what is overview in research proposal

What (Exactly) Is A Research Proposal?

A simple explainer with examples + free template.

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Reviewed By: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | June 2020 (Updated April 2023)

Whether you’re nearing the end of your degree and your dissertation is on the horizon, or you’re planning to apply for a PhD program, chances are you’ll need to craft a convincing research proposal . If you’re on this page, you’re probably unsure exactly what the research proposal is all about. Well, you’ve come to the right place.

Overview: Research Proposal Basics

• What a research proposal is
• What a research proposal needs to cover
• How to structure your research proposal
• Example /sample proposals
• Proposal writing FAQs
• Key takeaways & additional resources

What is a research proposal?

Simply put, a research proposal is a structured, formal document that explains what you plan to research (your research topic), why it’s worth researching (your justification), and how  you plan to investigate it (your methodology). 

The purpose of the research proposal (its job, so to speak) is to convince  your research supervisor, committee or university that your research is  suitable  (for the requirements of the degree program) and  manageable  (given the time and resource constraints you will face). 

The most important word here is “ convince ” – in other words, your research proposal needs to  sell  your research idea (to whoever is going to approve it). If it doesn’t convince them (of its suitability and manageability), you’ll need to revise and resubmit . This will cost you valuable time, which will either delay the start of your research or eat into its time allowance (which is bad news). 

What goes into a research proposal?

A good dissertation or thesis proposal needs to cover the “ what “, “ why ” and” how ” of the proposed study. Let’s look at each of these attributes in a little more detail:

Your proposal needs to clearly articulate your research topic . This needs to be specific and unambiguous . Your research topic should make it clear exactly what you plan to research and in what context. Here’s an example of a well-articulated research topic:

An investigation into the factors which impact female Generation Y consumer’s likelihood to promote a specific makeup brand to their peers: a British context

As you can see, this topic is extremely clear. From this one line we can see exactly:

• What’s being investigated – factors that make people promote or advocate for a brand of a specific makeup brand
• Who it involves – female Gen-Y consumers
• In what context – the United Kingdom

So, make sure that your research proposal provides a detailed explanation of your research topic . If possible, also briefly outline your research aims and objectives , and perhaps even your research questions (although in some cases you’ll only develop these at a later stage). Needless to say, don’t start writing your proposal until you have a clear topic in mind , or you’ll end up waffling and your research proposal will suffer as a result of this.

Need a helping hand?

As we touched on earlier, it’s not good enough to simply propose a research topic – you need to justify why your topic is original . In other words, what makes it  unique ? What gap in the current literature does it fill? If it’s simply a rehash of the existing research, it’s probably not going to get approval – it needs to be fresh.

But,  originality  alone is not enough. Once you’ve ticked that box, you also need to justify why your proposed topic is  important . In other words, what value will it add to the world if you achieve your research aims?

As an example, let’s look at the sample research topic we mentioned earlier (factors impacting brand advocacy). In this case, if the research could uncover relevant factors, these findings would be very useful to marketers in the cosmetics industry, and would, therefore, have commercial value . That is a clear justification for the research.

So, when you’re crafting your research proposal, remember that it’s not enough for a topic to simply be unique. It needs to be useful and value-creating – and you need to convey that value in your proposal. If you’re struggling to find a research topic that makes the cut, watch  our video covering how to find a research topic .

It’s all good and well to have a great topic that’s original and valuable, but you’re not going to convince anyone to approve it without discussing the practicalities – in other words:

• How will you actually undertake your research (i.e., your methodology)?
• Is your research methodology appropriate given your research aims?
• Is your approach manageable given your constraints (time, money, etc.)?

While it’s generally not expected that you’ll have a fully fleshed-out methodology at the proposal stage, you’ll likely still need to provide a high-level overview of your research methodology . Here are some important questions you’ll need to address in your research proposal:

• Will you take a qualitative , quantitative or mixed -method approach?
• What sampling strategy will you adopt?
• How will you collect your data (e.g., interviews, surveys, etc)?
• How will you analyse your data (e.g., descriptive and inferential statistics , content analysis, discourse analysis, etc, .)?
• What potential limitations will your methodology carry?

So, be sure to give some thought to the practicalities of your research and have at least a basic methodological plan before you start writing up your proposal. If this all sounds rather intimidating, the video below provides a good introduction to research methodology and the key choices you’ll need to make.

How To Structure A Research Proposal

Now that we’ve covered the key points that need to be addressed in a proposal, you may be wondering, “ But how is a research proposal structured? “.

While the exact structure and format required for a research proposal differs from university to university, there are four “essential ingredients” that commonly make up the structure of a research proposal:

• A rich introduction and background to the proposed research
• An initial literature review covering the existing research
• An overview of the proposed research methodology
• A discussion regarding the practicalities (project plans, timelines, etc.)

In the video below, we unpack each of these four sections, step by step.

Research Proposal Examples/Samples

In the video below, we provide a detailed walkthrough of two successful research proposals (Master’s and PhD-level), as well as our popular free proposal template.

Proposal Writing FAQs

How long should a research proposal be.

This varies tremendously, depending on the university, the field of study (e.g., social sciences vs natural sciences), and the level of the degree (e.g. undergraduate, Masters or PhD) – so it’s always best to check with your university what their specific requirements are before you start planning your proposal.

As a rough guide, a formal research proposal at Masters-level often ranges between 2000-3000 words, while a PhD-level proposal can be far more detailed, ranging from 5000-8000 words. In some cases, a rough outline of the topic is all that’s needed, while in other cases, universities expect a very detailed proposal that essentially forms the first three chapters of the dissertation or thesis.

The takeaway – be sure to check with your institution before you start writing.

How do I choose a topic for my research proposal?

Finding a good research topic is a process that involves multiple steps. We cover the topic ideation process in this video post.

How do I write a literature review for my proposal?

While you typically won’t need a comprehensive literature review at the proposal stage, you still need to demonstrate that you’re familiar with the key literature and are able to synthesise it. We explain the literature review process here.

How do I create a timeline and budget for my proposal?

We explain how to craft a project plan/timeline and budget in Research Proposal Bootcamp .

Which referencing format should I use in my research proposal?

The expectations and requirements regarding formatting and referencing vary from institution to institution. Therefore, you’ll need to check this information with your university.

What common proposal writing mistakes do I need to look out for?

We’ve create a video post about some of the most common mistakes students make when writing a proposal – you can access that here . If you’re short on time, here’s a quick summary:

• The research topic is too broad (or just poorly articulated).
• The research aims, objectives and questions don’t align.
• The research topic is not well justified.
• The study has a weak theoretical foundation.
• The research design is not well articulated well enough.
• Poor writing and sloppy presentation.
• Poor project planning and risk management.
• Not following the university’s specific criteria.

Key Takeaways & Additional Resources

As you write up your research proposal, remember the all-important core purpose:  to convince . Your research proposal needs to sell your study in terms of suitability and viability. So, focus on crafting a convincing narrative to ensure a strong proposal.

At the same time, pay close attention to your university’s requirements. While we’ve covered the essentials here, every institution has its own set of expectations and it’s essential that you follow these to maximise your chances of approval.

By the way, we’ve got plenty more resources to help you fast-track your research proposal. Here are some of our most popular resources to get you started:

• Proposal Writing 101 : A Introductory Webinar
• Research Proposal Bootcamp : The Ultimate Online Course
• Template : A basic template to help you craft your proposal

If you’re looking for 1-on-1 support with your research proposal, be sure to check out our private coaching service , where we hold your hand through the proposal development process (and the entire research journey), step by step.

Psst… there’s more!

This post is an extract from our bestselling short course, Research Proposal Bootcamp . If you want to work smart, you don't want to miss this .

You Might Also Like:

51 Comments

I truly enjoyed this video, as it was eye-opening to what I have to do in the preparation of preparing a Research proposal.

I would be interested in getting some coaching.

I real appreciate on your elaboration on how to develop research proposal,the video explains each steps clearly.

Thank you for the video. It really assisted me and my niece. I am a PhD candidate and she is an undergraduate student. It is at times, very difficult to guide a family member but with this video, my job is done.

In view of the above, I welcome more coaching.

Wonderful guidelines, thanks

This is very helpful. Would love to continue even as I prepare for starting my masters next year.

Thanks for the work done, the text was helpful to me

Bundle of thanks to you for the research proposal guide it was really good and useful if it is possible please send me the sample of research proposal

You’re most welcome. We don’t have any research proposals that we can share (the students own the intellectual property), but you might find our research proposal template useful: https://gradcoach.com/research-proposal-template/

Cheruiyot Moses Kipyegon

Thanks alot. It was an eye opener that came timely enough before my imminent proposal defense. Thanks, again

thank you very much your lesson is very interested may God be with you

I am an undergraduate student (First Degree) preparing to write my project,this video and explanation had shed more light to me thanks for your efforts keep it up.

Very useful. I am grateful.

this is a very a good guidance on research proposal, for sure i have learnt something

Wonderful guidelines for writing a research proposal, I am a student of m.phil( education), this guideline is suitable for me. Thanks

You’re welcome 🙂

Thank you, this was so helpful.

A really great and insightful video. It opened my eyes as to how to write a research paper. I would like to receive more guidance for writing my research paper from your esteemed faculty.

Thank you, great insights

Thank you, great insights, thank you so much, feeling edified

Wow thank you, great insights, thanks a lot

Thank you. This is a great insight. I am a student preparing for a PhD program. I am requested to write my Research Proposal as part of what I am required to submit before my unconditional admission. I am grateful having listened to this video which will go a long way in helping me to actually choose a topic of interest and not just any topic as well as to narrow down the topic and be specific about it. I indeed need more of this especially as am trying to choose a topic suitable for a DBA am about embarking on. Thank you once more. The video is indeed helpful.

Have learnt a lot just at the right time. Thank you so much.

thank you very much ,because have learn a lot things concerning research proposal and be blessed u for your time that you providing to help us

Hi. For my MSc medical education research, please evaluate this topic for me: Training Needs Assessment of Faculty in Medical Training Institutions in Kericho and Bomet Counties

I have really learnt a lot based on research proposal and it’s formulation

Thank you. I learn much from the proposal since it is applied

Your effort is much appreciated – you have good articulation.

You have good articulation.

I do applaud your simplified method of explaining the subject matter, which indeed has broaden my understanding of the subject matter. Definitely this would enable me writing a sellable research proposal.

This really helping

Great! I liked your tutoring on how to find a research topic and how to write a research proposal. Precise and concise. Thank you very much. Will certainly share this with my students. Research made simple indeed.

Thank you very much. I an now assist my students effectively.

Thank you very much. I can now assist my students effectively.

I need any research proposal

Thank you for these videos. I will need chapter by chapter assistance in writing my MSc dissertation

Very helpfull

the videos are very good and straight forward

thanks so much for this wonderful presentations, i really enjoyed it to the fullest wish to learn more from you

Thank you very much. I learned a lot from your lecture.

I really enjoy the in-depth knowledge on research proposal you have given. me. You have indeed broaden my understanding and skills. Thank you

interesting session this has equipped me with knowledge as i head for exams in an hour’s time, am sure i get A++

This article was most informative and easy to understand. I now have a good idea of how to write my research proposal.

Thank you very much.

Wow, this literature is very resourceful and interesting to read. I enjoyed it and I intend reading it every now then.

Thank you for the clarity

Thank you. Very helpful.

Thank you very much for this essential piece. I need 1o1 coaching, unfortunately, your service is not available in my country. Anyways, a very important eye-opener. I really enjoyed it. A thumb up to Gradcoach

What is JAM? Please explain.

Thank you so much for these videos. They are extremely helpful! God bless!

very very wonderful…

thank you for the video but i need a written example

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Assignments

• Annotated Bibliography
• Analyzing a Scholarly Journal Article
• Group Presentations
• Dealing with Nervousness
• Using Visual Aids
• Grading Someone Else's Paper
• Types of Structured Group Activities
• Group Project Survival Skills
• Leading a Class Discussion
• Multiple Book Review Essay
• Reviewing Collected Works
• Writing a Case Analysis Paper
• Writing a Case Study
• About Informed Consent
• Writing Field Notes
• Writing a Policy Memo
• Writing a Reflective Paper
• Writing a Research Proposal
• Generative AI and Writing
• Acknowledgments

The goal of a research proposal is twofold: to present and justify the need to study a research problem and to present the practical ways in which the proposed study should be conducted. The design elements and procedures for conducting research are governed by standards of the predominant discipline in which the problem resides, therefore, the guidelines for research proposals are more exacting and less formal than a general project proposal. Research proposals contain extensive literature reviews. They must provide persuasive evidence that a need exists for the proposed study. In addition to providing a rationale, a proposal describes detailed methodology for conducting the research consistent with requirements of the professional or academic field and a statement on anticipated outcomes and benefits derived from the study's completion.

Krathwohl, David R. How to Prepare a Dissertation Proposal: Suggestions for Students in Education and the Social and Behavioral Sciences . Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2005.

How to Approach Writing a Research Proposal

Your professor may assign the task of writing a research proposal for the following reasons:

• Develop your skills in thinking about and designing a comprehensive research study;
• Learn how to conduct a comprehensive review of the literature to determine that the research problem has not been adequately addressed or has been answered ineffectively and, in so doing, become better at locating pertinent scholarship related to your topic;
• Improve your general research and writing skills;
• Practice identifying the logical steps that must be taken to accomplish one's research goals;
• Critically review, examine, and consider the use of different methods for gathering and analyzing data related to the research problem; and,
• Nurture a sense of inquisitiveness within yourself and to help see yourself as an active participant in the process of conducting scholarly research.

A proposal should contain all the key elements involved in designing a completed research study, with sufficient information that allows readers to assess the validity and usefulness of your proposed study. The only elements missing from a research proposal are the findings of the study and your analysis of those findings. Finally, an effective proposal is judged on the quality of your writing and, therefore, it is important that your proposal is coherent, clear, and compelling.

Regardless of the research problem you are investigating and the methodology you choose, all research proposals must address the following questions:

• What do you plan to accomplish? Be clear and succinct in defining the research problem and what it is you are proposing to investigate.
• Why do you want to do the research? In addition to detailing your research design, you also must conduct a thorough review of the literature and provide convincing evidence that it is a topic worthy of in-depth study. A successful research proposal must answer the "So What?" question.
• How are you going to conduct the research? Be sure that what you propose is doable. If you're having difficulty formulating a research problem to propose investigating, go here for strategies in developing a problem to study.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

• Failure to be concise . A research proposal must be focused and not be "all over the map" or diverge into unrelated tangents without a clear sense of purpose.
• Failure to cite landmark works in your literature review . Proposals should be grounded in foundational research that lays a foundation for understanding the development and scope of the the topic and its relevance.
• Failure to delimit the contextual scope of your research [e.g., time, place, people, etc.]. As with any research paper, your proposed study must inform the reader how and in what ways the study will frame the problem.
• Failure to develop a coherent and persuasive argument for the proposed research . This is critical. In many workplace settings, the research proposal is a formal document intended to argue for why a study should be funded.
• Sloppy or imprecise writing, or poor grammar . Although a research proposal does not represent a completed research study, there is still an expectation that it is well-written and follows the style and rules of good academic writing.
• Too much detail on minor issues, but not enough detail on major issues . Your proposal should focus on only a few key research questions in order to support the argument that the research needs to be conducted. Minor issues, even if valid, can be mentioned but they should not dominate the overall narrative.

Procter, Margaret. The Academic Proposal.  The Lab Report. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Sanford, Keith. Information for Students: Writing a Research Proposal. Baylor University; Wong, Paul T. P. How to Write a Research Proposal. International Network on Personal Meaning. Trinity Western University; Writing Academic Proposals: Conferences, Articles, and Books. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Writing a Research Proposal. University Library. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Structure and Writing Style

Beginning the Proposal Process

As with writing most college-level academic papers, research proposals are generally organized the same way throughout most social science disciplines. The text of proposals generally vary in length between ten and thirty-five pages, followed by the list of references. However, before you begin, read the assignment carefully and, if anything seems unclear, ask your professor whether there are any specific requirements for organizing and writing the proposal.

A good place to begin is to ask yourself a series of questions:

• What do I want to study?
• Why is the topic important?
• How is it significant within the subject areas covered in my class?
• What problems will it help solve?
• How does it build upon [and hopefully go beyond] research already conducted on the topic?
• What exactly should I plan to do, and can I get it done in the time available?

In general, a compelling research proposal should document your knowledge of the topic and demonstrate your enthusiasm for conducting the study. Approach it with the intention of leaving your readers feeling like, "Wow, that's an exciting idea and I can’t wait to see how it turns out!"

Most proposals should include the following sections:

I.  Introduction

In the real world of higher education, a research proposal is most often written by scholars seeking grant funding for a research project or it's the first step in getting approval to write a doctoral dissertation. Even if this is just a course assignment, treat your introduction as the initial pitch of an idea based on a thorough examination of the significance of a research problem. After reading the introduction, your readers should not only have an understanding of what you want to do, but they should also be able to gain a sense of your passion for the topic and to be excited about the study's possible outcomes. Note that most proposals do not include an abstract [summary] before the introduction.

Think about your introduction as a narrative written in two to four paragraphs that succinctly answers the following four questions :

• What is the central research problem?
• What is the topic of study related to that research problem?
• What methods should be used to analyze the research problem?
• Answer the "So What?" question by explaining why this is important research, what is its significance, and why should someone reading the proposal care about the outcomes of the proposed study?

II.  Background and Significance

This is where you explain the scope and context of your proposal and describe in detail why it's important. It can be melded into your introduction or you can create a separate section to help with the organization and narrative flow of your proposal. Approach writing this section with the thought that you can’t assume your readers will know as much about the research problem as you do. Note that this section is not an essay going over everything you have learned about the topic; instead, you must choose what is most relevant in explaining the aims of your research.

To that end, while there are no prescribed rules for establishing the significance of your proposed study, you should attempt to address some or all of the following:

• State the research problem and give a more detailed explanation about the purpose of the study than what you stated in the introduction. This is particularly important if the problem is complex or multifaceted .
• Present the rationale of your proposed study and clearly indicate why it is worth doing; be sure to answer the "So What? question [i.e., why should anyone care?].
• Describe the major issues or problems examined by your research. This can be in the form of questions to be addressed. Be sure to note how your proposed study builds on previous assumptions about the research problem.
• Explain the methods you plan to use for conducting your research. Clearly identify the key sources you intend to use and explain how they will contribute to your analysis of the topic.
• Describe the boundaries of your proposed research in order to provide a clear focus. Where appropriate, state not only what you plan to study, but what aspects of the research problem will be excluded from the study.
• If necessary, provide definitions of key concepts, theories, or terms.

III.  Literature Review

Connected to the background and significance of your study is a section of your proposal devoted to a more deliberate review and synthesis of prior studies related to the research problem under investigation . The purpose here is to place your project within the larger whole of what is currently being explored, while at the same time, demonstrating to your readers that your work is original and innovative. Think about what questions other researchers have asked, what methodological approaches they have used, and what is your understanding of their findings and, when stated, their recommendations. Also pay attention to any suggestions for further research.

Since a literature review is information dense, it is crucial that this section is intelligently structured to enable a reader to grasp the key arguments underpinning your proposed study in relation to the arguments put forth by other researchers. A good strategy is to break the literature into "conceptual categories" [themes] rather than systematically or chronologically describing groups of materials one at a time. Note that conceptual categories generally reveal themselves after you have read most of the pertinent literature on your topic so adding new categories is an on-going process of discovery as you review more studies. How do you know you've covered the key conceptual categories underlying the research literature? Generally, you can have confidence that all of the significant conceptual categories have been identified if you start to see repetition in the conclusions or recommendations that are being made.

NOTE: Do not shy away from challenging the conclusions made in prior research as a basis for supporting the need for your proposal. Assess what you believe is missing and state how previous research has failed to adequately examine the issue that your study addresses. Highlighting the problematic conclusions strengthens your proposal. For more information on writing literature reviews, GO HERE .

To help frame your proposal's review of prior research, consider the "five C’s" of writing a literature review:

• Cite , so as to keep the primary focus on the literature pertinent to your research problem.
• Compare the various arguments, theories, methodologies, and findings expressed in the literature: what do the authors agree on? Who applies similar approaches to analyzing the research problem?
• Contrast the various arguments, themes, methodologies, approaches, and controversies expressed in the literature: describe what are the major areas of disagreement, controversy, or debate among scholars?
• Critique the literature: Which arguments are more persuasive, and why? Which approaches, findings, and methodologies seem most reliable, valid, or appropriate, and why? Pay attention to the verbs you use to describe what an author says/does [e.g., asserts, demonstrates, argues, etc.].
• Connect the literature to your own area of research and investigation: how does your own work draw upon, depart from, synthesize, or add a new perspective to what has been said in the literature?

