Episode 11 : Research Methodology

SAJJAD KHUDHUR ABBAS
Chemical Engineering , Al-Muthanna University, Iraq
Oil & Gas Safety and Health Professional – OSHACADEMY
Trainer of Trainers (TOT) - Canadian Center of Human
Development
Episode 11 : Research
Methodology

Research Methodology
Writing a Research Proposal

Before start writing!
The are few things that you have to think about

Select
Write down any bright idea that flashes into
your mind, as your topic

Water quality management by remote sensing
colour variations
• Not too short or too long
• Reflect the scope of the project
• Avoid using
staring with “The”
words “study”, “investigation”, “research”
trade names and brand names
terms specific to a certain community
• Try to avoid
abbreviations
chemical structures
vague words
* Make 100% sure that it is free of grammatical and typographic errors

Gantt Chart and Milestones will be an easy-to-understand way of
representing your research plan

Writing the Proposal
proposal outline consists of the following:
1. Title Page
2. Abstract
3. Table of Contents with List of Tables and/or Illustrations
4. Project Description
a. Introduction
b. Problem Statement
c. Objectives
d. Methodology
e. Personnel
f. Facilities
g. Evaluation Plan
h. Budget
i. List of References
j. Bibliography
k. Appendices

Title Page
Generally the title page should identify:
• The proposed project’s title, which should be simple and brief;
• Name and address of the submitting organization
• date of the proposal submission
• Desired starting date for the project
• Duration duration of the project, which should be consistent with
the project’s nature and complexity
• Signature, name, title, and academic department of the principal
investigator
• Signature, name, and title of the official authorizing submission on
behalf of the submitting organization
• Total amount of the project (Budget finale)

ABSTRACT
• Following the title page is the abstract or summary which should synthesize
the body of the proposal.
• A reviewer who must read a large number of proposals obtains initial
information by reading the abstract, thereby making the abstract a significant
aspect of the review process.
• While limiting the number of words the proposal writer should clearly and
concisely state
the nature of the problem to be researched,
the measurable objectives,
the procedures for implementation of the project,
the anticipated results, their significance, and their beneficiaries.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
• The table of contents should immediately follow but not include the abstract page.
• It should locate each section and major subdivision of the proposal.
• In most circumstances the table of contents should remain simple; no division beyond the
first subheading is needed.
• If several illustrations or tables appear in the body of the proposal, they, too, should appear
in the list of tables/illustrations which is incorporated into or follows the table of contents

Introduction
• Setting forth the major focus of the proposal, the introduction to
the project description should tell the reviewer what the principal
investigator wants to do and should demonstrate the relationship
of the proposed project to the interests of the potential funding
source.
• It is this section which presents the proposal’s background
information and demonstrates to the reviewer the basis from
which the principal investigator plans to begin his/her project.

Contents of Introduction
• How does this proposal relate to previous projects?
•
• Appropriate references to prior research in the field, including that of
the principal investigator, should be summarized in the introduction,
thereby conveying to the reviewer the investigator’s knowledge of
the field.
• The introductory review of literature should be selective, not
overwhelming.
• If the principal investigator has received previous awards pertaining
to the project, it is in the introduction that he/she should mention
them and should delineate the progress made, discussing briefly the
particular publications resulting from the awards.
• Here, too, he/she can describe how previous research or
preliminary projects have suggested the need for further study of the
problem

Continued..
• The introduction should remain succinct, essentially establishing
the credibility of the principal investigator and his/her project team.
• It should, in short, supply the proper framework for the rest of the
proposal and should lead smoothly into a description of the
proposed project which has as its first component an analysis of
the problem to be studied

Problem Statement
• Why do funding sources contribute money?
• Primarily a funding source wants to purchase better conditions, or, in the
case of research studies, to improve the state of the art.
• In the proposal’s problem statement section, therefore, the principal
investigator should present a detailed analysis of the problem which he/she
intends to explore, a
• statement of the work to be undertaken, and, more explicitly, documentation
of the need for that work.
•
• Throughout the analysis, one question should prevail: Can the principal
investigator’s research, demonstration, or training improve what now “is”?
• In sum, the principal investigator must document a need, demonstrate
sufficiently that this particular project meets that need, and convince the
reader that what is proposed is worthy of financing.

