evaluation research proposal example

Research Proposal Example/Sample

Detailed Walkthrough + Free Proposal Template

If you’re getting started crafting your research proposal and are looking for a few examples of research proposals , you’ve come to the right place.

In this video, we walk you through two successful (approved) research proposals , one for a Master’s-level project, and one for a PhD-level dissertation. We also start off by unpacking our free research proposal template and discussing the four core sections of a research proposal, so that you have a clear understanding of the basics before diving into the actual proposals.

• Research proposal example/sample – Master’s-level (PDF/Word)
• Research proposal example/sample – PhD-level (PDF/Word)
• Proposal template (Fully editable) 

If you’re working on a research proposal for a dissertation or thesis, you may also find the following useful:

• Research Proposal Bootcamp : Learn how to write a research proposal as efficiently and effectively as possible
• 1:1 Proposal Coaching : Get hands-on help with your research proposal

FAQ: Research Proposal Example

Research proposal example: frequently asked questions, are the sample proposals real.

Yes. The proposals are real and were approved by the respective universities.

Can I copy one of these proposals for my own research?

As we discuss in the video, every research proposal will be slightly different, depending on the university’s unique requirements, as well as the nature of the research itself. Therefore, you’ll need to tailor your research proposal to suit your specific context.

You can learn more about the basics of writing a research proposal here .

How do I get the research proposal template?

You can access our free proposal template here .

Is the proposal template really free?

Yes. There is no cost for the proposal template and you are free to use it as a foundation for your research proposal.

Where can I learn more about proposal writing?

For self-directed learners, our Research Proposal Bootcamp is a great starting point.

For students that want hands-on guidance, our private coaching service is recommended.

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:

I am at the stage of writing my thesis proposal for a PhD in Management at Altantic International University. I checked on the coaching services, but it indicates that it’s not available in my area. I am in South Sudan. My proposed topic is: “Leadership Behavior in Local Government Governance Ecosystem and Service Delivery Effectiveness in Post Conflict Districts of Northern Uganda”. I will appreciate your guidance and support

GRADCOCH is very grateful motivated and helpful for all students etc. it is very accorporated and provide easy access way strongly agree from GRADCOCH.

Proposal research departemet management

I am at the stage of writing my thesis proposal for a masters in Analysis of w heat commercialisation by small holders householdrs at Hawassa International University. I will appreciate your guidance and support

please provide a attractive proposal about foreign universities .It would be your highness.

comparative constitutional law

Kindly guide me through writing a good proposal on the thesis topic; Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Financial Inclusion in Nigeria. Thank you

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

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer
• QuestionPro

• Solutions Industries Gaming Automotive Sports and events Education Government Travel & Hospitality Financial Services Healthcare Cannabis Technology Use Case NPS+ Communities Audience Contactless surveys Mobile LivePolls Member Experience GDPR Positive People Science 360 Feedback Surveys
• Resources Blog eBooks Survey Templates Case Studies Training Help center

Home Market Research

Evaluation Research: Definition, Methods and Examples

Content Index

• What is evaluation research
• Why do evaluation research

Quantitative methods

Qualitative methods.

• Process evaluation research question examples
• Outcome evaluation research question examples

What is evaluation research?

Evaluation research, also known as program evaluation, refers to research purpose instead of a specific method. Evaluation research is the systematic assessment of the worth or merit of time, money, effort and resources spent in order to achieve a goal.

Evaluation research is closely related to but slightly different from more conventional social research . It uses many of the same methods used in traditional social research, but because it takes place within an organizational context, it requires team skills, interpersonal skills, management skills, political smartness, and other research skills that social research does not need much. Evaluation research also requires one to keep in mind the interests of the stakeholders.

Evaluation research is a type of applied research, and so it is intended to have some real-world effect.  Many methods like surveys and experiments can be used to do evaluation research. The process of evaluation research consisting of data analysis and reporting is a rigorous, systematic process that involves collecting data about organizations, processes, projects, services, and/or resources. Evaluation research enhances knowledge and decision-making, and leads to practical applications.

LEARN ABOUT: Action Research

Why do evaluation research?

The common goal of most evaluations is to extract meaningful information from the audience and provide valuable insights to evaluators such as sponsors, donors, client-groups, administrators, staff, and other relevant constituencies. Most often, feedback is perceived value as useful if it helps in decision-making. However, evaluation research does not always create an impact that can be applied anywhere else, sometimes they fail to influence short-term decisions. It is also equally true that initially, it might seem to not have any influence, but can have a delayed impact when the situation is more favorable. In spite of this, there is a general agreement that the major goal of evaluation research should be to improve decision-making through the systematic utilization of measurable feedback.

Below are some of the benefits of evaluation research

• Gain insights about a project or program and its operations

Evaluation Research lets you understand what works and what doesn’t, where we were, where we are and where we are headed towards. You can find out the areas of improvement and identify strengths. So, it will help you to figure out what do you need to focus more on and if there are any threats to your business. You can also find out if there are currently hidden sectors in the market that are yet untapped.

• Improve practice

It is essential to gauge your past performance and understand what went wrong in order to deliver better services to your customers. Unless it is a two-way communication, there is no way to improve on what you have to offer. Evaluation research gives an opportunity to your employees and customers to express how they feel and if there’s anything they would like to change. It also lets you modify or adopt a practice such that it increases the chances of success.

• Assess the effects

After evaluating the efforts, you can see how well you are meeting objectives and targets. Evaluations let you measure if the intended benefits are really reaching the targeted audience and if yes, then how effectively.

• Build capacity

Evaluations help you to analyze the demand pattern and predict if you will need more funds, upgrade skills and improve the efficiency of operations. It lets you find the gaps in the production to delivery chain and possible ways to fill them.

Methods of evaluation research

All market research methods involve collecting and analyzing the data, making decisions about the validity of the information and deriving relevant inferences from it. Evaluation research comprises of planning, conducting and analyzing the results which include the use of data collection techniques and applying statistical methods.

Some of the evaluation methods which are quite popular are input measurement, output or performance measurement, impact or outcomes assessment, quality assessment, process evaluation, benchmarking, standards, cost analysis, organizational effectiveness, program evaluation methods, and LIS-centered methods. There are also a few types of evaluations that do not always result in a meaningful assessment such as descriptive studies, formative evaluations, and implementation analysis. Evaluation research is more about information-processing and feedback functions of evaluation.

These methods can be broadly classified as quantitative and qualitative methods.

The outcome of the quantitative research methods is an answer to the questions below and is used to measure anything tangible.

• Who was involved?
• What were the outcomes?
• What was the price?

The best way to collect quantitative data is through surveys , questionnaires , and polls . You can also create pre-tests and post-tests, review existing documents and databases or gather clinical data.

Surveys are used to gather opinions, feedback or ideas of your employees or customers and consist of various question types . They can be conducted by a person face-to-face or by telephone, by mail, or online. Online surveys do not require the intervention of any human and are far more efficient and practical. You can see the survey results on dashboard of research tools and dig deeper using filter criteria based on various factors such as age, gender, location, etc. You can also keep survey logic such as branching, quotas, chain survey, looping, etc in the survey questions and reduce the time to both create and respond to the donor survey . You can also generate a number of reports that involve statistical formulae and present data that can be readily absorbed in the meetings. To learn more about how research tool works and whether it is suitable for you, sign up for a free account now.

Create a free account!

Quantitative data measure the depth and breadth of an initiative, for instance, the number of people who participated in the non-profit event, the number of people who enrolled for a new course at the university. Quantitative data collected before and after a program can show its results and impact.

The accuracy of quantitative data to be used for evaluation research depends on how well the sample represents the population, the ease of analysis, and their consistency. Quantitative methods can fail if the questions are not framed correctly and not distributed to the right audience. Also, quantitative data do not provide an understanding of the context and may not be apt for complex issues.

Learn more: Quantitative Market Research: The Complete Guide

Qualitative research methods are used where quantitative methods cannot solve the research problem , i.e. they are used to measure intangible values. They answer questions such as

• What is the value added?
• How satisfied are you with our service?
• How likely are you to recommend us to your friends?
• What will improve your experience?

LEARN ABOUT: Qualitative Interview

Qualitative data is collected through observation, interviews, case studies, and focus groups. The steps for creating a qualitative study involve examining, comparing and contrasting, and understanding patterns. Analysts conclude after identification of themes, clustering similar data, and finally reducing to points that make sense.

Observations may help explain behaviors as well as the social context that is generally not discovered by quantitative methods. Observations of behavior and body language can be done by watching a participant, recording audio or video. Structured interviews can be conducted with people alone or in a group under controlled conditions, or they may be asked open-ended qualitative research questions . Qualitative research methods are also used to understand a person’s perceptions and motivations.

LEARN ABOUT:  Social Communication Questionnaire

The strength of this method is that group discussion can provide ideas and stimulate memories with topics cascading as discussion occurs. The accuracy of qualitative data depends on how well contextual data explains complex issues and complements quantitative data. It helps get the answer of “why” and “how”, after getting an answer to “what”. The limitations of qualitative data for evaluation research are that they are subjective, time-consuming, costly and difficult to analyze and interpret.

Learn more: Qualitative Market Research: The Complete Guide

Survey software can be used for both the evaluation research methods. You can use above sample questions for evaluation research and send a survey in minutes using research software. Using a tool for research simplifies the process right from creating a survey, importing contacts, distributing the survey and generating reports that aid in research.

Examples of evaluation research

Evaluation research questions lay the foundation of a successful evaluation. They define the topics that will be evaluated. Keeping evaluation questions ready not only saves time and money, but also makes it easier to decide what data to collect, how to analyze it, and how to report it.

Evaluation research questions must be developed and agreed on in the planning stage, however, ready-made research templates can also be used.

Process evaluation research question examples:

• How often do you use our product in a day?
• Were approvals taken from all stakeholders?
• Can you report the issue from the system?
• Can you submit the feedback from the system?
• Was each task done as per the standard operating procedure?
• What were the barriers to the implementation of each task?
• Were any improvement areas discovered?

Outcome evaluation research question examples:

• How satisfied are you with our product?
• Did the program produce intended outcomes?
• What were the unintended outcomes?
• Has the program increased the knowledge of participants?
• Were the participants of the program employable before the course started?
• Do participants of the program have the skills to find a job after the course ended?
• Is the knowledge of participants better compared to those who did not participate in the program?

MORE LIKE THIS

21 Best Customer Advocacy Software for Customers in 2024

Apr 19, 2024

10 Quantitative Data Analysis Software for Every Data Scientist

Apr 18, 2024

11 Best Enterprise Feedback Management Software in 2024

17 Best Online Reputation Management Software in 2024

Apr 17, 2024

Other categories

• Academic Research
• Artificial Intelligence
• Assessments
• Brand Awareness
• Case Studies
• Communities
• Consumer Insights
• Customer effort score
• Customer Engagement
• Customer Experience
• Customer Loyalty
• Customer Research
• Customer Satisfaction
• Employee Benefits
• Employee Engagement
• Employee Retention
• Friday Five
• General Data Protection Regulation
• Insights Hub
• Life@QuestionPro
• Market Research
• Mobile diaries
• Mobile Surveys
• New Features
• Online Communities
• Question Types
• Questionnaire
• QuestionPro Products
• Release Notes
• Research Tools and Apps
• Revenue at Risk
• Survey Templates
• Training Tips
• Uncategorized
• Video Learning Series
• What’s Coming Up
• Workforce Intelligence

• Evaluation Research Design: Examples, Methods & Types

As you engage in tasks, you will need to take intermittent breaks to determine how much progress has been made and if any changes need to be effected along the way. This is very similar to what organizations do when they carry out  evaluation research.  

The evaluation research methodology has become one of the most important approaches for organizations as they strive to create products, services, and processes that speak to the needs of target users. In this article, we will show you how your organization can conduct successful evaluation research using Formplus .

What is Evaluation Research?

Also known as program evaluation, evaluation research is a common research design that entails carrying out a structured assessment of the value of resources committed to a project or specific goal. It often adopts social research methods to gather and analyze useful information about organizational processes and products.  

As a type of applied research , evaluation research typically associated  with real-life scenarios within organizational contexts. This means that the researcher will need to leverage common workplace skills including interpersonal skills and team play to arrive at objective research findings that will be useful to stakeholders. 

Characteristics of Evaluation Research

• Research Environment: Evaluation research is conducted in the real world; that is, within the context of an organization. 
• Research Focus: Evaluation research is primarily concerned with measuring the outcomes of a process rather than the process itself. 
• Research Outcome: Evaluation research is employed for strategic decision making in organizations. 
• Research Goal: The goal of program evaluation is to determine whether a process has yielded the desired result(s). 
• This type of research protects the interests of stakeholders in the organization. 
• It often represents a middle-ground between pure and applied research. 
• Evaluation research is both detailed and continuous. It pays attention to performative processes rather than descriptions. 
• Research Process: This research design utilizes qualitative and quantitative research methods to gather relevant data about a product or action-based strategy. These methods include observation, tests, and surveys.

Types of Evaluation Research

The Encyclopedia of Evaluation (Mathison, 2004) treats forty-two different evaluation approaches and models ranging from “appreciative inquiry” to “connoisseurship” to “transformative evaluation”. Common types of evaluation research include the following: 

• Formative Evaluation

Formative evaluation or baseline survey is a type of evaluation research that involves assessing the needs of the users or target market before embarking on a project.  Formative evaluation is the starting point of evaluation research because it sets the tone of the organization’s project and provides useful insights for other types of evaluation.  

• Mid-term Evaluation

Mid-term evaluation entails assessing how far a project has come and determining if it is in line with the set goals and objectives. Mid-term reviews allow the organization to determine if a change or modification of the implementation strategy is necessary, and it also serves for tracking the project. 

• Summative Evaluation

This type of evaluation is also known as end-term evaluation of project-completion evaluation and it is conducted immediately after the completion of a project. Here, the researcher examines the value and outputs of the program within the context of the projected results. 

Summative evaluation allows the organization to measure the degree of success of a project. Such results can be shared with stakeholders, target markets, and prospective investors. 

• Outcome Evaluation

Outcome evaluation is primarily target-audience oriented because it measures the effects of the project, program, or product on the users. This type of evaluation views the outcomes of the project through the lens of the target audience and it often measures changes such as knowledge-improvement, skill acquisition, and increased job efficiency. 

• Appreciative Enquiry

Appreciative inquiry is a type of evaluation research that pays attention to result-producing approaches. It is predicated on the belief that an organization will grow in whatever direction its stakeholders pay primary attention to such that if all the attention is focused on problems, identifying them would be easy. 

In carrying out appreciative inquiry, the research identifies the factors directly responsible for the positive results realized in the course of a project, analyses the reasons for these results, and intensifies the utilization of these factors. 

Evaluation Research Methodology 

There are four major evaluation research methods, namely; output measurement, input measurement, impact assessment and service quality

• Output/Performance Measurement

Output measurement is a method employed in evaluative research that shows the results of an activity undertaking by an organization. In other words, performance measurement pays attention to the results achieved by the resources invested in a specific activity or organizational process. 

More than investing resources in a project, organizations must be able to track the extent to which these resources have yielded results, and this is where performance measurement comes in. Output measurement allows organizations to pay attention to the effectiveness and impact of a process rather than just the process itself. 

Other key indicators of performance measurement include user-satisfaction, organizational capacity, market penetration, and facility utilization. In carrying out performance measurement, organizations must identify the parameters that are relevant to the process in question, their industry, and the target markets. 

5 Performance Evaluation Research Questions Examples

• What is the cost-effectiveness of this project?
• What is the overall reach of this project?
• How would you rate the market penetration of this project?
• How accessible is the project? 
• Is this project time-efficient? 

• Input Measurement

In evaluation research, input measurement entails assessing the number of resources committed to a project or goal in any organization. This is one of the most common indicators in evaluation research because it allows organizations to track their investments. 

