Post on 09-Feb-2017
WRITING OF RESEARCH PROPOSAL
2What is Research
Research refers to a search for knowledge Research means a scientific and systematic search
for pertinent information on a specific topic In fact, research is an art of scientific
investigation. The purpose of research is to discover answers to
questions through the application of scientific procedures
Journey from Known to unknown
3Types of Research Studies
• To gain familiarity with a phenomenon or to achieve new insights into it Exploratory research studies
• To describe accurately the characteristics of a particular individual, situation or a group or phenomenon (Descriptive research studies)
• To determine the frequency with which something occurs or with which it is associated with something else (Diagnostic research studies)
• To test a hypothesis of a causal relationship between variables (Hypothesis-testing research studies).
4Types of Research Studies Descriptive research includes surveys and fact-finding
enquiries. The main characteristic of this method is that
the researcher has no control over the variables; he can
only report what has happened or what is happening In analytical research, on the other hand, the researcher has to use facts or
information already available, and analyze these to make a critical evaluation of the material.
Applied research aims at finding a solution for an
immediate problem facing a society or an industrial/business
Organization Attitude or opinion research i.e., research designed to find out how people feel or
what they think about a particular subject or institution is also qualitative research Empirical research is data-based research, experimental type of research. Such
research is thus characterized by the experimenter’s control over the variables under study and his deliberate manipulation of one of them to study its effects
5What is a Research Proposal
A document with two major objectives: To analyze and synthesize the existing research
about particular topic. Describe the researcher’s idea for a new study.
An art which the researcher wants to sell in the market. Buyer needs to take it from the gallery. Suits to buyer’s pocket.
6Be Prepared
To make mistakes and to learn. To write and rewrite many times. To spend many hours looking for information. To have your writing criticized. To feel confuse and hopeless some times
7The Big Picture
Your proposal describes your proposed plan of work:
What you intend to study (scope and research questions).
Why to study on the issue (Background) How you intend to study your topic
(methodology). Why this topic needs to be studied
(significance). When you will complete this work (timeline). (Occasionally) Where you will conduct this
work.
8Parts of Proposals1. Introduction Part:
Background or Introduction Purpose & Scope / limitations Statement of the Problem Research Objectives Research Hypotheses2. Review of Related Literature & Theoretical Framework
3. Research Methodology4. Resource Plan & Time schedule
5. Outline Organization6. Annexures / Appendics
9Writing Process
Planning defining a topic and selecting literature
Organizing analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating review
articles Drafting
writing a first draft of the review Editing
checking draft for completeness, cohesion, correctness
Redrafting
10
Writing of Research Background
Readers persuasive document that Engage your readers with broader themes and topics that illustrate your concepts, questions, and theory and demonstrate your knowledge and passion.
The background should engage your readers with broad themes and topics.
Explain prevailing environment surrounding the problem The background should illustrate your concepts, questions,
and theory The background section must be precise and measured
11 Problem Statement
Start with a general statement of the problem or issues
Make sure the problem is restricted in scope Make sure the context of the problem is clear Cite the references from which the problem was
stated previously. Provide justification for the research to be
conducted Motivates to conduct the proposed research Highlight the problems/demerits of the available
techniques
12
Writing Literature Reviews
13
Functions of Review Ensures that you are not "reinventing the wheel". Gives credits to those who have laid the groundwork for your research. Demonstrates your knowledge of the research problem. Demonstrates your understanding of the theoretical and research
issues related to your research question. Shows your ability to critically evaluate relevant literature information. Indicates your ability to integrate and synthesize the existing
literature. Provides new theoretical insights or develops a new model as the
conceptual framework for your research. Convinces your reader that your proposed research will make a
significant and substantial contribution to the literature (i.e., resolving an important
theoretical issue or filling a major gap in the literature).
14
Review of Literature This section reflects extensive review of literature done by
the investigator In this section what is already known about the topic is
written including the lacunae Just quoting the literature verbatim will not serve the
purpose It is important to make it coherent, relevant and easily
readable knowledge It helps the investigator to gain good knowledge in that
field of inquiry It also helps the investigator to have insight on different
methodologies that could be applied
15
Writing of Literature Review
The literature should have an introduction, body and conclusion
The introduction defines the framework of the review, the body that evaluates the literature and the conclusion summarizes the current state of knowledge on the problem
Organize the review by topics or ideas, not by author Organize the review logically (least to most relevant
– evolution of topic –by key variables) Discuss major studies/theories individually and minor
studies with similar results or limitation as a group
16
Writing of Literature Review Adequately criticize the design and methodology of important
studies so readers can draw their own conclusions Compare and contrast studies. Note for conflicting and inconclusive results Explicitly show the relevance of each to the problem
statement Summary including a restatement of the relationships
between the important variables under consideration and how these relationships are important to the hypothesis proposed in the introduction
Identify the gaps in the current techniques that would be filled in by the proposed technique.
