Writing a research proposal

i.e., convincing people to take a chance on you

Charles C. Lanfear

Writing in general

Target your writing

 

Professional writing is purposeful communication to an audience

• Know the purpose

  • Argument
  • Description
  • Theoretical test
  • Policy evaluation

• Know the audience

  • Examiners (essay or thesis)
  • Academics (journal article)
  • Policy actors (policy brief)
  • Lay people (public scholarship)

 

Everything you write should serve your purpose and be understood by your audience

When you write

• Clarity comes first

  • Do not write so you can be understood, but so that so you cannot be misunderstood

When you write

• Clarity comes first

  • Do not write so you can be understood, but so that so you cannot be misunderstood

• Read good books on writing →

• Read and emulate good writers

• Read your work out loud

  • Good writing seems natural

• Have others read your work

  • When someone says something is confusing, assume they are right

Proposals

Research proposals

 

Proposals are:

• A step in the research process
• Informed by theory and methods

Reasons for proposals:

• Institutional approval
• Grants & scholarships
• PhD applications

Convincing someone it is worth doing and you can do it

Know your audience

 

Before you start, you need to ask…

• What proposals do they accept?

  • Would my research even be considered?

• Who is going to read the proposal?

  • Experts in your field—or another?
  • An interdisciplinary committee?
  • Lay people or public officials?

• What are their expectations and requirements?

  • When is it due?
  • What information do I need to provide?
  • How must it be formatted?
  • Do I need a sponsor or supervisor?

Our PhD program

Seven questions

Adapted from Denscombe (2012) Research Proposals: A Practical Guide

What is it all about?

 

Goals:

• Hook the reader!
• Define primary practical or theoretical problem
• Highlight importance

Motivate the study

 

Neighborhood disorder is also highly-correlated with crime rates, which has led to a significant controversy in the social sciences over the proper interpretation of the correlation. Does the correlation reflect a causal relationship, in which social and physical disorder increases the likelihood of norm-violations and crime, as broken windows theory suggests? Or does the correlation reflect a spurious relationship, in which the correlation disappears when the confounding variable, neighborhood collective efficacy, is controlled? The answer to this question has important theoretical and policy implications. This project examines this controversy using mixed methods: field experiments embedded in neighborhoods that are diverse on measures from the U.S. Census and the Seattle Neighborhoods and Crime Survey.

Matsueda (2016) Collective Efficacy and Norm Violation: An Experimental Test

What do we already know?

Goals:

• Demonstrate knowledge
• Set up questions or “gap”
• Show relevance and value

Approach:

• Describe past findings
• Compare and contrast
• Be critical

Use your lit review to “set yourself up”

 

A feature of recent research on broken windows, collective efficacy, and social capital is that it uses a variety of research designs, including household surveys within neighborhoods, systematic social observation, and field experiments. Viewed separately, these research designs have specific strengths and weaknesses involving causality, endogeneity, and external validity. By embedding a series of experiments within neighborhoods, we hope to capitalize on the unique strengths of distinct methods and overcome many of their weaknesses.

Source: Matsueda (2016) Collective Efficacy and Norm Violation: An Experimental Test

What do we need to find out?

Goals:

• Anchor the proposal
• Make reader hungry for answers

Approach:

• State research questions
  • Usually around 3–8
• Link back to lit review
• Be clear and concise

From a proposal for three papers

 

‍(a) Changing Exposures: How does exposure to guns and gun violence as well as gun use vary throughout childhood, adolescence, and early-to-mid adulthood? How has it changed over the last 25 years? In particular, how do exposures differ by cohort and race?
(b) Changing Risk and Protective Factors: To what extent have the main individual, family, and community risk and protective factors of gun violence evolved and changed over the last 25 years?
(c) Consequences: What are the long-term consequences of personal victimisation and exposure to neighbourhood gun violence for mental and physical health and criminal involvement, and how do they vary by race?

Source: Lanfear (2021) Racial inequality in exposure to gun violence across 25+ years in urban America

How will we get this information?

