# Research Proposal

> Write, structure, and improve research proposals for PhD applications, ethics board submissions, internal funding bids, and conference proposals. Use this skill whenever the user needs to write a research proposal, improve a PhD application proposal, prepare an ethics submission, write a research question, choose a methodology, or structure a theoretical framework. Trigger for: "write my PhD rese…

- **Type:** Skill
- **Install:** `agentstack add skill-muhammad1438-academic-writer-skills-research-proposal`
- **Verified:** Yes — security-reviewed for prompt injection and unsafe behavior
- **Seller:** [muhammad1438](https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/muhammad1438)
- **Installs:** 0
- **Category:** [Agent Skills](https://agentstack.voostack.com/c/agent-skills)
- **Latest version:** 0.1.0
- **License:** MIT
- **Upstream author:** [muhammad1438](https://github.com/muhammad1438)
- **Source:** https://github.com/muhammad1438/academic-writer-skills/tree/master/skills/research-proposal

## Install

```sh
agentstack add skill-muhammad1438-academic-writer-skills-research-proposal
```

Requires the [AgentStack CLI](https://agentstack.voostack.com/docs/cli). Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and any MCP-compatible agent.

## About

# Research Proposal

A research proposal argues two things simultaneously: that the **research question is worth answering** and that **you are capable of answering it**. Both must be demonstrated convincingly.

---

## Types of Research Proposals

| Type | Purpose | Audience | Typical Length |
|---|---|---|---|
| **PhD Application Proposal** | Demonstrate research potential and fit | Admissions committee + potential supervisor | 1,000–2,000 words |
| **Ethics Submission (IRB/HREC/HRA)** | Gain ethical approval before data collection | Ethics board | 2,000–5,000 words |
| **Internal Funding Bid** | Secure departmental or faculty funding | Internal review committee | 500–2,000 words |
| **Conference Research Proposal** | Propose a paper or presentation | Programme committee | 300–500 words abstract |
| **Research Grant Pre-proposal** | Invitation to submit full grant | Programme officers | 2–5 pages |

---

## Standard Research Proposal Structure

### 1. Title
- Descriptive and specific (not vague)
- Should indicate: topic + method + population/context where relevant
- Example: "Examining the Role of Social Capital in Post-Conflict Economic Recovery: A Mixed-Methods Study in Northern Mali"

### 2. Background and Literature Context
- Establish the significance of the topic
- Summarise what is currently known
- Identify the specific gap your research will address
- Length: 20–30% of the proposal

### 3. Research Questions / Objectives
- Central research question: The overarching question guiding the study
- Sub-questions (2–4): Specific, researchable aspects of the central question
- Objectives: What the research will actually do (usually verb-led: "to examine," "to compare," "to assess")

### 4. Theoretical Framework
- What conceptual lens or theoretical perspective will guide interpretation?
- Why is this framework appropriate for your question?
- How does it connect to your methodology?

### 5. Methodology
- Research design (qualitative / quantitative / mixed methods)
- Data sources and collection methods
- Sampling strategy and justification
- Analysis approach
- Limitations and how they will be mitigated

### 6. Significance / Contribution
- What will this research add to existing knowledge?
- Practical implications: who benefits from the findings?
- Theoretical contribution: how does it advance the field?

### 7. Timeline / Work Plan
- Phased plan showing feasibility within the proposed period
- Gantt chart or equivalent table

### 8. References
- Demonstrate familiarity with the field
- Current, peer-reviewed, appropriately scoped

### 9. Ethics (where required)
- See Ethics Submission section below

---

## Writing a Compelling Research Question

The research question is the single most important element of the proposal. A weak question produces a weak study.

### Criteria for a Strong Research Question
- **Focused:** Addresses a specific phenomenon, not a broad topic
- **Researchable:** Can be investigated with available methods and data
- **Significant:** The answer matters to the field or to practice
- **Clear:** Unambiguous; reviewers understand exactly what will be studied

### PICO Framework (Medicine / Health Sciences)
| Element | Meaning | Example |
|---|---|---|
| **P** | Population | Adults aged 60+ with Type 2 diabetes |
| **I** | Intervention | Structured exercise programme |
| **C** | Comparison | Standard care (no structured exercise) |
| **O** | Outcome | HbA1c levels at 6 months |

Full question: "In adults aged 60+ with Type 2 diabetes (P), does a 12-week structured exercise programme (I) compared to standard care (C) reduce HbA1c levels at 6 months (O)?"

### RQ Framework (Social Sciences / Humanities)
- **Descriptive RQ:** "What are the experiences of...?"
- **Explanatory RQ:** "Why do...?" / "What factors influence...?"
- **Evaluative RQ:** "How effective is...?"
- **Comparative RQ:** "How does X differ from Y in the context of...?"

---

## Theoretical Framework Section

The theoretical framework locates your study within existing scholarly conversation. It is not a literature review — it is the conceptual architecture that structures your interpretation.