Highlight the novelty of the proposed technique as compared to other existing techniques.
17Guidelines for Analyzing Literature
Analyze chosen articles before you start writing 1. Scan articles to get an overview of each
first few paragraphs, paragraph before Method, major and minor subheadings, hypotheses, purposes, scan text (but don’t get caught in details), first para of Discussion
keep an eye on big picture by pre-reading take notes on first page about overall purpose/findings
2. Based on #1, group articles by category by topic and subtopic, then chronologically
18Guidelines for Analyzing Literature
3. Organize yourself before reading computer, pack of note cards for comments, self-adhesive flags to
mark important places 4. Use a consistent format in notes
begin reading and making notes of important points on cards start a system of note-taking and use system consistently what is notable about the article?
Landmark/flaws/experimental/qualitative? Use several cards per article
19Guidelines for Analyzing Literature
5. Note explicit definitions of key terms note differences between/among researchers
6. Note methodological strengths and weaknesses e.g., triangulation of methods, sample sizes, generalizability. does one article improve upon another bc of method? does innovative methodology seem appropriate? Is there enough evidence to support conclusions? critique groups of studies together, esp if similar flaws note patterns of weaknesses across studies
20Guidelines for Analyzing Literature
7. Distinguish between assertion and evidence understand empirical findings from data collected v. author’s opinion
8. Identify major trends or patterns in studies if conflicting results, try to explain them can make a generalization based on majority of articles or those with
strong methodology. Describe these generalizations carefully.
9. Identify gaps in literature and discuss why
21Guidelines for Analyzing Literature
10. Identify relationships among studies when write, discuss them together
11. Note how each article relates to your topic keep your specific topic in mind all the time and make sure your
articles address it. If not, do not include 12. Evaluate your list for currency and coverage
start with most recent 5 years and include others if necessary.
22Guidelines for Analyzing Methodology
1. Qualitative or quantitative? (makes notes) Quantitative: results presented as stats and numbers
explicitly stated hypotheses large (100-1500), random sample from particular population objectively scored instruments inferential statistics -- make inferences about pop from sample
Qualitative: results presented as narrative general, nonspecific problem, with no rigid, specific purposes small, purposive (not random) sample measure with unstructured instruments (interviews) results in words with emphasis on understanding sample
23Guidelines for Analyzing Methodology
2. Experimental or nonexperimental? Experimental:
treatments administered to participants for purposes of study effects of treatments assessed almost all are quantitative
Nonexperimental: participants’ traits measured without attempting to change them quantitative or qualitative do not use the term ‘experiment’ to describe, use ‘study,’ ‘investigation,’
etc.
24Guidelines for Analyzing Methodology
3. Participants randomly assigned to conditions? Guarantees no bias in assignment. More weight given to true experiments (with RA).
4. Cause/effect relationships asserted in nonexperiments? 5. How were major variables measured?
Reliability and validity; appropriateness of measures triangulation and strength of conclusions discrepancies in results and patterns in method
25Guidelines for Analyzing Methodology
6. Characteristics of participants/samples? Make notes on demographics. Could demographics have played a role in results? (no way you can
say for sure, but might raise question 7. How large is difference?... not just significance
statistically significant -- greater than chance, not necessarily big. 8. Major flaws? (do not dissect each article)
Safe to assume that all empirical studies have them. Degrees of evidence
26Synthesizing Literature
1. Decide purpose and voice Purpose:
term paper, dissertation/thesis, journal article? Voice:
formal, de-emphasize self, avoid first person (usually) 2. Consider how to reassemble your notes
NOT a series of annotations of research studies describe the forest (not the trees) from a unique perspective using the
trees you found how do the pieces relate to each other?