IV.  Research Design and Methods

This section must be well-written and logically organized because you are not actually doing the research, yet, your reader must have confidence that you have a plan worth pursuing . The reader will never have a study outcome from which to evaluate whether your methodological choices were the correct ones. Thus, the objective here is to convince the reader that your overall research design and proposed methods of analysis will correctly address the problem and that the methods will provide the means to effectively interpret the potential results. Your design and methods should be unmistakably tied to the specific aims of your study.

Describe the overall research design by building upon and drawing examples from your review of the literature. Consider not only methods that other researchers have used, but methods of data gathering that have not been used but perhaps could be. Be specific about the methodological approaches you plan to undertake to obtain information, the techniques you would use to analyze the data, and the tests of external validity to which you commit yourself [i.e., the trustworthiness by which you can generalize from your study to other people, places, events, and/or periods of time].

When describing the methods you will use, be sure to cover the following:

• Specify the research process you will undertake and the way you will interpret the results obtained in relation to the research problem. Don't just describe what you intend to achieve from applying the methods you choose, but state how you will spend your time while applying these methods [e.g., coding text from interviews to find statements about the need to change school curriculum; running a regression to determine if there is a relationship between campaign advertising on social media sites and election outcomes in Europe ].
• Keep in mind that the methodology is not just a list of tasks; it is a deliberate argument as to why techniques for gathering information add up to the best way to investigate the research problem. This is an important point because the mere listing of tasks to be performed does not demonstrate that, collectively, they effectively address the research problem. Be sure you clearly explain this.
• Anticipate and acknowledge any potential barriers and pitfalls in carrying out your research design and explain how you plan to address them. No method applied to research in the social and behavioral sciences is perfect, so you need to describe where you believe challenges may exist in obtaining data or accessing information. It's always better to acknowledge this than to have it brought up by your professor!

V.  Preliminary Suppositions and Implications

Just because you don't have to actually conduct the study and analyze the results, doesn't mean you can skip talking about the analytical process and potential implications . The purpose of this section is to argue how and in what ways you believe your research will refine, revise, or extend existing knowledge in the subject area under investigation. Depending on the aims and objectives of your study, describe how the anticipated results will impact future scholarly research, theory, practice, forms of interventions, or policy making. Note that such discussions may have either substantive [a potential new policy], theoretical [a potential new understanding], or methodological [a potential new way of analyzing] significance.   When thinking about the potential implications of your study, ask the following questions:

• What might the results mean in regards to challenging the theoretical framework and underlying assumptions that support the study?
• What suggestions for subsequent research could arise from the potential outcomes of the study?
• What will the results mean to practitioners in the natural settings of their workplace, organization, or community?
• Will the results influence programs, methods, and/or forms of intervention?
• How might the results contribute to the solution of social, economic, or other types of problems?
• Will the results influence policy decisions?
• In what way do individuals or groups benefit should your study be pursued?
• What will be improved or changed as a result of the proposed research?
• How will the results of the study be implemented and what innovations or transformative insights could emerge from the process of implementation?

NOTE:   This section should not delve into idle speculation, opinion, or be formulated on the basis of unclear evidence . The purpose is to reflect upon gaps or understudied areas of the current literature and describe how your proposed research contributes to a new understanding of the research problem should the study be implemented as designed.

ANOTHER NOTE : This section is also where you describe any potential limitations to your proposed study. While it is impossible to highlight all potential limitations because the study has yet to be conducted, you still must tell the reader where and in what form impediments may arise and how you plan to address them.

VI.  Conclusion

The conclusion reiterates the importance or significance of your proposal and provides a brief summary of the entire study . This section should be only one or two paragraphs long, emphasizing why the research problem is worth investigating, why your research study is unique, and how it should advance existing knowledge.

Someone reading this section should come away with an understanding of:

• Why the study should be done;
• The specific purpose of the study and the research questions it attempts to answer;
• The decision for why the research design and methods used where chosen over other options;
• The potential implications emerging from your proposed study of the research problem; and
• A sense of how your study fits within the broader scholarship about the research problem.

VII.  Citations

As with any scholarly research paper, you must cite the sources you used . In a standard research proposal, this section can take two forms, so consult with your professor about which one is preferred.

• References -- a list of only the sources you actually used in creating your proposal.
• Bibliography -- a list of everything you used in creating your proposal, along with additional citations to any key sources relevant to understanding the research problem.

In either case, this section should testify to the fact that you did enough preparatory work to ensure the project will complement and not just duplicate the efforts of other researchers. It demonstrates to the reader that you have a thorough understanding of prior research on the topic.

Most proposal formats have you start a new page and use the heading "References" or "Bibliography" centered at the top of the page. Cited works should always use a standard format that follows the writing style advised by the discipline of your course [e.g., education=APA; history=Chicago] or that is preferred by your professor. This section normally does not count towards the total page length of your research proposal.

Develop a Research Proposal: Writing the Proposal. Office of Library Information Services. Baltimore County Public Schools; Heath, M. Teresa Pereira and Caroline Tynan. “Crafting a Research Proposal.” The Marketing Review 10 (Summer 2010): 147-168; Jones, Mark. “Writing a Research Proposal.” In MasterClass in Geography Education: Transforming Teaching and Learning . Graham Butt, editor. (New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2015), pp. 113-127; Juni, Muhamad Hanafiah. “Writing a Research Proposal.” International Journal of Public Health and Clinical Sciences 1 (September/October 2014): 229-240; Krathwohl, David R. How to Prepare a Dissertation Proposal: Suggestions for Students in Education and the Social and Behavioral Sciences . Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2005; Procter, Margaret. The Academic Proposal. The Lab Report. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Punch, Keith and Wayne McGowan. "Developing and Writing a Research Proposal." In From Postgraduate to Social Scientist: A Guide to Key Skills . Nigel Gilbert, ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2006), 59-81; Wong, Paul T. P. How to Write a Research Proposal. International Network on Personal Meaning. Trinity Western University; Writing Academic Proposals: Conferences , Articles, and Books. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Writing a Research Proposal. University Library. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

• << Previous: Writing a Reflective Paper
• Next: Generative AI and Writing >>
• Last Updated: May 7, 2024 9:45 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/assignments

Reference management. Clean and simple.

How to write a research proposal

What is a research proposal?

What is the purpose of a research proposal , how long should a research proposal be, what should be included in a research proposal, 1. the title page, 2. introduction, 3. literature review, 4. research design, 5. implications, 6. reference list, frequently asked questions about writing a research proposal, related articles.

If you’re in higher education, the term “research proposal” is something you’re likely to be familiar with. But what is it, exactly? You’ll normally come across the need to prepare a research proposal when you’re looking to secure Ph.D. funding.

When you’re trying to find someone to fund your Ph.D. research, a research proposal is essentially your “pitch.”

A research proposal is a concise and coherent summary of your proposed research.

You’ll need to set out the issues that are central to the topic area and how you intend to address them with your research. To do this, you’ll need to give the following:

• an outline of the general area of study within which your research falls
• an overview of how much is currently known about the topic
• a literature review that covers the recent scholarly debate or conversation around the topic

➡️  What is a literature review? Learn more in our guide.

Essentially, you are trying to persuade your institution that you and your project are worth investing their time and money into.

It is the opportunity for you to demonstrate that you have the aptitude for this level of research by showing that you can articulate complex ideas:

It also helps you to find the right supervisor to oversee your research. When you’re writing your research proposal, you should always have this in the back of your mind.

This is the document that potential supervisors will use in determining the legitimacy of your research and, consequently, whether they will invest in you or not. It is therefore incredibly important that you spend some time on getting it right.

Tip: While there may not always be length requirements for research proposals, you should strive to cover everything you need to in a concise way.

If your research proposal is for a bachelor’s or master’s degree, it may only be a few pages long. For a Ph.D., a proposal could be a pretty long document that spans a few dozen pages.

➡️ Research proposals are similar to grant proposals. Learn how to write a grant proposal in our guide.

When you’re writing your proposal, keep in mind its purpose and why you’re writing it. It, therefore, needs to clearly explain the relevance of your research and its context with other discussions on the topic. You need to then explain what approach you will take and why it is feasible.

Generally, your structure should look something like this:

• Introduction
• Literature Review
• Research Design
• Implications

If you follow this structure, you’ll have a comprehensive and coherent proposal that looks and feels professional, without missing out on anything important. We’ll take a deep dive into each of these areas one by one next.

The title page might vary slightly per your area of study but, as a general point, your title page should contain the following:

• The proposed title of your project
• Your supervisor’s name
• The name of your institution and your particular department

Tip: Keep in mind any departmental or institutional guidelines for a research proposal title page. Also, your supervisor may ask for specific details to be added to the page.

The introduction is crucial   to your research proposal as it is your first opportunity to hook the reader in. A good introduction section will introduce your project and its relevance to the field of study.

You’ll want to use this space to demonstrate that you have carefully thought about how to present your project as interesting, original, and important research. A good place to start is by introducing the context of your research problem.

Think about answering these questions:

• What is it you want to research and why?
• How does this research relate to the respective field?
• How much is already known about this area?
• Who might find this research interesting?
• What are the key questions you aim to answer with your research?
• What will the findings of this project add to the topic area?

Your introduction aims to set yourself off on a great footing and illustrate to the reader that you are an expert in your field and that your project has a solid foundation in existing knowledge and theory.

The literature review section answers the question who else is talking about your proposed research topic.

You want to demonstrate that your research will contribute to conversations around the topic and that it will sit happily amongst experts in the field.

➡️ Read more about how to write a literature review .

There are lots of ways you can find relevant information for your literature review, including:

• Research relevant academic sources such as books and journals to find similar conversations around the topic.
• Read through abstracts and bibliographies of your academic sources to look for relevance and further additional resources without delving too deep into articles that are possibly not relevant to you.
• Watch out for heavily-cited works . This should help you to identify authoritative work that you need to read and document.
• Look for any research gaps , trends and patterns, common themes, debates, and contradictions.
• Consider any seminal studies on the topic area as it is likely anticipated that you will address these in your research proposal.

This is where you get down to the real meat of your research proposal. It should be a discussion about the overall approach you plan on taking, and the practical steps you’ll follow in answering the research questions you’ve posed.

So what should you discuss here? Some of the key things you will need to discuss at this point are:

• What form will your research take? Is it qualitative/quantitative/mixed? Will your research be primary or secondary?
• What sources will you use? Who or what will you be studying as part of your research.
• Document your research method. How are you practically going to carry out your research? What tools will you need? What procedures will you use?
• Any practicality issues you foresee. Do you think there will be any obstacles to your anticipated timescale? What resources will you require in carrying out your research?

Your research design should also discuss the potential implications of your research. For example, are you looking to confirm an existing theory or develop a new one?

If you intend to create a basis for further research, you should describe this here.

It is important to explain fully what you want the outcome of your research to look like and what you want to achieve by it. This will help those reading your research proposal to decide if it’s something the field  needs  and  wants,  and ultimately whether they will support you with it.

When you reach the end of your research proposal, you’ll have to compile a list of references for everything you’ve cited above. Ideally, you should keep track of everything from the beginning. Otherwise, this could be a mammoth and pretty laborious task to do.

Consider using a reference manager like Paperpile to format and organize your citations. Paperpile allows you to organize and save your citations for later use and cite them in thousands of citation styles directly in Google Docs, Microsoft Word, or LaTeX.

Your project may also require you to have a timeline, depending on the budget you are requesting. If you need one, you should include it here and explain both the timeline and the budget you need, documenting what should be done at each stage of the research and how much of the budget this will use.

This is the final step, but not one to be missed. You should make sure that you edit and proofread your document so that you can be sure there are no mistakes.

A good idea is to have another person proofread the document for you so that you get a fresh pair of eyes on it. You can even have a professional proofreader do this for you.

This is an important document and you don’t want spelling or grammatical mistakes to get in the way of you and your reader.

➡️ Working on a research proposal for a thesis? Take a look at our guide on how to come up with a topic for your thesis .

A research proposal is a concise and coherent summary of your proposed research. Generally, your research proposal will have a title page, introduction, literature review section, a section about research design and explaining the implications of your research, and a reference list.

A good research proposal is concise and coherent. It has a clear purpose, clearly explains the relevance of your research and its context with other discussions on the topic. A good research proposal explains what approach you will take and why it is feasible.

You need a research proposal to persuade your institution that you and your project are worth investing their time and money into. It is your opportunity to demonstrate your aptitude for this level or research by showing that you can articulate complex ideas clearly, concisely, and critically.

A research proposal is essentially your "pitch" when you're trying to find someone to fund your PhD. It is a clear and concise summary of your proposed research. It gives an outline of the general area of study within which your research falls, it elaborates how much is currently known about the topic, and it highlights any recent debate or conversation around the topic by other academics.

The general answer is: as long as it needs to be to cover everything. The length of your research proposal depends on the requirements from the institution that you are applying to. Make sure to carefully read all the instructions given, and if this specific information is not provided, you can always ask.

We use essential cookies to make Venngage work. By clicking “Accept All Cookies”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts.

Manage Cookies

Cookies and similar technologies collect certain information about how you’re using our website. Some of them are essential, and without them you wouldn’t be able to use Venngage. But others are optional, and you get to choose whether we use them or not.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

These cookies are always on, as they’re essential for making Venngage work, and making it safe. Without these cookies, services you’ve asked for can’t be provided.

Show cookie providers

• Google Login

Functionality Cookies

These cookies help us provide enhanced functionality and personalisation, and remember your settings. They may be set by us or by third party providers.

Performance Cookies

These cookies help us analyze how many people are using Venngage, where they come from and how they're using it. If you opt out of these cookies, we can’t get feedback to make Venngage better for you and all our users.

• Google Analytics

Targeting Cookies

These cookies are set by our advertising partners to track your activity and show you relevant Venngage ads on other sites as you browse the internet.

• Google Tag Manager
• Infographics
• Daily Infographics
• Popular Templates
• Accessibility
• Graphic Design
• Graphs and Charts
• Data Visualization
• Human Resources
• Beginner Guides

Blog Business How to Write a Research Proposal: A Step-by-Step

How to Write a Research Proposal: A Step-by-Step

Written by: Danesh Ramuthi Nov 29, 2023

A research proposal is a structured outline for a planned study on a specific topic. It serves as a roadmap, guiding researchers through the process of converting their research idea into a feasible project. 

The aim of a research proposal is multifold: it articulates the research problem, establishes a theoretical framework, outlines the research methodology and highlights the potential significance of the study. Importantly, it’s a critical tool for scholars seeking grant funding or approval for their research projects.

Crafting a good research proposal requires not only understanding your research topic and methodological approaches but also the ability to present your ideas clearly and persuasively. Explore Venngage’s Proposal Maker and Research Proposals Templates to begin your journey in writing a compelling research proposal.

What to include in a research proposal?

In a research proposal, include a clear statement of your research question or problem, along with an explanation of its significance. This should be followed by a literature review that situates your proposed study within the context of existing research. 

Your proposal should also outline the research methodology, detailing how you plan to conduct your study, including data collection and analysis methods.

Additionally, include a theoretical framework that guides your research approach, a timeline or research schedule, and a budget if applicable. It’s important to also address the anticipated outcomes and potential implications of your study. A well-structured research proposal will clearly communicate your research objectives, methods and significance to the readers.

How to format a research proposal?

Formatting a research proposal involves adhering to a structured outline to ensure clarity and coherence. While specific requirements may vary, a standard research proposal typically includes the following elements:

• Title Page: Must include the title of your research proposal, your name and affiliations. The title should be concise and descriptive of your proposed research.
• Abstract: A brief summary of your proposal, usually not exceeding 250 words. It should highlight the research question, methodology and the potential impact of the study.
• Introduction: Introduces your research question or problem, explains its significance, and states the objectives of your study.
• Literature review: Here, you contextualize your research within existing scholarship, demonstrating your knowledge of the field and how your research will contribute to it.
• Methodology: Outline your research methods, including how you will collect and analyze data. This section should be detailed enough to show the feasibility and thoughtfulness of your approach.
• Timeline: Provide an estimated schedule for your research, breaking down the process into stages with a realistic timeline for each.
• Budget (if applicable): If your research requires funding, include a detailed budget outlining expected cost.
• References/Bibliography: List all sources referenced in your proposal in a consistent citation style.

How to write a research proposal in 11 steps?

Writing a research proposal template in structured steps ensures a comprehensive and coherent presentation of your research project. Let’s look at the explanation for each of the steps here:  

Step 1: Title and Abstract Step 2: Introduction Step 3: Research objectives Step 4: Literature review Step 5: Methodology Step 6: Timeline Step 7: Resources Step 8: Ethical considerations Step 9: Expected outcomes and significance Step 10: References Step 11: Appendices

Step 1: title and abstract.

Select a concise, descriptive title and write an abstract summarizing your research question, objectives, methodology and expected outcomes​​. The abstract should include your research question, the objectives you aim to achieve, the methodology you plan to employ and the anticipated outcomes. 

Step 2: Introduction

In this section, introduce the topic of your research, emphasizing its significance and relevance to the field. Articulate the research problem or question in clear terms and provide background context, which should include an overview of previous research in the field.

Step 3: Research objectives

Here, you’ll need to outline specific, clear and achievable objectives that align with your research problem. These objectives should be well-defined, focused and measurable, serving as the guiding pillars for your study. They help in establishing what you intend to accomplish through your research and provide a clear direction for your investigation.

Step 4: Literature review

In this part, conduct a thorough review of existing literature related to your research topic. This involves a detailed summary of key findings and major contributions from previous research. Identify existing gaps in the literature and articulate how your research aims to fill these gaps. The literature review not only shows your grasp of the subject matter but also how your research will contribute new insights or perspectives to the field.

Step 5: Methodology

Describe the design of your research and the methodologies you will employ. This should include detailed information on data collection methods, instruments to be used and analysis techniques. Justify the appropriateness of these methods for your research​​.

Step 6: Timeline

Construct a detailed timeline that maps out the major milestones and activities of your research project. Break the entire research process into smaller, manageable tasks and assign realistic time frames to each. This timeline should cover everything from the initial research phase to the final submission, including periods for data collection, analysis and report writing. 

It helps in ensuring your project stays on track and demonstrates to reviewers that you have a well-thought-out plan for completing your research efficiently.

Step 7: Resources

Identify all the resources that will be required for your research, such as specific databases, laboratory equipment, software or funding. Provide details on how these resources will be accessed or acquired. 

If your research requires funding, explain how it will be utilized effectively to support various aspects of the project. 

Step 8: Ethical considerations

Address any ethical issues that may arise during your research. This is particularly important for research involving human subjects. Describe the measures you will take to ensure ethical standards are maintained, such as obtaining informed consent, ensuring participant privacy, and adhering to data protection regulations. 

Here, in this section you should reassure reviewers that you are committed to conducting your research responsibly and ethically.

Step 9: Expected outcomes and significance

Articulate the expected outcomes or results of your research. Explain the potential impact and significance of these outcomes, whether in advancing academic knowledge, influencing policy or addressing specific societal or practical issues. 

Step 10: References

Compile a comprehensive list of all the references cited in your proposal. Adhere to a consistent citation style (like APA or MLA) throughout your document. The reference section not only gives credit to the original authors of your sourced information but also strengthens the credibility of your proposal.

Step 11: Appendices

Include additional supporting materials that are pertinent to your research proposal. This can be survey questionnaires, interview guides, detailed data analysis plans or any supplementary information that supports the main text. 

Appendices provide further depth to your proposal, showcasing the thoroughness of your preparation.

Research proposal FAQs

1. how long should a research proposal be.

The length of a research proposal can vary depending on the requirements of the academic institution, funding body or specific guidelines provided. Generally, research proposals range from 500 to 1500 words or about one to a few pages long. It’s important to provide enough detail to clearly convey your research idea, objectives and methodology, while being concise. Always check

2. Why is the research plan pivotal to a research project?

The research plan is pivotal to a research project because it acts as a blueprint, guiding every phase of the study. It outlines the objectives, methodology, timeline and expected outcomes, providing a structured approach and ensuring that the research is systematically conducted. 

A well-crafted plan helps in identifying potential challenges, allocating resources efficiently and maintaining focus on the research goals. It is also essential for communicating the project’s feasibility and importance to stakeholders, such as funding bodies or academic supervisors.

Mastering how to write a research proposal is an essential skill for any scholar, whether in social and behavioral sciences, academic writing or any field requiring scholarly research. From this article, you have learned key components, from the literature review to the research design, helping you develop a persuasive and well-structured proposal.

Remember, a good research proposal not only highlights your proposed research and methodology but also demonstrates its relevance and potential impact.

For additional support, consider utilizing Venngage’s Proposal Maker and Research Proposals Templates , valuable tools in crafting a compelling proposal that stands out.

Whether it’s for grant funding, a research paper or a dissertation proposal, these resources can assist in transforming your research idea into a successful submission.

Discover popular designs

Infographic maker

Brochure maker

White paper online

Newsletter creator

Flyer maker

Timeline maker

Letterhead maker

Mind map maker

Ebook maker

• Visit the University of Nebraska–Lincoln
• Apply to the University of Nebraska–Lincoln
• Give to the University of Nebraska–Lincoln

Search Form

Overview of research process.

