’t provide any template for your proposal, you might want to try out our free research proposal template .

Psst… there’s more!

This post is an extract from our bestselling short course, Research Proposal Bootcamp . If you want to work smart, you don't want to miss this .

You Might Also Like:

30 Comments

Thank you so much for the valuable insight that you have given, especially on the research proposal. That is what I have managed to cover. I still need to go back to the other parts as I got disturbed while still listening to Derek’s audio on you-tube. I am inspired. I will definitely continue with Grad-coach guidance on You-tube.

Thanks for the kind words :). All the best with your proposal.

First of all, thanks a lot for making such a wonderful presentation. The video was really useful and gave me a very clear insight of how a research proposal has to be written. I shall try implementing these ideas in my RP.

Once again, I thank you for this content.

I found reading your outline on writing research proposal very beneficial. I wish there was a way of submitting my draft proposal to you guys for critiquing before I submit to the institution.

Hi Bonginkosi

Thank you for the kind words. Yes, we do provide a review service. The best starting point is to have a chat with one of our coaches here: https://gradcoach.com/book/new/ .

Hello team GRADCOACH, may God bless you so much. I was totally green in research. Am so happy for your free superb tutorials and resources. Once again thank you so much Derek and his team.

You’re welcome, Erick. Good luck with your research proposal 🙂

thank you for the information. its precise and on point.

Really a remarkable piece of writing and great source of guidance for the researchers. GOD BLESS YOU for your guidance. Regards

Thanks so much for your guidance. It is easy and comprehensive the way you explain the steps for a winning research proposal.

Thank you guys so much for the rich post. I enjoyed and learn from every word in it. My problem now is how to get into your platform wherein I can always seek help on things related to my research work ? Secondly, I wish to find out if there is a way I can send my tentative proposal to you guys for examination before I take to my supervisor Once again thanks very much for the insights

Thanks for your kind words, Desire.

If you are based in a country where Grad Coach’s paid services are available, you can book a consultation by clicking the “Book” button in the top right.

Best of luck with your studies.

May God bless you team for the wonderful work you are doing,

If I have a topic, Can I submit it to you so that you can draft a proposal for me?? As I am expecting to go for masters degree in the near future.

Thanks for your comment. We definitely cannot draft a proposal for you, as that would constitute academic misconduct. The proposal needs to be your own work. We can coach you through the process, but it needs to be your own work and your own writing.

Best of luck with your research!

I found a lot of many essential concepts from your material. it is real a road map to write a research proposal. so thanks a lot. If there is any update material on your hand on MBA please forward to me.

GradCoach is a professional website that presents support and helps for MBA student like me through the useful online information on the page and with my 1-on-1 online coaching with the amazing and professional PhD Kerryen.

Thank you Kerryen so much for the support and help 🙂

I really recommend dealing with such a reliable services provider like Gradcoah and a coach like Kerryen.

Hi, Am happy for your service and effort to help students and researchers, Please, i have been given an assignment on research for strategic development, the task one is to formulate a research proposal to support the strategic development of a business area, my issue here is how to go about it, especially the topic or title and introduction. Please, i would like to know if you could help me and how much is the charge.

This content is practical, valuable, and just great!

Thank you very much!

Hi Derek, Thank you for the valuable presentation. It is very helpful especially for beginners like me. I am just starting my PhD.

This is quite instructive and research proposal made simple. Can I have a research proposal template?

Great! Thanks for rescuing me, because I had no former knowledge in this topic. But with this piece of information, I am now secured. Thank you once more.

I enjoyed listening to your video on how to write a proposal. I think I will be able to write a winning proposal with your advice. I wish you were to be my supervisor.

Dear Derek Jansen,

Thank you for your great content. I couldn’t learn these topics in MBA, but now I learned from GradCoach. Really appreciate your efforts….

From Afghanistan!

I have got very essential inputs for startup of my dissertation proposal. Well organized properly communicated with video presentation. Thank you for the presentation.

Wow, this is absolutely amazing guys. Thank you so much for the fruitful presentation, you’ve made my research much easier.

this helps me a lot. thank you all so much for impacting in us. may god richly bless you all

How I wish I’d learn about Grad Coach earlier. I’ve been stumbling around writing and rewriting! Now I have concise clear directions on how to put this thing together. Thank you!

Fantastic!! Thank You for this very concise yet comprehensive guidance.

Even if I am poor in English I would like to thank you very much.

Thank you very much, this is very insightful.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

• Resources Home 🏠
• Try SciSpace Copilot
• Search research papers
• Add Copilot Extension
• Try AI Detector
• Try Paraphraser
• Try Citation Generator
• April Papers
• June Papers
• July Papers

How to Write a Research Proposal

Table of Contents

In academia, especially in social and behavioral sciences, writing a research proposal is an essential first step while planning a new research project. A research proposal is an initial pitch, or theoretical framework that serves to introduce the topic and anticipated results of a project, provide an overview of the methods to be used, and convince the reader that the proposed research can be conducted successfully. It is very essential to know how to write a research proposal, whether you are a student trying to fulfill course requirements or a researcher looking for funding for scholarly research. But writing a well-structured proposal is easier said than done.

To make things simpler for you, In this article, I explained the fundamentals of a research proposal, its structure, the steps involved in writing a research proposal, and common mistakes to avoid. Continue reading to gain a thorough understanding of the concept and purpose of a research proposal. This blog will also enable you to write the research proposal quickly, reducing the likelihood of rejection.

What is a Research Proposal?

In simpler terms,  A research proposal is a document written to explain and justify your chosen research topic and the necessity to carry out that particular research by addressing the research problem. Likewise, a good research proposal should carry the proposed research's results and benefits, backed by convincing evidence.

Always keep your audience in mind while writing your research proposal. Your audience expects a concise summary and a detailed research methodology from you in the research proposal.

To begin, you must understand the purpose of a research proposal in order to effectively write a research proposal and also to receive swift approvals.

What is the purpose or importance of a research proposal?

A research proposal's purpose is to provide a detailed outline of the process that will be used to answer a specific research problem. Whereas the goal of the research proposal varies from person to person. In some cases, it may be to secure funding, while in others, it may be to obtain a meager approval from the committee or the supervisor to proceed with the research project. Regardless of your research proposal's end goal, you are supposed to write a research proposal that fulfills its intended purpose of presenting the best plan for your research.

While writing a research proposal, you should demonstrate how and why your proposed research is crucial for the domain, especially if it is social and behavioral sciences. It would help if you showed how your work is necessary by addressing some key points like:

• Bridging the gaps in the existing domain of research.
• Adding new and fresh perspectives to the existing understanding of the topic.
• Undervalued data in the current stats of the domain.

Furthermore, your research proposal must demonstrate that you, as an author, are capable of conducting the research and that the results will significantly contribute to the field of knowledge. To do so, include and explain your academic background and significance along with your previous accolades to demonstrate that you and your idea have academic merit.

What is the ideal length of a research proposal?

There are no hard and fast rules about how long a research proposal should be, and it varies dramatically from different institutions and publishers. However, as a standard domain practice, a research proposal is generally between 3000- 4000 words. A majority of globally reputed institutions follow the 3000- 3500 word limit.

Since the research proposal is written well before the research is conducted, you need to outline all the necessary elements your research will entail and accomplish. Once completed, your research proposal must resemble a concise version of a thesis or dissertation without results and a discussion section.

Structure of a research proposal

When you recognize a gap in the existing books of knowledge, you will address it by developing a research problem. A research problem is a question that researchers want to answer. It is the starting point for any research project, and it can be broad or narrow, depending on your objectives. Once you have a problem, it is followed by articulating a research question. After that, you can embark on the process of writing a research proposal.

Whether your goal is to secure funding or just approval, nevertheless, your research proposal needs to follow the basic outline of a research paper, containing all the necessary sections. Therefore, the structure of a research proposal closely resembles and follows a thesis or dissertation or any research paper. It should contain the following sections:

As is well known, the first thing that catches the reader's attention is a catchy title. Therefore, you should try to come up with a catchy yet informative title for your research proposal. Additionally, it should be concise and clear to reflect enough information about your research question.

To create a good research proposal, try writing the title to induce interest and information in your readers. Pro-Tip: Avoid using phrases such as “An investigation of …” or “A review of …” etc. . These have been overused for ages and may reflect your research title as a regular entry. On the other hand, concise and well-defined titles are always something readers like and stand higher chances for a proposal approval.

2. Abstract

Write your abstract in a brief yet very informative way. It should summarize the research you intend to conduct. Put an emphasis on the research question, research hypothesis , research design and methods, and the key findings of your proposed research.

If you wish to create a detailed proposal, try including a table of contents. It will help readers navigate easily and catch a glance at your entire proposal writing. Check out this guide if you want to learn more about how to write a research abstract for your scholarly research.

3. Introduction

All papers need a striking introduction to set the context of the research question. While framing your research proposal, ensure that the introduction provides rich background and relevant information about the research question.

Your entire research proposal hinges upon your research question. Thus, fit should come out clearly in the intro. Provide a general introduction without clear explanations, and it might render your research proposal insignificant.

Start your research proposal with the research problem, engage your audience with elements that relate to the problem, and then shed some light on the research question. Then, proceed with your study's evidence-based justification, and you'll find that the audience is sticking with your proposal narrative.

While writing your research proposal, ensure that you have covered the following:

• Purpose of your study.
• Background information and significance of your study.
• Introduction to the question, followed by an introduction to the paper.
• Brief mention of the critical issues that you will focus on.
• Declaration of independent and dependent variables of the research hypothesis. (You can learn more about the variables of the research hypothesis here .)

4. Literature Review

Writing a literature review is an important part of the research process. It provides the researcher with a summary of previous studies that have been conducted on a subject, and it helps the researcher determine what areas might need additional investigation in the existing research. Guidelines for the literature review vary for different institutions.

To effectively conduct and write a literature review check this guide . You can also use tools like SciSpace Copilot , our AI research assistant that makes reading academic papers a much easier task. You can use it to get simple explanations for complex text, maths, or tables. Copilot can be particularly helpful when you’re sifting through papers as you can quickly understand the abstract, get some context around the study, and identify if the paper is relevant to your project or not.

The literature review can either be kept as a separate section or incorporated into the introduction section. A separate section is always favorable and vital in gaining the research proposal approval. Additionally, a separate section for a literature review offers in-depth background data and demonstrates the relevance of your research question by emphasizing the gaps that have remained since the previous study.

Your research proposal’s literature review must contain and serve the following:

• To provide a reference of the studies and the researchers who have previously worked in the same domain.
• To provide the build path of your research question.
• To furnish a critical examination of the previous research works.
• To present the research issues about the current investigation.
• To convince the audience about the importance of your research in the relevant domain.

Need help you with your literature review? Try SciSpace Discover and get barrier-free access to scientific knowledge.

Discover millions of peer-reviewed research articles and their full-text PDFs here. The articles can be compiled in one place and saved for later use to conduct a Hassel-free literature review.

5. Research Methodology

Research design and methods is the section where you explain how you will be conducting the proposed research. Ensure that you provide and include a sufficient explanation for the chosen methods. Additionally, include some points explaining how your chosen methods will help you get the desired or expected results.

Provide ample information to the readers about your research procedures so that they can easily comprehend the methodology and its expected results. Through your research methodology, you can easily show your audience whether the results you are promising can be achieved or not.

Most importantly, make sure the methodology you choose—whether qualitative or quantitative—is the best fit for your research. You should also be able to justify your choice.

Additionally, you should properly explain both the quantitative and qualitative components of your research if they are both used. For a qualitative approach, you must offer more elaborate and in-depth theoretical-based evidence. On the other hand, for the quantitative approach, you must describe the survey or lab setup, sample size, tools, and data collection methods.

Make sure you have plenty of explanations for the research methodology to support how you approached the research problem.

6. Expected Research Results

The expected research results section is where the researcher states what they expect to find in their research. The purpose of this section is to provide a summary of the study's goals, as well as give an overview of what the researcher expects will be found out. These results must orient the reader in sync with the methodology section and provide the answers to the research questions.

7. Limitations

The limitations section of an academic research paper is a section in which the writers of the paper discuss the weaknesses of their study. They do this by identifying problems with their methods, design, and implementation. This section should also discuss any other factors that may have affected the results or accuracy of the study. This section allows readers to understand how much confidence they can place in the findings, and how applicable they are to other contexts.

Furthermore, it will also showcase your honesty and complete understanding of the topic. Your research proposal’s limitations can include:

• Reasons for the chosen sample size.
• Justifications for the availability of resources at hand.
• Any unexpected error that might occur in the course of research as well.

8. Reference and Bibliography

If you don’t want your efforts to be tagged as plagiarized, ensure that you include the reference section at the end of the research proposal and follow the appropriate citation guidelines while citing different scholarly sources and various other researchers’ work.

For references, use both the in-text and footnote citations. List all the literature you have used to gather the information. However, in the bibliography, apart from including the references you have cited, you should include the sources that you didn't cite.

Reasons why research proposals get rejected

Research proposals often get rejected due to the smallest of mistakes. To keep the chances of getting your research proposal rejection at bay or a minimum, you should be aware of what grounds committees or supervisors often decide on rejection.

Follow through to understand the common reasons why research papers get rejected:

• The proposal stated a flawed hypothesis.
• The readers or the audience don't get convinced that the expected results will be anything new or unique.
• The research methodology lacks the details and may appear unrealistic.
• The research proposal lacks coherence in the problem statement, methodology, and results.
• Inadequate literature review.
• Inaccurate interpretation of expected results from the methodology.
• Plagiarized or copied sections of the research proposal.

Common mistakes to avoid

You must stay aware of the research proposal guidelines and best writing manners. To maximize the approval chances of your research proposal, you should try to avoid some common pitfalls like:

• Making it verbose

Try explaining the various sections of the research proposal economically. Ideally, you should strive to keep your writing as a concise, brief, and to the point as possible. The more concisely you explain the purpose and goal of your research proposal, the better.

• Focusing on minor issues than tackling the core

While writing the research proposal, you may feel every issue is important, and you should provide an explanatory note for that. However, stay wiser while selecting the importance of issues. Avoid falling into the trap of trivial issues, as it may distract your readers from the core issues.

• Failure to put a strong research argument

The easiest way your readers can undermine your research proposal is by stating it is far more subjective and sounds unrealistic. A potent research argument describing the gaps in the current field, its importance, significance, and contributions to your research is the foremost requirement of a good research proposal.

Remember, even though you are proposing the objective, academic way, the goal is to persuade the audience to provide you with the required research approval.

• Not citing correctly

Understand that when you are going for some research, its outcome will contribute to the existing pool of knowledge. Therefore, always cite some landmark works of your chosen research domain and connect your proposed work with it.

Providing such intricate details will establish your research's importance, relevance, and familiarity with the domain knowledge.

Before You Go,

You might also like.

Consensus GPT vs. SciSpace GPT: Choose the Best GPT for Research

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework: Understanding the Differences

Types of Essays in Academic Writing - Quick Guide (2024)

We use essential cookies to make Venngage work. By clicking “Accept All Cookies”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts.

Manage Cookies

Cookies and similar technologies collect certain information about how you’re using our website. Some of them are essential, and without them you wouldn’t be able to use Venngage. But others are optional, and you get to choose whether we use them or not.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

These cookies are always on, as they’re essential for making Venngage work, and making it safe. Without these cookies, services you’ve asked for can’t be provided.

Show cookie providers

• Google Login

Functionality Cookies

These cookies help us provide enhanced functionality and personalisation, and remember your settings. They may be set by us or by third party providers.

Performance Cookies

These cookies help us analyze how many people are using Venngage, where they come from and how they're using it. If you opt out of these cookies, we can’t get feedback to make Venngage better for you and all our users.

• Google Analytics

Targeting Cookies

These cookies are set by our advertising partners to track your activity and show you relevant Venngage ads on other sites as you browse the internet.

• Google Tag Manager
• Infographics
• Daily Infographics
• Graphic Design
• Graphs and Charts
• Data Visualization
• Human Resources
• Beginner Guides

Blog Education

How to Write a Research Proposal: A Step-by-Step

By Danesh Ramuthi , Nov 29, 2023

A research proposal is a structured outline for a planned study on a specific topic. It serves as a roadmap, guiding researchers through the process of converting their research idea into a feasible project. 

The aim of a research proposal is multifold: it articulates the research problem, establishes a theoretical framework, outlines the research methodology and highlights the potential significance of the study. Importantly, it’s a critical tool for scholars seeking grant funding or approval for their research projects.

Crafting a good research proposal requires not only understanding your research topic and methodological approaches but also the ability to present your ideas clearly and persuasively. Explore Venngage’s Proposal Maker and Research Proposals Templates to begin your journey in writing a compelling research proposal.

What to include in a research proposal?

In a research proposal, include a clear statement of your research question or problem, along with an explanation of its significance. This should be followed by a literature review that situates your proposed study within the context of existing research. 

Your proposal should also outline the research methodology, detailing how you plan to conduct your study, including data collection and analysis methods.

Additionally, include a theoretical framework that guides your research approach, a timeline or research schedule, and a budget if applicable. It’s important to also address the anticipated outcomes and potential implications of your study. A well-structured research proposal will clearly communicate your research objectives, methods and significance to the readers.

How to format a research proposal?

Formatting a research proposal involves adhering to a structured outline to ensure clarity and coherence. While specific requirements may vary, a standard research proposal typically includes the following elements:

• Title Page: Must include the title of your research proposal, your name and affiliations. The title should be concise and descriptive of your proposed research.
• Abstract: A brief summary of your proposal, usually not exceeding 250 words. It should highlight the research question, methodology and the potential impact of the study.
• Introduction: Introduces your research question or problem, explains its significance, and states the objectives of your study.
• Literature review: Here, you contextualize your research within existing scholarship, demonstrating your knowledge of the field and how your research will contribute to it.
• Methodology: Outline your research methods, including how you will collect and analyze data. This section should be detailed enough to show the feasibility and thoughtfulness of your approach.
• Timeline: Provide an estimated schedule for your research, breaking down the process into stages with a realistic timeline for each.
• Budget (if applicable): If your research requires funding, include a detailed budget outlining expected cost.
• References/Bibliography: List all sources referenced in your proposal in a consistent citation style.

How to write a research proposal in 11 steps?

Writing a research proposal in structured steps ensures a comprehensive and coherent presentation of your research project. Let’s look at the explanation for each of the steps here:  

Step 1: Title and Abstract Step 2: Introduction Step 3: Research objectives Step 4: Literature review Step 5: Methodology Step 6: Timeline Step 7: Resources Step 8: Ethical considerations Step 9: Expected outcomes and significance Step 10: References Step 11: Appendices

Step 1: title and abstract.

Select a concise, descriptive title and write an abstract summarizing your research question, objectives, methodology and expected outcomes​​. The abstract should include your research question, the objectives you aim to achieve, the methodology you plan to employ and the anticipated outcomes. 

Step 2: Introduction

In this section, introduce the topic of your research, emphasizing its significance and relevance to the field. Articulate the research problem or question in clear terms and provide background context, which should include an overview of previous research in the field.

Step 3: Research objectives

Here, you’ll need to outline specific, clear and achievable objectives that align with your research problem. These objectives should be well-defined, focused and measurable, serving as the guiding pillars for your study. They help in establishing what you intend to accomplish through your research and provide a clear direction for your investigation.

Step 4: Literature review

In this part, conduct a thorough review of existing literature related to your research topic. This involves a detailed summary of key findings and major contributions from previous research. Identify existing gaps in the literature and articulate how your research aims to fill these gaps. The literature review not only shows your grasp of the subject matter but also how your research will contribute new insights or perspectives to the field.

Step 5: Methodology

Describe the design of your research and the methodologies you will employ. This should include detailed information on data collection methods, instruments to be used and analysis techniques. Justify the appropriateness of these methods for your research​​.

Step 6: Timeline

Construct a detailed timeline that maps out the major milestones and activities of your research project. Break the entire research process into smaller, manageable tasks and assign realistic time frames to each. This timeline should cover everything from the initial research phase to the final submission, including periods for data collection, analysis and report writing. 

It helps in ensuring your project stays on track and demonstrates to reviewers that you have a well-thought-out plan for completing your research efficiently.

Step 7: Resources

Identify all the resources that will be required for your research, such as specific databases, laboratory equipment, software or funding. Provide details on how these resources will be accessed or acquired. 

If your research requires funding, explain how it will be utilized effectively to support various aspects of the project. 

Step 8: Ethical considerations

Address any ethical issues that may arise during your research. This is particularly important for research involving human subjects. Describe the measures you will take to ensure ethical standards are maintained, such as obtaining informed consent, ensuring participant privacy, and adhering to data protection regulations. 

Here, in this section you should reassure reviewers that you are committed to conducting your research responsibly and ethically.

Step 9: Expected outcomes and significance

Articulate the expected outcomes or results of your research. Explain the potential impact and significance of these outcomes, whether in advancing academic knowledge, influencing policy or addressing specific societal or practical issues. 

Step 10: References

Compile a comprehensive list of all the references cited in your proposal. Adhere to a consistent citation style (like APA or MLA) throughout your document. The reference section not only gives credit to the original authors of your sourced information but also strengthens the credibility of your proposal.

Step 11: Appendices

Include additional supporting materials that are pertinent to your research proposal. This can be survey questionnaires, interview guides, detailed data analysis plans or any supplementary information that supports the main text. 

Appendices provide further depth to your proposal, showcasing the thoroughness of your preparation.

Research proposal FAQs

1. how long should a research proposal be.

The length of a research proposal can vary depending on the requirements of the academic institution, funding body or specific guidelines provided. Generally, research proposals range from 500 to 1500 words or about one to a few pages long. It’s important to provide enough detail to clearly convey your research idea, objectives and methodology, while being concise. Always check

2. Why is the research plan pivotal to a research project?

The research plan is pivotal to a research project because it acts as a blueprint, guiding every phase of the study. It outlines the objectives, methodology, timeline and expected outcomes, providing a structured approach and ensuring that the research is systematically conducted. 

A well-crafted plan helps in identifying potential challenges, allocating resources efficiently and maintaining focus on the research goals. It is also essential for communicating the project’s feasibility and importance to stakeholders, such as funding bodies or academic supervisors.

Mastering how to write a research proposal is an essential skill for any scholar, whether in social and behavioral sciences, academic writing or any field requiring scholarly research. From this article, you have learned key components, from the literature review to the research design, helping you develop a persuasive and well-structured proposal.

Remember, a good research proposal not only highlights your proposed research and methodology but also demonstrates its relevance and potential impact.

For additional support, consider utilizing Venngage’s Proposal Maker and Research Proposals Templates , valuable tools in crafting a compelling proposal that stands out.

Whether it’s for grant funding, a research paper or a dissertation proposal, these resources can assist in transforming your research idea into a successful submission.

