Writing Research

Proposals for Social

Sciences and
Humanities in a Higher
Education Context
Writing Research
Proposals for Social
Sciences and
Humanities in a Higher
Education Context
By

George Damaskinidis
and Anastasia Christodoulou
Writing Research Proposals for Social Sciences and Humanities
in a Higher Education Context

By George Damaskinidis and Anastasia Christodoulou

This book first published 2019

Cambridge Scholars Publishing

Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Copyright © 2019 by George Damaskinidis and Anastasia Christodoulou

All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without
the prior permission of the copyright owner.

ISBN (10): 1-5275-2845-6

ISBN (13): 978-1-5275-2845-1
 CONTENTS

List of Tables, Figures and Boxes .............................................................. ix

Foreword .................................................................................................... xi
Acknowledgements .................................................................................. xiii
Introduction ............................................................................................... xv
A Brief Note on the Use of Masculine Pronouns ..................................... xix
Chapter One ................................................................................................. 1
Introducing the Research Proposal
1.1 Some notions on design ................................................................... 1
1.2 A researcher’s coming of age........................................................... 3
1.3 What is a research proposal? ............................................................ 7

Chapter Two .............................................................................................. 11

The Epistemology of the Research Proposal
2.1 Why the research proposal is a scientific text ................................ 11
2.2 The functions of the research proposal as a scientific process ....... 13
2.3 The research proposal as a master’s paper ..................................... 15
2.4 Different perspectives on the research proposal ............................ 16
2.5 The book and its users.................................................................... 20

Chapter Three ............................................................................................ 23

Conceptualisation
3.1 Mental processes ............................................................................ 23
3.2 Raw thought ................................................................................... 26
3.2.1 Forming a raw thought .......................................................... 26
3.2.2 Critique of raw thoughts of PhD theses ................................. 31
3.3 Research idea ................................................................................. 37
3.3.1 Forming a research idea ........................................................ 37
3.3.2 Critique of research ideas of PhD theses ............................... 42
3.4 From abstract to specific ................................................................ 52
vi Contents

Chapter Four .............................................................................................. 57

Research Preparation
4.1 Overview of preparatory research work ......................................... 57
4.2 Theoretical stance .......................................................................... 58
4.2.1 Description vs explanation .................................................... 58
4.2.2 Theory verification vs theory formation ................................ 59
4.2.3 Prestructured vs unfolding study ........................................... 60
4.3 Research perspective...................................................................... 61
4.3.1 Five philosophical paradigms ................................................ 61
4.3.2 Paradigms polemic ................................................................ 62
4.4 Research strategy ........................................................................... 62
4.4.1 Research methods .................................................................. 62
4.4.2 The polarity between qualitative and quantitative research... 69
4.5 Research plan ................................................................................. 71
4.5.1 Preparing for empirical research ........................................... 71
4.5.2 Research techniques and tools ............................................... 72

Chapter Five .............................................................................................. 77

Designing a Research Proposal
5.1 An overview of proposal planning ................................................. 77
5.2 Types of research proposal ............................................................ 78
5.2.1 The master’s dissertation proposal ........................................ 79
5.2.2 The PhD thesis proposal ........................................................ 81
5.2.3 The research programme proposal ........................................ 83
5.3 The research proposal’s structure .................................................. 84
5.3.1 Title ....................................................................................... 85
5.3.2 Introduction ........................................................................... 86
5.3.3 Research orientation .............................................................. 87
5.3.4 Theoretical and conceptual framework ................................. 88
5.3.5 Questions, hypothesis and models ......................................... 91
5.3.6 Research methodology ........................................................ 101
5.3.7 Data collection..................................................................... 102
5.3.8 Data processing and analysis ............................................... 103
5.3.9 Research site ........................................................................ 104
5.3.10 Anticipated problems ........................................................ 105
5.3.11 Source of inspiration ......................................................... 105
5.3.12 Timetable........................................................................... 106
5.3.13 Bibliography ...................................................................... 107
 Writing Research Proposals for Social Sciences and Humanities vii
in a Higher Education Context

Chapter Six .............................................................................................. 109

