Start with the decision your proposal must support
A proposal should make your question, contribution and research approach understandable together. An admissions proposal and an internal thesis approval document may require different detail. Use this checklist as an editorial working aid, then follow your department’s current instructions and discuss unresolved choices with your supervisor.
Twelve checks before you submit
- Confirm the brief. Record the required sections, length, referencing style and submission format. Check whether references and appendices count towards the limit; requirements are not universal.
- Make the title informative. Name the central topic and, where useful, the population, material or setting. Avoid a title broader than the project you can undertake.
- State the question. Express the main problem precisely. Distinguish the central question from supporting questions, and explain unfamiliar terms that determine its meaning.
- Establish the context. Select literature that explains the relevant debate. Show where authors agree, disagree or leave an important question unresolved, rather than listing summaries.
- Explain the contribution. Specify what your work could clarify, challenge or develop. An unstudied topic alone does not establish significance, and anticipated contributions are not findings.
- Connect aims to the approach. Make each objective answerable through your proposed work. Numerical measurement is not a universal requirement for interpretive, theoretical or practice-led research.
- Justify the methods. Explain how the design, materials and analytical approach address your question. Name relevant alternatives and clarify why your chosen approach fits this project.
- Verify practical access. Identify the participants, archives, datasets, equipment or other resources needed. Separate confirmed access from permissions, funding or arrangements that remain uncertain.
- Address research responsibilities. Identify relevant consent, confidentiality, participant welfare and data-handling considerations. Establish which institutional reviews or permissions apply before the affected work begins.
- Build a workable timetable. Include preparation, access arrangements, research, analysis, drafting and revision. Show dependencies, and allow time for activities outside your direct control.
- Prepare alternatives. Identify the most consequential access or feasibility problems. Explain an appropriate fallback and what it would change about your question, scope or methods.
- Audit the final document. Check citations against their sources, align terminology across sections and remove unsupported claims. Ask your supervisor to review unresolved methodological choices.
Use the checklist to make revisions visible
For each item, record one status: ready, revise or discuss. Add the relevant paragraph or page number and the next action. This turns a general request to improve the proposal into a specific revision conversation; it does not replace academic assessment or guarantee approval.
Sources & further reading
Consult the original guidance for its full scope and any updates. Institutional requirements and review methods vary.