Section 01

Why Structure Determines Research Quality

A research proposal is not merely an administrative document — it is the intellectual blueprint of your entire study. It commits you to a research question, a theoretical framework, a methodology, and a timeline before a single datum is collected. Universities worldwide use the proposal as evidence that you possess both the knowledge and the organizational capacity to complete original research.

Yet studies of doctoral attrition consistently identify poor proposal structure as one of the leading causes of supervisory rejection and project failure (Trafford & Leshem, 2008; Wellington, 2015). The templates on this page exist to eliminate structural uncertainty, allowing you to focus your energy on the substance of your argument rather than its scaffolding.

68%
of first-submission proposals fail due to structural deficiencies (Trafford & Leshem, 2008)
5
standard thesis chapters recognized across international university systems
4
major citation systems covered: APA, Harvard, Vancouver, Chicago

"A good proposal does not merely describe what you will do — it argues why your study is necessary, what gap it fills, and why your chosen method is the most defensible available."

— Trafford, V. & Leshem, S. (2008). Stepping Stones to Achieving Your Doctorate. Open University Press.

All templates on this page are designed to be discipline-neutral — they are equally applicable to social sciences, education, health sciences, business, humanities, and STEM research. Where conventions differ by discipline, guidance notes are provided inline. Each template is formatted to the most widely adopted international standards, including the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (7th edition), the British Standard Harvard referencing system, and University of London doctoral regulations.

How to Use These Templates
  • Read the guidance note (in italics) before each field — it explains what is expected and why
  • Replace placeholder text entirely — do not leave template wording in your submitted document
  • Use the interactive checklist (Section 08) to track completion across all chapters
  • Consult the citation formatter (Section 09) to verify your reference style
  • Each word count is a guideline; follow your specific institution's requirements where they differ
Section 02

The Five-Chapter Thesis Structure: A Visual Map

The five-chapter model is the dominant organizational framework in social sciences, education, business, and health research globally (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Rudestam & Newton, 2015). Click each chapter node to expand its scope, content requirements, and typical word count.

Standard Five-Chapter Thesis — Click to Expand
1
Introduction
1,500–3,000 w
›
2
Literature Review
5,000–8,000 w
›
3
Methodology
3,000–5,000 w
›
4
Findings
4,000–8,000 w
›
5
Discussion & Conclusion
3,000–5,000 w
Chapter 1 — Introduction: Establishes the research problem, context, and rationale. Must include: background to the study, problem statement, research questions or hypotheses, significance of the study, scope and delimitations, and an overview of the thesis structure. The introduction should move from the broad (social/disciplinary context) to the narrow (your specific gap and question).
  • Background and context of the study
  • Statement of the research problem
  • Purpose statement and research questions
  • Theoretical/conceptual framework (brief overview)
  • Significance and contribution to knowledge
  • Limitations and delimitations
  • Definition of key terms
  • Overview of thesis organization
Chapter 2 — Literature Review: Critically synthesizes existing scholarship to establish what is known, what is contested, and where your study intervenes. A literature review is not a summary of sources — it is a structured argument that culminates in identifying the gap your research fills. Organized thematically, not source-by-source.
  • Search strategy and inclusion/exclusion criteria
  • Theoretical frameworks and foundational scholarship
  • Thematic synthesis of empirical literature
  • Identification of tensions, contradictions, and gaps
  • Conceptual framework development
  • Justification of your study's position
Chapter 3 — Methodology: A philosophical and empirical argument for why your chosen methods are the most defensible available given your question, context, and resources. Every methodological decision must be justified with reference to the literature.
  • Research paradigm (ontology and epistemology)
  • Research design and tradition
  • Sampling strategy and participant selection
  • Data collection methods and instruments
  • Data analysis procedures
  • Validity/trustworthiness strategies
  • Ethical considerations and approvals
  • Positionality and reflexivity (qualitative)
Chapter 4 — Findings / Results: Presents data without interpretation. In qualitative research: themes with supporting evidence. In quantitative research: statistical outputs with tables/figures. The distinction between reporting and interpretation is critical — save analysis for Chapter 5.
  • Presentation of data organized by research question
  • Qualitative: themes, sub-themes, exemplary quotes
  • Quantitative: descriptive statistics, inferential results, effect sizes
  • Tables and figures with complete APA/Harvard captions
  • Summary of key findings
Chapter 5 — Discussion & Conclusion: Interprets findings in relation to existing literature, theoretical framework, and research questions. Discusses implications, limitations, and recommendations. Concludes with a statement of the study's original contribution to knowledge.
  • Discussion of findings in relation to literature
  • Theoretical implications
  • Practical and policy implications
  • Limitations of the study
  • Recommendations for future research
  • Original contribution to knowledge
  • Conclusion
Adapted from: Creswell, J. W. & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research Design (5th ed.). SAGE; Rudestam, K. E. & Newton, R. R. (2015). Surviving Your Dissertation (4th ed.). SAGE.
Section 03