The Research Process

Anything you write involves organization and a logical flow of ideas, so understanding the logic of the research process before beginning to write is essential. Simply put, you need to put your writing in the larger context—see the forest before you even attempt to see the trees.

In this brief introductory module, we’ll review the major steps in the research process, conceptualized here as a series of steps within a circle, with each step dependent on the previous one. The circle best depicts the recursive nature of the process; that is, once the process has been completed, the researcher may begin again by refining or expanding on the initial approach, or even pioneering a completely new approach to solving the problem.

Identify a Research Problem

You identify a research problem by first selecting a general topic that’s interesting to you and to the interests and specialties of your research advisor. Once identified, you’ll need to narrow it. For example, if teenage pregnancy is your general topic area, your specific topic could be a comparison of how teenage pregnancy affects young fathers and mothers differently.

Review the Literature

Find out what’s being asked or what’s already been done in the area by doing some exploratory reading. Discuss the topic with your advisor to gain additional insights, explore novel approaches, and begin to develop your research question, purpose statement, and hypothesis(es), if applicable.

Determine Research Question

A good research question is a question worth asking; one that poses a problem worth solving. A good question should:

• Be clear . It must be understandable to you and to others.
• Be researchable . It should be capable of developing into a manageable research design, so data may be collected in relation to it. Extremely abstract terms are unlikely to be suitable.
• Connect with established theory and research . There should be a literature on which you can draw to illuminate how your research question(s) should be approached.
• Be neither too broad nor too narrow. See Appendix A for a brief explanation of the narrowing process and how your research question, purpose statement, and hypothesis(es) are interconnected.

Appendix A Research Questions, Purpose Statement, Hypothesis(es)

Develop Research Methods

Once you’ve finalized your research question, purpose statement, and hypothesis(es), you’ll need to write your research proposal—a detailed management plan for your research project. The proposal is as essential to successful research as an architect’s plans are to the construction of a building.

See Appendix B to view the basic components of a research proposal.

Appendix B Components of a Research Proposal

Collect & Analyze Data

In Practical Research–Planning and Design (2005, 8th Edition), Leedy and Ormrod provide excellent advice for what the researcher does at this stage in the research process. The researcher now

• collects data that potentially relate to the problem,
• arranges the data into a logical organizational structure,
• analyzes and interprets the data to determine their meaning, 
• determines if the data resolve the research problem or not, and
• determines if the data support the hypothesis or not.

Document the Work

Because research reports differ by discipline, the most effective way for you to understand formatting and citations is to examine reports from others in your department or field. The library’s electronic databases provide a wealth of examples illustrating how others in your field document their research.

Communicate Your Research

Talk with your advisor about potential local, regional, or national venues to present your findings. And don’t sell yourself short: Consider publishing your research in related books or journals.

Refine/Expand, Pioneer

Earlier, we emphasized the fact that the research process, rather than being linear, is recursive—the reason we conceptualized the process as a series of steps within a circle. At this stage, you may need to revisit your research problem in the context of your findings. You might also investigate the implications of your work and identify new problems or refine your previous approach.

The process then begins anew . . . and you’ll once again move through the series of steps in the circle.

Continue to Module Two

Appendix C - Key Research Terms

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter 14: The Research Proposal

14.3 Components of a Research Proposal

Krathwohl (2005) suggests and describes a variety of components to include in a research proposal. The following sections – Introductions, Background and significance, Literature Review; Research design and methods, Preliminary suppositions and implications; and Conclusion present these components in a suggested template for you to follow in the preparation of your research proposal.

Introduction

The introduction sets the tone for what follows in your research proposal – treat it as the initial pitch of your idea. After reading the introduction your reader should:

• understand what it is you want to do;
• have a sense of your passion for the topic; and
• be excited about the study’s possible outcomes.

As you begin writing your research proposal, it is helpful to think of the introduction as a narrative of what it is you want to do, written in one to three paragraphs. Within those one to three paragraphs, it is important to briefly answer the following questions:

• What is the central research problem?
• How is the topic of your research proposal related to the problem?
• What methods will you utilize to analyze the research problem?
• Why is it important to undertake this research? What is the significance of your proposed research? Why are the outcomes of your proposed research important? Whom are they important?

Note : You may be asked by your instructor to include an abstract with your research proposal. In such cases, an abstract should provide an overview of what it is you plan to study, your main research question, a brief explanation of your methods to answer the research question, and your expected findings. All of this information must be carefully crafted in 150 to 250 words. A word of advice is to save the writing of your abstract until the very end of your research proposal preparation. If you are asked to provide an abstract, you should include 5 to 7 key words that are of most relevance to your study. List these in order of relevance.

Background and significance

The purpose of this section is to explain the context of your proposal and to describe, in detail, why it is important to undertake this research. Assume that the person or people who will read your research proposal know nothing or very little about the research problem. While you do not need to include all knowledge you have learned about your topic in this section, it is important to ensure that you include the most relevant material that will help to explain the goals of your research.

While there are no hard and fast rules, you should attempt to address some or all of the following key points:

• State the research problem and provide a more thorough explanation about the purpose of the study than what you stated in the introduction.
• Present the rationale for the proposed research study. Clearly indicate why this research is worth doing. Answer the “so what?” question.
• Describe the major issues or problems to be addressed by your research. Do not forget to explain how and in what ways your proposed research builds upon previous related research.
• Explain how you plan to go about conducting your research.
• Clearly identify the key or most relevant sources of research you intend to use and explain how they will contribute to your analysis of the topic.
• Set the boundaries of your proposed research, in order to provide a clear focus. Where appropriate, state not only what you will study, but what will be excluded from your study.
• Provide clear definitions of key concepts and terms. Since key concepts and terms often have numerous definitions, make sure you state which definition you will be utilizing in your research.

Literature review

This key component of the research proposal is the most time-consuming aspect in the preparation of your research proposal. As described in Chapter 5 , the literature review provides the background to your study and demonstrates the significance of the proposed research. Specifically, it is a review and synthesis of prior research that is related to the problem you are setting forth to investigate. Essentially, your goal in the literature review is to place your research study within the larger whole of what has been studied in the past, while demonstrating to your reader that your work is original, innovative, and adds to the larger whole.

As the literature review is information dense, it is essential that this section be intelligently structured to enable your reader to grasp the key arguments underpinning your study. However, this can be easier to state and harder to do, simply due to the fact there is usually a plethora of related research to sift through. Consequently, a good strategy for writing the literature review is to break the literature into conceptual categories or themes, rather than attempting to describe various groups of literature you reviewed. Chapter 5   describes a variety of methods to help you organize the themes.

Here are some suggestions on how to approach the writing of your literature review:

• Think about what questions other researchers have asked, what methods they used, what they found, and what they recommended based upon their findings.
• Do not be afraid to challenge previous related research findings and/or conclusions.
• Assess what you believe to be missing from previous research and explain how your research fills in this gap and/or extends previous research.

It is important to note that a significant challenge related to undertaking a literature review is knowing when to stop. As such, it is important to know when you have uncovered the key conceptual categories underlying your research topic. Generally, when you start to see repetition in the conclusions or recommendations, you can have confidence that you have covered all of the significant conceptual categories in your literature review. However, it is also important to acknowledge that researchers often find themselves returning to the literature as they collect and analyze their data. For example, an unexpected finding may develop as you collect and/or analyze the data; in this case, it is important to take the time to step back and review the literature again, to ensure that no other researchers have found a similar finding. This may include looking to research outside your field.

This situation occurred with one of this textbook’s authors’ research related to community resilience. During the interviews, the researchers heard many participants discuss individual resilience factors and how they believed these individual factors helped make the community more resilient, overall. Sheppard and Williams (2016) had not discovered these individual factors in their original literature review on community and environmental resilience. However, when they returned to the literature to search for individual resilience factors, they discovered a small body of literature in the child and youth psychology field. Consequently, Sheppard and Williams had to go back and add a new section to their literature review on individual resilience factors. Interestingly, their research appeared to be the first research to link individual resilience factors with community resilience factors.

Research design and methods

The objective of this section of the research proposal is to convince the reader that your overall research design and methods of analysis will enable you to solve the research problem you have identified and also enable you to accurately and effectively interpret the results of your research. Consequently, it is critical that the research design and methods section is well-written, clear, and logically organized. This demonstrates to your reader that you know what you are going to do and how you are going to do it. Overall, you want to leave your reader feeling confident that you have what it takes to get this research study completed in a timely fashion.

Essentially, this section of the research proposal should be clearly tied to the specific objectives of your study; however, it is also important to draw upon and include examples from the literature review that relate to your design and intended methods. In other words, you must clearly demonstrate how your study utilizes and builds upon past studies, as it relates to the research design and intended methods. For example, what methods have been used by other researchers in similar studies?

While it is important to consider the methods that other researchers have employed, it is equally, if not more, important to consider what methods have not been but could be employed. Remember, the methods section is not simply a list of tasks to be undertaken. It is also an argument as to why and how the tasks you have outlined will help you investigate the research problem and answer your research question(s).

Tips for writing the research design and methods section:

Specify the methodological approaches you intend to employ to obtain information and the techniques you will use to analyze the data.

Specify the research operations you will undertake and the way you will interpret the results of those operations in relation to the research problem.

Go beyond stating what you hope to achieve through the methods you have chosen. State how you will actually implement the methods (i.e., coding interview text, running regression analysis, etc.).

Anticipate and acknowledge any potential barriers you may encounter when undertaking your research, and describe how you will address these barriers.

Explain where you believe you will find challenges related to data collection, including access to participants and information.

Preliminary suppositions and implications

The purpose of this section is to argue how you anticipate that your research will refine, revise, or extend existing knowledge in the area of your study. Depending upon the aims and objectives of your study, you should also discuss how your anticipated findings may impact future research. For example, is it possible that your research may lead to a new policy, theoretical understanding, or method for analyzing data? How might your study influence future studies? What might your study mean for future practitioners working in the field? Who or what might benefit from your study? How might your study contribute to social, economic or environmental issues? While it is important to think about and discuss possibilities such as these, it is equally important to be realistic in stating your anticipated findings. In other words, you do not want to delve into idle speculation. Rather, the purpose here is to reflect upon gaps in the current body of literature and to describe how you anticipate your research will begin to fill in some or all of those gaps.

The conclusion reiterates the importance and significance of your research proposal, and provides a brief summary of the entire proposed study. Essentially, this section should only be one or two paragraphs in length. Here is a potential outline for your conclusion:

Discuss why the study should be done. Specifically discuss how you expect your study will advance existing knowledge and how your study is unique.

Explain the specific purpose of the study and the research questions that the study will answer.

Explain why the research design and methods chosen for this study are appropriate, and why other designs and methods were not chosen.

State the potential implications you expect to emerge from your proposed study,

Provide a sense of how your study fits within the broader scholarship currently in existence, related to the research problem.

Citations and references

As with any scholarly research paper, you must cite the sources you used in composing your research proposal. In a research proposal, this can take two forms: a reference list or a bibliography. A reference list lists the literature you referenced in the body of your research proposal. All references in the reference list must appear in the body of the research proposal. Remember, it is not acceptable to say “as cited in …” As a researcher you must always go to the original source and check it for yourself. Many errors are made in referencing, even by top researchers, and so it is important not to perpetuate an error made by someone else. While this can be time consuming, it is the proper way to undertake a literature review.

In contrast, a bibliography , is a list of everything you used or cited in your research proposal, with additional citations to any key sources relevant to understanding the research problem. In other words, sources cited in your bibliography may not necessarily appear in the body of your research proposal. Make sure you check with your instructor to see which of the two you are expected to produce.

Overall, your list of citations should be a testament to the fact that you have done a sufficient level of preliminary research to ensure that your project will complement, but not duplicate, previous research efforts. For social sciences, the reference list or bibliography should be prepared in American Psychological Association (APA) referencing format. Usually, the reference list (or bibliography) is not included in the word count of the research proposal. Again, make sure you check with your instructor to confirm.

Research Methods for the Social Sciences: An Introduction Copyright © 2020 by Valerie Sheppard is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Research process
• How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates

How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates

Published on 30 October 2022 by Shona McCombes and Tegan George. Revised on 13 June 2023.

A research proposal describes what you will investigate, why it’s important, and how you will conduct your research.

The format of a research proposal varies between fields, but most proposals will contain at least these elements:

Introduction

Literature review.

• Research design

Reference list

While the sections may vary, the overall objective is always the same. A research proposal serves as a blueprint and guide for your research plan, helping you get organised and feel confident in the path forward you choose to take.

Table of contents

Research proposal purpose, research proposal examples, research design and methods, contribution to knowledge, research schedule, frequently asked questions.

Academics often have to write research proposals to get funding for their projects. As a student, you might have to write a research proposal as part of a grad school application , or prior to starting your thesis or dissertation .

In addition to helping you figure out what your research can look like, a proposal can also serve to demonstrate why your project is worth pursuing to a funder, educational institution, or supervisor.

Research proposal length

The length of a research proposal can vary quite a bit. A bachelor’s or master’s thesis proposal can be just a few pages, while proposals for PhD dissertations or research funding are usually much longer and more detailed. Your supervisor can help you determine the best length for your work.

One trick to get started is to think of your proposal’s structure as a shorter version of your thesis or dissertation , only without the results , conclusion and discussion sections.

Download our research proposal template

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Writing a research proposal can be quite challenging, but a good starting point could be to look at some examples. We’ve included a few for you below.

• Example research proposal #1: ‘A Conceptual Framework for Scheduling Constraint Management’
• Example research proposal #2: ‘ Medical Students as Mediators of Change in Tobacco Use’

Like your dissertation or thesis, the proposal will usually have a title page that includes:

• The proposed title of your project
• Your supervisor’s name
• Your institution and department

The first part of your proposal is the initial pitch for your project. Make sure it succinctly explains what you want to do and why.

Your introduction should:

• Introduce your topic
• Give necessary background and context
• Outline your  problem statement  and research questions

To guide your introduction , include information about:

• Who could have an interest in the topic (e.g., scientists, policymakers)
• How much is already known about the topic
• What is missing from this current knowledge
• What new insights your research will contribute
• Why you believe this research is worth doing

As you get started, it’s important to demonstrate that you’re familiar with the most important research on your topic. A strong literature review  shows your reader that your project has a solid foundation in existing knowledge or theory. It also shows that you’re not simply repeating what other people have already done or said, but rather using existing research as a jumping-off point for your own.

In this section, share exactly how your project will contribute to ongoing conversations in the field by:

• Comparing and contrasting the main theories, methods, and debates
• Examining the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches
• Explaining how will you build on, challenge, or synthesise prior scholarship

Following the literature review, restate your main  objectives . This brings the focus back to your own project. Next, your research design or methodology section will describe your overall approach, and the practical steps you will take to answer your research questions.

To finish your proposal on a strong note, explore the potential implications of your research for your field. Emphasise again what you aim to contribute and why it matters.

For example, your results might have implications for:

• Improving best practices
• Informing policymaking decisions
• Strengthening a theory or model
• Challenging popular or scientific beliefs
• Creating a basis for future research

Last but not least, your research proposal must include correct citations for every source you have used, compiled in a reference list . To create citations quickly and easily, you can use our free APA citation generator .

Some institutions or funders require a detailed timeline of the project, asking you to forecast what you will do at each stage and how long it may take. While not always required, be sure to check the requirements of your project.

Here’s an example schedule to help you get started. You can also download a template at the button below.

Download our research schedule template

If you are applying for research funding, chances are you will have to include a detailed budget. This shows your estimates of how much each part of your project will cost.

Make sure to check what type of costs the funding body will agree to cover. For each item, include:

• Cost : exactly how much money do you need?
• Justification : why is this cost necessary to complete the research?
• Source : how did you calculate the amount?

To determine your budget, think about:

• Travel costs : do you need to go somewhere to collect your data? How will you get there, and how much time will you need? What will you do there (e.g., interviews, archival research)?
• Materials : do you need access to any tools or technologies?
• Help : do you need to hire any research assistants for the project? What will they do, and how much will you pay them?

Once you’ve decided on your research objectives , you need to explain them in your paper, at the end of your problem statement.

Keep your research objectives clear and concise, and use appropriate verbs to accurately convey the work that you will carry out for each one.

I will compare …

A research aim is a broad statement indicating the general purpose of your research project. It should appear in your introduction at the end of your problem statement , before your research objectives.

Research objectives are more specific than your research aim. They indicate the specific ways you’ll address the overarching aim.

A PhD, which is short for philosophiae doctor (doctor of philosophy in Latin), is the highest university degree that can be obtained. In a PhD, students spend 3–5 years writing a dissertation , which aims to make a significant, original contribution to current knowledge.

A PhD is intended to prepare students for a career as a researcher, whether that be in academia, the public sector, or the private sector.

A master’s is a 1- or 2-year graduate degree that can prepare you for a variety of careers.

All master’s involve graduate-level coursework. Some are research-intensive and intend to prepare students for further study in a PhD; these usually require their students to write a master’s thesis . Others focus on professional training for a specific career.

Critical thinking refers to the ability to evaluate information and to be aware of biases or assumptions, including your own.

Like information literacy , it involves evaluating arguments, identifying and solving problems in an objective and systematic way, and clearly communicating your ideas.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

McCombes, S. & George, T. (2023, June 13). How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved 27 May 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/the-research-process/research-proposal-explained/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, what is a literature review | guide, template, & examples, how to write a results section | tips & examples.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Indian J Dermatol
• v.62(5); Sep-Oct 2017

Summary and Synthesis: How to Present a Research Proposal

Maninder singh setia.

From the MGM Institute of Health Sciences, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Saumya Panda

1 Department of Dermatology, KPC Medical College, Kolkata, West Bengal, India

This concluding module attempts to synthesize the key learning points discussed during the course of the previous ten sets of modules on methodology and biostatistics. The objective of this module is to discuss how to present a model research proposal, based on whatever was discussed in the preceding modules. The lynchpin of a research proposal is the protocol, and the key component of a protocol is the study design. However, one must not neglect the other areas, be it the project summary through which one catches the eyes of the reviewer of the proposal, or the background and the literature review, or the aims and objectives of the study. Two critical areas in the “methods” section that cannot be emphasized more are the sampling strategy and a formal estimation of sample size. Without a legitimate sample size, none of the conclusions based on the statistical analysis would be valid. Finally, the ethical parameters of the study should be well understood by the researchers, and that should get reflected in the proposal.

As we reach the end of an exhaustive module encompassing research methods and biostatistics, we need to summarize and synthesize the key learning points, to demonstrate how one may utilize the different sections of the module to undertake research projects of different kinds. After all, the practical purpose behind publishing such a module is to facilitate the preparation of high quality research proposals and protocols. This concluding part will make an attempt to provide a window to the different sections of the module, underlining the various aspects of design and analysis needed to formulate protocols applicable to different kinds of clinical research in dermatology.

Components of a Research Proposal

The goal of a research proposal is to present and justify the need to study a research problem and to present the practical ways in which the proposed study should be conducted. A research proposal is generally meant to be presented by an investigator to request an agency or a body to support research work in the form of grants. The vast majority of research proposals, in India, however, are not submitted to agency or body for grants, simply because of the paucity of such agencies, bodies, and research grants. Most are academic research proposals, self-financed, and submitted to scientific and ethics committee of an institution. The parts of a proposal include the title page, abstract/project summary, table of contents, introduction, background and review of literature, and the research protocol.

The title page should contain the personal data pertaining to the investigators, and title of the project, which should be concise and comprehensive at the same time. The table of contents, strictly speaking, is not necessary for short proposals. The introduction includes a statement of the problem, purpose, and significance of the research.

The protocol is the document that specifies the research plan. It is the single most important quality control tool for all aspects of a clinical research. It is the instrument where the researcher explains how data will be collected, including the calculation for estimating sample size, and what outcome variables to measure.

A complete clinical research protocol includes the following:

Study design

• Precise definition of the disease or problem
• Completely defined prespecified primary and secondary outcome measures, including how and when these will be assessed
• Clear description of variables
• Well-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria
• Efficacy and safety parameters
• Whenever applicable, stopping guidelines and parameters of interim analyses
• Sample size calculation
• Randomization details
• Plan of statistical analysis
• Detailed description of interventions
• A chronogram of research flow (Gantt chart)
• Informed consent document
• Clinical research form
• Details of budget; and
• References.

(Modified from: Bagatin et al ., 2013).

Project Summary

The project summary is a brief document that consists of an overview, and discusses the intellectual merits, and broader impacts of the research project. Each of these three sections is required to be present and must be clearly defined. The project summary is one of the most important parts of the proposal. It is likely the first thing a reviewer will read, and is the investigators’ best chance to grab their interest, and convince them of the importance, and quality, of their research before they even read the proposal. Though it is the first proposal element in order, many applicants prefer to write the project summary last, after writing the protocol. This allows the writer to better avoid any inconsistencies between the two.