• 301 Academic Skills Centre
• Study skills online

How to write a research proposal

Advice and guidance on writing a proposal for a student research project.

Purpose of a Research Proposal

A research proposal should describe what you will investigate, why it is important to the discipline and how you will conduct your research.

Simply put, it is your plan for the research you intend to conduct. All research proposals are designed to persuade someone about how and why your intended project is worthwhile. 

In your proposal you will need to explain and defend your choices. Always think about the exact reasons why you are making specific choices and why they are the best options available to you and your project. 

Your research proposal aims should be centred on: 

• Relevance - You want to convince the reader how and why your research is relevant and significant to your field and how it is original. This is typically done in parts of the introduction and the literature review.
• Context - You should demonstrate that you are familiar with the field, you understand the current state of research on the topic and your ideas have a strong academic basis (i.e., not simply based on your instincts or personal views). This will be the focus of your introduction and literature review. 
• Approach - You need to make a case for your methodology, showing that you have carefully thought about the data, tools and procedures you will need to conduct the research. You need to explicitly defend all of your choices. This will be presented in the research design section. 
• Feasibility - You need to demonstrate clearly that your project is both reasonable and feasible within the practical constraints of the course, timescales, institution or funding. You need to make sure you have the time and access to resources to complete the project in a reasonable period. 

301 Recommends:

Our Research Writing workshop will look at some of the main writing challenges associated with writing a large-scale research project and look at strategies to manage your writing on a day-to-day basis. It will identify ways to plan, organise and map out the structure of your writing to allow you to develop an effective writing schedule and make continuous progress on your dissertation project.

Proposal format

The format of a research proposal varies between fields and levels of study but most proposals should contain at least these elements: introduction, literature review, research design and reference list.

Generally, research proposals can range from 500-1500 words or one to a few pages long. Typically, proposals for larger projects such as a PhD dissertation or funding requests, are longer and much more detailed.

Remember, the goal of your research proposal is to outline clearly and concisely exactly what your research will entail and accomplish, how it will do so and why it is important. If you are writing to a strictly enforced word count, a research proposal can be a great test of your ability to express yourself concisely!

Introduction

The first part of your proposal is the initial pitch for your project, so make sure it succinctly explains what you want to do and why. In other words, this is where you answer the reader’s “so what?” It should typically include: introducing the topic , outlining your problem statement and research question(s) and giving background and context. Some important questions to shape your introduction include: 

• Who has an interest in the topic (e.g. scientists, practitioners, policymakers, particular members of society)?
• How much is already known about the problem and why is it important?
• What is missing from current knowledge and why?
• What new insights will your research contribute?
• Why is this research worth doing?

If your proposal is very long, you might include separate sections with more detailed information on the background and context, problem statement, aims and objectives, and importance of the research.

Literature Review 

It’s important to show that you’re familiar with the most important research on your topic. A strong literature review convinces the reader that your project has a solid foundation in existing knowledge or theory (i.e. how it relates to established research in the field).

Your literature review will also show that you’re not simply repeating what other people have already done or said. This is also where you explain why your research is necessary. You might want to consider some of the following prompts:

• Comparing and contrasting: what are the main theories, methods, debates and controversies?
• Being critical: what are the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches?
• Showing how your research fits in: how will you build on, challenge or synthesise the work of others? 
• Filling a gap in the existing body of research: why is your idea innovative? 

Research design and methods

Following the literature review, it is a good idea to restate your main objectives, bringing the focus back to your own project. The research design/ methodology section should describe the overall approach and practical steps you will take to answer your research questions. You also need to demonstrate the feasibility of the project keeping in mind time and other constraints. 

You should definitely include:

• Qualitative vs quantitative research? Combination? 
• Will you collect original data or work with primary/secondary sources? 
• Is your research design descriptive, correlational or experimental? Something completely different?
• If you are undertaking your own study, when and where will you collect the data? How will you select subjects or sources? Ethics review? Exactly what or who will you study?
• What tools and procedures will you use (e.g. systematic reviews, surveys, interviews, observation, experiments, bibliographic data) to collect your data? 
• What tools/methods will you use to analyse your data? 
• Why are these the best methods to answer your research question(s)? This is where you should justify your choices. 
• How much time will you need to collect the data? 
• How will you gain access to participants and sources?
• Do you foresee any potential obstacles and if so, how will you address them?

Make sure you are not simply compiling a list of methods. Instead, aim to make an argument for why this is the most appropriate, valid and reliable way to approach answering your question. Remember you should always be defending your choices! 

Implications and Contributions to Knowledge

To ensure you finish your proposal on a strong note, it is a good idea to explore and/or emphasise the potential implications of the research. This means: what do you intend to contribute to existing knowledge on the topic?

Although you cannot know the results of your research until you have actually done the work, you should be going into the project with a clear idea of how your work will contribute to your field. This section might even be considered the most critical to your research proposal’s argument because it expresses exactly why your research is necessary. 

You should consider covering at least some of the following topics:

• Ways in which your work can challenge existing theories and assumptions in your field. 
• How your work will create the foundation for future research and theory. 
• The practical value your findings will provide to practitioners, educators and other academics in your field. 
• The problems or issues your work can potentially help to resolve. 
• Policies that could be impacted by your findings. 
• How your findings can be implemented in academia or other settings and how this will improve or otherwise transform these settings. 

This part is not about stating the specific results that you expect to obtain but rather, this is the section where you explicitly state how your findings will be valuable. 

This section is where you want to wrap it all up in a nice pretty bow. It is just like the concluding paragraph that you would structure and craft for a typical essay. You should briefly summarise your research proposal and reinforce your research purpose. 

Reference List or Bibliography

Your research proposal MUST include proper citations for every source you have used and full references. Please consult your departmental referencing styles to ensure you are citing and referencing in an appropriate way. 

Common mistakes to avoid 

Try and avoid these common pitfalls when you are writing your research proposal: 

• Being too wordy: Remember formal does not mean flowery or pretentious. In fact, you should really aim to keep your writing as concise and accessible as possible. The more economically you can express your goals and ideas, the better. 
• Failing to cite relevant information/sources: You are adding to the existing body of knowledge on the subject you are covering. Therefore, your research proposal should reference the main research pieces in your field (while referencing them correctly!) and connect your proposal to these works in some way. This does not mean just communicating the relevance of your work, it should explicitly demonstrate your familiarity with the field. 
• Focusing too much on minor issues: Your research is most likely important for so many great reasons. However, they do not all need to be listed in your research proposal. Generally, including too many questions and issues in your research proposal can serve as a red flag and detract from your main purpose(s). This will in turn weaken your proposal. Only involve the main/key issues you plan to address. 
• Failing to make a strong argument for your research: This is the simplest way to undermine your proposal. Your proposal is a piece of persuasive and critical writing . This means that, although you are presenting your proposal in an academic and hopefully objective manner, the goal is to get the reader to say ‘yes’ to your work. 
• Not polishing your writing : If your proposal has spelling or grammatical errors, an inconsistent or inappropriate tone or even just awkward phrasing it can undermine your credibility. Check out some of these resources to help guide you in the right direction: Manchester Academic Phrasebank , Proofreading Guide , Essay Checklist and Grammar Guide . Remember to double and triple check your work. 

Links and Resources

You might also need to include a schedule and/or a budget depending on your requirements. Some tools to help include: 

• Manchester University Academic Phrasebank
• Leeds Beckett Assignment Calculator
• Calendarpedia

Related information

Dissertation planning

Writing a literature review

Research methods

Be the first to hear about our new and upcoming workshops!

The 301 Academic Skills Centre newsletter is a fortnightly email for study skills, mathematics and statistics.

Be the first to find out about our:

• new and upcoming workshops,
• special events and programmes, and
• new and relevant online materials and resources.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Indian J Anaesth
• v.60(9); 2016 Sep

How to write a research proposal?

Department of Anaesthesiology, Bangalore Medical College and Research Institute, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India

Devika Rani Duggappa

Writing the proposal of a research work in the present era is a challenging task due to the constantly evolving trends in the qualitative research design and the need to incorporate medical advances into the methodology. The proposal is a detailed plan or ‘blueprint’ for the intended study, and once it is completed, the research project should flow smoothly. Even today, many of the proposals at post-graduate evaluation committees and application proposals for funding are substandard. A search was conducted with keywords such as research proposal, writing proposal and qualitative using search engines, namely, PubMed and Google Scholar, and an attempt has been made to provide broad guidelines for writing a scientifically appropriate research proposal.

INTRODUCTION

A clean, well-thought-out proposal forms the backbone for the research itself and hence becomes the most important step in the process of conduct of research.[ 1 ] The objective of preparing a research proposal would be to obtain approvals from various committees including ethics committee [details under ‘Research methodology II’ section [ Table 1 ] in this issue of IJA) and to request for grants. However, there are very few universally accepted guidelines for preparation of a good quality research proposal. A search was performed with keywords such as research proposal, funding, qualitative and writing proposals using search engines, namely, PubMed, Google Scholar and Scopus.

Five ‘C’s while writing a literature review

BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF A RESEARCH PROPOSAL

A proposal needs to show how your work fits into what is already known about the topic and what new paradigm will it add to the literature, while specifying the question that the research will answer, establishing its significance, and the implications of the answer.[ 2 ] The proposal must be capable of convincing the evaluation committee about the credibility, achievability, practicality and reproducibility (repeatability) of the research design.[ 3 ] Four categories of audience with different expectations may be present in the evaluation committees, namely academic colleagues, policy-makers, practitioners and lay audiences who evaluate the research proposal. Tips for preparation of a good research proposal include; ‘be practical, be persuasive, make broader links, aim for crystal clarity and plan before you write’. A researcher must be balanced, with a realistic understanding of what can be achieved. Being persuasive implies that researcher must be able to convince other researchers, research funding agencies, educational institutions and supervisors that the research is worth getting approval. The aim of the researcher should be clearly stated in simple language that describes the research in a way that non-specialists can comprehend, without use of jargons. The proposal must not only demonstrate that it is based on an intelligent understanding of the existing literature but also show that the writer has thought about the time needed to conduct each stage of the research.[ 4 , 5 ]

CONTENTS OF A RESEARCH PROPOSAL

The contents or formats of a research proposal vary depending on the requirements of evaluation committee and are generally provided by the evaluation committee or the institution.

In general, a cover page should contain the (i) title of the proposal, (ii) name and affiliation of the researcher (principal investigator) and co-investigators, (iii) institutional affiliation (degree of the investigator and the name of institution where the study will be performed), details of contact such as phone numbers, E-mail id's and lines for signatures of investigators.

The main contents of the proposal may be presented under the following headings: (i) introduction, (ii) review of literature, (iii) aims and objectives, (iv) research design and methods, (v) ethical considerations, (vi) budget, (vii) appendices and (viii) citations.[ 4 ]

Introduction

It is also sometimes termed as ‘need for study’ or ‘abstract’. Introduction is an initial pitch of an idea; it sets the scene and puts the research in context.[ 6 ] The introduction should be designed to create interest in the reader about the topic and proposal. It should convey to the reader, what you want to do, what necessitates the study and your passion for the topic.[ 7 ] Some questions that can be used to assess the significance of the study are: (i) Who has an interest in the domain of inquiry? (ii) What do we already know about the topic? (iii) What has not been answered adequately in previous research and practice? (iv) How will this research add to knowledge, practice and policy in this area? Some of the evaluation committees, expect the last two questions, elaborated under a separate heading of ‘background and significance’.[ 8 ] Introduction should also contain the hypothesis behind the research design. If hypothesis cannot be constructed, the line of inquiry to be used in the research must be indicated.

Review of literature

It refers to all sources of scientific evidence pertaining to the topic in interest. In the present era of digitalisation and easy accessibility, there is an enormous amount of relevant data available, making it a challenge for the researcher to include all of it in his/her review.[ 9 ] It is crucial to structure this section intelligently so that the reader can grasp the argument related to your study in relation to that of other researchers, while still demonstrating to your readers that your work is original and innovative. It is preferable to summarise each article in a paragraph, highlighting the details pertinent to the topic of interest. The progression of review can move from the more general to the more focused studies, or a historical progression can be used to develop the story, without making it exhaustive.[ 1 ] Literature should include supporting data, disagreements and controversies. Five ‘C's may be kept in mind while writing a literature review[ 10 ] [ Table 1 ].

Aims and objectives

The research purpose (or goal or aim) gives a broad indication of what the researcher wishes to achieve in the research. The hypothesis to be tested can be the aim of the study. The objectives related to parameters or tools used to achieve the aim are generally categorised as primary and secondary objectives.

Research design and method

The objective here is to convince the reader that the overall research design and methods of analysis will correctly address the research problem and to impress upon the reader that the methodology/sources chosen are appropriate for the specific topic. It should be unmistakably tied to the specific aims of your study.

In this section, the methods and sources used to conduct the research must be discussed, including specific references to sites, databases, key texts or authors that will be indispensable to the project. There should be specific mention about the methodological approaches to be undertaken to gather information, about the techniques to be used to analyse it and about the tests of external validity to which researcher is committed.[ 10 , 11 ]

The components of this section include the following:[ 4 ]

Population and sample

Population refers to all the elements (individuals, objects or substances) that meet certain criteria for inclusion in a given universe,[ 12 ] and sample refers to subset of population which meets the inclusion criteria for enrolment into the study. The inclusion and exclusion criteria should be clearly defined. The details pertaining to sample size are discussed in the article “Sample size calculation: Basic priniciples” published in this issue of IJA.

Data collection

The researcher is expected to give a detailed account of the methodology adopted for collection of data, which include the time frame required for the research. The methodology should be tested for its validity and ensure that, in pursuit of achieving the results, the participant's life is not jeopardised. The author should anticipate and acknowledge any potential barrier and pitfall in carrying out the research design and explain plans to address them, thereby avoiding lacunae due to incomplete data collection. If the researcher is planning to acquire data through interviews or questionnaires, copy of the questions used for the same should be attached as an annexure with the proposal.

Rigor (soundness of the research)

This addresses the strength of the research with respect to its neutrality, consistency and applicability. Rigor must be reflected throughout the proposal.

It refers to the robustness of a research method against bias. The author should convey the measures taken to avoid bias, viz. blinding and randomisation, in an elaborate way, thus ensuring that the result obtained from the adopted method is purely as chance and not influenced by other confounding variables.

Consistency

Consistency considers whether the findings will be consistent if the inquiry was replicated with the same participants and in a similar context. This can be achieved by adopting standard and universally accepted methods and scales.

Applicability

Applicability refers to the degree to which the findings can be applied to different contexts and groups.[ 13 ]

Data analysis

This section deals with the reduction and reconstruction of data and its analysis including sample size calculation. The researcher is expected to explain the steps adopted for coding and sorting the data obtained. Various tests to be used to analyse the data for its robustness, significance should be clearly stated. Author should also mention the names of statistician and suitable software which will be used in due course of data analysis and their contribution to data analysis and sample calculation.[ 9 ]

Ethical considerations

Medical research introduces special moral and ethical problems that are not usually encountered by other researchers during data collection, and hence, the researcher should take special care in ensuring that ethical standards are met. Ethical considerations refer to the protection of the participants' rights (right to self-determination, right to privacy, right to autonomy and confidentiality, right to fair treatment and right to protection from discomfort and harm), obtaining informed consent and the institutional review process (ethical approval). The researcher needs to provide adequate information on each of these aspects.

Informed consent needs to be obtained from the participants (details discussed in further chapters), as well as the research site and the relevant authorities.

When the researcher prepares a research budget, he/she should predict and cost all aspects of the research and then add an additional allowance for unpredictable disasters, delays and rising costs. All items in the budget should be justified.

Appendices are documents that support the proposal and application. The appendices will be specific for each proposal but documents that are usually required include informed consent form, supporting documents, questionnaires, measurement tools and patient information of the study in layman's language.

As with any scholarly research paper, you must cite the sources you used in composing your proposal. Although the words ‘references and bibliography’ are different, they are used interchangeably. It refers to all references cited in the research proposal.

Successful, qualitative research proposals should communicate the researcher's knowledge of the field and method and convey the emergent nature of the qualitative design. The proposal should follow a discernible logic from the introduction to presentation of the appendices.

Financial support and sponsorship

Conflicts of interest.

There are no conflicts of interest.

What Is Background in a Research Paper?

So you have carefully written your research paper  and probably ran it through your colleagues ten to fifteen times. While there are many elements to a good research article, one of the most important elements for your readers is the background of your study.

What is Background of the Study in Research

The background of your study will provide context to the information discussed throughout the research paper . Background information may include both important and relevant studies. This is particularly important if a study either supports or refutes your thesis.

Why is Background of the Study Necessary in Research?

The background of the study discusses your problem statement, rationale, and research questions. It links  introduction to your research topic  and ensures a logical flow of ideas.  Thus, it helps readers understand your reasons for conducting the study.

Providing Background Information

The reader should be able to understand your topic and its importance. The length and detail of your background also depend on the degree to which you need to demonstrate your understanding of the topic. Paying close attention to the following questions will help you in writing background information:

• Are there any theories, concepts, terms, and ideas that may be unfamiliar to the target audience and will require you to provide any additional explanation?
• Any historical data that need to be shared in order to provide context on why the current issue emerged?
• Are there any concepts that may have been borrowed from other disciplines that may be unfamiliar to the reader and need an explanation?

Related: Ready with the background and searching for more information on journal ranking? Check this infographic on the SCImago Journal Rank today!

Is the research study unique for which additional explanation is needed? For instance, you may have used a completely new method

How to Write a Background of the Study

The structure of a background study in a research paper generally follows a logical sequence to provide context, justification, and an understanding of the research problem. It includes an introduction, general background, literature review , rationale , objectives, scope and limitations , significance of the study and the research hypothesis . Following the structure can provide a comprehensive and well-organized background for your research.

Here are the steps to effectively write a background of the study.

1. Identify Your Audience:

Determine the level of expertise of your target audience. Tailor the depth and complexity of your background information accordingly.

2. Understand the Research Problem:

Define the research problem or question your study aims to address. Identify the significance of the problem within the broader context of the field.

3. Review Existing Literature:

Conduct a thorough literature review to understand what is already known in the area. Summarize key findings, theories, and concepts relevant to your research.

4. Include Historical Data:

Integrate historical data if relevant to the research, as current issues often trace back to historical events.

5. Identify Controversies and Gaps:

Note any controversies or debates within the existing literature. Identify gaps , limitations, or unanswered questions that your research can address.

6. Select Key Components:

Choose the most critical elements to include in the background based on their relevance to your research problem. Prioritize information that helps build a strong foundation for your study.

7. Craft a Logical Flow:

Organize the background information in a logical sequence. Start with general context, move to specific theories and concepts, and then focus on the specific problem.

8. Highlight the Novelty of Your Research:

Clearly explain the unique aspects or contributions of your study. Emphasize why your research is different from or builds upon existing work.

Here are some extra tips to increase the quality of your research background:

Example of a Research Background

Here is an example of a research background to help you understand better.

The above hypothetical example provides a research background, addresses the gap and highlights the potential outcome of the study; thereby aiding a better understanding of the proposed research.

What Makes the Introduction Different from the Background?

Your introduction is different from your background in a number of ways.

• The introduction contains preliminary data about your topic that  the reader will most likely read , whereas the background clarifies the importance of the paper.
• The background of your study discusses in depth about the topic, whereas the introduction only gives an overview.
• The introduction should end with your research questions, aims, and objectives, whereas your background should not (except in some cases where your background is integrated into your introduction). For instance, the C.A.R.S. ( Creating a Research Space ) model, created by John Swales is based on his analysis of journal articles. This model attempts to explain and describe the organizational pattern of writing the introduction in social sciences.

Points to Note

Your background should begin with defining a topic and audience. It is important that you identify which topic you need to review and what your audience already knows about the topic. You should proceed by searching and researching the relevant literature. In this case, it is advisable to keep track of the search terms you used and the articles that you downloaded. It is helpful to use one of the research paper management systems such as Papers, Mendeley, Evernote, or Sente. Next, it is helpful to take notes while reading. Be careful when copying quotes verbatim and make sure to put them in quotation marks and cite the sources. In addition, you should keep your background focused but balanced enough so that it is relevant to a broader audience. Aside from these, your background should be critical, consistent, and logically structured.

Writing the background of your study should not be an overly daunting task. Many guides that can help you organize your thoughts as you write the background. The background of the study is the key to introduce your audience to your research topic and should be done with strong knowledge and thoughtful writing.

The background of a research paper typically ranges from one to two paragraphs, summarizing the relevant literature and context of the study. It should be concise, providing enough information to contextualize the research problem and justify the need for the study. Journal instructions about any word count limits should be kept in mind while deciding on the length of the final content.

The background of a research paper provides the context and relevant literature to understand the research problem, while the introduction also introduces the specific research topic, states the research objectives, and outlines the scope of the study. The background focuses on the broader context, whereas the introduction focuses on the specific research project and its objectives.

When writing the background for a study, start by providing a brief overview of the research topic and its significance in the field. Then, highlight the gaps in existing knowledge or unresolved issues that the study aims to address. Finally, summarize the key findings from relevant literature to establish the context and rationale for conducting the research, emphasizing the need and importance of the study within the broader academic landscape.

The background in a research paper is crucial as it sets the stage for the study by providing essential context and rationale. It helps readers understand the significance of the research problem and its relevance in the broader field. By presenting relevant literature and highlighting gaps, the background justifies the need for the study, building a strong foundation for the research and enhancing its credibility.

The presentation very informative

It is really educative. I love the workshop. It really motivated me into writing my first paper for publication.

an interesting clue here, thanks.

thanks for the answers.

Good and interesting explanation. Thanks

Thank you for good presentation.

Hi Adam, we are glad to know that you found our article beneficial

The background of the study is the key to introduce your audience to YOUR research topic.

Awesome. Exactly what i was looking forwards to 😉

Hi Maryam, we are glad to know that you found our resource useful.

my understanding of ‘Background of study’ has been elevated.

Hi Peter, we are glad to know that our article has helped you get a better understanding of the background in a research paper.

thanks to give advanced information

Hi Shimelis, we are glad to know that you found the information in our article beneficial.

When i was studying it is very much hard for me to conduct a research study and know the background because my teacher in practical research is having a research so i make it now so that i will done my research

Very informative……….Thank you.

The confusion i had before, regarding an introduction and background to a research work is now a thing of the past. Thank you so much.

Thanks for your help…

Thanks for your kind information about the background of a research paper.

Thanks for the answer

Very informative. I liked even more when the difference between background and introduction was given. I am looking forward to learning more from this site. I am in Botswana

Hello, I am Benoît from Central African Republic. Right now I am writing down my research paper in order to get my master degree in British Literature. Thank you very much for posting all this information about the background of the study. I really appreciate. Thanks!

The write up is quite good, detailed and informative. Thanks a lot. The article has certainly enhanced my understanding of the topic.