Experiential Presentation of a Doctoral Research Proposal
6.1 The context of the experiential presentation ................................ 109
6.2 A dilemma.................................................................................... 110
6.3 First steps ..................................................................................... 111
6.4 Mental processes .......................................................................... 111
6.5 Moving on to the proposal design and layout .............................. 113
6.6 A final check ................................................................................ 127
6.7 The proposal’s assessment ........................................................... 128

Chapter Seven.......................................................................................... 129

Research Proposal Instruction and Assessment
7.1 An instructional approach to the research proposal ..................... 129
7.2 Incorporating the research proposal in a master’s programme .... 135
7.3 Research proposal assessment criteria ......................................... 140
7.4 Critique of research proposals...................................................... 144

Chapter Eight ........................................................................................... 149

Critique of Research Proposals
8.1 General comments about research proposal critiquing ................ 149
8.2 Critique of proposals 1 to 4 .......................................................... 150
8.3 Assessing the proposals ............................................................... 183

Chapter Nine............................................................................................ 187

Progressive Stages in Research Proposal Design
9.1 General comments on the progressive stages in the design
of research proposals .................................................................... 187
9.2 The progressive stages of proposals 5-8 ...................................... 187
9.3 Remarks on the proposals’ progressive stages ............................. 221

Chapter Ten ............................................................................................. 225

From Thought to Proposal
10.1 Conceptualising the research proposal ....................................... 225
10.2 Thoughts and ideas reflected in the research proposal ............... 227

Chapter Eleven ........................................................................................ 251

The End of a Beginning
11.1 Before submitting your proposal................................................ 251
11.2 The relationship with your supervisor........................................ 253
11.3 After the research proposal’s acceptance ................................... 256
viii Contents

Index of Research Proposals.................................................................... 259

Bibliography ............................................................................................ 261

Index ........................................................................................................ 267

 LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES AND BOXES

Tables

Table 2-1 Functions of the research proposal 13

Table 2-2 Users of this book 20
Table 3-1 Correlation between research area and research topic 28
Table 3-2 Raw thought outline 31
Table 3-3 Research idea outline 37
Table 3-4 Choosing a question, hypothesis or model 52
Table 5-1 Starting questions when planning a proposal 78
Table 5-2 Main categories of questions 92
Table 5-3 Question sub-categories 93
Table 5-4 Main categories of hypotheses 97
Table 5-5 Stages of development of a research hypothesis 99
Table 7-1 Breakdown of the research proposal per semester 136
Table 7-2 Main assessment criteria 141

Figures

Figure 3-1 Link between topic, question and conceptual 40

significance
Figure 3-2 Logical sequence of a research proposal based on a 53
research question
Figure 3-3 Logical sequence of a research proposal based on a 53
research hypothesis
Figure 3-4 Interdependence between raw thought and research 54
proposal
Figure 3-5 Relationship between thought, idea and proposal 55
Figure 4-1 Hierarchical relationship of preparatory research steps 57
Figure 4-2 Prestructured vs unfolding research 60
Figure 4-3 Qualitative-quantitative ratio in mixed methods 70
research
Figure 4-4 From research perspective to data 72
Figure 5-1 Timetable for a PhD thesis 107
Figure 6-1 Mind map of EdD research proposal 112
Figure 6-2 The interdisciplinary triangle 118
 x List of Tables, Figures and Boxes

Figure 7-1 Stages of development of the research proposal as a 132

teaching intervention
Figure 7-2 A responsive style of supervision in the design of 137
research proposals
Figure 7-3 Research proposal progress signals 144
Figure 10-1 One thought, two ideas, four proposals 227

Boxes

Box 3-1 From research area to research topic 28

Box 3-2 From research topic to general research question 29
Box 3-3 Examples of general research questions 30
Box 3-4 From general research question to specific research 39
question
Box 3-5 Sub-questions and the data needed to answer them 40
Box 5-1 Theoretical and conceptual framework control 90
questions
Box 5-2 Abstract vs specific research questions 94
Box 5-3 Ideological/normative vs specific research questions 95
Box 5-4 Breaking down the question into separate parts 95
Box 5-5 Initial phrasing of research question 98
Box 5-6 Rephrasing the research question 98
Box 7-1 Research proposal development outline 133
Box 11-1 Research proposal checklist 251
 FOREWORD

