Writing a research proposal can feel intimidating—especially when you’re not sure what lecturers, supervisors, or funding bodies actually expect. The good news is that a strong proposal isn’t about fancy language. It’s about clear thinking, logical structure, and believable planning.
Below is a practical 50-step checklist you can follow to produce a research proposal that is focused, persuasive, and academically credible. You can treat it like a roadmap: complete the steps one by one, and you’ll end up with a proposal that is coherent and submission-ready.
Author: Dr Niaz Chowdhury (LinkedIn)
Designation: Lecturer (Computer Science)
Affiliation: Ulster University, Birmingham, UK
A. Title, Topic, and Focus (Steps 1–6)
Step 1: Choose a working title.
Make it clear, specific, and aligned with what you actually plan to study.
Step 2: Define your topic in one sentence.
If you can’t explain it simply, it’s not focused enough yet.
Step 3: Identify the field and sub-field.
For example: Education → Assessment → Marking reliability.
Step 4: Clarify key terms.
Define concepts that could be interpreted in different ways.
Step 5: Narrow your scope.
Choose a manageable population, context, or timeframe.
Step 6: Draft a “proposal promise.”
Write one sentence describing what your study will deliver (knowledge, insight, framework, or evidence).
B. Background and Context (Steps 7–14)
Step 7: Write a short background paragraph.
Introduce the broader context of the topic.
Step 8: Explain why this topic matters.
Link it to society, industry, policy, practice, or academic debate.
Step 9: Show the real-world problem.
What is happening, for whom, and why is it a concern?
Step 10: Show the academic problem.
What is unclear, under-researched, or contested in the literature?
Step 11: Identify the stakeholders.
Who benefits from the findings (students, organisations, policy-makers, communities)?
Step 12: State what motivates your study.
Keep it academic: relevance and contribution, not personal storytelling.
Step 13: Provide brief context about the setting.
Country, sector, institution type, demographic group—only what’s necessary.
Step 14: Establish feasibility.
Make it obvious you can access data, participants, or materials.
C. Literature Review and Gap (Steps 15–22)
Step 15: List the key themes in your area.
Group studies into themes rather than summarising one by one.
Step 16: Identify leading authors or landmark studies.
This shows you know the intellectual territory.
Step 17: Summarise what we already know.
Keep it concise: patterns, findings, and agreements.
Step 18: Identify what we don’t know.
Contradictions, neglected contexts, weak methods, outdated evidence.
Step 19: Define the research gap clearly.
One gap is better than five vague ones.
Step 20: Explain why the gap matters.
Why is it worth researching?
Step 21: Decide your conceptual angle.
Which lens, theory, or model will guide interpretation?
Step 22: Write a short synthesis paragraph.
A mini conclusion of the literature that naturally leads to your study.
D. Research Questions, Aim, and Objectives (Steps 23–30)
Step 23: Write your overall aim.
One sentence: what the study seeks to achieve.
Step 24: Write 2–4 research questions.
Each question must be answerable with your planned methods.
Step 25: Convert questions into objectives.
Objectives are “to explore/to measure/to compare/to evaluate…”
Step 26: Ensure alignment.
Your aim, questions, objectives, and methods must match perfectly.
Step 27: Decide whether you need hypotheses.
Mostly for quantitative studies; keep them testable.
Step 28: Define your variables or key constructs (if applicable).
What exactly will you measure or interpret?
Step 29: Specify your unit of analysis.
Individuals? schools? organisations? documents? systems?
Step 30: Set boundaries.
State what your study will not cover (to protect your scope).
E. Research Design and Methodology (Steps 31–40)
Step 31: Choose your research approach.
Qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods—justify it.
Step 32: Choose a research design.
Case study, survey, experiment, ethnography, systematic review, etc.
Step 33: Explain your rationale.
Why is this design the best fit for your questions?
Step 34: Describe your data sources.
People, documents, datasets, observations, digital traces, archives.
Step 35: Define your population and sampling strategy.
Who/what you’ll study, and how you’ll select them.
Step 36: State inclusion and exclusion criteria.
This strengthens credibility and reduces bias.
Step 37: Describe your instruments/tools.
Interview guide, questionnaire, observation protocol, coding framework, software.
Step 38: Explain your procedure step-by-step.
So a reader can visualise exactly what you will do.
Step 39: Outline your analysis plan.
Statistical tests, thematic analysis, content analysis, modelling approach, etc.
Step 40: Plan for rigour and trustworthiness.
Validity/reliability (quant), credibility/dependability (qual), triangulation (mixed).
F. Ethics, Risk, and Practicalities (Steps 41–45)
Step 41: Address ethics early.
Consent, confidentiality, anonymity, safeguarding, and data protection.
Step 42: Identify risks and mitigation.
Participant distress, power imbalance, access issues, researcher bias.
Step 43: Explain data management.
Storage, retention, encryption, access control, and GDPR compliance (if relevant).
Step 44: Clarify permissions.
Gatekeepers, institutional approval, data-sharing agreements if needed.
Step 45: Note limitations upfront.
Be honest, but show how you will minimise impact.
G. Contribution, Outcomes, and Impact (Steps 46–48)
Step 46: State your expected contribution.
What new knowledge, model, evidence, or method will your study add?
Step 47: Explain practical implications.
How could practice, policy, or decision-making improve?
Step 48: Describe the expected outputs.
Dissertation/thesis, journal paper, framework, toolkit, dataset, recommendations.
H. Timeline and Final Checks (Steps 49–50)
Step 49: Create a realistic timeline.
Break it into phases: literature review → ethics → data collection → analysis → writing.
Step 50: Do the final alignment check.
Title ↔ aim ↔ questions ↔ methods ↔ analysis ↔ contribution—everything should connect cleanly.
A Simple Proposal Structure You Can Use
If you’re wondering how these steps fit into an actual document, here is a standard structure:
- Title
- Background / Introduction
- Problem statement + rationale
- Brief literature review + gap
- Aim, research questions, objectives (and hypotheses if relevant)
- Methodology (design, sampling, instruments, procedure, analysis, rigour)
- Ethics + data management
- Expected contribution and implications
- Timeline
- References
If you’d like personalised guidance, the London School of Leadership, Investment, and Technology (LSLIT) offers a Study Abroad Mentorship Programme designed to support applicants throughout the full application journey. By applying through LSLIT, you can receive step-by-step assistance with every stage of the process — from shortlisting universities and preparing documents to writing a strong research proposal and completing all required submission steps.
🔗 Learn about LSLIT’s Mentorship Programme
📱 WhatsApp LSLIT: Click to Send LSLIT A Message