The overview specifies the research goal and it should demonstrate that this goal fits with the principal investigator's long-term research goals. It should specify the proposed research approach and the educational goal of the research project.

The intellectual merits (the contribution your research will make to your field) should specify the current state of knowledge in the field, and where it is headed. It should also clarify what your research will add to the state of knowledge in the field. Furthermore, important to state is what your research will do to enhance or enable other researches in the field. Finally, one should answer why your research is important for the advancement of the field.

The broader impacts (the contribution the research will make to the society) should answer the questions on the benefit to the society at large from the research, and the possible applications of the research, and why the general public would care. It should also clarify how the research can benefit the site of research (medical college or university, etc.) and the funding agency.

Background and Review of Literature

This is an important component of the research protocol. The review should discuss all the relevant literature, the method used in the literature, the lacunae in the literature, and justify the proposed research. We have provided a list of the useful databases in the section on systematic reviews and meta-analysis (Setia, 2017). Some of these are PubMed, Cochrane database, EMBASE, and LILACS.

Provide a critical analysis of the literature

The researcher should not provide a descriptive analysis of literature. For instance, the literature reviews should not be a list of one article followed by the next article. It should be a critical analysis of literature.

A study by XXXX et al . found that the prevalence of psoriasis was 20%. It was a hospital-based study conducted in North India. The prevalence was 35% in males and 12% in females.

Another study by YYYYY et al . found that the prevalence of psoriasis was 14%. The study was conducted in a private clinic in North India. The prevalence was 8% in males and 18% in females.

A third study by ZZZZZ et al . found that the prevalence of psoriasis was 5%. This study was a community-based study. The prevalence was 7% in males and 3% in females.

In this type of review, the researcher has described all the studies. However, it is useful to understand the findings of these three studies and summarize them in researcher's own words.

A possible option can be “ The reported prevalence of psoriasis in the Indian population varied from 5% to 20%. In general, it was higher in hospital-based studies and lower in community-based studies. There was no consistent pattern in the prevalence of psoriasis in males and females. Though some studies found the prevalence to be higher in males, others reported that females had a higher prevalence .”

Discuss the limitations and lacunae of these studies

The researcher should discuss the limitations of the studies. These could be the limitations that the authors have presented in the manuscript or the ones that the researcher has identified. Usually, the current research proposal should try to address the limitations of a previous study.

A study by BBBB et al : “ One of the main limitations of our study was the lack of objective criteria for assessing anemia in patients presenting with psoriasis. We classified the patients based on clinical assessment of pallor .”

The present proposal can mention “ Though previous studies have assessed the association between anemia and psoriasis, they have not used any objective criteria (such as hemoglobin or serum ferritin levels). Furthermore, pallor was evaluated by three clinicians; the authors have not described the agreement between these clinicians .”

In the above example, the authors have stated the limitation of their research in the manuscript. However, in the review of literature, the researcher has added another limitation. It is important to convince the reviewers that the researcher has read and understood the literature. It is also important that some or most of these lacunae should be addressed in the present proposal as far as possible.

Justify the present proposal by review

The researcher should adequately justify the present proposal based on the review of literature. The justification should not only be for the research question, but also the methods, study design, variables of interest, study instruments or measurements, and statistical methods of choice. Sometimes, the justification can be purely statistical. For example, all the previous studies have used cross-sectional data or cross-sectional analysis of longitudinal data in their manuscripts. The present proposal will use methods used for longitudinal data analysis. The researcher should justify the benefit of these methods over the previous statistical methods.

In short, the review should not be a “laundry list” of all the articles. The review should be able to convince the reader that the present research is required and it builds on the existing literature (either as a novel research question, new measurement of the outcome, a better study design, or advanced and appropriate statistical methods).

Kindly try to avoid this justification: “ It has not been done in our center .”

Aims and Objectives

The “aim” of the study is an overarching goal of the study. The objectives are measurable and help the researcher achieve the overall aim.

For example, the overall aim of our study is to assess the long-term health of patients of psoriasis.

The specific objectives are:

• To record the changes in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score in patients with psoriasis over a period of 5 years
• To study the side effects of medications in these patients over a period of 5 years.

It is important to clearly state the objectives, since the research proposal should be designed to achieve these objectives.

For example, the methods should describe the following:

• How will the researcher answer the first objective?
• Where will the researcher recruit the study participants (study site and population)?
• Which patients of psoriasis will be recruited (inclusion and exclusion criteria)?
• What will be the design of the study (cohort, etc.)?
• What are all the variables to be measured to achieve the study outcomes (exposure and outcome variables)?
• How will the researcher measure these variables (clinical evaluation, history, serological examination, etc.)?
• How will the researcher record these data (clinical forms, etc.)?
• How will the researcher analyze the data that have been collected?
• Are there any limitations of these methods? If so, what has the researcher done to minimize the limitations?

All the ten modules on research methodology have to be read and grasped to plan and design any kind of research applicable to one's chosen field. However, some key areas have been outlined below with examples to appreciate the same in an easier manner.

The study setting must be specified. This should include both the geographical location and the population from which the study sample would be recruited.

“The study took place at the antiretroviral therapy clinic of Queen Elizabeth Central Hospital in Blantyre, Malawi, from January 2006 to April 2007. Blantyre is the major commercial city of Malawi, with a population of 1,000,000 and an estimated HIV prevalence of 27% in adults in 2004” (Ndekha et al ., 2009).

This is a perfect example of description of a study setting which underscores the importance of planning it in detail a priori .

Study population, sampling strategy, and sample size

Study population has to be clearly and precisely defined. For example, a study on atopic dermatitis may be conducted upon patients defined according to the UK Working Party's modified diagnostic criteria, or the Hanifin and Rajka's criteria, or some other criteria defined by the investigators. However, it should always be prespecified within the protocol.

Similarly, the eligibility criteria of the participants for the study must be explicit. One truism that is frequently forgotten is that the inclusion and exclusion criteria are mutually exclusive, and one is not the negative image of the other. Eligible cases are included according to a set of inclusion criteria, and this is followed by administration of the exclusion criteria. Thus, in fact, they can never be the negative image of each other.

“Eligible participants were all adults aged 18 or over with HIV who met the eligibility criteria for antiretroviral therapy according to the Malawian national HIV treatment guidelines (WHO clinical stage III or IV or any WHO stage with a CD4 count < 250/mm 3 ) and who were starting treatment with a BMI < 18.5. Exclusion criteria were pregnancy and lactation or participation in another supplementary feeding program” (Ndekha et al ., 2009).

To put in perspective the point we made about inclusion and exclusion criteria, in the above example, “age above 18 years” or “CD4 count >250/mm 3 ” cannot be exclusion criteria, as these have already been excluded.

Sampling strategy has been adequately discussed in the Module 5 of the Methodology series (Setia, 2016). A few points are worth repeating:

• The sampling strategy should never be misrepresented. Example: If you have not done random sampling, no big deal. There are other legitimate sampling strategies available for your study. But once you have mentioned “random sampling” in your protocol, you cannot resort to purposive sampling
• Sometimes, the researcher might want to know the characteristics of a certain problem within a specific population, without caring for generalizability of results. In such a scenario, purposive sampling may be resorted to
• Nonprobability sampling methods such as consecutive consenting sampling or any such convenience sampling are perfectly legitimate and easy to do, particularly in case of dissertations where time and resources are limited.

Sample size is one of the most misunderstood, yet fundamentally important, issues among clinicians and has to be addressed once the study objectives have been set and the design has been finalized. Too small a sample means that there would be a failure to detect change following test intervention. A sample larger than necessary may also result in bad quality data. In either case, there would be ethical problems and wastage of resources. The researcher needs just enough samples to draw accurate inferences, which would be adequately powered (Panda, 2015).

Estimation of sample size has been dealt with adequately in the Module 5 biostatistics series (Hazra et al ., 2016), including the different mathematical derivations and the available software. Sample size determination is a statistical exercise based on the probability of errors in testing of hypothesis, power of the sample, and effect size. Although, relatively speaking, these are simple concepts to grasp, a large number of different study designs and analytical methods lead to a bewilderingly large number of formulae for determining sample size. Thus, the software are really handy and are becoming increasingly popular.

The study design defines the objectives and end points of the study, the type and manner of data collection, and the strategy of data analysis (Panda 2015). The different types of clinical studies have been depicted in Figure 1 . The suitability of various study designs vis-à-vis different types of research questions is summarized in Table 1 .

Types of study (Source: Panda, 2015)

Research questions vis-a-vis study designs

In our previous series of ten modules on methodology, we have discussed all these different kinds of studies and more. Some key issues that require reiteration are given below:

• The control of a case–control study and that of a randomized controlled trial is more different from each other than chalk is from cheese. The former is an observational study, while the latter is an interventional one. Every study with a control group is not a case–control study. For a study to be classified as a case–control study, the study should be an observational study and the participants should be recruited based on their outcome status (Setia, 2016). Apparently, this is not so difficult to understand, yet even now we have publications which confuse between the different kinds of controls (Bhanja et al ., 2015)
• Due to the fact that the outcome and exposure are assessed at the same time point in a cross-sectional study, it is pretty difficult, if not impossible, to derive causal relationships from such a study. At most, one may establish statistical association between exposures and outcomes by calculating the odds ratio. However, these associations must not be confused with causation.
• It is generally said that a cohort design may not be efficient for rare outcomes. However, if the rare outcome is common in some exposures, it may be useful to follow a cohort design. For example, melanoma is a rare condition in India. Hence, if we follow individuals to study the incidence of melanoma, it may not be efficient. However, if we know that, in India, acral lentiginous melanoma is the most commonly reported variant, we should follow a cohort of individuals with acral lentiginous and study the incidence of melanoma in this group (Setia, 2016).

Clinical researchers should also be accustomed with observational designs beyond case–control, cohort, and cross-sectional studies. Sometimes, the unit of analysis has to be a group or aggregate rather than the individual. Consider the following example:

The government introduced the supplementation of salt with iodine for about 20 years. However, not all states have used the same level of iodine in salt. Certain hilly states have used higher quantities compared with other states. Incidentally, you read a report that high iodine levels are associated with psoriasis. You are intrigued to find if introduction of iodine has altered the picture of psoriasis in the country. You feel compelled to design a study to answer this question .

It is obvious that here the unit of study cannot be individuals, but a large population distributed in a certain geographical area. This is the domain of ecologic studies. An allied category of observational studies is named “natural experiments,” where the exposure is not assigned by the investigator (as in an interventional study), but through “natural processes.” These may be through changes in the existing regulations or public policies or, may be, through introduction of new laws (Setia, 2017).

Another category of research questions that cannot be satisfactorily captured by all the quantitative methods described earlier, like social stigma experienced by patients or their families with, say, vitiligo, leprosy, or sexually transmitted infections, are best dealt with by qualitative research. As can be seen by the examples given above, this is a type of research which is very relevant to medical research, yet to which the regular medical researcher has got a very poor exposure, if any. We shall encourage interested researchers to take a look at the 10 th Module of the Methodology series that specifically deals with qualitative research (Setia, 2017).

Clinical studies are experiments that are not conducted in laboratories but in controlled real-life settings on human subjects with some disease. Hence, designing a study involves many pragmatic considerations aside pure methodology. Thus, factors to consider when selecting a study design are objectives of the study, time frame, treatment duration, carryover effects, cost and logistics, patient convenience, statistical considerations, sample size, etc. (Panda, 2015).

Certain truisms regarding study designs should always be remembered: a study design has to be tailored to objectives. The same question may be answered by different designs. The optimum design has to be based on workforce, budgetary allocation, infrastructure, and clinical material that may be commanded by the researchers. Finally, no design is perfect, and there is no design to provide a perfect answer to all research questions relevant to a particular problem (Panda, 2015).

Variables of interest and collection of these variables

Data structure depends on the characteristics of the variables [ Figure 2 ]. A variable refers to a particular character on which a set of data are recorded. Data are thus the values of a variable (Hazra et al ., 2016).

Types of data and variables (Source: Panda, 2015)

Quantitative data always have a proportional scale among values, and can be either discrete (e.g., number of moles) or continuous (e.g., age). Qualitative data can be either nominal (e.g., blood groups) or ordinal (e.g., Fitzpatrick's phototypes I-VI). Variables can be binary or dichotomous (male/female) or multinomial or polychotomous (homosexual/bisexual/heterosexual) (Panda, 2015).

Changing data scales is possible so that numerical data may become ordinal and ordinal data may become nominal. This may be done when the researcher is not confident about the accuracy of the measuring instrument, is unconcerned about the loss of fine detail, or where group numbers are not large enough to adequately represent a variable of interest. It may also make clinical interpretation easier (Hazra et al ., 2016).

The variables whose effects are observed on other variables are known as independent variables (e.g., risk factors). The latter kind of variables that change as a result of independent variables are known as dependent variables (i.e., outcome). Confounders are those variables that influence the relation between independent and dependent variables (e.g., the clinical effect of sunscreen used as part of a test intervention regimen in melasma). If the researcher fails to control or eliminate the confounder, it will damage the internal validity of an experiment (Panda, 2015).

Biostatistics begins with descriptive statistics that implies summarizing a collection of data from a sample or population. An excellent overview of descriptive statistics has been given in the Module 1 of the Biostatistics series (Hazra et al ., 2016). We would encourage every researcher to embark on designing and collecting data on their own to go through this particular module to have a clear idea on how to proceed further.

Statistical methods

As briefly discussed earlier, the “methods” section should also include a detailed description of statistical methods. It is best to describe the methods for each objective.

For example: Which statistical methods will the researcher use to study the changes in PASI score over time?

It is important to first identify the nature of the outcome – will it be linear or categorical?

• It may be noticed that the PASI is a score and can range from 0 to 72. The researcher can measure the actual score and assess the changes in score. Thus, the researcher will use methods for statistical analysis of continuous data (such as means, standard deviations, t -test, or linear regressions)
• However, the researcher may choose to cut off the PASI score at 60 (of course, there has to be justification!) and call it severe psoriasis. Thus, the researcher will have an outcome variable with two outcomes (Yes: >60 PASI, and No: <60 PASI). Thus, in this case, the researcher will use methods for statistical analysis of categorical data (proportions, Chi-square test, or logistic regression models).

The statistical methods have been described in detail in the Biostatistics section of the series. The reader is encouraged to read all the sections to understand these methods. However, the key points to remember are:

• Identify the nature of the outcome for each objective
• Describe the statistical methods separately for each objective
• Identify the methods to handle confounding and describe them in the statistical methods
• If the researcher is using advanced statistical methods or specific tools, please provide reference to these methods
• Provide the name of the statistical software (including the version) that will be used for data analysis in the present study
• Do not provide a laundry list of all the statistical methods. It just shows that the researcher has not understood the relevance of statistics in the study design.

Multivariate models

In general, multivariate analyses are used in studies and research proposals. These analyses are useful to adjust for confounding (though these are also useful to test for interaction, we shall discuss confounding in this section). For example, we propose to compare two different types of medications in psoriasis. We have used secondary clinical data for this study. The outcome of interest is PASI score. We have collected data on the type of medication, age, sex, and alcohol use. When we compare the PASI score in these two groups, we will use t -test (if linear comparison) or Chi-square test (if PASI is categorized – as described earlier). However, it is possible that age, sex, and alcohol use may also play a role in the clinical progression of psoriasis (which is measured as PASI score). Thus, the researcher would like to account for differences in these variables in the two groups. This can be done using multivariate analytical methods (such as linear regression for continuous variables and logistic regression for categorical dichotomous variables). This is a type of mathematical model in which we include multiple variables: the main explanatory variable (type of drug in this study) and potential confounders (age, sex, and alcohol use in this study). Thus, the outcome (PASI score) after multivariate analyses will be “adjusted” for age, sex, and alcohol use after multivariate analysis. We would like to encourage the readers to consult a statistician for these methods.

TRIVIA: The singular for “data” is “datum,” just as “stratum” is the singular for “strata.” Thus, “ data were analyzed …,” “ data were collected …,” and “ data have been ….”

Clinical Record Forms

We have discussed designing of questionnaires and clinical record forms (CRFs) in detail in two modules. We shall just highlight the most important aspects in this part. The CRF is an important part of the research protocol. The CRF should include all the variables of interest in the study. Thus, it is important to make a list of all parameters of interest before working on the CRF. This can be done by a thorough review of literature and discussion with experts. Once the questionnaire/CRF has been designed, the researcher should pilot it and change according to the feedback from the participants and one's own experience while administering the questionnaire or recording data in the CRF. The CRF should use coded responses (for close-ended questions), this will help in data entry and analysis. If the researcher has developed a scale, the reliability and validity should be tested (methods have been discussed in earlier sections). The CRF can be paper based or computer based (it will depend on the resources).

It is very important to describe the ethics for the present study. It should not be restricted to “ The study will be evaluated by an Institutional Review Committee …” The researcher should demonstrate that s/he has understood the various ethical issues in the present study. The three core principles for ethics are: autonomy (the participants have a right to decide whether to participate in the study or opt out), beneficence/nonmaleficence (the study should not be harmful to participants and the risk–benefit ratio should be adequately understood and described), and justice (all the risks and benefits of the present study should be equally distributed).

The researcher should try to address these issues in the section of “Ethics.” Currently, the National Institutes of Health has proposed the following seven principles of “Ethics in Clinical Research:” social and clinical value, scientific validity, fair subject selection, favorable risk–benefit ratio, independent review, informed consent, and respect for potential and enrolled subjects. The Indian Council of Medical Research has also published guidelines to conduct biomedical research in India. We strongly encourage the readers to be familiar with these guidelines. Furthermore, the researchers should keep themselves updated with changes in these regulations. If it is a clinical trial, the researcher should also be familiar with Schedule Y and Consent form requirements for these types of clinical trials.

Concluding Remarks

This module has been designed as a comprehensive guide for a dermatologist to enable him/her to embark on the exciting journey of designing studies of almost any kind that can be thought to be of relevance to clinical dermatology. There has been a conscious attempt to customize the discussion on design and analysis keeping not only dermatology, but also Indian conditions in mind. However, the module can be of help to any medical doctor embarking on the path to medical research. As contributors, it is our ardent hope that this module might act as a catalyst of good-quality research in the field of dermatology and beyond in India and elsewhere.

Financial support and sponsorship

Conflicts of interest.

There are no conflicts of interest.

Bibliography

Recommended pages

• Undergraduate open days
• Postgraduate open days
• Accommodation
• Information for teachers
• Maps and directions
• Sport and fitness

What is a research proposal?

A research proposal is a concise and coherent summary of your proposed research.

Your research proposal should set out the central issues or questions that you intend to address. It should outline the general area of study within which your research falls, referring to the current state of knowledge and any recent debates on the topic, as well as demonstrate the originality of your proposed research.

The proposal also gives you an opportunity to show that you have the aptitude for postgraduate level research by demonstrating that you have the ability to communicate complex ideas clearly, concisely and critically.

In addition, the proposal also helps us to match your research interest with an appropriate supervisor. The proposal is a key part of your application, on which potential supervisors will decide if your research is something they can support. 

Read our advice on research proposal preparation

Additional guidance for applicants from the USA

• Privacy Policy

Home » How To Write A Proposal – Step By Step Guide [With Template]

How To Write A Proposal – Step By Step Guide [With Template]

Table of Contents

How To Write A Proposal

Writing a Proposal involves several key steps to effectively communicate your ideas and intentions to a target audience. Here’s a detailed breakdown of each step:

Identify the Purpose and Audience

• Clearly define the purpose of your proposal: What problem are you addressing, what solution are you proposing, or what goal are you aiming to achieve?
• Identify your target audience: Who will be reading your proposal? Consider their background, interests, and any specific requirements they may have.

Conduct Research

• Gather relevant information: Conduct thorough research to support your proposal. This may involve studying existing literature, analyzing data, or conducting surveys/interviews to gather necessary facts and evidence.
• Understand the context: Familiarize yourself with the current situation or problem you’re addressing. Identify any relevant trends, challenges, or opportunities that may impact your proposal.

Develop an Outline

• Create a clear and logical structure: Divide your proposal into sections or headings that will guide your readers through the content.
• Introduction: Provide a concise overview of the problem, its significance, and the proposed solution.
• Background/Context: Offer relevant background information and context to help the readers understand the situation.
• Objectives/Goals: Clearly state the objectives or goals of your proposal.
• Methodology/Approach: Describe the approach or methodology you will use to address the problem.
• Timeline/Schedule: Present a detailed timeline or schedule outlining the key milestones or activities.
• Budget/Resources: Specify the financial and other resources required to implement your proposal.
• Evaluation/Success Metrics: Explain how you will measure the success or effectiveness of your proposal.
• Conclusion: Summarize the main points and restate the benefits of your proposal.

