documentation research proposal

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

11.2 Steps in Developing a Research Proposal

Learning objectives.

• Identify the steps in developing a research proposal.
• Choose a topic and formulate a research question and working thesis.
• Develop a research proposal.

Writing a good research paper takes time, thought, and effort. Although this assignment is challenging, it is manageable. Focusing on one step at a time will help you develop a thoughtful, informative, well-supported research paper.

Your first step is to choose a topic and then to develop research questions, a working thesis, and a written research proposal. Set aside adequate time for this part of the process. Fully exploring ideas will help you build a solid foundation for your paper.

Choosing a Topic

When you choose a topic for a research paper, you are making a major commitment. Your choice will help determine whether you enjoy the lengthy process of research and writing—and whether your final paper fulfills the assignment requirements. If you choose your topic hastily, you may later find it difficult to work with your topic. By taking your time and choosing carefully, you can ensure that this assignment is not only challenging but also rewarding.

Writers understand the importance of choosing a topic that fulfills the assignment requirements and fits the assignment’s purpose and audience. (For more information about purpose and audience, see Chapter 6 “Writing Paragraphs: Separating Ideas and Shaping Content” .) Choosing a topic that interests you is also crucial. You instructor may provide a list of suggested topics or ask that you develop a topic on your own. In either case, try to identify topics that genuinely interest you.

After identifying potential topic ideas, you will need to evaluate your ideas and choose one topic to pursue. Will you be able to find enough information about the topic? Can you develop a paper about this topic that presents and supports your original ideas? Is the topic too broad or too narrow for the scope of the assignment? If so, can you modify it so it is more manageable? You will ask these questions during this preliminary phase of the research process.

Identifying Potential Topics

Sometimes, your instructor may provide a list of suggested topics. If so, you may benefit from identifying several possibilities before committing to one idea. It is important to know how to narrow down your ideas into a concise, manageable thesis. You may also use the list as a starting point to help you identify additional, related topics. Discussing your ideas with your instructor will help ensure that you choose a manageable topic that fits the requirements of the assignment.

In this chapter, you will follow a writer named Jorge, who is studying health care administration, as he prepares a research paper. You will also plan, research, and draft your own research paper.

Jorge was assigned to write a research paper on health and the media for an introductory course in health care. Although a general topic was selected for the students, Jorge had to decide which specific issues interested him. He brainstormed a list of possibilities.

If you are writing a research paper for a specialized course, look back through your notes and course activities. Identify reading assignments and class discussions that especially engaged you. Doing so can help you identify topics to pursue.

• Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) in the news
• Sexual education programs
• Hollywood and eating disorders
• Americans’ access to public health information
• Media portrayal of health care reform bill
• Depictions of drugs on television
• The effect of the Internet on mental health
• Popularized diets (such as low-carbohydrate diets)
• Fear of pandemics (bird flu, HINI, SARS)
• Electronic entertainment and obesity
• Advertisements for prescription drugs
• Public education and disease prevention

Set a timer for five minutes. Use brainstorming or idea mapping to create a list of topics you would be interested in researching for a paper about the influence of the Internet on social networking. Do you closely follow the media coverage of a particular website, such as Twitter? Would you like to learn more about a certain industry, such as online dating? Which social networking sites do you and your friends use? List as many ideas related to this topic as you can.

Narrowing Your Topic

Once you have a list of potential topics, you will need to choose one as the focus of your essay. You will also need to narrow your topic. Most writers find that the topics they listed during brainstorming or idea mapping are broad—too broad for the scope of the assignment. Working with an overly broad topic, such as sexual education programs or popularized diets, can be frustrating and overwhelming. Each topic has so many facets that it would be impossible to cover them all in a college research paper. However, more specific choices, such as the pros and cons of sexual education in kids’ television programs or the physical effects of the South Beach diet, are specific enough to write about without being too narrow to sustain an entire research paper.

A good research paper provides focused, in-depth information and analysis. If your topic is too broad, you will find it difficult to do more than skim the surface when you research it and write about it. Narrowing your focus is essential to making your topic manageable. To narrow your focus, explore your topic in writing, conduct preliminary research, and discuss both the topic and the research with others.

Exploring Your Topic in Writing

“How am I supposed to narrow my topic when I haven’t even begun researching yet?” In fact, you may already know more than you realize. Review your list and identify your top two or three topics. Set aside some time to explore each one through freewriting. (For more information about freewriting, see Chapter 8 “The Writing Process: How Do I Begin?” .) Simply taking the time to focus on your topic may yield fresh angles.

Jorge knew that he was especially interested in the topic of diet fads, but he also knew that it was much too broad for his assignment. He used freewriting to explore his thoughts so he could narrow his topic. Read Jorge’s ideas.

Conducting Preliminary Research

Another way writers may focus a topic is to conduct preliminary research . Like freewriting, exploratory reading can help you identify interesting angles. Surfing the web and browsing through newspaper and magazine articles are good ways to start. Find out what people are saying about your topic on blogs and online discussion groups. Discussing your topic with others can also inspire you. Talk about your ideas with your classmates, your friends, or your instructor.

Jorge’s freewriting exercise helped him realize that the assigned topic of health and the media intersected with a few of his interests—diet, nutrition, and obesity. Preliminary online research and discussions with his classmates strengthened his impression that many people are confused or misled by media coverage of these subjects.

Jorge decided to focus his paper on a topic that had garnered a great deal of media attention—low-carbohydrate diets. He wanted to find out whether low-carbohydrate diets were as effective as their proponents claimed.

Writing at Work

At work, you may need to research a topic quickly to find general information. This information can be useful in understanding trends in a given industry or generating competition. For example, a company may research a competitor’s prices and use the information when pricing their own product. You may find it useful to skim a variety of reliable sources and take notes on your findings.

The reliability of online sources varies greatly. In this exploratory phase of your research, you do not need to evaluate sources as closely as you will later. However, use common sense as you refine your paper topic. If you read a fascinating blog comment that gives you a new idea for your paper, be sure to check out other, more reliable sources as well to make sure the idea is worth pursuing.

Review the list of topics you created in Note 11.18 “Exercise 1” and identify two or three topics you would like to explore further. For each of these topics, spend five to ten minutes writing about the topic without stopping. Then review your writing to identify possible areas of focus.

Set aside time to conduct preliminary research about your potential topics. Then choose a topic to pursue for your research paper.

Collaboration

Please share your topic list with a classmate. Select one or two topics on his or her list that you would like to learn more about and return it to him or her. Discuss why you found the topics interesting, and learn which of your topics your classmate selected and why.

A Plan for Research

Your freewriting and preliminary research have helped you choose a focused, manageable topic for your research paper. To work with your topic successfully, you will need to determine what exactly you want to learn about it—and later, what you want to say about it. Before you begin conducting in-depth research, you will further define your focus by developing a research question , a working thesis, and a research proposal.

Formulating a Research Question

In forming a research question, you are setting a goal for your research. Your main research question should be substantial enough to form the guiding principle of your paper—but focused enough to guide your research. A strong research question requires you not only to find information but also to put together different pieces of information, interpret and analyze them, and figure out what you think. As you consider potential research questions, ask yourself whether they would be too hard or too easy to answer.

To determine your research question, review the freewriting you completed earlier. Skim through books, articles, and websites and list the questions you have. (You may wish to use the 5WH strategy to help you formulate questions. See Chapter 8 “The Writing Process: How Do I Begin?” for more information about 5WH questions.) Include simple, factual questions and more complex questions that would require analysis and interpretation. Determine your main question—the primary focus of your paper—and several subquestions that you will need to research to answer your main question.

Here are the research questions Jorge will use to focus his research. Notice that his main research question has no obvious, straightforward answer. Jorge will need to research his subquestions, which address narrower topics, to answer his main question.

Using the topic you selected in Note 11.24 “Exercise 2” , write your main research question and at least four to five subquestions. Check that your main research question is appropriately complex for your assignment.

Constructing a Working ThesIs

A working thesis concisely states a writer’s initial answer to the main research question. It does not merely state a fact or present a subjective opinion. Instead, it expresses a debatable idea or claim that you hope to prove through additional research. Your working thesis is called a working thesis for a reason—it is subject to change. As you learn more about your topic, you may change your thinking in light of your research findings. Let your working thesis serve as a guide to your research, but do not be afraid to modify it based on what you learn.

Jorge began his research with a strong point of view based on his preliminary writing and research. Read his working thesis statement, which presents the point he will argue. Notice how it states Jorge’s tentative answer to his research question.

One way to determine your working thesis is to consider how you would complete sentences such as I believe or My opinion is . However, keep in mind that academic writing generally does not use first-person pronouns. These statements are useful starting points, but formal research papers use an objective voice.

Write a working thesis statement that presents your preliminary answer to the research question you wrote in Note 11.27 “Exercise 3” . Check that your working thesis statement presents an idea or claim that could be supported or refuted by evidence from research.

Creating a Research Proposal

A research proposal is a brief document—no more than one typed page—that summarizes the preliminary work you have completed. Your purpose in writing it is to formalize your plan for research and present it to your instructor for feedback. In your research proposal, you will present your main research question, related subquestions, and working thesis. You will also briefly discuss the value of researching this topic and indicate how you plan to gather information.

When Jorge began drafting his research proposal, he realized that he had already created most of the pieces he needed. However, he knew he also had to explain how his research would be relevant to other future health care professionals. In addition, he wanted to form a general plan for doing the research and identifying potentially useful sources. Read Jorge’s research proposal.

Before you begin a new project at work, you may have to develop a project summary document that states the purpose of the project, explains why it would be a wise use of company resources, and briefly outlines the steps involved in completing the project. This type of document is similar to a research proposal. Both documents define and limit a project, explain its value, discuss how to proceed, and identify what resources you will use.

Writing Your Own Research Proposal

Now you may write your own research proposal, if you have not done so already. Follow the guidelines provided in this lesson.

Key Takeaways

• Developing a research proposal involves the following preliminary steps: identifying potential ideas, choosing ideas to explore further, choosing and narrowing a topic, formulating a research question, and developing a working thesis.
• A good topic for a research paper interests the writer and fulfills the requirements of the assignment.
• Defining and narrowing a topic helps writers conduct focused, in-depth research.
• Writers conduct preliminary research to identify possible topics and research questions and to develop a working thesis.
• A good research question interests readers, is neither too broad nor too narrow, and has no obvious answer.
• A good working thesis expresses a debatable idea or claim that can be supported with evidence from research.
• Writers create a research proposal to present their topic, main research question, subquestions, and working thesis to an instructor for approval or feedback.

Writing for Success Copyright © 2015 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

How To Write A Research Proposal

A Straightforward How-To Guide (With Examples)

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Reviewed By: Dr. Eunice Rautenbach | August 2019 (Updated April 2023)

Writing up a strong research proposal for a dissertation or thesis is much like a marriage proposal. It’s a task that calls on you to win somebody over and persuade them that what you’re planning is a great idea. An idea they’re happy to say ‘yes’ to. This means that your dissertation proposal needs to be   persuasive ,   attractive   and well-planned. In this post, I’ll show you how to write a winning dissertation proposal, from scratch.

Before you start:

– Understand exactly what a research proposal is – Ask yourself these 4 questions

The 5 essential ingredients:

• The title/topic
• The introduction chapter
• The scope/delimitations
• Preliminary literature review
• Design/ methodology
• Practical considerations and risks 

What Is A Research Proposal?

The research proposal is literally that: a written document that communicates what you propose to research, in a concise format. It’s where you put all that stuff that’s spinning around in your head down on to paper, in a logical, convincing fashion.

Convincing   is the keyword here, as your research proposal needs to convince the assessor that your research is   clearly articulated   (i.e., a clear research question) ,   worth doing   (i.e., is unique and valuable enough to justify the effort), and   doable   within the restrictions you’ll face (time limits, budget, skill limits, etc.). If your proposal does not address these three criteria, your research won’t be approved, no matter how “exciting” the research idea might be.

PS – if you’re completely new to proposal writing, we’ve got a detailed walkthrough video covering two successful research proposals here . 

How do I know I’m ready?

Before starting the writing process, you need to   ask yourself 4 important questions .  If you can’t answer them succinctly and confidently, you’re not ready – you need to go back and think more deeply about your dissertation topic .

You should be able to answer the following 4 questions before starting your dissertation or thesis research proposal:

• WHAT is my main research question? (the topic)
• WHO cares and why is this important? (the justification)
• WHAT data would I need to answer this question, and how will I analyse it? (the research design)
• HOW will I manage the completion of this research, within the given timelines? (project and risk management)

If you can’t answer these questions clearly and concisely,   you’re not yet ready   to write your research proposal – revisit our   post on choosing a topic .

If you can, that’s great – it’s time to start writing up your dissertation proposal. Next, I’ll discuss what needs to go into your research proposal, and how to structure it all into an intuitive, convincing document with a linear narrative.