• For additional corroboration of the need, the principal investigator
should provide appropriate statistical data
• If tables, charts, graphs, or line drawings are essential, they should
appear in an appendix and only be referred to in the narrative itself.
• Presumably the proposed project will build upon past work,
complementing and extending what has already occurred.
• A few previous studies might be discussed in detail so that a
reviewer easily comprehends the relevance of the new work to the
old.
• Moreover, the principal investigator should point out the proposed
project’s new ideas and contributions to new theories. While
indicating their uniqueness, he/she should adequately substantiate
their significance

Objectives
• As expected results, objectives should be specific and achievable.
• In this section the principal investigator should state who (among his/her
staff) will do what and how much (in numerical terms) at what cost for whom
(population to benefit if pertinent) in what time frame.
• In research proposals, particularly in surveys or in exploratory research,
objectives might be phrased as questions to be answered, or, if there is a
basis for predicting, they might take the form of hypotheses.
• However phrased, they should be so explicit and readily identifiable that
they are measurable.
• The presentation of these objectives might take a form as simple as a list,
with each objective consisting of just a few sentences to include only
enough technical detail
necessary for explanation of what will be done.
•

• Arrangement of the list might be in chronological
order as to when objectives would be fulfilled or
it might be in order of importance as to those
objectives offering a solution to the defined
problem.
• The objectives should be consistent with the
ability of available personnel as well as facilities
and should be reflected in the methodology,
evaluation, and budget sections to follow.

Methodology
• In the methodology section, it is time to tell both how and
when the anticipated objectives will be accomplished.
• A thoroughly detailed plan of attack including, if possible, a
demonstration of its uniqueness, will enable a reviewer to
evaluate more accurately the principal investigator’s
capabilities.
• Initially this proposal should summarize the theoretical
case for the selected methodology and present a
synopsis of the overall design.
• Next should come a point by point description of specific
activities leading to the solution of the problem.

• Using graphs, charts, figures, or tables wherever necessary for clarification,
the proposal should present in logical and chronological sequence a
reasonable scope of activities to be accomplished within a certain time
frame.
• The methodology may be set upon in a variety of ways, including by
functional categories such as planning, development, and implementation; or
by time blocks.
• Whatever the preferred procedure, the interrelationship of the activities
should be discussed and deadline dates for the completion of each should be
designated. The proposer should assure that the work proposed can be
done within the time proposed

• The proposer should separate each procedural phase into a distinct and manageable
• activity and, in so doing, should incorporate a summary statement of the expected
• objective that each phase will produce. Objectives and procedures should be
• consistent; the proposal should include neither objectives for which there are no
• procedures, nor procedures unrelated to particular objectives.
•
• Within the detailed statement of methodology, there should appear a discussion of the
• logistics involved, of techniques, planning tools, data gathering, and data analysis. This
• section should be naturally adapted to the purpose of the study. If, for example, the
• project encompasses the planning of a seminar, the proposer should list, among other
• details, methods of organizing, conducting, and disseminating results from the seminar.
• If the project is collaborative, the proposer should list the names and addresses of
• collaborators and should refer to appended letters of support from collaborating
• individuals or agencies. If the project is to serve participants, the basis for their
• selection as well as for the securing of their cooperation should be described. If the
• project is a case study of a particular population, the proposal should contain a
• description of the population, information on sampling procedures, on site selection, on
• the obtaining of the participants’ consent to participate, on protection precautions, on
• possible risks and potential benefits to participants, and on provisions for withdrawal of
• participants. If the proposal is for experimental research, the principal investigator
• should pose hypotheses to investigate or questions to be asked and design wellcontrolled experiments for obtaining
the data which will answer these questions. There
• should be a discussion of control of variables and a confirmation of the validity of
• instruments to be used. A discussion of expected results should accompany each
• described step of the experiment.

• Often experiments do not work. The choice of methodology should, therefore, be
• justified perhaps by other projects which, through their use of similar methods, suggest
• that the selected methodology is appropriate. In addition, well-known standard techniques
should be referred to. If the methodology contains intrinsic limitations, the
• principal investigator should alert reviewers to his/her cognizance of them and should
• provide, where necessary, alternative possibilities. A plan should be included for review
• by the staff as the project proceeds so that necessary modifications can be made in the
• remaining part of the experiment.
•
• Regardless of the type of study, the proposer should, in this section, justify the funds
• needed for various items such as the use of consultants, supplies, equipment, or travel,
• so that the budget, rather than appearing as a surprise, logically mirrors these
• methodological needs.
• The final part of the methodology section should recapitulate the anticipated results,
• their contribution to the state of the art, their potential impact and application. Plans for
• dissemination of these results should be included. Most commonly an agency requires
• a final report denoting a project’s results. Publication is the ordinary vehicle for
• disseminating results. There may be, however, some unusual ways of dissemination
• (such as through films, videotapes, websites, workshops, and conferences), ways which
• should be fully delineated in this section.

• Stating the expected results does not signify that one is able to
predict the findings
• exactly. Nevertheless, by stating a probable result, the principal
investigator signals the
• reviewer that he/she has thought through his/her problem and is
maintaining control
• over the testing of hypotheses. Measuring of these results should
be described in a
• subsequent or Evaluation Plan section

Personnel
In discussing how and when objectives will be accomplished, it is important to denote
clearly the responsibilities of the various personnel involved in the proposed
project.
The Personnel section should describe all professional staff, state how much time
each of the staff will spend on the project, and what the specific role of each will
be.
In describing personnel, the proposer should carefully point out the competence and
experience of each related to his/her project assignment.
The proposal should include resumes for key personnel, emphasizing background and
relevant current publications which substantiate personnel ability to conduct the
particular project.
Those papers which are in preparation, submitted, or in press, and which pertain to
the project should
also be listed. Preprints may be included in an appendix.
It may, in fact, be necessary to prepare resumes suitable for the specific project.
Although resumes need not be included for support staff who play minor roles, it is
essential to explain their tasks and to justify their appointments.

• If the project involves collaboration with other organizations or individuals, it would be
• beneficial to present evidence of past successful cooperation and to list, if possible,
• collaborative publications. If the proposed work requires the use of consultants, their
• potential contribution to the project’s success should be elucidated and their willingness
• to participate should be documented. No person should be listed without his/her permission. It
would be extremely unwise to attempt to strengthen a proposal by
• inserting the name of a well-known expert, unbeknownst to him/her, as a consultant
• only to find that the latter is a reviewer.
•
• Provided that their consent is obtained, consultants might be used advantageously,
• especially for their technical competence. In some cases a new investigator might
• improve his/her chances by working with an inveterate researcher, but, balance should
• be maintained; too many consultants could portend an incompetent staff.
• The Personnel section, detailing key project positions, support positions, collaborative
• efforts, and use of consultants, should recount to the funding agency those who will be
• responsible for the project and its various activities. Furthermore, this section should
• partially form the requisite justification for budget requests

Facilities
• The proposer should prepare a section on facilities available for the
project.
• A list of adequate facilities confirms the capabilities of the proposing
institution’s strength in the intended field of study.
• The description of facilities should include that of any special
equipment or unusual asset in the institution’s physical plant which
might enhance the project’s success.
• Indicating their accessibility, the proposal should describe such
items as specialized computers, pertinent library collections,
laboratories, space, and unusual services.
• substantial explanation as to its attributes and appropriateness.

• Mention should be made of and justification provided for additional items needed to
complete the work, but, to state that a proposing institution is lacking enough to need
excessive equipment would be to suggest weakness leading to a proposal’s poor evaluation.
• On the other hand, an institution’s willingness to commit equipment and space to a project’s
use could only serve to heighten the proposal’s chance for award.
• During the course of the project, if it is necessary at times to use another organization’s
facilities or equipment, the proposal must document their availability to the project.
• The choice of a project site which is not home based would require

Evaluation Plan
• If objectives of the proposed project have been, as should be, specific, concrete, and measurable, they
are then the precursors of an effective evaluation section.
• The final stage of the proposal’s project description should contain some indication of how the project
will be evaluated.
• This evaluation determines whether or not the project’s objectives have been met and to what degree.
• The four basic types of proposal evaluation design are summative, formative, impact, and context.
• The principal investigator should discuss his/her choice of design, should provide the rationale for its
selection, and should demonstrate an awareness of any pitfalls which he/she may encounter.
•
• A summative evaluation is probably the one most commonly used by those submitting to funding
agencies for support; it is this type of design which is directed toward those interested in results.

• Conducted at the conclusion of a project, the summative evaluation measures the outcomes
of a project and tells the funding source whether or not a project has been successful.
• This type of evaluation tends to justify past activities.
• Because generally the project is, at the time of evaluation, complete, its procedures cannot
usually be corrected; the project staff is, therefore, not the primary beneficiary.
• The funding source as the beneficiary should be given annual or final reports (depending
upon requirements) to measure results. As evidence of
• earnestness, the principal investigator might place in the proposal a brief preliminary
• outline of the contents of intended reports.

• Unlike summative evaluation, formative evaluation is not directed
simply toward measuring results; it is an information instrument to
be used during a project to indicate the necessity for adjustments in
the project as it progresses.
• Particularly helpful to the project staff, formative evaluation tells
them about the soundness of their materials and the efficacy of their
procedures, and can signal the need for changes in order to effect
the stated objectives.
• The proposer should indicate exactly how and when the staff will be
apprised of evaluation discoveries, be it in an oral presentation or in
a written briefing.
• Impact evaluation judges rather than measures a project’s effects.
• Occurring either during the course of a project or at its end, this type
of evaluation could benefit both staff and funding source.
• Essentially, impact evaluation determines the value of a project’s
results.

• Context evaluation is a fourth type which
analyzes those variables in a project’s
background bearing upon the project’s conduct
or results.
• This type may be valuable during both the
procedural phase of a project and in determining
the worth of its results but is probably of greater
interest to the project staff than to the funding
source.
• In both impact and context evaluations as with
summative and formative evaluations, the
principal investigator should identify his/her
users and describe the method of disseminating
the evaluation information to them.

Thanks for Watching
Please follow me / SAJJAD KHUDHUR
ABBAS

Episode 11 : Research Methodology

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to Episode 11 : Research Methodology

More from SAJJAD KHUDHUR ABBAS

Recently uploaded

Episode 11 : Research Methodology