Full Research Proposal Template

Click any section header to expand its complete field-by-field template. Each field includes a guidance note, an exemplar placeholder, and the expected word count. This template meets the submission requirements of major international universities including UCL, University of Melbourne, Harvard Extension, and the University of Pretoria.

Research Proposal — Full Template (All Sections)
APA 7th Ed. · ~4,000–6,000 words total
Research Title
[A clear, concise title that specifies the phenomenon, population, and context. Avoid vague terms like "A study of..." or "An investigation into..."]
Exemplar: "Examining the Relationship Between Formative Feedback Frequency and Academic Self-Efficacy in Secondary School Students in the Philippines."
Target: 12–20 words
Abstract
[A standalone summary of the entire proposal. Must include: (1) background and problem statement, (2) research questions, (3) theoretical framework, (4) methodology and design, (5) expected contribution. Written in past tense for completed studies, future tense for proposals.]
Structure: 1–2 sentences each for: background, gap, purpose, method, expected outcomes.
Target: 250–300 words
Keywords
[5–7 keywords reflecting core concepts, methodology, population, and context. Use controlled vocabulary where available (e.g., PsycINFO Thesaurus, MeSH).]
Exemplar: formative feedback; academic self-efficacy; secondary education; quasi-experimental design; Philippines
Background & Context
[Situate the study within its broader disciplinary, social, and institutional context. Move from the macro (global or national trends) to the micro (the specific setting or population). Cite relevant statistics, policy documents, or landmark studies to establish stakes.]
Tip: Begin with a compelling statistic or policy imperative, then narrow toward your specific problem. Do not begin with "Since time immemorial..."
Target: 300–500 words
Problem Statement
[A precise articulation of the gap in knowledge or practice that your study addresses. This is not a description of a social problem in general — it is a statement about what is not yet known or understood in the scholarly literature.]
Structure: "Although [X is known], [Y remains poorly understood / unexamined / contested]. This gap is significant because [consequence for theory/practice]."
Target: 150–250 words
Purpose Statement
[A single, declarative sentence stating the purpose of the study. Must name the method, the phenomenon or variable(s), and the context or population.]
Exemplar (qualitative): "The purpose of this phenomenological study is to explore the lived experiences of first-generation Filipino university students navigating academic identity formation." | Exemplar (quantitative): "The purpose of this correlational study is to examine the relationship between instructional feedback frequency and academic self-efficacy among Grade 11 students in public secondary schools in Metro Cebu."
Target: 1–3 sentences
Research Questions
[State 1–5 research questions. Qualitative: begin with "How" or "What." Quantitative: use "Is there a significant relationship between..." or "To what extent does...". Mixed: include both types. Hypotheses replace or supplement research questions in quantitative studies.]
RQ1: [Central qualitative question or primary quantitative hypothesis] | RQ2–5: [Sub-questions that address specific dimensions of the central question]
Significance of the Study
[Articulate the theoretical, practical, and/or policy significance. Who benefits from this knowledge? How does it advance theory? What decisions might it inform?]
Target: 200–350 words
Scope, Delimitations & Limitations
[Delimitations: boundaries you chose (e.g., geographic, temporal, population). Limitations: constraints outside your control (e.g., access, sample size, instrumentation). Be honest — examiners are more concerned by unacknowledged limitations than acknowledged ones.]
Definition of Key Terms
[Operationally define all key constructs used in your research questions. Cite the source for each definition. Operational definitions specify how you measure or identify the construct in your specific study.]
Format: [Term] — [Source-based definition] (Author, Year). As operationalized in this study: [Your specific measurement or identification criterion].
Search Strategy
[Describe the systematic process by which you identified relevant literature. Include: databases searched (e.g., ERIC, PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar), search terms and Boolean operators, date range, language restrictions, and inclusion/exclusion criteria.]
Exemplar: "A systematic search was conducted in ERIC, PsycINFO, and Scopus using terms including 'formative feedback,' 'academic self-efficacy,' and 'secondary education.' Inclusion criteria: peer-reviewed, English-language studies published 2010–2024 involving adolescent or university populations."
Theoretical Framework
[Identify and explain the theoretical lens through which you interpret your data. Describe the theory's origins, key propositions, and how it applies to your research question. Distinguish from conceptual framework where applicable.]
Tip: Do not list multiple unconnected theories. Choose one primary framework and supplement with secondary lenses if justified by your design. Explain how the theory generates your research questions.
Target: 500–1,000 words
Thematic Synthesis of Literature
