This document provides guidance on writing a research proposal. It discusses key components including an introduction with a problem statement, research objectives, literature review, methodology, time frame, and ethics. The introduction should clearly explain the research topic, its importance and relevance. Objectives should be specific and measurable. The literature review establishes the background and need for the study. The methodology describes the research design, participants, data collection and analysis plans. A proposal also requires a time frame, budget, and discussion of ethical considerations. Well-written proposals clearly address what the research will accomplish and how it will be conducted.

1. WRITING A RESEARCH
PROPOSAL
Dr. Mustaq Adnan
MRCP(UK)
MD Pulmonology Final Part
NIDCH

2. What is research?
Research is the systematic collection,
analysis and interpretation of data to
answer a certain question or solve a
problem. In fact, research is an art of
scientific investigation.
The purpose of research is to
discover answers to questions
through the application of scientific
procedures

3. Characteristics of a good
research
• It demands a clear statement of the
problem.
• It requires clear objectives and a plan (it is
not aimlessly looking for something in order
to come across a solution).
• It builds on existing data, using both positive
and negative findings.
• New data should be systematically collected
and analyzed to answer the original
research questions/objectives.

5. What is a Proposal?
• A plan of action
• A written plan of a study
• A pre-requisite for Research investigation

6. • It communicates researcher’s intentions,
makes clear the purpose of intended
study, its justification & provides a step by
step plan for conducting the study.

7. • Any medical research study should have a
proper proposal in written form before it is
actually carried out
• It is like a blue print of a building plan
before the construction starts

8. • Writing a research proposal is both
science and art
• A good research proposal is based on
scientific facts and on the art of clear
communication

9. Writing a formal research proposal should
be started by the time one has decided on
the topic for the study

10. A well-thought out and well-written
proposal can be judged according to
three main criteria:
• Is it adequate to answer the research
question(s) and achieve the study
objective?
• Is it feasible in the particular set-up for the
study?
• Does it provide enough detail (methodology)
that can allow another investigator to do the
study and arrive at comparable
conclusions?

11. Why every research study should
have a written proposal?
• assists the investigators to clarify their
thoughts and to think about all aspects of
the study
• is a necessary guide if a team (not a single
investigator) is working on the research
• is essential if the study involves research on
human subjects or is on experimental
animals, in order to get the institution’s
ethical approval
• is an essential component of a research
proposal submitted for funding

12. Steps in Developing Research
Proposal
1. Title & table of contents
2. Introduction
3. Statement of the problem
4. Objectives of the study
5. Literature Review
6. Procedure of the study/Methodology
9. Limitation and delimitation of the study
10. Bibliography / References

13. Title of Research Proposal

14. • A good title should be short, accurate, and
concise.
• It may need to be revised after completion
of the proposal writing to reflect more
closely the sense of the study.
• The title should be descriptive. It should
make the central objectives and variables
of the study clear to the reader(reviewer).
• The title provides the "key words" for the
classification and indexing of the project.
• It is important to specify what population
of universe will be investigated.

15. Criticize the following research
titles !!
• Heart failure in diabetes
• Tuberculosis in HIV infected children
• Predicting mortality in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers after
therapeutic endoscopy
• Cardiovascular comorbidities and blood pressure control in
stroke survivors
• Prevalence and determinants of Protein Energy Malnutrition
among under-fives in a semi-rural community in Alexandria,
Egypt.
• Urinary incontinence among Alexandrian women: an
outpatient study of prevalence, comorbidity, risk factors, and
quality of life.
• Influence of interleukin-6 G-174C gene polymorphism on
coronary artery disease, cardiovascular complications and
mortality in dialysis patients

16. Title of Research Proposal:
• Reject
– Too long and technical of a title will not
gain the reviewer’s attention or interest.
– Too short and broad a title will make the
reviewer too critical of grant.
– Example:
• Determining the mechanism of action
of Bcl-2 family members in regulating
apoptotic signaling complexes within
the mitochondria leading to a cure in
cancers.

17. Introduction of the Research
Proposal:
• Research proposal should include four basic
components in its introduction-
(A) Meaningful presentation of the study.
(B) Background of the study.
(C) Statement of the main issue of the study
(D) Relevance of the study.

18. Explain:
•What the research topic is?
•Why have you chosen it?
•Why is the topic important?

19. • Introduction should provide the background
of the research study.
• Introduction should be clear.
• Introduction should be short about one or
two pages
• The problem should be stated in such a
way that it’s importance and relevance is
realized by any one who reads it & help the
reader to acquaint with the topic

20. • Reject
– No goal or objective statement at the start
of the introduction.
– Too technical and condensed will make it
hard to read and understand.
– Too short will not give the reviewer the
needed information to understand the
proposal.
– Too long will make the reviewer skip to
the background and makes the reviewer
search for what is important.