It is with great pleasure that I respond to the request of George

Damaskinidis and Anastasia Christodoulou, the authors of this book
published by Cambridge Scholars Publishing, for a brief critique of their
book.
Wider participation in higher education has become a key component
of European education policy in recent decades and is a strategic goal set
by many European governments. The hope is that this will augment the
Old Continent’s human capital and give it a competitive advantage in the
global arena. As a result, in the last twenty years Europe has witnessed a
higher education explosion with mass participation in both undergraduate
and postgraduate programmes. Postgraduate programmes in particular
have multiplied remarkably in all universities, covering all the scientific
fields. Master’s dissertations and doctoral theses especially are usually
considered the culmination of an educational path. Within an environment
of research independence, researchers must make a small (in the case of a
master’s dissertation) or large (in the case of a PhD thesis) original
contribution to knowledge.
As the authors mention, their first book (Damaskinidis and Christodoulou,
2014) arose from the need to fill part of the literature gap on research
methodology when writing a research proposal for a master’s dissertation
or doctoral thesis. The authors’ second book continues the previous
successful effort. This improved edition has added new material and
removed other sections based on the experience gained from the first
edition and from the book’s use in lectures preparing postgraduate students
to write their own paper.
Having read the book’s eleven chapters, it is easy to see that it is an
especially useful aid for master’s and doctoral students of the social
sciences and humanities. It is an easy-to-read, clearly structured book
whose contents fully satisfy the expectations created by the title. The
chapters strike a very good balance between theory and practical
examples, providing the reader with useful guidelines on how to
successfully complete a research proposal. I feel that this book was made
to be read both right through and section by section, in the sense that you
return to it again and again, especially to those parts on which every
novice researcher would like to focus and receive more support.
xii Foreword

Overall, I would say that this book is an essential manual and useful
guide for every new scientist. I would recommend its addition to the
bookshelves of every postgraduate student attempting to contribute
productively to scientific dialogue through their independent research –
research for which the research proposal is perhaps the key prerequisite for
its success.

Professor Marios Vryonides

Coordinator, Education Sciences Doctoral Programme
European University of Cyprus
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

To complete this book, we turned to a number of people, whose comments

contributed decisively to the improvement of many parts thereof. We
would therefore like to thank Professor Marios Vryonides, who is the
coordinator of the Education Sciences Doctoral Programme at European
University Cyprus, for his scientific critique of the book. Also, we would
like to express our heartfelt gratitude to Mr Andreas Kotridis, a secondary
education teacher (MA in Education Organisation and Management,
University of Thessaly; MA in Adult Education, Hellenic Open
University), for his critical reading of the book and constructive remarks
as a reader with a direct interest in its contents. We would also like to
express our sincere thanks to Epikentro Publishers for giving us
permission to use selected material from the book Damaskinidis, G. &
Christodoulou Α. (2014). Η Ερευνητική Πρόταση στην Μεταπτυχιακή και
Διδακτορική Έρευνα [The Research Proposal in Postgraduate and Doctoral
Research]. Thessaloniki: Epikentro. Additional thanks go to Athena
Samaklis for her careful editing of this book. Last but not least, we owe a
debt of gratitude to the students in the various master’s programmes and
training seminars for their cooperation in our endeavours to instruct them
on how to write a research proposal.
 INTRODUCTION

