The research proposals lacked clarity and specificity. Titles were too broad and methodologies did not address the research topics. Introductions needed to summarize why the topic was chosen and what would be done. Aims were vague and objectives were mostly missing. Methodologies were often not specific to the research topics and left out important details like locations, participants, data collection methods, and data analysis. Ethical issues were not addressed specifically enough. Timescales and bibliographies needed improvement. Students scoring below 61% were advised to meet with the instructor to strengthen their proposals.

1. Assignment Feedback
Research Proposal
December 2013

2. The Proposal
The research proposal is a blueprint - a guide that tells the reader WHAT you are going to
research and HOW.
Test
If you gave your proposal to a stranger would he
or she be able to complete your research project
for you.

3. General Comments
With a few exceptions the proposals:
• Lacked Clarity
• Were not specific enough
So after reading them I was unclear about what
you were planning to do.

4. Title
1. The title is your research topic. These were
often too broad, so the task of doing the
research was too big.
2. The chosen methodology was invalid because
it did not address the topic
Example
Title: what issues face a particular group
Methodology: constructivist - interviews

5. Introduction
There were two types of introduction:
• Some were only two sentences long
• Some were passionate and lengthy
Aim:
To sum up in one paragraph why you have
chosen this topic and to state briefly what you
will be doing.

6. Aims & Objectives
Lack of clarity here. Aims were very vague often repeating what was said in the
introduction. Objectives were mostly missing.
Aims: what you intend to show from your
research
Objectives: How you intend to do it

7. Literature Review
On the whole these were pretty good. Mostly
they gave a detailed account of the literature
search strategy

8. Methodology
On the whole these were pretty good, they
showed an understanding of the terminology
and the need for a consistent and appropriate
methodology …

9. But …

10. Methodology II
This section was too often not specifically about
your research … I was left wondering:
How is this addressing the research topic?
Where is it going to take place?
Who are the participants?
How many participants will there be?
How will data be collected?
What will that data be analysed?

11. Ethics
Sometimes reference was made to the BACP
Code of Ethics and to ethics in general but …
Because students were vague about their
research they struggled to be specific about the
ethical issues they might encounter and how to
address them.

12. Access Issues
Where are you doing the research?
Have you asked for permission?
Have you been given permission?
How are you recruiting your participants?

13. Timescales
Again some attempt to provide a calendar of
events but often not useful or related to the
actual project.

14. Bibliography
Only a short bibliography is needed BUT all references
need to be accurate according to the Harvard Referencing
System.
Please check out the programme’s Academic Support
pages on Moodle for help or contact John Marsden via
email for a tutorial.
http://moodle2.blackburn.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=134
6

15. So what Now?
If you scored 61% and above then please get on
with your research.
If you scored 60% or below please book a tutorial
with John Marsden.
Have a look at the feedback and resources handed
out and let us try and develop your proposal.
The chances are that a confused proposal will turn
into a confused project.