Faculty of Education Sciences
Faculty Research Administration
Reference nr: 9.4
GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO PROPOSAL WRITING AND ASSESSMENT THEREOF BY THE M&D
PROGRAMME COMMITTEE
1.
The spirit of the document
The guidelines provided in this document are not prescriptive and should thus not be interpreted as such. It aims to provide
guidelines to both students and supervisors/promoters vis-á-vis the basic requirements for a proposal on MEd and PhD levels. The
guidelines are based on sound literature about the topic. Proposal formats of other universities in South Africa have been
consulted to benchmark our approach on a national level. It also aims to introduce a set of terminologies that is less confusing to
both students, supervisors/promoters, critical readers and the M&D programme committee. The intention is not to enforce any
ideas upon colleagues and thereby limiting their academic freedom or imposing on their academic integrity, but to create a starting
point where competing academic voices and opinions can intersect in the spirit of raising the quality of MEd and PhD studies. To
avoid numerous addenda to contextualise policies and discussions that contributed to the conceptualisation of this document, these
points are directly inserted in the document, where applicable.
2.
The length of proposals
The word counts suggested are estimates and might vary from one section to the next and might be influenced by methodological
choices and the particular discipline. We aim to give this detail merely as guideline so that students do not end up writing too
much for the proposal. The guidelines regarding the length of research proposals on MEd and PhD level was discussed by the
M&D programme committee in 2013 and accepted by the Research Committee of the Faculty on 6 June 2013, for implementation
in 2014. These guidelines are as follows: Limit the proposal word count to 5000 - 6000 words (excluding references and
addenda which should only include schematic information relevant to the proposal content) .
a.
b.
3.
The M&D Programme Committee is of opinion that this will teach students to articulate themselves and their ideas more
concisely.
This suggestion goes hand-in-hand with the next, i.e. that students and/or supervisors/promoters must attend the meeting
when their proposals are up for discussion so that they can verbally clarify any questions or concerns raised by the committee.
The purpose of a proposal?
A proposal is the first step in getting your research ideas on paper and planning for the research journey ahead. Maree and Van
der Westhuizen (2007:24) states that a “... research proposal is the plan you devise to answer the research questions and it
therefore indicates what you plan to do, how you intend proceeding, why you opted for a specific strategy, and why it is worth
learning about the topic”. Research is ever-emerging and ever-evolving and for this reason, although one might plan in one
direction, circumstances might necessitate that one deviate from the initial plans (Maree & Van der Westhuizen, 2007:25). The
main purpose of a research proposal is to give detail about your research and to share it with your supervisor/promoter, critical
readers and the M&D programme committee so that they can provide suggestions for improvement so as to avoid pitfalls once the
research is conducted (Fraenkel, Wallen & Hyun, 2012:617). It is thus the first quality assurance phase toward a successful study.
Maree and Van der Westhuizen (2007:25) suggest three steps to consider when designing your proposal: a) selecting a focus and
writing your statement of purpose; b) formulating tentative research questions; and c) conducting a preliminary literature review.
It might be useful to consult the detail they discuss regarding these steps, together with Cohen, Manion and Morrison’s (2011:105106) suggestions to arrive at researchable topics in education research. This initial process is of utmost importance as it holds
several implications for the research design and eventual outcome of the study.
Different research designs necessitate different research proposal structures and/or sequences. Here Creswell’s (2009:73-94) work
can be consulted. However, despite methodological implications for the structure of the proposal, the main features that frame the
proposal remain the same. These include the following:

A statement of the problem, the motivation for the research and the context within which it is situated. This should be
supported by recent, relevant literature on the topic and be situated within the context of particular theoretical perspectives
(philosophies, theories, models or typologies).
2014-06 – M&D Proposal format
FERA MEd&PhD Administration (E Conradie)
1
Faculty of Education Sciences
Faculty Research Administration
Reference nr: 9.4



A research question, with several sub-questions (between 3 and 5), should emanate from the above review. In some instances
a hypothesis might be used (e.g. quantitative studies) or a theory generating hypothesis (e.g. grounded theory).
From the research question(s) or hypotheses certain aims or objectives could be derived. These should clearly resonate with
the question, hypothesis, topic and title of the research.
Once the above features are explained, the research design, methodology and methods can be elaborated on.
It is with the above in mind, that this particular proposal format was drafted. In what follows these will further be elaborated,
specifically in terms of university policy and based on the experience of researchers and students in the faculty.