The most common indicator of inputs measurement is the budget which allows organizations to evaluate and limit expenditure for a project. It is also important to measure non-monetary investments like human capital; that is the number of persons needed for successful project execution and production capital. 

5 Input Evaluation Research Questions Examples

• What is the budget for this project?
• What is the timeline of this process?
• How many employees have been assigned to this project? 
• Do we need to purchase new machinery for this project? 
• How many third-parties are collaborators in this project? 

• Impact/Outcomes Assessment

In impact assessment, the evaluation researcher focuses on how the product or project affects target markets, both directly and indirectly. Outcomes assessment is somewhat challenging because many times, it is difficult to measure the real-time value and benefits of a project for the users. 

In assessing the impact of a process, the evaluation researcher must pay attention to the improvement recorded by the users as a result of the process or project in question. Hence, it makes sense to focus on cognitive and affective changes, expectation-satisfaction, and similar accomplishments of the users. 

5 Impact Evaluation Research Questions Examples

• How has this project affected you? 
• Has this process affected you positively or negatively?
• What role did this project play in improving your earning power? 
• On a scale of 1-10, how excited are you about this project?
• How has this project improved your mental health? 

• Service Quality

Service quality is the evaluation research method that accounts for any differences between the expectations of the target markets and their impression of the undertaken project. Hence, it pays attention to the overall service quality assessment carried out by the users. 

It is not uncommon for organizations to build the expectations of target markets as they embark on specific projects. Service quality evaluation allows these organizations to track the extent to which the actual product or service delivery fulfils the expectations. 

5 Service Quality Evaluation Questions

• On a scale of 1-10, how satisfied are you with the product?
• How helpful was our customer service representative?
• How satisfied are you with the quality of service?
• How long did it take to resolve the issue at hand?
• How likely are you to recommend us to your network?

Uses of Evaluation Research 

• Evaluation research is used by organizations to measure the effectiveness of activities and identify areas needing improvement. Findings from evaluation research are key to project and product advancements and are very influential in helping organizations realize their goals efficiently.     
• The findings arrived at from evaluation research serve as evidence of the impact of the project embarked on by an organization. This information can be presented to stakeholders, customers, and can also help your organization secure investments for future projects. 
• Evaluation research helps organizations to justify their use of limited resources and choose the best alternatives. 
•  It is also useful in pragmatic goal setting and realization. 
• Evaluation research provides detailed insights into projects embarked on by an organization. Essentially, it allows all stakeholders to understand multiple dimensions of a process, and to determine strengths and weaknesses. 
• Evaluation research also plays a major role in helping organizations to improve their overall practice and service delivery. This research design allows organizations to weigh existing processes through feedback provided by stakeholders, and this informs better decision making. 
• Evaluation research is also instrumental to sustainable capacity building. It helps you to analyze demand patterns and determine whether your organization requires more funds, upskilling or improved operations.

Data Collection Techniques Used in Evaluation Research

In gathering useful data for evaluation research, the researcher often combines quantitative and qualitative research methods . Qualitative research methods allow the researcher to gather information relating to intangible values such as market satisfaction and perception. 

On the other hand, quantitative methods are used by the evaluation researcher to assess numerical patterns, that is, quantifiable data. These methods help you measure impact and results; although they may not serve for understanding the context of the process. 

Quantitative Methods for Evaluation Research

A survey is a quantitative method that allows you to gather information about a project from a specific group of people. Surveys are largely context-based and limited to target groups who are asked a set of structured questions in line with the predetermined context.

Surveys usually consist of close-ended questions that allow the evaluative researcher to gain insight into several  variables including market coverage and customer preferences. Surveys can be carried out physically using paper forms or online through data-gathering platforms like Formplus . 

• Questionnaires

A questionnaire is a common quantitative research instrument deployed in evaluation research. Typically, it is an aggregation of different types of questions or prompts which help the researcher to obtain valuable information from respondents. 

A poll is a common method of opinion-sampling that allows you to weigh the perception of the public about issues that affect them. The best way to achieve accuracy in polling is by conducting them online using platforms like Formplus. 

Polls are often structured as Likert questions and the options provided always account for neutrality or indecision. Conducting a poll allows the evaluation researcher to understand the extent to which the product or service satisfies the needs of the users. 

Qualitative Methods for Evaluation Research

• One-on-One Interview

An interview is a structured conversation involving two participants; usually the researcher and the user or a member of the target market. One-on-One interviews can be conducted physically, via the telephone and through video conferencing apps like Zoom and Google Meet. 

• Focus Groups

A focus group is a research method that involves interacting with a limited number of persons within your target market, who can provide insights on market perceptions and new products. 

• Qualitative Observation

Qualitative observation is a research method that allows the evaluation researcher to gather useful information from the target audience through a variety of subjective approaches. This method is more extensive than quantitative observation because it deals with a smaller sample size, and it also utilizes inductive analysis. 

• Case Studies

A case study is a research method that helps the researcher to gain a better understanding of a subject or process. Case studies involve in-depth research into a given subject, to understand its functionalities and successes. 

How to Formplus Online Form Builder for Evaluation Survey 

• Sign into Formplus

In the Formplus builder, you can easily create your evaluation survey by dragging and dropping preferred fields into your form. To access the Formplus builder, you will need to create an account on Formplus. 

Once you do this, sign in to your account and click on “Create Form ” to begin. 

• Edit Form Title

Click on the field provided to input your form title, for example, “Evaluation Research Survey”.

Click on the edit button to edit the form.

Add Fields: Drag and drop preferred form fields into your form in the Formplus builder inputs column. There are several field input options for surveys in the Formplus builder. 

Edit fields

Click on “Save”

Preview form.

• Form Customization

With the form customization options in the form builder, you can easily change the outlook of your form and make it more unique and personalized. Formplus allows you to change your form theme, add background images, and even change the font according to your needs. 

• Multiple Sharing Options

Formplus offers multiple form sharing options which enables you to easily share your evaluation survey with survey respondents. You can use the direct social media sharing buttons to share your form link to your organization’s social media pages. 

You can send out your survey form as email invitations to your research subjects too. If you wish, you can share your form’s QR code or embed it on your organization’s website for easy access. 

Conclusion  

Conducting evaluation research allows organizations to determine the effectiveness of their activities at different phases. This type of research can be carried out using qualitative and quantitative data collection methods including focus groups, observation, telephone and one-on-one interviews, and surveys. 

Online surveys created and administered via data collection platforms like Formplus make it easier for you to gather and process information during evaluation research. With Formplus multiple form sharing options, it is even easier for you to gather useful data from target markets.

Connect to Formplus, Get Started Now - It's Free!

• characteristics of evaluation research
• evaluation research methods
• types of evaluation research
• what is evaluation research
• busayo.longe

You may also like:

Assessment vs Evaluation: 11 Key Differences

This article will discuss what constitutes evaluations and assessments along with the key differences between these two research methods.

Recall Bias: Definition, Types, Examples & Mitigation

This article will discuss the impact of recall bias in studies and the best ways to avoid them during research.

What is Pure or Basic Research? + [Examples & Method]

Simple guide on pure or basic research, its methods, characteristics, advantages, and examples in science, medicine, education and psychology

Formal Assessment: Definition, Types Examples & Benefits

In this article, we will discuss different types and examples of formal evaluation, and show you how to use Formplus for online assessments.

Formplus - For Seamless Data Collection

Collect data the right way with a versatile data collection tool. try formplus and transform your work productivity today..

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 Anaesth
• v.60(9); 2016 Sep

How to write a research proposal?

Department of Anaesthesiology, Bangalore Medical College and Research Institute, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India

Devika Rani Duggappa

Writing the proposal of a research work in the present era is a challenging task due to the constantly evolving trends in the qualitative research design and the need to incorporate medical advances into the methodology. The proposal is a detailed plan or ‘blueprint’ for the intended study, and once it is completed, the research project should flow smoothly. Even today, many of the proposals at post-graduate evaluation committees and application proposals for funding are substandard. A search was conducted with keywords such as research proposal, writing proposal and qualitative using search engines, namely, PubMed and Google Scholar, and an attempt has been made to provide broad guidelines for writing a scientifically appropriate research proposal.

INTRODUCTION

A clean, well-thought-out proposal forms the backbone for the research itself and hence becomes the most important step in the process of conduct of research.[ 1 ] The objective of preparing a research proposal would be to obtain approvals from various committees including ethics committee [details under ‘Research methodology II’ section [ Table 1 ] in this issue of IJA) and to request for grants. However, there are very few universally accepted guidelines for preparation of a good quality research proposal. A search was performed with keywords such as research proposal, funding, qualitative and writing proposals using search engines, namely, PubMed, Google Scholar and Scopus.

Five ‘C’s while writing a literature review

BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF A RESEARCH PROPOSAL

A proposal needs to show how your work fits into what is already known about the topic and what new paradigm will it add to the literature, while specifying the question that the research will answer, establishing its significance, and the implications of the answer.[ 2 ] The proposal must be capable of convincing the evaluation committee about the credibility, achievability, practicality and reproducibility (repeatability) of the research design.[ 3 ] Four categories of audience with different expectations may be present in the evaluation committees, namely academic colleagues, policy-makers, practitioners and lay audiences who evaluate the research proposal. Tips for preparation of a good research proposal include; ‘be practical, be persuasive, make broader links, aim for crystal clarity and plan before you write’. A researcher must be balanced, with a realistic understanding of what can be achieved. Being persuasive implies that researcher must be able to convince other researchers, research funding agencies, educational institutions and supervisors that the research is worth getting approval. The aim of the researcher should be clearly stated in simple language that describes the research in a way that non-specialists can comprehend, without use of jargons. The proposal must not only demonstrate that it is based on an intelligent understanding of the existing literature but also show that the writer has thought about the time needed to conduct each stage of the research.[ 4 , 5 ]

CONTENTS OF A RESEARCH PROPOSAL

The contents or formats of a research proposal vary depending on the requirements of evaluation committee and are generally provided by the evaluation committee or the institution.

In general, a cover page should contain the (i) title of the proposal, (ii) name and affiliation of the researcher (principal investigator) and co-investigators, (iii) institutional affiliation (degree of the investigator and the name of institution where the study will be performed), details of contact such as phone numbers, E-mail id's and lines for signatures of investigators.

The main contents of the proposal may be presented under the following headings: (i) introduction, (ii) review of literature, (iii) aims and objectives, (iv) research design and methods, (v) ethical considerations, (vi) budget, (vii) appendices and (viii) citations.[ 4 ]

Introduction

It is also sometimes termed as ‘need for study’ or ‘abstract’. Introduction is an initial pitch of an idea; it sets the scene and puts the research in context.[ 6 ] The introduction should be designed to create interest in the reader about the topic and proposal. It should convey to the reader, what you want to do, what necessitates the study and your passion for the topic.[ 7 ] Some questions that can be used to assess the significance of the study are: (i) Who has an interest in the domain of inquiry? (ii) What do we already know about the topic? (iii) What has not been answered adequately in previous research and practice? (iv) How will this research add to knowledge, practice and policy in this area? Some of the evaluation committees, expect the last two questions, elaborated under a separate heading of ‘background and significance’.[ 8 ] Introduction should also contain the hypothesis behind the research design. If hypothesis cannot be constructed, the line of inquiry to be used in the research must be indicated.

Review of literature

It refers to all sources of scientific evidence pertaining to the topic in interest. In the present era of digitalisation and easy accessibility, there is an enormous amount of relevant data available, making it a challenge for the researcher to include all of it in his/her review.[ 9 ] It is crucial to structure this section intelligently so that the reader can grasp the argument related to your study in relation to that of other researchers, while still demonstrating to your readers that your work is original and innovative. It is preferable to summarise each article in a paragraph, highlighting the details pertinent to the topic of interest. The progression of review can move from the more general to the more focused studies, or a historical progression can be used to develop the story, without making it exhaustive.[ 1 ] Literature should include supporting data, disagreements and controversies. Five ‘C's may be kept in mind while writing a literature review[ 10 ] [ Table 1 ].

Aims and objectives

The research purpose (or goal or aim) gives a broad indication of what the researcher wishes to achieve in the research. The hypothesis to be tested can be the aim of the study. The objectives related to parameters or tools used to achieve the aim are generally categorised as primary and secondary objectives.

Research design and method

The objective here is to convince the reader that the overall research design and methods of analysis will correctly address the research problem and to impress upon the reader that the methodology/sources chosen are appropriate for the specific topic. It should be unmistakably tied to the specific aims of your study.

In this section, the methods and sources used to conduct the research must be discussed, including specific references to sites, databases, key texts or authors that will be indispensable to the project. There should be specific mention about the methodological approaches to be undertaken to gather information, about the techniques to be used to analyse it and about the tests of external validity to which researcher is committed.[ 10 , 11 ]

The components of this section include the following:[ 4 ]

Population and sample

Population refers to all the elements (individuals, objects or substances) that meet certain criteria for inclusion in a given universe,[ 12 ] and sample refers to subset of population which meets the inclusion criteria for enrolment into the study. The inclusion and exclusion criteria should be clearly defined. The details pertaining to sample size are discussed in the article “Sample size calculation: Basic priniciples” published in this issue of IJA.

Data collection

The researcher is expected to give a detailed account of the methodology adopted for collection of data, which include the time frame required for the research. The methodology should be tested for its validity and ensure that, in pursuit of achieving the results, the participant's life is not jeopardised. The author should anticipate and acknowledge any potential barrier and pitfall in carrying out the research design and explain plans to address them, thereby avoiding lacunae due to incomplete data collection. If the researcher is planning to acquire data through interviews or questionnaires, copy of the questions used for the same should be attached as an annexure with the proposal.

Rigor (soundness of the research)

This addresses the strength of the research with respect to its neutrality, consistency and applicability. Rigor must be reflected throughout the proposal.

It refers to the robustness of a research method against bias. The author should convey the measures taken to avoid bias, viz. blinding and randomisation, in an elaborate way, thus ensuring that the result obtained from the adopted method is purely as chance and not influenced by other confounding variables.

Consistency

Consistency considers whether the findings will be consistent if the inquiry was replicated with the same participants and in a similar context. This can be achieved by adopting standard and universally accepted methods and scales.

Applicability

Applicability refers to the degree to which the findings can be applied to different contexts and groups.[ 13 ]

Data analysis

This section deals with the reduction and reconstruction of data and its analysis including sample size calculation. The researcher is expected to explain the steps adopted for coding and sorting the data obtained. Various tests to be used to analyse the data for its robustness, significance should be clearly stated. Author should also mention the names of statistician and suitable software which will be used in due course of data analysis and their contribution to data analysis and sample calculation.[ 9 ]

Ethical considerations

Medical research introduces special moral and ethical problems that are not usually encountered by other researchers during data collection, and hence, the researcher should take special care in ensuring that ethical standards are met. Ethical considerations refer to the protection of the participants' rights (right to self-determination, right to privacy, right to autonomy and confidentiality, right to fair treatment and right to protection from discomfort and harm), obtaining informed consent and the institutional review process (ethical approval). The researcher needs to provide adequate information on each of these aspects.

Informed consent needs to be obtained from the participants (details discussed in further chapters), as well as the research site and the relevant authorities.

When the researcher prepares a research budget, he/she should predict and cost all aspects of the research and then add an additional allowance for unpredictable disasters, delays and rising costs. All items in the budget should be justified.

Appendices are documents that support the proposal and application. The appendices will be specific for each proposal but documents that are usually required include informed consent form, supporting documents, questionnaires, measurement tools and patient information of the study in layman's language.

As with any scholarly research paper, you must cite the sources you used in composing your proposal. Although the words ‘references and bibliography’ are different, they are used interchangeably. It refers to all references cited in the research proposal.

Successful, qualitative research proposals should communicate the researcher's knowledge of the field and method and convey the emergent nature of the qualitative design. The proposal should follow a discernible logic from the introduction to presentation of the appendices.

Financial support and sponsorship

Conflicts of interest.