### What to Include
1. **Name the framework:** Identify the theory or theoretical perspective explicitly
2. **Explain the framework:** Describe its core claims and concepts briefly
3. **Justify the choice:** Why is this framework the most appropriate lens for your question?
4. **Apply to your study:** How will its concepts guide your data collection and analysis?

### Examples by Discipline
| Discipline | Example Frameworks |
|---|---|
| Sociology | Bourdieu's field theory, Giddens' structuration theory, intersectionality |
| Psychology | Attachment theory, social cognitive theory, self-determination theory |
| Education | Constructivism, communities of practice (Lave & Wenger), critical pedagogy |
| Public Health | Social-ecological model, health belief model, social determinants framework |
| Management | Institutional theory, resource-based view, stakeholder theory |
| Political Science | Rational choice theory, constructivism, historical institutionalism |

---

## Methodology Decision Guide

### Quantitative Methods — Use When:
- You are testing a hypothesis or measuring the size of an effect
- Large sample sizes are available
- Variables can be operationalised and measured numerically
- You need generalisable findings

**Common designs:** RCT, survey, quasi-experiment, secondary data analysis

### Qualitative Methods — Use When:
- You are exploring experiences, meanings, or processes
- The phenomenon is poorly understood and you need to generate theory
- Context is essential to understanding the phenomenon
- Small, purposive samples are appropriate

**Common approaches:** Grounded theory, phenomenology, ethnography, case study, thematic analysis

### Mixed Methods — Use When:
- Neither approach alone can fully answer the research question
- You need to both measure and understand a phenomenon
- Qualitative findings need to be validated at scale (or vice versa)

**Common designs:** Convergent (parallel), explanatory sequential, exploratory sequential

---

## Timeline / Gantt Chart Guidance

Demonstrate feasibility by showing that the work fits within the proposed period.

### Typical PhD Research Timeline (3-year)
| Phase | Duration | Activities |
|---|---|---|
| Phase 1: Setup | Months 1–6 | Literature review, ethics approval, instrument development |
| Phase 2: Data Collection | Months 7–18 | Fieldwork, data collection, preliminary analysis |
| Phase 3: Analysis | Months 19–27 | Full data analysis, writing chapters |
| Phase 4: Writing & Submission | Months 28–36 | Thesis writing, revisions, submission |

Present as a table with months across the top and activities down the left side. Mark active periods with filled cells or X marks.

---

## Ethics Submission Structure (IRB / HREC / UK HRA)

### Core Sections Required by Most Ethics Boards

| Section | Content |
|---|---|
| **Study Overview** | Title, design, purpose, funder, team |
| **Participant Information** | Who, how recruited, inclusion/exclusion criteria |
| **Consent Procedures** | How informed consent will be obtained and documented |
| **Data Collection** | What data, how collected, where stored, who has access |
| **Risk Assessment** | Risks to participants (physical, psychological, social); how mitigated |
| **Confidentiality / Anonymity** | How participant identity will be protected |
| **Data Management** | Storage, retention period, destruction |
| **Special Populations** | Children, vulnerable adults, prisoners — additional protections required |
| **Deception** | If used, full justification and debriefing protocol required |

### Principles Governing Ethics Review (Belmont Report)
- **Respect for Persons:** Participants make autonomous, informed decisions to participate
- **Beneficence:** Maximise benefits, minimise harm
- **Justice:** Fair distribution of research benefits and burdens; no exploitation of vulnerable groups

---

## Common PhD Proposal Mistakes

| Mistake | Fix |
|---|---|
| Research question is a topic, not a question | Formulate as a specific, answerable question |
| No theoretical framework | Identify and apply a named framework |
| Methodology section lists methods without justification | Explain why each method is appropriate for the question |
| Proposal is too ambitious for a PhD timeframe | Scope to 3–4 years; show feasibility in the timeline |
| No reference to relevant supervisor's work | Show you know who you're applying to work with |
| Literature review is a list, not an argument | Identify the specific gap your study will address |
| Significance is generic ("this is an important topic") | Specify the contribution: empirical, theoretical, or practical |
| Ethics not mentioned | Include ethical considerations even if not required |

## Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

- **Author:** [muhammad1438](https://github.com/muhammad1438)
- **Source:** [muhammad1438/academic-writer-skills](https://github.com/muhammad1438/academic-writer-skills)
- **License:** MIT

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.

## Pricing

- **Free** — Free

## Security capabilities

Automated source analysis of v0.1.0 — what this tool can access:

- **Network access:** no
- **Filesystem access:** no
- **Shell / process execution:** no
- **Environment & secrets:** no
- **Dynamic code execution:** no

*"Yes" means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it is unsafe.*


## Versions

- **0.1.0** — security scan: passed — Imported from the upstream source.

## Links

- Listing page: https://agentstack.voostack.com/l/skill-muhammad1438-academic-writer-skills-research-proposal
- Seller: https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/muhammad1438
- Browse the marketplace: https://agentstack.voostack.com/browse

---
Listed on AgentStack — the marketplace for AI agent skills and MCP servers. Every listing is security-reviewed. Creators keep 70%.