The 5 Essential Ingredients

Research proposals can vary in style between institutions and disciplines, but here I’ll share with you a   handy 5-section structure   you can use. These 5 sections directly address the core questions we spoke about earlier, ensuring that you present a convincing proposal. If your institution already provides a proposal template, there will likely be substantial overlap with this, so you’ll still get value from reading on.

For each section discussed below, make sure you use headers and sub-headers (ideally, numbered headers) to help the reader navigate through your document, and to support them when they need to revisit a previous section. Don’t just present an endless wall of text, paragraph after paragraph after paragraph…

Top Tip:   Use MS Word Styles to format headings. This will allow you to be clear about whether a sub-heading is level 2, 3, or 4. Additionally, you can view your document in ‘outline view’ which will show you only your headings. This makes it much easier to check your structure, shift things around and make decisions about where a section needs to sit. You can also generate a 100% accurate table of contents using Word’s automatic functionality.

Ingredient #1 – Topic/Title Header

Your research proposal’s title should be your main research question in its simplest form, possibly with a sub-heading providing basic details on the specifics of the study. For example:

“Compliance with equality legislation in the charity sector: a study of the ‘reasonable adjustments’ made in three London care homes”

As you can see, this title provides a clear indication of what the research is about, in broad terms. It paints a high-level picture for the first-time reader, which gives them a taste of what to expect.   Always aim for a clear, concise title . Don’t feel the need to capture every detail of your research in your title – your proposal will fill in the gaps.

Need a helping hand?

Ingredient #2 – Introduction

In this section of your research proposal, you’ll expand on what you’ve communicated in the title, by providing a few paragraphs which offer more detail about your research topic. Importantly, the focus here is the   topic   – what will you research and why is that worth researching? This is not the place to discuss methodology, practicalities, etc. – you’ll do that later.

You should cover the following:

• An overview of the   broad area   you’ll be researching – introduce the reader to key concepts and language
• An explanation of the   specific (narrower) area   you’ll be focusing, and why you’ll be focusing there
• Your research   aims   and   objectives
• Your   research question (s) and sub-questions (if applicable)

Importantly, you should aim to use short sentences and plain language – don’t babble on with extensive jargon, acronyms and complex language. Assume that the reader is an intelligent layman – not a subject area specialist (even if they are). Remember that the   best writing is writing that can be easily understood   and digested. Keep it simple.

Note that some universities may want some extra bits and pieces in your introduction section. For example, personal development objectives, a structural outline, etc. Check your brief to see if there are any other details they expect in your proposal, and make sure you find a place for these.

Ingredient #3 – Scope

Next, you’ll need to specify what the scope of your research will be – this is also known as the delimitations . In other words, you need to make it clear what you will be covering and, more importantly, what you won’t be covering in your research. Simply put, this is about ring fencing your research topic so that you have a laser-sharp focus.

All too often, students feel the need to go broad and try to address as many issues as possible, in the interest of producing comprehensive research. Whilst this is admirable, it’s a mistake. By tightly refining your scope, you’ll enable yourself to   go deep   with your research, which is what you need to earn good marks. If your scope is too broad, you’re likely going to land up with superficial research (which won’t earn marks), so don’t be afraid to narrow things down.

Ingredient #4 – Literature Review

In this section of your research proposal, you need to provide a (relatively) brief discussion of the existing literature. Naturally, this will not be as comprehensive as the literature review in your actual dissertation, but it will lay the foundation for that. In fact, if you put in the effort at this stage, you’ll make your life a lot easier when it’s time to write your actual literature review chapter.

There are a few things you need to achieve in this section:

• Demonstrate that you’ve done your reading and are   familiar with the current state of the research   in your topic area.
• Show that   there’s a clear gap   for your specific research – i.e., show that your topic is sufficiently unique and will add value to the existing research.
• Show how the existing research has shaped your thinking regarding   research design . For example, you might use scales or questionnaires from previous studies.

When you write up your literature review, keep these three objectives front of mind, especially number two (revealing the gap in the literature), so that your literature review has a   clear purpose and direction . Everything you write should be contributing towards one (or more) of these objectives in some way. If it doesn’t, you need to ask yourself whether it’s truly needed.

Top Tip:  Don’t fall into the trap of just describing the main pieces of literature, for example, “A says this, B says that, C also says that…” and so on. Merely describing the literature provides no value. Instead, you need to   synthesise   it, and use it to address the three objectives above.

Ingredient #5 – Research Methodology

Now that you’ve clearly explained both your intended research topic (in the introduction) and the existing research it will draw on (in the literature review section), it’s time to get practical and explain exactly how you’ll be carrying out your own research. In other words, your research methodology.

In this section, you’ll need to   answer two critical questions :

• How   will you design your research? I.e., what research methodology will you adopt, what will your sample be, how will you collect data, etc.
• Why   have you chosen this design? I.e., why does this approach suit your specific research aims, objectives and questions?

In other words, this is not just about explaining WHAT you’ll be doing, it’s also about explaining WHY. In fact, the   justification is the most important part , because that justification is how you demonstrate a good understanding of research design (which is what assessors want to see).

Some essential design choices you need to cover in your research proposal include:

• Your intended research philosophy (e.g., positivism, interpretivism or pragmatism )
• What methodological approach you’ll be taking (e.g., qualitative , quantitative or mixed )
• The details of your sample (e.g., sample size, who they are, who they represent, etc.)
• What data you plan to collect (i.e. data about what, in what form?)
• How you plan to collect it (e.g., surveys , interviews , focus groups, etc.)
• How you plan to analyse it (e.g., regression analysis, thematic analysis , etc.)
• Ethical adherence (i.e., does this research satisfy all ethical requirements of your institution, or does it need further approval?)

This list is not exhaustive – these are just some core attributes of research design. Check with your institution what level of detail they expect. The “ research onion ” by Saunders et al (2009) provides a good summary of the various design choices you ultimately need to make – you can   read more about that here .

Don’t forget the practicalities…

In addition to the technical aspects, you will need to address the   practical   side of the project. In other words, you need to explain   what resources you’ll need   (e.g., time, money, access to equipment or software, etc.) and how you intend to secure these resources. You need to show that your project is feasible, so any “make or break” type resources need to already be secured. The success or failure of your project cannot depend on some resource which you’re not yet sure you have access to.

Another part of the practicalities discussion is   project and risk management . In other words, you need to show that you have a clear project plan to tackle your research with. Some key questions to address:

• What are the timelines for each phase of your project?
• Are the time allocations reasonable?
• What happens if something takes longer than anticipated (risk management)?
• What happens if you don’t get the response rate you expect?

A good way to demonstrate that you’ve thought this through is to include a Gantt chart and a risk register (in the appendix if word count is a problem). With these two tools, you can show that you’ve got a clear, feasible plan, and you’ve thought about and accounted for the potential risks.

Tip – Be honest about the potential difficulties – but show that you are anticipating solutions and workarounds. This is much more impressive to an assessor than an unrealistically optimistic proposal which does not anticipate any challenges whatsoever.

Final Touches: Read And Simplify

The final step is to edit and proofread your proposal – very carefully. It sounds obvious, but all too often poor editing and proofreading ruin a good proposal. Nothing is more off-putting for an assessor than a poorly edited, typo-strewn document. It sends the message that you either do not pay attention to detail, or just don’t care. Neither of these are good messages. Put the effort into editing and proofreading your proposal (or pay someone to do it for you) – it will pay dividends.

When you’re editing, watch out for ‘academese’. Many students can speak simply, passionately and clearly about their dissertation topic – but become incomprehensible the moment they turn the laptop on. You are not required to write in any kind of special, formal, complex language when you write academic work. Sure, there may be technical terms, jargon specific to your discipline, shorthand terms and so on. But, apart from those,   keep your written language very close to natural spoken language   – just as you would speak in the classroom. Imagine that you are explaining your project plans to your classmates or a family member. Remember, write for the intelligent layman, not the subject matter experts. Plain-language, concise writing is what wins hearts and minds – and marks!

Let’s Recap: Research Proposal 101

And there you have it – how to write your dissertation or thesis research proposal, from the title page to the final proof. Here’s a quick recap of the key takeaways:

• The purpose of the research proposal is to   convince   – therefore, you need to make a clear, concise argument of why your research is both worth doing and doable.
• Make sure you can ask the critical what, who, and how questions of your research   before   you put pen to paper.
• Title – provides the first taste of your research, in broad terms
• Introduction – explains what you’ll be researching in more detail
• Scope – explains the boundaries of your research
• Literature review – explains how your research fits into the existing research and why it’s unique and valuable
• Research methodology – explains and justifies how you will carry out your own research

Hopefully, this post has helped you better understand how to write up a winning research proposal. If you enjoyed it, be sure to check out the rest of the Grad Coach Blog . If your university doesn’t provide any template for your proposal, you might want to try out our free research proposal template .

Psst… there’s more!

This post is an extract from our bestselling Udemy Course, Research Proposal Bootcamp . If you want to work smart, you don't want to miss this .

You Might Also Like:

29 Comments

Thank you so much for the valuable insight that you have given, especially on the research proposal. That is what I have managed to cover. I still need to go back to the other parts as I got disturbed while still listening to Derek’s audio on you-tube. I am inspired. I will definitely continue with Grad-coach guidance on You-tube.

Thanks for the kind words :). All the best with your proposal.

First of all, thanks a lot for making such a wonderful presentation. The video was really useful and gave me a very clear insight of how a research proposal has to be written. I shall try implementing these ideas in my RP.

Once again, I thank you for this content.

I found reading your outline on writing research proposal very beneficial. I wish there was a way of submitting my draft proposal to you guys for critiquing before I submit to the institution.

Hi Bonginkosi

Thank you for the kind words. Yes, we do provide a review service. The best starting point is to have a chat with one of our coaches here: https://gradcoach.com/book/new/ .

Hello team GRADCOACH, may God bless you so much. I was totally green in research. Am so happy for your free superb tutorials and resources. Once again thank you so much Derek and his team.

You’re welcome, Erick. Good luck with your research proposal 🙂

thank you for the information. its precise and on point.

Really a remarkable piece of writing and great source of guidance for the researchers. GOD BLESS YOU for your guidance. Regards

Thanks so much for your guidance. It is easy and comprehensive the way you explain the steps for a winning research proposal.

Thank you guys so much for the rich post. I enjoyed and learn from every word in it. My problem now is how to get into your platform wherein I can always seek help on things related to my research work ? Secondly, I wish to find out if there is a way I can send my tentative proposal to you guys for examination before I take to my supervisor Once again thanks very much for the insights

Thanks for your kind words, Desire.

If you are based in a country where Grad Coach’s paid services are available, you can book a consultation by clicking the “Book” button in the top right.

Best of luck with your studies.

May God bless you team for the wonderful work you are doing,

If I have a topic, Can I submit it to you so that you can draft a proposal for me?? As I am expecting to go for masters degree in the near future.

Thanks for your comment. We definitely cannot draft a proposal for you, as that would constitute academic misconduct. The proposal needs to be your own work. We can coach you through the process, but it needs to be your own work and your own writing.

Best of luck with your research!

I found a lot of many essential concepts from your material. it is real a road map to write a research proposal. so thanks a lot. If there is any update material on your hand on MBA please forward to me.

GradCoach is a professional website that presents support and helps for MBA student like me through the useful online information on the page and with my 1-on-1 online coaching with the amazing and professional PhD Kerryen.

Thank you Kerryen so much for the support and help 🙂

I really recommend dealing with such a reliable services provider like Gradcoah and a coach like Kerryen.

Hi, Am happy for your service and effort to help students and researchers, Please, i have been given an assignment on research for strategic development, the task one is to formulate a research proposal to support the strategic development of a business area, my issue here is how to go about it, especially the topic or title and introduction. Please, i would like to know if you could help me and how much is the charge.

This content is practical, valuable, and just great!

Thank you very much!

Hi Derek, Thank you for the valuable presentation. It is very helpful especially for beginners like me. I am just starting my PhD.

This is quite instructive and research proposal made simple. Can I have a research proposal template?

Great! Thanks for rescuing me, because I had no former knowledge in this topic. But with this piece of information, I am now secured. Thank you once more.

I enjoyed listening to your video on how to write a proposal. I think I will be able to write a winning proposal with your advice. I wish you were to be my supervisor.

Dear Derek Jansen,

Thank you for your great content. I couldn’t learn these topics in MBA, but now I learned from GradCoach. Really appreciate your efforts….

From Afghanistan!

I have got very essential inputs for startup of my dissertation proposal. Well organized properly communicated with video presentation. Thank you for the presentation.

Wow, this is absolutely amazing guys. Thank you so much for the fruitful presentation, you’ve made my research much easier.

this helps me a lot. thank you all so much for impacting in us. may god richly bless you all

How I wish I’d learn about Grad Coach earlier. I’ve been stumbling around writing and rewriting! Now I have concise clear directions on how to put this thing together. Thank you!

Fantastic!! Thank You for this very concise yet comprehensive guidance.

Even if I am poor in English I would like to thank you very much.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

How to Write a Research Proposal: Template, Format, Tips

Learn how to write a research proposal that makes you stand out from the crowd, get the funding you need, and gain entry into your dream academic institution.