There are no conflicts of interest.

17 Research Proposal Examples

A research proposal systematically and transparently outlines a proposed research project.

The purpose of a research proposal is to demonstrate a project’s viability and the researcher’s preparedness to conduct an academic study. It serves as a roadmap for the researcher.

The process holds value both externally (for accountability purposes and often as a requirement for a grant application) and intrinsic value (for helping the researcher to clarify the mechanics, purpose, and potential signficance of the study).

Key sections of a research proposal include: the title, abstract, introduction, literature review, research design and methods, timeline, budget, outcomes and implications, references, and appendix. Each is briefly explained below.

Watch my Guide: How to Write a Research Proposal

Get your Template for Writing your Research Proposal Here (With AI Prompts!)

Research Proposal Sample Structure

Title: The title should present a concise and descriptive statement that clearly conveys the core idea of the research projects. Make it as specific as possible. The reader should immediately be able to grasp the core idea of the intended research project. Often, the title is left too vague and does not help give an understanding of what exactly the study looks at.

Abstract: Abstracts are usually around 250-300 words and provide an overview of what is to follow – including the research problem , objectives, methods, expected outcomes, and significance of the study. Use it as a roadmap and ensure that, if the abstract is the only thing someone reads, they’ll get a good fly-by of what will be discussed in the peice.

Introduction: Introductions are all about contextualization. They often set the background information with a statement of the problem. At the end of the introduction, the reader should understand what the rationale for the study truly is. I like to see the research questions or hypotheses included in the introduction and I like to get a good understanding of what the significance of the research will be. It’s often easiest to write the introduction last

Literature Review: The literature review dives deep into the existing literature on the topic, demosntrating your thorough understanding of the existing literature including themes, strengths, weaknesses, and gaps in the literature. It serves both to demonstrate your knowledge of the field and, to demonstrate how the proposed study will fit alongside the literature on the topic. A good literature review concludes by clearly demonstrating how your research will contribute something new and innovative to the conversation in the literature.

Research Design and Methods: This section needs to clearly demonstrate how the data will be gathered and analyzed in a systematic and academically sound manner. Here, you need to demonstrate that the conclusions of your research will be both valid and reliable. Common points discussed in the research design and methods section include highlighting the research paradigm, methodologies, intended population or sample to be studied, data collection techniques, and data analysis procedures . Toward the end of this section, you are encouraged to also address ethical considerations and limitations of the research process , but also to explain why you chose your research design and how you are mitigating the identified risks and limitations.

Timeline: Provide an outline of the anticipated timeline for the study. Break it down into its various stages (including data collection, data analysis, and report writing). The goal of this section is firstly to establish a reasonable breakdown of steps for you to follow and secondly to demonstrate to the assessors that your project is practicable and feasible.

Budget: Estimate the costs associated with the research project and include evidence for your estimations. Typical costs include staffing costs, equipment, travel, and data collection tools. When applying for a scholarship, the budget should demonstrate that you are being responsible with your expensive and that your funding application is reasonable.

Expected Outcomes and Implications: A discussion of the anticipated findings or results of the research, as well as the potential contributions to the existing knowledge, theory, or practice in the field. This section should also address the potential impact of the research on relevant stakeholders and any broader implications for policy or practice.

References: A complete list of all the sources cited in the research proposal, formatted according to the required citation style. This demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with the relevant literature and ensures proper attribution of ideas and information.

Appendices (if applicable): Any additional materials, such as questionnaires, interview guides, or consent forms, that provide further information or support for the research proposal. These materials should be included as appendices at the end of the document.

Research Proposal Examples

Research proposals often extend anywhere between 2,000 and 15,000 words in length. The following snippets are samples designed to briefly demonstrate what might be discussed in each section.

1. Education Studies Research Proposals

See some real sample pieces:

• Assessment of the perceptions of teachers towards a new grading system
• Does ICT use in secondary classrooms help or hinder student learning?
• Digital technologies in focus project
• Urban Middle School Teachers’ Experiences of the Implementation of
• Restorative Justice Practices
• Experiences of students of color in service learning

Consider this hypothetical education research proposal:

The Impact of Game-Based Learning on Student Engagement and Academic Performance in Middle School Mathematics

Abstract: The proposed study will explore multiplayer game-based learning techniques in middle school mathematics curricula and their effects on student engagement. The study aims to contribute to the current literature on game-based learning by examining the effects of multiplayer gaming in learning.

Introduction: Digital game-based learning has long been shunned within mathematics education for fears that it may distract students or lower the academic integrity of the classrooms. However, there is emerging evidence that digital games in math have emerging benefits not only for engagement but also academic skill development. Contributing to this discourse, this study seeks to explore the potential benefits of multiplayer digital game-based learning by examining its impact on middle school students’ engagement and academic performance in a mathematics class.

Literature Review: The literature review has identified gaps in the current knowledge, namely, while game-based learning has been extensively explored, the role of multiplayer games in supporting learning has not been studied.

Research Design and Methods: This study will employ a mixed-methods research design based upon action research in the classroom. A quasi-experimental pre-test/post-test control group design will first be used to compare the academic performance and engagement of middle school students exposed to game-based learning techniques with those in a control group receiving instruction without the aid of technology. Students will also be observed and interviewed in regard to the effect of communication and collaboration during gameplay on their learning.

Timeline: The study will take place across the second term of the school year with a pre-test taking place on the first day of the term and the post-test taking place on Wednesday in Week 10.

Budget: The key budgetary requirements will be the technologies required, including the subscription cost for the identified games and computers.

Expected Outcomes and Implications: It is expected that the findings will contribute to the current literature on game-based learning and inform educational practices, providing educators and policymakers with insights into how to better support student achievement in mathematics.

2. Psychology Research Proposals

See some real examples:

• A situational analysis of shared leadership in a self-managing team
• The effect of musical preference on running performance
• Relationship between self-esteem and disordered eating amongst adolescent females

Consider this hypothetical psychology research proposal:

The Effects of Mindfulness-Based Interventions on Stress Reduction in College Students

Abstract: This research proposal examines the impact of mindfulness-based interventions on stress reduction among college students, using a pre-test/post-test experimental design with both quantitative and qualitative data collection methods .

Introduction: College students face heightened stress levels during exam weeks. This can affect both mental health and test performance. This study explores the potential benefits of mindfulness-based interventions such as meditation as a way to mediate stress levels in the weeks leading up to exam time.

Literature Review: Existing research on mindfulness-based meditation has shown the ability for mindfulness to increase metacognition, decrease anxiety levels, and decrease stress. Existing literature has looked at workplace, high school and general college-level applications. This study will contribute to the corpus of literature by exploring the effects of mindfulness directly in the context of exam weeks.

Research Design and Methods: Participants ( n= 234 ) will be randomly assigned to either an experimental group, receiving 5 days per week of 10-minute mindfulness-based interventions, or a control group, receiving no intervention. Data will be collected through self-report questionnaires, measuring stress levels, semi-structured interviews exploring participants’ experiences, and students’ test scores.

Timeline: The study will begin three weeks before the students’ exam week and conclude after each student’s final exam. Data collection will occur at the beginning (pre-test of self-reported stress levels) and end (post-test) of the three weeks.

Expected Outcomes and Implications: The study aims to provide evidence supporting the effectiveness of mindfulness-based interventions in reducing stress among college students in the lead up to exams, with potential implications for mental health support and stress management programs on college campuses.

3. Sociology Research Proposals

• Understanding emerging social movements: A case study of ‘Jersey in Transition’
• The interaction of health, education and employment in Western China
• Can we preserve lower-income affordable neighbourhoods in the face of rising costs?

Consider this hypothetical sociology research proposal:

The Impact of Social Media Usage on Interpersonal Relationships among Young Adults

Abstract: This research proposal investigates the effects of social media usage on interpersonal relationships among young adults, using a longitudinal mixed-methods approach with ongoing semi-structured interviews to collect qualitative data.

Introduction: Social media platforms have become a key medium for the development of interpersonal relationships, particularly for young adults. This study examines the potential positive and negative effects of social media usage on young adults’ relationships and development over time.

Literature Review: A preliminary review of relevant literature has demonstrated that social media usage is central to development of a personal identity and relationships with others with similar subcultural interests. However, it has also been accompanied by data on mental health deline and deteriorating off-screen relationships. The literature is to-date lacking important longitudinal data on these topics.

Research Design and Methods: Participants ( n = 454 ) will be young adults aged 18-24. Ongoing self-report surveys will assess participants’ social media usage, relationship satisfaction, and communication patterns. A subset of participants will be selected for longitudinal in-depth interviews starting at age 18 and continuing for 5 years.

Timeline: The study will be conducted over a period of five years, including recruitment, data collection, analysis, and report writing.

Expected Outcomes and Implications: This study aims to provide insights into the complex relationship between social media usage and interpersonal relationships among young adults, potentially informing social policies and mental health support related to social media use.

4. Nursing Research Proposals

• Does Orthopaedic Pre-assessment clinic prepare the patient for admission to hospital?
• Nurses’ perceptions and experiences of providing psychological care to burns patients
• Registered psychiatric nurse’s practice with mentally ill parents and their children

Consider this hypothetical nursing research proposal:

The Influence of Nurse-Patient Communication on Patient Satisfaction and Health Outcomes following Emergency Cesarians

Abstract: This research will examines the impact of effective nurse-patient communication on patient satisfaction and health outcomes for women following c-sections, utilizing a mixed-methods approach with patient surveys and semi-structured interviews.

Introduction: It has long been known that effective communication between nurses and patients is crucial for quality care. However, additional complications arise following emergency c-sections due to the interaction between new mother’s changing roles and recovery from surgery.

Literature Review: A review of the literature demonstrates the importance of nurse-patient communication, its impact on patient satisfaction, and potential links to health outcomes. However, communication between nurses and new mothers is less examined, and the specific experiences of those who have given birth via emergency c-section are to date unexamined.

Research Design and Methods: Participants will be patients in a hospital setting who have recently had an emergency c-section. A self-report survey will assess their satisfaction with nurse-patient communication and perceived health outcomes. A subset of participants will be selected for in-depth interviews to explore their experiences and perceptions of the communication with their nurses.

Timeline: The study will be conducted over a period of six months, including rolling recruitment, data collection, analysis, and report writing within the hospital.

Expected Outcomes and Implications: This study aims to provide evidence for the significance of nurse-patient communication in supporting new mothers who have had an emergency c-section. Recommendations will be presented for supporting nurses and midwives in improving outcomes for new mothers who had complications during birth.

5. Social Work Research Proposals

• Experiences of negotiating employment and caring responsibilities of fathers post-divorce
• Exploring kinship care in the north region of British Columbia

Consider this hypothetical social work research proposal:

The Role of a Family-Centered Intervention in Preventing Homelessness Among At-Risk Youthin a working-class town in Northern England

Abstract: This research proposal investigates the effectiveness of a family-centered intervention provided by a local council area in preventing homelessness among at-risk youth. This case study will use a mixed-methods approach with program evaluation data and semi-structured interviews to collect quantitative and qualitative data .

Introduction: Homelessness among youth remains a significant social issue. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of family-centered interventions in addressing this problem and identify factors that contribute to successful prevention strategies.

Literature Review: A review of the literature has demonstrated several key factors contributing to youth homelessness including lack of parental support, lack of social support, and low levels of family involvement. It also demonstrates the important role of family-centered interventions in addressing this issue. Drawing on current evidence, this study explores the effectiveness of one such intervention in preventing homelessness among at-risk youth in a working-class town in Northern England.

Research Design and Methods: The study will evaluate a new family-centered intervention program targeting at-risk youth and their families. Quantitative data on program outcomes, including housing stability and family functioning, will be collected through program records and evaluation reports. Semi-structured interviews with program staff, participants, and relevant stakeholders will provide qualitative insights into the factors contributing to program success or failure.

Timeline: The study will be conducted over a period of six months, including recruitment, data collection, analysis, and report writing.

Budget: Expenses include access to program evaluation data, interview materials, data analysis software, and any related travel costs for in-person interviews.

Expected Outcomes and Implications: This study aims to provide evidence for the effectiveness of family-centered interventions in preventing youth homelessness, potentially informing the expansion of or necessary changes to social work practices in Northern England.

Research Proposal Template

Get your Detailed Template for Writing your Research Proposal Here (With AI Prompts!)

This is a template for a 2500-word research proposal. You may find it difficult to squeeze everything into this wordcount, but it’s a common wordcount for Honors and MA-level dissertations.

Your research proposal is where you really get going with your study. I’d strongly recommend working closely with your teacher in developing a research proposal that’s consistent with the requirements and culture of your institution, as in my experience it varies considerably. The above template is from my own courses that walk students through research proposals in a British School of Education.

Chris Drew (PhD)

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 5 Top Tips for Succeeding at University
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 50 Durable Goods Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 100 Consumer Goods Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 30 Globalization Pros and Cons

8 thoughts on “17 Research Proposal Examples”

Very excellent research proposals

very helpful

Very helpful

Dear Sir, I need some help to write an educational research proposal. Thank you.

Hi Levi, use the site search bar to ask a question and I’ll likely have a guide already written for your specific question. Thanks for reading!

very good research proposal

Thank you so much sir! ❤️

Very helpful 👌

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

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

• Privacy Policy

Buy Me a Coffee

Home » How To Write A Research Proposal – Step-by-Step [Template]

How To Write A Research Proposal – Step-by-Step [Template]

Table of Contents

How To Write a Research Proposal

Writing a Research proposal involves several steps to ensure a well-structured and comprehensive document. Here is an explanation of each step:

1. Title and Abstract

• Choose a concise and descriptive title that reflects the essence of your research.
• Write an abstract summarizing your research question, objectives, methodology, and expected outcomes. It should provide a brief overview of your proposal.

2. Introduction:

• Provide an introduction to your research topic, highlighting its significance and relevance.
• Clearly state the research problem or question you aim to address.
• Discuss the background and context of the study, including previous research in the field.

3. Research Objectives

• Outline the specific objectives or aims of your research. These objectives should be clear, achievable, and aligned with the research problem.

4. Literature Review:

• Conduct a comprehensive review of relevant literature and studies related to your research topic.
• Summarize key findings, identify gaps, and highlight how your research will contribute to the existing knowledge.

5. Methodology:

• Describe the research design and methodology you plan to employ to address your research objectives.
• Explain the data collection methods, instruments, and analysis techniques you will use.
• Justify why the chosen methods are appropriate and suitable for your research.

6. Timeline:

• Create a timeline or schedule that outlines the major milestones and activities of your research project.
• Break down the research process into smaller tasks and estimate the time required for each task.

7. Resources:

• Identify the resources needed for your research, such as access to specific databases, equipment, or funding.
• Explain how you will acquire or utilize these resources to carry out your research effectively.

8. Ethical Considerations:

• Discuss any ethical issues that may arise during your research and explain how you plan to address them.
• If your research involves human subjects, explain how you will ensure their informed consent and privacy.

9. Expected Outcomes and Significance:

• Clearly state the expected outcomes or results of your research.
• Highlight the potential impact and significance of your research in advancing knowledge or addressing practical issues.

10. References:

• Provide a list of all the references cited in your proposal, following a consistent citation style (e.g., APA, MLA).

11. Appendices:

• Include any additional supporting materials, such as survey questionnaires, interview guides, or data analysis plans.

Research Proposal Format

The format of a research proposal may vary depending on the specific requirements of the institution or funding agency. However, the following is a commonly used format for a research proposal:

1. Title Page:

• Include the title of your research proposal, your name, your affiliation or institution, and the date.

2. Abstract:

• Provide a brief summary of your research proposal, highlighting the research problem, objectives, methodology, and expected outcomes.

3. Introduction:

• Introduce the research topic and provide background information.
• State the research problem or question you aim to address.
• Explain the significance and relevance of the research.
• Review relevant literature and studies related to your research topic.
• Summarize key findings and identify gaps in the existing knowledge.
• Explain how your research will contribute to filling those gaps.