Scholarly literature is rife with books on research methodology for most

disciplines. Researchers have an abundance of methods and tools at their
fingertips with which to plan their research. However, (at least) when it
comes to the social sciences and humanities, the early stages of research
design – namely the research proposal – have yet to be thoroughly
examined (Haselkorn, 1985; Heath & Tynan, 2010).
One of the biggest challenges for a researcher is bringing the work of
earlier researchers, current findings and new hypotheses all together in a
single proposal for future research. Students who are called upon to write a
research proposal for their master’s dissertation or doctoral thesis also face
the same challenge. If you are planning on embarking on such an
academic endeavour with a higher education institution or research
organisation, then this book will prove valuable to you, especially as you
take your first steps.
Most educational and research institutions offer special postgraduate
courses that prepare students to plan and write their research papers. In
fact, having recognised how important it is to develop these skills, some of
these institutions have even added relevant training to their undergraduate
programmes. The incentive for this book came from the various research
methodology courses we have designed and taught at Aristotle University
of Thessaloniki (A.U.Th.) in recent years. One of the exercises, “Writing a
Research Proposal”, brought home to us from the very first moment how
necessary it was to deal with research proposals more systematically and
with more specific academic criteria. In the next few years, this
educational intervention went through different stages before ending up as
the book you are now holding.
Our first publishing effort (Damaskinidis and Christodoulou, 2014)
came to be used as a principal source in similar research methodology
courses, and was warmly received and critiqued by master’s students,
doctoral candidates, research methodology instructors, supervisors and
review committees. We therefore decided to attempt a new (this time
international) edition that would be enriched with the knowledge and
experience we had gained. Special mention should be made of our
experience with designing and teaching the lifelong learning course
“Writing a Research Proposal for Scientific Research in the Social
xvi Introduction

Sciences and Humanities” at A.U.Th., which prompted the writing of this

book.
There were not a few master’s students and doctoral candidates (more
of the latter) who came to us for advice in the last stages of their research,
having realised their initial design was faulty. While this does not
necessarily mean that they had inadequate academic guidance or that they
themselves were not proficient researchers or hadn’t worked hard enough,
it does point to the lack of importance assigned by all parties to the initial
planning stage. Although this book does not intend to deal with the
supervisor-researcher relationship, the comments made on the research
proposals may be used for this purpose by both parties.
We hope that this book will be useful to students as well as early-stage
researchers who want to develop the skills and abilities that will enable
them to plan a research proposal which will meet the most demanding
academic criteria. This book offers guidance on how to conceptualise and
form a research plan and provides specific instructions on organising and
presenting research material in standardised format. The examples
analysed in this book were chosen not for their scientific soundness, but
because they highlight the complex problems a proposer faces when
writing his research proposal.
The book offers a complete organisational framework based on which
you will be able to develop your own research and presents the parts that
make up a research proposal. Before you begin writing your own proposal,
you should have formed a clear idea about your research. However, there
are no secret recipes that someone can follow to write a proposal. Each
and every proposal needs to be adapted to its particular discipline, to the
demands of the course taken at the host institution, and to the
specifications set by the proposal’s review committee. In other words, the
same research proposal can take many different forms, depending on who
the intended recipient is.
Our aim is to help the reader of this book to determine the basic
structure of a social sciences or humanities research proposal. We are
therefore presenting a model we believe, if suitably adapted, will meet
researchers’ needs in these two fields. We have applied this model with
great success in our own research, as have students from different fields of
study and with varied research experience. Discussions with colleagues
experienced in research methodology, students’ research proposals, their
personal stances and views and the constructive comments made by
external reviewers all played a decisive role in the creation of this book.
Espousing astronomer Jean Dominique Cassini’s (1770) belief that it is
better not to have the slightest idea where you are – and to know it – than
 Writing Research Proposals for Social Sciences and Humanities xvii
in a Higher Education Context

to be convinced you are somewhere you actually aren’t, we invite you to

(re)design your research with this book as your guide. If you do submit a
research proposal after having studied this book, or if you use it as a
reference, we would love to hear your comments and are happy to share
our experiences with you.
Lastly, we would like to point out that the examples included in this
book (raw thoughts, research ideas and research proposals) were initially
written in Greek by Greek students. We have made every effort to
translate them in a way that will retain their structure and content and
leave their various errors intact (e.g. language style, expressions,
grammar), so that the reader can get as complete a picture as possible of
how the research stages had been initially designed.

damaskinidis@hotmail.com
nata@itl.auth.gr
 A BRIEF NOTE ON THE USE OF MASCULINE
PRONOUNS

After much deliberation, in this fully updated and revised English version
of the original Greek book, we decided to make use of the more traditional
“he” and its derived forms to refer to antecedents of indeterminate gender.
This decision was not intended as a sign of disrespect to or disregard of the
female gender. We ask that you see it merely as an effort to simplify
sentences by avoiding the cumbersome use of “he/she”, “his/her”, etc.
Early attempts to use the plural “they” and its derived forms yielded
ambiguous phrases in some passages, so we settled on the use of “he” with
a gender-neutral meaning.
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCING THE RESEARCH PROPOSAL

the book in your hand

is the coach
that gets the researcher
to the research starting line

1.1 Some notions on design

Design, in the sense of mapping out certain actions, is what we do when
we plan a number of successive steps that are needed to achieve
something. Such an undertaking could be split into a number of key stages,
a non-exhaustive list of which is provided below. First, we set a goal; in
other words, we decide what we want to achieve. Second, we plan the
order in which each step will succeed the other to make our undertaking
possible. Third, we check to make sure that we have performed our
intended tasks correctly. Fourth, we resolve to carry out each step in our
undertaking skilfully. Last, we consider it a given that we will make every
effort (be it intellectual, physical or a combination thereof) to achieve the
desired outcome.
Since people are both the agency and final recipient in a design
process, steps should be taken to ensure that every stage of the design is
socially accepted. To achieve this, any situation that arises needs to be
assessed and the actions being carried out accordingly corrected and
adjusted. This type of design is based on a scientific method that translates
into actual, conscious efforts to weigh the cost of different interventions in
a given situation and to increase the soundness of the implemented actions
now and in the foreseeable future.
One of the most recent developments in design arose with the close of
World War II and concerned strategic operations management. The initial
accumulated military experience and the ensuing advances in computer
technology endowed designs with added techniques and methods that gave
them their current complex form. The notion of design has been contemplated
2 Chapter One

by many famous historical figures, whose unique perspective may prove to

be invaluable.
Unlike Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821), who said “I have made all
the calculations; fate will do the rest,” master’s students and doctoral
candidates should not leave their designs to fate. At the same extreme, and
to paraphrase the famous Prussian military theorist Carl von Clausewitz
(1780-1831), no one starts a design without first being clear in their mind
what they intend to achieve by the design and how they intend to carry it
out. A design requires decisiveness, an important quality in a researcher. It
is just such a quality that we find in the words of German chancellor Otto
von Bismarck (1815-1898), who said that “a really great man is known by
three signs: generosity in the design, humanity in the execution,
moderation in success”. In other words, while a researcher may be aiming
for the best possible outcome, their design should not only be feasible but
should also reflect a certain research-oriented humility, no matter the
chances of success.
In the past, the acceptance or rejection of professional practices
depended on appeals made to the reason or emotions of the general public
and figures of authority. Only in the early 20th century did fieldwork with
real data based on new concepts begin to compete with the customary
deliberative process as a means of determining the effectiveness of a
professional practice.
The Western world’s enthusiasm over the sciences (especially the
exact sciences) in the early 20th century had a catalytic effect on the
research field, and the idea of a scientific basis for research began to
prevail. Advocates of science came from various scientific fields and were
all convinced of the paramount importance of searching for quantified
evidence, defining general principles and examining these principles
through further investigation.
The impact of these factors was also particularly strong in the mid 20th
century, when empirical research methods held sway. Almost all the
higher professional degrees required students to study statistical processes
in order to be able to analyse data. The research departments that sprouted
in various faculties focused on training graduates to understand and use
research plans and data analysis processes for empirical studies subject to
maximum research variable control. A research project was only accepted
if it was conducted according to the processes taught at the particular
faculty’s research department. In many faculties, a “commended” research
project was synonymous with a dissertation or thesis that had adopted a
controlled experimental design and processed its data using complex
statistical analysis.
 Introducing the Research Proposal 3

In the late 1950s, there were a few rumblings of discontent regarding

the view that any professional field could develop a theoretical and
conceptual basis which could be adequately underpinned by a research
design and research methodology based on a single viewpoint. Some
faculty staff had pointed out the need for a broader interpretation from the
start. Their students conducted field research, surveys and case studies,
they performed retrospective evaluations of research plans, they studied
development processes and variously defended their use of a wide range of
investigative methods and technologies.
This reaction seems to have offset the view supporting one-sided
research. Adding to knowledge by adopting different perspectives is today
not only accepted but desirable, if not required. Master’s and doctoral
research students in academic and professional fields now have at their
fingertips an unprecedented range of choices from which to choose their
subject and design their research methodology. This type of design is now
widely referred to as the “research proposal”.

1.2 A researcher’s coming of age

Research design is directly linked to the notion of coming of age.
Conceptually, a coming of age is when a child becomes an adult. This
process is distinguished by a person’s age as an arbitrary, conventional
number, by the specific moment in time, and by the social reason for
which a person needs to be considered a mature adult citizen at that age.
Similarly, a coming of age in research is a process involving formal and
informal actions that bring a trainee to the point where he can begin his
independent research process.
While trying to reach that point in time, the researcher is not (or should
not be) treated as an unversed trainee who is directly dependent on the
advice of an expert. A person comes of age as a researcher through his
experiences. For a student, this means that they are weaned off the
confining (yet safe) academic sphere where knowledge is mostly spoon-
fed to them. It means that they are discovering their first research interest,
and that when they reach a dead end, it us up to them to find their way out.
However, coming of age as a researcher is not an easy thing. It is
directly linked to a person’s educational and socioeconomic environment –
an environment that may either help or exacerbate the difficult process of
reaching the adult research stage. The academic environment plays an
important role. A trainee often begins his research effort without proper
preparation. While still green, he tries to reach adulthood via the research
struggle or, conversely, his progress to research adulthood is stalled by a
4 Chapter One

sense of pseudo-autonomy. In both cases, the passage from passive

acceptance of knowledge to its active discovery is weighed down.
Engaging in research design could be described as an initiation ritual
that eases and adds a sense of safety to this passage, a safety that stems not
only from the individual’s experiences but also from the recognition he
receives from the academic community and, of course, his supervisor.
What a number of today’s early-stage researchers seem to fear is the
assumption of responsibility, what we refer to as coming of age. This
substantial number of novice researchers looks back at their pre-research
age with nostalgia and finds growing up a difficult experience. They may
comply and react, but they do not know how to agree or disagree. This
stance stems from an incomplete perception of reality. Research adulthood
does, in fact, imply responsibilities, but not just any responsibilities. Not
the responsibilities assigned by someone else (e.g. the supervisor), but
those that individuals assume themselves because it is their wish to do so.
A researcher should be able to bask in the joy of research and discovery,
and not feel like a recruit following a schedule whose every step has been
determined by someone else.
The metaphor “recruit” alludes to someone who executes orders given
by a superior. Orders that are not his own, that he does not want, has not
envisioned and ultimately has not decided for himself. If he fails to carry
out the order, he will be punished since it is his duty to do the job assigned
to him. Yet if a researcher is to become truly independent, he must first
discover his own wants. What he himself wishes, and not whatever others
might prescribe. The want we are referring to has nothing to do with the
want of a trainee who thinks only of immediate satisfaction, who is
demanding and does not take any rules into consideration. We are
referring to want as will, a mature want that stems from and is defined by
the researcher’s identity. It is through this will that he will be able to
determine the future of his own research path. This path is to a large extent
governed by the characteristics of adult education.
Each time a researcher embarks on a new project, he will find himself
in uncharted waters and will look for ways to deal with this new situation.
However, many of the things the researcher experiences may possibly be
related to the research topic and may therefore enhance the early design
process. At this stage, the researcher develops a tendency towards mostly
“self-directed learning” (Merriam & Caffarella, 1991), where he is
primarily responsible for designing and assessing his own research.
The researcher will enter a process where he creates knowledge by
reflecting on his experiences (e.g. his studies in a particular discipline, any
relevant work experience), the aim being to generate new ideas that will
 Introducing the Research Proposal 5

lead to a research effort (Kokkos, 2005). Empirical learning can be defined

as a process whose aim is to transform experience into knowledge, skills,
viewpoints, values, convictions and behaviours that will be applied in the
proposed research. This form of empirical learning thus becomes a process
whereby the researcher redefines his own research identity.
While working on his research proposal, a researcher matures and his
self-perception shifts from that of a dependent personality (e.g. as a
university student) to that of an independent researcher. He gains an ever
increasing well of experiences that have the potential to become a
significant source of learning. As he matures, his readiness to learn will be
focused on the research problem linked to his role as researcher. The way
he perceives time will change and he will succeed in applying his
knowledge directly. Consequently, his preparation will shift its focus from
subject areas to specific problems. This assumption does not have so much
to do with research experience as with a research approach or even
research design.
In (academic) education, learning is defined as a formative process
which includes assimilating the fundamental convictions and roles that
concern the educational institution and the individual as a student and
which aid academic socialisation. On the other hand, learning during
research preparation is expressed as a transformative process, which
includes the potential to distance oneself from student life and to reframe
existing convictions based on new assumptions with a greater degree of
self-determination.
Every (principally novice) researcher interprets reality based on a
system of perceptions that he has constructed in the course of his academic
socialisation. This system, which is etched into each student’s personality,
is the outcome of the academic and other professional frameworks within
which the adult individual’s academic socialisation took place. In other
words, there is a system of predispositions that is the outcome of the
various socialisations an individual undergoes as he progresses towards
research adulthood.
Thus, in formal and informal education, formative learning becomes
“transformative learning” (Mezirow, 1991) as one works on a research
proposal. While a student learns from a source of authority (e.g. university
course) and this early learning is a form of academic socialisation, the
writer of the research proposal has a greater need to gain new meaning
perspectives on existing meaning schemes through which he interprets the
new research reality.
In this new reality, Mezirow’s three types of learning – instrumental,
communicative and emancipatory – may prove useful to the researcher. In
6 Chapter One

instrumental learning, the central idea is that the research emerges though
the process of solving a specific research problem and determining the
relationship between cause and effect. In communicative learning, the
researcher will strive to be understood by the review committee and to
understand the other researchers (and potentially also the supervisor) as
they exchange research ideas through vocal deliberations and written
argumentation (e.g. through possible feedback). In emancipatory learning,
the research process entails acknowledging and questioning existing views
and meanings regarding the field of inquiry, through a process of critical
reflection.
A possible starting point for the researcher are his life experiences
(knowledge-based, professional, personal, and so on) which will help
transform the dominant meaning frameworks in his particular scientific
field. Following that, he will critically reflect so as to examine carefully,
insightfully and in depth the assumptions underpinning his research world
view, and to explore the original reasons for the research and their
consequences for everyone involved (e.g. the researcher, the research
participants and the research site). In other words, the researcher questions
the validity of the assumptions made in previous studies.
But it does not mean that this path the researcher has taken has to be
solitary. He will communicate with others and exchange views, even with
people who do not share his research concerns. Communication based on
rational dialogue serves as a catalyst for the transformation of current
knowledge, since it is through this that the researcher is motivated and,
ultimately, convinced to search for the underlying meaning behind his
research world views and to share his ideas with his supervisor or proposal
reviewer using concise and critical speech. This is a unique type of
discussion during which the researcher and reviewer or supervisor
exchange and thrash out views, putting forward evidence and arguments
that corroborate their opinion on whether the proposed study should or
should not be carried out.
According to Mezirow (1997), critical reflection combined with
participation in rational dialogue are the two elements that lead to
awareness. When exploratory in nature, this awareness allows researchers
to revise or disprove their (potentially) erroneous views and move on to a
more satisfactory, better organised and more ordered picture of their
research world. Such a picture can be formed if we approach learning in
terms of “banking” and “problem-posing” (Freire, 1972). The banking
model characterises much of formal education, where the student amasses
a large volume of information that he cannot use in his research. Problem-
posing learning, however, entails the real essence of learning, which
 Introducing the Research Proposal 7

liberates and emancipates the researcher. The aim is for each researcher to
capitalise on the learning he has banked, and at the same time break free
from the precepts of his field of study’s dominant scientific culture and
transform his knowledge into new research avenues.
To achieve the above freedom, it is important to become critically
conscious of the research topic. This involves approaching research reality
critically on an ongoing basis in order to adopt new approaches and shed
light on unseen, deceptive aspects that perpetuate anachronistic ideas and
viewpoints which stop the research from evolving. Developing critical
consciousness is a learning process during which the researcher becomes
aware of his situation and builds up the skills that aid his efforts to make
changes in research. Consciousness is achieved by comprehending the
causes driving a research process. The researcher highlights the problems
he chooses and poses critical questions that link a social reality to his
consciousness with the aim of setting himself free in his research.

