3. THE ELEMENTS OF A RESEARCH PROPOSAL
3.1 PART 1: THE RESEARCH PROBLEM
The first part of the proposal should state the research problem with the utmost focus and clarity. The problem the researcher will attempt to solve needs to be defined and delimited with such precision as to leave no confusion or ambiguity as to what the research is about and what it aims to accomplish. The more clearly and precisely the research problem is laid out, the more focus the research will have.
Our problem should be so clearly stated that anyone anywhere in the world (who reads English) may read it, understand it, and react to it without help. If the problem is not stated with such clarity and precision, then we are merely deceiving our self that we know what the problem is. Such self-deception will merely cause us trouble later on (Leedy, 1993).
What components should we include in our description of the research problem?
We should include these elements in this order:
1. The statement of the problem a. The main problem b. The key quest ions c. The hypotheses
2. The elucidat ion o f the problem a. Delimitat ions of the study b. Definit io ns o f key terms
c. Presupposit io ns of the researcher d. Preliminary literature review 3. The value of the study
a. Theo logical value b. Practical value
The statement of the problem: This part addresses the purpose of the investigation. It is here that we layout exactly what is being planned by the proposed research. We should begin our research proposal with a direct statement of the research problem. State the problem as a single sentence (at most a short paragraph). We may formulate it as a statement, a question or an objective. In a descriptive study, the objectives can be stated as the research question. The research question can be further broken down into investigative questions. In large research projects, the main problem is usually too large to solve without dividing into smaller units. In such cases, break the main problem down into 2-6 sub-problems; these are called as “key questions”, sometimes these are called as “objectives”. If the proposal is for a causal study, then the objectives can be restated as a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a calculated guess as what the answer to a research question will be. A hypothesis must be directly related to a research problem or question. Thus we may have a hypothesis for the main problem and, if we wish, one for each sub-problem or for some sub-problems.
The objectives module flows naturally from the problem statement, giving the sponsor specific, concrete, and achievable goals. It is best to list the objectives either in order of importance or in general terms first, moving to specific terms (i.e., research question followed by underlying investigative questions). The research questions (or hypotheses, if appropriate) should be set off from the flow of the text so they can be found easily. The research objectives section is the basis for judging the remainder of the proposal and, ultimately, the final report. We verify the consistency of the proposal by checking to see that each objective is discussed in the research design, data analysis, and results sections.
The elucidation of the problem: If we begin with a direct statement of the research problem, there will be loose ends that need to be tied up. This section clarifies the nature of the research by explaining the delimitations, definitions and presuppositions of the study and by presenting a preliminary literature review.
In the case of small projects, literature review may not be in the form of a critical review of the literature, but this is often asked for and is a standard part of larger projects. In its simplest form, the review of literature is a list of relevant books and other sources, each followed by a description and comment on its relevance. The literature review should demonstrate that we have read and analyzed the literature relevant to our topic. From our readings, we may get ideas about methods of data collection and analysis. If the review is part of a project, we will be required to relate our readings to the issues in the project, and while describing the readings, we should apply them to our topic. A review should include only relevant studies. The review should provide the reader with a picture of the state of
knowledge in the subject. Our literature search should establish what previous researches have been carried out in the subject area. Broadly speaking, there are three kinds of sources that you should consult:
1. Introductory material;
2. Journal articles and 3. Books.
To get an idea about the background of our topic, we may consult one or more textbooks at the appropriate time. It is a good practice to review in cumulative stages - that is, do not think we can do it all at one go. Keep a careful record of what we have searched, how we have gone about it, and the exact citations and page numbers of our readings. We should write notes as we go along. We have to record suitable notes on everything we read and note the methods of investigations. We have to make sure that we keep a full reference, complete with page numbers. We will have to find our own balance between taking notes that are too long and detailed, and ones too brief to be of any use. It is best to write our notes in complete sentences and paragraphs, because research has shown that we are more likely to understand our notes later if they are written in a way that other people would understand. We should keep our notes from different sources and/or about different points on separate index cards or on separate sheets of paper. We will do mainly basic reading while we are trying to decide on our topic. We may scan and make notes on the abstracts or summaries of work in the area.
Then do a more thorough job of reading later on, when we are more confident of what we are doing. If our project spans several months, it would be advisable towards the end to check whether there are any new and recent references.
The literature review section examines recent (or historically significant) research studies, company data, or industry reports that act as a basis for the proposed study. We should begin our discussion of the related literature and relevant secondary data from a comprehensive perspective, moving to more specific studies that are associated with our problem. If the problem has a historical background, we should begin with the earliest references. We have to avoid the extraneous details of the literature and have to do a brief review of the information, not a comprehensive report. We should always refer to the original source. If we find something of interest in a quotation, find the original publication and then we have to ensure our self that we understand it. In this way, we will avoid any errors of interpretation or transcription. We have to emphasize the important results and conclusions of other studies, the relevant data and trends from previous research, and particular methods or designs that could be duplicated or should be avoided. We have to clearly discuss, how the
literature applies to the study that we are proposing; show the weaknesses or faults in the design, discussing how we could avoid similar problems. If our proposal deals solely with secondary data, we have to discuss the relevance of the data and the bias or lack of bias inherent in it.
The literature review may also explain the need for the proposed work to appraise the shortcomings and informational gaps in secondary data sources. This analysis may go beyond scrutinizing the availability or conclusions of past studies and their data, to examining the accuracy of secondary sources, the credibility of these sources, and the appropriateness of earlier studies.
Under delimitations, we narrow the focus of our study by indicating what we will not research, that is, what we will exclude. The sections on definitions and presuppositions help us to understand the things we treat as “givens” (what we assume to be true) and how we use important terms. The literature review places our planned research in the context of related funding, helping readers to appreciate how our study relates to what others have done.
The value of the study: This section allows us to describe explicit benefits that will accrue from our study. The importance of “doing the study now” should be emphasized.
Usually, this section is not more than a few paragraphs. If we find it difficult to write, then we have probably not understood the problem adequately. In such a case, we have to return to the analysis of the problem and ensure, through additional discussions with our sponsor or our research team, or by a reexamination of the literature, that we have captured the essence of the problem. This section also requires us to understand what is most troubling to our sponsor. If it is a potential union activity, we cannot promise that an employee survey will prevent unionization. We can, however, show the importance of this information and its implications. This benefit may allow management to respond to employee concerns and forge a linkage between those concerns and unionization. We must convince the sponsoring organization that our plan will meet its needs.
The first part of the proposal ends with a motivation for doing the study. We may motivate the study at a practical and/or theoretical level. This section provides an opportunity to introduce some essential background information by indicating how the proposed research will help to address social needs in a community. We may explain who should benefit from the research and how they might benefit.
Now let us examine the elements that constitute the second part of the proposal, the research plan.