5. Research Objectives:

• Clearly state the specific objectives or aims of your research.
• Ensure that the objectives are clear, focused, and aligned with the research problem.

6. Methodology:

• Describe the research design and methodology you plan to use.
• Explain the data collection methods, instruments, and analysis techniques.
• Justify why the chosen methods are appropriate for your research.

7. Timeline:

8. Resources:

• Explain how you will acquire or utilize these resources effectively.

9. Ethical Considerations:

• If applicable, explain how you will ensure informed consent and protect the privacy of research participants.

10. Expected Outcomes and Significance:

11. References:

12. Appendices:

Research Proposal Template

Here’s a template for a research proposal:

1. Introduction:

2. Literature Review:

3. Research Objectives:

4. Methodology:

5. Timeline:

6. Resources:

7. Ethical Considerations:

8. Expected Outcomes and Significance:

9. References:

10. Appendices:

Research Proposal Sample

Title: The Impact of Online Education on Student Learning Outcomes: A Comparative Study

1. Introduction

Online education has gained significant prominence in recent years, especially due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This research proposal aims to investigate the impact of online education on student learning outcomes by comparing them with traditional face-to-face instruction. The study will explore various aspects of online education, such as instructional methods, student engagement, and academic performance, to provide insights into the effectiveness of online learning.

2. Objectives

The main objectives of this research are as follows:

• To compare student learning outcomes between online and traditional face-to-face education.
• To examine the factors influencing student engagement in online learning environments.
• To assess the effectiveness of different instructional methods employed in online education.
• To identify challenges and opportunities associated with online education and suggest recommendations for improvement.

3. Methodology

3.1 Study Design

This research will utilize a mixed-methods approach to gather both quantitative and qualitative data. The study will include the following components:

3.2 Participants

The research will involve undergraduate students from two universities, one offering online education and the other providing face-to-face instruction. A total of 500 students (250 from each university) will be selected randomly to participate in the study.

3.3 Data Collection

The research will employ the following data collection methods:

• Quantitative: Pre- and post-assessments will be conducted to measure students’ learning outcomes. Data on student demographics and academic performance will also be collected from university records.
• Qualitative: Focus group discussions and individual interviews will be conducted with students to gather their perceptions and experiences regarding online education.

3.4 Data Analysis

Quantitative data will be analyzed using statistical software, employing descriptive statistics, t-tests, and regression analysis. Qualitative data will be transcribed, coded, and analyzed thematically to identify recurring patterns and themes.

4. Ethical Considerations

The study will adhere to ethical guidelines, ensuring the privacy and confidentiality of participants. Informed consent will be obtained, and participants will have the right to withdraw from the study at any time.

5. Significance and Expected Outcomes

This research will contribute to the existing literature by providing empirical evidence on the impact of online education on student learning outcomes. The findings will help educational institutions and policymakers make informed decisions about incorporating online learning methods and improving the quality of online education. Moreover, the study will identify potential challenges and opportunities related to online education and offer recommendations for enhancing student engagement and overall learning outcomes.

6. Timeline

The proposed research will be conducted over a period of 12 months, including data collection, analysis, and report writing.

The estimated budget for this research includes expenses related to data collection, software licenses, participant compensation, and research assistance. A detailed budget breakdown will be provided in the final research plan.

8. Conclusion

This research proposal aims to investigate the impact of online education on student learning outcomes through a comparative study with traditional face-to-face instruction. By exploring various dimensions of online education, this research will provide valuable insights into the effectiveness and challenges associated with online learning. The findings will contribute to the ongoing discourse on educational practices and help shape future strategies for maximizing student learning outcomes in online education settings.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

How To Write A Proposal – Step By Step Guide...

Grant Proposal – Example, Template and Guide

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

Business Proposal – Templates, Examples and Guide

Proposal – Types, Examples, and Writing Guide

How to choose an Appropriate Method for Research?

• Search Menu
• Advance articles
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Why Publish?
• About Science and Public Policy
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

1. introduction, 2. background, 4. findings, 5. discussion, 6. conclusion and final remarks, supplementary material, data availability, conflict of interest statement., acknowledgements.

• < Previous

Evaluation of research proposals by peer review panels: broader panels for broader assessments?

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Rebecca Abma-Schouten, Joey Gijbels, Wendy Reijmerink, Ingeborg Meijer, Evaluation of research proposals by peer review panels: broader panels for broader assessments?, Science and Public Policy , Volume 50, Issue 4, August 2023, Pages 619–632, https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad009

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Panel peer review is widely used to decide which research proposals receive funding. Through this exploratory observational study at two large biomedical and health research funders in the Netherlands, we gain insight into how scientific quality and societal relevance are discussed in panel meetings. We explore, in ten review panel meetings of biomedical and health funding programmes, how panel composition and formal assessment criteria affect the arguments used. We observe that more scientific arguments are used than arguments related to societal relevance and expected impact. Also, more diverse panels result in a wider range of arguments, largely for the benefit of arguments related to societal relevance and impact. We discuss how funders can contribute to the quality of peer review by creating a shared conceptual framework that better defines research quality and societal relevance. We also contribute to a further understanding of the role of diverse peer review panels.

Scientific biomedical and health research is often supported by project or programme grants from public funding agencies such as governmental research funders and charities. Research funders primarily rely on peer review, often a combination of independent written review and discussion in a peer review panel, to inform their funding decisions. Peer review panels have the difficult task of integrating and balancing the various assessment criteria to select and rank the eligible proposals. With the increasing emphasis on societal benefit and being responsive to societal needs, the assessment of research proposals ought to include broader assessment criteria, including both scientific quality and societal relevance, and a broader perspective on relevant peers. This results in new practices of including non-scientific peers in review panels ( Del Carmen Calatrava Moreno et al. 2019 ; Den Oudendammer et al. 2019 ; Van den Brink et al. 2016 ). Relevant peers, in the context of biomedical and health research, include, for example, health-care professionals, (healthcare) policymakers, and patients as the (end-)users of research.

Currently, in scientific and grey literature, much attention is paid to what legitimate criteria are and to deficiencies in the peer review process, for example, focusing on the role of chance and the difficulty of assessing interdisciplinary or ‘blue sky’ research ( Langfeldt 2006 ; Roumbanis 2021a ). Our research primarily builds upon the work of Lamont (2009) , Huutoniemi (2012) , and Kolarz et al. (2016) . Their work articulates how the discourse in peer review panels can be understood by giving insight into disciplinary assessment cultures and social dynamics, as well as how panel members define and value concepts such as scientific excellence, interdisciplinarity, and societal impact. At the same time, there is little empirical work on what actually is discussed in peer review meetings and to what extent this is related to the specific objectives of the research funding programme. Such observational work is especially lacking in the biomedical and health domain.

The aim of our exploratory study is to learn what arguments panel members use in a review meeting when assessing research proposals in biomedical and health research programmes. We explore how arguments used in peer review panels are affected by (1) the formal assessment criteria and (2) the inclusion of non-scientific peers in review panels, also called (end-)users of research, societal stakeholders, or societal actors. We add to the existing literature by focusing on the actual arguments used in peer review assessment in practice.

To this end, we observed ten panel meetings in a variety of eight biomedical and health research programmes at two large research funders in the Netherlands: the governmental research funder The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw) and the charitable research funder the Dutch Heart Foundation (DHF). Our first research question focuses on what arguments panel members use when assessing research proposals in a review meeting. The second examines to what extent these arguments correspond with the formal −as described in the programme brochure and assessment form− criteria on scientific quality and societal impact creation. The third question focuses on how arguments used differ between panel members with different perspectives.

2.1 Relation between science and society

To understand the dual focus of scientific quality and societal relevance in research funding, a theoretical understanding and a practical operationalisation of the relation between science and society are needed. The conceptualisation of this relationship affects both who are perceived as relevant peers in the review process and the criteria by which research proposals are assessed.

The relationship between science and society is not constant over time nor static, yet a relation that is much debated. Scientific knowledge can have a huge impact on societies, either intended or unintended. Vice versa, the social environment and structure in which science takes place influence the rate of development, the topics of interest, and the content of science. However, the second part of this inter-relatedness between science and society generally receives less attention ( Merton 1968 ; Weingart 1999 ).

From a historical perspective, scientific and technological progress contributed to the view that science was valuable on its own account and that science and the scientist stood independent of society. While this protected science from unwarranted political influence, societal disengagement with science resulted in less authority by science and debate about its contribution to society. This interdependence and mutual influence contributed to a modern view of science in which knowledge development is valued both on its own merit and for its impact on, and interaction with, society. As such, societal factors and problems are important drivers for scientific research. This warrants that the relation and boundaries between science, society, and politics need to be organised and constantly reinforced and reiterated ( Merton 1968 ; Shapin 2008 ; Weingart 1999 ).

Glerup and Horst (2014) conceptualise the value of science to society and the role of society in science in four rationalities that reflect different justifications for their relation and thus also for who is responsible for (assessing) the societal value of science. The rationalities are arranged along two axes: one is related to the internal or external regulation of science and the other is related to either the process or the outcome of science as the object of steering. The first two rationalities of Reflexivity and Demarcation focus on internal regulation in the scientific community. Reflexivity focuses on the outcome. Central is that science, and thus, scientists should learn from societal problems and provide solutions. Demarcation focuses on the process: science should continuously question its own motives and methods. The latter two rationalities of Contribution and Integration focus on external regulation. The core of the outcome-oriented Contribution rationality is that scientists do not necessarily see themselves as ‘working for the public good’. Science should thus be regulated by society to ensure that outcomes are useful. The central idea of the process-oriented Integration rationality is that societal actors should be involved in science in order to influence the direction of research.

Research funders can be seen as external or societal regulators of science. They can focus on organising the process of science, Integration, or on scientific outcomes that function as solutions for societal challenges, Contribution. In the Contribution perspective, a funder could enhance outside (societal) involvement in science to ensure that scientists take responsibility to deliver results that are needed and used by society. From Integration follows that actors from science and society need to work together in order to produce the best results. In this perspective, there is a lack of integration between science and society and more collaboration and dialogue are needed to develop a new kind of integrative responsibility ( Glerup and Horst 2014 ). This argues for the inclusion of other types of evaluators in research assessment. In reality, these rationalities are not mutually exclusive and also not strictly separated. As a consequence, multiple rationalities can be recognised in the reasoning of scientists and in the policies of research funders today.

2.2 Criteria for research quality and societal relevance

The rationalities of Glerup and Horst have consequences for which language is used to discuss societal relevance and impact in research proposals. Even though the main ingredients are quite similar, as a consequence of the coexisting rationalities in science, societal aspects can be defined and operationalised in different ways ( Alla et al. 2017 ). In the definition of societal impact by Reed, emphasis is placed on the outcome : the contribution to society. It includes the significance for society, the size of potential impact, and the reach , the number of people or organisations benefiting from the expected outcomes ( Reed et al. 2021 ). Other models and definitions focus more on the process of science and its interaction with society. Spaapen and Van Drooge introduced productive interactions in the assessment of societal impact, highlighting a direct contact between researchers and other actors. A key idea is that the interaction in different domains leads to impact in different domains ( Meijer 2012 ; Spaapen and Van Drooge 2011 ). Definitions that focus on the process often refer to societal impact as (1) something that can take place in distinguishable societal domains, (2) something that needs to be actively pursued, and (3) something that requires interactions with societal stakeholders (or users of research) ( Hughes and Kitson 2012 ; Spaapen and Van Drooge 2011 ).

Glerup and Horst show that process and outcome-oriented aspects can be combined in the operationalisation of criteria for assessing research proposals on societal aspects. Also, the funders participating in this study include the outcome—the value created in different domains—and the process—productive interactions with stakeholders—in their formal assessment criteria for societal relevance and impact. Different labels are used for these criteria, such as societal relevance , societal quality , and societal impact ( Abma-Schouten 2017 ; Reijmerink and Oortwijn 2017 ). In this paper, we use societal relevance or societal relevance and impact .

Scientific quality in research assessment frequently refers to all aspects and activities in the study that contribute to the validity and reliability of the research results and that contribute to the integrity and quality of the research process itself. The criteria commonly include the relevance of the proposal for the funding programme, the scientific relevance, originality, innovativeness, methodology, and feasibility ( Abdoul et al. 2012 ). Several studies demonstrated that quality is seen as not only a rich concept but also a complex concept in which excellence and innovativeness, methodological aspects, engagement of stakeholders, multidisciplinary collaboration, and societal relevance all play a role ( Geurts 2016 ; Roumbanis 2019 ; Scholten et al. 2018 ). Another study showed a comprehensive definition of ‘good’ science, which includes creativity, reproducibility, perseverance, intellectual courage, and personal integrity. It demonstrated that ‘good’ science involves not only scientific excellence but also personal values and ethics, and engagement with society ( Van den Brink et al. 2016 ). Noticeable in these studies is the connection made between societal relevance and scientific quality.

In summary, the criteria for scientific quality and societal relevance are conceptualised in different ways, and perspectives on the role of societal value creation and the involvement of societal actors vary strongly. Research funders hence have to pay attention to the meaning of the criteria for the panel members they recruit to help them, and navigate and negotiate how the criteria are applied in assessing research proposals. To be able to do so, more insight is needed in which elements of scientific quality and societal relevance are discussed in practice by peer review panels.

2.3 Role of funders and societal actors in peer review

National governments and charities are important funders of biomedical and health research. How this funding is distributed varies per country. Project funding is frequently allocated based on research programming by specialised public funding organisations, such as the Dutch Research Council in the Netherlands and ZonMw for health research. The DHF, the second largest private non-profit research funder in the Netherlands, provides project funding ( Private Non-Profit Financiering 2020 ). Funders, as so-called boundary organisations, can act as key intermediaries between government, science, and society ( Jasanoff 2011 ). Their responsibility is to develop effective research policies connecting societal demands and scientific ‘supply’. This includes setting up and executing fair and balanced assessment procedures ( Sarewitz and Pielke 2007 ). Herein, the role of societal stakeholders is receiving increasing attention ( Benedictus et al. 2016 ; De Rijcke et al. 2016 ; Dijstelbloem et al. 2013 ; Scholten et al. 2018 ).

All charitable health research funders in the Netherlands have, in the last decade, included patients at different stages of the funding process, including in assessing research proposals ( Den Oudendammer et al. 2019 ). To facilitate research funders in involving patients in assessing research proposals, the federation of Dutch patient organisations set up an independent reviewer panel with (at-risk) patients and direct caregivers ( Patiëntenfederatie Nederland, n.d .). Other foundations have set up societal advisory panels including a wider range of societal actors than patients alone. The Committee Societal Quality (CSQ) of the DHF includes, for example, (at-risk) patients and a wide range of cardiovascular health-care professionals who are not active as academic researchers. This model is also applied by the Diabetes Foundation and the Princess Beatrix Muscle Foundation in the Netherlands ( Diabetesfonds, n.d .; Prinses Beatrix Spierfonds, n.d .).

In 2014, the Lancet presented a series of five papers about biomedical and health research known as the ‘increasing value, reducing waste’ series ( Macleod et al. 2014 ). The authors addressed several issues as well as potential solutions that funders can implement. They highlight, among others, the importance of improving the societal relevance of the research questions and including the burden of disease in research assessment in order to increase the value of biomedical and health science for society. A better understanding of and an increasing role of users of research are also part of the described solutions ( Chalmers et al. 2014 ; Van den Brink et al. 2016 ). This is also in line with the recommendations of the 2013 Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) ( DORA 2013 ). These recommendations influence the way in which research funders operationalise their criteria in research assessment, how they balance the judgement of scientific and societal aspects, and how they involve societal stakeholders in peer review.