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• AI in Academia
• Infographic
• Manuscripts & Grants
• Reporting Research
• Trending Now

Can AI Tools Prepare a Research Manuscript From Scratch? — A comprehensive guide

As technology continues to advance, the question of whether artificial intelligence (AI) tools can prepare…

Abstract Vs. Introduction — Do you know the difference?

Ross wants to publish his research. Feeling positive about his research outcomes, he begins to…

• Old Webinars
• Webinar Mobile App

Demystifying Research Methodology With Field Experts

Choosing research methodology Research design and methodology Evidence-based research approach How RAxter can assist researchers

• Manuscript Preparation
• Publishing Research

How to Choose Best Research Methodology for Your Study

Successful research conduction requires proper planning and execution. While there are multiple reasons and aspects…

Top 5 Key Differences Between Methods and Methodology

While burning the midnight oil during literature review, most researchers do not realize that the…

How to Draft the Acknowledgment Section of a Manuscript

Discussion Vs. Conclusion: Know the Difference Before Drafting Manuscripts

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

What should universities' stance be on AI tools in research and academic writing?

How to Write a Research Proposal: Template, Format, Tips

Learn how to write a research proposal that makes you stand out from the crowd, get the funding you need, and gain entry into your dream academic institution.

John McTale

14 minute read

You’ve put a lot of thought into that research project. You know it’s importan. The problem? Nobody else does. And no one is willing to fund it. Yet.

Research proposals are nerve-racking, notoriously difficult to write, and for good reason - they have a major impact on your academic career.

The best institutions and labs have thousands of talented researchers fighting to get in. And their most powerful weapon to get ahead of the pack is their research proposal.

So, how do you write a proposal that helps you outperform other applicants?

This guide will help you write stress-free research proposals that land the funding you deserve and launch your academic career .

What is a research proposal?

A research proposal is a formal academic document that outlines your research project and requests support for that project: either by funding or agreeing to supervise your research.

The main objective of a research proposal is to explain what you’re planning to research and why it’s worth researching. Research proposals are most commonly used in academia or across non-academic scientific organizations. Of course, no two research proposals are identical—in fact, those can vary greatly depending on the level of study you’re at, your field, or the exact nature of your project.

Still, there are some general requirements that all great proposals have to meet and must-have sections to include. This article will focus particularly on writing research proposals for academic grants at postgraduate level or PhD applications. However, even if you’re writing a thesis or a dissertation proposal, most of the same rules apply—it’s just that your proposal might not have to be as detailed and comprehensive. Speaking of which...

How long should a research proposal be?

Most research proposals in humanities and social sciences are between 10 and 25 pages long. Technical or scientific proposals might require you to include detailed specifications and more supporting documentation and can therefore be significantly longer. That said, each institution might have its own guidelines and requirements for research proposals and those often include the word count range. If that’s the case, you obviously have to play by the rules.

Try Storydoc for research proposals

If you want to add some flair to your research proposal and immediately stand out from hundreds of other, identically-looking documents, take our interactive proposal maker for a spin and create a visually stunning summary of your proposal. Storydoc is 100% free to use for verified .edu email addresses.

Alright, we covered the theoretical part. Time for some practical knowledge!

Here’s how to write a research proposal:

1. write an introduction to present the subject of your research.

“Wow, I can’t wait to see the outcome of this study!” This is the kind of response you want your research proposal introduction to receive. How to make that happen? Outline your research proposal intro around these four key issues:

• What is the research problem?
• Who is this problem relevant to (general society, fellow researchers, specialized professionals, etc.)?
• What is currently known about the problem and what key pieces are missing from the current state of knowledge?
• Why should anyone care about the potential outcomes?

The easiest way to write a captivating intro to a research proposal is to follow a four-paragraph format, where each paragraph addresses one of these questions. Let’s see a practical example. (Yes, I made it up, but it works as a convenient point of reference.)

Sample outline for a research proposal introduction

The problem Investigating the impact of remote work on new joiners to previously in-house teams. Who it’s relevant to Human resources professionals, workspace psychologists, working population, business management specialists and scholars. What’s currently known There is existing research about the impact of remote work on team morale and productivity, but no research has been centered around people joining fully-remote teams that had previously worked in-house and the implications of such a situation for new employees' mental health and sense of belonging. Why should anyone care? In the era of COVID, many offices have switched to remote-only work yet they’re still hiring new employees. The findings of this study might suggest a need to change onboarding practices and HR management techniques in order to aid employee satisfaction which, in turn, can help improve work performance, NPS scores and overall business results.

2. Explain the Context and Background

Whether or not you’ll need this section depends on how detailed your proposal is. If a research problem at hand is particularly complicated or advanced, it’s usually best to add this section. It will usually be entitled “Background and Significance,” or “Rationale.” For shorter proposals, most of the actual background will have been already included in the introduction. How to write the “Background” section of a research proposal?

• Describe the broader area of research that your project fits into.
• Focus on the gaps in existing studies and explain the need to fill these gaps. That said…
• Show how your research will build upon existing knowledge.
• Explain your hypothesis and the rationale behind it.
• Establish the limits of your study (in other words, explain what the research is not about).
• Finally, reiterate why your research is important and what benefits it can reap. In other words, provide the answer to the dreaded “So what?” question.

If your research project is complex and highly technical, describing the background in a separate section is particularly helpful: this way, you can make your introduction follow a free-flowing, “sexy” narrative, and let the “Background” part do the heavy lifting. That said— Don’t make this part too detailed either. Assume you’re dealing with a very busy reader who won’t have the time to get into your methodology and timeline but still wants some hard evidence behind the relevance of your project.

3. Provide a Detailed Literature Review

Arguably, the most important (and, yes, you guessed it, the most difficult) part of the whole document— One where you have to prove that you know *all* there is to know about the topic of interest and that your research will help advance the whole field of study. The Literature Review section is, in essence, a mini-dissertation. It has to follow a logical progression and put forward the argument for your study in relation to existing research: describe and summarize what has already been discussed and demonstrate that your research goes beyond that. In the digital era of easy access to information , it might be difficult to discuss all of the existing research on your subject in the Literature Review so be critical about what studies or papers you choose to include.

But there’s a handy set of rules to help you pick the right ones—the gold standard for academic Literature Review. It’s called “ the five Cs ” and refers to the following practices:

• Cite directly from the sources to avoid digressions and drifting away from the actual literature.
• Compare different theories or arguments (in arts and humanities), methodologies and findings (in sciences and tech).
• Contrast the approaches discussed above: highlight the main differences and areas of disagreement among scholars in the field.
• Critique the research of the past. Don’t shy away from pointing out inaccuracies, mutually exclusive findings, or controversies. At the same time, give credit where it’s due. Identify the findings you find most convincing, reliable, or accurate.
• Connect the whole of the literature reviewed to your own project. Are you basing your assumptions on any previous findings? Is your goal to confront, challenge, or even debunk certain pieces of research? Either way, you need to prove that your study will be intertwined with existing ones, not floating in an academic void.

How to structure your Literature Review?

• The easiest and most reader-friendly way to format the Literature Review section is to devote each paragraph to a separate piece of literature.
• For scientific projects, it’s best to go from the more general to the more specific studies.
• For projects in arts and humanities, a historical (or chronological) progression is the most commonly-used method as it helps develop an easy-to-follow narrative.

The hard part? DONE. (No, it really is). All of what comes next boils down to technicalities and formal requirements. If they’re sold on your vision by now, you just need to show how you’re planning to achieve what you set out to do.

4. List Your Key Aims and Objectives

This section can be called “Research Questions,” or just “Aims and Objectives.” Compared to the previous ones, it should be very succinct and to-the-point. Whether you need to write about your aims and objectives or formulate those as research questions usually depends on the formal requirements of the institution to which you’re applying. The key aspect of getting this part right is distinguishing between the three: an aim, an objective, and a research question. Here’s how:

• Aims describe what you want to achieve. An aim is usually stated in a broad term.
• Objectives are the specific, measurable outputs you need to produce in order to achieve your aim. There are usually multiple objectives associated with a single aim.
• Questions are a slightly more specific way to formulate your objectives—in essence, very similar in meaning, just slightly different in format.

Again, here’s a practical example. And again, it’s simplified and not based on actual research, just here to let you better understand the disambiguation.

Sample research aims and objectives for a research proposal

Research Aim

To understand the importance of the quality of food in school canteens on the nutritional health of children aged 6–10. Objectives:

• Investigate the weekly menus across 28 school canteens in New Jersey with a focus on key nutritional ingredients and portion sizes.
• Conduct desk-research of state policies regulating nutrition in primary schools.
• Interview the parents of children participating in the study about their children’s nutritional habits outside of school.
• Evaluate the key health-related metrics in children participating in the study.

As I mentioned, if such are the formal requirements, your objectives can easily be translated into research questions. For instance: “Conduct desk-research of state policies regulating nutrition in primary schools.” Becomes: “What state-wide policies regulating nutrition in primary schools are there in place in the state of New Jersey?”

Remember the five Cs of literature review? When it comes to your research objectives and questions, there’s another handy acronym to serve as a sanity check for you: SMART . It stands for:

• Specific: is the objective well-defined and can be achieved with a singular action?
• Measurable: will you end up with quantified, verifiable data?
• Achievable: considering your resources and capacity, is it realistic for you to reach your objective?
• Relevant: does this objective actually contribute to your research aim?
• Timebound: do you have enough time to complete this objective, in relation to the overall timeline of your project?

5. Outline the Research Methods and Design

The grant decision makers already know what you’re trying to achieve and have a general idea about how you’re planning to achieve that. This section should prove to them that you’re well equipped (both in terms of your skills and resources) to conduct the research. The main goal is to convince the reader that your methods are adequate and appropriate for the specific topic. Any idea why “specific” is in bold? Well, this is one of those parts of a research proposal that differs the most across different documents. There’s an ideal methodology for any particular academic project and no two kinds of research design are the same. Make sure your methodology matches all of your desired outcomes.

Some usual components of the Research Methods section include:

Research type:

• Qualitative or quantitative ,
• Collecting original data or basing your research on primary and secondary sources,
• Descriptive, correlational, or experimental.

Population and sample:

• The whole population of individuals or entities that meet eligibility criteria to be included in your research,
• The subset of the population that is going to be included in the particular study.

Data collection:

• What methods ( surveys , clinical analysis, biochemical analysis, interviews, experiments) will you use?
• Why are those methods optimal for achieving the desired objectives?
• How can you ensure that the chosen method eliminates bias?

Data analysis:

• How will you sort and code the data obtained?
• What tools, algorithms, or techniques will you use to analyze the data?

Operational issues:

• How much time will you need to collect the research material?
• How are you planning to gain access to the desired set of data or information?
• What obstacles might you encounter and how will you overcome them?

Now, I can’t stress that enough— This part of a research proposal will vary the most from one proposal to another. The outline above will work good for sciences (both social and exact), perhaps not equally great for arts and humanities. At the end of the day, you know your project better than anyone else. You’ll need to make the judgement call as to what methods are best.

6. (Optional) Discuss Ethical Considerations

No, this part isn’t optional because you might just disregard ethics or choose to be the evil scientist. But let’s face it— There aren’t going to be many ethical issues to consider if you’re investigating the vector shapes of tree leaves’ shadows (I kid you not, it’s a legit research issue, my friend did his PhD in Physics about it and absolutely killed it). But if your research has to do with humans, especially in fields such as medicine or psychology, it might introduce ethical problems in data collection , not often encountered by other researchers. You need to take extra care to protect your participants’ rights, get their explicit consent to process the data, as well as consult the research project with the authorities of your academic institution—for that purpose, your proposal needs to contain detailed information regarding these aspects.

7. Present Preliminary or Desired Implications and Contribution to Knowledge

This is the last argument-based part of your proposal. After that, everything will be about “boring” technicalities. This also means, it’s your last chance to convince the decision makers to back your project. Think about it this way— You already explained what exactly is going to be the scope of your project. You detailed the current state of knowledge and identified the most important gaps. You told them what you’re hoping to find out and how you’re planning to do it. Now, talk about the actual, feasible difference your finding can make. How your research can influence the future of the field, or even the very narrow niche. In other words, describe the implications of your research such as:

• How can your research challenge the current underlying assumptions on the subject matter?
• How can it inform future research and what new areas of research can it propel?
• What will the influence of your research be on policy decisions?
• What sorts of individuals, organizations, or other entities can your research benefit?
• What will be improved and optimized on the basis of your research?

All that while keeping one crucial thing in mind— Talking about the practical implications of your study shouldn’t sound like daydreaming. However “preliminary” or “desired” the said implications are, you need to base those on very clear evidence. In short, this section is about:

• Reiterating the gaps in the current state of knowledge.
• Showing how you’ll contribute to a new understanding of certain problems or even a scientific breakthrough.
• Clearly showing how your findings can be acted upon and what feasible change those actions will bring about.

And yes, it does sound lofty, but it’s true. As a researcher, you’re expanding the scope of human comprehension! Don’t shy away from highlighting the actual change you can bring to the world (or even just your narrow field, it’s just as valuable).

8. Detail Your Budget and Funding Requirements

If you do have a supervisor already, it’s best to consult this part with them. They’ve most likely submitted similar documents to the institution you’re reaching out to and will be able to provide invaluable insights on how much you can realistically expect to get paid. If you’re at a different stage of the application process, here are the key elements you should include in the funding requirements section:

• Operational costs: materials, equipment, access to labs, any software you might need, etc.
• Travel costs: including transportation, accommodation, and living costs.
• Staff: if you’ll need human assistants to help you carry out your research, you’ll most likely need to pay them. It might be the case that junior researchers or students will be able to help you to obtain necessary credits for graduation, but it’s still a cost for their institution you’ll need to include in the budget.
• Allowance: you’ll most likely have to give up on other duties that help you pay bills (be that teaching, publishing, or administrative work) but you still need those bills paid. Treat your allowance as a regular salary you need to make a living.

Note: if possible, do leave yourself some wiggle room and request for conditional extra allowance for unpredictable disasters, delays, or unexpected cost rises.

9. Provide a Timetable

Certain grant schemes come with predefined timetables (e.g. placements offered for 3, 6, or 9 months) and in such cases there’s no need for a very detailed timeline—all you need to do is convince them that the period of time for which you’ll be receiving funding is sufficient for you to complete the project. When you’re writing a proposal for a standalone project, detailing a timeline can help support your budget. The most common format is, you guessed it, a table. Divide your research into stages, list, in bullet points, what actions you’ll need to take at each stage, and list rough deadlines. I know I don’t have to tell you that but please, keep Murphy's Law in mind. Perhaps not everything that can go wrong will, but, well, expect the unexpected and be conservative with deadlines. All in all, it's easier to explain why you no longer need 3 months worth of funding than it is to ask for 6 months’ extra allowance. Don’t let delays derail your project. That’s all I have to say.

10. End with a List of Citations

This one really is self-explanatory, isn’t it. As a scholar, you need to cite the sources you’re referring to (no matter how harshly critical you are of some of those:)). Citations in research proposals can either be included in the form of references (so only the pieces of literature you actually cited) or bibliography (everything that informed your proposal). As is the case with many other elements of the proposal, the correct format depends almost exclusively on the institution you’re applying to, so make sure to check it with them or consult with your supervisor about which one is preferred. The same goes for the style of referencing. Most US universities use APA or Chicago style but each has its own set of rules and preferences. Double-check with the list of guidelines on their website. When in doubt, reach out to the head of the department you’re wishing to work with. (No, using the wrong style won’t ruin your chances but I don’t think I need to tell you how particular certain academics are so let’s not step on any toes, shall we?)

Found this post useful?

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter.

Get notified as more awesome content goes live.

(No spam, no ads, opt-out whenever)

You've just joined an elite group of people that make the top performing 1% of sales and marketing collateral.

And that’s a wrap!

To sum up, this is what a typical research proposal should include:

• Introduction
• Context and Background
• Literature Review
• Aims and Objectives or Research Questions
• Methods and Design
• Ethical Considerations
• Contributions to Knowledge or Implications

Writing a research proposal can be hard and feel like a never-ending process. It really isn’t much different from writing an actual thesis or dissertation. Yup, this is my roundabout way of saying: don’t get disheartened. Allow yourself a few months up to half a year to complete your proposal, follow the steps outlined in this guide and, whenever in doubt, remember to reach out to senior researchers for help. Keeping my fingers crossed for your proposal!

Hi, I'm John, Editor-in-chief at Storydoc. As a content marketer and digital writer specializing in B2B SaaS, my main goal is to provide you with up-to-date tips for effective business storytelling and equip you with all the right tools to enable your sales efforts.

Make your best pitch deck to date

Try Storydoc for free for 14 days (keep your decks for ever!)

• How to Write a...

How to Write a Research Proposal: A Comprehensive Guide

• By angelie karin
• Apr 08, 2024

Writing a research proposal is a pivotal step for any researcher aiming to secure funding or approval for their project. 

A well-crafted proposal not only showcases the significance and feasibility of your study but also demonstrates your capability as a researcher to conduct the study. 

Below is a detailed exploration of the process, designed to guide you through each component of crafting a compelling research proposal.

Understanding the Fundamental Elements of a Research Proposal

The journey of your research proposal begins with the title – your first opportunity to make an impression. It should be both descriptive and concise, directly reflecting the essence of your research without any ambiguity. 

This is where you capture the attention of your readers, making them eager to delve into the details of your study.

Following the title, the abstract serves as a snapshot of your research proposal. Although brief, it must encapsulate the aims, methodology, and anticipated outcomes of your study. 

Succinctness and clarity are your allies here, aiding reviewers in quickly grasping the essence of your proposed research.

Introduction

The introduction lays down the foundation of your research proposal. It is here that you articulate your research question, setting the stage by providing background information and stating the rationale behind your study. 

This section should not only highlight the significance of your research but also build a compelling argument for why it is necessary.

Literature Review

A thorough literature review is the backbone of any research proposal . It demonstrates your deep understanding of the field by summarizing existing research and identifying gaps that your study aims to fill. 

This section should underscore the originality of your proposal, making a clear case for the contribution your research will make to the field. 

Integrating a variety of sources, from academic journals to books, you should weave a narrative that supports the premise of your study, emphasizing its necessity and potential impact.

Research Design and Methods

This section is where you detail how you plan to answer your research question. Transparently discuss your research design and methodology, whether it be qualitative, quantitative, or a mixture of both. 

Describe the data collection methods you intend to use, along with your analysis plan, giving special attention to the reproducibility and ethical considerations of your approach. 

Your goal is to convince the reviewers of the soundness of your research methodology and your competence in executing it.

Implications and Contribution to the Field

Explaining the significance of your research, this part of the proposal should articulate how your study will contribute to the existing body of knowledge. 

Discuss the potential implications of your findings for the field and how they might influence future research, policy, or practice. 

This is your argument for the relevance and necessity of your study, highlighting the unique insights it promises to offer.

Budget and Resources

As pragmatic as it is essential, the budget and resources section details the financial aspects of your proposed research. 

It is important to provide a comprehensive budget that justifies each expense, whether it’s for equipment, personnel, travel, or other costs. 

Be realistic and transparent, ensuring that your budget aligns with the scope of your project. Additionally, listing the resources you have and those you need demonstrates thorough planning and feasibility.

Timeline and Milestones

A well-structured timeline not only helps in organizing your research but also reassures funders of your project’s timeliness. 

Break down the research process into phases, assigning realistic deadlines to each. Including milestones allows for a clearer understanding of the project’s progress, making this section a crucial aspect of your proposal.

Ethical Considerations

Ethical considerations are paramount in research. This section of the proposal should address potential ethical issues and describe how they will be managed. 

If applicable, mention the process of obtaining Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval. A thoughtful discussion of ethics not only highlights the integrity of your research design but also builds trust with your reviewers.

Though not always necessary, appendices can be included to provide additional supporting information that is too detailed for the main body of the proposal. This might include charts, graphs, letters of support, or any other documents that strengthen your proposal.

Crafting a compelling research proposal is a meticulous process. Tailoring your proposal to echo the priorities of the funding agency can significantly increase your chances of success. 

Furthermore, ensuring that your writing is clear, jargon-free, and meticulously proofread can make your proposal more accessible and appealing. Remember, clarity and coherence are your best tools for conveying the value of your research.

What is the typical length of a research proposal?

While the length can vary depending on the requirements of the funding agency, a research proposal typically ranges from 10 to 15 pages.

How can I make my research proposal stand out to funders?

Emphasize the originality and significance of your research, clearly articulate your methodology, and ensure your proposal is well-organized and free of jargon. Tailoring the proposal to the funder’s priorities can also make a significant difference.

What are the most common reasons for research proposal rejection?

Common reasons include a lack of originality, unclear or flawed methodology, insufficient literature review, and unrealistic goals or budgets.

How detailed should the methodology section be in a research proposal?

It should be detailed enough to clearly explain how you will conduct your research, including your research design, data collection, and analysis methods, while being concise.

Is it necessary to include a literature review in my research proposal?

Yes, a literature review is crucial as it establishes the context of your research, demonstrates your knowledge of the field, and justifies the necessity of your proposed study.

In the conclusion, succinctly recap the key points of your proposal, reinforcing the significance and feasibility of your research. 

This final pitch should leave no doubt in the reviewers’ minds about the value and necessity of your study, encouraging their support for its execution. 

In crafting your research proposal, it’s essential to communicate not only the significance of your research but also your ability to carry it out successfully. 

By carefully addressing each component of the proposal and ensuring clarity and coherence throughout, you’ll significantly increase your chances of securing the necessary approval or funding. 

Remember, a compelling research proposal is your ticket to embarking on a meaningful research journey, contributing valuable insights to your field of study.

More From The Stock Dork:

Copyright © 2023 THE STOCK DORK

• Affiliate Disclosure
• Cookie Policy

• Privacy Policy

Buy Me a Coffee

Home » How To Write A Proposal – Step By Step Guide [With Template]

How To Write A Proposal – Step By Step Guide [With Template]

Table of Contents

How To Write A Proposal

Writing a Proposal involves several key steps to effectively communicate your ideas and intentions to a target audience. Here’s a detailed breakdown of each step:

Identify the Purpose and Audience

• Clearly define the purpose of your proposal: What problem are you addressing, what solution are you proposing, or what goal are you aiming to achieve?
• Identify your target audience: Who will be reading your proposal? Consider their background, interests, and any specific requirements they may have.

Conduct Research

• Gather relevant information: Conduct thorough research to support your proposal. This may involve studying existing literature, analyzing data, or conducting surveys/interviews to gather necessary facts and evidence.
• Understand the context: Familiarize yourself with the current situation or problem you’re addressing. Identify any relevant trends, challenges, or opportunities that may impact your proposal.