[Organize by theme, not by source. Each theme is a paragraph or subsection that synthesizes what multiple scholars say about a given dimension of your topic. Contrast findings, identify agreements and tensions, and consistently link back to your research question.]
Theme 1: [Label] — Synthesis of 3–5 sources | Theme 2: [Label] — Synthesis | Theme 3 (if needed): [Label] — Synthesis
Target: 3,000–5,000 words
Identification of the Gap
[The culmination of the review: a specific, evidence-based statement of what remains unknown. Must flow logically from your synthesis — it should feel inevitable given the literature you have reviewed.]
Structure: "While studies have demonstrated [X] and [Y], no study has examined [Z] in [your specific context/population]. This gap is particularly consequential because [theoretical and/or practical implication]."
Conceptual Framework (Visual + Narrative)
[A diagram and explanatory narrative showing the relationships among your key variables or concepts. For qualitative: show the phenomenon, influencing factors, and outcomes conceptualized in the literature. For quantitative: show independent variable(s) → mediating/moderating variables → dependent variable(s).]
Tip: The conceptual framework is your original synthesis — it is not copied from another source. It visually represents the logic of your study.
Research Paradigm
[State your ontological position (nature of reality), epistemological position (how knowledge is produced), and the resulting paradigm (e.g., positivism, constructivism, transformativism, pragmatism). Every subsequent methodological decision must be consistent with this position.]
Exemplar: "This study is grounded in a constructivist paradigm (Creswell & Creswell, 2018), which holds that reality is multiple and subjective, and that knowledge is co-constructed through the interaction between researcher and participant."
Research Design
[Name and define your research design (e.g., phenomenological, grounded theory, ethnographic, case study, correlational survey, quasi-experimental, mixed methods—explanatory sequential). Cite the methodologist whose version of the design you are following. Justify its selection over alternatives.]
Target: 200–400 words
Research Site & Participants
[Describe: the research setting (with justification), sampling strategy (purposive, random, stratified, snowball, etc.), sample size with justification (cite saturation principles for qualitative; power analysis for quantitative), inclusion/exclusion criteria, and recruitment procedures.]
Data Collection Instruments
[For each instrument (interview guide, survey, observation protocol, document analysis framework): describe its structure, rationale, validation procedure, and pilot testing. Attach complete instrument as an appendix.]
Data Analysis Procedures
[Describe the step-by-step analytical process. Qualitative: describe coding stages (open, axial, selective for GT; initial, focused for TA), software used, and how themes were developed. Quantitative: specify statistical tests, alpha level, software (SPSS, R, Stata), and assumptions tested.]
Validity / Trustworthiness
[Qualitative: describe strategies for credibility (member checking, prolonged engagement), transferability (thick description), dependability (audit trail), confirmability (reflexive journal). Quantitative: describe measures of internal validity, external validity, construct validity, and reliability (Cronbach's alpha, test-retest).]
Ethical Considerations
[Address: institutional ethics approval process, informed consent procedures, participant anonymity/confidentiality, data storage and security, right to withdraw, and any specific ethical risks (e.g., vulnerable populations, sensitive topics). Reference the Declaration of Helsinki or Belmont Report where relevant.]
Researcher Positionality & Reflexivity
[Required for qualitative studies. Describe your personal and professional relationship to the topic, how your identity may shape data collection and interpretation, and how you will manage these reflexively. A positionality statement is not an apology — it is a transparency mechanism.]
Research Timeline (Gantt Format)
[A phased timeline covering all major milestones. Present as a table with columns for each month/semester and rows for each phase: literature review, ethics approval, instrument development, data collection, analysis, writing, revision, submission.]
Tip: Build in 20% buffer time at each phase. Ethical approvals routinely take longer than expected. Data collection phases typically take 2–3× longer than estimated.
Budget (if applicable)
[Itemized estimate of research costs: transcription, translation, software licenses, travel, participant incentives, printing, and publication fees. Include source of funding or statement of self-funding. Round figures are acceptable at proposal stage.]
Reference List
[Complete reference list formatted in your required citation style. Every in-text citation must appear here; no source may appear here that is not cited in the text. Arranged alphabetically by author surname (APA/Harvard) or numerically in order of appearance (Vancouver).]
Minimum for a proposal: 25–40 peer-reviewed sources. Doctoral proposals typically include 60–100+. Prioritize primary sources and seminal works; avoid over-reliance on textbooks and grey literature.
Template T1 — Full Research Proposal
All chapters · Gantt timeline · Budget table · Appendix guide
Download .docx Preview
Section 04

