Steps in Research Proposal vs Research Design

Steps

1.    Steps in Research Proposal

 

1.     Title

2.     Introduction

3.     Literature review

4.     Methodology

5.     Plan - time frame and schedule of activities

6.     (Gantt chart)

7.     Budget

8.     Details of research team (signed CV) (Sidik, S. M., 2005)

 

2.    Steps in Research Design

11 Steps of Research Design

1)    Formulation of the research problem

2)    Literature review

3)    Formation of Hypothesis in Research Design

4)    Formulating a Research Design

5)    Defining the nature of the study

6)    Sample design

7)    Administration of the tools of Data collection in Research Design

8)    Data analysis

9)    Hypothesis testing in Research Design

10)          Interpretation and generalization

11)          Preparing the report of the Research

 

 

 

Assessment of Research Proposal and Research Design

1.    Assessment of Research Proposal

The following criteria are used by researchers for assessing research proposals.

Criteria Used for Assessing Short Research Proposals

1. Relevance: Is the research within designated priority areas? Does the research address an important problem? What new information will the research produce which is not already known? How can the results be operationalized into clinical or public health practice? What are the probable health and/or economic benefits of the research?

2. Quality of Protocol: Introduction; Aims; Methods; Analysis; Reporting.

3. Feasibility: Practicability; Experience of Researchers.

4. Ethics: Is the study lawful? Stage of Ethics.

5. Budget and Cost: Cost and Cost-effectiveness; Cost-benefit.

Criteria Used for Assessing Long Research Proposals

1. Introduction

 Is the context of the study adequately described?

 Is local and international information on the research topic adequately reviewed?

 Is the scientific and health services rationale for the study adequately explained?

 Is an explanation given concerning how the results of the study can be used?

 Is their sufficient multi-disciplinary involvement in the study?

2. Aims

 Are the aims clearly stated in a way which is amenable to scientific investigation?

 Are research questions and hypotheses explicitly stated - if this is appropriate?

 Are the variables clearly described - if this is appropriate?

3. Methods

3.1 Study Design

 Is the type(s) of study and scientific approach(s) clearly described?

 Are the methods capable of answering the research questions?

 Are combinations of methods applied if this is required by the research questions?

 Are standard methods being used (and described) or are new methods being developed (and explained)?

 Are the methods described in sufficient detail?

 Are the outcome factor(s), study factors and confounders adequately characterised and their measurement described?

 What is the validity of the measurement methods?

 Will assessment of the validity of some measurements be undertaken? How will this be

performed?

 Have all confounding factors been clearly defined and will data be collected on these? What of unmeasured confounders?

 Are some measured variables being used as proxies for other unmeasured variables and what is the legitimacy of this?

3.2 Sampling

 Is the source of specimens or study populations clearly identified?

 Is the method of selecting and sampling specimens, people, households or communities

appropriate for the study?

 Are the numbers of cases adequate for the study? Have sample size calculations been

performed where this is relevant?

3.3 Materials

 Are adequate laboratory and/or computer facilities available to perform the research?

 Are adequate scientific instruments and/or reagents available to perform the research?

 Is an adequate survey instrument (questionnaire or data form) available, or will it be developed (and how)?

 Are skilled personnel available to collect the information or will they be trained?

3.4 Implementation

 Can the research study be implemented? Is it practical?

 Can specimens be obtained? Will people and communities agree to participate?

 Will hospitals and health services agree to co-operate as required?

 Will collaborative arrangements between researchers work?

 Are there previous or pilot studies which indicate that this study can be done?

 Does the previous record of the researchers indicate that they have the required skills and

experience?

 What arrangements are there to ensure data quality and minimise information bias during data collection?

 What arrangements are there to ensure maximum participation and avoid selection bias?

 Is there a description or a diagram to indicate the time lines for implementation of the study?

3.5 Analysis of information

 What is the basic strategy for the analysis?

 Are the proposed methods of analysis described in sufficient detail?

 Are the proposed methods of analysis appropriate for the type of study and kind of information collected?

 Do the researchers understand the approach to analysis, have the tools (e.g. computers and

programs), and are they capable of analysing the information?

 Are the researchers aware of problems of bias and confounding and how do they propose to deal with these at the analysis stage?

3.6 Reporting

 Do the researchers explain how the results of the research will be reported, and to who?

 Will the researchers present information at meetings and conferences?

 Will the results be published as reports, conference papers, and/or in scientific journals?

 Will the research reports be scientifically reviewed?

 Will information be transmitted to the public or patient groups?

4. Ethics

 Is the study ethical and lawful?

 Has the study been approved by, or will it be submitted to, an ethics committee or assessor?

 Is the use of routinely or specially collected data or specimens for this research covered by an appropriate law?

 Are subjects invited to participate and is consent obtained?

 Are consent and patient information forms acceptable?

 In cases of sensitive information, are questions relating to these topics in the questionnaire acceptable?

 Are subjects allowed to decline or discontinue without sanction?

 Is confidentiality of individual information maintained? What security arrangements are there

for protection of identified physical and electronic records?

 Is treatment and/or counselling offered for cases of disease which are detected?

 Could there be adverse effects of the questionnaire or invasive procedures, or from new

information uncovered on individuals, and how would these situations be handled?

 Is there evidence of safety for new medications or procedures before clinical trials begin?

 Are subjects in clinical trials being offered new treatments which can reasonably be expected to be equivalent or better than standard treatments available according to existing evidence?

 Is there provision to stop clinical trials if some groups show markedly better or worse results than others?

 Are extra medical costs for patients resulting from research studies covered?