Develop an Outline

• Create a clear and logical structure: Divide your proposal into sections or headings that will guide your readers through the content.
• Introduction: Provide a concise overview of the problem, its significance, and the proposed solution.
• Background/Context: Offer relevant background information and context to help the readers understand the situation.
• Objectives/Goals: Clearly state the objectives or goals of your proposal.
• Methodology/Approach: Describe the approach or methodology you will use to address the problem.
• Timeline/Schedule: Present a detailed timeline or schedule outlining the key milestones or activities.
• Budget/Resources: Specify the financial and other resources required to implement your proposal.
• Evaluation/Success Metrics: Explain how you will measure the success or effectiveness of your proposal.
• Conclusion: Summarize the main points and restate the benefits of your proposal.

Write the Proposal

• Grab attention: Start with a compelling opening statement or a brief story that hooks the reader.
• Clearly state the problem: Clearly define the problem or issue you are addressing and explain its significance.
• Present your proposal: Introduce your proposed solution, project, or idea and explain why it is the best approach.
• State the objectives/goals: Clearly articulate the specific objectives or goals your proposal aims to achieve.
• Provide supporting information: Present evidence, data, or examples to support your claims and justify your proposal.
• Explain the methodology: Describe in detail the approach, methods, or strategies you will use to implement your proposal.
• Address potential concerns: Anticipate and address any potential objections or challenges the readers may have and provide counterarguments or mitigation strategies.
• Recap the main points: Summarize the key points you’ve discussed in the proposal.
• Reinforce the benefits: Emphasize the positive outcomes, benefits, or impact your proposal will have.
• Call to action: Clearly state what action you want the readers to take, such as approving the proposal, providing funding, or collaborating with you.

Review and Revise

• Proofread for clarity and coherence: Check for grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
• Ensure a logical flow: Read through your proposal to ensure the ideas are presented in a logical order and are easy to follow.
• Revise and refine: Fine-tune your proposal to make it concise, persuasive, and compelling.

Add Supplementary Materials

• Attach relevant documents: Include any supporting materials that strengthen your proposal, such as research findings, charts, graphs, or testimonials.
• Appendices: Add any additional information that might be useful but not essential to the main body of the proposal.

Formatting and Presentation

• Follow the guidelines: Adhere to any specific formatting guidelines provided by the organization or institution to which you are submitting the proposal.
• Use a professional tone and language: Ensure that your proposal is written in a clear, concise, and professional manner.
• Use headings and subheadings: Organize your proposal with clear headings and subheadings to improve readability.
• Pay attention to design: Use appropriate fonts, font sizes, and formatting styles to make your proposal visually appealing.
• Include a cover page: Create a cover page that includes the title of your proposal, your name or organization, the date, and any other required information.

Seek Feedback

• Share your proposal with trusted colleagues or mentors and ask for their feedback. Consider their suggestions for improvement and incorporate them into your proposal if necessary.

Finalize and Submit

• Make any final revisions based on the feedback received.
• Ensure that all required sections, attachments, and documentation are included.
• Double-check for any formatting, grammar, or spelling errors.
• Submit your proposal within the designated deadline and according to the submission guidelines provided.

Proposal Format

The format of a proposal can vary depending on the specific requirements of the organization or institution you are submitting it to. However, here is a general proposal format that you can follow:

1. Title Page:

• Include the title of your proposal, your name or organization’s name, the date, and any other relevant information specified by the guidelines.

2. Executive Summary:

•  Provide a concise overview of your proposal, highlighting the key points and objectives.
• Summarize the problem, proposed solution, and anticipated benefits.
• Keep it brief and engaging, as this section is often read first and should capture the reader’s attention.

3. Introduction:

• State the problem or issue you are addressing and its significance.
• Provide background information to help the reader understand the context and importance of the problem.
• Clearly state the purpose and objectives of your proposal.

4. Problem Statement:

• Describe the problem in detail, highlighting its impact and consequences.
• Use data, statistics, or examples to support your claims and demonstrate the need for a solution.

5. Proposed Solution or Project Description:

• Explain your proposed solution or project in a clear and detailed manner.
• Describe how your solution addresses the problem and why it is the most effective approach.
• Include information on the methods, strategies, or activities you will undertake to implement your solution.
• Highlight any unique features, innovations, or advantages of your proposal.

6. Methodology:

• Provide a step-by-step explanation of the methodology or approach you will use to implement your proposal.
• Include a timeline or schedule that outlines the key milestones, tasks, and deliverables.
• Clearly describe the resources, personnel, or expertise required for each phase of the project.

7. Evaluation and Success Metrics:

• Explain how you will measure the success or effectiveness of your proposal.
• Identify specific metrics, indicators, or evaluation methods that will be used.
• Describe how you will track progress, gather feedback, and make adjustments as needed.
• Present a detailed budget that outlines the financial resources required for your proposal.
• Include all relevant costs, such as personnel, materials, equipment, and any other expenses.
• Provide a justification for each item in the budget.

9. Conclusion:

•  Summarize the main points of your proposal.
•  Reiterate the benefits and positive outcomes of implementing your proposal.
• Emphasize the value and impact it will have on the organization or community.

10. Appendices:

• Include any additional supporting materials, such as research findings, charts, graphs, or testimonials.
•  Attach any relevant documents that provide further information but are not essential to the main body of the proposal.

Proposal Template

Here’s a basic proposal template that you can use as a starting point for creating your own proposal:

Dear [Recipient’s Name],

I am writing to submit a proposal for [briefly state the purpose of the proposal and its significance]. This proposal outlines a comprehensive solution to address [describe the problem or issue] and presents an actionable plan to achieve the desired objectives.

Thank you for considering this proposal. I believe that implementing this solution will significantly contribute to [organization’s or community’s goals]. I am available to discuss the proposal in more detail at your convenience. Please feel free to contact me at [your email address or phone number].

Yours sincerely,

Note: This template is a starting point and should be customized to meet the specific requirements and guidelines provided by the organization or institution to which you are submitting the proposal.

Proposal Sample

Here’s a sample proposal to give you an idea of how it could be structured and written:

Subject : Proposal for Implementation of Environmental Education Program

I am pleased to submit this proposal for your consideration, outlining a comprehensive plan for the implementation of an Environmental Education Program. This program aims to address the critical need for environmental awareness and education among the community, with the objective of fostering a sense of responsibility and sustainability.

Executive Summary: Our proposed Environmental Education Program is designed to provide engaging and interactive educational opportunities for individuals of all ages. By combining classroom learning, hands-on activities, and community engagement, we aim to create a long-lasting impact on environmental conservation practices and attitudes.

Introduction: The state of our environment is facing significant challenges, including climate change, habitat loss, and pollution. It is essential to equip individuals with the knowledge and skills to understand these issues and take action. This proposal seeks to bridge the gap in environmental education and inspire a sense of environmental stewardship among the community.

Problem Statement: The lack of environmental education programs has resulted in limited awareness and understanding of environmental issues. As a result, individuals are less likely to adopt sustainable practices or actively contribute to conservation efforts. Our program aims to address this gap and empower individuals to become environmentally conscious and responsible citizens.

Proposed Solution or Project Description: Our Environmental Education Program will comprise a range of activities, including workshops, field trips, and community initiatives. We will collaborate with local schools, community centers, and environmental organizations to ensure broad participation and maximum impact. By incorporating interactive learning experiences, such as nature walks, recycling drives, and eco-craft sessions, we aim to make environmental education engaging and enjoyable.

Methodology: Our program will be structured into modules that cover key environmental themes, such as biodiversity, climate change, waste management, and sustainable living. Each module will include a mix of classroom sessions, hands-on activities, and practical field experiences. We will also leverage technology, such as educational apps and online resources, to enhance learning outcomes.

Evaluation and Success Metrics: We will employ a combination of quantitative and qualitative measures to evaluate the effectiveness of the program. Pre- and post-assessments will gauge knowledge gain, while surveys and feedback forms will assess participant satisfaction and behavior change. We will also track the number of community engagement activities and the adoption of sustainable practices as indicators of success.

Budget: Please find attached a detailed budget breakdown for the implementation of the Environmental Education Program. The budget covers personnel costs, materials and supplies, transportation, and outreach expenses. We have ensured cost-effectiveness while maintaining the quality and impact of the program.

Conclusion: By implementing this Environmental Education Program, we have the opportunity to make a significant difference in our community’s environmental consciousness and practices. We are confident that this program will foster a generation of individuals who are passionate about protecting our environment and taking sustainable actions. We look forward to discussing the proposal further and working together to make a positive impact.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at [your email address or phone number].

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Grant Proposal – Example, Template and Guide

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

Business Proposal – Templates, Examples and Guide

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

Proposal – Types, Examples, and Writing Guide

How to choose an Appropriate Method for Research?

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates

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

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

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

Introduction

Literature review.

• Research design

Reference list

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

Table of contents

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

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

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

Research proposal length

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

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

Download our research proposal template

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

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

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

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

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

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

Your introduction should:

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

To guide your introduction , include information about:

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

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

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

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

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

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

For example, your results might have implications for:

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

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

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

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

Download our research schedule template

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

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

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

To determine your budget, think about:

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

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

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

I will compare …

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. & George, T. (2023, June 13). How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved 15 April 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/the-research-process/research-proposal-explained/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

• 99.3k views
• Funding Sources

Q: How to write the introduction of a research proposal?

What do I include in the introduction of a research proposal?

Asked on 05 Jun, 2019

Writing an effective research proposal is essential to acquire funding for your research. The introduction, being the first part of your proposal, must provide the funders a clear understanding of what you plan to do. A well written introduction will help make a compelling case for your research proposal.

To begin with, the introduction must set context for your research by mentioning what is known about the topic and what needs to be explored further. In the introduction, you can highlight how your research will contribute to the existing knowledge in your field and to overall scientific development.

The introduction must also contain a hypothesis that led to the development of the research design. You can come up with this hypotheis by asking yourself  questions like:

• What is the central research problem?
• What is the topic of study related to that problem?
• What methods should be used to analyze the research problem?
• Why is this research important, what is its significance, and how will its outcomes affect the funders and the society on the whole?   

Here are some excellent resources to help you write a great proposal:

• COURSE: How to write a grant proposal
• 10 Tips to write an effective research grant proposal
• INFOGRAPHIC: 9 Core parts every grant proposal must contain
• INFOGRAPHIC: 15 Key tips for writing a winning grant proposal

Answered by Editage Insights on 10 Jun, 2019

• Upvote this Answer

This content belongs to the Career Growth Stage

Confirm that you would also like to sign up for free personalized email coaching for this stage.

Trending Searches

• Statement of the problem
• Background of study
• Scope of the study
• Types of qualitative research
• Rationale of the study
• Concept paper
• Literature review
• Introduction in research
• Under "Editor Evaluation"
• Ethics in research

Recent Searches

• Review paper
• Responding to reviewer comments
• Predatory publishers
• Scope and delimitations
• Open access
• Plagiarism in research
• Journal selection tips
• Editor assigned
• Types of articles
• "Reject and Resubmit" status
• Decision in process
• Conflict of interest

Recommended pages

• Undergraduate open days
• Postgraduate open days
• Accommodation
• Information for teachers
• Maps and directions
• Sport and fitness

What to include in a research proposal

You should check with each department to find out whether they provide a specific template for submission.

The word count for research proposals is typically 1,000-1,500 words for Arts programmes and around 2,500 words for Birmingham Law School programmes. Each subject area or department will have slightly different requirements for your research proposal, such as word length and the volume of literature review required. It is a good idea to contact the department before you apply. 

Typically, your research proposal should include the following information:

2. Research overview

3. research context.

A well-written introduction is an efficient way of getting your reader’s attention early on. This is your opportunity to answer the questions you considered when preparing your proposal: why is your research important? How does it fit into the existing strengths of the department? How will it add something new to the existing body of literature?

It is unlikely that you will be able to review all relevant literature at this stage, so you should explain the broad contextual background against which you will conduct your research. You should include a brief overview of the general area of study within which your proposed research falls, summarising the current state of knowledge and recent debates on the topic. This will allow you to demonstrate a familiarity with key texts in the relevant field as well as the ability to communicate clearly and concisely.

4. Research questions

The proposal should set out the central aims and key questions that will guide your research. Many research proposals are too broad, so make sure that your project is sufficiently narrow and feasible (i.e. something that is likely to be completed within the normal time frame for a PhD programme).

You might find it helpful to prioritise one or two main questions, from which you can then derive a number of secondary research questions. The proposal should also explain your intended approach to answering the questions: will your approach be empirical, doctrinal or theoretical, etc.?

5. Research methods

How will you achieve your research objectives? The proposal should present your research methodology, using specific examples to explain how you are going to conduct your research (e.g. techniques, sample size, target populations, equipment, data analysis, etc.).

Your methods may include visiting particular libraries or archives, field work or interviews. If your proposed research is library-based, you should explain where your key resources are located. If you plan to conduct field work or collect empirical data, you should provide details about this (e.g. if you plan interviews, who will you interview? How many interviews will you conduct? Will there be problems of access?). This section should also explain how you are going to analyse your research findings.

A discussion of the timescale for completing your research would also beneficial. You should provide a realistic time plan for completing your research degree study, showing a realistic appreciation of the need to plan your research and how long it is likely to take. It is important that you are not over-optimistic with time frames.

6. Significance of research

The proposal should demonstrate the originality of your intended research. You should therefore explain why your research is important (for example, by explaining how your research builds on and adds to the current state of knowledge in the field or by setting out reasons why it is timely to research your proposed topic) and providing details of any immediate applications, including further research that might be done to build on your findings.

Please refer to our top tips page for further details about originality.

7. References

  Read our top tips for writing a research proposal

This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Published on 17.4.2024 in Vol 26 (2024)

Digital Interventions for Recreational Cannabis Use Among Young Adults: Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Behavior Change Technique Analysis of Randomized Controlled Studies

Authors of this article:

• José Côté 1, 2, 3 , RN, PhD   ; 
• Gabrielle Chicoine 3, 4 , RN, PhD   ; 
• Billy Vinette 1, 3 , RN, MSN   ; 
• Patricia Auger 2, 3 , MSc   ; 
• Geneviève Rouleau 3, 5, 6 , RN, PhD   ; 
• Guillaume Fontaine 7, 8, 9 , RN, PhD   ; 
• Didier Jutras-Aswad 2, 10 , MSc, MD  

1 Faculty of Nursing, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada

2 Research Centre of the Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada

3 Research Chair in Innovative Nursing Practices, Montreal, QC, Canada

4 Knowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada

5 Department of Nursing, Université du Québec en Outaouais, Saint-Jérôme, QC, Canada

6 Women's College Hospital Institute for Health System Solutions and Virtual Care, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada

7 Ingram School of Nursing, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada

8 Centre for Clinical Epidemiology, Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research, Sir Mortimer B. Davis Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, QC, Canada

9 Kirby Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

10 Department of Psychiatry and Addictology, Faculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada

Corresponding Author:

José Côté, RN, PhD

Research Centre of the Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal

850 Saint-Denis

Montreal, QC, H2X 0A9

Phone: 1 514 890 8000

Email: [email protected]

Background: The high prevalence of cannabis use among young adults poses substantial global health concerns due to the associated acute and long-term health and psychosocial risks. Digital modalities, including websites, digital platforms, and mobile apps, have emerged as promising tools to enhance the accessibility and availability of evidence-based interventions for young adults for cannabis use. However, existing reviews do not consider young adults specifically, combine cannabis-related outcomes with those of many other substances in their meta-analytical results, and do not solely target interventions for cannabis use.

Objective: We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and active ingredients of digital interventions designed specifically for cannabis use among young adults living in the community.

Methods: We conducted a systematic search of 7 databases for empirical studies published between database inception and February 13, 2023, assessing the following outcomes: cannabis use (frequency, quantity, or both) and cannabis-related negative consequences. The reference lists of included studies were consulted, and forward citation searching was also conducted. We included randomized studies assessing web- or mobile-based interventions that included a comparator or control group. Studies were excluded if they targeted other substance use (eg, alcohol), did not report cannabis use separately as an outcome, did not include young adults (aged 16-35 y), had unpublished data, were delivered via teleconference through mobile phones and computers or in a hospital-based setting, or involved people with mental health disorders or substance use disorders or dependence. Data were independently extracted by 2 reviewers using a pilot-tested extraction form. Authors were contacted to clarify study details and obtain additional data. The characteristics of the included studies, study participants, digital interventions, and their comparators were summarized. Meta-analysis results were combined using a random-effects model and pooled as standardized mean differences.

Results: Of 6606 unique records, 19 (0.29%) were included (n=6710 participants). Half (9/19, 47%) of these articles reported an intervention effect on cannabis use frequency. The digital interventions included in the review were mostly web-based. A total of 184 behavior change techniques were identified across the interventions (range 5-19), and feedback on behavior was the most frequently used (17/19, 89%). Digital interventions for young adults reduced cannabis use frequency at the 3-month follow-up compared to control conditions (including passive and active controls) by −6.79 days of use in the previous month (95% CI −9.59 to −4.00; P <.001).

Conclusions: Our results indicate the potential of digital interventions to reduce cannabis use in young adults but raise important questions about what optimal exposure dose could be more effective, both in terms of intervention duration and frequency. Further high-quality research is still needed to investigate the effects of digital interventions on cannabis use among young adults.

Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020196959; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=196959

Introduction

Cannabis use among young adults is recognized as a public health concern.

Young adulthood (typically the ages of 18-30 y) is a critical developmental stage characterized by a peak prevalence of substance use [ 1 , 2 ]. Worldwide, cannabis is a substance frequently used for nonmedical purposes due in part to its high availability in some regions and enhanced product variety and potency [ 3 , 4 ]. The prevalence of cannabis use (CU) among young adults is high [ 5 , 6 ], and its rates have risen in recent decades [ 7 ]. In North America and Oceania, the estimated past-year prevalence of CU is ≥25% among young adults [ 8 , 9 ].

While the vast majority of cannabis users do not experience severe problems from their use [ 4 ], the high prevalence of CU among young adults poses substantial global health concerns due to the associated acute and long-term health and psychosocial risks [ 10 , 11 ]. These include impairment of cognitive function, memory, and psychomotor skills during acute intoxication; increased engagement in behaviors with a potential for injury and fatality (eg, driving under the influence); socioeconomic problems; and diminished social functioning [ 4 , 12 - 14 ]. Importantly, an extensive body of literature reveals that subgroups engaging in higher-risk use, such as intensive or repeated use, are more prone to severe and chronic consequences, including physical ailments (eg, respiratory illness and reproductive dysfunction), mental health disorders (eg, psychosis, depression, and suicidal ideation or attempts), and the potential development of CU disorder [ 4 , 15 - 17 ].

Interventions to Reduce Public Health Impact of Young Adult CU

Given the increased prevalence of lifetime and daily CU among young adults and the potential negative impact of higher-risk CU, various prevention and intervention programs have been implemented to help users reduce or cease their CU. These programs primarily target young adults regardless of their CU status [ 2 , 18 ]. In this context, many health care organizations and international expert panels have developed evidence-based lower-risk CU guidelines to promote safer CU and intervention options to help reduce risks of adverse health outcomes from nonmedical CU [ 4 , 16 , 17 , 19 ]. Lower-risk guidance-oriented interventions for CU are based on concepts of health promotion [ 20 - 22 ] and health behavior change [ 23 - 26 ] and on other similar harm reduction interventions implemented in other areas of population health (eg, lower-risk drinking guidelines, supervised consumption sites and services, and sexual health) [ 27 , 28 ]. These interventions primarily aim to raise awareness of negative mental, physical, and social cannabis-related consequences to modify individual-level behavior-related risk factors.

Meta-analyses have shown that face-to-face prevention and treatment interventions are generally effective in reducing CU in young adults [ 18 , 29 - 32 ]. However, as the proportion of professional help seeking for CU concerns among young adults remains low (approximately 15%) [ 33 , 34 ], alternative strategies that consider the limited capacities and access-related barriers of traditional face-to-face prevention and treatment facilities are needed. Digital interventions, including websites, digital platforms, and mobile apps, have emerged as promising tools to enhance the accessibility and availability of evidence-based programs for young adult cannabis users. These interventions address barriers such as long-distance travel, concerns about confidentiality, stigma associated with seeking treatment, and the cost of traditional treatments [ 35 - 37 ]. By overcoming these barriers, digital interventions have the potential to have a stronger public health impact [ 18 , 38 ].

State of Knowledge of Digital Interventions for CU and Young Adults

The literature regarding digital interventions for substance use has grown rapidly in the past decade, as evidenced by several systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies on the efficacy or effectiveness of these interventions in preventing or reducing harmful substance use [ 2 , 39 - 41 ]. However, these reviews do not focus on young adults specifically. In addition, they combine CU-related outcomes with those of many other substances in their meta-analytical results. Finally, they do not target CU interventions exclusively.

In total, 4 systematic reviews and meta-analyses of digital interventions for CU among young people have reported mixed results [ 42 - 45 ]. In their systematic review (10 studies of 5 prevention and 5 treatment interventions up to 2012), Tait et al [ 44 ] concluded that digital interventions effectively reduced CU among adolescents and adults at the posttreatment time point. Olmos et al [ 43 ] reached a similar conclusion in their meta-analysis of 9 RCT studies (2 prevention and 7 treatment interventions). In their review, Hoch et al [ 42 ] reported evidence of small effects at the 3-month follow-up based on 4 RCTs of brief motivational interventions and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) delivered on the web. In another systematic review and meta-analysis, Beneria et al [ 45 ] found that web-based CU interventions did not significantly reduce consumption. However, these authors indicated that the programs tested varied significantly across the studies considered and that statistical heterogeneity was attributable to the inclusion of studies of programs targeting more than one substance (eg, alcohol and cannabis) and both adolescents and young adults. Beneria et al [ 45 ] recommend that future work “establish the effectiveness of the newer generation of interventions as well as the key ingredients” of effective digital interventions addressing CU by young people. This is of particular importance because behavior change interventions tend to be complex as they consist of multiple interactive components [ 46 ].

Behavior change interventions refer to “coordinated sets of activities designed to change specified behavior patterns” [ 47 ]. Their interacting active ingredients can be conceptualized as behavior change techniques (BCTs) [ 48 ]. BCTs are specific and irreducible. Each BCT has its own individual label and definition, which can be used when designing and reporting complex interventions and as a nomenclature system when coding interventions for their content [ 47 ]. The Behavior Change Technique Taxonomy version 1 (BCTTv1) [ 48 , 49 ] was developed to provide a shared, standardized terminology for characterizing complex behavior change interventions and their active ingredients. Several systematic reviews with meta-regressions that used the BCTTv1 have found interventions with certain BCTs to be more effective than those without [ 50 - 53 ]. A better understanding of the BCTs used in digital interventions for young adult cannabis users would help not only to establish the key ingredients of such interventions but also develop and evaluate effective interventions.