Research Instrument Templates

Click any card to expand the complete template structure and usage guidance. All instruments are designed to be adapted to your specific topic — replace placeholder content while preserving the structural elements.

Qualitative +
Semi-Structured Interview Guide
For phenomenology, grounded theory, case study, and narrative inquiry designs.
Qualitative 1:1 Interview 60–90 min
IG-02 · .docx · 60–90 min
Pre-Interview Protocol
  1. Introduce yourself and the study purpose
  2. Obtain and confirm signed informed consent
  3. Request permission to record; explain how data will be used
  4. Confirm confidentiality and right to withdraw at any time
  5. Explain that there are no right or wrong answers

Opening Question (Grand Tour)
"To begin, I'd like you to tell me a little about yourself and your experience with [topic]. What has that been like for you?"

Core Questions (5–8 recommended)
  1. "Can you describe a specific time when [phenomenon] affected you? What happened?"
  2. "How did you make sense of that experience at the time?"
  3. "What factors do you feel contributed to [phenomenon] in your context?"
  4. "How has your experience of [phenomenon] changed over time, if at all?"
  5. "What does [concept] mean to you personally?"
  6. "Is there anything you think is particularly important for me to understand about this that I haven't asked?"

Probes (use throughout)
"Can you tell me more about that?" · "What did you mean by [term]?" · "Can you give me an example?" · "How did that make you feel?" · "What happened next?"

Closing
Summarize key points; invite corrections. Ask: "Is there anything you'd like to add or clarify?" Thank participant. Explain next steps and follow-up process.
Quantitative +
Survey Questionnaire Template
For descriptive, correlational, and causal-comparative designs. Includes Likert, multiple choice, and open-response formats.
Quantitative Self-Report 15–25 min
SQ-03 · .docx · 15–25 min
Cover Page / Preamble
"You are invited to participate in a study examining [topic]. This survey takes approximately [X] minutes. Your responses are anonymous and confidential. Participation is entirely voluntary."

Section A — Demographic Information
  1. Age: _____ years
  2. Gender: Male / Female / Non-binary / Prefer not to say / Other: _____
  3. Highest educational qualification: [options relevant to your study]
  4. Years of experience in [relevant role]: _____ years
  5. [Any other demographic variables relevant to your research question]

Section B — Likert Scale Items (5-point recommended)
Response scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree · 2 = Disagree · 3 = Neutral · 4 = Agree · 5 = Strongly Agree

Instructions: "Please indicate your level of agreement with each of the following statements by circling the appropriate number."