21. Background:
– Good
• Give the reviewer the needed
information to understand the
objectives and approaches in this
proposal.
• Structure the background to go from
broad information
• Build up the background towards
answering a specific question that is
unknown.

22. Background:
– Good
• There should be section within the
background to discuss preliminary
data.
• Connect preliminary data to
background.
• If limited preliminary data, spend time
on the innovation such as using unique
resources for this proposal.

23. Background:
– Reject
• Do not expand background to unnecessary
information that does not support the
hypothesis.
• Background should not exceed one third to
one half of proposal.
• No preliminary data generally negatively
impacts the proposal in two ways.
– No indication that the proposal will
feasible.
– No indication the applicant can do the
proposed work.

24. Components of Introduction:
A. The problem statement
B. A rationale for the research &
statement of the research objectives
A. Hypothesis/Research Question
B. Definition of terms/Operational definition
C. Summary

25. Statement of the Problem:
• A problem might be defined as the issue
that exists in the literature, theory, or
practice that leads to a need for the study”
(Creswell, 1994).
• Effective problem statements answer the
question “Why does this research need to
be conducted?”

26. • This constitutes the scientific justification
for the study; i.e. the basis of the need for
research to generate further knowledge that
will contribute to existing knowledge.
• Have I identified the specific research
problem I wish to investigate?
• Have I indicated what I intend to do about
this problem?
• Have I put forth an argument as to why this
problem is worthy of investigation?
• Have I made my assumption explicit?

27. • The problem statement should make a
convincing argument that there is not
sufficient knowledge available to explain the
problem, or it should make a convincing
argument for the need to test what is known
and taken as fact, if it is called into question
by new findings or conditions.

28. • This section could only be possible when
the investigator has documented the
problem and performed an exhaustive
bibliographic review of the subject as a
homework.

30. • Normally a research statement should
satisfy the following criteria:
(i) state the key variables included in the
study,
(ii) state relationship between variables,
(iii) state population to which results would
be applicable
(iv) avoid redundant words, and
(v) use only acceptable scientific terms.

31. Rationale:
• Rationale of the study contains three
answers based on three questions:
- Why the study is important?
- How the study is important?
- For whom the study is important?

32. The rationale should be a-
•concise statement,
•providing a framework to which details are
added later
•should reflect the significance/purpose of the
study

33. Objectives of the Study:
• Objectives should be clearly stated and
specific in nature.
• Each objective should delineate only one
issue.
• Action oriented words such as, “to
determine”, “to find out”, “to ascertain”
should be used in formulating sub objectives
• Objectives should be attainable,
measurable, achievable and testable.

34. • This is a very important and pivotal section
and everything else in the study is centered
around it.
• Too many objectives to be avoided
• Even just one clearly stated relevant
objective for a study would be good enough
• If there is more than one objective the
objectives can be presented in the
appropriate order of importance

35. • General Objective: This should specify
what kind of knowledge the study is
expected to obtain. It should give a clear
notion of what is to be described,
determined, identified, compared, and in the
cases of studies with working hypotheses,
confirmed.
• Specific Objectives: These disaggregate
and follow logically from the general
objective. They are a preliminary view of the
research design.

36. Specific Objectives:
– Good
• Limit specific aims to 2-3.
• Make sure controls are added to
approaches taken.
• Always give what your expected results
will be.
• Always give alternative approaches
since pitfalls happen.
• Address feasibility if you have not
demonstrated that you can do the
experiments proposed.

37. Specific Objectives:
– Reject
• Many specific aims is bad. This is a
two year proposal and if it is too
ambitious, will negatively impact on
reviewers.
• Avoid to many specifics on
experiments.
• Structure aims so that aim 2 is not
dependent on aim 1.
• Do not avoid issues within the field of
research

38. Example
• Example: A study looking into factors influencing utilization of
maternal health care services in X District has the following
objectives:
• General objective: To assess factors influencing utilization of
maternal healthcare services in District X.
• Specific Objectives:
1. To assess the knowledge, attitude and practice of pregnant
women regarding antenatal care, and TT vaccination,
2. To identify factors that influence women’s attendance at
antenatal care (ANC) and institutional delivery care services,
3. To identify the sources of delivery service and mothers’
preference of place of delivery,
4. To determine coverage with ANC and TT vaccination among
mothers.

39. Importance of Objectives:
• The formulation of objectives will help you
to:
- Focus the study (narrowing it down to
essentials)
- Avoid the collection of data which are
not strictly necessary for understanding and
solving the problem you have identified; and
- Organize the study in clearly defined
parts or phases.

40. Research Questions or
Hypotheses:
• Questions are relevant to normative or
census type of research.
• Questions are most often used in qualitative
inquiry.
• Hypotheses are relevant to theoretical
research and are typically used in
quantitative inquiry.