In the absence of any systematic review of the effectiveness and active ingredients of digital interventions designed specifically for CU among community-living young adults, we set out to achieve the following:

• conduct a comprehensive review of digital interventions for preventing, reducing, or ceasing CU among community-living young adults,
• describe the active ingredients (ie, BCTs) in these interventions from the perspective of behavior change science, and
• analyze the effectiveness of these interventions on CU outcomes.

Protocol Registration

We followed the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [ 54 ] in designing this systematic review and meta-analysis and the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 guidelines in reporting our findings (see Multimedia Appendix 1 [ 55 ] for the complete PRISMA checklist). This review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020196959).

Search Strategy

The search strategy was designed by a health information specialist together with the research team and peer reviewed by another senior information specialist before execution using Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies for systematic reviews [ 56 ]. The search strategy revolved around three concepts:

• CU (eg, “cannabis,” “marijuana,” and “hashish”)
• Digital interventions (eg, “telehealth,” “website,” “mobile applications,” and “computer”)
• Young adults (eg, “emerging adults” and “students”)

The strategy was initially implemented on March 18, 2020, and again on October 13, 2021, and February 13, 2023. The full, detailed search strategies for each database are presented in Multimedia Appendix 2 .

Information Sources

We searched 7 electronic databases of published literature: CINAHL Complete, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, and PsycINFO. No publication date filters or language restrictions were applied. A combination of free-text keywords and Medical Subject Headings was tailored to the conventions of each database for optimal electronic searching. The research team also manually screened the reference lists of the included articles and the bibliographies of existing systematic reviews [ 18 , 31 , 42 - 45 ] to identify additional relevant studies (snowballing). Finally, a forward citation tracking procedure (ie, searching for articles that cited the included studies) was carried out in Google Scholar.

Inclusion Criteria

The population, intervention, comparison, outcome, and study design process is presented in Multimedia Appendix 3 . The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) original research articles published in peer-reviewed journals; (2) use of an experimental study design (eg, RCT, cluster RCT, or pilot RCT); (3) studies evaluating the effectiveness (or efficacy) of digital interventions designed specifically to prevent, reduce, or cease CU as well as promote CU self-management or address cannabis-related harm and having CU as an outcome measure; (4) studies targeting young adults, including active and nonactive cannabis users; (5) cannabis users and nonusers not under substance use treatment used as controls in comparator, waitlist, or delayed-treatment groups offered another type of intervention (eg, pharmacotherapy or psychosocial) different from the one being investigated or participants assessed only for CU; and (6) quantitative CU outcomes (frequency and quantity) or cannabis abstinence. Given the availability of numerous CU screening and assessment tools with adequate psychometric properties and the absence of a gold standard in this regard [ 57 ], any instrument capturing aspects of CU was considered. CU outcome measures could be subjective (eg, self-reported number of CU days or joints in the previous 3 months) or objective (eg, drug screening test). CU had to be measured before the intervention (baseline) and at least once after.

Digital CU interventions were defined as web- or mobile-based interventions that included one or more activities (eg, self-directed or interactive psychoeducation or therapy, personalized feedback, peer-to-peer contact, and patient-to-expert communication) aimed at changing CU [ 58 ]. Mobile-based interventions were defined as interventions delivered via mobile phone through SMS text message, multimedia messaging service (ie, SMS text messages that include　multimedia content, such as pictures, videos, or emojis), or mobile apps, whereas web-based interventions (eg, websites and digital platforms) were defined as interventions designed to be accessed on the web (ie, the internet), mainly via computers. Interventions could include self-directed and web-based interventions with human support. We defined young adults as aged 16 to 35 years and included students and nonstudents. While young adulthood is typically defined as covering the ages of 18 to 30 years [ 59 ], we broadened the range given that the age of majority and legal age to purchase cannabis differs across countries and jurisdictions. This was also in line with the age range targeted by several digital CU interventions (college or university students or emerging adults aged 15-24 years) [ 31 , 45 ]. Given the language expertise of the research team members and the available resources, only English- and French-language articles were retained.

Exclusion Criteria

Knowledge synthesis articles, study protocols, and discussion papers or editorials were excluded, as were articles with cross-sectional, cohort, case study or report, pretest-posttest, quasi-experimental, or qualitative designs. Mixed methods designs were included only if the quantitative component was an RCT. We excluded studies if (1) use of substances other than cannabis (eg, alcohol, opioids, or stimulants) was the focus of the digital intervention (though studies that included polysubstance users were retained if CU was assessed and reported separately); (2) CU was not reported separately as an outcome or only attitudes or beliefs regarding, knowledge of, intention to reduce, or readiness or motivation to change CU was measured; and (3) the data reported were unpublished (eg, conferences and dissertations). Studies of traditional face-to-face therapy delivered via teleconference on mobile phones and computers or in a hospital-based setting and informational campaigns (eg, web-based poster presentations or pamphlets) were excluded as well. Studies with samples with a maximum age of <15 years and a minimum age of >35 years were also excluded. Finally, we excluded studies that focused exclusively on people with a mental health disorder or substance use disorder or dependence or on adolescents owing to the particular health care needs of these populations, which may differ from those of young adults [ 1 ].

Data Collection

Selection of studies.

Duplicates were removed from the literature search results in EndNote (version X9.3.3; Clarivate Analytics) using the Bramer method for deduplication of database search results for systematic reviews [ 60 ]. The remaining records were uploaded to Covidence (Veritas Health Innovation), a web-based systematic review management system. A reviewer guide was developed that included screening questions and a detailed description of each inclusion and exclusion criterion based on PICO (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome), and a calibration exercise was performed before each stage of the selection process to maximize consistency between reviewers. Titles and abstracts of studies flagged for possible inclusion were screened first by 2 independent reviewers (GC, BV, PA, and GR; 2 per article) against the eligibility criteria (stage 1). Articles deemed eligible for full-text review were then retrieved and screened for inclusion (stage 2). Full texts were assessed in detail against the eligibility criteria again by 2 reviewers independently. Disagreements between reviewers were resolved through consensus or by consulting a third reviewer.

Data Extraction Process

In total, 2 reviewers (GC, BV, PA, GR, and GF; 2 per article) independently extracted relevant data (or informal evidence) using a data extraction form developed specifically for this review and integrated into Covidence. The form was pilot-tested on 2 randomly selected studies and refined accordingly. Data pertaining to the following domains were extracted from the included studies: (1) Study characteristics included information on the first and corresponding authors, publication year, country of origin, aims and hypotheses, study period, design (including details on randomization and blinding), follow-up times, data collection methods, and types of statistical analysis. (2) Participant characteristics included study target population, participant inclusion and exclusion criteria, sex or gender, mean age, and sample sizes at each data collection time point. (3) Intervention characteristics, for which the research team developed a matrix inspired by the template for intervention description and replication 12-item checklist [ 61 ] to extract informal evidence (ie, intervention descriptions) from the included studies under the headings name of intervention, purpose, underpinning theory of design elements, treatment approach, type of technology (ie, web or mobile) and software used, delivery format (ie, self-directed, human involvement, or both), provider characteristics (if applicable), intervention duration (ie, length of treatment and number of sessions or modules), material and procedures (ie, tools or activities offered, resources provided, and psychoeducational content), tailoring, and unplanned modifications. (4) Comparator characteristics were details of the control or comparison group or groups, including nature (passive vs active), number of groups or clusters (if applicable), type and length of the intervention (if applicable), and number of participants at each data collection time point. (5) Outcome variables, including the primary outcome variable examined in this systematic review, that is, the mean difference in CU frequency before and after the intervention and between the experimental and control or comparison groups. When possible, we examined continuous variables, including CU frequency means and SDs at the baseline and follow-up time points, and standardized regression coefficients (ie, β coefficients and associated 95% CIs). The secondary outcomes examined included other CU outcome variables (eg, quantity of cannabis used and abstinence) and cannabis-related negative consequences (or problems). Details on outcome variables (ie, definition, data time points, and missing data) and measurements (ie, instruments, measurement units, and scales) were also extracted.

In addition, data on user engagement and use of the digital intervention and study attrition rates (ie, dropouts and loss to follow-up) were extracted. When articles had missing data, we contacted the corresponding authors via email (2 attempts were made over a 2-month period) to obtain missing information. Disagreements over the extracted data were limited and resolved through discussion.

Data Synthesis Methods

Descriptive synthesis.

The characteristics of the included studies, study participants, interventions, and comparators were summarized in narrative and table formats. The template for intervention description and replication 12-item checklist [ 61 ] was used to summarize and organize intervention characteristics and assess to what extent the interventions were appropriately described in the included articles. As not all studies had usable data for meta-analysis purposes and because of heterogeneity, we summarized the main findings (ie, intervention effects) of the included studies in narrative and table formats for each outcome of interest in this review.

The BCTs used in the digital interventions were identified from the descriptions of the interventions (ie, experimental groups) provided in the articles as well as any supplementary material and previously published research protocols. A BCT was defined as “an observable, replicable, and irreducible component of an intervention designed to alter or redirect causal processes that regulate behavior” [ 48 ]. The target behavior in this review was the cessation or reduction of CU by young adults. BCTs were identified and coded using the BCTTv1 [ 48 , 49 ], a taxonomy of 93 BCTs organized into 16 hierarchical thematic clusters or categories. Applying the BCTTv1 in a systematic review allows for the comparison and synthesis of evidence across studies in a structured manner. This analysis allows for the identification of the explicit mechanisms underlying the reported behavior change induced by interventions, successful or not, and, thus, avoids making implicit assumptions about what works [ 62 ].

BCT coding was performed by 2 reviewers independently—BV coded all studies, and GC and GF coded a subset of the studies. All reviewers completed web-based training on the BCTTv1, and GF is an experienced implementation scientist who had used the BCTTv1 in prior work [ 63 - 65 ]. The descriptions of the interventions in the articles were read line by line and analyzed for the clear presence of BCTs using the guidelines developed by Michie et al [ 48 ]. For each article, the BCTs identified were documented and categorized using supporting textual evidence. They were coded only once per article regardless of how many times they came up in the text. Disagreements about including a BCT were resolved through discussion. If there was uncertainty about whether a BCT was present, it was coded as absent. Excel (Microsoft Corp) was used to compare the reviewers’ independent BCT coding and generate an overall descriptive synthesis of the BCTs identified. The BCTs were summarized by study and BCT cluster.

Statistical Analysis

Meta-analyses were conducted to estimate the size of the effect of the digital interventions for young adult CU on outcomes of interest at the posttreatment and follow-up assessments compared with control or alternative intervention conditions. The outcome variables considered were (1) CU frequency and other CU outcome variables (eg, quantity of cannabis used and abstinence) at baseline and the posttreatment time point or follow-up measured using standardized instruments of self-reported CU (eg, the timeline followback [TLFB] method) [ 66 ] and (2) cannabis-related negative consequences measured using standardized instruments (eg, the Marijuana Problems Scale) [ 67 ].

Under our systematic review protocol, ≥2 studies were needed for a meta-analysis. On the basis of previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the field of digital CU interventions [ 31 , 42 - 45 ], we expected between-study heterogeneity regarding outcome assessment. To minimize heterogeneity, we chose to pool studies with similar outcomes of interest based on four criteria: (1) definition of outcome (eg, CU frequency, quantity consumed, and abstinence), (2) type of outcome variable (eg, days of CU in the previous 90 days, days high per week in the previous 30 days, and number of CU events in the previous month) and measure (ie, instruments or scales), (3) use of validated instruments, and (4) posttreatment or follow-up time points (eg, 2 weeks or 1 month after the baseline or 3, 6, and 12 months after the baseline).

Only articles that reported sufficient statistics to compute a valid effect size with 95% CIs were included in the meta-analyses. In the case of articles that were not independent (ie, more than one published article reporting data from the same clinical trial), only 1 was included, and it was represented only once in the meta-analysis for a given outcome variable regardless of whether the data used to compute the effect size were extracted from the original paper or a secondary analysis paper. We made sure that the independence of the studies included in the meta-analysis of each outcome was respected. In the case of studies that had more than one comparator, we used the effect size for each comparison between the intervention and control groups.

Meta-analyses were conducted only for mean differences based on the change from baseline in CU frequency at 3 months after the baseline as measured using the number of self-reported days of use in the previous month. As the true value of the estimated effect size for outcome variables might vary across different trials and samples, we used a random-effects model given that the studies retained did not have identical target populations. The random-effects model incorporates between-study variation in the study weights and estimated effect size [ 68 ]. In addition, statistical heterogeneity across studies was assessed using I 2 , which measures the proportion of heterogeneity to the total observed dispersion; 25% was considered low, 50% was considered moderate, and 75% was considered high [ 69 ]. Because only 3 studies were included in the meta-analysis [ 70 - 72 ], publication bias could not be assessed. All analyses were completed using Stata (version 18; StataCorp) [ 73 ].

Risk-of-Bias Assessment

The risk of bias (RoB) of the included RCTs was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool at the outcome level [ 74 ]. Each distinct risk domain (ie, randomization process, deviations from the intended intervention, missing outcome data, measurement of the outcome, and selection of the reported results) was assessed as “low,” “some concerns,” or “high” based on the RoB 2 criteria. In total, 2 reviewers (GC and BV) conducted the assessments independently. Disagreements were discussed, and if not resolved consensually by the 2, the matter was left for a third reviewer (GF) to settle. The assessments were summarized by risk domain and outcome and converted into figures using the RoB visualization tool robvis [ 75 ].

Search Results

The database search generated a total of 13,232 citations, of which 7822 (59.11%) were from the initial search on March 18, 2020, and 2805 (21.2%) and 2605 (19.69%) were from the updates on October 13, 2021, and February 13, 2023, respectively. Figure 1 presents the PRISMA study flow diagram [ 76 ]. Of the 6606 unique records, 6484 (98.15%) were excluded based on title and abstract screening. Full texts of the remaining 1.85% (122/6606) of the records were examined, as were those of 25 more reports found through hand searching. Of these 147 records, 128 (87.1%) were excluded after 3 rounds of full-text screening. Of these 128 records, 39 (30.5%) were excluded for not being empirical research articles (eg, research protocols). Another 28.1% (36/128) were excluded for not meeting our definition of digital CU intervention. The remaining records were excluded for reasons that occurred with a frequency of ≤14%, including young adults not being the target population and the study not meeting our study design criteria (ie, RCT, cluster RCT, or pilot RCT). Excluded studies and reasons for exclusion are listed in Multimedia Appendix 4 . Finally, 19 articles detailing the results of 19 original studies were included.

Description of Studies

Study characteristics.

Multimedia Appendix 5 [ 70 - 72 , 77 - 92 ] describes the general characteristics of the 19 included studies. The studies were published between 2010 and 2023, with 58% (11/19) published in 2018 or later. A total of 53% (10/19) of the studies were conducted in the United States [ 77 - 86 ], 11% (2/19) were conducted in Canada [ 87 , 88 ], 11% (2/19) were conducted in Australia [ 71 , 89 ], 11% (2/19) were conducted in Germany [ 72 , 90 ], 11% (2/19) were conducted in Switzerland [ 70 , 91 ], and 5% (1/19) were conducted in Sweden [ 92 ]. A total of 79% (15/19) were RCTs [ 70 - 72 , 77 , 79 , 81 - 83 , 86 - 92 ], and 21% (4/19) were pilot RCTs [ 78 , 80 , 84 , 85 ].

Participant Characteristics

The studies enrolled a total of 6710 participants—3229 (48.1%) in the experimental groups, 3358 (50%) in the control groups, and the remaining 123 (1.8%) from 1 study [ 82 ] where participant allocation to the intervention condition was not reported. Baseline sample sizes ranged from 49 [ 81 ] to 1292 [ 72 ] (mean 352.89, SD 289.50), as shown in Multimedia Appendix 5 . Participant mean ages ranged from 18.03 (SD 0.31) [ 79 ] to 35.3 (SD 12.6) years [ 88 ], and the proportion of participants who identified as female ranged from 24.7% [ 91 ] to 84.1% [ 80 ].

Of the 19 included studies, 10 (53%) targeted adults aged ≥18 years, of which 7 (70%) studies focused on adults who had engaged in past-month CU [ 70 , 71 , 80 , 84 , 85 , 90 , 91 ], 2 (20%) studies included adults who wished to reduce or cease CU [ 72 , 89 ], and 1 (10%) study focused on noncollege adults with a moderate risk associated with CU [ 88 ]. Sinadinovic et al [ 92 ] targeted young adults aged ≥16 years who had used cannabis at least once a week in the previous 6 months. The remaining 8 studies targeted college or university students (aged ≥17 y) specifically, of which 7 (88%) studies focused solely on students who reported using cannabis [ 78 , 79 , 81 - 83 , 86 , 87 ] and 1 (12%) study focused solely on students who did not report past-month CU (ie, abstainers) [ 77 ].

Intervention Characteristics

The 19 included studies assessed nine different digital interventions: (1) 5 (26%) evaluated Marijuana eCHECKUP TO GO (e-TOKE), a commercially available electronic intervention used at colleges throughout the United States and Canada [ 77 , 78 , 81 - 83 ]; (2) 2 (11%) examined the internationally known CANreduce program [ 70 , 91 ]; (3) 2 (11%) evaluated the German Quit the Shit program [ 72 , 90 ]; (4) 2 (11%) assessed a social media–delivered, physical activity–focused cannabis intervention [ 84 , 85 ]; (5) 1 (5%) investigated the Swedish Cannabishjälpen intervention [ 92 ]; (6) 1 (5%) evaluated the Australian Grassessment: Evaluate Your Use of Cannabis website program [ 89 ]; (7) 1 (5%) assessed the Canadian Ma réussite, mon choix intervention [ 87 ]; (8) 1 (5%) examined the Australian Reduce Your Use: How to Break the Cannabis Habit program [ 71 ]; and (9) 4 (21%) each evaluated a unique no-name intervention described as a personalized feedback intervention (PFI) [ 79 , 80 , 86 , 88 ]. Detailed information regarding the characteristics of all interventions as reported in each included study is provided in Multimedia Appendix 6 [ 70 - 72 , 77 - 113 ] and summarized in the following paragraphs.

In several studies (8/19, 42%), the interventions were designed to support cannabis users in reducing or ceasing their consumption [ 70 , 72 , 80 , 87 , 89 - 92 ]. In 37% (7/19) of the studies, the interventions aimed at reducing both CU and cannabis-related consequences [ 79 , 81 - 85 , 88 ]. Other interventions focused on helping college students think carefully about the decision to use cannabis [ 77 , 78 ] and on reducing either cannabis-related problems among undergraduate students [ 86 ] or symptoms associated with CU disorder in young adults [ 71 ].

In 26% (5/19) of the studies, theory was used to inform intervention design along with a clear rationale for theory use. Of these 5 articles, only 1 (20%) [ 87 ] reported using a single theory of behavior change, the theory of planned behavior [ 114 ]. A total of 21% (4/19) of the studies selected only constructs of theories (or models) for their intervention design. Of these 4 studies, 2 (50%) evaluated the same intervention [ 72 , 90 ], which focused on principles of self-regulation and self-control theory [ 93 ]; 1 (25%) [ 70 ] used the concept of adherence-focused guidance enhancement based on the supportive accountability model of guidance [ 94 ]; and 1 (25%) [ 71 ] reported that intervention design was guided by the concept of self-behavioral management.

The strategies (or approaches) used in the delivery of the digital interventions were discussed in greater detail in 84% (16/19) of the articles [ 70 - 72 , 79 - 81 , 83 - 92 ]. Many of these articles (9/19, 47%) reported using a combination of approaches based on CBT or motivational interviewing (MI) [ 70 , 71 , 79 , 83 - 85 , 90 - 92 ]. PFIs were also often mentioned as an approach to inform intervention delivery [ 7 , 71 , 79 , 86 - 88 ].

More than half (13/19, 68%) of all the digital interventions were asynchronous and based on a self-guided approach without support from a counselor or therapist. The study by Côté et al [ 87 ] evaluated the efficacy of a web-based tailored intervention focused on reinforcing a positive attitude toward and a sense of control over cannabis abstinence through psychoeducational messages delivered by a credible character in short video clips and personalized reinforcement messages. Lee et al [ 79 ] evaluated a brief, web-based personalized feedback selective intervention based on the PFI approach pioneered by Marlatt et al [ 95 ] for alcohol use prevention and on the MI approach described by Miller and Rollnick [ 96 ]. Similarly, Rooke et al [ 71 ] combined principles of MI and CBT to develop a web-based intervention delivered via web modules, which were informed by previous automated feedback interventions targeting substance use. The study by Copeland et al [ 89 ] assessed the short-term effectiveness of Grassessment: Evaluate Your Use of Cannabis, a brief web-based, self-complete intervention based on motivational enhancement therapy that included personalized feedback messages and psychoeducational material. In the studies by Buckner et al [ 80 ], Cunningham et al [ 88 ], and Walukevich-Dienst et al [ 86 ], experimental groups received a brief web-based PFI available via a computer. A total of 16% (3/19) of the studies [ 77 , 78 , 82 ] applied a program called the Marijuana eCHECKUP TO GO (e-TOKE) for Universities and Colleges, which was presented as a web-based, norm-correcting, brief preventive and intervention education program designed to prompt self-reflection on consequences and consideration of decreasing CU among students. Riggs et al [ 83 ] developed and evaluated an adapted version of e-TOKE that provided participants with university-specific personalized feedback and normative information based on protective behavioral strategies for CU [ 97 ]. Similarly, Goodness and Palfai [ 81 ] tested the efficacy of eCHECKUP TO GO-cannabis, a modified version of e-TOKE combining personalized feedback, norm correction, and a harm and frequency reduction strategy where a “booster” session was provided at 3 months to allow participants to receive repeated exposure to the intervention.

In the remaining 32% (6/19) of the studies, which examined 4 different interventions, the presence of a therapist guide was reported. The intervention evaluated by Sinadinovic et al [ 92 ] combined principles of psychoeducation, MI, and CBT organized into 13 web-based modules and a calendar involving therapist guidance, recommendations, and personal feedback. In total, 33% (2/6) of these studies evaluated a social media–delivered intervention with e-coaches that combined principles of MI and CBT and a harm reduction approach for risky CU [ 84 , 85 ]. Schaub et al [ 91 ] evaluated the efficacy of CANreduce, a web-based self-help intervention based on both MI and CBT approaches, using automated motivational and feedback emails, chat with a counselor, and web-based psychoeducational modules. Similarly, Baumgartner et al [ 70 ] investigated the effectiveness of CANreduce 2.0, a modified version of CANreduce, using semiautomated motivational and adherence-focused guidance-based email feedback with or without a personal online coach. The studies by Tossman et al [ 72 ] and Jonas et al [ 90 ] used a solution-focused approach and MI to evaluate the effectiveness of the German Quit the Shit web-based program that involves weekly feedback provided by counselors.