1. [Variable 1, Item 1: specific, singular, non-leading] 1 2 3 4 5
2. [Variable 1, Item 2: reversed-scored item for validity check] 1 2 3 4 5
3. [Variable 2, Item 1] 1 2 3 4 5
[Continue for all constructs — minimum 3 items per construct for scale reliability]

Section C — Open-Ended Items (optional)
"Please explain your response to Question [X] in your own words: ____________________"

Closing Statement
"Thank you for completing this survey. If you have questions about this study, please contact [researcher name] at [institutional email]. If you experience distress related to the survey content, please contact [support resource]."
Qualitative +
Focus Group Discussion Guide
For exploratory research and community-centered inquiry. Groups of 5–10 participants.
Qualitative Group Format 90–120 min
Facilitator Setup
  • Arrange seating in a circle or U-shape — no hierarchy of positioning
  • Place recording devices centrally; confirm consent from all participants
  • Assign note-taker role to co-facilitator
  • Prepare ground rules: one person speaks at a time; all views are valued; confidentiality within the group

Opening (10 min)
Icebreaker: "Let's start by going around the room — tell us your name and one word that describes your experience of [topic]."

Transition Questions (15 min)
"Before we discuss [topic] in depth, I'd like to know: how did you first encounter [phenomenon]?"

Key Questions (50–70 min, 4–6 questions)
  1. "What does [concept] mean to your community/group?"
  2. "What factors have shaped your collective experience of [topic]?"
  3. "Where do you agree or disagree with each other on this?"
  4. "What resources or support would make a difference to [topic]?"
  5. "If you could change one thing about [topic], what would it be and why?"

Ending Question (10 min)
"We've covered a lot of ground today. Is there anything important about [topic] that we haven't discussed that you think is essential for me to understand?"
Observation +
Structured Observation Protocol
For ethnographic, case study, and classroom observation designs. Systematic field note recording.
Observation Field Notes Qualitative
OP-06 · .docx · per session
Observation Header (complete for each session)
Date: ___ | Time start/end: ___ | Location: ___ | Observer: ___ | Session #: ___
No. of individuals present: ___ | Physical layout description: ___

Descriptive Notes (factual, non-interpretive)
[Record exactly what you see and hear. Use present tense. Avoid interpretive language — describe behavior, not inferred motive. Include verbatim quotes where possible, marked with quotation marks.]

Analytic / Reflective Notes (clearly separated)
[Your interpretations, emerging patterns, connections to literature, and methodological reflections. Mark clearly as "Analytic Memo" to distinguish from descriptive data.]

Observation Focus Areas (customize per RQ)
  • Physical environment and spatial arrangements
  • Participant interactions and communication patterns
  • Artifacts, documents, and symbolic objects
  • Power dynamics and role relationships
  • Unexpected or anomalous events

Post-Session Memo (within 24 hours)
[A 1–2 page reflection on the session: key insights, emerging themes, analytic hunches, and notes for subsequent observations.]
Document Analysis +
Document Analysis Framework
For policy documents, institutional records, archival texts, and media content.
Document Analysis Qualitative Mixed
LR-05 · .docx · 20+ source rows
Document Registration Form
Document title: ___ | Author/Institution: ___ | Date: ___ | Source/Repository: ___
Document type: Policy / Report / Legislation / Media / Academic / Other
Accessibility: Public / Restricted / Confidential

Bowen's (2009) Document Analysis Dimensions
  1. Surface-level content: What does the document literally say? Summarize key claims, data, and recommendations.
  2. Context of production: Who produced it? For what audience? In what political/institutional context? What interests does it serve?
  3. Silences and absences: What is conspicuously absent? Who is not represented? What alternatives are foreclosed?
  4. Connection to RQ: How does this document speak to [your research question]? What evidence does it provide?

Source: Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40.
Mixed Methods +
Mixed Methods Data Integration Matrix
For triangulating quantitative results with qualitative findings. Side-by-side comparison format.
Mixed Methods Integration
Joint Display Matrix (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018)
The joint display is the primary integration tool in mixed methods research. It places quantitative and qualitative findings side by side, allowing convergence, divergence, and elaboration to emerge visually.

