---
name: research-proposal
description: Use when asked to write a research proposal — a document laying out a specific research question, method, and plan, usually to secure approval or ethics sign-off — as distinct from a [[grant-proposal]], which specifically requests funding and is often built around one; a research proposal can exist with no funding ask at all.
---

# Research Proposal

A research proposal lays out a specific research question, the method
that will answer it, and a plan for carrying the work out. It's
usually written to secure approval — from an advisor, an institutional
review board, a department, or a funder — before the work begins.
Its job is to convince a reader that the question is worth answering,
the method can actually answer it, and the plan is realistic.

## Key components

- **A specific, answerable research question** — narrow enough that a
  single study could plausibly answer it, not a broad topic area.
- **A method suited to that specific question** — the design (survey,
  experiment, interviews, secondary data analysis, etc.) chosen because
  it fits what the question actually asks, not because it's the method
  the researcher already knows how to run.
- **A feasibility case** — a realistic timeline, the resources required,
  and confirmed access to whatever data, sites, or participants the
  method depends on.
- **Anticipated significance** — what the answer would contribute:
  filling a known gap (see [[literature-review]]), informing a
  decision, or extending prior work.
- **Background and justification** — why this question matters now,
  usually grounded in what existing literature has and hasn't
  established.
- **Ethical considerations** — how participant consent, privacy, or
  risk will be handled, where the research involves human subjects or
  sensitive data.

## Why the question needs to be specific and answerable

A broad topic — "how does remote work affect productivity" — sounds
substantive but gives no way to judge whether the proposed method could
ever actually answer it. A specific question — "does mandatory weekly
video check-ins change self-reported productivity among remote
engineering teams over one quarter" — can be evaluated against a
method: is a survey the right instrument, is the timeframe long
enough, is the sample reachable. Narrowing the question isn't a
weakness; it's what makes the rest of the proposal reviewable at all.
A reviewer reading a broad topic has no way to tell if the study
described afterward would settle it.

## Common pitfalls

- **Question too broad for any single study to answer** — the proposal
  reads as an interesting area of interest rather than a research plan,
  leaving a reviewer unable to judge success criteria.
- **Method chosen for familiarity, not fit** — defaulting to the
  method the researcher already knows (a survey, a regression) instead
  of the method the question actually calls for.
- **Feasibility glossed over** — assuming access to data, a
  participant pool, or a study site will work out, rather than
  confirming it before the proposal is submitted.
- **Significance stated generically** — "this will contribute to the
  field" without saying what specific gap or decision the answer would
  actually inform.
- **Timeline that ignores real constraints** — no buffer for
  recruitment delays, data-cleaning, or approval processes that
  routinely take longer than planned.
- **No connection to existing literature** — proposing a question
  without checking whether it's already been substantially answered.

## Learn more

- [[literature-review]] for surveying existing work to justify why the
  proposed question is still open.
- [[grant-proposal]] for the specific case where the proposal is built
  around requesting funding.
- [[survey-design]] for designing the instrument when the chosen method
  is a survey.
- [[user-interview-guide]] for designing the instrument when the chosen
  method is qualitative interviews.