1.3 What is a research proposal?

You are awarded a postgraduate degree because you have contributed to
knowledge in your chosen field. Irrespective of the extent or quality of
your contribution, being awarded this degree proves that you have added
something new to the specific field of study. One way of showing that you
are capable of attempting such a contribution is by submitting a research
proposal that meets certain scientific criteria.
According to Onwuegbuzie (1997: 5), a research proposal is a “formal
written plan which communicates ideas about a proposed study in order to
obtain approval to conduct the study or to seek funding”. The proposal is
one of the most difficult pieces of academic writing demanded of a
researcher, since he is attempting to describe, in a scientific, substantiated
and convincing manner, the various stages of the research he is planning to
conduct in the immediate future (Krathwohl & Smith, 2005). The researcher
has to convince the academic committee or potential supervisor that the
proposed study is scientifically sound, needs to be carried out and should
be financed, and that he is capable of handling the proposed topic. The
initial, exploratory contact between the student and potential supervisor is
discussed in more detail towards the end of the book (see section 11.2).
Generally speaking, a research proposal has all the structural elements
that characterise a scientific study, presented with the necessary depth and
scope, so that the readers can assess its viability. Irrespective of the
research field and the methodology to be adopted, a research proposal
needs to answer three fundamental questions: “What is the research
8 Chapter One

topic?”, “Why is the study being done?” and “How will it be carried out?”
Work on the research proposal can be viewed as a preparatory or
transitional phase between guided learning and independent research.
The research proposal therefore provides all the information that will
convince the reader that it is an important research idea, that the researcher
is versed in the relevant literature and the key points of the broader
research field, and that the methodology has been adequately developed.
Of course, the quality of a research proposal is not only dependent on its
scientific soundness, but also on the quality of the writing. An exceptionally
well-planned study runs the risk of being rejected if the proposal contains
ambiguities and is shoddily written. It is therefore worth checking it
meticulously for any spelling, syntactical or other errors.
Quite simply, the viability of a proposed study is directly proportional
to the quality of the submitted research proposal (Baker & Foy, 2008). A
sloppy proposal may doom the study to failure, even if it is accepted by
the review committee. A superior proposal not only lays a solid foundation
for success but will also impress the review committee, especially if the
researcher does not have any established research experience.
The proposal is also a type of contract between the researcher and the
institution at which the proposed study will be carried out. It provides a
common point of reference that the one contracting party can invoke if the
other party fails to do as agreed in the course of the research project. Just
as in any clearly defined contract, the scientific contract does not (or
should not) have any fine print that could serve as an excuse for the
deliberate or unintentional failure to observe its terms. Before taking a
detailed look at all the aspects of a research proposal in the chapters that
follow, let us try to grasp its three basic elements: the preparatory mental
work, the subsequent organisation of the work and arguments, and the
writing of the actual proposal.
The research proposal gives rise to a plethora of ideas and arguments
that have to be sorted. The first step would be to organise this deluge of
ideas with the help of a mind map. In its basic form, the map outlines the
key theories and research methods. Each theory and method can be
independently expanded, leading to a new mind map. Its main purpose is
to remind its creator about the decisions taken. The next step is to organise
the constituent parts of the mind map into logically ordered questions with
points and arguments for each question. It goes without saying that this
organisation is usually preceded by many fruitless efforts and
disappointments that are the companions of any complex human activity.
Mind mapping will result in a research proposal as soon as fully realised,
analytical and logical arguments have been formulated. The above outline
 Introducing the Research Proposal 9

will eventually evolve into a flowing, coherent piece of writing, which will
most likely be a multifaceted process. In other words, the researcher will
have to make repeated efforts until he has formed a fully developed plan to
propose for a future research project.
This repeat process often leads to dead ends, is not linear, and so
causes frustration and disappointment. The research proposal brings to
light the other, unseen side of the real research experience. Bargar and
Duncan (1982) frown on the stylised presentation of research results,
where scientists conceal their real, personal experiences, which may involve
intuitive efforts, temporary interruptions owing to various constraints, and
the extensive recycling of concepts and perspectives. Thus, the research
proposal should offer an inside look at the research process, since it is a
retrospective tale of the study to be conducted. In other words, in
filmmaking terms, the research proposal is like a trailer, showing only
selected scenes from the film. In these scenes, the viewer takes a look at
the “must”, “want” and “can” aspects of the proposed research.