Column Structure:
Col 1: Research Question / Theme
Col 2: Quantitative Finding (statistic, p-value, effect size)
Col 3: Qualitative Finding (theme / representative quote)
Col 4: Integration Inference (what can be concluded when both strands are read together?)

Integration Types to Identify:
  • Convergence: Both strands point to the same conclusion
  • Elaboration: Qualitative data explains or contextualizes the quantitative pattern
  • Divergence: Strands contradict — this requires analytic attention, not dismissal
  • Expansion: Each strand addresses a different dimension of the same phenomenon
Section 05

Ethics, Consent & Participant Templates

Research involving human participants requires ethical clearance from your institution's review board before data collection begins. These templates meet the requirements of the Declaration of Helsinki (World Medical Association, 2013) and the Belmont Report principles of respect for persons, beneficence, and justice.

Template T4 — Informed Consent Form
PIS + Consent declaration + Child assent · IRB / CHED / NHMRC standards
Download .docx Preview
Informed Consent Form — Standard Template
Meets CHED, IRB, NHMRC & ESRC requirements
Study Title & Introduction
[Plain-language title of the study. First paragraph must: name the researcher and institution, explain what the study is about in non-technical language (Grade 8 reading level recommended), and clarify that participation is voluntary.]
Avoid jargon. Write as if explaining to a well-read non-specialist. "The purpose of this study is to understand..." not "This study aims to investigate the epistemological dimensions of..."
What Participation Involves
[Describe: what participants will be asked to do, how long it will take, where and how it will occur, whether sessions will be recorded, and how many times they will be contacted.]
Risks and Benefits
[Risks: Be specific and honest. Include emotional, reputational, or time costs. Benefits: Do not overstate. Avoid implying individual therapeutic benefit unless genuinely offered. Include indirect benefits (contribution to knowledge, policy).]
Confidentiality & Data Storage
[State: how data will be stored (encrypted digital files, locked cabinet), who will have access, how anonymity will be protected (pseudonyms, aggregated data), how long data will be retained (typically 5–7 years post-publication), and how it will be disposed of.]
Right to Withdraw
[Explicit statement that participation is voluntary and can be ended at any time without penalty or explanation. Specify the withdrawal deadline (typically before data analysis begins). Include contact details for the researcher and institutional ethics officer.]
Consent Statements (Participant Initials Each)
___ I have read and understood the Participant Information Sheet.
___ I have had the opportunity to ask questions and have received satisfactory answers.
___ I understand that my participation is voluntary and I can withdraw at any time.
___ I understand how my data will be stored, used, and protected.
___ I consent to the session being audio/video recorded (delete if not applicable).
___ I consent to anonymised quotes being used in research publications and presentations.
___ I agree to participate in this study.
Signature Block
Participant Name (print): ________________________
Signature: ______________________ Date: __________

Researcher Name: ________________________
Signature: ______________________ Date: __________

Note: Provide two copies — one for the participant, one for the researcher's records.
When Required
[Required when research involves participants under 18, or adults with cognitive impairments or diminished decision-making capacity. Assent is the child's/individual's agreement; parental/guardian consent is also required and is a separate document.]
Child Assent (Ages 7–17, plain language)
"My name is [researcher name] and I am doing a study about [topic in plain language — e.g., 'how students feel about school']. I would like to hear what you think. You don't have to do this if you don't want to. If you say yes and then change your mind later, that's okay too. Do you agree to take part?"

Child's name (print): ________________________
Child's signature or mark: ________________ Date: ________
Parent/Guardian signature: ________________ Date: ________
Section 06

Reference List Formatting: Four Major Citation Systems

Incorrect referencing is one of the most penalized errors in thesis assessment — and one of the most preventable. The following templates provide exact formatting for the four most widely required citation systems at international universities. Apply consistently: one system throughout the entire document.