Goals:

• Demonstrate you know appropriate methods
• Convince reader of feasibility
• Recognize potential challenges and discuss how they will be addressed

Describe:

• How you will collect data
• How much data
• Specific analysis techniques

Specific but with some “wiggle room”

 

For the first objective, measuring changing exposures, Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) will be used to estimate growth curves of stability and change in probabilities of reporting four measures of exposure: (1) carrying a concealed firearm, (2) shooting or shooting at someone, (3) being shot or shot at, and (4) seeing or hearing someone else get shot or shot at. Growth curve analyses will also be used to examine neighbourhood exposure to gun violence—defined as the annual rate of shootings in the participant’s neighbourhood from official police records. Analyses will also examine how variation by age, race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status (SES) in exposure to gun violence interact with historical change.

‍Source: Lanfear (2021) Racial inequality in exposure to gun violence across 25+ years in urban America

What will it take?

Goal:

• Convince reader of feasibility
• Justify funding

Describe:

• Resources required
  • Money
  • Time
  • People!
• Realistic timeline
  • Data collection
  • Analysis
  • Writing

A project timeline

‍Source: Lanfear (2019) Integrating Collective Efficacy and Criminal Opportunity: Disorder, the Built Environment, and Policing

Is the research ethical and safe?

 

Describe:

• Compliance with rules
• Risk assessment
• Informed consent
• Data management
• Data protection

Compliance and experience

The project has already undergone an extensive ethical review within the University of Cambridge, and fieldwork will be conducted in line with the University’s risk-assessment policies. The PI’s field experience enables her to manage the ethical, practical, and emotional complexities of this research, seeking assistance and consultation from peers, specialists, and the University as and if new scenarios or complications arise. The research team has previously collaborated, including on pilot interviews with defectors. Direct prior experience is crucial given the sensitivity and complexity of this group. In addition, having already worked together reduces the risk of miscommunication between researchers and has allowed the team to refine procedures and safety protocols.

Hauser (2025) How exit sanctions shape migration markets: The case of North Korea

Consent and risk

 

The interview guide is designed to avoid any risk of self-incrimination. Participants are explicitly advised at the outset not to disclose personal details that could identify them or to provide identifiable information about others. Before each interview, participants will receive clear information about the project, its aims, funding sources, and the intended use of the collected material. They will also be informed of their right to withdraw from the study or pause the interview at any point, without needing to provide a reason.

Hauser (2025) How exit sanctions shape migration markets: The case of North Korea

What will be the benefits?

 

Describe:

• Dissemination plans
  • Clear deliverables
• Who will benefit and how?
• Policy / practice relevance
• Impact on future research
• Training or professional benefits

Outputs!

 

The research is intended to produce three peer-reviewed journal articles, one focusing on each of the three research questions of the proposed study, targeted at outlets such as Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Criminology, and The Lancet. Findings will also be disseminated in accessible briefs for policymakers and practitioners, which the lead applicant has experience preparing, as well as op-eds and blog posts such as The Conversation. Finally, the data will be archived in a public repository, and code used to prepare the data and conduct analyses will be made publicly available on the applicant’s GitHub site. This will ensure research transparency and facilitate replication and extension of the research products by other researchers.

‍Source: Lanfear (2021) Racial inequality in exposure to gun violence across 25+ years in urban America

Dissemination

 

Example dissemination activities:

• Internal seminars
• Regular reporting to stakeholders (e.g., health service, industrial partner)
• Publications (e.g., journal articles, reviews, book chapters)
• Conference presentations
• Outreach and public engagement

 

Every audience will weight these differently!

Activity

Read and consider

 

• Is anything…
  • Unclear?
  • Missing?
  • Unconvincing?
• What if the audience were…
  • Lay people?
  • Government?
  • PhD admissions?

Wrap-up

Wrap-Up

 

• Write clearly
• Know the purpose
• Know the audience
• Make sure key questions are answered