41. • Study hypotheses serve to direct and guide
the research.
• They indicate the major independent
variables
(PREDISPOSING/ RISK FACTORS)
and dependant variables
(OUTCOME /CONDITION/ DISEASE)
of interest.

42. • They suggest the type of data that must be
collected and the type of analysis that must
be conducted in order to measure the
relationship among the variables.

43. Operational Definition of
Variables:
• Based on the concepts that may be made
explicit in the theoretical framework, the
variables should be made operative; i.e.
the investigator should clearly describe what
is understood by each variable, what type of
variable is being considered, and the way its
values are to be reported.
• Operationalization is a process that will vary
in accordance with the type of research and
research design.

44. Literature Review:
It should be written focusing on the following-
A.The importance of the question asked by the
investigator
B.The current status of the topic
C.The relationship between the literatures and
problem statement
D.Summary

45. • This section reflects extensive review of
literature done by the investigator
• It helps the investigator to gain good
knowledge in that field of inquiry
• It also helps the investigator to have insight
on different methodologies that could be
applied
• It prevents the duplication of work that has
been done before.
• It should provide convincing arguments why
this particular research project is needed.

46. Methodology
A. Participants
B. Research design
C. Data collection plans
1. Operational definitions
2. Reliability and validity of instruments
3. Results of pilot studies
D. Proposed analysis of data
E. Proposed results of data

47. Participants/Research Subjects:
• Depending on the type of the study, the
following questions should be answered:
– What are the criteria for inclusion or
selection?
– What are the criteria for exclusion?
– In intervention studies, how will subjects
be allocated to index and comparison
groups?
– What are the criteria for discontinuation?

48. Research Design:

49. Recommended study designs:

51. Observation / Tools:
• If the observation is made by a
questionnaire, this should be appended to
the proposal. Laboratory or other diagnostic
and investigative procedures should be
described.
• For established procedures, reference to
appropriate published work is enough.
• For new or modified procedures, an
adequate description is needed, with a
justification for their use.

52. Sample size:
• Larger sample size than needed to test the
research hypothesis increases the cost and
duration of the study, and will be unethical if
it exposes human subjects to any potential
unnecessary risk without additional benefit.
• A smaller sample size than needed can also
be unethical if it exposes human subjects to
risk with no benefit to scientific knowledge.
• The basis on which sample size is
calculated should be explained in the
methodology section depending upon study
design.

53. Description of process:
• Proposal should include the details of all
process to be adopted in the study
• How exposures, outcome variables and
other variables are going to be measured
should be described in detail
• A brief description of how the data will be
processed and use of statistical package if
any should be given
• What statistical tests of significance would
be used?

54. Time Frame & Work Schedule
The proposal should include the sequence of
tasks to be performed, the anticipated length
of time required for its completion and the
personnel required

55. Ethical Considerations:
• All research protocols in the biomedical
field, particularly if it involves human
subjects, must include a section addressing
ethical considerations.
• This is a written approval of the appropriate
ethics review committee, together with a
written form for informed consent, where
appropriate.

56. How to write References
2 methods worldwide recognized:
•HARVARD type
•VANCOUVER type- It is preferred to write proposal
references.

57. Personnel:
• Proposal should include who are the
primary investigators and co- investigators,
their qualifications, research experience
etc.
• The proposal may also include the major
roles to be taken up by different
investigators

58. Guide/Supervisor:
• Good
– Choose referees in your field of research
– Choose a scientist/colleague that will be
objective but not too critical of the science.
• Reject
– Do not choose close collaborators
– Do not choose competitors in your field with
divergent views.
– Do not choose the top scientists in your field
since they will not respond and will be too critical
in general.

59. Budget:
• Good
– Give a detailed account of where you will be
spending the money.
– Approximately one third of the budget should go
to supplies.
• Reject
– Graduate students should not be used in budget
support since it is an easy target for reduction
due to alternative funding sources.
– Do not justify spending all the budget on
personnel.

60. Summary of Research Proposal
• Good
– give a short but informative background to justify
the research hypothesis and objectives.
– Clearly state the hypothesis.
– State the objectives and/or aims of this proposal.
– State the impact, significance and innovation in
this proposal.
– Define acronyms as much as possible.
• Reject
– Technical and condensed phrasing of the
project.
– No clear statement of what is the purpose of this
study.

61. Applicant’s CV details:
• Good
– List all awards especially awards directly related to
your research.
– List all publications in the last five years.
• Abstracts are an easy why to show productivity.
• Give impact factors for publications and citations if
any.
• Give ranking of journal in your field of research if
possible.
• Reject
– No evidence of research activity or track record.
– All middle authors for publications.

62. General Thoughts
• Reviewers will not be experts in your field of
research. Make the proposal accessible to them.
• Get your proposal read by a colleague or
someone in your area of research. They might
find problems that reviewers will find.