In addition to using different intervention strategies or approaches, the interventions were diverse in terms of the duration and frequency of the program (eg, web-based activities, sessions, or modules). Of the 12 articles that provided details in this regard, 2 (17%) on the same intervention described it as a brief 20- to 45-minute web-based program [ 77 , 78 ], 2 (17%) on 2 different interventions reported including 1 or 2 modules per week for a duration of 6 weeks [ 71 , 92 ], and 7 (58%) on 4 different interventions described them as being available over a longer period ranging from 6 weeks to 3 months [ 70 , 72 , 79 , 84 , 85 , 87 , 90 , 91 ].

Comparator Types

A total of 42% (8/19) of the studies [ 72 , 77 - 80 , 85 , 87 , 92 ] used a passive comparator only, namely, a waitlist control group ( Multimedia Appendix 5 ). A total of 26% (5/19) of the studies used an active comparator only where participants were provided with minimal general health feedback regarding recommended guidelines for sleep, exercise, and nutrition [ 81 , 82 ]; strategies for healthy stress management [ 83 ]; educational materials about risky CU [ 88 ]; or access to a website containing information about cannabis [ 71 ]. In another 21% (4/19) of the studies, which used an active comparator, participants received the same digital intervention minus a specific component: a personal web-based coach [ 70 ], extended personalized feedback [ 89 ], web-based chat counseling [ 91 ], or information on risks associated with CU [ 86 ]. A total of 21% (4/19) of the studies had more than one control group [ 70 , 84 , 90 , 91 ].

Outcome Variable Assessment and Summary of Main Findings of the Studies

The methodological characteristics and major findings of the included studies (N=19) are presented in Multimedia Appendix 7 [ 67 , 70 - 72 , 77 - 92 , 115 - 120 ] and summarized in the following sections for each outcome of interest in this review (ie, CU and cannabis-related consequences). Of the 19 studies, 11 (58%) were reported as efficacy trials [ 7 , 77 , 79 , 81 - 83 , 86 - 88 , 91 , 92 ], and 8 (42%) were reported as effectiveness trials [ 70 - 72 , 78 , 84 , 85 , 89 , 90 ].

Across all the included studies (19/19, 100%), participant attrition rates ranged from 1.6% at 1 month after the baseline [ 77 , 78 ] to 75.1% at the 3-month follow-up [ 70 ]. A total of 37% (7/19) of the studies assessed and reported results regarding user engagement [ 71 , 78 , 84 , 85 , 90 - 92 ] using different types of metrics. In one article on the Marijuana eCHECKUP TO GO (e-TOKE) web-based program [ 78 ], the authors briefly reported that participation was confirmed for 98.1% (158/161) of participants in the intervention group. In 11% (2/19) of the studies, which were on a similar social media–delivered intervention [ 84 , 85 ], user engagement was quantified by tallying the number of comments or posts and reactions (eg, likes and hearts) left by participants. In both studies [ 84 , 85 ], the intervention group, which involved a CU-related Facebook page, displayed greater interactions than the control groups, which involved a Facebook page unrelated to CU. One article [ 84 ] reported that 80% of participants in the intervention group posted at least once (range 0-60) and 50% posted at least weekly. In the other study [ 85 ], the results showed that intervention participants engaged (ie, posting or commenting or clicking reactions) on average 47.9 times each over 8 weeks. In total, 11% (2/19) of the studies [ 90 , 91 ] on 2 different web-based intervention programs, both consisting of web documentation accompanied by chat-based counseling, measured user engagement either by average duration or average number of chat sessions. Finally, 16% (3/19) of the studies [ 71 , 91 , 92 ], which involved 3 different web-based intervention programs, characterized user engagement by the mean number of web modules completed per participant. Overall, the mean number of web modules completed reported in these articles was quite similar: 3.9 out of 13 [ 92 ] and 3.2 [ 91 ] and 3.5 [ 71 ] out of 6.

Assessment of CU

As presented in Multimedia Appendix 7 , the included studies differed in terms of how they assessed CU, although all used at least one self-reported measure of frequency. Most studies (16/19, 84%) measured frequency by days of use, including days of use in the preceding week [ 91 ] or 2 [ 80 ], days of use in the previous 30 [ 70 - 72 , 78 , 84 - 86 , 88 - 90 ] or 90 days [ 79 , 81 , 82 ], and days high per week [ 83 ]. Other self-reported measures of CU frequency included (1) number of CU events in the previous month [ 87 , 90 ], (2) cannabis initiation or use in the previous month (ie, yes or no) [ 77 ], and (3) days without CU in the previous 7 days [ 92 ]. In addition to measuring CU frequency, 42% (8/19) of the studies also assessed CU via self-reported measures of quantity used, including estimated grams consumed in the previous week [ 92 ] or 30 days [ 72 , 85 , 90 ] and the number of standard-sized joints consumed in the previous 7 days [ 91 ] or the previous month [ 70 , 71 , 89 ].

Of the 19 articles included, 10 (53%) [ 70 - 72 , 80 , 84 - 86 , 89 , 90 , 92 ] reported using a validated instrument to measure CU frequency or quantity, including the TLFB instrument [ 66 ] (n=9, 90% of the studies) and the Marijuana Use Form (n=1, 10% of the studies); 1 (10%) [ 79 ] reported using CU-related questions from an adaptation of the Global Appraisal of Individual Needs–Initial instrument [ 115 ]; and 30% (3/10) [ 81 , 82 , 91 ] reported using a questionnaire accompanied by a calendar or a diary of consumption. The 19 studies also differed with regard to their follow-up time measurements for assessing CU, ranging from 2 weeks after the baseline [ 80 ] to 12 months after randomization [ 90 ], although 12 (63%) of the studies included a 3-month follow-up assessment [ 70 - 72 , 79 , 81 , 82 , 84 , 85 , 88 , 90 - 92 ].

Of all studies assessing and reporting change in CU frequency from baseline to follow-up assessments (19/19, 100%), 47% (9/19) found statistically significant differences between the experimental and control groups [ 70 - 72 , 80 , 81 , 83 , 85 , 87 , 91 ]. Importantly, 67% (6/9) of these studies showed that participants in the experimental groups exhibited greater decreases in CU frequency 3 months following the baseline assessment compared with participants in the control groups [ 70 - 72 , 81 , 85 , 91 ], 22% (2/9) of the studies showed greater decreases in CU frequency at 6 weeks after the baseline assessment [ 71 , 83 ], 22% (2/9) of the studies showed greater decreases in CU frequency at 6 months following the baseline assessment [ 81 , 85 ], 11% (1/9) of the studies showed greater decreases in CU frequency at 2 weeks after the baseline [ 80 ], and 11% (1/9) of the studies showed greater decreases in CU frequency at 2 months after treatment [ 87 ].

In the study by Baumgartner et al [ 70 ], a reduction in CU days was observed in all groups, but the authors reported that the difference was statistically significant only between the intervention group with the service team and the control group (the reduction in the intervention group with social presence was not significant). In the study by Bonar et al [ 85 ], the only statistically significant difference between the intervention and control groups at the 3- and 6-month follow-ups involved total days of cannabis vaping in the previous 30 days. Finally, in the study by Buckner et al [ 80 ], the intervention group had less CU than the control group 2 weeks after the baseline; however, this was statistically significant only for participants with moderate or high levels of social anxiety.

Assessment of Cannabis-Related Negative Consequences

A total of 53% (10/19) of the studies also assessed cannabis-related negative consequences [ 78 - 84 , 86 , 88 , 92 ]. Of these 10 articles, 8 (80%) reported using a validated self-report instrument: 4 (50%) [ 81 , 82 , 86 , 88 ] used the 19-item Marijuana Problems Scale [ 67 ], 2 (25%) [ 78 , 79 ] used the 18-item Rutgers Marijuana Problem Index [ 121 , 122 ], and 2 (25%) [ 80 , 84 ] used the Brief Marijuana Consequences Questionnaire [ 116 ]. Only 10% (1/10) of the studies [ 92 ] used a screening tool, the Cannabis Abuse Screening Test [ 117 , 118 ]. None of these 10 studies demonstrated a statistically significant difference between the intervention and control groups. Of note, Walukevich-Dienst et al [ 86 ] found that women (but not men) who received an web-based PFI with additional information on CU risks reported significantly fewer cannabis-related problems than did women in the control group at 1 month after the intervention ( B =−1.941; P =.01).

Descriptive Summary of BCTs Used in Intervention Groups

After the 19 studies included in this review were coded, a total of 184 individual BCTs targeting CU in young adults were identified. Of these 184 BCTs, 133 (72.3% ) were deemed to be present beyond a reasonable doubt, and 51 (27.7%) were deemed to be present in all probability. Multimedia Appendix 8 [ 48 , 70 - 72 , 77 - 92 ] presents all the BCTs coded for each included study summarized by individual BCT and BCT cluster.

The 184 individual BCTs coded covered 38% (35/93) of the BCTs listed in the BCTTv1 [ 48 ]. The number of individual BCTs identified per study ranged from 5 to 19, with two-thirds of the 19 studies (12/19, 63%) using ≤9 BCTs (mean 9.68). As Multimedia Appendix 8 shows, at least one BCT fell into 13 of the 16 possible BCT clusters. The most frequent clusters were feedback monitoring , natural consequences , goal planning , and comparison of outcomes .

The most frequently coded BCTs were (1) feedback on behavior (BCT 2.2; 17/19, 89% of the studies; eg, “Once a week, participants receive detailed feedback by their counselor on their entries in diary and exercises. Depending on the involvement of each participant, up to seven feedbacks are given” [ 90 ]), (2) social support (unspecified) (BCT 3.1; 15/19, 79% of the studies; eg, “The website also features [...] blogs from former cannabis users, quick assist links, and weekly automatically generated encouragement emails” [ 71 ]), and (3) pros and cons (BCT 9.2; 14/19, 74% of the studies; eg, “participants are encouraged to state their personal reasons for and against their cannabis consumption, which they can review at any time, so they may reflect on what they could gain by successfully completing the program” [ 70 ]). Other commonly identified BCTs included social comparison (BCT 6.2; 12/19, 63% of the studies) and information about social and environmental consequences (BCT 5.3; 11/19, 58% of the studies), followed by problem solving (BCT 2.1; 10/19, 53% of the studies) and information about health consequences (BCT 5.1; 10/19, 53% of the studies).

RoB Assessment

Figure 2 presents the overall assessment of risk in each domain for all the included studies, whereas Figure 3 [ 70 - 72 , 77 - 92 ] summarizes the assessment of each study at the outcome level for each domain in the Cochrane RoB 2 [ 74 ].

Figure 2 shows that, of the included studies, 93% (27/29) were rated as having a “low” RoB arising from the randomization process (ie, selection bias) and 83% (24/29) were rated as having a “low” RoB due to missing data (ie, attrition bias). For bias due to deviations from the intended intervention (ie, performance bias), 72% (21/29) were rated as having a “low” risk, and for selective reporting of results, 59% (17/29) were rated as having a “low” risk. In the remaining domain regarding bias in measurement of the outcome (ie, detection bias), 48% (14/29) of the studies were deemed to present “some concerns,” mainly owing to the outcome assessment not being blinded (eg, self-reported outcome measure of CU). Finally, 79% (15/19) of the included studies were deemed to present “some concerns” or were rated as having a “high” RoB at the outcome level ( Figure 3 [ 70 - 72 , 77 - 92 ]). The RoB assessment for CU and cannabis consequences of each included study is presented in Multimedia Appendix 9 [ 70 - 72 , 77 - 92 ].

Meta-Analysis Results

Due to several missing data points and despite contacting the authors, we were able to carry out only 1 meta-analysis of our primary outcome, CU frequency. Usable data were retrieved from only 16% (3/19) [ 70 - 72 ] of the studies included in this review. These 3 studies provided sufficient information to calculate an effect size, including mean differences based on change-from-baseline measurements and associated 95% CIs (or SE of the mean difference) and sample sizes per intervention and comparison conditions. The reasons for excluding the other 84% (16/19) of the studies included heterogeneity in outcome variables or measurements, inconsistent results, and missing data ( Multimedia Appendix 10 [ 77 - 92 ]).

Figure 4 [ 70 - 72 ] illustrates the mean differences and associated 95% CIs of 3 unique RCTs [ 70 - 72 ] that provided sufficient information to allow for the measurement of CU frequency at 3 months after the baseline relative to a comparison condition in terms of the number of self-reported days of use in the previous month using the TLFB method. Overall, the synthesized effect of digital interventions for young adult cannabis users on CU frequency, as measured using days of use in the previous month, was −6.79 (95% CI −9.59 to −4.00). This suggests that digital CU interventions had a statistically significant effect ( P <.001) on reducing CU frequency at the 3-month follow-up compared with the control conditions (both passive and active controls). The results of the meta-analysis also showed low between-study heterogeneity ( I 2 =48.3%; P =.12) across the 3 included studies.

The samples of the 3 studies included in the meta-analysis varied in size from 225 to 1292 participants (mean 697.33, SD 444.11), and the mean age ranged from 24.7 to 31.88 years (mean 26.38, SD 3.58 years). These studies involved 3 different digital interventions and used different design approaches to assess intervention effectiveness. One study assessed the effectiveness of a web-based counseling program (ie, Quit the Shit) against a waitlist control [ 72 ], another examined the effectiveness of a fully self-guided web-based treatment program for CU and related problems (ie, Reduce Your Use: How to Break the Cannabis Habit) against a control condition website consisting of basic educational information on cannabis [ 71 ], and the third used a 3-arm RCT design to investigate whether the effectiveness of a minimally guided internet-based self-help intervention (ie, CANreduce 2.0) might be enhanced by implementing adherence-focused guidance and emphasizing the social presence factor of a personal e-coach [ 70 ].

Summary of Principal Findings

The primary aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of digital interventions in addressing CU among community-living young adults. We included 19 randomized controlled studies representing 9 unique digital interventions aimed at preventing, reducing, or ceasing CU and evaluated the effects of 3 different digital interventions on CU. In summary, the 3 digital interventions included in the meta-analysis proved superior to control conditions in reducing the number of days of CU in the previous month at the 3-month follow-up.

Our findings are consistent with those of 2 previous meta-analyses by Olmos et al [ 43 ] and Tait et al [ 44 ] and with the findings of a recently published umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of RCTs [ 123 ], all of which revealed a positive effect of internet- and computer-based interventions on CU. However, a recent systematic review and meta-analysis by Beneria et al [ 45 ] found that web-based CU interventions did not significantly reduce CU. Beneria et al [ 45 ] included studies with different intervention programs that targeted diverse population groups (both adolescents and young adults) and use of more than one substance (eg, alcohol and cannabis). In our systematic review, a more conservative approach was taken—we focused specifically on young adults and considered interventions targeting CU only. Although our results indicate that digital interventions hold great promise in terms of effectiveness, an important question that remains unresolved is whether there is an optimal exposure dose in terms of both duration and frequency that might be more effective. Among the studies included in this systematic review, interventions varied considerably in terms of the number of psychoeducational modules offered (from 2 to 13), time spent reviewing the material, and duration (from a single session to a 12-week spread period). Our results suggest that an intervention duration of at least 6 weeks yields better results.

Another important finding of this review is that, although almost half (9/19, 47%) of the included studies observed an intervention effect on CU frequency, none reported a statistically significant improvement in cannabis-related negative consequences, which may be considered a more distal indicator. More than half (10/19, 53%) of the included studies investigated this outcome. It seems normal to expect to find an effect on CU frequency given that reducing CU is often the primary objective of interventions and because the motivation of users’ is generally focused on changing consumption behavior. It is plausible to think that the change in behavior at the consumption level must be maintained over time before an effect on cannabis-related negative consequences can be observed. However, our results showed that, in all the included studies, cannabis-related negative consequences and change in behavior (CU frequency) were measured at the same time point, namely, 3 months after the baseline. Moreover, Grigsby et al [ 124 ] conducted a scoping review of risk and protective factors for CU and suggested that interventions to reduce negative CU consequences should prioritize multilevel methods or strategies “to attenuate the cumulative risk from a combination of psychological, contextual, and social influences.”

A secondary objective of this systematic review was to describe the active ingredients used in digital interventions for CU among young adults. The vast majority of the interventions were based on either a theory or an intervention approach derived from theories such as CBT, MI, and personalized feedback. From these theories and approaches stem behavior change strategies or techniques, commonly known as BCTs. Feedback on behavior , included in the feedback monitoring BCT cluster, was the most common BCT used in the included studies. This specific BCT appears to be a core strategy in behavior change interventions [ 125 , 126 ]. In their systematic review of remotely delivered alcohol or substance misuse interventions for adults, Howlett et al [ 53 ] found that feedback on behavior , problem solving , and goal setting were the most frequently used BCTs in the included studies. In addition, this research group noted that the most promising BCTs for alcohol misuse were avoidance/reducing exposure to cues for behavior , pros and cons , and self-monitoring of behavior, whereas 2 very promising strategies for substance misuse in general were problem solving and self-monitoring of behavior . In our systematic review, in addition to feedback on behavior , the 6 most frequently used BCTs in the included studies were social support , pros and cons , social comparison , problem solving , information about social and environmental consequences , and information about health consequences . Although pros and cons and problem solving were present in all 3 studies of digital interventions included in our meta-analysis, avoidance/reducing exposure to cues for behavior was reported in only 5% (1/19) of the articles, and feedback on behavior was more frequently used than self-monitoring of behavior. However, it should be noted that the review by Howlett et al [ 53 ] examined digital interventions for participants with alcohol or substance misuse problems, whereas in this review, we focused on interventions that targeted CU from a harm reduction perspective. In this light, avoidance/reducing exposure to cues for behavior may be a BCT better suited to populations with substance misuse problems. Lending support to this, a meta-regression by Garnett et al [ 127 ] and a Cochrane systematic review by Kaner et al [ 128 ] both found interventions that used behavior substitution and credible source to be associated with greater reduction in excessive alcohol consumption compared with interventions that used other BCTs.

Beyond the number and types of BCTs used, reflecting on the extent to which each BCT in a given intervention suits (or does not suit) the targeted determinants (ie, behavioral and environmental causes) is crucial for planning intervention programs [ 26 ]. It is important when designing digital CU interventions not merely to pick a combination of BCTs that have been associated with effectiveness. Rather, the active ingredients must fit the determinants that the interventionists seek to influence. For example, action planning would be more relevant as a BCT for young adults highly motivated and ready to take action on their CU than would pros and cons , which aims instead to bolster motivation. Given that more than half of all digital interventions are asynchronous and based on a self-guided approach and do not offer counselor or therapist support, a great deal of motivation is required to engage in intervention and behavior change. Therefore, it is essential that developers consider the needs and characteristics of the targeted population to tailor intervention strategies (ie, BCTs) for successful behavior change (eg, tailored to the participant’s stage of change). In most of the digital interventions included in this systematic review, personalization was achieved through feedback messages about CU regarding descriptive norms, motives, risks and consequences, and costs, among other things.

Despite the high number of recent studies conducted in the field of digital CU interventions, most of the included articles in our review (17/19, 89%) reported on the development and evaluation of web-based intervention programs. A new generation of health intervention modalities such as mobile apps and social media has drawn the attention of researchers in the past decade and is currently being evaluated. In this regard, the results from a recently published scoping review [ 129 ], which included 5 studies of mobile apps for nonmedical CU, suggested that these novel modes of intervention delivery demonstrated adequate feasibility and acceptability. Nevertheless, the internet remains a powerful and convenient medium for reaching young adults with digital interventions intended to support safe CU behaviors [ 123 , 130 ].

Quality of Evidence

The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach [ 131 - 133 ] was used to assess the quality of the evidence reviewed. It was deemed to be moderate for the primary outcome of this review, that is, CU frequency in terms of days of use in the previous month (see the summary of evidence in Multimedia Appendix 11 [ 70 , 72 ]). The direction of evidence was broadly consistent—in all 3 RCT studies [ 70 - 72 ] included in the meta-analysis, participants who received digital CU interventions reduced their consumption compared with those who received no or minimal interventions. The 3 RCTs were similar in that they all involved a web-based, multicomponent intervention program aimed at reducing or ceasing CU. However, the interventions did differ or vary in terms of several characteristics, including the strategies used, content, frequency, and duration. Given the small number of studies included in the meta-analysis, we could not conclude with certainty which intervention components, if any, contributed to the effect estimate observed.

Although inconsistency, indirectness, and imprecision were not major issues in the body of evidence, we downgraded the evidence from high to moderate quality on account of RoB assessments at the outcome level. The 3 RCT studies included in the meta-analysis were rated as having “some concerns” of RoB, mainly due to lack of blinding, which significantly reduced our certainty relative to subjective outcomes (ie, self-reported measures of CU frequency). A positive feature of these digital intervention trials is that most procedures are fully automated, and so there was typically a low RoB regarding randomization procedures, allocation to different conditions, and intervention delivery. It is impossible to blind participants to these types of behavior change interventions, and although some researchers have made attempts to counter the impact of this risk, performance bias is an inescapable issue in RCT studies of this kind. Blinding of intervention providers was not an issue in the 3 RCTs included in the meta-analysis because outcome data collection was automated. However, this same automated procedure made it very difficult to ensure follow‐up. Consequently, attrition was another source of bias in these RCT studies [ 70 - 72 ]. The participants lost to follow-up likely stopped using the intervention. However, there is no way of determining whether these people would have benefited more or less than the completers if they had seen the trial through.

The 3 RCTs included in the meta-analysis relied on subjective self-reported measures of CU at baseline and follow‐up, which are subject to recall and social desirability bias. However, all 3 studies used a well-validated instrument of measurement to determine frequency of CU, the TLFB [ 66 ]. This is a widely used, subjective self-report tool for measuring frequency (or quantity) of substance use (or abstinence). It is considered a reliable measure of CU [ 134 , 135 ]. Finally, it should be pointed out that any potential bias related to self‐reported CU frequency would have affected both the intervention and control groups (particularly in cases in which control groups received cannabis‐related information), and thus, it was unlikely to account for differential intervention effects. Moreover, we found RoB due to selective reporting in some studies owing mainly to the absence of any reference to a protocol. Ultimately, these limitations may have biased the results of the meta-analysis. Consequently, future research is likely to further undermine our confidence in the effect estimate we observed and report considerably different estimates.

Strengths and Limitations

Our systematic review and meta-analysis has a number of strengths: (1) we included only randomized controlled studies to ensure that the included studies possessed a rigorous research design, (2) we focused specifically on cannabis (rather than combining multiple substances), (3) we assessed the effectiveness of 3 different digital interventions on CU frequency among community-living young adults, and (4) we performed an exhaustive synthesis and comparison of the BCTs used in the 9 digital interventions examined in the 19 studies included in our review based on the BCTTv1.

Admittedly, this systematic review and meta-analysis has limitations that should be recognized. First, although we searched a range of bibliographic databases, the review was limited to articles published in peer-reviewed journals in English or French. This may have introduced publication bias given that articles reporting positive effects are more likely to be published than those with negative or equivocal results. Consequently, the studies included in this review may have overrepresented the statistically significant effects of digital CU interventions.

Second, only a small number of studies were included in the meta-analyses because many studies did not provide adequate statistical information for calculating and synthesizing effect sizes, although significant efforts were made to contact the authors in case of missing data. Because of the small sample size used in the meta-analysis, the effect size estimates may not be highly reflective of the true effects of digital interventions on CU frequency among young adults. Furthermore, synthesizing findings across studies that evaluated different modalities of web-based intervention programs (eg, fully self-guided vs with therapist guidance) and types of intervention approaches (eg, CBT, MI, and personalized feedback) may have introduced bias in the meta-analytical results due to the heterogeneity of the included studies, although heterogeneity was controlled for using a random-effects model and our results indicated low between-study heterogeneity.

Third, we took various measures to ensure that BCT coding was carried out rigorously throughout the data extraction and analysis procedures: (1) all coders received training on how to use the BCTTv1; (2) all the included articles were read line by line so that coders became familiar with intervention descriptions before initiating BCT coding; (3) the intervention description of each included article was double coded after a pilot calibration exercise with all coders, and any disagreements regarding the presence or absence of a BCT were discussed and resolved with a third party; and (4) we contacted the article authors when necessary and possible for further details on the BCTs they used. However, incomplete reporting of intervention content is a recognized issue [ 136 ], which may have resulted in our coding BCTs incorrectly as present or absent. Reliably specifying the BCTs used in interventions allows their active ingredients to be identified, their evidence to be synthesized, and interventions to be replicated, thereby providing tangible guidance to programmers and researchers to develop more effective interventions.

Finally, although this review identified the BCTs used in digital interventions, our approach did not allow us to draw conclusions regarding their effectiveness. Coding BCTs simply as present or absent does not consider the frequency, intensity, and quality with which they were delivered. For example, it is unclear how many individuals should self‐monitor their CU. In addition, the quality of BCT implementation may be critical in digital interventions where different graphics and interface designs and the usability of the BCTs used can have considerable influence on the level of user engagement [ 137 ]. In the future, it may be necessary to develop new methods to evaluate the dosage of individual BCTs in digital health interventions and characterize their implementation quality to assess their effectiveness [ 128 , 138 ]. Despite its limitations, this review suggests that digital interventions represent a promising avenue for preventing, reducing, or ceasing CU among community-living young adults.

Conclusions

The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis lend support to the promise of digital interventions as an effective means of reducing recreational CU frequency among young adults. Despite the advent and popularity of smartphones, web-based interventions remain the most common mode of delivery for digital interventions. The active ingredients of digital interventions are varied and encompass a number of clusters of the BCTTv1, but a significant number of BCTs remain underused. Additional research is needed to further investigate the effectiveness of these interventions on CU and key outcomes at later time points. Finally, a detailed assessment of user engagement with digital interventions for CU and understanding which intervention components are the most effective remain important research gaps.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Bénédicte Nauche, Miguel Chagnon, and Paul Di Biase for their valuable support with the search strategy development, statistical analysis, and linguistic revision, respectively. This work was supported by the Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux du Québec as part of a broader study aimed at developing and evaluating a digital intervention for young adult cannabis users. Additional funding was provided by the Research Chair in Innovative Nursing Practices. The views and opinions expressed in this manuscript do not necessarily reflect those of these funding entities.

Data Availability

The data sets generated and analyzed during this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors' Contributions

JC contributed to conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, writing—original draft, supervision, and funding acquisition. GC contributed to conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, data curation, writing—original draft, visualization, and project administration. BV contributed to conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, data curation, writing—original draft, and visualization. PA contributed to conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, data curation, writing—original draft, visualization, and project administration. GR contributed to conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, data curation, and writing—review and editing. GF contributed to conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, data curation, and writing—review and editing. DJA contributed to conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, writing—review and editing, and funding acquisition.

Conflicts of Interest

None declared.

PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist.

Detailed search strategies for each database.

Population, intervention, comparison, outcome, and study design strategy.

Excluded studies and reasons for exclusion.

Study and participant characteristics.

Description of intervention characteristics in the included articles.

Summary of methodological characteristics and major findings of the included studies categorized by intervention name.

Behavior change techniques (BCTs) coded in each included study summarized by individual BCT and BCT cluster.

Risk-of-bias assessment of each included study for cannabis use and cannabis consequences.

Excluded studies and reasons for exclusion from the meta-analysis.

Summary of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation tool.

• Arnett JJ. The developmental context of substance use in emerging adulthood. J Drug Issues. 2005;35(2):235-254. [ CrossRef ]
• Stockings E, Hall WD, Lynskey M, Morley KI, Reavley N, Strang J, et al. Prevention, early intervention, harm reduction, and treatment of substance use in young people. Lancet Psychiatry. Mar 2016;3(3):280-296. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• ElSohly MA, Chandra S, Radwan M, Majumdar CG, Church JC. A comprehensive review of cannabis potency in the United States in the last decade. Biol Psychiatry Cogn Neurosci Neuroimaging. Jun 2021;6(6):603-606. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Fischer B, Robinson T, Bullen C, Curran V, Jutras-Aswad D, Medina-Mora ME, et al. Lower-Risk Cannabis Use Guidelines (LRCUG) for reducing health harms from non-medical cannabis use: a comprehensive evidence and recommendations update. Int J Drug Policy. Jan 2022;99:103381. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Rotermann M. What has changed since cannabis was legalized? Health Rep. Feb 19, 2020;31(2):11-20. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Degenhardt L, Stockings E, Patton G, Hall WD, Lynskey M. The increasing global health priority of substance use in young people. Lancet Psychiatry. Mar 2016;3(3):251-264. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Buckner JD, Bonn-Miller MO, Zvolensky MJ, Schmidt NB. Marijuana use motives and social anxiety among marijuana-using young adults. Addict Behav. Oct 2007;32(10):2238-2252. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Carliner H, Brown QL, Sarvet AL, Hasin DS. Cannabis use, attitudes, and legal status in the U.S.: a review. Prev Med. Nov 2017;104:13-23. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• World drug report 2020. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. 2020. URL: https://wdr.unodc.org/wdr2020/index2020.html [accessed 2023-11-28]
• National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Health and Medicine Division, Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice, Committee on the Health Effects of Marijuana: An Evidence Review and Research Agenda. The Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids: The Current State of Evidence and Recommendations for Research. Washington, DC. The National Academies Press; 2017.
• Hall WD, Patton G, Stockings E, Weier M, Lynskey M, Morley KI, et al. Why young people's substance use matters for global health. Lancet Psychiatry. Mar 2016;3(3):265-279. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Cohen K, Weizman A, Weinstein A. Positive and negative effects of cannabis and cannabinoids on health. Clin Pharmacol Ther. May 2019;105(5):1139-1147. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Memedovich KA, Dowsett LE, Spackman E, Noseworthy T, Clement F. The adverse health effects and harms related to marijuana use: an overview review. CMAJ Open. Aug 16, 2018;6(3):E339-E346. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Teeters JB, Armstrong NM, King SA, Hubbard SM. A randomized pilot trial of a mobile phone-based brief intervention with personalized feedback and interactive text messaging to reduce driving after cannabis use and riding with a cannabis impaired driver. J Subst Abuse Treat. Nov 2022;142:108867. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Chan GC, Becker D, Butterworth P, Hines L, Coffey C, Hall W, et al. Young-adult compared to adolescent onset of regular cannabis use: a 20-year prospective cohort study of later consequences. Drug Alcohol Rev. May 2021;40(4):627-636. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Hall W, Stjepanović D, Caulkins J, Lynskey M, Leung J, Campbell G, et al. Public health implications of legalising the production and sale of cannabis for medicinal and recreational use. Lancet. Oct 26, 2019;394(10208):1580-1590. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• The health and social effects of nonmedical cannabis use. World Health Organization. 2016. URL: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/251056 [accessed 2023-11-28]
• Boumparis N, Loheide-Niesmann L, Blankers M, Ebert DD, Korf D, Schaub MP, et al. Short- and long-term effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions for cannabis use reduction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Drug Alcohol Depend. Jul 01, 2019;200:82-94. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Jutras-Aswad D, Le Foll B, Bruneau J, Wild TC, Wood E, Fischer B. Thinking beyond legalization: the case for expanding evidence-based options for cannabis use disorder treatment in Canada. Can J Psychiatry. Feb 2019;64(2):82-87. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Garnett CV, Crane D, Brown J, Kaner EF, Beyer FR, Muirhead CR, et al. Behavior change techniques used in digital behavior change interventions to reduce excessive alcohol consumption: a meta-regression. Ann Behav Med. May 18, 2018;52(6):530-543. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Glanz K, Rimer BK, Viswanath K. Health Behavior: Theory, Research, and Practice, 5th Edition. Hoboken, NJ. Jossey-Bass; Jul 2015.
• Prestwich A, Webb TL, Conner M. Using theory to develop and test interventions to promote changes in health behaviour: evidence, issues, and recommendations. Curr Opin Psychol. Oct 2015;5:1-5. [ CrossRef ]
• Webb TL, Sniehotta FF, Michie S. Using theories of behaviour change to inform interventions for addictive behaviours. Addiction. Nov 2010;105(11):1879-1892. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Cilliers F, Schuwirth L, van der Vleuten C. Health behaviour theories: a conceptual lens to explore behaviour change. In: Cleland J, Durning SJ, editors. Researching Medical Education. Hoboken, NJ. Wiley; 2015.
• Davis R, Campbell R, Hildon Z, Hobbs L, Michie S. Theories of behaviour and behaviour change across the social and behavioural sciences: a scoping review. Health Psychol Rev. 2015;9(3):323-344. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Eldredge LK, Markham CM, Ruiter RA, Fernández ME, Kok G, Parcel GS. Planning Health Promotion Programs: An Intervention Mapping Approach, 4th Edition. Hoboken, NJ. John Wiley & Sons; Feb 2016.
• Marlatt GA, Blume AW, Parks GA. Integrating harm reduction therapy and traditional substance abuse treatment. J Psychoactive Drugs. 2001;33(1):13-21. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Adams A, Ferguson M, Greer AM, Burmeister C, Lock K, McDougall J, et al. Guideline development in harm reduction: considerations around the meaningful involvement of people who access services. Drug Alcohol Depend Rep. Aug 12, 2022;4:100086. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Davis ML, Powers MB, Handelsman P, Medina JL, Zvolensky M, Smits JA. Behavioral therapies for treatment-seeking cannabis users: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eval Health Prof. Mar 2015;38(1):94-114. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Gates PJ, Sabioni P, Copeland J, Le Foll B, Gowing L. Psychosocial interventions for cannabis use disorder. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. May 05, 2016;2016(5):CD005336. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Halladay J, Scherer J, MacKillop J, Woock R, Petker T, Linton V, et al. Brief interventions for cannabis use in emerging adults: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and evidence map. Drug Alcohol Depend. Nov 01, 2019;204:107565. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Imtiaz S, Roerecke M, Kurdyak P, Samokhvalov AV, Hasan OS, Rehm J. Brief interventions for cannabis use in healthcare settings: systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized trials. J Addict Med. 2020;14(1):78-88. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Standeven LR, Scialli A, Chisolm MS, Terplan M. Trends in cannabis treatment admissions in adolescents/young adults: analysis of TEDS-A 1992 to 2016. J Addict Med. 2020;14(4):e29-e36. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Montanari L, Guarita B, Mounteney J, Zipfel N, Simon R. Cannabis use among people entering drug treatment in europe: a growing phenomenon? Eur Addict Res. 2017;23(3):113-121. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Kerridge BT, Mauro PM, Chou SP, Saha TD, Pickering RP, Fan AZ, et al. Predictors of treatment utilization and barriers to treatment utilization among individuals with lifetime cannabis use disorder in the United States. Drug Alcohol Depend. Dec 01, 2017;181:223-228. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Gates P, Copeland J, Swift W, Martin G. Barriers and facilitators to cannabis treatment. Drug Alcohol Rev. May 2012;31(3):311-319. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Hammarlund RA, Crapanzano KA, Luce L, Mulligan L, Ward KM. Review of the effects of self-stigma and perceived social stigma on the treatment-seeking decisions of individuals with drug- and alcohol-use disorders. Subst Abuse Rehabil. Nov 23, 2018;9:115-136. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Bedrouni W. On the use of digital technologies to reduce the public health impacts of cannabis legalization in Canada. Can J Public Health. Dec 2018;109(5-6):748-751. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Perski O, Hébert ET, Naughton F, Hekler EB, Brown J, Businelle MS. Technology-mediated just-in-time adaptive interventions (JITAIs) to reduce harmful substance use: a systematic review. Addiction. May 2022;117(5):1220-1241. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Kazemi DM, Borsari B, Levine MJ, Li S, Lamberson KA, Matta LA. A systematic review of the mHealth interventions to prevent alcohol and substance abuse. J Health Commun. May 2017;22(5):413-432. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Nesvåg S, McKay JR. Feasibility and effects of digital interventions to support people in recovery from substance use disorders: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. Aug 23, 2018;20(8):e255. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Hoch E, Preuss UW, Ferri M, Simon R. Digital interventions for problematic cannabis users in non-clinical settings: findings from a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Addict Res. 2016;22(5):233-242. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Olmos A, Tirado-Muñoz J, Farré M, Torrens M. The efficacy of computerized interventions to reduce cannabis use: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Addict Behav. Apr 2018;79:52-60. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Tait RJ, Spijkerman R, Riper H. Internet and computer based interventions for cannabis use: a meta-analysis. Drug Alcohol Depend. Dec 01, 2013;133(2):295-304. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Beneria A, Santesteban-Echarri O, Daigre C, Tremain H, Ramos-Quiroga JA, McGorry PD, et al. Online interventions for cannabis use among adolescents and young adults: systematic review and meta-analysis. Early Interv Psychiatry. Aug 2022;16(8):821-844. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. Int J Nurs Stud. May 2013;50(5):587-592. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Michie S, Abraham C, Eccles MP, Francis JJ, Hardeman W, Johnston M. Strengthening evaluation and implementation by specifying components of behaviour change interventions: a study protocol. Implement Sci. Feb 07, 2011;6:10. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Michie S, Richardson M, Johnston M, Abraham C, Francis J, Hardeman W, et al. The behavior change technique taxonomy (v1) of 93 hierarchically clustered techniques: building an international consensus for the reporting of behavior change interventions. Ann Behav Med. Aug 2013;46(1):81-95. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Michie S, Johnston M, Francis J, Hardeman W, Eccles M. From theory to intervention: mapping theoretically derived behavioural determinants to behaviour change techniques. Appl Psychol. Oct 2008;57(4):660-680. [ CrossRef ]
• Scott C, de Barra M, Johnston M, de Bruin M, Scott N, Matheson C, et al. Using the behaviour change technique taxonomy v1 (BCTTv1) to identify the active ingredients of pharmacist interventions to improve non-hospitalised patient health outcomes. BMJ Open. Sep 15, 2020;10(9):e036500. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Dombrowski SU, Sniehotta FF, Avenell A, Johnston M, MacLennan G, Araújo-Soares V. Identifying active ingredients in complex behavioural interventions for obese adults with obesity-related co-morbidities or additional risk factors for co-morbidities: a systematic review. Health Psychol Rev. 2012;6(1):7-32. [ CrossRef ]
• Michie S, Abraham C, Whittington C, McAteer J, Gupta S. Effective techniques in healthy eating and physical activity interventions: a meta-regression. Health Psychol. Nov 2009;28(6):690-701. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Howlett N, García-Iglesias J, Bontoft C, Breslin G, Bartington S, Freethy I, et al. A systematic review and behaviour change technique analysis of remotely delivered alcohol and/or substance misuse interventions for adults. Drug Alcohol Depend. Oct 01, 2022;239:109597. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.4. London, UK. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2023.
• Page MJ, Moher D, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. Mar 29, 2021;372:n160. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C. PRESS peer review of electronic search strategies: 2015 guideline statement. J Clin Epidemiol. Jul 2016;75:40-46. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Halladay J, Petker T, Fein A, Munn C, MacKillop J. Brief interventions for cannabis use in emerging adults: protocol for a systematic review, meta-analysis, and evidence map. Syst Rev. Jul 25, 2018;7(1):106. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Michie S, van Stralen MM, West R. The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci. Apr 23, 2011;6:42. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Arnett JJ. Emerging adulthood. A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. Am Psychol. May 2000;55(5):469-480. [ Medline ]
• Bramer WM, Giustini D, de Jonge GB, Holland L, Bekhuis T. De-duplication of database search results for systematic reviews in EndNote. J Med Libr Assoc. Jul 2016;104(3):240-243. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, Milne R, Perera R, Moher D, et al. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ. Mar 07, 2014;348:g1687. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Presseau J, Ivers NM, Newham JJ, Knittle K, Danko KJ, Grimshaw JM. Using a behaviour change techniques taxonomy to identify active ingredients within trials of implementation interventions for diabetes care. Implement Sci. Apr 23, 2015;10:55. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Fontaine G, Cossette S, Maheu-Cadotte MA, Deschênes MF, Rouleau G, Lavallée A, et al. Effect of implementation interventions on nurses' behaviour in clinical practice: a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression protocol. Syst Rev. Dec 05, 2019;8(1):305. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Fontaine G, Cossette S. A theory-based adaptive E-learning program aimed at increasing intentions to provide brief behavior change counseling: randomized controlled trial. Nurse Educ Today. Dec 2021;107:105112. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Fontaine G, Cossette S. Development and design of E_MOTIV: a theory-based adaptive e-learning program to support nurses' provision of brief behavior change counseling. Comput Inform Nurs. Mar 01, 2023;41(3):130-141. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Sobell LC, Sobell MB. Timeline follow-back: a technique for assessing self-reported alcohol consumption. In: Litten RZ, Allen JP, editors. Measuring Alcohol Consumption. Totowa, NJ. Humana Press; 1992.
• Stephens RS, Roffman RA, Simpson EE. Treating adult marijuana dependence: a test of the relapse prevention model. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1994;62(1):92-99. [ CrossRef ]
• Harris RJ, Deeks JJ, Altman DG, Bradburn MJ, Harbord RM, Sterne JA. Metan: fixed- and random-effects meta-analysis. Stata J. 2008;8(1):3-28. [ CrossRef ]
• Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. Sep 06, 2003;327(7414):557-560. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Baumgartner C, Schaub MP, Wenger A, Malischnig D, Augsburger M, Walter M, et al. CANreduce 2.0 adherence-focused guidance for internet self-help among cannabis users: three-arm randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. Apr 30, 2021;23(4):e27463. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Rooke S, Copeland J, Norberg M, Hine D, McCambridge J. Effectiveness of a self-guided web-based cannabis treatment program: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. Feb 15, 2013;15(2):e26. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Tossmann HP, Jonas B, Tensil MD, Lang P, Strüber E. A controlled trial of an internet-based intervention program for cannabis users. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. Nov 2011;14(11):673-679. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• StataCorp. Stata statistical software: release 18. StataCorp LLC. College Station, TX. StataCorp LLC; 2023. URL: https://www.stata.com/ [accessed 2023-11-28]
• Sterne JA, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. Aug 28, 2019;366:l4898. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• McGuinness LA, Higgins JP. Risk-of-bias VISualization (robvis): an R package and Shiny web app for visualizing risk-of-bias assessments. Res Synth Methods. Jan 2021;12(1):55-61. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Haddaway NR, Page MJ, Pritchard CC, McGuinness LA. PRISMA2020: an R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020-compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and open synthesis. Campbell Syst Rev. Mar 27, 2022;18(2):e1230. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Elliott JC, Carey KB. Correcting exaggerated marijuana use norms among college abstainers: a preliminary test of a preventive intervention. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. Nov 2012;73(6):976-980. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Elliott JC, Carey KB, Vanable PA. A preliminary evaluation of a web-based intervention for college marijuana use. Psychol Addict Behav. Mar 2014;28(1):288-293. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Lee CM, Neighbors C, Kilmer JR, Larimer ME. A brief, web-based personalized feedback selective intervention for college student marijuana use: a randomized clinical trial. Psychol Addict Behav. Jun 2010;24(2):265-273. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Buckner JD, Zvolensky MJ, Lewis EM. On-line personalized feedback intervention for negative affect and cannabis: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. Apr 2020;28(2):143-149. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Goodness TM, Palfai TP. Electronic screening and brief intervention to reduce cannabis use and consequences among graduate students presenting to a student health center: a pilot study. Addict Behav. Jul 2020;106:106362. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Palfai TP, Saitz R, Winter M, Brown TA, Kypri K, Goodness TM, et al. Web-based screening and brief intervention for student marijuana use in a university health center: pilot study to examine the implementation of eCHECKUP TO GO in different contexts. Addict Behav. Sep 2014;39(9):1346-1352. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Riggs NR, Conner BT, Parnes JE, Prince MA, Shillington AM, George MW. Marijuana eCHECKUPTO GO: effects of a personalized feedback plus protective behavioral strategies intervention for heavy marijuana-using college students. Drug Alcohol Depend. Sep 01, 2018;190:13-19. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Bonar EE, Chapman L, Pagoto S, Tan CY, Duval ER, McAfee J, et al. Social media interventions addressing physical activity among emerging adults who use cannabis: a pilot trial of feasibility and acceptability. Drug Alcohol Depend. Jan 01, 2023;242:109693. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Bonar EE, Goldstick JE, Chapman L, Bauermeister JA, Young SD, McAfee J, et al. A social media intervention for cannabis use among emerging adults: randomized controlled trial. Drug Alcohol Depend. Mar 01, 2022;232:109345. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Walukevich-Dienst K, Neighbors C, Buckner JD. Online personalized feedback intervention for cannabis-using college students reduces cannabis-related problems among women. Addict Behav. Nov 2019;98:106040. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Côté J, Tessier S, Gagnon H, April N, Rouleau G, Chagnon M. Efficacy of a web-based tailored intervention to reduce cannabis use among young people attending adult education centers in Quebec. Telemed J E Health. Nov 2018;24(11):853-860. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Cunningham JA, Schell C, Bertholet N, Wardell JD, Quilty LC, Agic B, et al. Online personalized feedback intervention to reduce risky cannabis use. Randomized controlled trial. Internet Interv. Nov 14, 2021;26:100484. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Copeland J, Rooke S, Rodriquez D, Norberg MM, Gibson L. Comparison of brief versus extended personalised feedback in an online intervention for cannabis users: short-term findings of a randomised trial. J Subst Abuse Treat. May 2017;76:43-48. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Jonas B, Tensil MD, Tossmann P, Strüber E. Effects of treatment length and chat-based counseling in a web-based intervention for cannabis users: randomized factorial trial. J Med Internet Res. May 08, 2018;20(5):e166. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Schaub MP, Wenger A, Berg O, Beck T, Stark L, Buehler E, et al. A web-based self-help intervention with and without chat counseling to reduce cannabis use in problematic cannabis users: three-arm randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. Oct 13, 2015;17(10):e232. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Sinadinovic K, Johansson M, Johansson AS, Lundqvist T, Lindner P, Hermansson U. Guided web-based treatment program for reducing cannabis use: a randomized controlled trial. Addict Sci Clin Pract. Feb 18, 2020;15(1):9. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Kanfer FH. Implications of a self-regulation model of therapy for treatment of addictive behaviors. In: Miller WR, Heather N, editors. Treating Addictive Behaviors. Boston, MA. Springer; 1986;29-47.
• Mohr DC, Cuijpers P, Lehman K. Supportive accountability: a model for providing human support to enhance adherence to eHealth interventions. J Med Internet Res. Mar 10, 2011;13(1):e30. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Marlatt GA, Baer JS, Kivlahan DR, Dimeff LA, Larimer ME, Quigley LA, et al. Screening and brief intervention for high-risk college student drinkers: results from a 2-year follow-up assessment. J Consult Clin Psychol. Aug 1998;66(4):604-615. [ CrossRef ]
• Miller WR, Rollnick S. Motivational Interviewing: Preparing People for Change. New York, NY. Guilford Press; 2002.
• Prince MA, Carey KB, Maisto SA. Protective behavioral strategies for reducing alcohol involvement: a review of the methodological issues. Addict Behav. Jul 2013;38(7):2343-2351. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Lundqvist TN. Cognitive Dysfunctions in Chronic Cannabis Users Observed During Treatment: An Integrative Approach. Stockholm, Sweden. Almqvist & Wiksell; 1997.
• Kanter JW, Puspitasari AJ, Santos MM, Nagy GA. Behavioural activation: history, evidence and promise. Br J Psychiatry. May 2012;200(5):361-363. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Jaffee WB, D'Zurilla TJ. Personality, problem solving, and adolescent substance use. Behav Ther. Mar 2009;40(1):93-101. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Miller W, Rollnick S. Motivational Interviewing: Preparing People to Change Addictive Behavior. New York, NY. The Guilford Press; 1991.
• Gordon JR, Marlatt GA. Relapse Prevention: Maintenance Strategies in the Treatment of Addictive Behaviors. 2nd edition. New York, NY. The Guilford Press; 2005.
• Platt JJ, Husband SD. An overview of problem-solving and social skills approaches in substance abuse treatment. Psychotherapy (Chic). 1993;30(2):276-283. [ FREE Full text ]
• Steinberg KL, Roffman R, Carroll K, McRee B, Babor T, Miller M. Brief counseling for marijuana dependence: a manual for treating adults. Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, US Department of Health and Human Services. URL: https:/​/store.​samhsa.gov/​product/​brief-counseling-marijuana-dependence-manual-treating-adults/​sma15-4211 [accessed 2024-03-23]
• de Shazer S, Dolan Y. More Than Miracles: The State of the Art of Solution-Focused Brief Therapy. Oxfordshire, UK. Routledge; 2007.
• Copeland J, Swift W, Roffman R, Stephens R. A randomized controlled trial of brief cognitive-behavioral interventions for cannabis use disorder. J Subst Abuse Treat. Sep 2001;21(2):55-65. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Linke S, McCambridge J, Khadjesari Z, Wallace P, Murray E. Development of a psychologically enhanced interactive online intervention for hazardous drinking. Alcohol Alcohol. 2008;43(6):669-674. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Wang ML, Waring ME, Jake-Schoffman DE, Oleski JL, Michaels Z, Goetz JM, et al. Clinic versus online social network-delivered lifestyle interventions: protocol for the get social noninferiority randomized controlled trial. JMIR Res Protoc. Dec 11, 2017;6(12):e243. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Sepah SC, Jiang L, Peters AL. Translating the diabetes prevention program into an online social network: validation against CDC standards. Diabetes Educ. Jul 2014;40(4):435-443. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Cunningham JA, van Mierlo T. The check your cannabis screener: a new online personalized feedback tool. Open Med Inform J. May 07, 2009;3:27-31. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Bertholet N, Cunningham JA, Faouzi M, Gaume J, Gmel G, Burnand B, et al. Internet-based brief intervention for young men with unhealthy alcohol use: a randomized controlled trial in a general population sample. Addiction. Nov 2015;110(11):1735-1743. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Walker DD, Roffman RA, Stephens RS, Wakana K, Berghuis J, Kim W. Motivational enhancement therapy for adolescent marijuana users: a preliminary randomized controlled trial. J Consult Clin Psychol. Jun 2006;74(3):628-632. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Miller MB, Leffingwell T, Claborn K, Meier E, Walters S, Neighbors C. Personalized feedback interventions for college alcohol misuse: an update of Walters and Neighbors (2005). Psychol Addict Behav. Dec 2013;27(4):909-920. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Ajzen I. From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. In: Kuhl J, Beckmann J, editors. Action Control. Berlin, Germany. Springer; 1985;11-39.
• Dennis M, Titus JC, Diamond G, Donaldson J, Godley SH, Tims FM, et al. The Cannabis Youth Treatment (CYT) experiment: rationale, study design and analysis plans. Addiction. Dec 11, 2002;97 Suppl 1(s1):16-34. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Simons JS, Dvorak RD, Merrill JE, Read JP. Dimensions and severity of marijuana consequences: development and validation of the Marijuana Consequences Questionnaire (MACQ). Addict Behav. May 2012;37(5):613-621. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Legleye S. The Cannabis Abuse Screening Test and the DSM-5 in the general population: optimal thresholds and underlying common structure using multiple factor analysis. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. Jun 10, 2018;27(2):e1597. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Legleye S, Karila LM, Beck F, Reynaud M. Validation of the CAST, a general population Cannabis Abuse Screening Test. J Subst Use. Jul 12, 2009;12(4):233-242. [ CrossRef ]
• Sobell LC, Sobell MB. Timeline follow back. In: Litten RZ, Allen JP, editors. Measuring Alcohol Consumption: Psychosocial and Biochemical Methods. Totowa, NJ. Humana Press; 1992;41-72.
• White HR, Labouvie EW, Papadaratsakis V. Changes in substance use during the transition to adulthood: a comparison of college students and their noncollege age peers. J Drug Issues. Aug 03, 2016;35(2):281-306. [ CrossRef ]
• White HR, Labouvie EW. Towards the assessment of adolescent problem drinking. J Stud Alcohol. Jan 1989;50(1):30-37. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Cloutier RM, Natesan Batley P, Kearns NT, Knapp AA. A psychometric evaluation of the Marijuana Problems Index among college students: confirmatory factor analysis and measurement invariance by gender. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. Dec 2022;30(6):907-917. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Guo H, Yang H, Yuan G, Zhu Z, Zhang K, Zhang X, et al. Effectiveness of information and communication technology (ICT) for addictive behaviors: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Comput Hum Behav. Oct 2023;147:107843. [ CrossRef ]
• Grigsby TJ, Lopez A, Albers L, Rogers CJ, Forster M. A scoping review of risk and protective factors for negative cannabis use consequences. Subst Abuse. Apr 07, 2023;17:11782218231166622. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Harkin B, Webb TL, Chang BP, Prestwich A, Conner M, Kellar I, et al. Does monitoring goal progress promote goal attainment? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychol Bull. Feb 2016;142(2):198-229. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Samdal GB, Eide GE, Barth T, Williams G, Meland E. Effective behaviour change techniques for physical activity and healthy eating in overweight and obese adults; systematic review and meta-regression analyses. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. Mar 28, 2017;14(1):42. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Garnett C, Crane D, Brown J, Kaner E, Beyer F, Muirhead C. Behavior Change Techniques Used in Digital Behavior Change Interventions to Reduce Excessive Alcohol Consumption: A Meta-regression. Ann Behav Med May 18. 2018;52(6):A. [ CrossRef ]
• Kaner EF, Beyer FR, Muirhead C, Campbell F, Pienaar ED, Bertholet N, et al. Effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care populations. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. Feb 24, 2018;2(2):CD004148. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Sedrati H, Belrhiti Z, Nejjari C, Ghazal H. Evaluation of mobile health apps for non-medical cannabis use: a scoping review. Procedia Comput Sci. 2022;196:581-589. [ CrossRef ]
• Curtis BL, Ashford RD, Magnuson KI, Ryan-Pettes SR. Comparison of smartphone ownership, social media use, and willingness to use digital interventions between generation Z and millennials in the treatment of substance use: cross-sectional questionnaire study. J Med Internet Res. Apr 17, 2019;21(4):e13050. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Schünemann H, Brożek J, Guyatt G, Oxman A. The GRADE Handbook. London, UK. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2013.
• Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Schünemann HJ, Tugwell P, Knottnerus A. GRADE guidelines: a new series of articles in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. J Clin Epidemiol. Apr 2011;64(4):380-382. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. Apr 26, 2008;336(7650):924-926. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Hjorthøj CR, Hjorthøj AR, Nordentoft M. Validity of Timeline Follow-Back for self-reported use of cannabis and other illicit substances--systematic review and meta-analysis. Addict Behav. Mar 2012;37(3):225-233. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Robinson SM, Sobell LC, Sobell MB, Leo GI. Reliability of the Timeline Followback for cocaine, cannabis, and cigarette use. Psychol Addict Behav. Mar 2014;28(1):154-162. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Abraham C, Michie S. A taxonomy of behavior change techniques used in interventions. Health Psychol. May 2008;27(3):379-387. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Garrett JJ. The Elements of User Experience: User-Centered Design for the Web and Beyond. London, UK. Pearson Education; 2010.
• Lorencatto F, West R, Bruguera C, Brose LS, Michie S. Assessing the quality of goal setting in behavioural support for smoking cessation and its association with outcomes. Ann Behav Med. Apr 24, 2016;50(2):310-318. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]

Abbreviations

Edited by T Leung, G Eysenbach; submitted 30.11.23; peer-reviewed by H Sedrati; comments to author 02.01.24; revised version received 09.01.24; accepted 08.03.24; published 17.04.24.

©José Côté, Gabrielle Chicoine, Billy Vinette, Patricia Auger, Geneviève Rouleau, Guillaume Fontaine, Didier Jutras-Aswad. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 17.04.2024.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

• MyU : For Students, Faculty, and Staff

Fall 2024 CSCI Special Topics Courses

Cloud computing.

Meeting Time: 09:45 AM‑11:00 AM TTh  Instructor: Ali Anwar Course Description: Cloud computing serves many large-scale applications ranging from search engines like Google to social networking websites like Facebook to online stores like Amazon. More recently, cloud computing has emerged as an essential technology to enable emerging fields such as Artificial Intelligence (AI), the Internet of Things (IoT), and Machine Learning. The exponential growth of data availability and demands for security and speed has made the cloud computing paradigm necessary for reliable, financially economical, and scalable computation. The dynamicity and flexibility of Cloud computing have opened up many new forms of deploying applications on infrastructure that cloud service providers offer, such as renting of computation resources and serverless computing.    This course will cover the fundamentals of cloud services management and cloud software development, including but not limited to design patterns, application programming interfaces, and underlying middleware technologies. More specifically, we will cover the topics of cloud computing service models, data centers resource management, task scheduling, resource virtualization, SLAs, cloud security, software defined networks and storage, cloud storage, and programming models. We will also discuss data center design and management strategies, which enable the economic and technological benefits of cloud computing. Lastly, we will study cloud storage concepts like data distribution, durability, consistency, and redundancy. Registration Prerequisites: CS upper div, CompE upper div., EE upper div., EE grad, ITI upper div., Univ. honors student, or dept. permission; no cr for grads in CSci. Complete the following Google form to request a permission number from the instructor ( https://forms.gle/6BvbUwEkBK41tPJ17 ).

CSCI 5980/8980 

Machine learning for healthcare: concepts and applications.

Meeting Time: 11:15 AM‑12:30 PM TTh  Instructor: Yogatheesan Varatharajah Course Description: Machine Learning is transforming healthcare. This course will introduce students to a range of healthcare problems that can be tackled using machine learning, different health data modalities, relevant machine learning paradigms, and the unique challenges presented by healthcare applications. Applications we will cover include risk stratification, disease progression modeling, precision medicine, diagnosis, prognosis, subtype discovery, and improving clinical workflows. We will also cover research topics such as explainability, causality, trust, robustness, and fairness.

Registration Prerequisites: CSCI 5521 or equivalent. Complete the following Google form to request a permission number from the instructor ( https://forms.gle/z8X9pVZfCWMpQQ6o6  ).

Visualization with AI

Meeting Time: 04:00 PM‑05:15 PM TTh  Instructor: Qianwen Wang Course Description: This course aims to investigate how visualization techniques and AI technologies work together to enhance understanding, insights, or outcomes.

This is a seminar style course consisting of lectures, paper presentation, and interactive discussion of the selected papers. Students will also work on a group project where they propose a research idea, survey related studies, and present initial results.

This course will cover the application of visualization to better understand AI models and data, and the use of AI to improve visualization processes. Readings for the course cover papers from the top venues of AI, Visualization, and HCI, topics including AI explainability, reliability, and Human-AI collaboration.    This course is designed for PhD students, Masters students, and advanced undergraduates who want to dig into research.

Registration Prerequisites: Complete the following Google form to request a permission number from the instructor ( https://forms.gle/YTF5EZFUbQRJhHBYA  ). Although the class is primarily intended for PhD students, motivated juniors/seniors and MS students who are interested in this topic are welcome to apply, ensuring they detail their qualifications for the course.

Visualizations for Intelligent AR Systems

Meeting Time: 04:00 PM‑05:15 PM MW  Instructor: Zhu-Tian Chen Course Description: This course aims to explore the role of Data Visualization as a pivotal interface for enhancing human-data and human-AI interactions within Augmented Reality (AR) systems, thereby transforming a broad spectrum of activities in both professional and daily contexts. Structured as a seminar, the course consists of two main components: the theoretical and conceptual foundations delivered through lectures, paper readings, and discussions; and the hands-on experience gained through small assignments and group projects. This class is designed to be highly interactive, and AR devices will be provided to facilitate hands-on learning.    Participants will have the opportunity to experience AR systems, develop cutting-edge AR interfaces, explore AI integration, and apply human-centric design principles. The course is designed to advance students' technical skills in AR and AI, as well as their understanding of how these technologies can be leveraged to enrich human experiences across various domains. Students will be encouraged to create innovative projects with the potential for submission to research conferences.

Registration Prerequisites: Complete the following Google form to request a permission number from the instructor ( https://forms.gle/Y81FGaJivoqMQYtq5 ). Students are expected to have a solid foundation in either data visualization, computer graphics, computer vision, or HCI. Having expertise in all would be perfect! However, a robust interest and eagerness to delve into these subjects can be equally valuable, even though it means you need to learn some basic concepts independently.

Sustainable Computing: A Systems View

Meeting Time: 09:45 AM‑11:00 AM  Instructor: Abhishek Chandra Course Description: In recent years, there has been a dramatic increase in the pervasiveness, scale, and distribution of computing infrastructure: ranging from cloud, HPC systems, and data centers to edge computing and pervasive computing in the form of micro-data centers, mobile phones, sensors, and IoT devices embedded in the environment around us. The growing amount of computing, storage, and networking demand leads to increased energy usage, carbon emissions, and natural resource consumption. To reduce their environmental impact, there is a growing need to make computing systems sustainable. In this course, we will examine sustainable computing from a systems perspective. We will examine a number of questions:   • How can we design and build sustainable computing systems?   • How can we manage resources efficiently?   • What system software and algorithms can reduce computational needs?    Topics of interest would include:   • Sustainable system design and architectures   • Sustainability-aware systems software and management   • Sustainability in large-scale distributed computing (clouds, data centers, HPC)   • Sustainability in dispersed computing (edge, mobile computing, sensors/IoT)

Registration Prerequisites: This course is targeted towards students with a strong interest in computer systems (Operating Systems, Distributed Systems, Networking, Databases, etc.). Background in Operating Systems (Equivalent of CSCI 5103) and basic understanding of Computer Networking (Equivalent of CSCI 4211) is required.

• Future undergraduate students
• Future transfer students
• Future graduate students
• Future international students
• Diversity and Inclusion Opportunities
• Learn abroad
• Living Learning Communities
• Mentor programs
• Programs for women
• Student groups
• Visit, Apply & Next Steps
• Information for current students
• Departments and majors overview
• Departments
• Undergraduate majors
• Graduate programs
• Integrated Degree Programs
• Additional degree-granting programs
• Online learning
• Academic Advising overview
• Academic Advising FAQ
• Academic Advising Blog
• Appointments and drop-ins
• Academic support
• Commencement
• Four-year plans
• Honors advising
• Policies, procedures, and forms
• Career Services overview
• Resumes and cover letters
• Jobs and internships
• Interviews and job offers
• CSE Career Fair
• Major and career exploration
• Graduate school
• Collegiate Life overview
• Scholarships
• Diversity & Inclusivity Alliance
• Anderson Student Innovation Labs
• Information for alumni
• Get engaged with CSE
• Upcoming events
• CSE Alumni Society Board
• Alumni volunteer interest form
• Golden Medallion Society Reunion
• 50-Year Reunion
• Alumni honors and awards
• Outstanding Achievement
• Alumni Service
• Distinguished Leadership
• Honorary Doctorate Degrees
• Nobel Laureates
• Alumni resources
• Alumni career resources
• Alumni news outlets
• CSE branded clothing
• International alumni resources
• Inventing Tomorrow magazine
• Update your info
• CSE giving overview
• Why give to CSE?
• College priorities
• Give online now
• External relations
• Giving priorities
• Donor stories
• Impact of giving
• Ways to give to CSE
• Matching gifts
• CSE directories
• Invest in your company and the future
• Recruit our students
• Connect with researchers
• K-12 initiatives
• Diversity initiatives
• Research news
• Give to CSE
• CSE priorities
• Corporate relations
• Information for faculty and staff
• Administrative offices overview
• Office of the Dean
• Academic affairs
• Finance and Operations
• Communications
• Human resources
• Undergraduate programs and student services
• CSE Committees
• CSE policies overview
• Academic policies
• Faculty hiring and tenure policies
• Finance policies and information
• Graduate education policies
• Human resources policies
• Research policies
• Research overview
• Research centers and facilities
• Research proposal submission process
• Research safety
• Award-winning CSE faculty
• National academies
• University awards
• Honorary professorships
• Collegiate awards
• Other CSE honors and awards
• Staff awards
• Performance Management Process
• Work. With Flexibility in CSE
• K-12 outreach overview
• Summer camps
• Outreach events
• Enrichment programs
• Field trips and tours
• CSE K-12 Virtual Classroom Resources
• Educator development
• Sponsor an event

Request for proposals for services as WBA Research Partner from 2024-2026

The World Benchmarking Alliance (WBA) is a global non-profit organisation with physical offices in Amsterdam and London. We aim to drive the private sector’s engagement in the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) through benchmarking, envisioning a future where companies, investors, governments, civil society and individuals can quickly and easily compare businesses’ sustainability performance.

To do this, we have identified seven global systems which need to rapidly transform to put our society, planet and economy on a more sustainable and resilient path. For each of these systems, we have developed methodologies which allow us to assess corporate performance (as disclosed in publicly available documents such as sustainability reports) in the area. Using these methodologies we regularly assess a sample of 2000 “keystone” companies, for which we would like the support of a Research Partner (RP).

The scope of the project is influenced by two key elements – the company list and the methodologies against which each company should be assessed.

• The Company List WBA maintains a list of 2000 “keystone” companies, each of which is assessed against one or more methodologies depending on the nature of their impact upon the seven system transformations that need to take place to achieve the SDGs.
• The Methodologies Each of the comprises a set of indicator elements, and a set of contextual datapoints.

Extrapolating this relationship of companies to methodologies results in a total anticipated universe of approximately 1.2 million records to be collected. For more detail on how many elements and datapoints are contained in the methodologies, please see the Annex of the Request for Proposals (RFP) .

The project will be run over three phases:

• Phase One: Setup and Training July 1, 2024  – October 5, 2024 The first phase of the project entails preparatory work to ensure the smooth operation of the data collection phase. The focus should be on project planning and software development, in close collaboration with the WBA team.
• Phase Two: Data Collection October 7, 2024 – October 6, 2025 The data collection phase makes up the majority of the project time and deliverables. It is during this phase that RP analysts will be collecting and assessing information which is then passed to WBA analysts and reviewed in close collaboration with them.
• Phase Three: Review & Iteration January 1, 2026 – June 30, 2026 WBA aim to publish the results of the research conducted under Phase Two in January 2026, followed by a 10-month period during which WBA analysts will work to engage companies, socialise the research findings and conduct further analysis of the data. During this period, research demand on the RP will be greatly reduced.

For a detailed list of activities and deliverables connected to each phase, please view the RFP .

Expectations of the proposal

WBA expects that proposals will, first and foremost, outline your approach to meeting the deliverables listed in this RFP during the three project phases (see “Activities and Deliverables” section).

Crucially this description of your approach should be accompanied by projections of the personnel and financial resources required to produce the deliverables in the proposed timeframe. Please ensure you propose a total budget, along with breakdowns for the different activities outlined across the three phases. The provision of a projected cost per record (see Annex E) for Phase 2 would be appreciated.

Any requests for clarifications may be sent to [email protected] . Responses to this RFP should be sent to this same address no later than 31 May 2024.

Subscribe to stay informed on our work

US Senate waiting for details of Johnson's proposal on aid for Ukraine and Israel

C huck Schumer, the leader of the Democratic majority in the US Senate, has said he will consider a proposal put forward by Mike Johnson, Speaker of the House of Representatives, concerning splitting aid for Ukraine and other US allies into separate bills.

Source: Schumer, cited by Reuters , as reported by European Pravda

Details: Schumer indicated that he would reserve judgment on Johnson’s bills "until we see more about the substance of the proposal and the process by which the proposal will proceed".

"Hopefully, we will get details of the speaker's proposal later today. Again, time is of the essence," Schumer said.

Background:

・The approval of over US$60 billion of aid for Ukraine by the US Congress has been blocked by Republicans in the House of Representatives for months now.

・Earlier Mike Johnson published his plan of adoption of the aid, which would involve separate votes on aid for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan and national security priorities.

・The plan has been criticised by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who believes that splitting the aid package for Ukraine and Israel in the US Congress would demonstrate indifference to the deaths of Ukrainians and be a sign of "pure politics".

・Zelenskyy added that unless the US Congress votes to send Ukraine over US$60 billion of aid, Ukraine has no chance of winning the war with Russia.

Support UP or become our patron !