John McTale

14 minute read

You’ve put a lot of thought into that research project. You know it’s importan. The problem? Nobody else does. And no one is willing to fund it. Yet.

Research proposals are nerve-racking, notoriously difficult to write, and for good reason - they have a major impact on your academic career.

The best institutions and labs have thousands of talented researchers fighting to get in. And their most powerful weapon to get ahead of the pack is their research proposal.

So, how do you write a proposal that helps you outperform other applicants?

This guide will help you write stress-free research proposals that land the funding you deserve and launch your academic career .

What is a research proposal?

A research proposal is a formal academic document that outlines your research project and requests support for that project: either by funding or agreeing to supervise your research.

The main objective of a research proposal is to explain what you’re planning to research and why it’s worth researching. Research proposals are most commonly used in academia or across non-academic scientific organizations. Of course, no two research proposals are identical—in fact, those can vary greatly depending on the level of study you’re at, your field, or the exact nature of your project.

Still, there are some general requirements that all great proposals have to meet and must-have sections to include. This article will focus particularly on writing research proposals for academic grants at postgraduate level or PhD applications. However, even if you’re writing a thesis or a dissertation proposal, most of the same rules apply—it’s just that your proposal might not have to be as detailed and comprehensive. Speaking of which...

How long should a research proposal be?

Most research proposals in humanities and social sciences are between 10 and 25 pages long. Technical or scientific proposals might require you to include detailed specifications and more supporting documentation and can therefore be significantly longer. That said, each institution might have its own guidelines and requirements for research proposals and those often include the word count range. If that’s the case, you obviously have to play by the rules.

Try Storydoc for research proposals

If you want to add some flair to your research proposal and immediately stand out from hundreds of other, identically-looking documents, take our interactive proposal maker for a spin and create a visually stunning summary of your proposal. Storydoc is 100% free to use for verified .edu email addresses.

Alright, we covered the theoretical part. Time for some practical knowledge!

Here’s how to write a research proposal:

1. write an introduction to present the subject of your research.

“Wow, I can’t wait to see the outcome of this study!” This is the kind of response you want your research proposal introduction to receive. How to make that happen? Outline your research proposal intro around these four key issues:

• What is the research problem?
• Who is this problem relevant to (general society, fellow researchers, specialized professionals, etc.)?
• What is currently known about the problem and what key pieces are missing from the current state of knowledge?
• Why should anyone care about the potential outcomes?

The easiest way to write a captivating intro to a research proposal is to follow a four-paragraph format, where each paragraph addresses one of these questions. Let’s see a practical example. (Yes, I made it up, but it works as a convenient point of reference.)

Sample outline for a research proposal introduction

The problem Investigating the impact of remote work on new joiners to previously in-house teams. Who it’s relevant to Human resources professionals, workspace psychologists, working population, business management specialists and scholars. What’s currently known There is existing research about the impact of remote work on team morale and productivity, but no research has been centered around people joining fully-remote teams that had previously worked in-house and the implications of such a situation for new employees' mental health and sense of belonging. Why should anyone care? In the era of COVID, many offices have switched to remote-only work yet they’re still hiring new employees. The findings of this study might suggest a need to change onboarding practices and HR management techniques in order to aid employee satisfaction which, in turn, can help improve work performance, NPS scores and overall business results.

2. Explain the Context and Background

Whether or not you’ll need this section depends on how detailed your proposal is. If a research problem at hand is particularly complicated or advanced, it’s usually best to add this section. It will usually be entitled “Background and Significance,” or “Rationale.” For shorter proposals, most of the actual background will have been already included in the introduction. How to write the “Background” section of a research proposal?

• Describe the broader area of research that your project fits into.
• Focus on the gaps in existing studies and explain the need to fill these gaps. That said…
• Show how your research will build upon existing knowledge.
• Explain your hypothesis and the rationale behind it.
• Establish the limits of your study (in other words, explain what the research is not about).
• Finally, reiterate why your research is important and what benefits it can reap. In other words, provide the answer to the dreaded “So what?” question.

If your research project is complex and highly technical, describing the background in a separate section is particularly helpful: this way, you can make your introduction follow a free-flowing, “sexy” narrative, and let the “Background” part do the heavy lifting. That said— Don’t make this part too detailed either. Assume you’re dealing with a very busy reader who won’t have the time to get into your methodology and timeline but still wants some hard evidence behind the relevance of your project.

3. Provide a Detailed Literature Review

Arguably, the most important (and, yes, you guessed it, the most difficult) part of the whole document— One where you have to prove that you know *all* there is to know about the topic of interest and that your research will help advance the whole field of study. The Literature Review section is, in essence, a mini-dissertation. It has to follow a logical progression and put forward the argument for your study in relation to existing research: describe and summarize what has already been discussed and demonstrate that your research goes beyond that. In the digital era of easy access to information , it might be difficult to discuss all of the existing research on your subject in the Literature Review so be critical about what studies or papers you choose to include.

But there’s a handy set of rules to help you pick the right ones—the gold standard for academic Literature Review. It’s called “ the five Cs ” and refers to the following practices:

• Cite directly from the sources to avoid digressions and drifting away from the actual literature.
• Compare different theories or arguments (in arts and humanities), methodologies and findings (in sciences and tech).
• Contrast the approaches discussed above: highlight the main differences and areas of disagreement among scholars in the field.
• Critique the research of the past. Don’t shy away from pointing out inaccuracies, mutually exclusive findings, or controversies. At the same time, give credit where it’s due. Identify the findings you find most convincing, reliable, or accurate.
• Connect the whole of the literature reviewed to your own project. Are you basing your assumptions on any previous findings? Is your goal to confront, challenge, or even debunk certain pieces of research? Either way, you need to prove that your study will be intertwined with existing ones, not floating in an academic void.

How to structure your Literature Review?

• The easiest and most reader-friendly way to format the Literature Review section is to devote each paragraph to a separate piece of literature.
• For scientific projects, it’s best to go from the more general to the more specific studies.
• For projects in arts and humanities, a historical (or chronological) progression is the most commonly-used method as it helps develop an easy-to-follow narrative.

The hard part? DONE. (No, it really is). All of what comes next boils down to technicalities and formal requirements. If they’re sold on your vision by now, you just need to show how you’re planning to achieve what you set out to do.

4. List Your Key Aims and Objectives

This section can be called “Research Questions,” or just “Aims and Objectives.” Compared to the previous ones, it should be very succinct and to-the-point. Whether you need to write about your aims and objectives or formulate those as research questions usually depends on the formal requirements of the institution to which you’re applying. The key aspect of getting this part right is distinguishing between the three: an aim, an objective, and a research question. Here’s how:

• Aims describe what you want to achieve. An aim is usually stated in a broad term.
• Objectives are the specific, measurable outputs you need to produce in order to achieve your aim. There are usually multiple objectives associated with a single aim.
• Questions are a slightly more specific way to formulate your objectives—in essence, very similar in meaning, just slightly different in format.

Again, here’s a practical example. And again, it’s simplified and not based on actual research, just here to let you better understand the disambiguation.

Sample research aims and objectives for a research proposal

Research Aim

To understand the importance of the quality of food in school canteens on the nutritional health of children aged 6–10. Objectives:

• Investigate the weekly menus across 28 school canteens in New Jersey with a focus on key nutritional ingredients and portion sizes.
• Conduct desk-research of state policies regulating nutrition in primary schools.
• Interview the parents of children participating in the study about their children’s nutritional habits outside of school.
• Evaluate the key health-related metrics in children participating in the study.

As I mentioned, if such are the formal requirements, your objectives can easily be translated into research questions. For instance: “Conduct desk-research of state policies regulating nutrition in primary schools.” Becomes: “What state-wide policies regulating nutrition in primary schools are there in place in the state of New Jersey?”

Remember the five Cs of literature review? When it comes to your research objectives and questions, there’s another handy acronym to serve as a sanity check for you: SMART . It stands for:

• Specific: is the objective well-defined and can be achieved with a singular action?
• Measurable: will you end up with quantified, verifiable data?
• Achievable: considering your resources and capacity, is it realistic for you to reach your objective?
• Relevant: does this objective actually contribute to your research aim?
• Timebound: do you have enough time to complete this objective, in relation to the overall timeline of your project?

5. Outline the Research Methods and Design

The grant decision makers already know what you’re trying to achieve and have a general idea about how you’re planning to achieve that. This section should prove to them that you’re well equipped (both in terms of your skills and resources) to conduct the research. The main goal is to convince the reader that your methods are adequate and appropriate for the specific topic. Any idea why “specific” is in bold? Well, this is one of those parts of a research proposal that differs the most across different documents. There’s an ideal methodology for any particular academic project and no two kinds of research design are the same. Make sure your methodology matches all of your desired outcomes.

Some usual components of the Research Methods section include:

Research type:

• Qualitative or quantitative ,
• Collecting original data or basing your research on primary and secondary sources,
• Descriptive, correlational, or experimental.

Population and sample:

• The whole population of individuals or entities that meet eligibility criteria to be included in your research,
• The subset of the population that is going to be included in the particular study.

Data collection:

• What methods ( surveys , clinical analysis, biochemical analysis, interviews, experiments) will you use?
• Why are those methods optimal for achieving the desired objectives?
• How can you ensure that the chosen method eliminates bias?

Data analysis:

• How will you sort and code the data obtained?
• What tools, algorithms, or techniques will you use to analyze the data?

Operational issues:

• How much time will you need to collect the research material?
• How are you planning to gain access to the desired set of data or information?
• What obstacles might you encounter and how will you overcome them?

Now, I can’t stress that enough— This part of a research proposal will vary the most from one proposal to another. The outline above will work good for sciences (both social and exact), perhaps not equally great for arts and humanities. At the end of the day, you know your project better than anyone else. You’ll need to make the judgement call as to what methods are best.

6. (Optional) Discuss Ethical Considerations

No, this part isn’t optional because you might just disregard ethics or choose to be the evil scientist. But let’s face it— There aren’t going to be many ethical issues to consider if you’re investigating the vector shapes of tree leaves’ shadows (I kid you not, it’s a legit research issue, my friend did his PhD in Physics about it and absolutely killed it). But if your research has to do with humans, especially in fields such as medicine or psychology, it might introduce ethical problems in data collection , not often encountered by other researchers. You need to take extra care to protect your participants’ rights, get their explicit consent to process the data, as well as consult the research project with the authorities of your academic institution—for that purpose, your proposal needs to contain detailed information regarding these aspects.

7. Present Preliminary or Desired Implications and Contribution to Knowledge

This is the last argument-based part of your proposal. After that, everything will be about “boring” technicalities. This also means, it’s your last chance to convince the decision makers to back your project. Think about it this way— You already explained what exactly is going to be the scope of your project. You detailed the current state of knowledge and identified the most important gaps. You told them what you’re hoping to find out and how you’re planning to do it. Now, talk about the actual, feasible difference your finding can make. How your research can influence the future of the field, or even the very narrow niche. In other words, describe the implications of your research such as:

• How can your research challenge the current underlying assumptions on the subject matter?
• How can it inform future research and what new areas of research can it propel?
• What will the influence of your research be on policy decisions?
• What sorts of individuals, organizations, or other entities can your research benefit?
• What will be improved and optimized on the basis of your research?

All that while keeping one crucial thing in mind— Talking about the practical implications of your study shouldn’t sound like daydreaming. However “preliminary” or “desired” the said implications are, you need to base those on very clear evidence. In short, this section is about:

• Reiterating the gaps in the current state of knowledge.
• Showing how you’ll contribute to a new understanding of certain problems or even a scientific breakthrough.
• Clearly showing how your findings can be acted upon and what feasible change those actions will bring about.

And yes, it does sound lofty, but it’s true. As a researcher, you’re expanding the scope of human comprehension! Don’t shy away from highlighting the actual change you can bring to the world (or even just your narrow field, it’s just as valuable).

8. Detail Your Budget and Funding Requirements

If you do have a supervisor already, it’s best to consult this part with them. They’ve most likely submitted similar documents to the institution you’re reaching out to and will be able to provide invaluable insights on how much you can realistically expect to get paid. If you’re at a different stage of the application process, here are the key elements you should include in the funding requirements section:

• Operational costs: materials, equipment, access to labs, any software you might need, etc.
• Travel costs: including transportation, accommodation, and living costs.
• Staff: if you’ll need human assistants to help you carry out your research, you’ll most likely need to pay them. It might be the case that junior researchers or students will be able to help you to obtain necessary credits for graduation, but it’s still a cost for their institution you’ll need to include in the budget.
• Allowance: you’ll most likely have to give up on other duties that help you pay bills (be that teaching, publishing, or administrative work) but you still need those bills paid. Treat your allowance as a regular salary you need to make a living.

Note: if possible, do leave yourself some wiggle room and request for conditional extra allowance for unpredictable disasters, delays, or unexpected cost rises.