2014-06 – M&D Proposal format
FERA MEd&PhD Administration (E Conradie)
2
Faculty of Education Sciences
Faculty Research Administration
Reference nr: 9.4
NB: Only print out this cover page and your proposal. Also include the reports of the critical readers and a change log
that clearly indicate how you addressed the matters raised by the critical readers when it is submitted for review on the
M&D programme committee.
Candidate:
University number:
Qualification / Degree:
Curriculum code:
Descriptive name: (e.g. Education Law)
Programme code:
Entity (Edu-HRight, SDL, TELHE, COMBER, EduLead) – name both the entity and the entity leader:
Sub-project / subject group (should the research not
resort in an entity) – provide the name of the subproject leader / subject chair:
Title of dissertation / thesis:
Supervisor / promoter:
Co-supervisor /- promoter:
Assistant supervisor /- promoter:
Critical reader (1):
Critical reader (2):
Critical reader (3) - Ethics:
*Statistical consultation services (if applicable):
Date of registration for the degree:
Date of submission to M&D programme committee:
*Please give the names of these persons and ask them to sign next to their names. It is of utmost importance that when students
conduct quantitative research any aspect thereof, that they consult with a statistician prior to submission of the proposal.
2014-06 – M&D Proposal format
FERA MEd&PhD Administration (E Conradie)
3
Faculty of Education Sciences
Faculty Research Administration
Reference nr: 9.4
Please indicate whether this proposal will result in an article model dissertation
Proposed title (12 – 15 words)
On the Institutional Higher Degrees committee meeting held on the 15 th of August 2013 the responsibility for assuring the
accuracy of MEd and PhD titles before institutional registration were discussed. The onus to assure the correctness of titles prior
to institution registration thereof was placed on faculty level. For this reason several guidelines for students and their supervisors/
promoters regarding the selection, wording and grammar of a title of a dissertation and/or thesis are provided. Note that the
Manual for Post Graduate Studies were used as backdrop to set up these guidelines. It states the following vis-á-vis the
formulation of the title:
EXCERPT FROM THE MANUAL OF POST GRADUATE STUDIES (pp.12-13)
1.7.1 Formulating the title
In all cases a title (which can be amended later if required after experimental results have been obtained) must be formulated for
a study. Supervisors/promoters must guide the student so that the proposed title covers the topic meaningfully and refers to the
main aspects of the study as far as possible. (Example: The relationship between A and B; The implications of A for B; The effect
of A on B; The impact of A on B.) The title must have the necessary impact and should preferably not be longer than 12 words.
Supervisors/promoters should guard against all aspects of the study being included in the title, as such titles are unwieldy. The
title should be brief and to the point for two reasons: (a) the various aspects of the study are set out in the course of the study and
need not all be reflected in the title; (b) the title has to appear on the title page and spine of the minidissertation/dissertation/thesis.
Important from the above are the following points:
Coverage: The title should meaningfully cover the topic addressed in the study by clearly indicating the subject to be
investigated and scope of the study.
Length: Twelve – fifteen words as a guide to the approximate length of the title.
Concise: The title should only include the most essential elements of the study. (In essence a title should capture the gist of the
topic to be investigated and spark interest to engage with it.)
Grammar: Supervisors / promoters are required to ensure the grammatical accuracy of titles. Upon approval of a research
proposal by the M&D programme committee, prior to institutional title registration, the title will be send to a professional
language editor to double-check the grammar in the title.
Capitalisation: Titles should be written in lower case. Only the first letter of the first word in the title is capitalised unless nouns
and adjectives, particularly those indicating a proper nouns/names, are used. These include pronouns, personal or place names,
points of the compass, national and regional adjectives, religions, deities, personifications, days, months, brand names, and royal
titles. An example of such title could be: “Regenerating Buddhist spirituality through Catherine Malabou’s notion of plasticity”.
(A Title Should Under No Circumstances Be Written in Title Case.)
Other:




Abbreviations should not be used in titles (unless they are globally known and used, e.g. UNESCO, WHO, UN, etc.)
Out-dated nomenclature should be avoided
A title should reflect the keywords of the study so as to increase citation
A title should not be deceiving in terms of the contextualisation thereof
2014-06 – M&D Proposal format
FERA MEd&PhD Administration (E Conradie)
4
Faculty of Education Sciences
Faculty Research Administration
Reference nr: 9.4

A title should not end with a full stop
These guidelines were accepted by the Research Committee of the Faculty of Education Sciences in 2013.