2.4 Panel peer review of research proposals

To assess research proposals, funders rely on the services of peer experts to review the thousands or perhaps millions of research proposals seeking funding each year. While often associated with scholarly publishing, peer review also includes the ex ante assessment of research grant and fellowship applications ( Abdoul et al. 2012 ). Peer review of proposals often includes a written assessment of a proposal by an anonymous peer and a peer review panel meeting to select the proposals eligible for funding. Peer review is an established component of professional academic practice, is deeply embedded in the research culture, and essentially consists of experts in a given domain appraising the professional performance, creativity, and/or quality of scientific work produced by others in their field of competence ( Demicheli and Di Pietrantonj 2007 ). The history of peer review as the default approach for scientific evaluation and accountability is, however, relatively young. While the term was unheard of in the 1960s, by 1970, it had become the standard. Since that time, peer review has become increasingly diverse and formalised, resulting in more public accountability ( Reinhart and Schendzielorz 2021 ).

While many studies have been conducted concerning peer review in scholarly publishing, peer review in grant allocation processes has been less discussed ( Demicheli and Di Pietrantonj 2007 ). The most extensive work on this topic has been conducted by Lamont (2009) . Lamont studied peer review panels in five American research funding organisations, including observing three panels. Other examples include Roumbanis’s ethnographic observations of ten review panels at the Swedish Research Council in natural and engineering sciences ( Roumbanis 2017 , 2021a ). Also, Huutoniemi was able to study, but not observe, four panels on environmental studies and social sciences of the Academy of Finland ( Huutoniemi 2012 ). Additionally, Van Arensbergen and Van den Besselaar (2012) analysed peer review through interviews and by analysing the scores and outcomes at different stages of the peer review process in a talent funding programme. In particular, interesting is the study by Luo and colleagues on 164 written panel review reports, showing that the reviews from panels that included non-scientific peers described broader and more concrete impact topics. Mixed panels also more often connected research processes and characteristics of applicants with impact creation ( Luo et al. 2021 ).

While these studies primarily focused on peer review panels in other disciplinary domains or are based on interviews or reports instead of direct observations, we believe that many of the findings are relevant to the functioning of panels in the context of biomedical and health research. From this literature, we learn to have realistic expectations of peer review. It is inherently difficult to predict in advance which research projects will provide the most important findings or breakthroughs ( Lee et al. 2013 ; Pier et al. 2018 ; Roumbanis 2021a , 2021b ). At the same time, these limitations may not substantiate the replacement of peer review by another assessment approach ( Wessely 1998 ). Many topics addressed in the literature are inter-related and relevant to our study, such as disciplinary differences and interdisciplinarity, social dynamics and their consequences for consistency and bias, and suggestions to improve panel peer review ( Lamont and Huutoniemi 2011 ; Lee et al. 2013 ; Pier et al. 2018 ; Roumbanis 2021a , b ; Wessely 1998 ).

Different scientific disciplines show different preferences and beliefs about how to build knowledge and thus have different perceptions of excellence. However, panellists are willing to respect and acknowledge other standards of excellence ( Lamont 2009 ). Evaluation cultures also differ between scientific fields. Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics panels might, in comparison with panellists from social sciences and humanities, be more concerned with the consistency of the assessment across panels and therefore with clear definitions and uses of assessment criteria ( Lamont and Huutoniemi 2011 ). However, much is still to learn about how panellists’ cognitive affiliations with particular disciplines unfold in the evaluation process. Therefore, the assessment of interdisciplinary research is much more complex than just improving the criteria or procedure because less explicit repertoires would also need to change ( Huutoniemi 2012 ).

Social dynamics play a role as panellists may differ in their motivation to engage in allocation processes, which could create bias ( Lee et al. 2013 ). Placing emphasis on meeting established standards or thoroughness in peer review may promote uncontroversial and safe projects, especially in a situation where strong competition puts pressure on experts to reach a consensus ( Langfeldt 2001 ,2006 ). Personal interest and cognitive similarity may also contribute to conservative bias, which could negatively affect controversial or frontier science ( Luukkonen 2012 ; Roumbanis 2021a ; Travis and Collins 1991 ). Central in this part of literature is that panel conclusions are the outcome of and are influenced by the group interaction ( Van Arensbergen et al. 2014a ). Differences in, for example, the status and expertise of the panel members can play an important role in group dynamics. Insights from social psychology on group dynamics can help in understanding and avoiding bias in peer review panels ( Olbrecht and Bornmann 2010 ). For example, group performance research shows that more diverse groups with complementary skills make better group decisions than homogenous groups. Yet, heterogeneity can also increase conflict within the group ( Forsyth 1999 ). Therefore, it is important to pay attention to power dynamics and maintain team spirit and good communication ( Van Arensbergen et al. 2014a ), especially in meetings that include both scientific and non-scientific peers.

The literature also provides funders with starting points to improve the peer review process. For example, the explicitness of review procedures positively influences the decision-making processes ( Langfeldt 2001 ). Strategic voting and decision-making appear to be less frequent in panels that rate than in panels that rank proposals. Also, an advisory instead of a decisional role may improve the quality of the panel assessment ( Lamont and Huutoniemi 2011 ).

Despite different disciplinary evaluative cultures, formal procedures, and criteria, panel members with different backgrounds develop shared customary rules of deliberation that facilitate agreement and help avoid situations of conflict ( Huutoniemi 2012 ; Lamont 2009 ). This is a necessary prerequisite for opening up peer review panels to include non-academic experts. When doing so, it is important to realise that panel review is a social, emotional, and interactional process. It is therefore important to also take these non-cognitive aspects into account when studying cognitive aspects ( Lamont and Guetzkow 2016 ), as we do in this study.

In summary, what we learn from the literature is that (1) the specific criteria to operationalise scientific quality and societal relevance of research are important, (2) the rationalities from Glerup and Horst predict that not everyone values societal aspects and involve non-scientists in peer review to the same extent and in the same way, (3) this may affect the way peer review panels discuss these aspects, and (4) peer review is a challenging group process that could accommodate other rationalities in order to prevent bias towards specific scientific criteria. To disentangle these aspects, we have carried out an observational study of a diverse range of peer review panel sessions using a fixed set of criteria focusing on scientific quality and societal relevance.

3.1 Research assessment at ZonMw and the DHF

The peer review approach and the criteria used by both the DHF and ZonMw are largely comparable. Funding programmes at both organisations start with a brochure describing the purposes, goals, and conditions for research applications, as well as the assessment procedure and criteria. Both organisations apply a two-stage process. In the first phase, reviewers are asked to write a peer review. In the second phase, a panel reviews the application based on the advice of the written reviews and the applicants’ rebuttal. The panels advise the board on eligible proposals for funding including a ranking of these proposals.

There are also differences between the two organisations. At ZonMw, the criteria for societal relevance and quality are operationalised in the ZonMw Framework Fostering Responsible Research Practices ( Reijmerink and Oortwijn 2017 ). This contributes to a common operationalisation of both quality and societal relevance on the level of individual funding programmes. Important elements in the criteria for societal relevance are, for instance, stakeholder participation, (applying) holistic health concepts, and the added value of knowledge in practice, policy, and education. The framework was developed to optimise the funding process from the perspective of knowledge utilisation and includes concepts like productive interactions and Open Science. It is part of the ZonMw Impact Assessment Framework aimed at guiding the planning, monitoring, and evaluation of funding programmes ( Reijmerink et al. 2020 ). At ZonMw, interdisciplinary panels are set up specifically for each funding programme. Panels are interdisciplinary in nature with academics of a wide range of disciplines and often include non-academic peers, like policymakers, health-care professionals, and patients.

At the DHF, the criteria for scientific quality and societal relevance, at the DHF called societal impact , find their origin in the strategy report of the advisory committee CardioVascular Research Netherlands ( Reneman et al. 2010 ). This report forms the basis of the DHF research policy focusing on scientific and societal impact by creating national collaborations in thematic, interdisciplinary research programmes (the so-called consortia) connecting preclinical and clinical expertise into one concerted effort. An International Scientific Advisory Committee (ISAC) was established to assess these thematic consortia. This panel consists of international scientists, primarily with expertise in the broad cardiovascular research field. The DHF criteria for societal impact were redeveloped in 2013 in collaboration with their CSQ. This panel assesses and advises on the societal aspects of proposed studies. The societal impact criteria include the relevance of the health-care problem, the expected contribution to a solution, attention to the next step in science and towards implementation in practice, and the involvement of and interaction with (end-)users of research (R.Y. Abma-Schouten and I.M. Meijer, unpublished data). Peer review panels for consortium funding are generally composed of members of the ISAC, members of the CSQ, and ad hoc panel members relevant to the specific programme. CSQ members often have a pre-meeting before the final panel meetings to prepare and empower CSQ representatives participating in the peer review panel.

3.2 Selection of funding programmes

To compare and evaluate observations between the two organisations, we selected funding programmes that were relatively comparable in scope and aims. The criteria were (1) a translational and/or clinical objective and (2) the selection procedure consisted of review panels that were responsible for the (final) relevance and quality assessment of grant applications. In total, we selected eight programmes: four at each organisation. At the DHF, two programmes were chosen in which the CSQ did not participate to better disentangle the role of the panel composition. For each programme, we observed the selection process varying from one session on one day (taking 2–8 h) to multiple sessions over several days. Ten sessions were observed in total, of which eight were final peer review panel meetings and two were CSQ meetings preparing for the panel meeting.

After management approval for the study in both organisations, we asked programme managers and panel chairpersons of the programmes that were selected for their consent for observation; none refused participation. Panel members were, in a passive consent procedure, informed about the planned observation and anonymous analyses.

To ensure the independence of this evaluation, the selection of the grant programmes, and peer review panels observed, was at the discretion of the project team of this study. The observations and supervision of the analyses were performed by the senior author not affiliated with the funders.

3.3 Observation matrix

Given the lack of a common operationalisation for scientific quality and societal relevance, we decided to use an observation matrix with a fixed set of detailed aspects as a gold standard to score the brochures, the assessment forms, and the arguments used in panel meetings. The matrix used for the observations of the review panels was based upon and adapted from a ‘grant committee observation matrix’ developed by Van Arensbergen. The original matrix informed a literature review on the selection of talent through peer review and the social dynamics in grant review committees ( van Arensbergen et al. 2014b ). The matrix includes four categories of aspects that operationalise societal relevance, scientific quality, committee, and applicant (see  Table 1 ). The aspects of scientific quality and societal relevance were adapted to fit the operationalisation of scientific quality and societal relevance of the organisations involved. The aspects concerning societal relevance were derived from the CSQ criteria, and the aspects concerning scientific quality were based on the scientific criteria of the first panel observed. The four argument types related to the panel were kept as they were. This committee-related category reflects statements that are related to the personal experience or preference of a panel member and can be seen as signals for bias. This category also includes statements that compare a project with another project without further substantiation. The three applicant-related arguments in the original observation matrix were extended with a fourth on social skills in communication with society. We added health technology assessment (HTA) because one programme specifically focused on this aspect. We tested our version of the observation matrix in pilot observations.

Aspects included in the observation matrix and examples of arguments.

3.4 Observations

Data were primarily collected through observations. Our observations of review panel meetings were non-participatory: the observer and goal of the observation were introduced at the start of the meeting, without further interactions during the meeting. To aid in the processing of observations, some meetings were audiotaped (sound only). Presentations or responses of applicants were not noted and were not part of the analysis. The observer made notes on the ongoing discussion and scored the arguments while listening. One meeting was not attended in person and only observed and scored by listening to the audiotape recording. Because this made identification of the panel members unreliable, this panel meeting was excluded from the analysis of the third research question on how arguments used differ between panel members with different perspectives.

3.5 Grant programmes and the assessment criteria

We gathered and analysed all brochures and assessment forms used by the review panels in order to answer our second research question on the correspondence of arguments used with the formal criteria. Several programmes consisted of multiple grant calls: in that case, the specific call brochure was gathered and analysed, not the overall programme brochure. Additional documentation (e.g. instructional presentations at the start of the panel meeting) was not included in the document analysis. All included documents were marked using the aforementioned observation matrix. The panel-related arguments were not used because this category reflects the personal arguments of panel members that are not part of brochures or instructions. To avoid potential differences in scoring methods, two of the authors independently scored half of the documents that were checked and validated afterwards by the other. Differences were discussed until a consensus was reached.

3.6 Panel composition

In order to answer the third research question, background information on panel members was collected. We categorised the panel members into five common types of panel members: scientific, clinical scientific, health-care professional/clinical, patient, and policy. First, a list of all panel members was composed including their scientific and professional backgrounds and affiliations. The theoretical notion that reviewers represent different types of users of research and therefore potential impact domains (academic, social, economic, and cultural) was leading in the categorisation ( Meijer 2012 ; Spaapen and Van Drooge 2011 ). Because clinical researchers play a dual role in both advancing research as a fellow academic and as a user of the research output in health-care practice, we divided the academic members into two categories of non-clinical and clinical researchers. Multiple types of professional actors participated in each review panel. These were divided into two groups for the analysis: health-care professionals (without current academic activity) and policymakers in the health-care sector. No representatives of the private sector participated in the observed review panels. From the public domain, (at-risk) patients and patient representatives were part of several review panels. Only publicly available information was used to classify the panel members. Members were assigned to one category only: categorisation took place based on the specific role and expertise for which they were appointed to the panel.

In two of the four DHF programmes, the assessment procedure included the CSQ. In these two programmes, representatives of this CSQ participated in the scientific panel to articulate the findings of the CSQ meeting during the final assessment meeting. Two grant programmes were assessed by a review panel with solely (clinical) scientific members.

3.7 Analysis

Data were processed using ATLAS.ti 8 and Microsoft Excel 2010 to produce descriptive statistics. All observed arguments were coded and given a randomised identification code for the panel member using that particular argument. The number of times an argument type was observed was used as an indicator for the relative importance of that argument in the appraisal of proposals. With this approach, a practical and reproducible method for research funders to evaluate the effect of policy changes on peer review was developed. If codes or notes were unclear, post-observation validation of codes was carried out based on observation matrix notes. Arguments that were noted by the observer but could not be matched with an existing code were first coded as a ‘non-existing’ code, and these were resolved by listening back to the audiotapes. Arguments that could not be assigned to a panel member were assigned a ‘missing panel member’ code. A total of 4.7 per cent of all codes were assigned a ‘missing panel member’ code.

After the analyses, two meetings were held to reflect on the results: one with the CSQ and the other with the programme coordinators of both organisations. The goal of these meetings was to improve our interpretation of the findings, disseminate the results derived from this project, and identify topics for further analyses or future studies.

3.8 Limitations

Our study focuses on studying the final phase of the peer review process of research applications in a real-life setting. Our design, a non-participant observation of peer review panels, also introduced several challenges ( Liu and Maitlis 2010 ).

First, the independent review phase or pre-application phase was not part of our study. We therefore could not assess to what extent attention to certain aspects of scientific quality or societal relevance and impact in the review phase influenced the topics discussed during the meeting.

Second, the most important challenge of overt non-participant observations is the observer effect: the danger of causing reactivity in those under study. We believe that the consequences of this effect on our conclusions were limited because panellists are used to external observers in the meetings of these two funders. The observer briefly explained the goal of the study during the introductory round of the panel in general terms. The observer sat as unobtrusively as possible and avoided reactivity to discussions. Similar to previous observations of panels, we experienced that the fact that an observer was present faded into the background during a meeting ( Roumbanis 2021a ). However, a limited observer effect can never be entirely excluded.

Third, our design to only score the arguments raised, and not the responses of the applicant, or information on the content of the proposals, has its positives and negatives. With this approach, we could assure the anonymity of the grant procedures reviewed, the applicants and proposals, panels, and individual panellists. This was an important condition for the funders involved. We took the frequency arguments used as a proxy for the relative importance of that argument in decision-making, which undeniably also has its caveats. Our data collection approach limits more in-depth reflection on which arguments were decisive in decision-making and on group dynamics during the interaction with the applicants as non-verbal and non-content-related comments were not captured in this study.

