Writing a Research Proposal

1
Writing a Research Proposal
2

• Before the proposal
• Develop and research ideas
• Locate funding agency (if applies)
• Carefully read instructions, follow guidelines
  (class assignment, term paper, dissertation,
  grant proposal, page length requirement,
  deadline, eligibility, etc.)
• Be aware of ethical issues (avoid plagiarism)

3
Components of a Proposal

• Title
• Proposal summary
• Main objective (main topic/question)
• specific goals (operationalize the question into
  specific, testable questions)
• Theoretical framework of project
• brief description of method (number of subjects)
  and design (procedure)
• brief statement of potential significance
• Proposal main body
• Introduction (1-1.5 pages)
• Need/problem (do not overstate)
• Main objective
• specific goals and means of achieving them
• Hypotheses/outcome predictions
• Background review of existing literature in
  relation to your study (3 pages) precise,
  succinct
• Pilot study (2-3 pages)
• Proposed studies (5-6 pages)
• Brief objective and summary for each study (1/4
  page)
• Method Subjects number, gender, age, and other
  characteristics (e.g., health status),
  recruitment procedure (1/2 page)
• Measures (

Note Page estimate based on definition of 1
margin on each side, Times New Roman or Arial
font of at least size 10, spacing before and
after 0, line spacing 1.5
Use future tense to describe the proposed studies
4
Components of a Proposal

• Title
• Proposal summary
• Main objective (main topic/question)
• specific goals (operationalize the question into
  specific, testable questions)
• Theoretical framework of project
• brief description of method (number of subjects)
  and design (procedure)
• brief statement of potential significance
• Proposal main body
• Introduction (1-1.5 pages)
• Need/problem (do not overstate)
• Main objective
• specific goals and means of achieving them
• Hypotheses/outcome predictions
• Background review of existing literature in
  relation to your study (3 pages) precise,
  succinct
• Pilot study (2-3 pages)
• Proposed studies (5-6 pages)
• Brief objective and summary for each study (1/4
  page)
• Method Subjects number, gender, age, and other
  characteristics (e.g., health status),
  recruitment procedure (1/2 page)
• Measures (

Note Page estimate based on definition of 1
margin on each side, Times New Roman or Arial
font of at least size 10, spacing before and
after 0, line spacing 1.5 Blue Due Thurs
March 6
Use future tense to describe the proposed studies
5
After the Proposal

• Double check before turning in
• Spelling
• Format
• citation requirement
• transitions, etc.
• Have others read and critique
• Can they understand the rationale described, its
  significance, and the procedure proposed?
• Do they share your view of the study, if not,
  why?
• Revise proposal

6
Turning the Proposal into a Research Report
7
Components of a Research Report

• Abstract (Add brief description of findings to
  Proposal summary, change to past tense)
• Introduction (Integrate Proposal Intro and
  Background)
• Need/problem
• Review of Literature
• Overall goals/specific objectives
• Briefly summarize the organization of the study
  you will present, and your finding predictions
• Methods (Proposal, change to past tense)
• Subjects
• Measures
• Procedure
• Statistical Analyses
• Results (Add)
• Explain the main findings point by point,
  including statistics
• Including tables/figures
• Mention if they fit your predictions
• Summary and Conclusions (Add)
• References (Proposal)

8
APA Style (RosnowRosenthal,2002,Appendix A)

• Abstract on separate page, not indented
• Abbreviations are first spelt outAmerical Civil
  Liberty Union (ACLU)
• Abbreviations in citations
• (e.g., Davies, 2002)
• biopsychology (i.e., the study of biological
  basis of behavior)
• Cite when study mentioned the first time
• e.g., Jones and Davis (1965) found that
• (e.g., Jones Davis, 1965)
• Alphabetize multiple studies (e.g., Jones
  Davis, 1965 Kelly, 1972)
• Overall, flexible style, can follow format of
  published papers

9
Grading

• Clarity of writing, typo, format, flow,
  repetitiveness
• APA style
• Ethical issues (evidence of plagiarism)
• literature search
• Complete, thorough, thoughtful, concise, accurate
  (not exaggerated)
• Originality and significance of study proposed
• Method, design, analyses, data presentation,
  summary and discussion
• Complete, thorough, thoughtful, concise, accurate
• If assignment is turned in on time
• Provided with feedback, look for improvements
  over time
• Proposals/research reports will be graded on an
  individual basis
• Class presentation of reports will be graded on a
  group basis, although degree of individual
  contribution to the group effort will be taken
  into account.

10
Sample
fMRI studies of prefrontal cortex involvement in
working and long-term memory This proposal is
designed to test specific hypotheses regarding
the functional role of different regions of
prefrontal cortex (PFC) in both working memory
(WM) and long-term memory (LTM) tasks. A growing
literature has suggested the involvement of PFC
in both WM and LTM. However, the findings within
each memory domain have largely been considered
independently of the other, such that functional
interpretations of PFC activity are typically
domain-specific. We propose two hypothesis that
suggest more parsimonious explanations,
interpreting PFC function in terms that apply
across memory domains. First, we suggest that
dorsolateral PFC (DL-PFC) is involved in the
representation and maintenance of task-relevant
context. We further suggest that task
manipulations which vary the demand on context
representation and maintenance will modulate
DL-PFC activity, regardless of whether the tsk
putatively involves WM or LTM. Second, we suggest
that frontopolar PFC (FP-PFC) is involved in the
representation and maintenance of higher-order
goal information that can support and monitor the
processing of lower-order subgoals. We further
suggest that task manipulations which vary the
demand on subgoal processing and monitoring will
modulate activity in FP-PFC regardless of whether
the task putatively involves WM or LTM. The
studies proposed here will test these hypothesis
by using state-of-the-art functional magnetic
resonance imaging (fMRI) techniques, including
novel event-related methods. Specifically, we
will assess whether DL-PFC and FP-PFC activity
can be modulated in either WM or LTM by
selectively manipulating common task factors.
Success in this work would represent a
significant advance in both our theoretical and
empirical efforts. With regard to theoretical
efforts, demonstrating that distinct PFC regions
play specific and common functional roles across
memory domains would provide an important
integration of the literatures on PFC function,
WM, and LTM. With regard to empirical efforts,
this work would lay the groundwork for the
development of powerful new behavioral, as well
as neuroimaging probes of cognitive and
neurobiological function in both healthy
populations and in clinical populations suffering
from memory impairments.
http//www.iac.wustl.edu/ccpweb/NIHgrant.html
11
Recent Deadlines

• Tues Mar 4th
• Revised IRB due
• Thurs Mar 6th
• Paper critiqued due (asymmetry.pdf)
• Research Proposal Title/Summary/Intro/Background
  due

12
How to critically review a paper?

• What the hypotheses? How many are there? Are
  they clearly stated? Is the number tested
  appropriate? Is there a salient central theme of
  the paper or are they scattered? Are you
  convinced by the authors of the significance of
  their topic and questions?
• What methods are used? Are they appropriate to
  test the hypotheses? Are the questionnaires well
  established? Are they appropriate? Is the subject
  selection appropriate?
• What findings are reported? Do they support the
  hypotheses?
• How did the authors interpret the findings? Do
  you agree with them? Are there other alternative
  explanations that they may have missed, and that
  may threaten the internal validity of their
  interpretation/conclusion? How could have they
  done their study differently?
• How a scale of 1 to 7 (1at not all, 4average,
  7best), how would you rate the 1) overall
  significance, 2) the presentation clarity, 3) the
  methodological soundedness?
• Length of critique no longer than 2 pages (page
  margin 1 on each side, line spacing 1.5).
  DUE THURS Mar 6