Write the Proposal

• Grab attention: Start with a compelling opening statement or a brief story that hooks the reader.
• Clearly state the problem: Clearly define the problem or issue you are addressing and explain its significance.
• Present your proposal: Introduce your proposed solution, project, or idea and explain why it is the best approach.
• State the objectives/goals: Clearly articulate the specific objectives or goals your proposal aims to achieve.
• Provide supporting information: Present evidence, data, or examples to support your claims and justify your proposal.
• Explain the methodology: Describe in detail the approach, methods, or strategies you will use to implement your proposal.
• Address potential concerns: Anticipate and address any potential objections or challenges the readers may have and provide counterarguments or mitigation strategies.
• Recap the main points: Summarize the key points you’ve discussed in the proposal.
• Reinforce the benefits: Emphasize the positive outcomes, benefits, or impact your proposal will have.
• Call to action: Clearly state what action you want the readers to take, such as approving the proposal, providing funding, or collaborating with you.

Review and Revise

• Proofread for clarity and coherence: Check for grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
• Ensure a logical flow: Read through your proposal to ensure the ideas are presented in a logical order and are easy to follow.
• Revise and refine: Fine-tune your proposal to make it concise, persuasive, and compelling.

Add Supplementary Materials

• Attach relevant documents: Include any supporting materials that strengthen your proposal, such as research findings, charts, graphs, or testimonials.
• Appendices: Add any additional information that might be useful but not essential to the main body of the proposal.

Formatting and Presentation

• Follow the guidelines: Adhere to any specific formatting guidelines provided by the organization or institution to which you are submitting the proposal.
• Use a professional tone and language: Ensure that your proposal is written in a clear, concise, and professional manner.
• Use headings and subheadings: Organize your proposal with clear headings and subheadings to improve readability.
• Pay attention to design: Use appropriate fonts, font sizes, and formatting styles to make your proposal visually appealing.
• Include a cover page: Create a cover page that includes the title of your proposal, your name or organization, the date, and any other required information.

Seek Feedback

• Share your proposal with trusted colleagues or mentors and ask for their feedback. Consider their suggestions for improvement and incorporate them into your proposal if necessary.

Finalize and Submit

• Make any final revisions based on the feedback received.
• Ensure that all required sections, attachments, and documentation are included.
• Double-check for any formatting, grammar, or spelling errors.
• Submit your proposal within the designated deadline and according to the submission guidelines provided.

Proposal Format

The format of a proposal can vary depending on the specific requirements of the organization or institution you are submitting it to. However, here is a general proposal format that you can follow:

1. Title Page:

• Include the title of your proposal, your name or organization’s name, the date, and any other relevant information specified by the guidelines.

2. Executive Summary:

•  Provide a concise overview of your proposal, highlighting the key points and objectives.
• Summarize the problem, proposed solution, and anticipated benefits.
• Keep it brief and engaging, as this section is often read first and should capture the reader’s attention.

3. Introduction:

• State the problem or issue you are addressing and its significance.
• Provide background information to help the reader understand the context and importance of the problem.
• Clearly state the purpose and objectives of your proposal.

4. Problem Statement:

• Describe the problem in detail, highlighting its impact and consequences.
• Use data, statistics, or examples to support your claims and demonstrate the need for a solution.

5. Proposed Solution or Project Description:

• Explain your proposed solution or project in a clear and detailed manner.
• Describe how your solution addresses the problem and why it is the most effective approach.
• Include information on the methods, strategies, or activities you will undertake to implement your solution.
• Highlight any unique features, innovations, or advantages of your proposal.

6. Methodology:

• Provide a step-by-step explanation of the methodology or approach you will use to implement your proposal.
• Include a timeline or schedule that outlines the key milestones, tasks, and deliverables.
• Clearly describe the resources, personnel, or expertise required for each phase of the project.

7. Evaluation and Success Metrics:

• Explain how you will measure the success or effectiveness of your proposal.
• Identify specific metrics, indicators, or evaluation methods that will be used.
• Describe how you will track progress, gather feedback, and make adjustments as needed.
• Present a detailed budget that outlines the financial resources required for your proposal.
• Include all relevant costs, such as personnel, materials, equipment, and any other expenses.
• Provide a justification for each item in the budget.

9. Conclusion:

•  Summarize the main points of your proposal.
•  Reiterate the benefits and positive outcomes of implementing your proposal.
• Emphasize the value and impact it will have on the organization or community.

10. Appendices:

• Include any additional supporting materials, such as research findings, charts, graphs, or testimonials.
•  Attach any relevant documents that provide further information but are not essential to the main body of the proposal.

Proposal Template

Here’s a basic proposal template that you can use as a starting point for creating your own proposal:

Dear [Recipient’s Name],

I am writing to submit a proposal for [briefly state the purpose of the proposal and its significance]. This proposal outlines a comprehensive solution to address [describe the problem or issue] and presents an actionable plan to achieve the desired objectives.

Thank you for considering this proposal. I believe that implementing this solution will significantly contribute to [organization’s or community’s goals]. I am available to discuss the proposal in more detail at your convenience. Please feel free to contact me at [your email address or phone number].

Yours sincerely,

Note: This template is a starting point and should be customized to meet the specific requirements and guidelines provided by the organization or institution to which you are submitting the proposal.

Proposal Sample

Here’s a sample proposal to give you an idea of how it could be structured and written:

Subject : Proposal for Implementation of Environmental Education Program

I am pleased to submit this proposal for your consideration, outlining a comprehensive plan for the implementation of an Environmental Education Program. This program aims to address the critical need for environmental awareness and education among the community, with the objective of fostering a sense of responsibility and sustainability.

Executive Summary: Our proposed Environmental Education Program is designed to provide engaging and interactive educational opportunities for individuals of all ages. By combining classroom learning, hands-on activities, and community engagement, we aim to create a long-lasting impact on environmental conservation practices and attitudes.

Introduction: The state of our environment is facing significant challenges, including climate change, habitat loss, and pollution. It is essential to equip individuals with the knowledge and skills to understand these issues and take action. This proposal seeks to bridge the gap in environmental education and inspire a sense of environmental stewardship among the community.

Problem Statement: The lack of environmental education programs has resulted in limited awareness and understanding of environmental issues. As a result, individuals are less likely to adopt sustainable practices or actively contribute to conservation efforts. Our program aims to address this gap and empower individuals to become environmentally conscious and responsible citizens.

Proposed Solution or Project Description: Our Environmental Education Program will comprise a range of activities, including workshops, field trips, and community initiatives. We will collaborate with local schools, community centers, and environmental organizations to ensure broad participation and maximum impact. By incorporating interactive learning experiences, such as nature walks, recycling drives, and eco-craft sessions, we aim to make environmental education engaging and enjoyable.

Methodology: Our program will be structured into modules that cover key environmental themes, such as biodiversity, climate change, waste management, and sustainable living. Each module will include a mix of classroom sessions, hands-on activities, and practical field experiences. We will also leverage technology, such as educational apps and online resources, to enhance learning outcomes.

Evaluation and Success Metrics: We will employ a combination of quantitative and qualitative measures to evaluate the effectiveness of the program. Pre- and post-assessments will gauge knowledge gain, while surveys and feedback forms will assess participant satisfaction and behavior change. We will also track the number of community engagement activities and the adoption of sustainable practices as indicators of success.

Budget: Please find attached a detailed budget breakdown for the implementation of the Environmental Education Program. The budget covers personnel costs, materials and supplies, transportation, and outreach expenses. We have ensured cost-effectiveness while maintaining the quality and impact of the program.

Conclusion: By implementing this Environmental Education Program, we have the opportunity to make a significant difference in our community’s environmental consciousness and practices. We are confident that this program will foster a generation of individuals who are passionate about protecting our environment and taking sustainable actions. We look forward to discussing the proposal further and working together to make a positive impact.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at [your email address or phone number].

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Grant Proposal – Example, Template and Guide

How To Write A Business Proposal – Step-by-Step...

Business Proposal – Templates, Examples and Guide

How To Write A Research Proposal – Step-by-Step...

Proposal – Types, Examples, and Writing Guide

How to choose an Appropriate Method for Research?

• Download PDF (English) XML (English)
• Alt. Display

Challenges and roadblocks to robust metadata in the scholarly communications industry

• Deni Auclair
• Jamie Carmichael
• Jessica Thibodeau

For the scholarly communications community to extract the most value from scientific research, as well as to successfully move from subscription to open access publishing models, it is essential to have ‘clean’ metadata and a robust infrastructure to build the required workflows, processes and systems to support effective use of that metadata. The obstacles to achieving a supporting infrastructure and implementing effective workflows are many, negatively impacting every stakeholder group and every aspect of the research and publishing process.

• bibliographic metadata
• open access
• data quality

Introduction

For the scholarly communications community to extract the most value from scientific research, as well as to successfully move from subscription to open access publishing models, it is essential to have clean metadata and a robust infrastructure to build the required workflows, processes and systems to support effective use of that metadata. To support these efforts, Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) and Media Growth Strategies (MGS) created a visual representation of the metadata challenges that market stakeholders face, an infographic that is accessible to the entire industry to provide input and help update it as new initiatives and solutions emerge and are implemented. The analysis comprises a deep dive into the metadata management aspect of the ecosystem, focusing on challenges faced by each group of stakeholders throughout the research life cycle.

CCC has a uniquely broad perspective on the complexities as an intermediary supporting the industry, including in its move to open access, being able to identify where the value is being delivered across stakeholder groups and where the breakages are. A large body of research exists outlining and clearly supporting the need for robust metadata, persistent identifiers and both open and proprietary infrastructure – for example, the literature review of scholarly communications metadata, 1 the subsequent article in Quantitative Science Studies 2 and the MoreBrains Cost Benefit Analysis commissioned by Jisc in early 2021, 3 in addition to many other articles and blog posts. The research commissioned by CCC complements and builds on that work with the goal of advancing and enriching these types of initiatives around metadata currently under way.

The project

MGS and CCC reached out to more than 50 industry stakeholders: librarians, researchers, publishers, institutional repository managers, service providers, funders, grants managers, industry consultants and standards organizations. Interviews were conducted with dozens of stakeholders, see Figure 1 , to get a better understanding of what they believe to be the biggest hurdles to achieving, and greatest benefits deriving from, consistent quality metadata implementation and deployment. The results of the interviews are laid out in a visual depiction 4 of the various ‘swim lanes’ of stakeholder groups and include metadata management challenges faced along the scholarly communications path by each of those groups.

Stakeholder group representation

The stakeholder groups represented in the visual map include:

• researchers/authors
• institutional librarians, heads of sponsored programs, research offices
• institutional repository managers, data curators.

The publishing cycle represented horizontally includes:

• Idea development of a research project, including collaboration and exchange of ideas
• Preparation of a project, including data management, technology required to support research, ethical considerations
• Proposal submission writing, including researching available grants and projects previously funded by relevant funders
• Researching and authoring the project, including data collection, capture and analysis, as well as submission to preprint servers in some cases
• Publication of research findings, including submitting the article, choosing the license, peer review, paying article processing charges (APCs) (if applicable) and indexing
• Preservation of research findings in repositories or article and data archives
• Reuse and measurement of the impact of the article and its content, including impact on the researcher, funder, publisher and institution.

Key findings

Interviews with representatives from each stakeholder group (in most cases more than one representative) revealed the following top-of-mind challenges facing the industry around metadata in those phases of the scientific research life cycle. The results of the interviews are available from the link in the data accessibility statement at the end of this article.

Idea development

• Under-utilization of Open Researcher and Contributor Identifiers (ORCIDs) by institutions and researchers, as well as a lack of accessibility in emerging economies.
• Hindered search and discovery due to inconsistency in identifying content users and enabling appropriate access to published research.

Proposal submission

• Inconsistent metadata capture across grant application processes/systems, resulting in possible loss of the metadata necessary to determine open access (OA) funding entitlements at a later stage, e.g. institutional affiliations, tax IDs, etc.
• Lack of interoperability between systems with which researchers interact (e.g. current research information system (CRIS) systems, grant management systems, curriculum management systems, ORCIDs, etc.), leaving room for gaps in metadata and persistent identifiers (PIDs).
• Low adoption of standardized PIDs due to limitations of legacy systems or lack of awareness, hindering conflict-of-interest management and later-stage funding, tracking and analysis of research output.
• Low-quality data resulting in confusion with grant numbers or proposal numbers versus grant identifiers (IDs), leading to inaccurate data entry during later stages, the lack of linking of grant IDs to particular research outputs and the inability to query funding and award IDs.
• Metadata gaps where datasets are edited for confidentiality purposes, leading to loss of metadata during the review and funding management process.

Research and authoring

• Poor metadata quality creates access barriers to research from under-represented researchers, including lack of or improper use of digital object identifiers (DOIs) (e.g. uniform resource locators (URLs) are often used in place of DOIs). There is inconsistency in identifying users and enabling appropriate access to research, as well as inequitable access to search and discovery services or certain content by contributors from under-represented areas.
• Difficulty managing references occurs due to integration with different citation tools using different PIDs.
• Variable quality of preprint metadata at submission, especially the use of PIDs versus free text fields.
• Risk of researchers appearing to not comply with funder mandates because of missing metadata.

Publication

• Too much manual data entry, eating up valuable resources or leading to missing or erroneous metadata.
• under-utilization of metadata validation services
• use of inaccurate or out-of-date researcher profiles (e.g. organizational affiliation)
• inconsistency between journals’ policies and metadata procedures
• lack of funding information captured at submission
• multiplicity of standard identifiers with little interoperability.
• Difficulty flagging conflicts of interest due to inconsistent collection or provision of affiliation information and other metadata within a submission system, thereby creating issues with monitoring compliance with mandates and sanctions.
• Inconsistent and incomplete metadata leading to dropped or omitted data.
• Complex institutional organizational structures, complicating the determination of accurate affiliation for funding eligibility.
• Missing links to funded research leading to an inability to track contracts or co-operative agreements with government funders.
• Inability to link multiple grant awards.
• Inability to systematically provide information on funding requirements to help support authors comply with myriad and sometimes conflicting mandates.
• Variability of affiliations as they change during or after the research process, impacting publication rights retention by authors and uncertainty around applicable licenses.
• Funding entitlements negatively impacted by using email address for affiliation, use of abbreviations or nicknames when funder information is manually input and standardized name is not used, and changes in grant IDs between submission and publication.
• Loss of data influencing the outcome of what entity funds OA APCs.
• Interoperability issues caused by lack of connection between submission and production systems.
• Manual entry by publishers of PIDs prior to registering DOIs for more complete publication records, leading to errors and inconsistencies.

Preservation

• Institutions spending unbudgeted financial and human resources to educate researchers on how and why to create or utilize metadata.

Reuse and measurement

• Lack of consistent affiliation and funding data making modeling future agreements difficult for publishers and institutions.
• Datasets without DOIs, making them difficult to find, access and reproduce, which creates a barrier to open science.
• Difficulty tracking funder and research impact resulting from a lack of adoption of metadata standards.

Observations

The interviews that produced the above key findings also revealed noteworthy insights into the thinking around robust metadata in the various stakeholder groups.

From an institutional consortium :

‘Consortia have many read-and-publish contracts and because there isn’t a single definition of a good contract, every deal is different, and every process behind it is different, and behind the processes are the metadata. It’s very fragmented, with different publishers having different internal infrastructure and legacy systems. It makes it hard to have metadata standards in the industry because it takes time to develop them, but we need to speed things up … they can be related to what the author is experiencing in the workflow and with OA there are different challenges in the read-and-publish environment. It’s about article types, when does it start and end (the deal), there are caps, there are a lot of challenges within a single data point related to metadata in the system.’

From a funder:  

‘From a metadata standpoint, the fact is that there are very few standards that people will adhere to, unless it’s something like PubMed or Crossref, in which case they’ll meet requirements but it’s only as good as what goes in and how it’s reused. If you aren’t going to reuse, you won’t adhere to standards. If the ecosystem sets a bar that’s too low, that’s what people will use. When you need to add additional information or say there’s a new piece of information we want to track on an article, that’s almost impossible to add in a consistent way. From a funder perspective, any funder or grant information included is very difficult. The list goes on. If it isn’t a traditional article package it isn’t considered to be managed as well.’

From a standards organization:  

‘In the flip to OA there are several metadata problems. Starting with a general issue, which is that people presume metadata is always the same and it never changes. It changes. That’s one of the big problems people fail to understand in their metadata management. We have spent decades – probably eight or nine – developing a metadata structure for the order processing of subscriptions which now needs to get turned on its head in an author-pays model, for which we have no infrastructure. That is one key problem. Another is discovery and use by the end users. For example, what is vetted content? What is the difference between an author accepted manuscript (AAM) and a version of record (VOR)? What am I as a user reading? What is the vetting process it has gone through? One of the benefits of open content and an open content ecosystem is you can take it and move it anywhere else. How do you know what you’ve taken from where and its validity? This is core to the trust in scholarly communications and that can be lost without associated metadata. This continues in the workflow – if it was retracted, how do you know if it isn’t stated at the publisher’s site that it was, or if there’s no connectivity? So, you have the publishing process which has totally different metadata, you have the discovery process of what you want to find and what you have found, and the third challenge around use, assessment, connectivity with other resources, to provide metrics by which you can measure the performance or success of outputs. If everything is diverse, you have no way to measure the end results. That’s an overarching landscape view.’

From an institution:  

‘Part of the issue is many stakeholders don’t know what metadata is, so documenting things in general isn’t something researchers do a lot of. If you look at specialized roles like librarians, that awareness is much higher, but it’s mainly technical people that understand it while others have a low-level understanding (if any). At the meta level, the problem is the costs and benefits are mismatched. The person who has to create metadata isn’t the one who reaps the benefits of doing that. So, the researcher who wants to share data has to make it discoverable but they don’t get credit for creating metadata: people aren’t incentivized or rewarded for creating good quality metadata and when they do others benefit so it’s almost altruistic. And where there’s enough of an imperative, like with ORCID and Crossref, they are not always well-funded, which can be more problematic.’

From a standards provider:  

‘The challenges in the flip to OA are in many ways the same as other metadata challenges: different recipients of the metadata have different requirements or options for what they can and should include so it might be different from data sent to OCLC or libraries, for example. Another is the vendors or technologies they depend on may or may not fully capture the information we want to include or should include, or do it in a way that makes the workflow easier instead of harder. Often when something new is introduced, there’s a change that manuscript submission systems have to accommodate, and factors might affect how quickly they can include that information and everyone has to update workflows. A challenge is keeping track of what they have, what they don’t have, and what they’re sending to different sources. In that sense, the metadata supply chain issues are very much the same, whether OA or otherwise.’

From a researcher:  

‘There are many stakeholders. Understanding data is critical. Missing metadata is a huge challenge. I have to take time to track down the authors and ask them for information and then they have to ask whoever was in their lab, many of whom are long gone. And you may or may not get an answer.’

From a publisher:  

‘The need for metadata is increasing all the time. Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) guidelines have requirements around funding, there are diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives and the need to capture author and researcher information, where submissions come from, publications, etc. The challenge is ever increasing and to truly get an understanding of what’s going on across the board we need standards, and they need to be consistently applied.’

The issues brought to light in the interviews merely scratch the surface of the many challenges facing the industry in its quest to standardize and disseminate the use of robust metadata and the valuable linking of critical information. The benefits to the industry when standards, PIDs and tools are implemented to support the reliable use of various types of metadata are unquestionable. Industry discussions and projects continue to move the development of those infrastructure elements forward slowly but surely, but progress will truly be made when industry stakeholders actually implement and enforce metadata standards. It is incumbent upon each stakeholder group to make incremental changes against the challenges outlined in this article, including implementation of standards, to achieve that progress. With that will come increased efficiency, effectiveness – and sustainability – in the dissemination of scientific research.

Data accessibility statement

The interview questions with representatives from each stakeholder group are available here: https://figshare.com/s/b43b58371b55f9c80dea .

Abbreviations and Acronyms

A list of the abbreviations and acronyms used in this and other Insight s articles can be accessed here – click on the URL below and then select the ‘full list of industry A&As’ link: http://www.uksg.org/publications#aa .

Competing interests

The authors have declared no competing interests.

Will James Gregg et al., “A literature review of scholarly communications metadata,” Research Ideas and Outcomes 5 (2019): e38698, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.5.e38698 (accessed 1 March 2024).  

Kathryn A. Kaiser et al., “An international, multistakeholder survey about metadata awareness, knowledge, and use in scholarly communications,” Quantitative Science Studies 2, no.2 (2021): 454–473, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00133   https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.5.e38698 (accessed 1 March 2024).  

Josh Brown et al., UK PID Consortium: Cost-Benefit Analysis (1.0) , (Zenodo: Jisc, The MoreBrains Cooperative, 2021), DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4772627 (accessed 1 March 2024).  

“The State of Scholarly Metadata,” Copyright Clearance Center, https://www.copyright.com/stateofmetadata/ (accessed 1 March 2024).  