Template T7 — Reference List Formatter
APA 7th · Harvard BS · Vancouver · Chicago 17th · 30-slot working draft
Download .docx Preview
Source Type APA 7th Edition Harvard (British Standard)
Journal Article Author, A. A., & Author, B. B. (Year). Title of article. Journal Name, Volume(Issue), Page–Page. https://doi.org/xxxxx Author, A.A. and Author, B.B. (Year) 'Title of article', Journal Name, Volume(Issue), pp. Page–Page. doi:xxxxx.
Book Author, A. A. (Year). Title of book: Subtitle (Edition ed.). Publisher. Author, A.A. (Year) Title of book: subtitle. Edition edn. Place: Publisher.
Chapter in Edited Book Author, A. A. (Year). Chapter title. In B. B. Editor (Ed.), Book title (pp. xx–xx). Publisher. Author, A.A. (Year) 'Chapter title', in B.B. Editor (ed.) Book title. Place: Publisher, pp. xx–xx.
Thesis / Dissertation Author, A. A. (Year). Title of dissertation [Doctoral dissertation, Institution Name]. Repository Name. Author, A.A. (Year) Title of dissertation. PhD thesis. Institution Name.
Website / Online Source Author, A. A. (Year, Month Day). Title of webpage. Site Name. URL Author, A.A. (Year) Title of webpage. Available at: URL (Accessed: Day Month Year).
Government Report Agency Name. (Year). Title of report. Publisher. URL Agency Name (Year) Title of report. Place: Publisher. Available at: URL (Accessed: date).
Source Type Vancouver (Numbered) Chicago 17th (Author-Date)
Journal Article 1. Author AA, Author BB. Title of article. Journal Abbrev. Year;Volume(Issue):Page–Page. Author, First, and Second Author. Year. "Title of Article." Journal Name Volume (Issue): Page–Page.
Book 2. Author AA. Title of Book. Edition. Place: Publisher; Year. Author, First. Year. Title of Book. Place: Publisher.
Chapter in Edited Book 3. Author AA. Chapter title. In: Editor BB, editor. Book Title. Place: Publisher; Year. p. xx–xx. Author, First. Year. "Chapter Title." In Book Title, edited by B. Editor, xx–xx. Place: Publisher.
In-Text Citation Format Superscript number in text: ¹ or [1]. Numbers assigned in order of first appearance. (Author Year) or (Author Year, page). Multiple: (Author1 Year; Author2 Year).
Sources: American Psychological Association (2020). Publication Manual (7th ed.); OSCOLA (2012); ICMJE Uniform Requirements; Chicago Manual of Style (17th ed.).
Section 07

Conceptual Framework Templates

A conceptual framework is a researcher's original synthesis — a visual and narrative representation of how the key concepts in your study relate to each other. It is derived from your literature review and situates your research questions within an existing body of theory.

Conceptual Framework vs. Theoretical Framework — Key Distinction

A theoretical framework is an existing theory borrowed from the literature (e.g., Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development; Bandura's Social Learning Theory). A conceptual framework is your own diagram, built from your literature review, showing how the concepts in your specific study are proposed to relate. Most studies require both: the theoretical framework provides the philosophical foundation; the conceptual framework shows the operational logic of your study.

Template T5 — Literature Review Matrix
Source inventory · Methodological map · Gap analysis · Citation tracker
Download .docx Preview

Template A: Quantitative Conceptual Framework (Variable Map)

Variable Relationship Map — Fill-in Structure

Independent Variable(s): [Variable 1 — measurable, operationally defined] | [Variable 2 if applicable]

Arrow direction: IV → DV (direct effect) | IV → Mediator → DV (mediated) | IV → DV (moderated by Moderator)

Mediating Variable (if applicable): [Variable that explains the mechanism by which IV affects DV]

Moderating Variable (if applicable): [Variable that changes the strength or direction of the IV-DV relationship]

Dependent Variable(s): [Outcome variable — what you are measuring as the result]

Control Variables: [Variables held constant or statistically controlled for]

Narrative explanation (required alongside diagram): Explain each arrow: "It is proposed that [IV] has a direct positive effect on [DV], as theorized by [citation]. This relationship is hypothesized to be moderated by [Moderator] because [theoretical rationale]."