9. Provide a Timetable

Certain grant schemes come with predefined timetables (e.g. placements offered for 3, 6, or 9 months) and in such cases there’s no need for a very detailed timeline—all you need to do is convince them that the period of time for which you’ll be receiving funding is sufficient for you to complete the project. When you’re writing a proposal for a standalone project, detailing a timeline can help support your budget. The most common format is, you guessed it, a table. Divide your research into stages, list, in bullet points, what actions you’ll need to take at each stage, and list rough deadlines. I know I don’t have to tell you that but please, keep Murphy's Law in mind. Perhaps not everything that can go wrong will, but, well, expect the unexpected and be conservative with deadlines. All in all, it's easier to explain why you no longer need 3 months worth of funding than it is to ask for 6 months’ extra allowance. Don’t let delays derail your project. That’s all I have to say.

10. End with a List of Citations

This one really is self-explanatory, isn’t it. As a scholar, you need to cite the sources you’re referring to (no matter how harshly critical you are of some of those:)). Citations in research proposals can either be included in the form of references (so only the pieces of literature you actually cited) or bibliography (everything that informed your proposal). As is the case with many other elements of the proposal, the correct format depends almost exclusively on the institution you’re applying to, so make sure to check it with them or consult with your supervisor about which one is preferred. The same goes for the style of referencing. Most US universities use APA or Chicago style but each has its own set of rules and preferences. Double-check with the list of guidelines on their website. When in doubt, reach out to the head of the department you’re wishing to work with. (No, using the wrong style won’t ruin your chances but I don’t think I need to tell you how particular certain academics are so let’s not step on any toes, shall we?)

Found this post useful?

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter.

Get notified as more awesome content goes live.

(No spam, no ads, opt-out whenever)

You've just joined an elite group of people that make the top performing 1% of sales and marketing collateral.

And that’s a wrap!

To sum up, this is what a typical research proposal should include:

• Introduction
• Context and Background
• Literature Review
• Aims and Objectives or Research Questions
• Methods and Design
• Ethical Considerations
• Contributions to Knowledge or Implications

Writing a research proposal can be hard and feel like a never-ending process. It really isn’t much different from writing an actual thesis or dissertation. Yup, this is my roundabout way of saying: don’t get disheartened. Allow yourself a few months up to half a year to complete your proposal, follow the steps outlined in this guide and, whenever in doubt, remember to reach out to senior researchers for help. Keeping my fingers crossed for your proposal!

Hi, I'm John, Editor-in-chief at Storydoc. As a content marketer and digital writer specializing in B2B SaaS, my main goal is to provide you with up-to-date tips for effective business storytelling and equip you with all the right tools to enable your sales efforts.

Make your best pitch deck to date

Try Storydoc for free for 14 days (keep your decks for ever!)

• Affiliate Program

• UNITED STATES
• 台灣 (TAIWAN)
• TÜRKIYE (TURKEY)
• Academic Editing Services
• - Research Paper
• - Journal Manuscript
• - Dissertation
• - College & University Assignments
• Admissions Editing Services
• - Application Essay
• - Personal Statement
• - Recommendation Letter
• - Cover Letter
• - CV/Resume
• Business Editing Services
• - Business Documents
• - Report & Brochure
• - Website & Blog
• Writer Editing Services
• - Script & Screenplay
• Our Editors
• Client Reviews
• Editing & Proofreading Prices
• Wordvice Points
• Partner Discount
• Plagiarism Checker
• APA Citation Generator
• MLA Citation Generator
• Chicago Citation Generator
• Vancouver Citation Generator
• - APA Style
• - MLA Style
• - Chicago Style
• - Vancouver Style
• Writing & Editing Guide
• Academic Resources
• Admissions Resources

How to Write a Research Proposal: Checklist Example

If you are a PhD doctoral or Master’s student approaching graduation, then a large research project, dissertation, or thesis is in your future. These capstone research projects take months if not years of preparation, and the first step in this process is first writing a compelling, organized, and effective research proposal.

Check out the  key differences between dissertation and thesis .

Research Proposal Checklists Are Important

We’ve got some good and bad news for the PhD and Master’s graduate students out there. 

First, the bad news. Research proposals are not easy to write. They require lots of preparation and planning. They can also seem to be an administrative task, with your PhD advisors constantly reminding you to write something that you’re not yet sure about. And of course, it’s also yet another written document that could be rejected. 

Now, the good news. Research proposals help you organize and focus your research. They also eliminate irrelevant topics that your research cannot or should not cover. Further, they help signal your academic superiors (professors, advisors, scientific community) that your research is worth pursuing.

Research proposal checklists  go one step further. A research proposal checklist helps you identify  what  you will research,  why  it is important and relevant, and  how  you will perform the research. 

This last part is critical. Research proposals are often rejected for not being feasible or being unfocused. But an organized research or thesis proposal checklist can help you stay on topic. 

This article goes into the following topics about research proposal checklists:

What is a Research Proposal?

Research proposals are documents that propose a research project in the sciences or academic fields and request funding or sponsorship.

The primary objective is to convince others that you have a worthwhile research project as well as an organized plan to accomplish‌ ‌it. 

A main purpose of a research plan is to clearly state the central research topic or question that you intend to research while providing a solid background of your particular area of research.

Your research proposal must contain a quick  summary of the current literature , including gaps in your research area’s knowledge base as well as areas of controversy, which together demonstrate your proposal is relevant, timely, and worth pursuing.

But what functions does a research proposal perform?:

Research proposals explain your research topic

An  effective  research proposal should answer the following questions:

• What is my research about? 
• What specific academic area will I be researching?
• What is the current scientific and academic literature?
• What are the accepted theories in my area of research?
• What are gaps in the knowledge base?
• What are key questions researchers are currently trying to answer?

Research proposals explain why your research topic is important

A  compelling  research proposal should answer the following questions:

• Why is my research important?
• Why is my research interesting to both academics and laypeople?
• What are my  research questions ? 
• How does my research contribute to the literature?
• How will my dissertation or thesis answer gaps or unsolved questions?
• How or why would my research earn funding in the future?
• How does my research relate to wider society or public health?

Research proposals explain how you will perform your research

A  feasible  research proposal should answer the following questions:

• How will my research be performed?
• What are my exact methods?
• What materials will I need to purchase? 
• What materials will I need to borrow from other researchers in my field?
• What relationships do I need to make or maintain with other academics?
• What is my research proposal timeline?
• What are the standard research procedures? 
• Are there any  study limitations  to discuss?
• Will I need to modify any research methods? What, if any, problems will this introduce?

Research Proposal Example Checklist

Use this research proposal example checklist as an aid to draft your own research proposal. This can help you decide what information to include and keep your ideas logically structured. 

Remember, if your research proposal cannot effectively answer every single question below, then you may want to consult your advisor. It doesn’t mean your chosen research topic is bad; it just means certain areas may need some additional focus.

Click here for the full Research Proposal Example Checklist in .pdf form

Research Proposal Title

The title of your research proposal must attract the reader’s eye, be descriptive of the research question, and be understandable for both casual and academic readers.

The title of your research proposal should do the following:

• Effectively summarize the main research idea
• Be clear to the general public
• Be compelling to academic researchers and other graduate students
• Fully explain the independent and dependent variables
• Avoid abbreviations and excessive  use of articles

Research Proposal Introduction and Research Background

The introduction typically begins with a general overview of your research field, focusing on a specific research problem or question. This is followed by an explanation of why the study should be conducted.

The introduction of your research proposal should answer the following questions:

• What is the research problem, research question, and purpose of the study?
• What is the rationale behind my study? 
• Why is answering this research question important?
• What are the major issues your research will address?
• What are the major challenges in answering the research question?
• Did you highlight or clarify the research discrepancies?

Significance of Research Proposal 

Your proposal’s introduction section should also clearly communicate why your research is significant, relevant, timely, and valid.

To effectively confirm the significance of your proposal, make sure your study accomplishes the following:

• The research results fill a defined gap in the knowledge.
• The proposed study will advance understanding of the subject.
• The research results will lead to the improvement of commonly used experimental models and methods in the future.
• The research results will yield novel findings that have academic and/or practical value.

Research Proposal Literature Review

In the literature review section, you should provide a review of the current state of the literature as well as provide a summary of the results generated by your research. Determine relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research to support your research claim. 

State an overview and significance of your primary resources and provide a critical analysis highlighting what those sources lack and future directions for research.

• List your primary sources.
• List your secondary sources.
• Discuss influential research papers, paradigms, and modalities. 
• What is lacking in well-accepted research paradigms in your research field?
• What are the main theories, methods, and controversies in your research field?
• How does your research question or problem tie into the current literature? Does it extend a current idea or run counter to it?

Research Proposal Theoretical Methodology and Design

Following the literature review, it is a good idea to restate your main objectives, bringing the focus back to your own project. The research design or methodology section should describe the overall approach and practical steps you will take to answer your research questions.

To help you write a clear and structured methodology, use your plan and answer the following issues. This will give you an outline to follow and keep you on track when writing this section of your research proposal. 

• Explain whether your research method will be a study or an experiment.
• Is your research for a PhD dissertation or Master’s program?
• Explain the theoretical resources motivating your choice of methods.
• Explain how particular methods enable you to answer your research question.
• Credit any colleagues or researchers you will collaborate with.
• Explain the advantages and disadvantages of your chosen methodology.
• What is the timeline of your research experiment or study?
• Compare/contrast your research design with that of the literature and other research on your topic. 
• Are there any different or alternative methods or materials that will be used?

Additionally, explain how your results will be processed:

• How will your research results be processed and interpreted?
• What data types will your results be in?
• Explain the statistical models and processes you must perform (e.g. Student’s t-test).
• Will your study be more statistically rigorous than other studies?

Read about  how to explain research methods clearly for reproducibility .

Research Proposal Discussion and Conclusion

Your  discussion and conclusion section  has an important purpose: to persuade the reader of your proposed research study’s potential impact. This section should also directly address potential weaknesses and criticisms put forth by other researchers and academics.

• Explain the limitations and weaknesses of the proposed research.
• Explain how any potential weaknesses would be justified by extenuating circumstances such as time and financial constraints.
• What, if any, alternative research questions or problems naturally can be answered in the future?
• How does the research strengthen, support, or challenge a current theoretical framework or model?

References and Bibliography

Although it comes at the end, your reference section is vital and will be carefully scrutinized. It should include all sources of information you used to support your research, and it should be in the correct citation format. 

• Provide a complete list of references for all cited statements.
• Make sure citations are in the correct format (e.g. APA, Chicago, MLA, etc.)
• References are present in the introduction, literature review, and methodology sections.

Use the Wordvice APA Citation Generator  to instantly generate citations in APA Style, or choose one of the formats below to generate citations for the citation style of your academic work:

Using Research Proposal Examples

Although every research proposal is unique, it is a good idea to take a look at examples of research proposals before writing your initial proposal draft. This will help you understand the academic level you should aim for. Be sure to include a reference list at the end of your proposal as described above. 

In addition to reading research proposal examples, you should also outline your research proposal to make sure no crucial information or research proposal sections are missing from your final manuscript. Although the sections included in a research proposal may vary depending on whether it is a grant, doctoral dissertation, conference paper, or professional project, there are many sections in common. Knowing the differences before you draft will ensure that your proposal is cohesive and thorough.

Research Proposal Proofreading and Editing

It’s vital to take the time to redraft, edit, and proofread a research proposal before submitting it to your PhD advisor or committee. Researchers and graduate students usually turn to a professional English editing service  like Wordvice to improve their research writing.

Our academic services, including thesis editing , dissertation editing , and research paper editing , will fully prepare any academic document for publication in academic journals.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Research process
• How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates

How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates

Published on 30 October 2022 by Shona McCombes and Tegan George. Revised on 13 June 2023.

A research proposal describes what you will investigate, why it’s important, and how you will conduct your research.

The format of a research proposal varies between fields, but most proposals will contain at least these elements:

Introduction

Literature review.

• Research design

Reference list

While the sections may vary, the overall objective is always the same. A research proposal serves as a blueprint and guide for your research plan, helping you get organised and feel confident in the path forward you choose to take.

Table of contents

Research proposal purpose, research proposal examples, research design and methods, contribution to knowledge, research schedule, frequently asked questions.

Academics often have to write research proposals to get funding for their projects. As a student, you might have to write a research proposal as part of a grad school application , or prior to starting your thesis or dissertation .

In addition to helping you figure out what your research can look like, a proposal can also serve to demonstrate why your project is worth pursuing to a funder, educational institution, or supervisor.

Research proposal length

The length of a research proposal can vary quite a bit. A bachelor’s or master’s thesis proposal can be just a few pages, while proposals for PhD dissertations or research funding are usually much longer and more detailed. Your supervisor can help you determine the best length for your work.

One trick to get started is to think of your proposal’s structure as a shorter version of your thesis or dissertation , only without the results , conclusion and discussion sections.

Download our research proposal template

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Writing a research proposal can be quite challenging, but a good starting point could be to look at some examples. We’ve included a few for you below.

• Example research proposal #1: ‘A Conceptual Framework for Scheduling Constraint Management’
• Example research proposal #2: ‘ Medical Students as Mediators of Change in Tobacco Use’

Like your dissertation or thesis, the proposal will usually have a title page that includes:

• The proposed title of your project
• Your supervisor’s name
• Your institution and department

The first part of your proposal is the initial pitch for your project. Make sure it succinctly explains what you want to do and why.

Your introduction should:

• Introduce your topic
• Give necessary background and context
• Outline your  problem statement  and research questions

To guide your introduction , include information about:

• Who could have an interest in the topic (e.g., scientists, policymakers)
• How much is already known about the topic
• What is missing from this current knowledge
• What new insights your research will contribute
• Why you believe this research is worth doing

As you get started, it’s important to demonstrate that you’re familiar with the most important research on your topic. A strong literature review  shows your reader that your project has a solid foundation in existing knowledge or theory. It also shows that you’re not simply repeating what other people have already done or said, but rather using existing research as a jumping-off point for your own.

In this section, share exactly how your project will contribute to ongoing conversations in the field by:

• Comparing and contrasting the main theories, methods, and debates
• Examining the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches
• Explaining how will you build on, challenge, or synthesise prior scholarship

Following the literature review, restate your main  objectives . This brings the focus back to your own project. Next, your research design or methodology section will describe your overall approach, and the practical steps you will take to answer your research questions.

To finish your proposal on a strong note, explore the potential implications of your research for your field. Emphasise again what you aim to contribute and why it matters.

For example, your results might have implications for:

• Improving best practices
• Informing policymaking decisions
• Strengthening a theory or model
• Challenging popular or scientific beliefs
• Creating a basis for future research

Last but not least, your research proposal must include correct citations for every source you have used, compiled in a reference list . To create citations quickly and easily, you can use our free APA citation generator .

Some institutions or funders require a detailed timeline of the project, asking you to forecast what you will do at each stage and how long it may take. While not always required, be sure to check the requirements of your project.

Here’s an example schedule to help you get started. You can also download a template at the button below.

Download our research schedule template

If you are applying for research funding, chances are you will have to include a detailed budget. This shows your estimates of how much each part of your project will cost.

Make sure to check what type of costs the funding body will agree to cover. For each item, include:

• Cost : exactly how much money do you need?
• Justification : why is this cost necessary to complete the research?
• Source : how did you calculate the amount?

To determine your budget, think about:

• Travel costs : do you need to go somewhere to collect your data? How will you get there, and how much time will you need? What will you do there (e.g., interviews, archival research)?
• Materials : do you need access to any tools or technologies?
• Help : do you need to hire any research assistants for the project? What will they do, and how much will you pay them?

Once you’ve decided on your research objectives , you need to explain them in your paper, at the end of your problem statement.

Keep your research objectives clear and concise, and use appropriate verbs to accurately convey the work that you will carry out for each one.

I will compare …

A research aim is a broad statement indicating the general purpose of your research project. It should appear in your introduction at the end of your problem statement , before your research objectives.

Research objectives are more specific than your research aim. They indicate the specific ways you’ll address the overarching aim.

A PhD, which is short for philosophiae doctor (doctor of philosophy in Latin), is the highest university degree that can be obtained. In a PhD, students spend 3–5 years writing a dissertation , which aims to make a significant, original contribution to current knowledge.

A PhD is intended to prepare students for a career as a researcher, whether that be in academia, the public sector, or the private sector.

A master’s is a 1- or 2-year graduate degree that can prepare you for a variety of careers.

All master’s involve graduate-level coursework. Some are research-intensive and intend to prepare students for further study in a PhD; these usually require their students to write a master’s thesis . Others focus on professional training for a specific career.

Critical thinking refers to the ability to evaluate information and to be aware of biases or assumptions, including your own.

Like information literacy , it involves evaluating arguments, identifying and solving problems in an objective and systematic way, and clearly communicating your ideas.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

McCombes, S. & George, T. (2023, June 13). How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved 25 March 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/the-research-process/research-proposal-explained/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, what is a literature review | guide, template, & examples, how to write a results section | tips & examples.

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Assignments

• Annotated Bibliography
• Analyzing a Scholarly Journal Article
• Group Presentations
• Dealing with Nervousness
• Using Visual Aids
• Grading Someone Else's Paper
• Types of Structured Group Activities
• Group Project Survival Skills
• Leading a Class Discussion
• Multiple Book Review Essay
• Reviewing Collected Works
• Writing a Case Analysis Paper
• Writing a Case Study
• About Informed Consent
• Writing Field Notes
• Writing a Policy Memo
• Writing a Reflective Paper
• Writing a Research Proposal
• Generative AI and Writing
• Acknowledgments

The goal of a research proposal is twofold: to present and justify the need to study a research problem and to present the practical ways in which the proposed study should be conducted. The design elements and procedures for conducting research are governed by standards of the predominant discipline in which the problem resides, therefore, the guidelines for research proposals are more exacting and less formal than a general project proposal. Research proposals contain extensive literature reviews. They must provide persuasive evidence that a need exists for the proposed study. In addition to providing a rationale, a proposal describes detailed methodology for conducting the research consistent with requirements of the professional or academic field and a statement on anticipated outcomes and benefits derived from the study's completion.

Krathwohl, David R. How to Prepare a Dissertation Proposal: Suggestions for Students in Education and the Social and Behavioral Sciences . Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2005.

How to Approach Writing a Research Proposal

Your professor may assign the task of writing a research proposal for the following reasons:

• Develop your skills in thinking about and designing a comprehensive research study;
• Learn how to conduct a comprehensive review of the literature to determine that the research problem has not been adequately addressed or has been answered ineffectively and, in so doing, become better at locating pertinent scholarship related to your topic;
• Improve your general research and writing skills;
• Practice identifying the logical steps that must be taken to accomplish one's research goals;
• Critically review, examine, and consider the use of different methods for gathering and analyzing data related to the research problem; and,
• Nurture a sense of inquisitiveness within yourself and to help see yourself as an active participant in the process of conducting scholarly research.

A proposal should contain all the key elements involved in designing a completed research study, with sufficient information that allows readers to assess the validity and usefulness of your proposed study. The only elements missing from a research proposal are the findings of the study and your analysis of those findings. Finally, an effective proposal is judged on the quality of your writing and, therefore, it is important that your proposal is coherent, clear, and compelling.

Regardless of the research problem you are investigating and the methodology you choose, all research proposals must address the following questions:

• What do you plan to accomplish? Be clear and succinct in defining the research problem and what it is you are proposing to investigate.
• Why do you want to do the research? In addition to detailing your research design, you also must conduct a thorough review of the literature and provide convincing evidence that it is a topic worthy of in-depth study. A successful research proposal must answer the "So What?" question.
• How are you going to conduct the research? Be sure that what you propose is doable. If you're having difficulty formulating a research problem to propose investigating, go here for strategies in developing a problem to study.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

• Failure to be concise . A research proposal must be focused and not be "all over the map" or diverge into unrelated tangents without a clear sense of purpose.
• Failure to cite landmark works in your literature review . Proposals should be grounded in foundational research that lays a foundation for understanding the development and scope of the the topic and its relevance.
• Failure to delimit the contextual scope of your research [e.g., time, place, people, etc.]. As with any research paper, your proposed study must inform the reader how and in what ways the study will frame the problem.
• Failure to develop a coherent and persuasive argument for the proposed research . This is critical. In many workplace settings, the research proposal is a formal document intended to argue for why a study should be funded.
• Sloppy or imprecise writing, or poor grammar . Although a research proposal does not represent a completed research study, there is still an expectation that it is well-written and follows the style and rules of good academic writing.
• Too much detail on minor issues, but not enough detail on major issues . Your proposal should focus on only a few key research questions in order to support the argument that the research needs to be conducted. Minor issues, even if valid, can be mentioned but they should not dominate the overall narrative.

Procter, Margaret. The Academic Proposal.  The Lab Report. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Sanford, Keith. Information for Students: Writing a Research Proposal. Baylor University; Wong, Paul T. P. How to Write a Research Proposal. International Network on Personal Meaning. Trinity Western University; Writing Academic Proposals: Conferences, Articles, and Books. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Writing a Research Proposal. University Library. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Structure and Writing Style

Beginning the Proposal Process

As with writing most college-level academic papers, research proposals are generally organized the same way throughout most social science disciplines. The text of proposals generally vary in length between ten and thirty-five pages, followed by the list of references. However, before you begin, read the assignment carefully and, if anything seems unclear, ask your professor whether there are any specific requirements for organizing and writing the proposal.

A good place to begin is to ask yourself a series of questions:

• What do I want to study?
• Why is the topic important?
• How is it significant within the subject areas covered in my class?
• What problems will it help solve?
• How does it build upon [and hopefully go beyond] research already conducted on the topic?
• What exactly should I plan to do, and can I get it done in the time available?

In general, a compelling research proposal should document your knowledge of the topic and demonstrate your enthusiasm for conducting the study. Approach it with the intention of leaving your readers feeling like, "Wow, that's an exciting idea and I can’t wait to see how it turns out!"

Most proposals should include the following sections:

I.  Introduction

In the real world of higher education, a research proposal is most often written by scholars seeking grant funding for a research project or it's the first step in getting approval to write a doctoral dissertation. Even if this is just a course assignment, treat your introduction as the initial pitch of an idea based on a thorough examination of the significance of a research problem. After reading the introduction, your readers should not only have an understanding of what you want to do, but they should also be able to gain a sense of your passion for the topic and to be excited about the study's possible outcomes. Note that most proposals do not include an abstract [summary] before the introduction.

Think about your introduction as a narrative written in two to four paragraphs that succinctly answers the following four questions :

• What is the central research problem?
• What is the topic of study related to that research problem?
• What methods should be used to analyze the research problem?
• Answer the "So What?" question by explaining why this is important research, what is its significance, and why should someone reading the proposal care about the outcomes of the proposed study?

II.  Background and Significance

This is where you explain the scope and context of your proposal and describe in detail why it's important. It can be melded into your introduction or you can create a separate section to help with the organization and narrative flow of your proposal. Approach writing this section with the thought that you can’t assume your readers will know as much about the research problem as you do. Note that this section is not an essay going over everything you have learned about the topic; instead, you must choose what is most relevant in explaining the aims of your research.

To that end, while there are no prescribed rules for establishing the significance of your proposed study, you should attempt to address some or all of the following:

• State the research problem and give a more detailed explanation about the purpose of the study than what you stated in the introduction. This is particularly important if the problem is complex or multifaceted .
• Present the rationale of your proposed study and clearly indicate why it is worth doing; be sure to answer the "So What? question [i.e., why should anyone care?].
• Describe the major issues or problems examined by your research. This can be in the form of questions to be addressed. Be sure to note how your proposed study builds on previous assumptions about the research problem.
• Explain the methods you plan to use for conducting your research. Clearly identify the key sources you intend to use and explain how they will contribute to your analysis of the topic.
• Describe the boundaries of your proposed research in order to provide a clear focus. Where appropriate, state not only what you plan to study, but what aspects of the research problem will be excluded from the study.
• If necessary, provide definitions of key concepts, theories, or terms.

III.  Literature Review

Connected to the background and significance of your study is a section of your proposal devoted to a more deliberate review and synthesis of prior studies related to the research problem under investigation . The purpose here is to place your project within the larger whole of what is currently being explored, while at the same time, demonstrating to your readers that your work is original and innovative. Think about what questions other researchers have asked, what methodological approaches they have used, and what is your understanding of their findings and, when stated, their recommendations. Also pay attention to any suggestions for further research.

Since a literature review is information dense, it is crucial that this section is intelligently structured to enable a reader to grasp the key arguments underpinning your proposed study in relation to the arguments put forth by other researchers. A good strategy is to break the literature into "conceptual categories" [themes] rather than systematically or chronologically describing groups of materials one at a time. Note that conceptual categories generally reveal themselves after you have read most of the pertinent literature on your topic so adding new categories is an on-going process of discovery as you review more studies. How do you know you've covered the key conceptual categories underlying the research literature? Generally, you can have confidence that all of the significant conceptual categories have been identified if you start to see repetition in the conclusions or recommendations that are being made.

NOTE: Do not shy away from challenging the conclusions made in prior research as a basis for supporting the need for your proposal. Assess what you believe is missing and state how previous research has failed to adequately examine the issue that your study addresses. Highlighting the problematic conclusions strengthens your proposal. For more information on writing literature reviews, GO HERE .

To help frame your proposal's review of prior research, consider the "five C’s" of writing a literature review:

• Cite , so as to keep the primary focus on the literature pertinent to your research problem.
• Compare the various arguments, theories, methodologies, and findings expressed in the literature: what do the authors agree on? Who applies similar approaches to analyzing the research problem?
• Contrast the various arguments, themes, methodologies, approaches, and controversies expressed in the literature: describe what are the major areas of disagreement, controversy, or debate among scholars?
• Critique the literature: Which arguments are more persuasive, and why? Which approaches, findings, and methodologies seem most reliable, valid, or appropriate, and why? Pay attention to the verbs you use to describe what an author says/does [e.g., asserts, demonstrates, argues, etc.].
• Connect the literature to your own area of research and investigation: how does your own work draw upon, depart from, synthesize, or add a new perspective to what has been said in the literature?