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS. A lock ( Lock Locked padlock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Alert: Due to extended maintenance, NSF.gov will be unavailable from 11:00 PM on 5/31 to 2:00 AM on 6/1. Most other NSF systems, including Research.gov, will be unavailable from 11:00 PM on 5/31 to 1:00 PM on 6/1. We apologize for any inconvenience.

Active funding opportunity

Nsf 24-575: epscor centers of research excellence in science and technology (epscor crest centers), program solicitation, document information, document history.

• Posted: May 17, 2024

Program Solicitation NSF 24-575

Supplement Due Date(s) (due by 5 p.m. submitting organization’s local time):

     July 07, 2025

     First Monday in July, Annually Thereafter

Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. submitting organization’s local time):

     December 06, 2024

Important Information And Revision Notes

Recipients are required to use the NSF Education and Training Application (ETAP) to manage participants supported by EPSCoR CREST Centers.

Any proposal submitted in response to this solicitation should be submitted in accordance with the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) that is in effect for the relevant due date to which the proposal is being submitted. The NSF PAPPG is regularly revised and it is the responsibility of the proposer to ensure that the proposal meets the requirements specified in this solicitation and the applicable version of the PAPPG. Submitting a proposal prior to a specified deadline does not negate this requirement.

Summary Of Program Requirements

General information.

Program Title:

EPSCoR Centers of Research Excellence in Science and Technology (EPSCoR CREST Centers)

In alignment with the CREST Program goals, through this solicitation, the CREST Program seeks to expand its geographic diversity and reach by explicitly calling for proposals led by and for efforts in Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) jurisdictions. The U.S. National Science Foundation's EPSCoR program pursues a mission to enhance the research competitiveness of targeted jurisdictions (state, territory or commonwealth) by strengthening science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) capacity and capability through a diverse portfolio of investments from talent development to local infrastructure. For a list of EPSCoR jurisdictions visit https://new.nsf.gov/funding/initiatives/epscor/epscor-criteria-eligibility . EPSCoR CREST Center awards provide support to enhance the research capabilities of institutions through the establishment of centers that effectively integrate education and research in EPSCoR jurisdictions. EPSCoR CREST Center awards promote the development of new knowledge, enhancements of the research productivity of individual faculty, and an expanded presence of students from EPSCoR jurisdictions in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines. Successful EPSCoR CREST Center proposals will demonstrate a clear vision and integration of STEM research and education and will align with the mission of the Division of Equity for Excellence in STEM (EES) with respect to the development of a STEM workforce. EPSCoR CREST Centers are also expected to provide leadership by meaningfully involving the efforts of all individuals in STEM at all levels. Centers are required to use evidence-based and innovative strategies to address workforce development issues, such as recruitment, retention, and mentorship of participants from EPSCoR jurisdictions. Successful proposals are expected to achieve national research competitiveness, broaden participation in STEM, and generate sustained, non-CREST funding from Federal, state, and/or private-sector sources. Phase I and Phase II EPSCoR CREST Center Awards Both Phase I and Phase II EPSCoR CREST Center awards provide multi-year support for institutions that demonstrate a strong research base. Phase I EPSCoR CREST Center awards provide funding for five years of research on a specific NSF-supported topic. Institutions may submit a Phase II EPSCoR CREST Center proposal requesting funding to continue research in the same disciplinary area as the Phase I EPSCoR Center or may submit a Phase I proposal focused on a disciplinary area that is significantly different from those of the previous award(s). EPSCoR CREST Partnership Supplements EPSCoR CREST Partnership Supplement requests are invited from current EPSCoR CREST Center recipients. Supplements support the establishment or strengthening of partnerships and collaborations with active CREST Centers and other nationally or internationally recognized research centers (including NSF-supported research centers), private sector research laboratories, K-12 schools, and/or informal science entities, including museums and science centers, as appropriate. Such partnerships and collaborations should aid EPSCoR CREST Centers’ quest in advancing knowledge and education on a research theme of national significance.

Cognizant Program Officer(s):

Please note that the following information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of contact.

Tomasz Durakiewicz, Lead Program Director, telephone: (703) 292-4892, email: [email protected]

Sonal S. Dekhane, Program Director, telephone: (703) 292-5029, email: [email protected]

Regina Sievert, Program Director, telephone: (703) 292-2808, email: [email protected]

Nicole E. Gass, Program Specialist, telephone: (703) 292-8378, email: [email protected]

• 47.076 --- STEM Education

Award Information

Anticipated Type of Award: Standard Grant or Continuing Grant

The number of awards and funding for EPSCoR CREST Centers (Phase I and Phase II) and EPSCoR CREST Partnership Supplements are contingent upon the availability of funds and the submission of a sufficient number of meritorious proposals.

The annual budget of a EPSCoR CREST Center award will not exceed $1,500,000 per year/$7,500,000 during a five-year period. EPSCoR CREST Partnership Supplements will not exceed $100,000.

Eligibility Information

Who May Submit Proposals:

Proposals may only be submitted by the following: Eligible institutions are Institutions of Higher Education that offer doctoral degrees in NSF STEM areas and are located in EPSCoR jurisdictions and are Emerging Research Institutions. Emerging Research Institutions are those that have less than $50,000,000 in research expenditures per year as reported at https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/profiles/site?method=rankingBySource&ds=herd in three of the last five years. Funding of partnering organizations should be requested via subawards in the proposal; separately submitted collaborative proposals will not be accepted. EPSCoR CREST Partnership Supplements are accepted only from current EPSCoR CREST Center recipients. An institution can hold a CREST-RISE award at the same time.

Who May Serve as PI:

The Principal Investigator (PI) must hold a full-time faculty appointment at the institution submitting the proposal.

Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization: 1

Only one proposal may be submitted per eligible institution and due date. An institution may have only one active CREST Center award at one time, irrespective of focus area or CREST Center funding solicitation number. Institutions that have completed a Phase I or Phase II award in a disciplinary area may re-compete in other disciplinary areas that are significantly different from those of the previous award(s). To be significantly different, all personnel for the new project must not have been part of the previous award(s) and the new project must be associated with a different 6-digit Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) code ( https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/cipcode/browse.aspx?y=55 ). Institutions with active Phase I funding should submit the Phase II proposal by the due date one year prior to the expiration of their Phase I award. After 10 years of CREST Centers support, including a combination of EPSCoR CREST Centers or CREST Centers, an institution must wait five years before submitting another proposal for CREST Centers support.

Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or co-PI: 1

Eligible individuals may be listed as the PI or co-PI on only one CREST Center proposal at the time of proposal submission.

Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions

A. proposal preparation instructions.

• Letters of Intent: Not required
• Preliminary Proposal Submission: Not required

Full Proposals:

• Full Proposals submitted via Research.gov: NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG) guidelines apply. The complete text of the PAPPG is available electronically on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg .
• Full Proposals submitted via Grants.gov: NSF Grants.gov Application Guide: A Guide for the Preparation and Submission of NSF Applications via Grants.gov guidelines apply (Note: The NSF Grants.gov Application Guide is available on the Grants.gov website and on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide ).

B. Budgetary Information

Cost Sharing Requirements:

Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited.

Indirect Cost (F&A) Limitations:

Not Applicable

Other Budgetary Limitations:

Other budgetary limitations apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

C. Due Dates

Proposal review information criteria.

Merit Review Criteria:

National Science Board approved criteria. Additional merit review criteria apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

Award Administration Information

Award Conditions:

Additional award conditions apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

Reporting Requirements:

Additional reporting requirements apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

I. Introduction

EPSCoR Centers of Research Excellence in Science and Technology (EPSCoR CREST Centers) is managed by the Division of Equity for Excellence in STEM (EES). Across the agency and with guidance from the National Science Board, NSF is working to increase STEM skills and advance STEM opportunities for all Americans.

NSF expects that awards made under the CREST program will catalyze institutional transformation in the development of research capabilities in alignment with the institution's mission and long-term goals and that the institutions will evaluate the impact of the award in effecting this transformation. Demonstrated leadership in the involvement of all groups in STEM is expected at all levels - students, postdoctoral researchers, and faculty. The research activities supported by CREST are expected to enable the full participation of faculty, graduate students, and undergraduates in a nationally competitive research enterprise. Outcomes and activities such as publications, involvement in regional, national, and international research forums, patents and commercial dissemination of research results, professional development of postdoctoral research associates, training of doctoral and master's students, and involvement of undergraduates in research activities should all occur in ways that establish the potential for national leadership.

The ability of EPSCoR CREST Centers to leverage funding from Federal, state, and local agencies as well as to foster industrial and academic collaborations as part of a sustainable research enterprise independent from CREST Centers funding, are important outcomes. At the same time, the projects will promote synergy between education and research; develop outreach activities for pre-college students, K- 12 educators, and the general public; and serve as a model for research scholarship throughout the institution.

II. Program Description

A) EPSCoR CREST Centers

1) General Characteristics

Both Phase I and Phase II EPSCoR CREST Centers provide multi-year support for institutions that demonstrate strengths in NSF-supported fields, as evidenced by a capacity to offer doctoral degrees in one or more STEM disciplines. The EPSCoR CREST Center proposal should clearly demonstrate a strong potential for the EPSCoR CREST Center to achieve national research competitiveness and to generate future non-CREST funding from Federal, state, or private-sector sources.

EPSCoR CREST Centers integrate research and education, and must promote the development of new knowledge, enhance faculty research productivity, and increase diverse representation in STEM disciplines. EPSCoR CREST Center awards are typically 60-month continuing grants of up to $7.5 million. These funds are used to improve elements that the institution has identified as being critical to strengthening its future research capacity to increase extramural funding and research productivity in the form of publications, patents, and other research products.

The proposed EPSCoR CREST Center Director must be prepared to provide leadership in developing and overseeing an inclusive diverse team positioned to fulfill the vision of the EPSCoR CREST Center. EPSCoR CREST Centers will engage students, postdoctoral researchers, and faculty from all groups in numbers that can have a significant impact on broadening participation in the STEM workforce.

EPSCoR CREST Centers may be organized around the development of groups of individual scientists or engineers; one or more science or engineering departments; or interdisciplinary/multidisciplinary research areas. Typically, a EPSCoR CREST Center consists of three to five scientifically meritorious research projects (referred to as subprojects in this solicitation) led by independent investigators, which are relevant to the unifying central research focus and overall objective of the EPSCoR CREST Center. These interrelated research projects are supported by a common administrative core. For more details, please refer to the Proposal Preparation Instructions.

It is expected that EPSCoR CREST Center awards will add substantial, measurable value to the existing STEM research capability in areas of high national and institutional priority. Examples of areas of high national priority are data science and analytics; advanced materials, manufacturing, and robotics; cybersecurity; plant genetics/agricultural technologies; quantum information sciences; nanotechnology; semiconductors/microelectronics technologies; climate change and clean energy; and areas outlined in the resources below:

• CHIPS and Science Act of 2022
• Industries of the Future
• Understanding the Brain
• DOE Earthshots

2) Commitment and Sustainability

Organizational commitment from administrators and leaders to the proposed activities is vital for successful EPSCoR CREST Centers and for financial and organizational sustainability of promising activities. A letter of support from the provost or equivalent university official with authority related to faculty, research, facilities and/or equipment, and education is required and should be submitted as a supplementary document.

Proposals should discuss the commitment of leadership to research capacity-building either with additional awards and/or through changes to current practices. Proposals should discuss how the successful components developed under the EPSCoR CREST Center will be sustained. Awards are expected to lead to long-term organizational changes in the ways that the institution supports faculty members in increasing their research productivity. Therefore, awards are expected to consider the sustainability and institutionalization of the EPSCoR CREST Center's activities from the beginning of the project.

3) Leadership, Management, and Oversight of the EPSCoR CREST Center

The proposed EPSCoR CREST Center team must provide the leadership to develop and lead a diverse team to fulfill the vision of the EPSCoR CREST Center. EPSCoR CREST Centers will engage students, postdoctoral researchers, and faculty from all groups in numbers that can have a significant impact on building a diverse STEM workforce. CREST is committed to a culture and climate of research that results in an inclusive and diverse workforce. For this reason, CREST strongly encourages the participation of the full spectrum of diverse talent in the identified leadership teams for EPSCoR CREST Centers.

Each proposed EPSCoR CREST Center shall convene, at least annually, an external advisory committee (EAC). The function of the EAC is to provide guidance and advice to the EPSCoR CREST Center as well as to ensure that the EPSCoR CREST Center's activities are consistent with its vision, goals, and objectives. The advisors should include representatives from those served by the EPSCoR CREST Center (e.g., IHEs, industry, state and local agencies, and national laboratories) and reflect the gamut of participants inherent in the citizenry of the United States. NSF highly encourages industry members in the EAC that can advise on intellectual property issues, acquisition of Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) funding, and other means to support the financial and organizational sustainability of the EPSCoR CREST Center. Persons with a financial, institutional, or collaborative connection to the EPSCoR CREST Center may not serve as members of the EAC. Do not identify members of the EAC in the proposal.

Each EPSCoR CREST Center shall also have an internal steering committee to include the PI, co-PIs, and other stakeholders.

4) Collaborations / Partnerships

Collaborative efforts involving industry, other IHEs, federally funded research and development centers (FFRDCs), national laboratories, K-12 schools, museums, and science centers, and/or other national, state, or regional research and development organizations are required. Subawards to such collaborating organizations are permitted, subject to restrictions outlined in the PAPPG. The total amount of funding to all subawardee organizations cannot exceed 10% of the cumulative budget going to the prime institution.

5) Evaluation Plan

EPSCoR CREST Centers must develop a robust evaluation plan. The evaluation plan should be designed to gauge the accomplishment of the EPSCoR CREST Center’s identified goals and objectives and the impacts of the EPSCoR CREST Center. Evaluation should be based on benchmarks, indicators, or expected outcomes related to EPSCoR CREST Center goals and activities.

EPSCoR CREST Centers should design evaluations that are appropriate to the EPSCoR CREST Center’s proposed activities. Plans for assessing progress toward realizing the EPSCoR CREST Center’s outputs, outcomes, and impacts should rely on measures that have been validated in the context in which they will be used.

Evaluation plans should be based on a theoretical model that relates the EPSCoR CREST Center’s goals to activities and to outputs, outcomes, and impacts (i.e., immediate, short-term, and intermediate-term expected changes). Evaluation plans should be appropriate to the scope of the EPSCoR CREST Center and should include both formative aspects that will provide information to guide the EPSCoR CREST Center in making evidence-based decisions about changes in its activities, and summative aspects that will provide evidence of the overall impacts of the project.

The budget must include adequate resources for evaluation. The evaluation should be led by an expert independent evaluation team.

B) EPSCoR CREST Partnership Supplements

EPSCoR CREST Partnership Supplements support the establishment or strengthening of partnerships and collaborations between existing EPSCoR CREST Centers and nationally or internationally recognized research centers including NSF-supported research centers, K-12 schools, and museums and science centers. Support may be requested for activities that have a direct positive influence on the competitiveness of participating scientists and engineers, and the quality of the institution's research and training.

Supportable activities may include but are not limited to: exploratory research projects; acquisition of materials, supplies, research equipment, and instrumentation; hiring nationally competitive scientists and/or engineers; visiting scientists and engineers as short- or long-term consultants; faculty attendance at professional meetings and seminars; faculty sabbaticals and exchange programs; education activities directed toward the development of a diverse, internationally competitive and globally engaged workforce of scientists, engineers, and citizens well-prepared for a broad set of career paths; undergraduate and graduate research activities; development of outreach and other enhancement programs with neighboring institutions; and strengthening technical support personnel. The benefits to all parties in the proposed collaboration must be clearly articulated. Awarded partnership supplements will be made for a maximum of $100,000 per supplement.

C) Other Types of Funding Opportunities

For these funding opportunities, proposers must contact the cognizant NSF Program Officer and request authorization to submit a proposal.

CREST also accepts the following types of proposals: Planning proposals; Conferences; Early-concept Grants for Exploratory Research (EAGER), Research Advanced by Interdisciplinary Science and Engineering (RAISE), and Rapid Response Research (RAPID) awards. Guidance on the preparation and submission of these types of proposals is contained in PAPPG Chapter II.F.

The CREST Program also accepts supplemental funding requests to existing awards. Supplemental funding requests are different from the EPSCoR CREST Partnership Supplements described above. Supplemental funding requests can be requested for up to 20% of the original award total. Guidance on the preparation and submission of supplemental funding requests is contained in PAPPG Chapter VI.E.

III. Award Information

EPSCoR CREST Center awards are for up to 60 months with an annual budget up to $1,500,000 (i.e., a maximum of $7,500,000). Center awards are made as standard or continuing grants.

The progress and plans of each EPSCoR CREST Center will be reviewed by NSF annually, prior to approving continued NSF support. Centers that are not meeting expectations may have their level of funding reduced or may be terminated. Institutions may not receive more than two consecutive EPSCoR CREST Center awards in the same scientific area. An institution may have only one active EPSCoR CREST Center award at one time, irrespective of focus area or CREST Center funding solicitation number. This information applies to Phase I and Phase II awards.

Partner organizations external to the prime institution must be budgeted as subawardees. The total amount of funding to subawardee organizations must reflect the organization’s effort and is limited to no more than $150,000 per organization per year. The total amount of funding to all subawardee organizations cannot exceed 10% of the total award made to the prime institution, for example, $750,000 for a $7,500,000 budget.

Partnership supplements will be made for a maximum amount of $100,000 per supplement, in amounts that vary with need and are subject to the availability of funds. A supplement will be an amendment to an existing CREST award.

The estimated EPSCoR CREST Center and EPSCoR CREST Partnership Supplement budgets, number of awards, and award size and duration are subject to the availability of funds.

IV. Eligibility Information

V. proposal preparation and submission instructions.

Full Proposal Preparation Instructions : Proposers may opt to submit proposals in response to this Program Solicitation via Research.gov or Grants.gov.

• Full Proposals submitted via Research.gov: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the general guidelines contained in the NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG). The complete text of the PAPPG is available electronically on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg . Paper copies of the PAPPG may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-8134 or by e-mail from [email protected] . The Prepare New Proposal setup will prompt you for the program solicitation number.
• Full proposals submitted via Grants.gov: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation via Grants.gov should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide: A Guide for the Preparation and Submission of NSF Applications via Grants.gov . The complete text of the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide is available on the Grants.gov website and on the NSF website at: ( https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide ). To obtain copies of the Application Guide and Application Forms Package, click on the Apply tab on the Grants.gov site, then click on the Apply Step 1: Download a Grant Application Package and Application Instructions link and enter the funding opportunity number, (the program solicitation number without the NSF prefix) and press the Download Package button. Paper copies of the Grants.gov Application Guide also may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-8134 or by e-mail from [email protected] .

See PAPPG Chapter II.D.2 for guidance on the required sections of a full research proposal submitted to NSF. Please note that the proposal preparation instructions provided in this program solicitation may deviate from the PAPPG instructions.

Eligible proposers intending to submit a proposal are encouraged to participate in informational webinars that will be webcast after the release of this solicitation. See the NSF CREST webpage for dates.

Proposals that are not compliant with the guidelines will be returned without review. It is the proposing organization’s responsibility to ensure that the proposal is compliant with all applicable guidelines and that only one proposal is submitted by the institution.

Proposals must contain the items listed below and adhere strictly to the specified page limitations. No additional information may be provided as appendices or through links to web pages. Figures and tables must be included within the applicable page limit.

Proposals must contain sufficient detail to allow for the assessment of the intellectual merit and broader impacts of the proposed EPSCoR CREST Center, as well as the solicitation-specific review criteria identified in Section VI. below. The proposal should contain specific, measurable, and obtainable outcomes that will be used to measure the progress of the proposed EPSCoR CREST Center if funded.

EPSCoR CREST Center Proposal Structure

EPSCoR CREST Center proposals consist of the EPSCoR CREST Center Project Description and its associated research subproject narratives. The EPSCoR CREST Center proposal includes discussion of the proposer's overall plan for improving the status of STEM research and training and for broadening the participation of a diverse student population in STEM, as codified by the EPSCoR CREST Center's unifying theme or focus. The EPSCoR CREST Center proposal overview should present a clear explanation of the proposed improvement plan from a scientific, educational, and administrative or fiscal point of view. The proposal Project Summary will provide an overview of the proposed activities and will clearly delineate the NSF criteria of Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts. The Project Summary also describes the synergy anticipated by the choice of a minimum of three subprojects (maximum of five) that are consistent with the unifying theme of the EPSCoR CREST Center. The subprojects are not pilot projects. All subprojects must be located at the institution submitting the proposal.

Consistent with the objective of broadening the participation of U.S. citizens, nationals, or permanent residents in STEM fields, the proposal should address increasing opportunities for all with the goal of broadening participation in the EPSCoR CREST Center. The contribution/role of partner organizations to the objectives should also be described.

Proposed activities should be presented in sufficient detail to allow assessment of their intrinsic merit and potential effectiveness.