27Synthesizing Literature
3. Create a topic outline that traces your argument establish for the reader the line of argumentation (thesis) develop a traceable narrative that demonstrates the loa is worthwhile
and justified (writer formed judgments about topic based on analysis and synthesis of lit)
TO is roadmap of argument. Starts with assertion, then introduction, systematic review of relevant
literature, and ends with conclusion that relates back to original assertion 4. Reorganize notes according to path of argument
code cards according to TO; write cites on TO
28Synthesizing Literature
5. Within each topic heading, note relationships among studies can subgroups be created?
Add detail to your outline consider consistency of results from study to study
if discrepant, provide relevant info about research, trying to identify possible explanations for the differences
6. Within each topic heading, note obvious gaps discuss in manuscript
29Synthesizing Literature
7. How do individual studies advance theory? Often researchers will discuss this in their studies -- use their expertise.
8. Plan to summarize periodically and again near end of the review especially with long, difficult, or complex topics help reader understand direction the author is taking begin last section with brief summary of main points
30Synthesizing Literature
9. Plan to present conclusions and implications conclusion: statement about state of knowledge using degrees of
evidence. “it seems safe to conclude that...” “one conclusion might be...”
if weight of evidence does not favor one conclusion over the other, say so
implication: statement of what people or organizations should do in light of existing research.
What actions (interventions) seem promising based on review you are now an expert and can offer conclusions and implications.
31Synthesizing Literature
10. Plan to suggest directions for future research make specific (relevant) suggestions about gaps
can be populations (understudied groups), methodologies, etc 11. Flesh out TO with details from analysis
final step before write first draft include enough detail to write clearly about studies
strengths/weaknesses, gaps, relationships, major trends TO will be several pages long studies may appear in several places on TO
32Writing First Draft
1. Identify broad problem area; avoid global statmts start broad in your topic area and work toward specific
2. Indicate why certain studies are important 3. If commenting on timeliness, be specific 4. If citing a classic or landmark, say so 5. If landmark was replicated, say so and state result 6. Discuss other lit reviews on topic 7. Refer reader to other reviews on related topics 8. Justify comments such as “no studies were found”
33Writing First Draft
9. Avoid long lists of nonspecific references 10. If results of studies are inconsistent or widely varying, cite
them separately 11. Cite all relevant references in review section of a
thesis/dissertation or journal article 12. Emphasize the need for your study in your lit review section or
chapter closes gap in lit, tests important aspect of current theory, replicates
important study, retests hypothesis using new or improved method, resolves conflicts in lit, etc
34Significance of Research
From the literature review, gap analysis can be conducted in order to see how the propose research would fill in the gap in the area of research.
How does the proposed research relates to the existing knowledge in the area.
Explicitly state the significance of your purpose or the rationale for your study. A significant research is one that:√ Develops knowledge of an existing practice√ Develops theory√ Expands the current knowledge or theory base√ Advances current research methodology√ Related to a current technological issue√ Exploratory research on an unexamined issue√ Usage: Organizational, Economic, Social, Academic,
35
The Format Front page: Title, name of the researcher, department. Second page: content Third page: Abstract: between200 -400 words. Fourth – sixth page: with bold headings: Background
of Research, Purpose/ Scope of research, statement of problem, Research objectives, Research Hypotheses, Significance of research
Literature review; Research methods including sample plan, observation
plan, analyses plan Outline Plan of Writing theses ,References Annexures
36Avoid Plagiarism
Plagiarism is presenting someone else’s ideas or words as though they were your own. Loss of year Loosing referee for future.
37
Tips for successful proposal writing
Make it simple Avoid pretentious language, unnecessary jargon,
and double speak by cutting down every unnecessary word.
Read your work loud A sentence that is difficult to say will be difficult
to read. Revise , revise, revise. Put an end to it
The faster you finish the proposal and submit it the less time you have wasted thinking about writing it.
38
Why Proposals are Unsuccessful The problem is of insufficient importance Purpose or demonstrated need is vague Problem is more complex than the propose realizes Research is based on hypothesis that is doubtful or unsound Proposed research based on conclusions that may be unwarranted Assumptions are questionable; evidence for procedures is
questionable Approach is not rigorous enough, too naïve, too uncritical. Approach is not objective enough Validity is questionable, criterion for evaluation are weak or missing Approach is poorly thought out; methods poorly demonstrated Application is poorly prepared or poorly formulated Proposal is not explicit enough, lack of details, too vague or too
general Rationale is poorly presented, logical processes not followed
Thank you
Q & A