IV.  Research Design and Methods

This section must be well-written and logically organized because you are not actually doing the research, yet, your reader must have confidence that you have a plan worth pursuing . The reader will never have a study outcome from which to evaluate whether your methodological choices were the correct ones. Thus, the objective here is to convince the reader that your overall research design and proposed methods of analysis will correctly address the problem and that the methods will provide the means to effectively interpret the potential results. Your design and methods should be unmistakably tied to the specific aims of your study.

Describe the overall research design by building upon and drawing examples from your review of the literature. Consider not only methods that other researchers have used, but methods of data gathering that have not been used but perhaps could be. Be specific about the methodological approaches you plan to undertake to obtain information, the techniques you would use to analyze the data, and the tests of external validity to which you commit yourself [i.e., the trustworthiness by which you can generalize from your study to other people, places, events, and/or periods of time].

When describing the methods you will use, be sure to cover the following:

• Specify the research process you will undertake and the way you will interpret the results obtained in relation to the research problem. Don't just describe what you intend to achieve from applying the methods you choose, but state how you will spend your time while applying these methods [e.g., coding text from interviews to find statements about the need to change school curriculum; running a regression to determine if there is a relationship between campaign advertising on social media sites and election outcomes in Europe ].
• Keep in mind that the methodology is not just a list of tasks; it is a deliberate argument as to why techniques for gathering information add up to the best way to investigate the research problem. This is an important point because the mere listing of tasks to be performed does not demonstrate that, collectively, they effectively address the research problem. Be sure you clearly explain this.
• Anticipate and acknowledge any potential barriers and pitfalls in carrying out your research design and explain how you plan to address them. No method applied to research in the social and behavioral sciences is perfect, so you need to describe where you believe challenges may exist in obtaining data or accessing information. It's always better to acknowledge this than to have it brought up by your professor!

V.  Preliminary Suppositions and Implications

Just because you don't have to actually conduct the study and analyze the results, doesn't mean you can skip talking about the analytical process and potential implications . The purpose of this section is to argue how and in what ways you believe your research will refine, revise, or extend existing knowledge in the subject area under investigation. Depending on the aims and objectives of your study, describe how the anticipated results will impact future scholarly research, theory, practice, forms of interventions, or policy making. Note that such discussions may have either substantive [a potential new policy], theoretical [a potential new understanding], or methodological [a potential new way of analyzing] significance.   When thinking about the potential implications of your study, ask the following questions:

• What might the results mean in regards to challenging the theoretical framework and underlying assumptions that support the study?
• What suggestions for subsequent research could arise from the potential outcomes of the study?
• What will the results mean to practitioners in the natural settings of their workplace, organization, or community?
• Will the results influence programs, methods, and/or forms of intervention?
• How might the results contribute to the solution of social, economic, or other types of problems?
• Will the results influence policy decisions?
• In what way do individuals or groups benefit should your study be pursued?
• What will be improved or changed as a result of the proposed research?
• How will the results of the study be implemented and what innovations or transformative insights could emerge from the process of implementation?

NOTE:   This section should not delve into idle speculation, opinion, or be formulated on the basis of unclear evidence . The purpose is to reflect upon gaps or understudied areas of the current literature and describe how your proposed research contributes to a new understanding of the research problem should the study be implemented as designed.

ANOTHER NOTE : This section is also where you describe any potential limitations to your proposed study. While it is impossible to highlight all potential limitations because the study has yet to be conducted, you still must tell the reader where and in what form impediments may arise and how you plan to address them.

VI.  Conclusion

The conclusion reiterates the importance or significance of your proposal and provides a brief summary of the entire study . This section should be only one or two paragraphs long, emphasizing why the research problem is worth investigating, why your research study is unique, and how it should advance existing knowledge.

Someone reading this section should come away with an understanding of:

• Why the study should be done;
• The specific purpose of the study and the research questions it attempts to answer;
• The decision for why the research design and methods used where chosen over other options;
• The potential implications emerging from your proposed study of the research problem; and
• A sense of how your study fits within the broader scholarship about the research problem.

VII.  Citations

As with any scholarly research paper, you must cite the sources you used . In a standard research proposal, this section can take two forms, so consult with your professor about which one is preferred.

• References -- a list of only the sources you actually used in creating your proposal.
• Bibliography -- a list of everything you used in creating your proposal, along with additional citations to any key sources relevant to understanding the research problem.

In either case, this section should testify to the fact that you did enough preparatory work to ensure the project will complement and not just duplicate the efforts of other researchers. It demonstrates to the reader that you have a thorough understanding of prior research on the topic.

Most proposal formats have you start a new page and use the heading "References" or "Bibliography" centered at the top of the page. Cited works should always use a standard format that follows the writing style advised by the discipline of your course [e.g., education=APA; history=Chicago] or that is preferred by your professor. This section normally does not count towards the total page length of your research proposal.

Develop a Research Proposal: Writing the Proposal. Office of Library Information Services. Baltimore County Public Schools; Heath, M. Teresa Pereira and Caroline Tynan. “Crafting a Research Proposal.” The Marketing Review 10 (Summer 2010): 147-168; Jones, Mark. “Writing a Research Proposal.” In MasterClass in Geography Education: Transforming Teaching and Learning . Graham Butt, editor. (New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2015), pp. 113-127; Juni, Muhamad Hanafiah. “Writing a Research Proposal.” International Journal of Public Health and Clinical Sciences 1 (September/October 2014): 229-240; Krathwohl, David R. How to Prepare a Dissertation Proposal: Suggestions for Students in Education and the Social and Behavioral Sciences . Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2005; Procter, Margaret. The Academic Proposal. The Lab Report. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Punch, Keith and Wayne McGowan. "Developing and Writing a Research Proposal." In From Postgraduate to Social Scientist: A Guide to Key Skills . Nigel Gilbert, ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2006), 59-81; Wong, Paul T. P. How to Write a Research Proposal. International Network on Personal Meaning. Trinity Western University; Writing Academic Proposals: Conferences , Articles, and Books. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Writing a Research Proposal. University Library. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

• << Previous: Writing a Reflective Paper
• Next: Generative AI and Writing >>
• Last Updated: Mar 6, 2024 1:00 PM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/assignments

Research Proposal: How to Write a Perfect One? (Steps & Format)

You probably have the best, most advanced research idea in the world, with a clear set of objectives, a reliable methodology, and a persuasive argument for its significance!

However, without support, none of those things amount to much. Securing funds or a doctorate for a research project can be intimidating, complex, and uncertain.

One rationale way to present your research, or request for funding is by providing a  research proposal  to sponsors or finances on behalf of your organization!

According to  Wikipedia – A  research proposal  is a document proposing a research project, generally in the sciences or academia, and generally constitutes a request for sponsorship or post-graduate (PG) degree for that research. Proposals are evaluated on the cost and potential impact of the proposed research, and on the soundness of the proposed plan for carrying it out.

By getting the proposal right, you dramatically improve your chances of having a successful career in your research field. If your research proposal is poorly crafted or incomplete, it could dash your hopes of studying the research problem entirely.

This is why we have put time and effort into creating an exceptional guide on how to write a research proposal with tips that will help you present your research successfully without any clutter and improve its chances of being accepted!

What is a Research Proposal?

Research proposals are documents that offer detailed information on a proposed program of research. These documents are presented to justify a research idea you have and showcase logical ways in which you think this research could be conducted.

The main purpose of research proposals is to provide persuasive evidence that there is a need for the research study to be proposed, requesting funds for a research project, etc.

What is the Purpose of a Research Proposal?

A research proposal is an opportunity for you to explain the significance of your research project to organizations that might wish to fund or support it.

Ideally, it will showcase the importance and quality of your study, along with the process to conduct the proposed research. It also gives you the chance to think through your research project, predict any challenges that may arise, and refine your focus.

Furthermore, you may be assigned the task of writing a research proposal for the following purposes:

• To help nurture a sense of curiosity within yourself and make you an active participant in the process of doing scholarly research.
• To assist you in designing a comprehensive research study and develop your thinking skills.
• To help you learn how to perform a complete review of the literature to ensure that a research problem has been answered and, qualifies you to be a part of a particular research department depending upon your project topic.
• Thoroughly identifying what rational steps must be taken to achieve one’s research goals.

As you move forward with your research, you’ll find that the research proposal quickly becomes the supporting “ coin of the realm”  to higher education.

Read more:  How To Write A Research Paper?

How to Write a Research Proposal in 7 Simple Parts?

When you begin with writing your research proposal, the first thing to consider is the structure and order of sections concerning the research project you want to showcase. Typically, your research proposal should include the following parts:

Always have a clear working title for your research or study, made up of keywords that are relevant to your project topic. It should clearly highlight the central issue that you will address and provide an indication of the intent of your project. You can revise your title during the course of your research.

2. Literature overview

You must provide a short overview of your research project: the major issues that you want to investigate, and why are they important.

You should also mention why you have chosen to apply for the particular department by referring to the research priorities of a particular supervisor or group. This allows the reader to identify the basic idea of your proposal accurately and shows that your project has a solid foundation in existing knowledge.

3. Research introduction

The introduction provides an outline of previous research papers in the relevant field. It’s an opportunity for you to demonstrate your prowess and show where your research project fits into the broader picture.

Good research is crucial for this part of your proposal. This explains the wide contextual background against which you will perform your research by a briefing on recent debates and the current state of knowledge on the topic.

Read more:  Scientific Paper: What is it & How to Write it? (Steps and Format)

4. Research questions

This is one of the most important sections in writing a research proposal. When drafting a proposal you clearly have to provide an explanation of what you explored while doing the preliminary research and why you want to research it further. This can be done by answering certain questions:

• What is the significance of your research?
• How does it fit into the existing strengths of the department?
• How will it add value to the existing body of literature?
• What are your objectives?

The proposal should also provide your intended approach to answering these questions: Is your approach be doctrinal, empirical, or theoretical, etc.?

5. Research methods

How will you accomplish your research objectives?

To answer this question, your proposal should present your research methodology, by explaining in what ways you are going to conduct your research based on parameters like sample size, techniques, target audience, equipment, data analysis, and more.

Another parameter that should be noted in your proposal is the timescale for completing your research. You should mention a realistic time plan for completing your research study, and how long will it take. You can also use the help of professionals from  Essay Writer Pro  to reduce the solid amounts of effort and your time on crafting your perfect research proposal.

6. Significance of research

This section demonstrates the originality of your research study and explains how your research adds and builds on to the current state of knowledge in the relevant field. The significance of research also provides information about any immediate applications, including further research that might be done on your findings.

Read more:  How to Write an Operations Manual?

7. References

The research proposal should include a list of references to key texts and articles discussed within your proposal sample, along with a selection of sources relevant to your project.

Now that you know the structure, consider these tips before you begin with writing your own research proposal!

Tips to Keep in Mind Before you Start Writing a Research Proposal:

• Be aware of your research area – you will need to exhibit updated knowledge of your project topic.
• If you are applying for a PG degree, try to identify prospective guides in advance. Don’t be afraid to discuss your thoughts and ideas with them to seek their feedback.
• Always check the funder’s guidelines carefully and ensure you address all their demands. One of the common reasons for proposals being rejected is the failure to meet the funder’s specifications.
• The clarity in your writing is very important. If you are applying to an external funding agency, for example, readers may not be experts in your field of research. So, keep your proposal free of irrelevant details.

Ditch Your Boring, Old Editor, and Write a Research Proposal Smart Way with Bit.ai  

To create an awesome research proposal that gets the attention it deserves, you not only need a distraction-free editor but also need a robust tool that can manage all this research work, collaborate with fellow researchers and authors, and connect with them in real-time to get the work done quickly and effectively.

This is where Bit comes in. 

Bit documents come alive and help you present research work beyond just plain boring text. You can add rich media like YouTube videos, Google Docs, One Drive, Excel Spreadsheets, SlideShares, etc. Anything on the internet with a link can be shared and Bit will automatically turn it into visual content.

Thus, Bit brings together everything you need to conduct and write a comprehensive research proposal under one roof, cutting down your efforts in half! Bit has a super easy and fun interface, making onboarding new users easier than ever!

All-in-all Bit is like Google Docs on steroids ! So, no more settling for those boring text editors when you have an excessively robust solution to walk you through!

• Organized workspaces and folders  – Bit brings all your research in one place by allowing you to organize information in workspaces and folders. Workspaces can be created around projects, studies, departments, and fields. Everyone added to a workspace can access and collaborate on its content. Inside each workspace, you can create an unlimited number of wikis and access your content library.
• Content library –  Bit has a content library at the workspace level where you can store and share assets. You can save images, files, and content easily and can access it at any point.
• Rich embed options –  Bit.ai integrates with over 100+ web applications (Ex: YouTube, PDFs, LucidChart, Google Drive, etc) to help you weave information in their wikis beyond just text and images.
• Smart search –  Bit has very robust search functionality that allows anyone to find information quickly. You can search for folders, files, documents, and content inside your documents across all of your workspaces.
• Interlink documents  – Bit allows authors to create unlimited documents and interlink them to create wikis that expand the knowledge base. Simply highlight the words and you have the option to create a new document.
• Permission & sharing access  – Bit supports features like document tracking, cloud-upload, templates, document locking, document expiration, password protection, etc. that help keep your important information safe. Also, Bit docs can be shared in 3 different ways-  trackable links, live embeds,  and  live state!

Our team at  bit.ai  has created a few awesome templates to make your research process more efficient. Make sure to check them out before you go, y our team might need them!

• Case Study Template
• Research Paper Template
• Competitor Research Template
• Brainstorming Template
• SWOT Analysis Template
• White Paper Template

Ending Note!

Successful research proposals must communicate the researcher’s knowledge of the field and the proposed research methodology to help them secure funding. It also offers a chance to make a logical and structured argument by laying down everything in favor of their research .

A “smart tool” like Bit.ai streamlines this whole writing process significantly and will help you make a mark in the research field with a well-crafted research proposal!

Further reads: 

• Thesis Statement: Definition, Importance, Steps & Tips!
• Collaborative Research: Definition, Benefits & Tips!
• Proposal Letter: What is it & How to Write it?
• Consulting Proposal: What is it & How to Create it? (Steps Included)
• Grant Proposal: What, Why & How to Write it?
• Top 11 Tools for Researchers in 2022
• How To Write A Business Proposal?
• How to Write a Request for Proposal (RFP)?
• What is Project Status Report Documentation?

Client Brief: What is it and How to Write it? (Steps Included)

8 Key Benefits of Virtual Teams for Your Company!

Related posts

Why bit is the best google docs alternative, service proposal: what is it & how to create it, top 7 hr kpis you should measure in 2023, knowledge sharing platform vs knowledge base: the key differences, growth plan: what is it & how to create one (steps included), kpi report: what it is & how to create a perfect one.

About Bit.ai

Bit.ai is the essential next-gen workplace and document collaboration platform. that helps teams share knowledge by connecting any type of digital content. With this intuitive, cloud-based solution, anyone can work visually and collaborate in real-time while creating internal notes, team projects, knowledge bases, client-facing content, and more.

The smartest online Google Docs and Word alternative, Bit.ai is used in over 100 countries by professionals everywhere, from IT teams creating internal documentation and knowledge bases, to sales and marketing teams sharing client materials and client portals.

👉👉Click Here to Check out Bit.ai.

Recent Posts

Maximizing digital agency success: 4 ways to leverage client portals, how to create wikis for employee onboarding & training, what is support documentation: key insights and types, how to create a smart company wiki | a guide by bit.ai, 9 must-have internal communication software in 2024, 21 business productivity tools to enhance work efficiency.

• Research Process

Writing a Scientific Research Project Proposal

• 5 minute read
• 94.3K views

Table of Contents

The importance of a well-written research proposal cannot be underestimated. Your research really is only as good as your proposal. A poorly written, or poorly conceived research proposal will doom even an otherwise worthy project. On the other hand, a well-written, high-quality proposal will increase your chances for success.

In this article, we’ll outline the basics of writing an effective scientific research proposal, including the differences between research proposals, grants and cover letters. We’ll also touch on common mistakes made when submitting research proposals, as well as a simple example or template that you can follow.

What is a scientific research proposal?

The main purpose of a scientific research proposal is to convince your audience that your project is worthwhile, and that you have the expertise and wherewithal to complete it. The elements of an effective research proposal mirror those of the research process itself, which we’ll outline below. Essentially, the research proposal should include enough information for the reader to determine if your proposed study is worth pursuing.

It is not an uncommon misunderstanding to think that a research proposal and a cover letter are the same things. However, they are different. The main difference between a research proposal vs cover letter content is distinct. Whereas the research proposal summarizes the proposal for future research, the cover letter connects you to the research, and how you are the right person to complete the proposed research.

There is also sometimes confusion around a research proposal vs grant application. Whereas a research proposal is a statement of intent, related to answering a research question, a grant application is a specific request for funding to complete the research proposed. Of course, there are elements of overlap between the two documents; it’s the purpose of the document that defines one or the other.

Scientific Research Proposal Format

Although there is no one way to write a scientific research proposal, there are specific guidelines. A lot depends on which journal you’re submitting your research proposal to, so you may need to follow their scientific research proposal template.

In general, however, there are fairly universal sections to every scientific research proposal. These include:

• Title: Make sure the title of your proposal is descriptive and concise. Make it catch and informative at the same time, avoiding dry phrases like, “An investigation…” Your title should pique the interest of the reader.
• Abstract: This is a brief (300-500 words) summary that includes the research question, your rationale for the study, and any applicable hypothesis. You should also include a brief description of your methodology, including procedures, samples, instruments, etc.
• Introduction: The opening paragraph of your research proposal is, perhaps, the most important. Here you want to introduce the research problem in a creative way, and demonstrate your understanding of the need for the research. You want the reader to think that your proposed research is current, important and relevant.
• Background: Include a brief history of the topic and link it to a contemporary context to show its relevance for today. Identify key researchers and institutions also looking at the problem
• Literature Review: This is the section that may take the longest amount of time to assemble. Here you want to synthesize prior research, and place your proposed research into the larger picture of what’s been studied in the past. You want to show your reader that your work is original, and adds to the current knowledge.
• Research Design and Methodology: This section should be very clearly and logically written and organized. You are letting your reader know that you know what you are going to do, and how. The reader should feel confident that you have the skills and knowledge needed to get the project done.
• Preliminary Implications: Here you’ll be outlining how you anticipate your research will extend current knowledge in your field. You might also want to discuss how your findings will impact future research needs.
• Conclusion: This section reinforces the significance and importance of your proposed research, and summarizes the entire proposal.
• References/Citations: Of course, you need to include a full and accurate list of any and all sources you used to write your research proposal.

Common Mistakes in Writing a Scientific Research Project Proposal

Remember, the best research proposal can be rejected if it’s not well written or is ill-conceived. The most common mistakes made include:

• Not providing the proper context for your research question or the problem
• Failing to reference landmark/key studies
• Losing focus of the research question or problem
• Not accurately presenting contributions by other researchers and institutions
• Incompletely developing a persuasive argument for the research that is being proposed
• Misplaced attention on minor points and/or not enough detail on major issues
• Sloppy, low-quality writing without effective logic and flow
• Incorrect or lapses in references and citations, and/or references not in proper format
• The proposal is too long – or too short

Scientific Research Proposal Example

There are countless examples that you can find for successful research proposals. In addition, you can also find examples of unsuccessful research proposals. Search for successful research proposals in your field, and even for your target journal, to get a good idea on what specifically your audience may be looking for.

While there’s no one example that will show you everything you need to know, looking at a few will give you a good idea of what you need to include in your own research proposal. Talk, also, to colleagues in your field, especially if you are a student or a new researcher. We can often learn from the mistakes of others. The more prepared and knowledgeable you are prior to writing your research proposal, the more likely you are to succeed.

Language Editing Services

One of the top reasons scientific research proposals are rejected is due to poor logic and flow. Check out our Language Editing Services to ensure a great proposal , that’s clear and concise, and properly referenced. Check our video for more information, and get started today.

• Manuscript Review

Research Fraud: Falsification and Fabrication in Research Data

Research Team Structure

You may also like.

Descriptive Research Design and Its Myriad Uses

Five Common Mistakes to Avoid When Writing a Biomedical Research Paper

Making Technical Writing in Environmental Engineering Accessible

To Err is Not Human: The Dangers of AI-assisted Academic Writing

When Data Speak, Listen: Importance of Data Collection and Analysis Methods

Choosing the Right Research Methodology: A Guide for Researchers

Why is data validation important in research?

Writing a good review article

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Indian J Anaesth
• v.60(9); 2016 Sep

How to write a research proposal?

Department of Anaesthesiology, Bangalore Medical College and Research Institute, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India

Devika Rani Duggappa

Writing the proposal of a research work in the present era is a challenging task due to the constantly evolving trends in the qualitative research design and the need to incorporate medical advances into the methodology. The proposal is a detailed plan or ‘blueprint’ for the intended study, and once it is completed, the research project should flow smoothly. Even today, many of the proposals at post-graduate evaluation committees and application proposals for funding are substandard. A search was conducted with keywords such as research proposal, writing proposal and qualitative using search engines, namely, PubMed and Google Scholar, and an attempt has been made to provide broad guidelines for writing a scientifically appropriate research proposal.

INTRODUCTION

A clean, well-thought-out proposal forms the backbone for the research itself and hence becomes the most important step in the process of conduct of research.[ 1 ] The objective of preparing a research proposal would be to obtain approvals from various committees including ethics committee [details under ‘Research methodology II’ section [ Table 1 ] in this issue of IJA) and to request for grants. However, there are very few universally accepted guidelines for preparation of a good quality research proposal. A search was performed with keywords such as research proposal, funding, qualitative and writing proposals using search engines, namely, PubMed, Google Scholar and Scopus.

Five ‘C’s while writing a literature review

BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF A RESEARCH PROPOSAL

A proposal needs to show how your work fits into what is already known about the topic and what new paradigm will it add to the literature, while specifying the question that the research will answer, establishing its significance, and the implications of the answer.[ 2 ] The proposal must be capable of convincing the evaluation committee about the credibility, achievability, practicality and reproducibility (repeatability) of the research design.[ 3 ] Four categories of audience with different expectations may be present in the evaluation committees, namely academic colleagues, policy-makers, practitioners and lay audiences who evaluate the research proposal. Tips for preparation of a good research proposal include; ‘be practical, be persuasive, make broader links, aim for crystal clarity and plan before you write’. A researcher must be balanced, with a realistic understanding of what can be achieved. Being persuasive implies that researcher must be able to convince other researchers, research funding agencies, educational institutions and supervisors that the research is worth getting approval. The aim of the researcher should be clearly stated in simple language that describes the research in a way that non-specialists can comprehend, without use of jargons. The proposal must not only demonstrate that it is based on an intelligent understanding of the existing literature but also show that the writer has thought about the time needed to conduct each stage of the research.[ 4 , 5 ]

CONTENTS OF A RESEARCH PROPOSAL

The contents or formats of a research proposal vary depending on the requirements of evaluation committee and are generally provided by the evaluation committee or the institution.

In general, a cover page should contain the (i) title of the proposal, (ii) name and affiliation of the researcher (principal investigator) and co-investigators, (iii) institutional affiliation (degree of the investigator and the name of institution where the study will be performed), details of contact such as phone numbers, E-mail id's and lines for signatures of investigators.

The main contents of the proposal may be presented under the following headings: (i) introduction, (ii) review of literature, (iii) aims and objectives, (iv) research design and methods, (v) ethical considerations, (vi) budget, (vii) appendices and (viii) citations.[ 4 ]

Introduction

It is also sometimes termed as ‘need for study’ or ‘abstract’. Introduction is an initial pitch of an idea; it sets the scene and puts the research in context.[ 6 ] The introduction should be designed to create interest in the reader about the topic and proposal. It should convey to the reader, what you want to do, what necessitates the study and your passion for the topic.[ 7 ] Some questions that can be used to assess the significance of the study are: (i) Who has an interest in the domain of inquiry? (ii) What do we already know about the topic? (iii) What has not been answered adequately in previous research and practice? (iv) How will this research add to knowledge, practice and policy in this area? Some of the evaluation committees, expect the last two questions, elaborated under a separate heading of ‘background and significance’.[ 8 ] Introduction should also contain the hypothesis behind the research design. If hypothesis cannot be constructed, the line of inquiry to be used in the research must be indicated.

Review of literature

It refers to all sources of scientific evidence pertaining to the topic in interest. In the present era of digitalisation and easy accessibility, there is an enormous amount of relevant data available, making it a challenge for the researcher to include all of it in his/her review.[ 9 ] It is crucial to structure this section intelligently so that the reader can grasp the argument related to your study in relation to that of other researchers, while still demonstrating to your readers that your work is original and innovative. It is preferable to summarise each article in a paragraph, highlighting the details pertinent to the topic of interest. The progression of review can move from the more general to the more focused studies, or a historical progression can be used to develop the story, without making it exhaustive.[ 1 ] Literature should include supporting data, disagreements and controversies. Five ‘C's may be kept in mind while writing a literature review[ 10 ] [ Table 1 ].

Aims and objectives

The research purpose (or goal or aim) gives a broad indication of what the researcher wishes to achieve in the research. The hypothesis to be tested can be the aim of the study. The objectives related to parameters or tools used to achieve the aim are generally categorised as primary and secondary objectives.

Research design and method

The objective here is to convince the reader that the overall research design and methods of analysis will correctly address the research problem and to impress upon the reader that the methodology/sources chosen are appropriate for the specific topic. It should be unmistakably tied to the specific aims of your study.

In this section, the methods and sources used to conduct the research must be discussed, including specific references to sites, databases, key texts or authors that will be indispensable to the project. There should be specific mention about the methodological approaches to be undertaken to gather information, about the techniques to be used to analyse it and about the tests of external validity to which researcher is committed.[ 10 , 11 ]

The components of this section include the following:[ 4 ]

Population and sample

Population refers to all the elements (individuals, objects or substances) that meet certain criteria for inclusion in a given universe,[ 12 ] and sample refers to subset of population which meets the inclusion criteria for enrolment into the study. The inclusion and exclusion criteria should be clearly defined. The details pertaining to sample size are discussed in the article “Sample size calculation: Basic priniciples” published in this issue of IJA.

Data collection

The researcher is expected to give a detailed account of the methodology adopted for collection of data, which include the time frame required for the research. The methodology should be tested for its validity and ensure that, in pursuit of achieving the results, the participant's life is not jeopardised. The author should anticipate and acknowledge any potential barrier and pitfall in carrying out the research design and explain plans to address them, thereby avoiding lacunae due to incomplete data collection. If the researcher is planning to acquire data through interviews or questionnaires, copy of the questions used for the same should be attached as an annexure with the proposal.

Rigor (soundness of the research)

This addresses the strength of the research with respect to its neutrality, consistency and applicability. Rigor must be reflected throughout the proposal.

It refers to the robustness of a research method against bias. The author should convey the measures taken to avoid bias, viz. blinding and randomisation, in an elaborate way, thus ensuring that the result obtained from the adopted method is purely as chance and not influenced by other confounding variables.

Consistency

Consistency considers whether the findings will be consistent if the inquiry was replicated with the same participants and in a similar context. This can be achieved by adopting standard and universally accepted methods and scales.

Applicability

Applicability refers to the degree to which the findings can be applied to different contexts and groups.[ 13 ]

Data analysis

This section deals with the reduction and reconstruction of data and its analysis including sample size calculation. The researcher is expected to explain the steps adopted for coding and sorting the data obtained. Various tests to be used to analyse the data for its robustness, significance should be clearly stated. Author should also mention the names of statistician and suitable software which will be used in due course of data analysis and their contribution to data analysis and sample calculation.[ 9 ]

Ethical considerations

Medical research introduces special moral and ethical problems that are not usually encountered by other researchers during data collection, and hence, the researcher should take special care in ensuring that ethical standards are met. Ethical considerations refer to the protection of the participants' rights (right to self-determination, right to privacy, right to autonomy and confidentiality, right to fair treatment and right to protection from discomfort and harm), obtaining informed consent and the institutional review process (ethical approval). The researcher needs to provide adequate information on each of these aspects.

Informed consent needs to be obtained from the participants (details discussed in further chapters), as well as the research site and the relevant authorities.

When the researcher prepares a research budget, he/she should predict and cost all aspects of the research and then add an additional allowance for unpredictable disasters, delays and rising costs. All items in the budget should be justified.

Appendices are documents that support the proposal and application. The appendices will be specific for each proposal but documents that are usually required include informed consent form, supporting documents, questionnaires, measurement tools and patient information of the study in layman's language.

As with any scholarly research paper, you must cite the sources you used in composing your proposal. Although the words ‘references and bibliography’ are different, they are used interchangeably. It refers to all references cited in the research proposal.

Successful, qualitative research proposals should communicate the researcher's knowledge of the field and method and convey the emergent nature of the qualitative design. The proposal should follow a discernible logic from the introduction to presentation of the appendices.

Financial support and sponsorship

Conflicts of interest.

There are no conflicts of interest.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Dissertation

How to Write a Dissertation or Thesis Proposal

Published on September 21, 2022 by Tegan George . Revised on July 18, 2023.

When starting your thesis or dissertation process, one of the first requirements is a research proposal or a prospectus. It describes what or who you want to examine, delving into why, when, where, and how you will do so, stemming from your research question and a relevant topic .

The proposal or prospectus stage is crucial for the development of your research. It helps you choose a type of research to pursue, as well as whether to pursue qualitative or quantitative methods and what your research design will look like.

You can download our templates in the format of your choice below.

Download Word template Download Google Docs template

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

What should your proposal contain, dissertation question examples, what should your proposal look like, dissertation prospectus examples, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about proposals.

Prior to jumping into the research for your thesis or dissertation, you first need to develop your research proposal and have it approved by your supervisor. It should outline all of the decisions you have taken about your project, from your dissertation topic to your hypotheses and research objectives .

Depending on your department’s requirements, there may be a defense component involved, where you present your research plan in prospectus format to your committee for their approval.

Your proposal should answer the following questions:

• Why is your research necessary?
• What is already known about your topic?
• Where and when will your research be conducted?
• Who should be studied?
• How can the research best be done?

Ultimately, your proposal should persuade your supervisor or committee that your proposed project is worth pursuing.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Strong research kicks off with a solid research question , and dissertations are no exception to this.

Dissertation research questions should be:

• Focused on a single problem or issue
• Researchable using primary and/or secondary sources
• Feasible to answer within the timeframe and practical constraints
• Specific enough to answer thoroughly
• Complex enough to develop the answer over the space of a paper or thesis
• Relevant to your field of study and/or society more broadly
• What are the main factors enticing people under 30 in suburban areas to engage in the gig economy?
• Which techniques prove most effective for 1st-grade teachers at local elementary schools in engaging students with special needs?
• Which communication streams are the most effective for getting those aged 18-30 to the polls on Election Day?

An easy rule of thumb is that your proposal will usually resemble a (much) shorter version of your thesis or dissertation. While of course it won’t include the results section , discussion section , or conclusion , it serves as a “mini” version or roadmap for what you eventually seek to write.

Be sure to include:

• A succinct introduction to your topic and problem statement
• A brief literature review situating your topic within existing research
• A basic outline of the research methods you think will best answer your research question
• The perceived implications for future research
• A reference list in the citation style of your choice

The length of your proposal varies quite a bit depending on your discipline and type of work you’re conducting. While a thesis proposal is often only 3-7 pages long, a prospectus for your dissertation is usually much longer, with more detailed analysis. Dissertation proposals can be up to 25-30 pages in length.

Writing a proposal or prospectus can be a challenge, but we’ve compiled some examples for you to get your started.

• Example #1: “Geographic Representations of the Planet Mars, 1867-1907” by Maria Lane
• Example #2: “Individuals and the State in Late Bronze Age Greece: Messenian Perspectives on Mycenaean Society” by Dimitri Nakassis
• Example #3: “Manhood Up in the Air: A Study of Male Flight Attendants, Queerness, and Corporate Capitalism during the Cold War Era” by Phil Tiemeyer

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

If you want to know more about AI for academic writing, AI tools, or research bias, make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples or go directly to our tools!

Research bias

• Survivorship bias
• Self-serving bias
• Availability heuristic
• Halo effect
• Hindsight bias
• Deep learning
• Generative AI
• Machine learning
• Reinforcement learning
• Supervised vs. unsupervised learning

 (AI) Tools

• Grammar Checker
• Paraphrasing Tool
• Text Summarizer
• AI Detector
• Plagiarism Checker
• Citation Generator

The research methods you use depend on the type of data you need to answer your research question .

• If you want to measure something or test a hypothesis , use quantitative methods . If you want to explore ideas, thoughts and meanings, use qualitative methods .
• If you want to analyze a large amount of readily-available data, use secondary data. If you want data specific to your purposes with control over how it is generated, collect primary data.
• If you want to establish cause-and-effect relationships between variables , use experimental methods. If you want to understand the characteristics of a research subject, use descriptive methods.

A thesis or dissertation outline is one of the most critical first steps in your writing process. It helps you to lay out and organize your ideas and can provide you with a roadmap for deciding what kind of research you’d like to undertake.

Generally, an outline contains information on the different sections included in your thesis or dissertation , such as:

• Your anticipated title
• Your abstract
• Your chapters (sometimes subdivided into further topics like literature review , research methods , avenues for future research, etc.)

A well-planned research design helps ensure that your methods match your research aims, that you collect high-quality data, and that you use the right kind of analysis to answer your questions, utilizing credible sources . This allows you to draw valid , trustworthy conclusions.

The priorities of a research design can vary depending on the field, but you usually have to specify:

• Your research questions and/or hypotheses
• Your overall approach (e.g., qualitative or quantitative )
• The type of design you’re using (e.g., a survey , experiment , or case study )
• Your sampling methods or criteria for selecting subjects
• Your data collection methods (e.g., questionnaires , observations)
• Your data collection procedures (e.g., operationalization , timing and data management)
• Your data analysis methods (e.g., statistical tests  or thematic analysis )

A dissertation prospectus or proposal describes what or who you plan to research for your dissertation. It delves into why, when, where, and how you will do your research, as well as helps you choose a type of research to pursue. You should also determine whether you plan to pursue qualitative or quantitative methods and what your research design will look like.

It should outline all of the decisions you have taken about your project, from your dissertation topic to your hypotheses and research objectives , ready to be approved by your supervisor or committee.

Note that some departments require a defense component, where you present your prospectus to your committee orally.

Formulating a main research question can be a difficult task. Overall, your question should contribute to solving the problem that you have defined in your problem statement .

However, it should also fulfill criteria in three main areas:

• Researchability
• Feasibility and specificity
• Relevance and originality

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

George, T. (2023, July 18). How to Write a Dissertation or Thesis Proposal. Scribbr. Retrieved March 25, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/thesis-dissertation-proposal/

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Other students also liked, a step-by-step guide to the writing process, 10 research question examples to guide your research project, dissertation & thesis outline | example & free templates, what is your plagiarism score.

Proposal Preparation and Submission

Categories:

Introduction

A proposal is more than a pitch document; it’s a work plan. If the agency awards the project, you will have to follow the plan that your proposal represents. Proposals are complex documents with specific requirements for each section. Be sure that you understand each component and allocate adequate time to put together your budget and gather the necessary components for your proposal. Keep in mind that some components require additional review so that should also be accounted for in your preparation timeline.

Proposal Development and Routing

The electronic Proposal Development and Routing Form (PDRF ) is used to collect and route all the proposal documents, approvals and waivers necessary for review and endorsement by Stanford University. Department administrators should initiate the PDRF at the beginning of the proposal development process in the Stanford Electronic Research Administration System (SeRA).  

Review and Approvals

The Principal Investigator’s review and approval collected in the PDRF provides the certifications required by government agencies, and an agreement to comply with Stanford and sponsor policies.

Departmental review and approvals confirm financial commitments made in a proposal, and that stated personnel and facilities are available to carry out the project. Other required special approvals that are provided by the applicable Stanford office (such as SLAC involvement, international activity, PI waivers, etc.) are also collected and documented in the PDRF. 

Final Review and Endorsement

The Institutional Official (IO) reviews the information contained in the PDRF to endorse the proposal. The IO submits the endorsed proposal to the sponsor on behalf of Stanford University.

Proposal Timeline

As you complete the PDRF, you will get a better understanding of the complexity of your proposal including the approvals that you may have to obtain from various offices on campus.

Keep in mind, reviews do not have to be sequential. If you know a proposal will require a special approval, e.g., an indirect cost waiver or waiver for PIship, initiate those requests as soon as possible. Your timeline’s starting point is the sponsor’s deadline. From there, you will factor in your institutional official’s proposal review policy (+5 business days) as well as any other special approvals you may need (see picture above). Remember to allow for extra time when the proposal includes components with external approvals such as subawards or work conducted abroad. Also don’t forget to check the timezone that your proposal is due by (PST, CT, EST, Greenwich time, etc.). Understand what is required by reading the OSR Internal Proposal Deadline Policy Memo 2015 , Q&A Clarifying the University Proposal Deadline Policy and the School of Medicine Internal Proposal Deadline Policy and FAQs .

Proposal Timeline Guidance

The PI and support staff prepare the proposal in time for routing through department and school channels for approval. The complexity of your proposal and the approvals needed from other offices/departments will determine the length of your timeline. 

30 days or more to prepare the proposal budget

In the School of Medicine, the PI and support staff work in close collaboration with the Research Management Group (RMG). The Research Process Manager (RPM) assigned to the applicable SoM department will also create the budget for the proposal. RMG requests a 30-day or more advance notification (School of Medicine only).

For other schools, a similar timeframe +30 days will ensure sufficient time to complete all the steps in the proposal preparation process. 

In the School of Engineering, the PI and supporting staff work with the Engineering Research Administration (ERA) group to put together all the proposal documentation.

In other schools, the PI and support staff complete all of the documentation that ultimately gets routed for department/school approvals and institutional endorsement and submission.

PI Eligibility & Exceptions

Eligibility to serve as a PI or Co-PI on externally-funded research projects is a privilege generally granted only to members of the Stanford Academic Council or to the Medical Center Line faculty. This policy is intended to ensure that the intellectual direction of research and scholarship is explicitly recognized as the responsibility of the PI. