How to Write a Research Proposal: Annotated Example

Students usually search for a sample research proposal example because they want to see the shape of a research proposal before committing words to it, which is exactly the right instinct. What most research proposal examples cannot show you is why each section of a research proposal exists, and that reasoning is what determines whether yours is accepted. Below is the structure with annotations, so you can see both the form and the reasoning. We have used a fictional part-time masters project throughout so the numbers hang together.

The seven sections of a sample research proposal example

Proposals differ in their headings but almost never in their logic. Every one of them has to establish a problem, show it has not been solved, state precisely what you will ask, explain how you will find out, and prove you can finish in the time available.

The sections of a research proposal with typical word share, based on a 2,000 word masters proposal.

Look at where the weight sits. Methodology takes roughly three times the space of the introduction. Students routinely invert that, spending a thousand words establishing that their topic is important and two hundred on how they will actually study it. Supervisors read the reverse order of priority: they look at the method first, because that is what they will be held responsible for.

1. Title and abstract

The title should contain your variables and your context. "An investigation into employee wellbeing" is not a title. "Remote working and reported burnout among NHS administrative staff in North West England" is, because a reader can tell what will be measured, in whom and where. The abstract is written last and compresses the whole proposal into about 150 words.

2. Introduction and rationale

Three moves in about 300 words. Establish the territory, narrow to the specific problem, and state why it matters now. The last part is the one people skip. "Now" can be a policy change, a technology shift, a new dataset or a demographic change, but there has to be an answer to the question of why this study, this year.

3. Literature review

In a proposal this is not a full review. It is an argument that a gap exists, built from the smallest number of sources that can establish it. Around 400 words and ten to fifteen well chosen references is usually enough at masters level. The section must end with a sentence that names the gap explicitly, because your research question is then simply that gap rewritten as a question. Our full guidance on writing a literature review covers the longer version you will write later.

4. Research questions and aims

One overarching question and two or three sub-questions. Each must be answerable with the method you are about to describe. The test we give students is blunt: for each question, name the specific piece of data that would answer it. If you cannot, the question is a topic rather than a question.

5. Methodology

The longest and most heavily assessed section. It has to cover your philosophical position, your design, your sampling strategy and size, your instrument, your procedure and your analysis plan. Every one of those choices needs a justification that connects back to the research question rather than to convenience.

This is where most proposals are sent back, so when you read a sample of research proposal writing from your own field, read this section first. The commonest reason for a rejection is an analysis plan that says "thematic analysis will be conducted" without naming whose version, how many coders, or how themes will be agreed. We work through this in detail in our guidance on justifying your research methodology, and the research onion is the layered framework UK business schools usually expect you to reference.

6. Ethics and limitations

Name the real risks and say how you will manage them. Vulnerable participants, sensitive topics, data storage, the right to withdraw, and how consent will be obtained and recorded. Then state your limitations honestly. A proposal that claims no limitations reads as naive. A proposal that names three and explains why the study is still worth doing reads as competent.

7. Timeline and references

A timeline is where a supervisor checks whether you have understood the scale of what you are proposing. The clearest format is a Gantt chart for a research proposal, with the months across the top and one row for each phase of the work.

A Gantt chart for a research proposal, mapping twelve months of a part-time masters project.

Three things that chart communicates without a sentence of explanation. Ethics approval starts early, because it gates data collection and routinely takes longer than students expect. The phases overlap, which is realistic, rather than each waiting for the last to finish. And there is slack at the end, because there always needs to be.

A timeline that runs data collection into the final month before submission tells a supervisor that the project will not finish. That single line does more to get a proposal rejected than any weakness in the literature review.

A phd research proposal sample: what changes at doctoral level

Whether you are comparing a proposal sample dissertation at masters level or a phd proposal sample, the seven sections stay the same. A doctoral proposal differs from the structure above in three ways rather than in shape.

• Contribution to knowledge is explicit. At masters level it is enough that the study is worth doing. At doctoral level you must say what the field will know afterwards that it does not know now, and it has to be more than "this has not been studied in this country".
• The theoretical framework carries more weight. You are expected to position yourself within a tradition and to defend that position, not simply to apply a model.
• The timeline is three to four years and includes milestones. Upgrade or transfer viva, conference papers, and often a publication plan.

Length varies widely by institution, typically 2,000 to 5,000 words, and no model research proposal for phd study can tell you the right figure for yours. The department's own guidance is the only length that matters, and it is usually specified precisely.

The five questions a supervisor asks of every research proposal

Every reviewer reads a proposal with the same silent checklist. Answer these explicitly and your proposal is most of the way there.

1. Is the question answerable? Not important, not interesting. Answerable, with data that can realistically be obtained.
2. Has someone already answered it? Your literature review has to close this off.
3. Does the method actually answer the question? Alignment between question and design is the single most assessed quality.
4. Can this person get access? If you propose interviewing senior clinicians, say how you will reach them.
5. Will it finish on time? This is what the Gantt chart is for.

Notice that none of those is about how important your topic is. Importance is assumed once you have established the gap. The rest of the proposal is about feasibility, and feasibility is what gets approved.

A common trap worth avoiding

Proposals fail far more often for being too ambitious than for being too modest. A masters student proposing a mixed methods study with a national survey and thirty interviews is proposing two projects, and will complete neither well.

The strongest proposals we see narrow until the project is slightly smaller than the writer is comfortable with, then use the space that frees up to make the method more rigorous. A tight question studied carefully earns a better mark than a broad question studied thinly, and it is far more likely to be finished.