How to Write a Research Proposal
Writing a research paper doesn’t necessarily have to be rocket science. On the contrary, it is rather simple once you know how to do it. No matter what the topic, you need to properly understand what a research proposal means.
The purpose of writing a research proposal is to show others that you have a potential research project and have the ability and competence to complete it.
It should contain all the necessary elements involved in the research process and pass critical information along to readers so that they can form an idea about the proposed study.
No matter what methodology you use, your research proposal should elaborate what you want to accomplish, what is the reason that you want to do it and what steps will you take to do it. Everything in your proposal must be crystal clear and demonstrate sound judgement.
Remember that both research writing and research proposals should be delivered with quality in mind. Having both properly balanced, your writing would become compelling and interesting to read while your research proposal will be coherent and clear. This will make your proposal more acceptable to the authorities.
The Research Proposal Template
The Research Proposal is a complete description of the intended research, developed under the supervision of the assigned supervisor. Through the full proposal, the student needs to demonstrate convincingly that the study will make a contribution to a public health issue or problem. The full research proposal must be between 5 and 10 pages and should present the following:
- Brief Introduction
- Background and statement of the problem (this in the light of a thorough literature review)
- Research question or hypothesis, aim and objectives
- Study design (type of study)
- Study population and sampling
- Data collection methods and instruments
- Data analysis methods – if applicable statistical planning must be fully addressed, or the candidate should provide evidence that statistics are not required.
- Mechanisms to assure the quality of the study – e.g. control of bias, safe storage of data
- Study period – Timetable for completion of the project
- Participants in the study – all people involved in the study, and the role they play, should be identified.*
- Ethical considerations
- Resources required for the study, including budget if applicable
- Appendices (copy of questionnaire, consent forms, etc.)
Here is how you outline a research proposal:
Your title should clearly tell reader what to expect. It should provide insights to your proposal while indicating independent and dependent variables. Try to think of a title that is both informative and appealing. An effectual title will leave a good impression on the reader and compels him/her to further read your proposal.
Abstract can be defined as a brief summary of what readers will find in the research proposal. It should contain a research question, hypothesis (if any), the operandi and discoveries. You can describe the procedure further by including the design, sample or any utensils that’ll be used.
First off, you need to clearly speak of what problem or issues the research is focused on and support it with some background and context. You want to frame your research question in a focused context, so that its importance becomes immediately apparent. This depends on your creativity and how well you understand the depth of the problems involved in the research. The more knowledge you have on your research, the easier it becomes to think clearly and write a stellar research proposal.
Next, you’ll need to define the issues and problems that lead to your research. You’ll continue further and explain the independent and dependent variables of your experiment; defining the phenomenon that you are eager to study is an option too. If you have any hypothesis in your research, do explain it afterwards and conclude your introduction by delivering a clear delimitation focus. You can also define significant concepts, but again, this can be seen as optional.
Although literature review is something that is attached to the introduction section, it is recommended that you make a separate section for it because that’s how professors prefer it. This is because it provides a more concise review to the reader.
Here are some factors:
Literature review clarifies that you are not duplicating the work of others.
It also gives credibility to people from whom you have created your research.
Reveals how well-versed you are on the research problem.
Denotes how well you understand theoretical and research issues related to your research question.
Reveals how critically you can assess the literature information.
Demonstrates that you are able to combine and produce the literature.
It delivers a conceptual model of what your research is all about and provides new insights on theoretical concepts and problems.
Compels your reader that your research proposal will make an important and considerable handout to the literature .
That’s about it! You are now armed with the necessary tools to write a highly compelling research proposal on genetics in the 21st century. In case you missed the previous guide where we provided 20 topics on genetics in the 21st century along with a sample research paper, check that out and revisit our very first guide containing 12 facts on genetics in the 21st century for an academic research paper to get a better idea of how it all fits together.
Research Proposal Writing Tutorial
Research Proposal Sample
A Proposal to Research the Storage Facility
for Spent Nuclear Fuel at Yucca Mountain
Nuclear power plants produce more than 20 percent of the electricity used in the United States [Murray, 1989]. Unfortunately, nuclear fission, the process used to create this large amount energy, creates significant amounts of high level radioactive waste. More than 30,000 metric tons of nuclear waste have arisen from U.S. commercial reactors as well as high level nuclear weapons waste, such as uranium and plutonium [Roush, 1995]. Because of the build-up of this waste, some power plants will be forced to shut down. To avoid losing an important source of energy, a safe and economical place to keep this waste is necessary. This document proposes a literature review of whether Yucca Mountain is a suitable site for a nuclear waste repository. The proposed review will discuss the economical and environmental aspects of a national storage facility. This proposal includes my methods for gathering information, a schedule for completing the review, and my qualifications.
Statement of Problem
On January 1, 1998, the Department of Energy (DOE) must accept spent nuclear fuel from commercial plants for permanent storage [Clark, 1997]. However, the DOE is undecided on where to put this high level radioactive waste. Yucca Mountain, located in Nevada, is a proposed site.There are many questions regarding the safety of the Yucca Mountain waste repository. Researchers at Los Alamos National Laboratory disagree over the long-term safety of the proposed high level nuclear waste site located in Nevada. In 1994, Charles Bowman, a researcher at Los Alamos, developed a theory claiming that years of storing waste in the mountain may actually start a nuclear chain reaction and explode, similar to an atomic bomb [Taubes, 1995]. The stir caused by theory suggests that researchers have not explored all sides of the safety issue concerning potentially hazardous situations at Yucca Mountain.Bowman’s theory that Yucca Mountain could explode is based upon the idea that enough waste will eventually disperse through the rock to create a critical mass. A critical mass is an amount of fissile material, such as plutonium, containing enough mass to start a neutron chain reaction [Murray, 1989]. Bowman argues that if this chain reaction were started underground, the rocks in the ground would help keep the system compressed and speed up the chain reaction [Taubes, 1995]. A chain reaction formed underground could then generate huge amounts of energy in a fraction of a second, resulting in a nuclear blast. A nuclear explosion of this magnitude would emit large amounts of radioactivity into the air and ground water.Another safety concern is the possibility of a volcanic eruption in Yucca Mountain. The long-term nuclear waste storage facility needs to remain stable for at least 10,000 years to allow the radioactive isotopes to decay to natural levels [Clark, 1997]. There are at least a dozen young volcanoes within 40 kilometers of the proposed Yucca Mountain waste site [Weiss, 1996]. The proximity of Yucca Mountain to these volcanoes makes it possible to have a volcanic eruption pass through the spent fuel waste repository. Such a volcanic eruption could release damaging amounts of radioactivity to the environment.