 Do the potential benefits of the research to the community outweigh the risks, inconvenience and/or invasion of privacy for the individual?

5. Budget and Cost

5.1 Cost and cost-effectiveness

 Is the budget total within specified limits?

 Is the budget sufficiently detailed?

 Is each item in the budget adequately justified?

 Are some budget items excessive in relation to their justification?

 Are personnel too senior or junior for specified tasks?

 Is the equipment really necessary?

 Should some of the equipment and consumables applied for be covered by the institution

applying for the grant?

 Are there less expensive options for achieving a similar result?

 Could some less important parts of the study be deleted to reduce the

 budget?

5.2 Cost-benefit

 What is the prospect for success of this research project?

 What are the likely benefits of this research?

 How does the ratio of cost to likely benefit for this research compare to the ratio of cost to

likely benefit for other competing health and medical research?

Criteria for Assessment of Dissertation Proposals

1. Introduction and Statement of the Problem

 Does the introduction provide a general overview of the issues surrounding the study?

 Is the problem under investigation clearly stated?

 Is evidence used to demonstrate the significance of the problem?

 Are important terms defined?

 Are assumptions clearly stated?

 Are major assertions that lay ground work for the study articulated?

2. Background and Review of the Literature

 Is the study grounded in a larger body of research?

 Is the review current and representative of work in the area?

 Are related studies examined critically and gaps identified?

 Does the review provide a clear rationale of the study?

 Is the review well organized, using sub-sections where appropriate?

3. Research Questions/Hypotheses

 Do the research questions/hypotheses develop a specific focus for the study?

 Do the research questions/hypotheses support the problem statement and background sections?

 Are the research questions worded so as to imply responses more complex than ‘Yes/No’?

4. Methodology and Limitations

 Is the research design described clearly and appropriate for the study?

 Are the sample and participants fully described?

 Is the sampling plan appropriate for the study?

 Are data gathering procedures fully explicated and appropriate for the study?

 Are analytical procedures fully explicated and appropriate for the study?

 Is the technical merit of instruments described clearly?

 Are issues related to limitations and/or trustworthiness satisfactorily identified and

addressed?

 Do the sampling, data collection, and analytical procedures appropriately match the problem statement and research questions?

 Are the instruments or interview guides acceptable and appropriate for the study?

5. Other Concerns

 Does the proposal demonstrate a high quality of written expression?

 Is the potential cohesive and coherent?

 Does a consistent conceptual framework and/or paradigm unite the problem statement, research questions, and methods section?

 Is the tone of the proposal impartial, unbiased, and scientific?

 Are applicable support documents (appendices) included and satisfactory?

 Is an appropriate style (e.g. APA style) used correctly and consistently?

 Does the proposed study adhere to conventional wisdom related to ethics?

 Does the abstract summarize the contents of the proposal clearly and accurately? (Kabir, S. M. S.,2018)

2.    Criteria for evaluating research design

 

 The Research Problem

 An issue or concern that needs to be addressed

 If the problem calls for

 Explanation or theory testing: Quantitative

 Exploration or understanding: Qualitative

 One approach alone is inadequate: Mixed methods

 Personal Experiences

 Training, preferences, time, resources

 Audience

 Advisors, journal editors, graduate committees, etc.

Conclusion:

Research design are part of research proposal.

Research proposal is intended to convince that you have a worthwhile project, and you have the competence and work to complete it. Research proposal is an outline of a proposed research which is growing to be conducted. It gives readers a summary of information discussed in a project. It is given at the beginning of research. Research proposal is what you proposed to do; it is description of the research you wish to perform. It includes title, introduction and hypothesis, methods, references cited. Research design actually tell us what we do to complete our research plan.  

What tools we use to complete our study. How we answer our questions?  How we test our Hypothesis?  What type of sampling technique we will use?  Whether we use purposive sampling technique or convenient sampling technique etc. What method we use to interpret our qualitative data? whether we use content analysis, factorial analysis or discourse analysis etc.

 

References:

·       Tiwari, P., Mishra, A. C. and Jha, A. K. (2016). Case Study as a Method for Scope Definition. Arabian Journal of Business and A Management Review. doi:10.4172/2223-5833.S1-002.

·       Memon, A. (2019). Research proposal- procedure and components. IJCIRAS. 1(9), 46-54.

·       Book Review: Maxwell, J. A. (Ed.). (2005) Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

·       Akhtar I. (2016). Research Design. Research in Social Science: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. 68-84.

·       Accessed on: https://hms.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/assets/Sites/Acad_Clin_Aff/files/Characteristics%20of%20a%20Successful%20Research%20Proposal.pdf

·        Abdulai, R. T. and Owusu-Ansah, A. (2014). Essential Ingredients of a Good Research Proposal for Undergraduate and Postgraduate Students in the Social Sciences.  SAGE Open.

1-15.      Retrieved from:   /content/4/3/2158244014548178 doi: 10.1177/2158244014548178

·       Sidik, S. M. (2005). How to write a research proposal? The Family Physician. 13(3),30-32.

Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308915548

·       Accession on 22^nd March 2021: https://www.marketing91.com/steps-in-research-design/

·       Accession on 22^nd March 2021:

https://www.restore.ac.uk/mrp/services/ldc/mrp/resources/resproskills/comprespro.shtml

·       Kabir, S. M. S.  (2016). Research proposal.

Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325545912

• Tweet
• Share
• Share
• Share
• Share

About Admin MC3

This is dummy text. It is not meant to be read. Accordingly, it is difficult to figure out when to end it. But then, this is dummy text. It is not meant to be read. Period.

Related Post