How to write a research proposal
Assessed on feasibility as much as on ideas. What each section has to do, and why most rejected proposals fail on scope.
A proposal is not a summary of what you find interesting. It is an argument that a specific piece of research is worth doing, and that you can do it in the time and with the resources available. That second half is where most proposals fail.
Structure and proportions
| Section | Job | Share of 2,500 words |
|---|---|---|
| Title | State the topic and approach | 1 line |
| Background | Why this matters now | ~400 |
| Question and aims | What exactly you will answer | ~150 |
| Literature | What is known, and the gap | ~700 |
| Methodology | How you will answer it | ~800 |
| Ethics | Risks and how they are managed | ~200 |
| Timeline | That it fits the time available | ~150 |
| References | Evidence of reading | not counted |
Methodology is the longest section, which surprises students who expect the literature review to dominate. The reader already knows the field. What they do not know is whether you can execute.
Title
Say the topic, the population and the approach. Avoid the clever ones. If the topic itself is not settled yet, our guide to choosing a dissertation topic covers the filters to apply first.
Weak
Social media and young people
Strong
Instagram use and body image among first-year UK undergraduates: a qualitative interview study
Background
Three or four paragraphs establishing that a problem exists, with evidence rather than assertion. Start with the specific problem, not with the general importance of the field.
A reader should finish this section knowing why the research is worth doing now, and should have seen at least four or five citations doing that work.
Research question and aims
Put the question in its own paragraph, clearly labelled, so nobody has to hunt for it. One question, or one question with two or three subsidiary aims. In health subjects, the PICO framework is a quick way to make it precise.
Research question: How do first-year UK undergraduates describe the relationship between their Instagram use and their body image during the transition to university?
Aims:
1. To explore how students account for changes in body image during transition
2. To identify the platform features they associate with those changes
3. To consider what this suggests for university wellbeing provision
Literature review
Not a full review. Enough to show you know the field and can locate a gap. Three moves in about 700 words:
- What is established, grouped by theme rather than by source
- Where the evidence is contested or thin
- The specific gap your question addresses
The gap must follow from what you just reviewed. A gap asserted rather than demonstrated is the second most common weakness after scope. A few targeted searches in Google Scholar will show whether the gap is real before you build the proposal around it.
Methodology
The section that decides whether the proposal is credible. Cover all of these:
- Approach and why. Qualitative or quantitative, justified against the question
- Participants. Who, how many, how recruited, and why that number
- Data collection. Method, and what your instrument will cover
- Analysis. Named and referenced, not "the data will be analysed"
- Limitations. Stated now, which reads as judgement rather than weakness
Vague
Interviews will be conducted with students and the data will be analysed for themes.
Credible
Twelve semi-structured interviews will be conducted with first-year undergraduates recruited through university wellbeing services. Interviews will last approximately 45 minutes and follow a topic guide covering platform use, social comparison and transition experiences. Data will be analysed using reflexive thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006), with coding conducted in NVivo.
Ethics
Half a page. Identify the risks honestly and say how each is managed: informed consent, anonymisation, data storage and retention, the right to withdraw, and what happens if a participant becomes distressed.
If your topic touches on mental health, state your signposting plan. A proposal in a sensitive area with no distress protocol reads as naive.
Timeline
A simple table by month. Its real function is proving to a reader, and to yourself, that the project fits.
| Month | Activity |
|---|---|
| 1 | Literature review, ethics application submitted |
| 2 | Ethics approval, topic guide piloted |
| 3 to 4 | Recruitment and interviews |
| 5 | Transcription and coding |
| 6 | Analysis and writing |
| 7 | Revision and submission |
Build in slack. Ethics approval routinely takes longer than planned, and recruitment almost always does.
Five reasons proposals get rejected
- Scope. A question that would take three years. By far the commonest.
- No clear question. A topic described rather than a question asked.
- Method mismatch. A qualitative method proposed for a question about prevalence.
- Access ignored. A plan requiring participants you have no route to.
- Thin literature. Six sources, four of them textbooks.
Every one of those is visible to the reader in the first two pages, which is why a proposal that is honest about constraints usually beats one that is ambitious about them.
Last updated: 30 July 2026 · Written by the AssignWise editorial team ·Spotted something wrong?
Frequently asked questions
A document setting out what you intend to research, why it matters, and how you will do it. It is assessed on feasibility as much as on interest: a proposal that cannot be completed in the time available fails however good the idea.
For a master’s dissertation, typically 1,500 to 3,000 words. For a PhD application, 2,000 to 5,000 depending on the institution. Always check the stated limit, because proposals are frequently rejected on length alone.
Title, background, research question and aims, a brief literature review, methodology, ethical considerations, a timeline, and references. Doctoral proposals usually add a section stating the contribution to knowledge.
Most often scope: a question too large to answer in the time available. After that, no clear question, a method that does not match the question, ignoring access and ethics, or no evidence of familiarity with the existing literature.
Specific enough that a reader can tell what data would answer it. If someone cannot say what you would collect and how you would analyse it, the question is still too broad.
Want a second pair of eyes on it?
Send us your document for a fixed, no-obligation quote. We reply within one working hour.
Get Your Free Quote