Fourth, despite this being one of the largest observational studies on the peer review assessment of grant applications with the observation of ten panels in eight grant programmes, many variables might explain differences in arguments used within and beyond our view. Examples of ‘confounding’ variables are the many variations in panel composition, the differences in objectives of the programmes, and the range of the funding programmes. Our study should therefore be seen as exploratory and thus warrants caution in drawing conclusions.

4.1 Overview of observational data

The grant programmes included in this study reflected a broad range of biomedical and health funding programmes, ranging from fellowship grants to translational research and applied health research. All formal documents available to the applicants and to the review panel were retrieved for both ZonMw and the DHF. In total, eighteen documents corresponding to the eight grant programmes were studied. The number of proposals assessed per programme varied from three to thirty-three. The duration of the panel meetings varied between 2 h and two consecutive days. Together, this resulted in a large spread in the number of total arguments used in an individual meeting and in a grant programme as a whole. In the shortest meeting, 49 arguments were observed versus 254 in the longest, with a mean of 126 arguments per meeting and on average 15 arguments per proposal.

We found consistency between how criteria were operationalised in the grant programme’s brochures and in the assessment forms of the review panels overall. At the same time, because the number of elements included in the observation matrix is limited, there was a considerable diversity in the arguments that fall within each aspect (see examples in  Table 1 ). Some of these differences could possibly be explained by differences in language used and the level of detail in the observation matrix, the brochure, and the panel’s instructions. This was especially the case in the applicant-related aspects in which the observation matrix was more detailed than the text in the brochure and assessment forms.

In interpretating our findings, it is important to take into account that, even though our data were largely complete and the observation matrix matched well with the description of the criteria in the brochures and assessment forms, there was a large diversity in the type and number of arguments used and in the number of proposals assessed in the grant programmes included in our study.

4.2 Wide range of arguments used by panels: scientific arguments used most

For our first research question, we explored the number and type of arguments used in the panel meetings. Figure 1 provides an overview of the arguments used. Scientific quality was discussed most. The number of times the feasibility of the aims was discussed clearly stands out in comparison to all other arguments. Also, the match between the science and the problem studied and the plan of work were frequently discussed aspects of scientific quality. International competitiveness of the proposal was discussed the least of all five scientific arguments.

The number of arguments used in panel meetings.

Attention was paid to societal relevance and impact in the panel meetings of both organisations. Yet, the language used differed somewhat between organisations. The contribution to a solution and the next step in science were the most often used societal arguments. At ZonMw, the impact of the health-care problem studied and the activities towards partners were less frequently discussed than the other three societal arguments. At the DHF, the five societal arguments were used equally often.

With the exception of the fellowship programme meeting, applicant-related arguments were not often used. The fellowship panel used arguments related to the applicant and to scientific quality about equally often. Committee-related arguments were also rarely used in the majority of the eight grant programmes observed. In three out of the ten panel meetings, one or two arguments were observed, which were related to personal experience with the applicant or their direct network. In seven out of ten meetings, statements were observed, which were unasserted or were explicitly announced as reflecting a personal preference. The frequency varied between one and seven statements (sixteen in total), which is low in comparison to the other arguments used (see  Fig. 1 for examples).

4.3 Use of arguments varied strongly per panel meeting

The balance in the use of scientific and societal arguments varied strongly per grant programme, panel, and organisation. At ZonMw, two meetings had approximately an equal balance in societal and scientific arguments. In the other two meetings, scientific arguments were used twice to four times as often as societal arguments. At the DHF, three types of panels were observed. Different patterns in the relative use of societal and scientific arguments were observed for each of these panel types. In the two CSQ-only meetings the societal arguments were used approximately twice as often as scientific arguments. In the two meetings of the scientific panels, societal arguments were infrequently used (between zero and four times per argument category). In the combined societal and scientific panel meetings, the use of societal and scientific arguments was more balanced.

4.4 Match of arguments used by panels with the assessment criteria

In order to answer our second research question, we looked into the relation of the arguments used with the formal criteria. We observed that a broader range of arguments were often used in comparison to how the criteria were described in the brochure and assessment instruction. However, arguments related to aspects that were consequently included in the brochure and instruction seemed to be discussed more frequently than in programmes where those aspects were not consistently included or were not included at all. Although the match of the science with the health-care problem and the background and reputation of the applicant were not always made explicit in the brochure or instructions, they were discussed in many panel meetings. Supplementary Fig. S1 provides a visualisation of how arguments used differ between the programmes in which those aspects were, were not, consistently included in the brochure and instruction forms.

4.5 Two-thirds of the assessment was driven by scientific panel members

To answer our third question, we looked into the differences in arguments used between panel members representing a scientific, clinical scientific, professional, policy, or patient perspective. In each research programme, the majority of panellists had a scientific background ( n  = 35), thirty-four members had a clinical scientific background, twenty had a health professional/clinical background, eight members represented a policy perspective, and fifteen represented a patient perspective. From the total number of arguments (1,097), two-thirds were made by members with a scientific or clinical scientific perspective. Members with a scientific background engaged most actively in the discussion with a mean of twelve arguments per member. Similarly, clinical scientists and health-care professionals participated with a mean of nine arguments, and members with a policy and patient perspective put forward the least number of arguments on average, namely, seven and eight. Figure 2 provides a complete overview of the total and mean number of arguments used by the different disciplines in the various panels.

The total and mean number of arguments displayed per subgroup of panel members.

4.6 Diverse use of arguments by panellists, but background matters

In meetings of both organisations, we observed a diverse use of arguments by the panel members. Yet, the use of arguments varied depending on the background of the panel member (see  Fig. 3 ). Those with a scientific and clinical scientific perspective used primarily scientific arguments. As could be expected, health-care professionals and patients used societal arguments more often.

The use of arguments differentiated by panel member background.

Further breakdown of arguments across backgrounds showed clear differences in the use of scientific arguments between the different disciplines of panellists. Scientists and clinical scientists discussed the feasibility of the aims more than twice as often as their second most often uttered element of scientific quality, which was the match between the science and the problem studied . Patients and members with a policy or health professional background put forward fewer but more varied scientific arguments.

Patients and health-care professionals accounted for approximately half of the societal arguments used, despite being a much smaller part of the panel’s overall composition. In other words, members with a scientific perspective were less likely to use societal arguments. The relevance of the health-care problem studied, activities towards partners , and arguments related to participation and diversity were not used often by this group. Patients often used arguments related to patient participation and diversity and activities towards partners , although the frequency of the use of the latter differed per organisation.

The majority of the applicant-related arguments were put forward by scientists, including clinical scientists. Committee-related arguments were very rare and are therefore not differentiated by panel member background, except comments related to a comparison with other applications. These arguments were mainly put forward by panel members with a scientific background. HTA -related arguments were often used by panel members with a scientific perspective. Panel members with other perspectives used this argument scarcely (see Supplementary Figs S2–S4 for the visual presentation of the differences between panel members on all aspects included in the matrix).

5.1 Explanations for arguments used in panels

Our observations show that most arguments for scientific quality were often used. However, except for the feasibility , the frequency of arguments used varied strongly between the meetings and between the individual proposals that were discussed. The fact that most arguments were not consistently used is not surprising given the results from previous studies that showed heterogeneity in grant application assessments and low consistency in comments and scores by independent reviewers ( Abdoul et al. 2012 ; Pier et al. 2018 ). In an analysis of written assessments on nine observed dimensions, no dimension was used in more than 45 per cent of the reviews ( Hartmann and Neidhardt 1990 ).

There are several possible explanations for this heterogeneity. Roumbanis (2021a) described how being responsive to the different challenges in the proposals and to the points of attention arising from the written assessments influenced discussion in panels. Also when a disagreement arises, more time is spent on discussion ( Roumbanis 2021a ). One could infer that unambiguous, and thus not debated, aspects might remain largely undetected in our study. We believe, however, that the main points relevant to the assessment will not remain entirely unmentioned, because most panels in our study started the discussion with a short summary of the proposal, the written assessment, and the rebuttal. Lamont (2009) , however, points out that opening statements serve more goals than merely decision-making. They can also increase the credibility of the panellist, showing their comprehension and balanced assessment of an application. We can therefore not entirely disentangle whether the arguments observed most were also found to be most important or decisive or those were simply the topics that led to most disagreement.

An interesting difference with Roumbanis’ study was the available discussion time per proposal. In our study, most panels handled a limited number of proposals, allowing for longer discussions in comparison with the often 2-min time frame that Roumbanis (2021b) described, potentially contributing to a wider range of arguments being discussed. Limited time per proposal might also limit the number of panellists contributing to the discussion per proposal ( De Bont 2014 ).

5.2 Reducing heterogeneity by improving operationalisation and the consequent use of assessment criteria

We found that the language used for the operationalisation of the assessment criteria in programme brochures and in the observation matrix was much more detailed than in the instruction for the panel, which was often very concise. The exercise also illustrated that many terms were used interchangeably.

This was especially true for the applicant-related aspects. Several panels discussed how talent should be assessed. This confusion is understandable when considering the changing values in research and its assessment ( Moher et al. 2018 ) and the fact that the instruction of the funders was very concise. For example, it was not explicated whether the individual or the team should be assessed. Arensbergen et al. (2014b) described how in grant allocation processes, talent is generally assessed using limited characteristics. More objective and quantifiable outputs often prevailed at the expense of recognising and rewarding a broad variety of skills and traits combining professional, social, and individual capital ( DORA 2013 ).

In addition, committee-related arguments, like personal experiences with the applicant or their institute, were rarely used in our study. Comparisons between proposals were sometimes made without further argumentation, mainly by scientific panel members. This was especially pronounced in one (fellowship) grant programme with a high number of proposals. In this programme, the panel meeting concentrated on quickly comparing the quality of the applicants and of the proposals based on the reviewer’s judgement, instead of a more in-depth discussion of the different aspects of the proposals. Because the review phase was not part of this study, the question of which aspects have been used for the assessment of the proposals in this panel therefore remains partially unanswered. However, weighing and comparing proposals on different aspects and with different inputs is a core element of scientific peer review, both in the review of papers and in the review of grants ( Hirschauer 2010 ). The large role of scientific panel members in comparing proposals is therefore not surprising.

One could anticipate that more consequent language in the operationalising criteria may lead to more clarity for both applicants and panellists and to more consistency in the assessment of research proposals. The trend in our observations was that arguments were used less when the related criteria were not or were consequently included in the brochure and panel instruction. It remains, however, challenging to disentangle the influence of the formal definitions of criteria on the arguments used. Previous studies also encountered difficulties in studying the role of the formal instruction in peer review but concluded that this role is relatively limited ( Langfeldt 2001 ; Reinhart 2010 ).

The lack of a clear operationalisation of criteria can contribute to heterogeneity in peer review as many scholars found that assessors differ in the conceptualisation of good science and to the importance they attach to various aspects of research quality and societal relevance ( Abdoul et al. 2012 ; Geurts 2016 ; Scholten et al. 2018 ; Van den Brink et al. 2016 ). The large variation and absence of a gold standard in the interpretation of scientific quality and societal relevance affect the consistency of peer review. As a consequence, it is challenging to systematically evaluate and improve peer review in order to fund the research that contributes most to science and society. To contribute to responsible research and innovation, it is, therefore, important that funders invest in a more consistent and conscientious peer review process ( Curry et al. 2020 ; DORA 2013 ).

A common conceptualisation of scientific quality and societal relevance and impact could improve the alignment between views on good scientific conduct, programmes’ objectives, and the peer review in practice. Such a conceptualisation could contribute to more transparency and quality in the assessment of research. By involving panel members from all relevant backgrounds, including the research community, health-care professionals, and societal actors, in a better operationalisation of criteria, more inclusive views of good science can be implemented more systematically in the peer review assessment of research proposals. The ZonMw Framework Fostering Responsible Research Practices is an example of an initiative aiming to support standardisation and integration ( Reijmerink et al. 2020 ).

Given the lack of a common definition or conceptualisation of scientific quality and societal relevance, our study made an important decision by choosing to use a fixed set of detailed aspects of two important criteria as a gold standard to score the brochures, the panel instructions, and the arguments used by the panels. This approach proved helpful in disentangling the different components of scientific quality and societal relevance. Having said that, it is important not to oversimplify the causes for heterogeneity in peer review because these substantive arguments are not independent of non-cognitive, emotional, or social aspects ( Lamont and Guetzkow 2016 ; Reinhart 2010 ).

5.3 Do more diverse panels contribute to a broader use of arguments?

Both funders participating in our study have an outspoken public mission that requests sufficient attention to societal aspects in assessment processes. In reality, as observed in several panels, the main focus of peer review meetings is on scientific arguments. Next to the possible explanations earlier, the composition of the panel might play a role in explaining arguments used in panel meetings. Our results have shown that health-care professionals and patients bring in more societal arguments than scientists, including those who are also clinicians. It is, however, not that simple. In the more diverse panels, panel members, regardless of their backgrounds, used more societal arguments than in the less diverse panels.

Observing ten panel meetings was sufficient to explore differences in arguments used by panel members with different backgrounds. The pattern of (primarily) scientific arguments being raised by panels with mainly scientific members is not surprising. After all, it is their main task to assess the scientific content of grant proposals and fit their competencies. As such, one could argue, depending on how one justifies the relationship between science and society, that health-care professionals and patients might be better suited to assess the value for potential users of research results. Scientific panel members and clinical scientists in our study used less arguments that reflect on opening up and connecting science directly to others who can bring it further (being industry, health-care professionals, or other stakeholders). Patients filled this gap since these two types of arguments were the most prevalent type put forward by them. Making an active connection with society apparently needs a broader, more diverse panel for scientists to direct their attention to more societal arguments. Evident from our observations is that in panels with patients and health-care professionals, their presence seemed to increase the attention placed on arguments beyond the scientific arguments put forward by all panel members, including scientists. This conclusion is congruent with the observation that there was a more equal balance in the use of societal and scientific arguments in the scientific panels in which the CSQ participated. This illustrates that opening up peer review panels to non-scientific members creates an opportunity to focus on both the contribution and the integrative rationality ( Glerup and Horst 2014 ) or, in other words, to allow productive interactions between scientific and non-scientific actors. This corresponds with previous research that suggests that with regard to societal aspects, reviews from mixed panels were broader and richer ( Luo et al. 2021 ). In panels with non-scientific experts, more emphasis was placed on the role of the proposed research process to increase the likelihood of societal impact over the causal importance of scientific excellence for broader impacts. This is in line with the findings that panels with more disciplinary diversity, in range and also by including generalist experts, applied more versatile styles to reach consensus and paid more attention to relevance and pragmatic value ( Huutoniemi 2012 ).

Our observations further illustrate that patients and health-care professionals were less vocal in panels than (clinical) scientists and were in the minority. This could reflect their social role and lower perceived authority in the panel. Several guides are available for funders to stimulate the equal participation of patients in science. These guides are also applicable to their involvement in peer review panels. Measures to be taken include the support and training to help prepare patients for their participation in deliberations with renowned scientists and explicitly addressing power differences ( De Wit et al. 2016 ). Panel chairs and programme officers have to set and supervise the conditions for the functioning of both the individual panel members and the panel as a whole ( Lamont 2009 ).

5.4 Suggestions for future studies

In future studies, it is important to further disentangle the role of the operationalisation and appraisal of assessment criteria in reducing heterogeneity in the arguments used by panels. More controlled experimental settings are a valuable addition to the current mainly observational methodologies applied to disentangle some of the cognitive and social factors that influence the functioning and argumentation of peer review panels. Reusing data from the panel observations and the data on the written reports could also provide a starting point for a bottom-up approach to create a more consistent and shared conceptualisation and operationalisation of assessment criteria.

To further understand the effects of opening up review panels to non-scientific peers, it is valuable to compare the role of diversity and interdisciplinarity in solely scientific panels versus panels that also include non-scientific experts.

In future studies, differences between domains and types of research should also be addressed. We hypothesise that biomedical and health research is perhaps more suited for the inclusion of non-scientific peers in panels than other research domains. For example, it is valuable to better understand how potentially relevant users can be well enough identified in other research fields and to what extent non-academics can contribute to assessing the possible value of, especially early or blue sky, research.

The goal of our study was to explore in practice which arguments regarding the main criteria of scientific quality and societal relevance were used by peer review panels of biomedical and health research funding programmes. We showed that there is a wide diversity in the number and range of arguments used, but three main scientific aspects were discussed most frequently. These are the following: is it a feasible approach; does the science match the problem , and is the work plan scientifically sound? Nevertheless, these scientific aspects were accompanied by a significant amount of discussion of societal aspects, of which the contribution to a solution is the most prominent. In comparison with scientific panellists, non-scientific panellists, such as health-care professionals, policymakers, and patients, often use a wider range of arguments and other societal arguments. Even more striking was that, even though non-scientific peers were often outnumbered and less vocal in panels, scientists also used a wider range of arguments when non-scientific peers were present.

It is relevant that two health research funders collaborated in the current study to reflect on and improve peer review in research funding. There are few studies published that describe live observations of peer review panel meetings. Many studies focus on alternatives for peer review or reflect on the outcomes of the peer review process, instead of reflecting on the practice and improvement of peer review assessment of grant proposals. Privacy and confidentiality concerns of funders also contribute to the lack of information on the functioning of peer review panels. In this study, both organisations were willing to participate because of their interest in research funding policies in relation to enhancing the societal value and impact of science. The study provided them with practical suggestions, for example, on how to improve the alignment in language used in programme brochures and instructions of review panels, and contributed to valuable knowledge exchanges between organisations. We hope that this publication stimulates more research funders to evaluate their peer review approach in research funding and share their insights.

For a long time, research funders relied solely on scientists for designing and executing peer review of research proposals, thereby delegating responsibility for the process. Although review panels have a discretionary authority, it is important that funders set and supervise the process and the conditions. We argue that one of these conditions should be the diversification of peer review panels and opening up panels for non-scientific peers.

Supplementary material is available at Science and Public Policy online.

Details of the data and information on how to request access is available from the first author.

Joey Gijbels and Wendy Reijmerink are employed by ZonMw. Rebecca Abma-Schouten is employed by the Dutch Heart Foundation and as external PhD candidate affiliated with the Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University.

A special thanks to the panel chairs and programme officers of ZonMw and the DHF for their willingness to participate in this project. We thank Diny Stekelenburg, an internship student at ZonMw, for her contributions to the project. Our sincerest gratitude to Prof. Paul Wouters, Sarah Coombs, and Michiel van der Vaart for proofreading and their valuable feedback. Finally, we thank the editors and anonymous reviewers of Science and Public Policy for their thorough and insightful reviews and recommendations. Their contributions are recognisable in the final version of this paper.

Abdoul   H. , Perrey   C. , Amiel   P. , et al.  ( 2012 ) ‘ Peer Review of Grant Applications: Criteria Used and Qualitative Study of Reviewer Practices ’, PLoS One , 7 : 1 – 15 .

Google Scholar

Abma-Schouten   R. Y. ( 2017 ) ‘ Maatschappelijke Kwaliteit van Onderzoeksvoorstellen ’, Dutch Heart Foundation .

Alla   K. , Hall   W. D. , Whiteford   H. A. , et al.  ( 2017 ) ‘ How Do We Define the Policy Impact of Public Health Research? A Systematic Review ’, Health Research Policy and Systems , 15 : 84.

Benedictus   R. , Miedema   F. , and Ferguson   M. W. J. ( 2016 ) ‘ Fewer Numbers, Better Science ’, Nature , 538 : 453 – 4 .

Chalmers   I. , Bracken   M. B. , Djulbegovic   B. , et al.  ( 2014 ) ‘ How to Increase Value and Reduce Waste When Research Priorities Are Set ’, The Lancet , 383 : 156 – 65 .

Curry   S. , De Rijcke   S. , Hatch   A. , et al.  ( 2020 ) ‘ The Changing Role of Funders in Responsible Research Assessment: Progress, Obstacles and the Way Ahead ’, RoRI Working Paper No. 3, London : Research on Research Institute (RoRI) .

De Bont   A. ( 2014 ) ‘ Beoordelen Bekeken. Reflecties op het Werk van Een Programmacommissie van ZonMw ’, ZonMw .

De Rijcke   S. , Wouters   P. F. , Rushforth   A. D. , et al.  ( 2016 ) ‘ Evaluation Practices and Effects of Indicator Use—a Literature Review ’, Research Evaluation , 25 : 161 – 9 .

De Wit   A. M. , Bloemkolk   D. , Teunissen   T. , et al.  ( 2016 ) ‘ Voorwaarden voor Succesvolle Betrokkenheid van Patiënten/cliënten bij Medisch Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek ’, Tijdschrift voor Sociale Gezondheidszorg , 94 : 91 – 100 .

Del Carmen Calatrava Moreno   M. , Warta   K. , Arnold   E. , et al.  ( 2019 ) Science Europe Study on Research Assessment Practices . Technopolis Group Austria .

Google Preview

Demicheli   V. and Di Pietrantonj   C. ( 2007 ) ‘ Peer Review for Improving the Quality of Grant Applications ’, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews , 2 : MR000003.

Den Oudendammer   W. M. , Noordhoek   J. , Abma-Schouten   R. Y. , et al.  ( 2019 ) ‘ Patient Participation in Research Funding: An Overview of When, Why and How Amongst Dutch Health Funds ’, Research Involvement and Engagement , 5 .

Diabetesfonds ( n.d. ) Maatschappelijke Adviesraad < https://www.diabetesfonds.nl/over-ons/maatschappelijke-adviesraad > accessed 18 Sept 2022 .

Dijstelbloem   H. , Huisman   F. , Miedema   F. , et al.  ( 2013 ) ‘ Science in Transition Position Paper: Waarom de Wetenschap Niet Werkt Zoals het Moet, En Wat Daar aan te Doen Is ’, Utrecht : Science in Transition .

Forsyth   D. R. ( 1999 ) Group Dynamics , 3rd edn. Belmont : Wadsworth Publishing Company .

Geurts   J. ( 2016 ) ‘ Wat Goed Is, Herken Je Meteen ’, NRC Handelsblad < https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2016/10/28/wat-goed-is-herken-je-meteen-4975248-a1529050 > accessed 6 Mar 2022 .

Glerup   C. and Horst   M. ( 2014 ) ‘ Mapping “Social Responsibility” in Science ’, Journal of Responsible Innovation , 1 : 31 – 50 .

Hartmann   I. and Neidhardt   F. ( 1990 ) ‘ Peer Review at the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft ’, Scientometrics , 19 : 419 – 25 .

Hirschauer   S. ( 2010 ) ‘ Editorial Judgments: A Praxeology of “Voting” in Peer Review ’, Social Studies of Science , 40 : 71 – 103 .

Hughes   A. and Kitson   M. ( 2012 ) ‘ Pathways to Impact and the Strategic Role of Universities: New Evidence on the Breadth and Depth of University Knowledge Exchange in the UK and the Factors Constraining Its Development ’, Cambridge Journal of Economics , 36 : 723 – 50 .

Huutoniemi   K. ( 2012 ) ‘ Communicating and Compromising on Disciplinary Expertise in the Peer Review of Research Proposals ’, Social Studies of Science , 42 : 897 – 921 .

Jasanoff   S. ( 2011 ) ‘ Constitutional Moments in Governing Science and Technology ’, Science and Engineering Ethics , 17 : 621 – 38 .

Kolarz   P. , Arnold   E. , Farla   K. , et al.  ( 2016 ) Evaluation of the ESRC Transformative Research Scheme . Brighton : Technopolis Group .

Lamont   M. ( 2009 ) How Professors Think : Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment . Cambridge : Harvard University Press .

Lamont   M. Guetzkow   J. ( 2016 ) ‘How Quality Is Recognized by Peer Review Panels: The Case of the Humanities’, in M.   Ochsner , S. E.   Hug , and H.-D.   Daniel (eds) Research Assessment in the Humanities , pp. 31 – 41 . Cham : Springer International Publishing .

Lamont   M. Huutoniemi   K. ( 2011 ) ‘Comparing Customary Rules of Fairness: Evaluative Practices in Various Types of Peer Review Panels’, in C.   Charles   G.   Neil and L.   Michèle (eds) Social Knowledge in the Making , pp. 209–32. Chicago : The University of Chicago Press .

Langfeldt   L. ( 2001 ) ‘ The Decision-making Constraints and Processes of Grant Peer Review, and Their Effects on the Review Outcome ’, Social Studies of Science , 31 : 820 – 41 .

——— ( 2006 ) ‘ The Policy Challenges of Peer Review: Managing Bias, Conflict of Interests and Interdisciplinary Assessments ’, Research Evaluation , 15 : 31 – 41 .

Lee   C. J. , Sugimoto   C. R. , Zhang   G. , et al.  ( 2013 ) ‘ Bias in Peer Review ’, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology , 64 : 2 – 17 .

Liu   F. Maitlis   S. ( 2010 ) ‘Nonparticipant Observation’, in A. J.   Mills , G.   Durepos , and E.   Wiebe (eds) Encyclopedia of Case Study Research , pp. 609 – 11 . Los Angeles : SAGE .

Luo   J. , Ma   L. , and Shankar   K. ( 2021 ) ‘ Does the Inclusion of Non-academix Reviewers Make Any Difference for Grant Impact Panels? ’, Science & Public Policy , 48 : 763 – 75 .

Luukkonen   T. ( 2012 ) ‘ Conservatism and Risk-taking in Peer Review: Emerging ERC Practices ’, Research Evaluation , 21 : 48 – 60 .

Macleod   M. R. , Michie   S. , Roberts   I. , et al.  ( 2014 ) ‘ Biomedical Research: Increasing Value, Reducing Waste ’, The Lancet , 383 : 101 – 4 .

Meijer   I. M. ( 2012 ) ‘ Societal Returns of Scientific Research. How Can We Measure It? ’, Leiden : Center for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University .

Merton   R. K. ( 1968 ) Social Theory and Social Structure , Enlarged edn. [Nachdr.] . New York : The Free Press .

Moher   D. , Naudet   F. , Cristea   I. A. , et al.  ( 2018 ) ‘ Assessing Scientists for Hiring, Promotion, And Tenure ’, PLoS Biology , 16 : e2004089.

Olbrecht   M. and Bornmann   L. ( 2010 ) ‘ Panel Peer Review of Grant Applications: What Do We Know from Research in Social Psychology on Judgment and Decision-making in Groups? ’, Research Evaluation , 19 : 293 – 304 .

Patiëntenfederatie Nederland ( n.d. ) Ervaringsdeskundigen Referentenpanel < https://www.patientenfederatie.nl/zet-je-ervaring-in/lid-worden-van-ons-referentenpanel > accessed 18 Sept 2022.

Pier   E. L. , M.   B. , Filut   A. , et al.  ( 2018 ) ‘ Low Agreement among Reviewers Evaluating the Same NIH Grant Applications ’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 115 : 2952 – 7 .

Prinses Beatrix Spierfonds ( n.d. ) Gebruikerscommissie < https://www.spierfonds.nl/wie-wij-zijn/gebruikerscommissie > accessed 18 Sep 2022 .

( 2020 ) Private Non-profit Financiering van Onderzoek in Nederland < https://www.rathenau.nl/nl/wetenschap-cijfers/geld/wat-geeft-nederland-uit-aan-rd/private-non-profit-financiering-van#:∼:text=R%26D%20in%20Nederland%20wordt%20gefinancierd,aan%20wetenschappelijk%20onderzoek%20in%20Nederland > accessed 6 Mar 2022 .

Reneman   R. S. , Breimer   M. L. , Simoons   J. , et al.  ( 2010 ) ‘ De toekomst van het cardiovasculaire onderzoek in Nederland. Sturing op synergie en impact ’, Den Haag : Nederlandse Hartstichting .

Reed   M. S. , Ferré   M. , Marin-Ortega   J. , et al.  ( 2021 ) ‘ Evaluating Impact from Research: A Methodological Framework ’, Research Policy , 50 : 104147.

Reijmerink   W. and Oortwijn   W. ( 2017 ) ‘ Bevorderen van Verantwoorde Onderzoekspraktijken Door ZonMw ’, Beleidsonderzoek Online. accessed 6 Mar 2022.

Reijmerink   W. , Vianen   G. , Bink   M. , et al.  ( 2020 ) ‘ Ensuring Value in Health Research by Funders’ Implementation of EQUATOR Reporting Guidelines: The Case of ZonMw ’, Berlin : REWARD|EQUATOR .

Reinhart   M. ( 2010 ) ‘ Peer Review Practices: A Content Analysis of External Reviews in Science Funding ’, Research Evaluation , 19 : 317 – 31 .

Reinhart   M. and Schendzielorz   C. ( 2021 ) Trends in Peer Review . SocArXiv . < https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/nzsp5 > accessed 29 Aug 2022.

Roumbanis   L. ( 2017 ) ‘ Academic Judgments under Uncertainty: A Study of Collective Anchoring Effects in Swedish Research Council Panel Groups ’, Social Studies of Science , 47 : 95 – 116 .

——— ( 2021a ) ‘ Disagreement and Agonistic Chance in Peer Review ’, Science, Technology & Human Values , 47 : 1302 – 33 .

——— ( 2021b ) ‘ The Oracles of Science: On Grant Peer Review and Competitive Funding ’, Social Science Information , 60 : 356 – 62 .

( 2019 ) ‘ Ruimte voor ieders talent (Position Paper) ’, Den Haag : VSNU, NFU, KNAW, NWO en ZonMw . < https://www.universiteitenvannederland.nl/recognitionandrewards/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Position-paper-Ruimte-voor-ieders-talent.pdf >.

( 2013 ) San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment . The Declaration . < https://sfdora.org > accessed 2 Jan 2022 .

Sarewitz   D. and Pielke   R. A.  Jr. ( 2007 ) ‘ The Neglected Heart of Science Policy: Reconciling Supply of and Demand for Science ’, Environmental Science & Policy , 10 : 5 – 16 .

Scholten   W. , Van Drooge   L. , and Diederen   P. ( 2018 ) Excellent Is Niet Gewoon. Dertig Jaar Focus op Excellentie in het Nederlandse Wetenschapsbeleid . The Hague : Rathenau Instituut .

Shapin   S. ( 2008 ) The Scientific Life : A Moral History of a Late Modern Vocation . Chicago : University of Chicago press .

Spaapen   J. and Van Drooge   L. ( 2011 ) ‘ Introducing “Productive Interactions” in Social Impact Assessment ’, Research Evaluation , 20 : 211 – 8 .

Travis   G. D. L. and Collins   H. M. ( 1991 ) ‘ New Light on Old Boys: Cognitive and Institutional Particularism in the Peer Review System ’, Science, Technology & Human Values , 16 : 322 – 41 .

Van Arensbergen   P. and Van den Besselaar   P. ( 2012 ) ‘ The Selection of Scientific Talent in the Allocation of Research Grants ’, Higher Education Policy , 25 : 381 – 405 .

Van Arensbergen   P. , Van der Weijden   I. , and Van den Besselaar   P. V. D. ( 2014a ) ‘ The Selection of Talent as a Group Process: A Literature Review on the Social Dynamics of Decision Making in Grant Panels ’, Research Evaluation , 23 : 298 – 311 .

—— ( 2014b ) ‘ Different Views on Scholarly Talent: What Are the Talents We Are Looking for in Science? ’, Research Evaluation , 23 : 273 – 84 .

Van den Brink , G. , Scholten , W. , and Jansen , T. , eds ( 2016 ) Goed Werk voor Academici . Culemborg : Stichting Beroepseer .

Weingart   P. ( 1999 ) ‘ Scientific Expertise and Political Accountability: Paradoxes of Science in Politics ’, Science & Public Policy , 26 : 151 – 61 .

Wessely   S. ( 1998 ) ‘ Peer Review of Grant Applications: What Do We Know? ’, The Lancet , 352 : 301 – 5 .

Supplementary data

Email alerts, citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1471-5430
• Print ISSN 0302-3427
• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Evaluating Research Proposals

Comparing proposals “apples-to-apples” is crucial to establishing which one will best meet your needs. Consider these ideas to help you focus on the details that contribute to a successful survey.

Make sure the proposal responds to your objectives.

The proposal process begins well before you ask any research firm for quote. The process really begins with the discussions you and your team have about objectives. What are your goals? What are the decisions you want to make when the project is done and you have data in hand?

Once you have a solid vision of the survey, then it’s time to start talking with potential partners Throughout your conversations, take note: Do the various firms ask you specific questions about your objectives, the group of people you’d like to survey, and your ultimate goals? Do they, indeed, ask about decisions that you wish to make? Details regarding your specific need should always be front and center during the conversations.

Sampling plan.

When reviewing the sampling plan, make sure the proposal mentions sample size, response rate estimates, number of responses, and maximum sampling error. If you’re unsure of the impact these figures have on the quality of your results, ask the researcher. They should be able to explain them in terms you can understand.

Questionnaire.

The quantity and types of information sought from respondents will impact cost. Quantity encompasses the number of questions and number of variables to process. Type refers to how the questions will be processed, the data entry involved and whether all or just some data will be cleaned.

No evaluation is complete until you know the approximate number and types of questions planned for the survey. The number of open-ended questions should be included as well because open-ended questions that capture verbatim responses can impact the response rate and possibly the price of your survey, especially if done by mail.

In addition, make sure the proposal clearly indicates who will develop the questionnaire content. Also, determine if it includes enough collaboration time to be sufficiently customized to meet your particular needs.

Data collection approach.

For online surveys paying attention to the data collection series and who is responsible for sending survey invitations. Multiple emails to sample members can encourage response. As well, the invitation process should be sensitive to data privacy issues such as those indicated by GDPR and others. Proposals for mailed surveys should clearly outline the data collection series and each component of the survey kit.

Data processing.

Any proposal you receive should highlight the steps the research company will take to make sure that the data is accurate and representative. Depending on the type of survey, checking logic, consistency, and outliers can take a significant amount of time. You must have some process noted to identify inconsistent answers for surveys that collect a significant amount of numerical data (salary survey, market studies, budget planning). Finally, some percentage of mailed surveys need to be verified for data entry accuracy.

A straightforward analysis of survey data can meet many objectives. In other cases, a multivariate statistical analysis will provide deeper insights to achieve your objectives— making results easier to use. If your objectives include learning about separate segments of your circulation, crosstabulations should be specified.

Deliverables.

A variety of reporting options exist for a survey. These include but are not limited to data tables, a summary of the results, in-depth analysis, and graphed presentations. As a result, you need to understand exactly what you’ll receive following your survey and in what format.

No surprises!

Make sure the proposal covers all the bases: what you need to do and provide, what the firm will do when they will do it and how much it will cost. There should be no surprises in what you need to supply. No “you need how much letterhead and envelopes?” a week before your survey is scheduled to mail. Review the price carefully and understand what it includes and doesn’t include. As with many things in life, you usually get what you pay for.

Share this:

Related posts:, notes on the pre- and post-survey.

Notes on the Pre- and Post-Survey The Pre-Post survey is used to look at how things may change over time. It may be how brand awareness levels change after a new ad campaign is introduced or how opinions of a political candidate move after a speech. The catalyst to potential change, sometimes called the event […]

The Importance of Questionnaire Design

The Importance of Questionnaire Design Planning a survey requires many steps and decisions along the way: “How many people do I need to survey? How am I going to distribute the survey?” And, while people often figure out what questions they want to ask, many overlook the importance of expert, unbiased questionnaire design. When you […]

Will Color Printing Give Your Survey a Boost?

Will Color Printing Give Your Survey a Boost? Occasionally we are asked if color printing (versus black and white) is better to use as part of a survey mailing? Will this treatment generate more attention and ultimately a better response? Our Opinion: If you’re looking to use color to boost your survey’s response rate, it […]

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

• Essay Database >
• Essays Samples >
• Essay Types >
• Research Proposal Example

Evaluation Research Proposals Samples For Students

187 samples of this type

If you're seeking a possible method to streamline writing a Research Proposal about Evaluation, WowEssays.com paper writing service just might be able to help you out.

For starters, you should browse our extensive catalog of free samples that cover most various Evaluation Research Proposal topics and showcase the best academic writing practices. Once you feel that you've analyzed the key principles of content presentation and drawn actionable ideas from these expertly written Research Proposal samples, composing your own academic work should go much smoother.

However, you might still find yourself in a circumstance when even using top-notch Evaluation Research Proposals doesn't let you get the job done on time. In that case, you can contact our writers and ask them to craft a unique Evaluation paper according to your individual specifications. Buy college research paper or essay now!

Good Research Proposal On P(G,S,R)= P(G/S,R)P(S/R)P(R)

Good research proposal about creative project proposal, making a remix ep.

Background of the study The 21st century has seen a transition in the music industry in the sense that musicians have had a tendency of pirating music that belonged to a different party. This has been encouraged by the public listeners that have developed a passion for unoriginal music. As a result, musicians whose songs are remixed normally come to some sort of agreement with others with the interest of remixing their songs on order to legitimize the procedure.

Statement of the problem

Good research proposal on should businesses provide employees healthcare insurance, project overview.

Don't waste your time searching for a sample.

Get your research proposal done by professional writers!

Just from $10/page

Free Research Design Research Proposal Sample

Application draft qualitative proposal.

Introduction This paper purposes to propose a draft qualitative proposal for a study into crisis management. The paper will have a selection and justification of one research method. It will then a) describe a survey, b) explain the rationale for the study, c) evaluate data collection methods, d) choose a sample size, e) evaluate some survey instruments, f) evaluate some research variables and then check on the data analysis and its interpretation in a qualitative manner.

Evidence-Based Project Implementation Issues Research Proposal Examples

More often than not, project implementation does not proceed in the exact manner envisioned by the implementer. There are many factors that could positively or negatively influence the project in unexpected ways. Such a scenario also leads to digressions from best practice. Thus, it is important to monitor the implementation, establish the root cause, and proactively manage arising issues to ensure success. During the evaluation, opportunities for improvement should be explored with regard to managing implementation issues.

Issues in Implementation and Data Gathering

Free research proposal about letter of transmittal.

D.Y.H. Williams, Vice President of Internal Development 31 East River Street, Suite 604

Chicago, IL 60602

Good example of virtualization project proposal research proposal, computing project’s proposal, free health disparities research proposal example, health disparitiesintroduction, example of research proposal on fdp’s effect on faculty’s teaching approaches, transmittal research proposal, example of research proposal on telecommunication, ep f(x) = f(x) + ph research proposal examples, application of interpolation newton’s forward difference formulae, introduction.

f(x0 + ph) = Ep f (x0 ) = (1+ Δ)p f (x ) = [ 1+pΔ+p p-1 Δ2 / 2! + p (p-1)(p -2) Δ3/ 3! +.]+ f (x0) f(x0 + ph) = f(x0)+ pΔ f(x0) + f (x0) p p-1 Δ2 / 2! + f (x0) p (p-1)(p -2) Δ3/ 3! + .. +Δ f(x0) p p-1p-n+1/ n!+ Error The above equation is called Interpolation Newton’s forward difference formula it can also be referred to as Newton-Gregory forward difference interpolation formula. (Buchanan 2012)

Free Research Proposal On Efficacy Of Olive Leaves Extracts Against

The oxidation of olive oil under microwave heating, research proposal on nursing making assignments in a nursing home facility, good proposed solution research proposal example.

Amongst mentally ill patients at high risk for early readmission, does the utilization of a multi-component transition care plan as compared to usual care help to improve early readmission rates?

Free Research Proposal About Lego Serious Play As A Tool For Career Development In Taiwanese Colleges – A Research Proposal

Exemplar research proposal on evaluating emr systems to write after, good letter of transmittal research proposal example, recipient name:, free research proposal on evaluation of assessment staff development activities offered by khoula hospital, estimation of economic value of golf course and coastal trail research proposals example, example of teen gang violence in the community research proposal, proposal for research.

Teen Gang Violence in the Community

Research Proposal On The Importance Of Customer Service

The importance of customer service, research proposal on the prevalence of diabetes amongst minority populations, the proposal, education research proposal samples, problem statement research proposal example.

Dropping Out or Pushed Out: The Impact of High School Dropout Rate Relative To High Stakes Testing Policy In The State Of Michigan

Sustainability In The Event Tomorrowland- Methodologies Research Proposal Examples

Good research proposal about gcu: res 880.

Dropping Out or Pushed Out: The Impact of High School Dropout Rate Relative to High Stakes Testing Policy in Wayne County, State of Michigan

Dissertation Prospectus Dropping Out or Pushed Out: The Impact of High School Dropout Rate Relative to High Stakes Testing Policy in Wayne County, State of Michigan <Insert Chair Name>

Dissertation Prospectus

Family and domestic violence research proposal.

[Institution Title]

Domestic Violence: An Evaluation of the Violence against Women Act of 1994

Free research proposal on research on pain and dementia residents, free research proposal on rfp response, proposal overview and requested project, assessing the feasibility of opening an hm store in almaty kazakhstan research proposal examples, assessing the feasibility of opening an h and m store in almaty, kazakhstan 1.

Abstract 2 1. Introduction 5 1.1 Introduction 5 2. Problem /Opportunity 7 2.1 Business problem (opportunity) 7 2.2 Research Question 8 2.3 Research Purpose 8 2.4 Research Objectives 8 2.5 Research Scope 8 3. Literature Review 10 4. Proposed Methodology 13 4.1 Research Methodology 13 4.2 Ethical Considerations 17 5. Project Work Plan and Deliverables 18

References ... Read more Business Education Marketing Company Commerce Trade Study Information Store Data Philosophy Finance 12 Pages Good Research Proposal About Therapeutic Play For In Center Dialysis Patients

Therapeutic play for in center dialysis patients.

The healthcare industry is dynamic, and it calls for continuous improvement in order to provide relevant care services to the general population. Quality improvement is essential in healthcare setting, as it ensures that the patient not only receive relevant care services, but also high quality services. My place of work has a significantly high number of inpatients receiving dialysis services. The patients are at a risk of becoming depressed as a result of the intensive treatment. Therefore, a therapeutic play program for the patients is recommended to help the patients and their families cope with the treatment.

The Purpose of the Program

Good research proposal on health, developing a health program in a non-profit family shelter, using a sociodemographic approach to examine the community health services and hiv/aids awareness in two communities in southeastern nigeria research proposal, good draft quantitative proposal research proposal example.

The purpose of this paper is to propose a draft quantitative proposal for a research study in management. The paper will begin with a selection and justification of the research method. The paper will then (a) describe a survey design (b) rationale for the survey design (c) evaluate data collection method (d) evaluate the sample size (e) evaluate the survey instruments (f) evaluate the research variables and lastly check on the data analysis and interpretation of quantitative data.

Hypothesis and Research questions

Good example of attitudes of saudi families toward t.v and online advertisements: a comparative research proposal, theory of nursing process - ida jean orlando research proposal, research proposal on effect of employees performance on organizations business strategy, cultural psychology bilingualism and its effect to emotional regulation research proposal example, example of research proposal on nursing: critiquing a quantitative/qualitative study, nursing: critiquing a quantitative/qualitative study.

A quantitative assessment of patient and nurse outcomes of bedside nursing report implementation

This quantitative research critique encompasses an evaluation of the research problem and purpose. An evaluation of the hypothesis and research questions will be undertaken too along with an assessment of the literature review and theoretical framework. The entire methodology will be reviewed. Quantitative research studies unlike qualitative apply statistics in explaining a phenomenon. These features of the research design will be fully explored. Study # 1: Sand-Jecklyn, K., & Sherman, J. (2014). A quantitative assessment of patient and nurse outcomes of bedside nursing report implementation. Journal of Clinical

Nursing; 23(19 - 20); 2854–2863

Forward. research proposal examples, status of the document., good research proposal about problem, the relationship between school attendance and academic performance in learning research proposal to use for practical writing help, chapter 1: introduction, write by example of this the effect of group work on student achievement research proposal.

Quantitative methodology will be used in this work, - for this is one of the best ways to conduct such social experiments. Quantitative studies involve the conducting of various surveys based on the use of structured closed-ended questions that are answered by a large number of respondents. The main objective of quantitative research is to obtain numerical evaluation of market condition or reactions of the respondents on some event. For this experiment to be carried out, 60 fourth grade students from Skyland Elementary School at the beginning of the 2016 school year will be taken.

Description of the research design

Expertly crafted research proposal on motivation and employees performance, research proposal on how social media effect on college students in behavior and issues, free research proposal about selection processes, can weak selection processes be solved through training and development, free research proposal on the impact of internal auditing in the public sector governance, introduction/ background, good domestic violence: an evaluation of the violence against women act of 1994 research proposal example, free research proposal about purpose of the study, part #1: introduction.

Aviation safety is a concern to many stakeholders in the aviation industry. Air accidents occur because the technological advancements in preventing the accidents are not sufficient (Tetteh, 2006). The recent accidents in Russia and some European aircraft crushing on African soil confirm this (Pyadushkin, 2013). The paper presents a proposal for evaluating and solving the safety issues of passengers while on board and in the air. It analyzes how the changes in technology will help to lower the accident rates further to the lowest possible level.

The Role Of Instruments In Indian Music Research Proposal Sample

What is the role of musical instruments in indian music.

Pesch, Ludwig. The Oxford illustrated companion to South Indian classical music. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print.

This book gives a comprehensive overview of the cultural and historical contexts of music, its composers, music, schools, and leading practitioners. It is presented I a simpler and approachable manner that simplifies difficult concepts. The book contains illustrations of more than 120 photographs and drawings of instruments discussed, bibliography, and biographical information on composers and musicians. This book will benefit students, interested amateur and experienced professionals.

Voyager Interstellar Mission (Vim) Research Proposal Example

Historical background of the voyager programmes, example of research proposal on fundamentals correlated with price and earnings of the company, xxxxxxxxxx research proposal, health care.

Introduction Research question, aims and objectives Literature search strategy Appraisal of key study Identification of key themes Literature search strategy

Action plan

Preventing the use of tobacco among youth and young adults research proposal, mathematics.

Regina M. Benjamin, M.D., M.B.A. Surgeon General Authors: Regina M. Benjamin, M.D., M.B.A. Surgeon General

Research Questions:

Free research proposal on leadership strategies in multinational setting, business research proposal.

Project Aim The aim of this project is to evaluate the effective leadership style used by a multinational company based in Prague, Czech Republic.

Example Of Research Proposal On Patient Falls In Inpatient Settings

Patient falls in inpatient settings.

This paper will focus on the following components of the study, data collection and measurement, expected outcomes of the study, implementation of change, and evaluation of the impact of the change.

Data collection and measurement

Research proposal on the organization development process, feasibility study for a new restaurant in invercargill, nz research proposal example.

[Student ID number and intake number] of the

POSTGRADUATE DIPLOMA IN BUSINESS ENTERPRISE

Southern Institute of Technology 2016

List of Tables 3

Section 1. Introduction 4 1.1 Purpose of the proposal 4 1.2 Research Aim 4 1.3 Research Questions and Objectives 4 1.4 Research hypothesis 5 1.5 Background and overview of business 5

Section 2. Literature Review 6

2.1 Introduction 6 2.2 Micro and Macro-Economic Indicators and Business Confidence 6 2.3 Recent Trends, Strategies and the Market Potential 7 2.4 Consumer Preferences 8 2.5 Conclusion 9

Section 3: Methodology 9

Example of research proposal on alcoholism and addictive personality.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline