MEDD8001 Chap.11 Writing the Research Proposal and Research Ethics
Writing the Research Proposal and Research Ethics
What the published task asks for
The research proposal carries half the marks for this course, and the task description is unusually specific.
It asks for a proposal on a specific topic of 2,000 to 2,500 words, with sections covering appropriate research questions, rationale and context for the study, engagement with compelling educational issues in the field, a brief literature review, a proposed theoretical framework, a proposed methodological approach and its justification, methods of data collection and analysis, and references.
Draft data collection instruments such as an interview protocol or a questionnaire may be included as supplementary material in an appendix, and the word count excludes references and appendices, which means a drafted instrument costs nothing against the limit while evidencing the methodology.
The five published criteria, read as instructions
The first criterion asks you to show deep understanding of the topic you propose, of why it matters, and of how it sits against the theory, the research and the practice around it; to engage with a compelling issue in the field; and to set out a research question or problem clearly, with command of the terms it uses.
The second asks you to discuss relevant and up-to-date literature in relation to the research aims and to provide a sound theoretical framework.
The third asks for depth of analysis in relation to other research, for the choice of methodology including data collection and analysis to be contextualised and justified against the stated aims, and for potential limitations to be acknowledged.
The fourth asks that the structure be appropriate to the nature of the research and that clarity and coherence be supported through headings and summaries.
The fifth asks for clarity, consistency and appropriateness in quoting, paraphrasing, attributing sources and listing references, in presenting tables and diagrams, and in sentence structure, vocabulary, spelling, punctuation and length.
What the appendix publishes and what it does not
The appendix prints those five criteria with their specific expectations, and a band key running Excellent, Good, Satisfactory, Marginal and Unsatisfactory.
It does not print a description of what each band looks like for each criterion. There is therefore no published statement of what separates one band from the next, and any guide claiming otherwise has invented it.
The fourth and fifth criteria are also more substantive than they look: a qualitative study whose structure was borrowed from a survey proposal is not appropriate to the nature of the research however neat it is, and attribution appears inside the marking criteria rather than only in the regulations.
The questions the lecture supplies
Rather than a template, the final lecture gives questions for each part, which are more useful because they can be failed.
For context it asks which problem you are concerned with, what the field already knows, what is still missing and why the problem exists at all. For significance it asks why investigating it matters, what the work is worth in theory and in practice, which outcomes you expect and why those matter, who stands to gain and in what way, and whether the study could stretch a model that already exists.
For the review: how previous research links to what you want to do, what the major issues and gaps are, which questions the literature informs, and what debates are current.
A research question itself should be short, plainly put, hard but arguable, open at the end, answerable by you with the resources you have, and never settled by a yes or a no.
Ethics as design constraints
Six requirements are set out, and each one closes off design options. Taking part must be voluntary, nobody may be penalised for declining, and consent can be taken back.
Informed consent wherever people are studied, in words they can follow and that respect them, covering what the research is, how it will run including how data is gathered and kept, what the risks and benefits might be, the freedom to pull out, and whom to contact, recorded, and for some groups given by a legal representative.
Extra care where the information is sensitive, which the lecture lists as health, racial or ethnic background, sexuality, and political, philosophical or religious conviction.
Confidentiality kept by coding people so they cannot be identified or by giving them invented names, and by encrypting video together with any file that would link it back. Risk held to a minimum, with added safeguards where a group is vulnerable.
And duties owed to other researchers: keep bias out, choose methods that fit, and report what you found accurately.
Misconduct is defined precisely: fabrication means inventing data or findings and then recording them, falsification covers tampering with materials or leaving a result out so that the record is not a true picture of the work, and plagiarism means taking somebody else's ideas, methods, findings or wording without proper credit.
What this chapter covers
- 01
The published task: length, sections and what goes in the appendix
- 02
Five criteria and the expectations under each
- 03
What the band key publishes, and what it does not
- 04
Structure as a substantive requirement, not presentation
- 05
Questions for the context and significance sections
- 06
Questions the literature review has to answer
- 07
What makes a research question answerable
- 08
Time, seminal work, methodology detail and a schedule
- 09
Six ethics requirements as constraints on the design
- 10
Fabrication, falsification and plagiarism, defined
- 11
Direct and indirect citation
One weak opening, rewritten against the published criteria
- 3Name the three things the draft fails to do.
- 3Write a phenomenon sentence with a source of the problem in it.
- 3Write the gap sentence and the question sentence.
Key terms
- Research Problem
- A statement of what is not currently known and why that matters, which the first published criterion asks to be clearly delineated with an understanding of its terms.
- Theoretical Framework
- The set of concepts and relationships a study borrows or builds to interpret its data, which the second criterion asks for alongside the literature review.
- Informed Consent
- Agreement to take part, given after being told what the research is, how it will run including how data is kept, what might be gained or risked, the freedom to pull out and whom to contact, recorded, and sought from a legal representative where that applies.
- Confidentiality
- The requirement that information about participants is not shared for purposes other than research and that individuals and institutions remain anonymous through non-identifiable codes or fictional names.
- Falsification
- Tampering with the materials, the equipment or the procedure, or altering or dropping a result, so that what ends up on the record is not a true picture of the work.
- Indirect Citation
- Attribution owed whenever a source has been altered rather than reproduced, so paraphrase, a redrawn chart, or a fact that is not common knowledge.
- Minimal Risk
- The standard requiring a study to do no harm, which the lecture spells out as discomfort, worry, harassment, procedures that demean a person, and intrusion into private life, with added safeguards where a group is vulnerable.
Writing the Research Proposal and Research Ethics FAQ
How long should the research proposal be and what is excluded from the count?
Between 2,000 and 2,500 words, and the count excludes references and appendices. The published task description lists what the sections should cover: research questions, rationale and context, engagement with compelling educational issues, a brief literature review, a theoretical framework, a justified methodological approach, methods of data collection and analysis, and references.
Draft instruments such as an interview protocol or questionnaire may go in an appendix, which is worth doing because it shows the methodology section is real without costing you words.
What separates a Good proposal from a Satisfactory one?
Nothing published says. The outline appendix prints five criteria with their specific expectations and a band key running Excellent, Good, Satisfactory, Marginal and Unsatisfactory, but it does not print descriptors for the bands. So the honest answer is that the expectations under each criterion are the only published guidance, and detail beyond that has to come from your specialism teacher rather than from any guide.
When should I think about research ethics?
While you are still choosing your recruitment route and your instrument, because several requirements remove design options rather than describe them. A study of a sensitive topic cannot recruit through someone with power over the participants. A study promising anonymity cannot report by class where a class has four students. A study offering an effective intervention to a control group afterwards has a longer timetable.
Writing the ethics paragraph after the design is settled means discovering these constraints when fixing them is most expensive.
Assessment move
Print the five criteria on one page and read your draft once per criterion, marking the sentence that satisfies each expectation underneath it. Expectations with no sentence beside them are where your marks are going. The two that are most often empty are the acknowledged-limitations expectation and the justification expectation, and both are repairable in a paragraph on the day if you find them.
Working through Writing the Research Proposal and Research Ethics in MEDD8001? Sia is AskSia’s AI Education tutor — ask any MEDD8001 Writing the Research Proposal and Research Ethics question and get a clear, step-by-step explanation grounded in how MEDD8001 is taught and assessed. Read this chapter free, then take your hardest questions to Sia.