Template B: Qualitative Conceptual Framework (Phenomenon Map)

Phenomenon-Centred Map — Fill-in Structure

Central Phenomenon: [The experience, process, or concept you are exploring — placed at the centre of your diagram]

Influencing Factors (contextual): [Factors from the literature that are known to shape the central phenomenon — place around the perimeter]

Consequences / Outcomes: [What the literature suggests follows from the phenomenon — place on the right or below]

Mediating Conditions: [Contextual factors that alter how the phenomenon unfolds — often specific to your setting or population]

Narrative explanation: "The central phenomenon of this study is [X], understood through the lens of [theoretical framework]. Drawing on [Author A, Year] and [Author B, Year], this study proposes that [influencing factors] shape how [participants] experience [X], with [outcomes] as anticipated consequences. The specific context of [your setting] introduces [unique conditions] not yet examined in the literature."

Section 08

Pre-Submission Checklists

Use the following checklists to audit your proposal before submission. Each item represents a common examiner expectation. Track your completion across all chapters using the tabs.

Proposal Completion
0 / 12 items checked
Methodology Chapter Audit
0 / 10 items checked
Ethics & Consent Audit
0 / 8 items checked
Reference List Audit
0 / 7 items checked
Section 09

Test Your Proposal Writing Knowledge

The following quiz tests your understanding of proposal structure, ethics requirements, and citation conventions. Each question includes detailed feedback anchored to international standards.

Research Proposal Standards Quiz

10 questions · Immediate feedback · Covers all template sections

Question 1 of 10
0/10
Your Score
Score: 0 / 0
Section 10

The 7 Most Common Proposal Errors — and How to Fix Them

Based on systematic analysis of examiner feedback across UK, Australian, South African, and Philippine universities (Trafford & Leshem, 2008; Moxley, 2013; Wellington, 2015), these are the errors most likely to trigger a revise-and-resubmit or rejection at proposal stage.

Error 01 — Confusing a Social Problem with a Research Problem

"Poverty is a serious problem in the Philippines" is a social problem. "No study has examined how first-generation rural students construct academic resilience in the context of economic precarity in Visayan public schools" is a research problem. The latter identifies a specific gap in scholarly knowledge — the former does not justify a study.

Error 02 — Writing a Summary, Not a Synthesis

A literature review that proceeds "Smith (2020) found... Jones (2021) argued... Lee (2022) showed..." is a summary, not a synthesis. Synthesis requires you to compare, contrast, and integrate sources into coherent arguments about a theme. The reader should come away understanding the state of knowledge on your topic — not just knowing what each author said.

Error 03 — Naming a Framework Without Using It

Many proposals name Vygotsky, Bandura, or Bourdieu in the theoretical framework section, then never mention them again. A theoretical framework must actively generate your research questions, shape your data collection, and inform your analysis. If you cannot explain how the theory does those three things, you do not yet have a theoretical framework — you have a theoretical decoration.

Error 04 — Choosing a Method Before a Question

"I decided to do a survey because I am not comfortable with qualitative research" is the single most common methodological error in student proposals (Wellington, 2015). The research question determines the method — always. If you find yourself choosing a method for reasons of comfort or convenience, return to your question and ask: what kind of knowledge am I actually trying to produce?

Error 05 — Under-Powered Samples Without Justification

In quantitative research, sample size must be determined by power analysis — not by convenience. G*Power (free software) is the standard tool. A study with n=30 that claims to test a hypothesis is underpowered for most statistical tests and will be flagged by examiners. For qualitative research, cite saturation principles (Guest et al., 2006; Creswell, 2013) to justify smaller samples.

Error 06 — Missing or Inadequate Ethics Section

Many students treat ethics as a procedural box-tick. Examiners look for evidence that you have genuinely thought through the risks to participants, the power dynamics of your researcher role, how you will protect vulnerable participants, and what happens to data after the study. One paragraph is rarely sufficient. For studies involving sensitive topics or vulnerable populations, devote a full subsection to ethics.

Error 07 — Inconsistent or Incomplete Referencing

Mixing APA and Harvard within the same document, missing DOIs, incomplete author names, and inconsistent capitalization are among the most common reference list errors. Use reference management software (Zotero, Mendeley, or EndNote — all free) from the beginning of your research. Retroactively formatting a 60-source reference list is time-consuming and error-prone.