EPSCoR CREST Center Research Subprojects (3 to 5 subprojects)

Each proposal must include a minimum of three (maximum of five) individual (albeit related) research projects, each of which is pertinent to the central goal of the EPSCoR CREST Center. All subprojects must be based at the same institution. Each proposed subproject may involve a subset of EPSCoR CREST Center investigators but should have a single subproject leader. The budget of the subprojects must allow for significant research to take place and must be commensurate with the scope of the projects. The subprojects are not pilot projects. Do not divide subprojects into sub-subprojects. The subprojects should result in data that can be used for the submission of a proposal to NSF or other funding sources. More details on the subproject narrative requirements are provided in section 3.i below.

Special Considerations for EPSCoR CREST Phase II Proposals

A current EPSCoR CREST Center nearing the completion of its initial five years of funding may submit a proposal for an additional five years of support. A proposal will undergo merit review alongside proposals for new EPSCoR CREST Centers. Accordingly, the achievements and future plans of existing EPSCoR CREST Centers will be evaluated comprehensively relative to progress and direction and weighed against the competition for available funds. The results from the Phase I research and broadening participation activities should be articulated clearly in parallel with the institutional transformation arising from the other EPSCoR CREST Center accomplishments of the first five years.

The Project Description for a Phase II Center should demonstrate a clear vision for a synergistic team of investigators positioned within the second five years of support to achieve major national recognition for their accomplishments including research that has the potential to be transformative. The Project Description as well as the subproject narratives should provide a systematic articulation of the research, educational, and outreach accomplishments of the Phase I Center and how these will drive the future activities of the EPSCoR CREST Center, especially in terms of a new vision and organization. The Phase II Center should be well-positioned to demonstrate a transformation of the institutional capacity for engaging individuals from EPSCoR jurisdictions in STEM. A simple continuation of the Phase I EPSCoR CREST Center, even if the scientific merits of the various research activities are strong, will not yield a competitive Phase II proposal.

A recommendation for a Phase II EPSCoR CREST Center award will be subject to the availability of funds, as well as the demonstrated potential that funding as a Phase II EPSCoR CREST Center will lead to institutional transformation in line with the aim of this solicitation. Renewed EPSCoR CREST Centers will continue to be monitored by NSF. Centers that are not meeting the exceptional expectations of a Phase II EPSCoR Center may have their level of funding reduced or terminated.

EPSCoR CREST Center Proposal Contents

Proposals must include all the following items. In cases where requirements given in this document differ from those given in the PAPPG, the guidelines provided in this solicitation take precedence.

Proposal Set-Up: Select "Prepare New Proposal" in Research.gov. Search for and select this solicitation title in Step One of the Proposal wizard. Select "Single proposal (with or without subawards)." Separately submitted collaborative proposals will be returned without review.

Title: The Title of the Proposed Project must begin with "EPSCoR CREST Phase I Proposal: Center for " or "EPSCoR CREST Phase II Proposal: Center for ". The title must be informative and descriptive of the project, concise (20 words or less), and use Title Case. The title should not include the institution name, any acronyms ("STEM" excepted), or quotation marks.

Senior/Key Personnel: The proposed project director must be designated as the PI.

1. Cover Sheet

For planning purposes, September 1, of the award year should be shown as the start date.

2. Project Summary (1 page)

The Project Summary must be no more than one page and consist of three sections: overview, intellectual merit, and broader impacts.

The Project Summary Overview section provides a clear and concise description of the project including its mission and vision, describes the research focus, goals for education and broadening participation, the integrative nature of the EPSCoR CREST Center, and articulate the potential legacy and national impact of the EPSCoR CREST Center if funded.

The Project Summary Intellectual Merit section describes the research focus and subprojects' synergy consistent with the unifying theme of the EPSCoR CREST Center. All subprojects must be located at the same institution.

The Project Summary Broader Impacts section describes goals for education, professional development, and broadening participation.

At the end of the Broader Impacts section add no more than five 6-digit Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) codes that most associate with the proposed center. CIP codes are available at https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/cipcode/browse.aspx?y=55 . Example: 26.0202, 26.0203, 26.0204

3. Project Description (Sections 3.a to 3.h - 15 pages; Section 3.i - 5 pages per subproject)

The Project Description must contain only Sections 3.a through 3.i. Sections 3.a to 3.h are limited to 15 total pages including tables and illustrations. Phase II proposals must include a progress report.

The Project Description should:

• Contain specific, measurable, and obtainable objectives that will be used to measure the progress of the EPSCoR CREST Center, if funded.
• Summarize the subproject's importance to the overall proposal plan, including synergy with the other subprojects and a discussion of how they support the overall goals and objectives of the EPSCoR CREST Center proposal.

Progress Report (Phase II Proposals Only) (1 page)

The Progress Report should provide the reviewers with an overview of the progress made during the Phase I period of support. The progress report cannot exceed 1 page. The Progress Report should:

• Provide the beginning and ending dates for the period covered.
• Summarize the objectives of the previous project period and the progress made toward their achievement.
• Explain changes to the objectives and any new directions.
• Discuss previous participants (e.g., recruitment, retention, inclusion of individuals from EPSCoR jurisdictions in STEM, including persons with disabilities).
• Discuss career development at the faculty, postdoctoral, and student levels.

3.a Problem Description and Rationale for Selected Approach

Articulate a vision for the proposed EPSCoR CREST Center that clearly outlines the research thrusts being addressed. The proposed research should be sufficiently complex, large-scale, and long-term to justify a EPSCoR CREST Center and flexible enough to permit change as the research proceeds. The proposed approaches must be innovative, and it must be clear how they will transform or significantly impact the research area. This section should:

• Describe the comprehensive plan to achieve and sustain national competitiveness, independent from CREST Centers funding, in a clearly defined area of national significance in STEM research.
• State the overall vision and long-range goals of the integrated EPSCoR CREST Center.
• Explain the unique opportunities that a EPSCoR CREST Center will provide that could not be achieved with individual support.
• Describe the proposed research areas/themes and how they integrate with each other.
• Describe how an integrated EPSCoR CREST Center is aligned with the mission of the institution and the long-term strategic goals of building the institution’s research capacity.

3.b Description of the Research Objectives

Describe the proposed research areas/themes and how they integrate with each other to realize the EPSCoR CREST Center's research vision. This section should:

• Provide 5-year timelines for the activities.
• Indicate the specific role of each partner organization or participant in the research topic/goal area.
• Provide a research plan with sufficient detail to allow assessment of the scientific merit and to justify the necessity for the EPSCoR CREST Center mode of operation.
• Indicate the potential impact or expected significance the EPSCoR CREST Center's research will have on the Nation's scientific knowledge and/or technological base.

3.c Description of the Education and Career Development Objectives

Describe how the EPSCoR CREST Center will provide professional development and other appropriate opportunities to young faculty members affiliated with the EPSCoR CREST Center to assist them in establishing an independent research agenda. This section should:

• Describe how research and education will be integrated with career development objectives. Education programs and activities should be evidence-based practices developed in the context of current educational research and be monitored through a formal evaluation effort led by independent evaluators as described in 3.g.
• Describe plans for attracting and retaining students.
• Describe plans for preparing students for the submission of fellowship applications to NSF and other funders.
• Describe proposed activities in sufficient detail to allow assessment of their intrinsic merit and potential effectiveness.

3.d Broader Impacts

Describe the broader impacts objectives and outline strategies for achieving them. This section should:

• Describe plans for broadening participation through the inclusion of individuals from EPSCoR jurisdictions in STEM.
• Describe the contribution/role of students and faculty members and how they will be integrated into activities.
• Explain how mentoring will be used to provide a supportive environment for all project participants.
• Explain how progress will be measured and how strategies will be adapted, as appropriate.
• Describe proposed activities in sufficient detail to allow assessment of the intrinsic merit and potential effectiveness of the activities.

3.e Collaborations / Partnerships

Describe collaborative efforts involving industry, other IHEs, Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs), national laboratories, K-12 entities, museums, and science centers, or other national, state, or regional research and development organizations and how these collaborations will strengthen the EPSCoR CREST Center.

3.f Management Plan

Describe the plan for the management of the proposed EPSCoR CREST Center to ensure optimal performance. This section should:

• Present a management plan, including a diagram to explain the organizational relationships and reporting structure among the key areas of responsibility.
• Identify key members of the management team and explain their specific roles and areas of responsibility.
• Explain the role of each key participant/component.
• Describe the processes to be used to prioritize activities, allocate funds and equipment across activities, and select a replacement PI, if needed.
• Identify members of the Internal Steering Committee and an independent evaluator, external to the project.

3.g Evaluation Plan

All proposals should include an evaluation section that describes how the project evaluator/evaluation team will gauge the accomplishment of project goals and the impacts of the project. The budget must include adequate resources for project evaluation. This section should:

• Include a logic model (required) with short-term, and intermediate-term expected outcomes.
• Include a description of the evaluation design, methods, and measures that will be used.
• Include in the evaluation plan formative aspects that will provide information to guide the EPSCoR CREST Center in making evidence-based decisions about changes in its activities, and summative aspects that will provide evidence of overall impacts of the project.
• Include an evaluation design based on benchmarks, indicators, or expected outcomes related to project goals, objectives, and activities.
• Identify the person(s) who will lead the evaluation and briefly describe their academic training and professional experience that qualifies them to serve as an evaluator. Evaluator(s) may be internal or external to EPSCoR CREST institutions but should be external to the EPSCoR CREST Center itself and positioned to carry out the evaluation plan independently.

3.h Results from Prior NSF Support (included in the Project Description)

See NSF PAPPG for guidelines.

3.i Individual Subproject Narratives (5-page limit per subproject) (Minimum 3, Maximum 5 subprojects)

The subproject narratives will contain the elements of an abbreviated NSF research proposal limited to a total of 5 pages per subproject. This is in addition to the 15 pages of the project description. Begin each subproject with the subproject number, subproject title, and subproject leader. Example: Subproject 1: Research on new materials. PI: Samantha Smith. Continue with the Subproject Summary that includes Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts and then the remainder of the Subproject Narrative. Subproject references are to be included in the References Cited section of the EPSCoR CREST Center proposal (See section 5 below). Do not divide subprojects into sub-subprojects. The subprojects should result in data that can be used for the submission of a proposal to NSF or other funding sources.

4. Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources (1-page limit)

Provide a synopsis of institutional resources that will be available (dedicated space, access to facilities and instrumentation, faculty and staff positions, including plans to make cluster hires if appropriate, access to programs that assist with curriculum development or broadening participation, or other institutional programs that could provide support). The description should be narrative in nature and must not include any quantifiable financial information.

5. References Cited (5-page limit)

See NSF PAPPG for format guidelines.

6. Budget and Budget Justification

EPSCoR CREST Center awards will not exceed $1,500,000 annually / $7,500,000 during a five-year period.

Provide a budget for each year of the project. A cumulative budget will be generated automatically. The proposed budget should be consistent with the needs and complexity of the proposed activity. Funds also should be included for attendance at the annual PI meeting.

Submission of a budget justification outlining all requested expenditures is required. Identify items of equipment costing more than $25,000. Full justification for these is required.

Partner organizations external to the prime institution must be budgeted as subawardees. The total amount of funding to subawardee organizations must reflect the organization’s effort and is limited to no more than $150,000 per organization per year. The total amount of funding to all subawardee organizations cannot exceed 10% of the cumulative budget going to the prime institution, for example $750,000 for a $7,500,000 budget.

Financial support may be provided to student participants under EPSCoR CREST projects. However, financial support may only be provided to students that are U.S. citizens, nationals, or permanent residents. Student support should be included on the "stipends" line under the "Participant Support Costs" section of the budget. Stipends to students should not replace other need-based grants and scholarships already awarded to the students.

Participants need to be paid according to institutional practices. If using a different scale, its use must be justified in the application.

7. Senior / Key Personnel Documents

In accordance with the guidance in the PAPPG, the following information must be provided for all individuals designated as Senior/Key Personnel (PI and any faculty members whose research, education, or broadening participation efforts will be supported).

• Biographical Sketch
• Current and Pending (Other) Support
• Collaborators & Other Affiliations Information
• Synergistic Activities

8. Special Information and Supplementary Documents

Required information to be included in the Supplementary Documents section.

8.a Identification of Partner Organization(s) and Project Personnel (2-page limit)

(a) List all project personnel who have a role in the management, research, education, and evaluation components of the EPSCoR CREST Center. Use the following format:

Project Personnel:

Last name, first name, institution/organization, role in the project

(b) List all project partner organizations who have a role in the management, research, education, and evaluation components of the EPSCoR CREST Center. Use the following format:

Partner institution(s) and organization(s):

Institution/organization, role in the project

8.b Ethics Plan (1-page limit)

Provide a clear statement of the EPSCoR CREST Center's proposed policies on ethics training, responsible conduct of research, and intellectual property rights. A program of training in ethics and responsible conduct of research for all faculty, postdoctoral researchers, and graduate and undergraduate students involved in the EPSCoR CREST Center is required. Training topics should include the nature of the research, methodologies used, ownership of research and ideas, roles and responsibilities regarding intellectual property, and civil treatment of colleagues.

8.c Shared Experimental Facilities (1-page limit)

When appropriate, describe the shared facilities to be established, including research instrumentation.

The following elements should be addressed in this section: maintenance and operation of facilities, including assurance of organizational commitments/support; infrastructure and technical expertise to ensure effective usage; and provisions for user fees and plans for ensuring maintenance and operation of facilities after the end of the award.

8.d Data Management and Sharing Plan (2-page limit)

Describe how the proposal conforms to NSF policy on the storage, dissemination and sharing of data and research results.

8.e Mentoring Plan (1-page limit)

Each proposal that requests funding to support postdoctoral scholars or graduate students must include a description of the mentoring activities that will be provided for such individuals. Proposers are advised that the mentoring plan may not be used to circumvent the Project Description page limitation.

8.f Undergraduate Student Mentoring Plan (1-page limit)

Each proposal that requests funding to support undergraduate students must include a description of the mentoring activities that will be provided for such individuals. Proposers are advised that the mentoring plan may not be used to circumvent the Project Description page limitation. Please note that this is different than the Mentoring Plan required by the PAPPG.

8.g Letter of Support (2-page limit) and Letters of Collaboration (2-page limit each)

A letter of support from the provost or equivalent university official with authority related to faculty, research, facilities and/or equipment, and education must be submitted describing the prime institution's support for and commitment to the award (including space). The institution must commit to implementing systemic changes to increase research productivity. The letter of support must express awareness of, support for, and specific commitments to the project.

The letter of support should include information related to financial and organizational sustainability and commitment of the provost or equivalent university official to the project. A letter of support that merely endorses the project or offers nonspecific support for the project activities should not be included and the proposal will be returned without review if a general support letter is submitted.

Letters of collaboration must be provided by major partnering organizations and the program evaluator. "Major" is defined as those organizations receiving budgetary resources from the award or contributing to the impacts of the proposed work. Letters of collaboration should not be limited to the recommended language in the NSF PAPPG.

Proposals submitted without a letter of support and letters of collaboration will be returned without review.

8.h Quotes for Equipment

Include quotes for equipment costing more than $25,000.

9. Information to be submitted to NSF via the Single Copy Documents Section

Submit a list of subproject PIs. List the individual’s last name, first name, middle initial, and e-mail address. These individuals must also be designated as Senior/Key Personnel in the Manage Personnel section of Research.gov and must submit Biographical Sketches, and Current and Pending (Other) Support, Collaborators and Other Affiliations information, and Synergistic Activities.

No other items or appendices are to be included.

Proposals containing items other than those required above will be returned without review.

EPSCoR CREST Partnership Supplements Contents

Supplemental funding requests should be prepared in accordance with the guidance contained in the PAPPG and must be submitted via Research.gov.

• EPSCoR CREST Partnership Supplements Project Summary

Begin the Summary of Proposed Work section with "This EPSCoR CREST Partnership Supplement"

Cost Sharing:

EPSCoR CREST Partnership Supplements will not exceed $100,000.

Budget Preparation Instructions:

Financial support may be provided to student participants under the EPSCoR CREST Center. However, financial support may only be provided to students that are U.S. citizens, nationals, or permanent residents. Student support should be included on the "stipends" line under the "Participant Support Costs" section of the budget. Stipends to students should not replace other need-based grants and scholarships already awarded to the students.

D. Research.gov/Grants.gov Requirements

For Proposals Submitted Via Research.gov:

To prepare and submit a proposal via Research.gov, see detailed technical instructions available at: https://www.research.gov/research-portal/appmanager/base/desktop?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=research_node_display&_nodePath=/researchGov/Service/Desktop/ProposalPreparationandSubmission.html . For Research.gov user support, call the Research.gov Help Desk at 1-800-381-1532 or e-mail [email protected] . The Research.gov Help Desk answers general technical questions related to the use of the Research.gov system. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this funding opportunity.

For Proposals Submitted Via Grants.gov:

Before using Grants.gov for the first time, each organization must register to create an institutional profile. Once registered, the applicant's organization can then apply for any federal grant on the Grants.gov website. Comprehensive information about using Grants.gov is available on the Grants.gov Applicant Resources webpage: https://www.grants.gov/applicants . In addition, the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide (see link in Section V.A) provides instructions regarding the technical preparation of proposals via Grants.gov. For Grants.gov user support, contact the Grants.gov Contact Center at 1-800-518-4726 or by email: [email protected] . The Grants.gov Contact Center answers general technical questions related to the use of Grants.gov. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this solicitation.

Submitting the Proposal: Once all documents have been completed, the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) must submit the application to Grants.gov and verify the desired funding opportunity and agency to which the application is submitted. The AOR must then sign and submit the application to Grants.gov. The completed application will be transferred to Research.gov for further processing.

The NSF Grants.gov Proposal Processing in Research.gov informational page provides submission guidance to applicants and links to helpful resources including the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide , Grants.gov Proposal Processing in Research.gov how-to guide , and Grants.gov Submitted Proposals Frequently Asked Questions . Grants.gov proposals must pass all NSF pre-check and post-check validations in order to be accepted by Research.gov at NSF.

When submitting via Grants.gov, NSF strongly recommends applicants initiate proposal submission at least five business days in advance of a deadline to allow adequate time to address NSF compliance errors and resubmissions by 5:00 p.m. submitting organization's local time on the deadline. Please note that some errors cannot be corrected in Grants.gov. Once a proposal passes pre-checks but fails any post-check, an applicant can only correct and submit the in-progress proposal in Research.gov.

Proposers that submitted via Research.gov may use Research.gov to verify the status of their submission to NSF. For proposers that submitted via Grants.gov, until an application has been received and validated by NSF, the Authorized Organizational Representative may check the status of an application on Grants.gov. After proposers have received an e-mail notification from NSF, Research.gov should be used to check the status of an application.

VI. NSF Proposal Processing And Review Procedures

Proposals received by NSF are assigned to the appropriate NSF program for acknowledgement and, if they meet NSF requirements, for review. All proposals are carefully reviewed by a scientist, engineer, or educator serving as an NSF Program Officer, and usually by three to ten other persons outside NSF either as ad hoc reviewers, panelists, or both, who are experts in the particular fields represented by the proposal. These reviewers are selected by Program Officers charged with oversight of the review process. Proposers are invited to suggest names of persons they believe are especially well qualified to review the proposal and/or persons they would prefer not review the proposal. These suggestions may serve as one source in the reviewer selection process at the Program Officer's discretion. Submission of such names, however, is optional. Care is taken to ensure that reviewers have no conflicts of interest with the proposal. In addition, Program Officers may obtain comments from site visits before recommending final action on proposals. Senior NSF staff further review recommendations for awards. A flowchart that depicts the entire NSF proposal and award process (and associated timeline) is included in PAPPG Exhibit III-1.

A comprehensive description of the Foundation's merit review process is available on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/ .

Proposers should also be aware of core strategies that are essential to the fulfillment of NSF's mission, as articulated in Leading the World in Discovery and Innovation, STEM Talent Development and the Delivery of Benefits from Research - NSF Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years (FY) 2022 - 2026 . These strategies are integrated in the program planning and implementation process, of which proposal review is one part. NSF's mission is particularly well-implemented through the integration of research and education and broadening participation in NSF programs, projects, and activities.

One of the strategic objectives in support of NSF's mission is to foster integration of research and education through the programs, projects, and activities it supports at academic and research institutions. These institutions must recruit, train, and prepare a diverse STEM workforce to advance the frontiers of science and participate in the U.S. technology-based economy. NSF's contribution to the national innovation ecosystem is to provide cutting-edge research under the guidance of the Nation's most creative scientists and engineers. NSF also supports development of a strong science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce by investing in building the knowledge that informs improvements in STEM teaching and learning.

NSF's mission calls for the broadening of opportunities and expanding participation of groups, institutions, and geographic regions that are underrepresented in STEM disciplines, which is essential to the health and vitality of science and engineering. NSF is committed to this principle of diversity and deems it central to the programs, projects, and activities it considers and supports.