I propose to review the available literature about using Yucca Mountain as a possible repository for spent nuclear fuel. In this review I will achieve the following two goals:(1) explain the criteria for a suitable repository of high-level radioactive waste; and
(2) determine whether Yucca Mountain meets these criteria.According to the Department of Energy (DOE), a repository for high-level radioactive waste must meet several criteria including safety, location, and economics [Roush, 1995]. Safety includes not only the effect of the repository on people near the site, but also people along the transportation routes to the site. In my research I will consider both groups of people. As far as location, a waste site cannot be in an area with a large population or near a ground water supply. Also, because one of the most significant factors in determining the life span of a possible repository is how long the waste storage canisters will remain in tact, the waste site must be located in a dry climate to eliminate the moisture that can cause the waste canisters to corrode. The economics involved in selecting a site is another criterion. At present, the Department of Energy (DOE) has spent more than 1.7 billion dollars on the Yucca Mountain project [Taubes, 1995]. For that reason, much pressure exists to select Yucca Mountain as a repository site; otherwise, this money would have been wasted. Other costs, though, have to be considered. For instance, how economical is it to transport radioactive waste across several states to a single national site? I will try to account for as many of these other costs as possible.After explaining the criteria, I will assess how well Yucca Mountain meets those criteria. In this assessment, I will not assign a numerical score for each criterion. Rather, I will discuss qualitatively how well Yucca Mountain meets each criterion. In some situations, disagreement exists among experts as to how well Yucca Mountain meets a criterion. In such cases, I will present both sides. In this assessment, only Yucca Mountain will be considered as a possible site. Although many sites in the United States could meet the DOE’s established criteria, I will consider only Yucca Mountain because the DOE is considering only Yucca Mountain [Taube, 1995].
Plan of Action
This section presents my plan for obtaining the objectives discussed in the previous section. There has been an increase of interest in the nuclear industry concerning the Yucca Mountain site because of the January 1,1998, deadline for the DOE. Several journal articles and papers discussing the possibility of Yucca Mountain as a spent fuel repository in our near future have surfaced as a consequence of that interest. These articles and books about the dangers of nuclear waste should provide sufficient information for me to complete my review. The following two paragraphs will discuss how I will use these sources in my research.The first goal of my research is to explain the criteria for determining whether a nuclear waste repository is suitable. For example, will the rock structure be able to withstand human invasion in the future [Clark, 1997]? What will happen if the waste containers corrode and do not last as long as predicted? Will the natural setting contain the waste? To achieve this goal, I will rely on “Background on 40 CFR Part 197 Environmental Standards for Yucca Mountain” [Clark, 1997], the DOE Yucca Mountain home page , and the book Understanding Radioactive Waste [Murray, 1989].A second goal of my literature review is to evaluate Yucca Mountain meets those criteria. I will base my evaluation on the sources mentioned above as well as specific Environmental Protection Agency standards. I also intend to research the validity of possible environmental disasters, such as the explosion theory. To accomplish this goal, I will rely on the paper presented by Clark , and on the book Blowup at Yucca Mountain [Taubes, 1995].Because engineering students are the primary audience for my proposed research topic and may not be familiar with the history of nuclear waste, I will provide a background on past methods used for waste storage. People in the nuclear field with some knowledge of the waste problem facing the industry may be a secondary audience.
This section presents my schedule, costs, and qualifications for completing the proposed research. This research culminates in a formal report, which will be completed by December 5, 1997. To reach this goal, I will follow the schedule presented in Figure 1. Since I already possess literature on the subject of Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste site, most of my time will be spent sorting through the literature to find key results, and presenting those results to the audience.
Figure 1. Schedule for completion of the literature review. The formal presentation will be on October 27, and the formal report will be completed by December 5.
Given that all my sources are available through the University of Wisconsin library system, there is no appreciable cost associated with performing this review, unless one takes into consideration the amount of tuition spent on maintaining the university libraries. The only other minor costs are photocopying articles, creating transparencies for my presentation, printing my report, and binding my report. I estimate these expenses will not exceed $20.I am a senior in the Engineering Physics Department at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, majoring in nuclear engineering and physics. I have taken several classes related to nuclear waste, economics, and environmental studies. I believe that these courses will aid me in preparing the proposed review. For further information about my qualifications, see the attached resume.
More than 30,000 metric tons of nuclear waste have arisen from U.S. commercial reactors as well as high level nuclear weapons waste, such as uranium and plutonium [Roush, 1995]. This document has proposed research to evaluate the possibility of using Yucca Mountain as a possible repository for this spent nuclear fuel. The proposed research will achieve the following goals: (1) explain the criteria necessary to make a suitable high level radioactive waste repository, and (2) determine if Yucca Mountain meets these criteria. The research will include a formal presentation on November 11 and a formal report on December 5.