Key words and clarification (Identify between 5 and 10 key words and briefly explain your understanding of these,
substantiated by literature. Proposed length: 500 words)
Identifying the key words and clarifying your understanding thereof is paramount for critical readers to know the context from
which you write. These can also become useful pointers or directives for you to remain focused when conducting the literature
review. Key words should capture the main terms reflected in your title and objectives/aims and need not include elements of the
research design (unless the study specifically requires this to be done). Fraenkel, Wallen and Hyun (2012:619) suggest that
“[w]hile it is probably impossible to eliminate all ambiguity from definitions, the clearer the terms are – to both the researcher
and others – the fewer difficulties will be encountered in subsequent planning and conducting of the study”.
Discussion of research problem and motivation for study substantiated by reference to literature and theory (Proposed
length: 2000 words)
Creswell (2009:73-74) suggest that when we are writing about the context of our study, we consider the following questions
(italics):
i. What do readers need, to better understand your topic? (i.e. What is the context/background to the problem?)
ii. What do readers know little about in terms of your topic? (i.e. What in the context is problematic [what is the issue?] Why is
it problematic? Thus – what is the “gap” that this study will be addressing?)
iii. Important here is to clearly state what the literature says about this problem and to demonstrate how theoretical perspectives
shed light both on the problem and the literature that relates to it.
iv. What do you propose to study? (i.e. Here you need to clearly state your research question [and sub-questions] or hypothesis.
The above questions could be used as sub-headings for structuring this section of the research proposal.
Below are more tips and literature that can be consulted to assist in completing the discussion of the research problem and
motivation that is substantiated by relevant literature and theory:
Problem
Not all matters researched are necessarily problem orientated. In some instances, research is conducted about good case scenarios
(e.g. appreciative inquiry) so as to derive at theory or perspectives that can intellectually advance the body of scholarship in a
discipline.
Gaps
Identifying gaps in the existing body of scholarship can only be identified when a thorough literature review is conducted and
what is read is documented in a personal reading journal. Identify the leading journals in your discipline. Some of the journals
explicitly state what requires further attention in the introduction to the edition or even at the back of the edition. Reading the
articles and focussing on the conclusions are also helpful, because leaders in the field often conclude by stating what gaps exist in
a particular field of expertise and how it might be approached.
Literature / Body of Scholarship
i.
ii.
Boote, D.N. & Beile, P. 2005. Scholars Before Researchers: On the Centrality of the Dissertation Literature Review in
Research Preparation. Educational Researcher, 34(6):3-15.
Punch, K.F. 2006. Developing Effective Research Proposals. Sage: Los Angeles & London. (Chapter 4: The role of
2014-06 – M&D Proposal format
FERA MEd&PhD Administration (E Conradie)
5
Faculty of Education Sciences
Faculty Research Administration
Reference nr: 9.4
theory and dealing with literature)
Theoretical perspectives
One of the greatest pitfalls in writing a proposal (or reporting on research) is failure to clearly demonstrate the main theoretical
perspectives that drives the study (Leshem & Trafford, 2007). This is also the feature that most students struggle to logically
weave into their arguments and justifications in a proposal. It is therefore important that students give attention to the overall
paradigm in which their work resorts (positivism, interpretivism, critical theory, poststructuralism) and how the theories they use
and the methodologies to be employed link up with these paradigms. Paradigms come with certain nomenclature that needs to be
reflected in the language used in the proposal, but specifically in the research questions, hypotheses and aims/objectives.
Research questions
“Scholarly literature on the research question and its centrality to a research study has been written in abundance (for example:
Creswell 2009; Flick 2006; Jansen 2007; Marshall and Rossman 2006; O’Donoghue 2007; Patton 2002; Punch 2006). ... A
research question is more than just a question. It is a combination of deep thought, interactive and reflective thinking that
considers the research study in all its complexity (Agee 2009). The research ... ‘is the single most important measure of whether
your research is good or not’ (Jansen 2007, 2). ... Terminology used in the research question should reflect the keywords of the
research study and inform the direction and focus of both the theoretical and methodological components of the research study
(Agee 2009, 441). A research question that has ‘flair or panache is therefore provocative, interesting, current and stimulating’
and has characteristics of a good research question namely: concise, clear, operationalisable, open-ended, elegant, timely,
theoretically rich, puzzling features, self-explanatory and grammatically correct (Jansen 2007, 3-5).” (Simmonds & Du Preez,
forthcoming).
An overarching research question that explains the gist of the research and that is open-ended and normative is usually a good
starting point. The subsidiary questions to such research question might be more specific and give direction to specific aspects of
the research. However, one should remember that research questions should not be confused with empirical questions. And,
research questions should not ask ‘how to’ questions. The ‘how to’, solutions, interventions, etc. should be included as an
objective or aim of the study.