A. Merit Review Principles and Criteria

The National Science Foundation strives to invest in a robust and diverse portfolio of projects that creates new knowledge and enables breakthroughs in understanding across all areas of science and engineering research and education. To identify which projects to support, NSF relies on a merit review process that incorporates consideration of both the technical aspects of a proposed project and its potential to contribute more broadly to advancing NSF's mission "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other purposes." NSF makes every effort to conduct a fair, competitive, transparent merit review process for the selection of projects.

1. Merit Review Principles

These principles are to be given due diligence by PIs and organizations when preparing proposals and managing projects, by reviewers when reading and evaluating proposals, and by NSF program staff when determining whether or not to recommend proposals for funding and while overseeing awards. Given that NSF is the primary federal agency charged with nurturing and supporting excellence in basic research and education, the following three principles apply:

• All NSF projects should be of the highest quality and have the potential to advance, if not transform, the frontiers of knowledge.
• NSF projects, in the aggregate, should contribute more broadly to achieving societal goals. These "Broader Impacts" may be accomplished through the research itself, through activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project. The project activities may be based on previously established and/or innovative methods and approaches, but in either case must be well justified.
• Meaningful assessment and evaluation of NSF funded projects should be based on appropriate metrics, keeping in mind the likely correlation between the effect of broader impacts and the resources provided to implement projects. If the size of the activity is limited, evaluation of that activity in isolation is not likely to be meaningful. Thus, assessing the effectiveness of these activities may best be done at a higher, more aggregated, level than the individual project.

With respect to the third principle, even if assessment of Broader Impacts outcomes for particular projects is done at an aggregated level, PIs are expected to be accountable for carrying out the activities described in the funded project. Thus, individual projects should include clearly stated goals, specific descriptions of the activities that the PI intends to do, and a plan in place to document the outputs of those activities.

These three merit review principles provide the basis for the merit review criteria, as well as a context within which the users of the criteria can better understand their intent.

2. Merit Review Criteria

All NSF proposals are evaluated through use of the two National Science Board approved merit review criteria. In some instances, however, NSF will employ additional criteria as required to highlight the specific objectives of certain programs and activities.

The two merit review criteria are listed below. Both criteria are to be given full consideration during the review and decision-making processes; each criterion is necessary but neither, by itself, is sufficient. Therefore, proposers must fully address both criteria. (PAPPG Chapter II.D.2.d(i). contains additional information for use by proposers in development of the Project Description section of the proposal). Reviewers are strongly encouraged to review the criteria, including PAPPG Chapter II.D.2.d(i), prior to the review of a proposal.

When evaluating NSF proposals, reviewers will be asked to consider what the proposers want to do, why they want to do it, how they plan to do it, how they will know if they succeed, and what benefits could accrue if the project is successful. These issues apply both to the technical aspects of the proposal and the way in which the project may make broader contributions. To that end, reviewers will be asked to evaluate all proposals against two criteria:

• Intellectual Merit: The Intellectual Merit criterion encompasses the potential to advance knowledge; and
• Broader Impacts: The Broader Impacts criterion encompasses the potential to benefit society and contribute to the achievement of specific, desired societal outcomes.

The following elements should be considered in the review for both criteria:

• Advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields (Intellectual Merit); and
• Benefit society or advance desired societal outcomes (Broader Impacts)?
• To what extent do the proposed activities suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts?
• Is the plan for carrying out the proposed activities well-reasoned, well-organized, and based on a sound rationale? Does the plan incorporate a mechanism to assess success?
• How well qualified is the individual, team, or organization to conduct the proposed activities?
• Are there adequate resources available to the PI (either at the home organization or through collaborations) to carry out the proposed activities?

Broader impacts may be accomplished through the research itself, through the activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project. NSF values the advancement of scientific knowledge and activities that contribute to achievement of societally relevant outcomes. Such outcomes include, but are not limited to: full participation of women, persons with disabilities, and other underrepresented groups in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM); improved STEM education and educator development at any level; increased public scientific literacy and public engagement with science and technology; improved well-being of individuals in society; development of a diverse, globally competitive STEM workforce; increased partnerships between academia, industry, and others; improved national security; increased economic competitiveness of the United States; and enhanced infrastructure for research and education.

Proposers are reminded that reviewers will also be asked to review the Data Management and Sharing Plan and the Mentoring Plan, as appropriate.

Additional Solicitation Specific Review Criteria

Reviewers will be asked to consider the integrative nature of the proposed EPSCoR CREST Center. Questions to be considered include:

• Is there a demonstrated need for EPSCoR CREST Centers funding in order to expand the institution’s research capacity?
• What is the potential of the proposed EPSCoR CREST Center to achieve national research competitiveness?
• Does the institution offer a Ph.D. in the center's research area and are the EPSCoR CREST investigators funded in the center's research area?
• What is the potential for the proposed EPSCoR CREST Center to increase representation in a STEM area?
• What is the potential for the proposed EPSCoR CREST Center to increase the career success of faculty, postdoctoral researchers, and students from EPSCoR jurisdictions in STEM?
• To what extent are the educational activities innovative and well-integrated with the research, and how do the educational activities contribute to the unifying mission of the proposed Center?
• To what extent are the institutional and other commitments appropriate to ensure the success of the proposed Center?
• What is the potential of the proposed EPSCoR CREST Center to achieve sustainability from non-CREST funding?
• To what extent are the collaborations/partnerships appropriate to support the goals of the proposed Center?
• Was significant progress achieved on Phase I? (For Phase II proposals)

B. Review and Selection Process

Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation will be reviewed by

Reviewers will be asked to evaluate proposals using two National Science Board approved merit review criteria and, if applicable, additional program specific criteria. A summary rating and accompanying narrative will generally be completed and submitted by each reviewer and/or panel. The Program Officer assigned to manage the proposal's review will consider the advice of reviewers and will formulate a recommendation.

After scientific, technical and programmatic review and consideration of appropriate factors, the NSF Program Officer recommends to the cognizant Division Director whether the proposal should be declined or recommended for award. NSF strives to be able to tell proposers whether their proposals have been declined or recommended for funding within six months. Large or particularly complex proposals or proposals from new recipients may require additional review and processing time. The time interval begins on the deadline or target date, or receipt date, whichever is later. The interval ends when the Division Director acts upon the Program Officer's recommendation.

After programmatic approval has been obtained, the proposals recommended for funding will be forwarded to the Division of Grants and Agreements or the Division of Acquisition and Cooperative Support for review of business, financial, and policy implications. After an administrative review has occurred, Grants and Agreements Officers perform the processing and issuance of a grant or other agreement. Proposers are cautioned that only a Grants and Agreements Officer may make commitments, obligations or awards on behalf of NSF or authorize the expenditure of funds. No commitment on the part of NSF should be inferred from technical or budgetary discussions with a NSF Program Officer. A Principal Investigator or organization that makes financial or personnel commitments in the absence of a grant or cooperative agreement signed by the NSF Grants and Agreements Officer does so at their own risk.

Once an award or declination decision has been made, Principal Investigators are provided feedback about their proposals. In all cases, reviews are treated as confidential documents. Verbatim copies of reviews, excluding the names of the reviewers or any reviewer-identifying information, are sent to the Principal Investigator/Project Director by the Program Officer. In addition, the proposer will receive an explanation of the decision to award or decline funding.

VII. Award Administration Information

A. notification of the award.

Notification of the award is made to the submitting organization by an NSF Grants and Agreements Officer. Organizations whose proposals are declined will be advised as promptly as possible by the cognizant NSF Program administering the program. Verbatim copies of reviews, not including the identity of the reviewer, will be provided automatically to the Principal Investigator. (See Section VI.B. for additional information on the review process.)

B. Award Conditions

An NSF award consists of: (1) the award notice, which includes any special provisions applicable to the award and any numbered amendments thereto; (2) the budget, which indicates the amounts, by categories of expense, on which NSF has based its support (or otherwise communicates any specific approvals or disapprovals of proposed expenditures); (3) the proposal referenced in the award notice; (4) the applicable award conditions, such as Grant General Conditions (GC-1)*; or Research Terms and Conditions* and (5) any announcement or other NSF issuance that may be incorporated by reference in the award notice. Cooperative agreements also are administered in accordance with NSF Cooperative Agreement Financial and Administrative Terms and Conditions (CA-FATC) and the applicable Programmatic Terms and Conditions. NSF awards are electronically signed by an NSF Grants and Agreements Officer and transmitted electronically to the organization via e-mail.

*These documents may be accessed electronically on NSF's Website at https://www.nsf.gov/awards/managing/award_conditions.jsp?org=NSF . Paper copies may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-8134 or by e-mail from [email protected] .

More comprehensive information on NSF Award Conditions and other important information on the administration of NSF awards is contained in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) Chapter VII, available electronically on the NSF Website at https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg .

Administrative and National Policy Requirements

Build America, Buy America

As expressed in Executive Order 14005, Ensuring the Future is Made in All of America by All of America’s Workers (86 FR 7475), it is the policy of the executive branch to use terms and conditions of Federal financial assistance awards to maximize, consistent with law, the use of goods, products, and materials produced in, and services offered in, the United States.

Consistent with the requirements of the Build America, Buy America Act (Pub. L. 117-58, Division G, Title IX, Subtitle A, November 15, 2021), no funding made available through this funding opportunity may be obligated for an award unless all iron, steel, manufactured products, and construction materials used in the project are produced in the United States. For additional information, visit NSF’s Build America, Buy America webpage.

Special Award Conditions:

Recipients may expect site visits and reverse site visits by NSF-appointed evaluators per the applicable terms and conditions referenced in the award notice.

Each EPSCoR CREST Center shall convene, at least annually, an external advisory committee (EAC). The advisors should include representatives from those served by the EPSCoR CREST Center (e.g., IHEs, industry, state and local agencies, national laboratories) and reflect the gamut of participants inherent in the citizenry of the United States. NSF highly encourages industry members in the EAC that can advise on intellectual property issues, acquisition of SBIR funding, and other means to support the sustainability of the EPSCoR CREST Center. Persons with a financial, institutional, or collaborative connection to the EPSCoR CREST Center may not serve as members of the EAC.

Each EPSCoR CREST Center shall have an internal steering committee to include the PI, co-PIs, and other applicable stakeholders.

EPSCoR CREST personnel will be expected to participate in convocations of the Division of Equity for Excellence in STEM (EES) activities and PI meetings.

C. Reporting Requirements

For all multi-year grants (including both standard and continuing grants), the Principal Investigator must submit an annual project report to the cognizant Program Officer no later than 90 days prior to the end of the current budget period. (Some programs or awards require submission of more frequent project reports). No later than 120 days following expiration of a grant, the PI also is required to submit a final annual project report, and a project outcomes report for the general public.

Failure to provide the required annual or final annual project reports, or the project outcomes report, will delay NSF review and processing of any future funding increments as well as any pending proposals for all identified PIs and co-PIs on a given award. PIs should examine the formats of the required reports in advance to assure availability of required data.

PIs are required to use NSF's electronic project-reporting system, available through Research.gov, for preparation and submission of annual and final annual project reports. Such reports provide information on accomplishments, project participants (individual and organizational), publications, and other specific products and impacts of the project. Submission of the report via Research.gov constitutes certification by the PI that the contents of the report are accurate and complete. The project outcomes report also must be prepared and submitted using Research.gov. This report serves as a brief summary, prepared specifically for the public, of the nature and outcomes of the project. This report will be posted on the NSF website exactly as it is submitted by the PI.

More comprehensive information on NSF Reporting Requirements and other important information on the administration of NSF awards is contained in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) Chapter VII, available electronically on the NSF Website at https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg .

Additional Reporting Requirements:

Recipients are required to use the NSF Education and Training Application (ETAP) to manage participants applications for CREST support.

PIs must include their unobligated balance in the Accomplishments section of the annual project report under the heading "What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?".

Acknowledgment of Support and Disclaimer

All publications, presentations, and creative works based on activities conducted during the award must acknowledge NSF CREST support and provide a disclaimer by including the following statement in the Acknowledgements or other appropriate section:

"This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation EPSCoR CREST Centers under Award No. (NSF award number). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. National Science Foundation."

Program Evaluation

The Division of Equity for Excellence in STEM (EES) conducts evaluations to provide evidence on the impact of the EES programs (i.e., EPSCoR CREST Centers) on individuals' career progress, as well as professional productivity; and to provide an understanding of the program policies in achieving the program goal. Additionally, it is highly desirable to have a structured means of tracking recipients to assess the impact EPSCoR CREST Centers have had on their career. Accordingly, EPSCoR CREST Centers support recipients may be contacted for updates on various aspects of their employment history, professional activities and accomplishments, participation in international research collaborations, and other information helpful in evaluating the impact of the program. EPSCoR CREST Centers support recipients and their institutions agree to cooperate in program-level evaluations conducted by the NSF and/or contracted evaluators.

VIII. Agency Contacts

Please note that the program contact information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of contact.

General inquiries regarding this program should be made to:

For questions related to the use of NSF systems contact:

• NSF Help Desk: 1-800-381-1532
• Research.gov Help Desk e-mail: [email protected]

For questions relating to Grants.gov contact:

Grants.gov Contact Center: If the Authorized Organizational Representatives (AOR) has not received a confirmation message from Grants.gov within 48 hours of submission of application, please contact via telephone: 1-800-518-4726; e-mail: [email protected] .

IX. Other Information

The NSF website provides the most comprehensive source of information on NSF Directorates (including contact information), programs and funding opportunities. Use of this website by potential proposers is strongly encouraged. In addition, "NSF Update" is an information-delivery system designed to keep potential proposers and other interested parties apprised of new NSF funding opportunities and publications, important changes in proposal and award policies and procedures, and upcoming NSF Grants Conferences . Subscribers are informed through e-mail or the user's Web browser each time new publications are issued that match their identified interests. "NSF Update" also is available on NSF's website .

Grants.gov provides an additional electronic capability to search for Federal government-wide grant opportunities. NSF funding opportunities may be accessed via this mechanism. Further information on Grants.gov may be obtained at https://www.grants.gov .

About The National Science Foundation

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent Federal agency created by the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42 USC 1861-75). The Act states the purpose of the NSF is "to promote the progress of science; [and] to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare by supporting research and education in all fields of science and engineering."

NSF funds research and education in most fields of science and engineering. It does this through grants and cooperative agreements to more than 2,000 colleges, universities, K-12 school systems, businesses, informal science organizations and other research organizations throughout the US. The Foundation accounts for about one-fourth of Federal support to academic institutions for basic research.

NSF receives approximately 55,000 proposals each year for research, education and training projects, of which approximately 11,000 are funded. In addition, the Foundation receives several thousand applications for graduate and postdoctoral fellowships. The agency operates no laboratories itself but does support National Research Centers, user facilities, certain oceanographic vessels and Arctic and Antarctic research stations. The Foundation also supports cooperative research between universities and industry, US participation in international scientific and engineering efforts, and educational activities at every academic level.

Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities (FASED) provide funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons with disabilities to work on NSF-supported projects. See the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide Chapter II.F.7 for instructions regarding preparation of these types of proposals.

The National Science Foundation has Telephonic Device for the Deaf (TDD) and Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) capabilities that enable individuals with hearing impairments to communicate with the Foundation about NSF programs, employment or general information. TDD may be accessed at (703) 292-5090 and (800) 281-8749, FIRS at (800) 877-8339.

The National Science Foundation Information Center may be reached at (703) 292-5111.

Privacy Act And Public Burden Statements

The information requested on proposal forms and project reports is solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended. The information on proposal forms will be used in connection with the selection of qualified proposals; and project reports submitted by proposers will be used for program evaluation and reporting within the Executive Branch and to Congress. The information requested may be disclosed to qualified reviewers and staff assistants as part of the proposal review process; to proposer institutions/grantees to provide or obtain data regarding the proposal review process, award decisions, or the administration of awards; to government contractors, experts, volunteers and researchers and educators as necessary to complete assigned work; to other government agencies or other entities needing information regarding proposers or nominees as part of a joint application review process, or in order to coordinate programs or policy; and to another Federal agency, court, or party in a court or Federal administrative proceeding if the government is a party. Information about Principal Investigators may be added to the Reviewer file and used to select potential candidates to serve as peer reviewers or advisory committee members. See System of Record Notices , NSF-50 , "Principal Investigator/Proposal File and Associated Records," and NSF-51 , "Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records.” Submission of the information is voluntary. Failure to provide full and complete information, however, may reduce the possibility of receiving an award.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OMB control number for this collection is 3145-0058. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 120 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions. Send comments regarding the burden estimate and any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to:

Suzanne H. Plimpton Reports Clearance Officer Policy Office, Division of Institution and Award Support Office of Budget, Finance, and Award Management National Science Foundation Alexandria, VA 22314

Video LINCS

The Video LINCS program aims to develop novel capabilities to autonomously re-identify objects across diverse video sensor collections and map all objects to a common reference frame. Re-identification ( reID ) is the process of matching the same object across a video collection, to determine where the object appears throughout the video.  IARPA seeks technical approaches that will facilitate autonomous reID in an open-world setting where there is no advance knowledge of the sensors, scene, content or video collection geometries. ReID technologies will initially be developed for specific object classes that are known in advance, such as people and vehicles, and ultimately extent to all objects in the video footage without advance knowledge of specific object types. The capability to autonomously remap object locations from individual camera reference frames to a single common reference frame will also be developed. 

PROPOSERS' DAY INFORMATION

Video LINCS Proposers' Day Registration Site

SAM.gov Reference

Video LINCS Teaming Form

Proposers' Day Briefings

Video LINCS Proposers' Day Briefing

AgileView, Inc. Teaming Form

AgileView Capabilities Statement

Applied Research Associates, Inc. Lightning Talk

Areté Capabilities Statement

Areté Teaming Form

Areté Lightning Talk

BlueHalo Lightning Talk

Dartmouth College Teaming Form

Dartmouth College Capabilities Statement

Dartmouth College Lightning Talk

DejaVuAI Teaming Form

DejaVuAI Capabilities Statement

DejaVuAI Lightning Talk

Elegant Mathematics Ltd. Teaming Form

Elegant Mathematics Ltd. Capabilities Statement

GE Aerospace Research Teaming Form

HRL Laboratories, LLC. Lightning Talk

Kitware, Inc. Lightning Talk

L3Harris Lightning Talk

Michigan State University Team Lightning Talk

Michigan Tech Research Institue Lightning Talk

Nexcepta, Inc. Lightning Talk

MORSE Corp Lightning Talk

Princeton University Lightning Talk

Siemens Software and Elbit Systems Lightning Talk

Stevens Institute of Technology Teaming Form

Toyon Research Corporation Teaming Form

Toyon Research Corporation Capabilities Statement

Two Six Technologies Teaming Form

Two Six Technologies Lightning Talk

The University of Arizona Wyant College of Optical Sciences Lightning Talk

University of Maryland, Baltimore County Lightning Talk 

University of South Florida Lightning Talk

Virginia Tech Teaming Form

Virginia Tech Capabilities Statement

Contact Information

Program manager.

Dr. Reuven Meth

[email protected]

301-243-2090

Broad Agency Announcement (BAA)

Link(s) to baa.

IARPA-BAA-24-04

Solicitation Status

Proposers' day date.

February 7, 2024

BAA Release Date

May 21, 2024

Proposal Due Date for Initial Round of Selections

July 15, 2024

Proposal Due Date

Baa closing date.

July 22, 2024

Program Summary

Testing and evaluation partners.

• National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)

Results of the EDF 2023 Calls for Proposals

Following the third calls for proposals under the European Defence Fund (EDF),  54 collaborative defence research and development projects  with a total EU support of almost  €1,031million  are selected for funding..

Description

The selected projects will support technological superiority across wide range of defence capability domains, including cyber defence, ground, air and naval combat, protection of space-based assets or Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) defence.

Edf 2023 call results - general factsheet.

The Commission is intending to fund 54 additional EDF projects worth €1 billion, which will bring the total EU budgetary investments to more than €3 billion in collaborative defence R&D projects since the start of the EDF Regulation in May 2021. The selected proposals respond to the funding priorities of the 2023 EDF work programme, addressing 34 topics structured along four thematic calls for proposals, plus bottom-up calls focused on SMEs.

Selected Projects 

Pesco related projects.

*Explanatory Note:

• This page contains the general overview factsheet of the results and the individual project factsheets . Please note that the individual project factsheets represent the proposals that will be invited to grant agreement preparation. These factsheets are for information purposes only and do not bind the Commission to any contractual agreement. 
• The list of members in the project factsheets below are the beneficiaries of the projects . The overall participation statistics also include affiliated entities and named subcontractors. These are not named in the factsheet.
• Factsheet re-use policy: Re-use of the documents contained on this page is allowed, provided appropriate credit is given and any changes are indicated (Creative Commons Attribution 4.0  International license). 

Share this page