Hypotheses
Hypotheses are predictions of possible outcomes of studies that assist researchers to think deeply about their proposed studies
and its implications (Fraenkel, Wallen & Hyun, 2012:83). Hypotheses assist researchers in more clearly demarcating the possible
variables of their studies, but Fraenkel, Wallen and Hyun (2012:83) warns, should researchers end up with more than one
hypothesis that they should probably reconsider exactly what they want to investigate. In terms of the philosophy of science, a
good hypothesis should emanate from prior evidence or theory and should lead to new ways of thinking that is both persuasive
and efficient (Fraenkel, Wallen & Hyun, 2012:83). These authors also suggest that whenever we want to investigate relationships
between variables, that we consider a hypothesis, rather than a research question. Hypotheses are also used to investigate causeand-effect (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2011:11). In addition, specifying whether one will use a directional or nondirectional
hypothesis is also important (Fraenkel, Wallen & Hyun, 2012:85-86). Although there are many criteria to assess a good
hypothesis, the following is probably the most important: a) hypotheses are statements about the relations between variables and
b) should clearly indicate the implications for testing the relations (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2011:12).
Aims and/or objectives of the study (Proposed length: 100 words)
Aims and objectives derive directly from research questions or hypotheses. The difference is that it is a more concrete
explanation of what is anticipated as outcome of the research. Cohen, Manion & Morrison (2011:107-108) state that aims and
objectives assist us in specifying the deliverables of the research as well as to demonstrate fitness of purpose. It more often (but
not always) prompt pragmatic results.
2014-06 – M&D Proposal format
FERA MEd&PhD Administration (E Conradie)
6
Faculty of Education Sciences
Faculty Research Administration
Reference nr: 9.4
Research design, methodology and methods (Proposed length: 2500 words)
In this section of the proposal, the elements below (italics) should be covered. Even a conceptual or philosophical study should
clearly indicate what philosophical methods will be used, the philosophical orientation that will frame the study, the
philosophers/theoreticians/works that will be consulted, and how sense will be made from these (in such study, more words will
be allocated to exploring the body of scholarship and less on discussing the research design).
Research design
A research design is a master plan for the research and consists of 5 key elements. These include: methodology,
philosophy/paradigm, sampling methods, methods of data collection/generation, and methods of data analysis (Punch, 2006). In
this section the student should give an overview of these 5 elements. Important to note is that the design should provide a
structure for the research, situate the researcher in the study, and ultimately connect the research questions with the data.
The research design could be articulated in a few short sentences, for example: “This critical ethnographic study will rely on
purposive sampling to select participants that ... (give reason). Data will be generated using shadowing and unstructured
interviews, and will be analysed using critical discourse analysis because ... (give reason).”
In this example, the methodology is stated as ethnography (a qualitative approach) and the philosophical orientation, critical
theory, is suggested by the critical ethnography and the critical discourse analysis. The methods of sampling, data generation and
analysis is stated and in line with ethnography as methodology.
Methodology
Methodology can be described as qualitative, quantitative or mixed research (empirical) or conceptual (nonempirical). Each of
these approaches has various methodologies to choose from. For example, in qualitative research, one can choose between
phenomenology, ethnography, action research, etc; whereas in quantitative studies one might consider a survey methodology or
an experimental one. In the case of mixed research, one can choose between a sequential or concurrent methodology. (Please
note that mixed research methodologies are very specialised. Just because one use methods from quantitative and qualitative
approaches does not mean it is mixed research. A mixed research design should be the result of the research question or
hypothesis. When we merely use methods from quantitative approaches and qualitative approaches it is classified as a
multimethod study.) The selection of a methodology should be in line with the overall research question and the descriptive and
theoretical perspectives explained in the problem statement to ensure conceptual consistency.
Philosophical orientation
Methodologies arise from different philosophical orientations. It is important that students discuss the orientation of their
methodology and indicate how it connects to the theoretical perspectives explained in the problem statement since this has a
significant influence on how the study is interpreted by others and on the nomenclature used by the students. This will ensure a
firm conceptual consistency in the study and demonstrate the student’s awareness of the broader orientation from which their
methodology and methods arise. The following texts are useful to consult (they address quantitative and mixed research
approaches as well):
i.
ii.
Lather, P. 2006. Paradigm proliferation as a good thing to think with: teaching research in education as a wild profusion.
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 19, no. 1: 35-57.
Le Grange, L. 2000. Is qualitative research a meaningful term for describing the cross-fertilisation of ideas which
characterises contemporary educational research? South African Journal of Education, 20(3): 192-195.
Sampling strategy
In this section selected site(s) in terms of its characteristics such as public or private institution, typical activities, processes,
participants, infrastructure, history, tradition, etc. should be described in order to illustrate its suitability for investigating the
phenomena at hand. Also describe the social network (people and/or groups to be encountered at the site/s) in such a way that it
2014-06 – M&D Proposal format
FERA MEd&PhD Administration (E Conradie)
7
Faculty of Education Sciences
Faculty Research Administration
Reference nr: 9.4
will become clear how they would be able to contribute meaningfully to the study. Name the specific methods to be used and
indicate the criteria that will be used to identify the sample and site. The research questions, aims and/or objectives should be
aligned with the criteria selected.
In the case of a quantitative study, the population and method of sampling must be clearly described. The sample must be
appropriate for attaining the stated aim/objective(s) of the research or for the investigation of the hypotheses. The size and
accessibility of the population, as well as of the sample must be clearly stated. Provide reasons for choosing the particular
sampling method. Here, the most important variables, where applicable, must be clearly mentioned, e.g. dependent and
independent variables.
When mixed research or multimethod methodologies are used, this section should be structured so that the quantitative and
qualitative methods are clearly distinguishable from each other.
Methods of data generation or collection
Describe the qualitative methods of data generation (collection) to be used during the data collection process e.g. participant
observation, in-depth interviews, document and artefact collection, field observations and supplementary methods such as
analysis of non-verbal communication, special surveys, focus groups, etc. Also state the expected length of field work and
explain how the data will be catalogued, stored and retrieved.
The quantitative measuring instruments (standardized/non-standardized) must be appropriate for data collection purposes
pertaining to the specified variables. In the case of standardized instruments, brief information must be given about the
background and development of the instrument, its contents and psychometric characteristics (validity and reliability). In the case
of non-standardized instruments, the development and contents must be briefly described, as well as the proposed validation
process (validity, reliability). Indicate the statistical techniques (ex. ANCOVA) that will be used and the reasons why this
technique and its results will be important for the study.
When mixed research or multimethod methodologies are used, this section should be structured so that the quantitative and
qualitative methods are clearly distinguishable from each other.
Include questions pertaining to validity, reliability, trustworthiness, triangulation and/ or crystallisation of the data here. The
researcher can also briefly state what role they will adopt in the research process.
Methods of data analysis
For quantitative studies, it should be indicated clearly whether descriptive and/or inferential statistics will be used to analyse the
data. If inferential statistics are to be used, the specific techniques that will be used (for example, t-tests, ANOVA, multiple
regression analysis, etc.) should clearly be indicated. It is not acceptable merely to mention that Statistical Consultation Services
will be consulted.
When qualitative studies are undertaken, describe the inductive data analysis process to be followed in terms of organizing,
coding and categorizing the data and strategies which will be used to facilitate pattern seeking. If an electronic QDA software
programme is going to be used, mention the name of the programme. Explain how provisions for trustworthiness will be made,
e.g. by means of crystallisation.
When mixed research or multimethod methodologies are used, this section should be structured so that the quantitative and
qualitative methods are clearly distinguishable from each other.
Ethical considerations
The ethical aspects to be considered must be explained, such as that and how permission will be obtained from the DoE, school,
parents, students/learners or other participants, how confidentiality and anonymity will be ensured, how participants will not be
harmed, their wellness be protected and that if possible and appropriate, feedback will be given to participants on the outcomes
2014-06 – M&D Proposal format
FERA MEd&PhD Administration (E Conradie)
8
Faculty of Education Sciences
Faculty Research Administration
Reference nr: 9.4
of the investigation. It is also important to indicate that participants will give informed consent to participate on a voluntary basis
and that they can withdraw at any time from the research. Remember to keep the requirements of the Ethics Committee in mind
when you complete this section of the proposal (see checklist of Ethics Committee).
Conceptual study
In the case of a conceptual study, indicate which philosophical methods will be used and what the units of analysis (documents,
books, philosophers, etc.) will be, instead of specifying the sample, methods of data generation and analysis. Burbules and
Warnick (2003) identified the following methods often used in studies concerning philosophy of education: analysing and
clarifying concepts; critiquing concepts in terms of ideology or deconstruction; exploring hidden assumptions underpinning
specific schools of thought; evaluating arguments through critique and/or sympathy; questioning certain practices or policy;
presenting normative accounts of how things ought to transpire; considering alternative proposals for particular challenges;
analysing imaginary situations through altering elements of situations to perceive how the situation responds; obtaining a
clarified idea of philosophical text or literature rather than criticising it; and assembling practical challenges with other
disciplines to seek solutions for predicaments.
Time-frame and tentative chapter/article division
Punch (2006:12) states that “[i]n the higher degree context, an approved proposal constitutes a bond of agreement between the
student and the advisers/supervisors, department or university”. Given this agreement, it is important that supervisors/promoters
and students agree on specific time-frames in which various tasks, activities and chapters (articles) needs to be completed. This
planning is of utmost importance, firstly, to ensure that your supervisors/promoters have enough time to work through your
submissions so as to give quality feedback, secondly, for you to remain focused and task-orientated, and thirdly, to complete your
dissertation/thesis in time to avoid penalties. It is useful to include your chapters (articles) and a tentative title to each chapter
(article) in such a time-frame. Below is an example of a time-frame of a full-time PhD student:
PhD Time Schedule 2006 - 2007
Task Name
submit research proposal
identify data sources and gain access
work on first chapter - introduction
in-depth literature study - non-empirical
send out questionnaires
collect questionnaires
prelimanary analyses of questionnaires
work on second chapter - dialogue theory
in-depth literature study on intervention design and development
work on third chapter - intervention D&D
methodology - literature study
write methodology - chapter four
conduct intervention & focus group interviews
hand out journals
collect journals
transcribe interviews, analysing journals & prelimanary analyses
work on final data analysis and synthesis - chapter five
write concluding chapter - chapter six
final editing
submit dissertation for examination
Start
30-Jan-06
17-Mar-06
29-Jun-06
17-Mar-06
21-Aug-06
21-Aug-06
01-Sep-06
01-Sep-06
01-Feb-07
01-Feb-07
01-Feb-07
01-Jul-07
01-Sep-07
01-Nov-07
2006
2007
Due Date Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
16-Jan-06
02-Mar-06
16-Mar-06
17-Jul-06
22-May-06
22-Jun-06
20-Jul-06
17-Jul-06
31-Dec-06
31-Dec-06
12-Oct-06
12-Oct-06
30-Apr-07
30-Apr-07
15-Jun-07
01-Jul-07
31-Aug-07
31-Oct-07
30-Nov-07
01-Dec-07
A time-frame can be attached as an addendum to the proposal in Word or Excel format).
Contribution of this study (50 [MEd} – 150 [PhD] words)
MEd: Indicate how this study relates to the research entity in which it resorts.
PhD: Indicate how this study contributes to the research entity’s knowledge generation process. In addition, a PhD candidate
should be able to state to what extent they consider their proposed study to contribute to the global knowledge society by
specifying its potential theoretical, methodological and contextual contributions.
(It might be useful for PhD students to read the following report, especially in terms of its conclusions and recommendations:
2014-06 – M&D Proposal format
FERA MEd&PhD Administration (E Conradie)
9
Faculty of Education Sciences
Faculty Research Administration
Reference nr: 9.4
Academy of Science for South Africa [ASSAf]. 2010. The PhD study: An evidence based study on how to meet the demands for
high level skills in an emerging economy, Consensus Report. Academy of Science for South Africa. Pretoria.)
List of references (do not include a bibliography)
References: all the works you have cited in the proposal
Bibliography: all the works you have read / consulted, but not cited explicitly in the proposal
It is advisable that the NWU’s style guide for referencing be used. In the event that another style is used, please ensure that it is
used consistently.
Guidelines for assessing research proposals
These guidelines can be used by students, critical readers and supervisors/promoters to ascertain whether they have covered the
basic elements required for a proposal. It will be used by the M&D committee when proposals are assessed on that level too.
A research proposal is assessed on two levels. Firstly, the general nature of the research topic is assessed based on the viability
and worthiness of the research. Whether the research is realistic is also assessed. Secondly, the technical aspects of the proposal
are assessed. The general practicability and correctness of the research design is assessed. The following questions guide the
assessment of research proposals.







Is the title concise and grammatically and stylistically correct?
Is the research problem and motivation clearly discussed and substantiated with relevant and recent literature and sound
theory?
Are the research questions / hypothesis and subsequent aims and objectives of the study relevant, workable and realistic? (In
the case of a PhD study, will the questions, hypothesis and aims/objectives enable a theoretical contribution?)
Are the research design, methodology and methods logically explained, conceptually consistent with the theory, realistic and
operationalisable?
Are references and citations used correctly?
Is the time frame realistic?
In the case of a PhD, is the potential contribution clearly indicated?
Tasked by the research committee of the Faculty, the M&D programme committee will also consider the following when
proposals are discussed:


Are you convinced that the supervisor/promoter that will guide the study has enough subject knowledge and methodological
background to guide the proposed study?
Do you have any recommendation in this regard?
In terms of language and style, we will expect supervisors/promoters to ensure that proposals do not consist of typing, spelling or
grammatical errors, especially those that can influence the meaning of aspects in the proposal.
We prefer that the supervisor, promoter and/or student attend the meeting where their proposal is discussed to clarify matters that
are unclear and to ensure that first hand feedback is provided.
The committee will not consider proposals that are longer than the proposed length as discussed in the opening section of this
document.
2014-06 – M&D Proposal format
FERA MEd&PhD Administration (E Conradie)
10
Faculty of Education Sciences
Faculty Research Administration
Reference nr: 9.4
2014-06 – M&D Proposal format
FERA MEd&PhD Administration (E Conradie)
11
Faculty of Education Sciences
Faculty Research Administration
Reference nr: 9.4
Literature on proposal writing consulted to develop this format:
Academy of Science for South Africa (ASSAf). 2010. The PhD study: An evidence based study on how to meet the demands for
high level skills in an emerging economy, Consensus Report. Academy of Science for South Africa. Pretoria.
Agee, J. 2009. Developing qualitative research questions: a reflective process. International Journal for Qualitative Studies in
Education, 22, no. 4:431-447.
Babbie, E. R. 2013. The practice of social research. Cengage learning. Wabsworth publisher, Belmont, Calif.
Bazeley, P. 2009. Editorial: Integrating data analyses in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(3), 203207.
Bergman, M. M. (Ed.). 2008. Advances in mixed methods research: Theories and applications. Sage, Los Angelis.
Bless, C., Higson-Smith, C. and Sithole, S. 2013. Fundamentals of social research methods: an African perspective. Cape Town:
Juta.
Boote, D.N. & Beile, P. 2005. Scholars Before Researchers: On the Centrality of the Dissertation Literature Review in Research
Preparation. Educational Researcher, 34(6):3-15.
Bryman, A. 2012. Social research methods. Oxford university press.
Bryman, A., & Cramer, D. 2004. Quantitative data analysis with SPSS 12 and 13: a guide for social scientists. Routledge, New
York.
Burbules, N. & Warnick, B. 2003. Introductory Chapter: Ten Methods in Philosophy of Education. Unpublished paper prepared
for The International Handbook of Methods in Philosophy of Education.
Carspecken, F. P. 2013. Critical ethnography in educational research: a theoretical and practical guide. Routledge.
Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. 2011. Research methods in Education [7th edition]. USA & Canada: Routledge.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. 2013. Research methods in education. Routledge.
Cokley, K., & Awad, G. H. 2013. In defense of quantitative methods: Using the “master’s tools” to promote social justice. Journal
for Social Action in Counseling and Psychology, 5(2), 26-41.
Collins, K. M.T. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Sutton, I. L. 2006. A model incorporating the rationale and purpose for conducting mixed
methods research in special education and beyond. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 4(1), 67-100.
Collins, K. M.T., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Sutton, I. L. 2006. A model incorporating the rationale and purpose for conducting
mixed methods research in special education and beyond. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 4(1), 67-100.
Connolly, P. (2007). Quantitative data analysis in education: A critical introduction using SPSS. Routledge.
Creswell, J. 2009. Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. London: Sage.
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. 2007. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
publications.
2014-06 – M&D Proposal format
FERA MEd&PhD Administration (E Conradie)
12
Faculty of Education Sciences
Faculty Research Administration
Reference nr: 9.4
Creswell, J.W. 2002. Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating
Dellinger, A. B., & Leech, N. L. 2007. Toward a unified validation framework in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed
Methods Research, 1(4), 309-332.
Denscombe, M. 2008. Communities of practice a research paradigm for the mixed methods approach. Journal of mixed methods
research, 2(3), 270-283.
Doyle, L., Brady, A. M., & Byrne, G. 2009. An overview of mixed methods research. Journal of Research in Nursing, 14(2), 175185.
Driscoll, D. L., Appiah-Yeboah, A., Salib, P., & Rupert, D. J. 2007. Merging qualitative and quantitative data in mixed methods
research: How to and why not. Ecological and Environmental Anthropology (University of Georgia), 18.
Flick, U. 2009. An introduction to qualitative research. 4th ed. London: SAGE Publications.
Fraenkel, J., Wallen, N. & Hyun, H. 2012. How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. USA: McGraw-Hill.
Giddings, L. S. 2006. Mixed-methods research Positivism dressed in drag?. Journal of research in nursing, 11(3), 195-203.
Goering, P. N., & Streiner, D. L. 2013. 19 Reconcilable Differences: The Marriage of Qualitative and Quantitative Methods. A
Guide for the Statistically Perplexed: Selected Readings for Clinical Researchers, 41, 225.
Hesse-Biber, S. N. 2010. Mixed methods research: Merging theory with practice. Guilford Press.
Jansen, J. 2007. The research question. In First steps in research, ed. K Maree, 2-13. Pretoria: Van Schaik.
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. 2004. Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational
researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
Krathwohl, D. R. 1993. Methods of educational and social science research: An integrated approach. Longman/Addison Wesley
Longman.
Kratochwill, T. R., Hitchcock, J. H., Horner, R. H., Levin, J. R., Odom, S. L., Rindskopf, D. M., & Shadish, W. R. 2013. Singlecase intervention research design standards. Remedial and Special Education, 34(1), 26-38.
Lather, P. 2006. Paradigm proliferation as a good thing to think with: teaching research in education as a wild profusion.
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 19, no. 1: 35-57.
Le Grange, L. 2000. Is qualitative research a meaningful term for describing the cross-fertilisation of ideas which characterises
contemporary educational research? South African Journal of Education, 20(3): 192-195.
Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. 2009. A typology of mixed methods research designs. Quality & Quantity, 43(2), 265-275.
Leshem S & Trafford V 2007. Overlooking the conceptual framework. Innovations in Education and Teaching International,
44(1):93-105
Little, T. D. (Ed.). (2014). The Oxford handbook of quantitative methods, Volume 1. Oxford University Press.
Maree, K. & Van der Westhuizen, C. 2007. Planning a research proposal. In First steps in research, ed. K Maree, 23-45. Pretoria:
Van Schaik.
2014-06 – M&D Proposal format
FERA MEd&PhD Administration (E Conradie)
13
Faculty of Education Sciences
Faculty Research Administration
Reference nr: 9.4
Marshall, C. & Rossman, G. 2006. Designing qualitative research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
McNabb, D. E. 2013. Research methods in public administration and nonprofit management: Quantitative and qualitative
approaches. ME Sharpe.
Morgan, B. M., Keitz, R. A., & Wells, L. 2013. Quantitative And Qualitative Results: Cooperative Learning Implementation With
Hispanic Community College Freshmen. Journal of International Education Research, 9(4).
Muijs, D. 2010. Doing quantitative research in education with SPSS. Sage.
Neuman, W. L. 2005. Social research methods: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. Allyn and Bacon.
O’Donoghue, T. 2007. Planning your qualitative research project: an introduction to interpretivist research in education.
London: Routledge.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. 2006. Linking research questions to mixed methods data analysis procedures. The Qualitative
Report, 11(3), 474-498.
Patton, M.Q. 2002. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Patton, M.Q. 2002. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Paulsen, M. B., & Smart, J. C. (Eds.). 2013. Higher education: Handbook of theory and research. Springer.
Punch, K.F. 2006. Developing Effective Research Proposals. Sage: Los Angeles & London.
quantitative and qualitative research. Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Sale, J. E., Lohfeld, L. H., & Brazil, K. 2002. Revisiting the quantitative-qualitative debate: Implications for mixed-methods
research. Quality and quantity, 36(1), 43-53.
Sandelowski, M. 2000. Focus on research methods combining qalitative and quantitative sampling, data collection, and analysis
techniques. Research in nursing & health, 23, 246-255.
Simmonds, S. & Du Preez, P. (forthcoming). The centrality of the research question for idealising the global knowledge society
through PhD studies. Journal article.
Tashakkori, A., & Creswell, J. W. 2007. Editorial: The new era of mixed methods. Journal of mixed methods research, 1(1), 3-7.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). 2003. Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. Sage.
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (Eds.). 2009. Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative
approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Sage Publications Inc.
Venkatesh, V., Brown, S. A., & Bala, H. 2013. Bridging the qualitative-quantitative divide: guidelines for conducting mixed
methods research in information systems. MIS quarterly, 37(1).
Yanow, D., & Schwartz-Shea, P. (Eds.). 2013. Interpretation and method: Empirical research methods and the interpretive turn.
ME Sharpe.
2014-06 – M&D Proposal format
FERA MEd&PhD Administration (E Conradie)
14
Faculty of Education Sciences
Faculty Research Administration
Reference nr: 9.4
Zvoch, K. 2014. Modern quantitative methods for evaluation science recommendations for essential methodological texts.
American journal of evaluation, 1098214013514128.
2014-06 – M&D Proposal format
FERA MEd&PhD Administration (E Conradie)
15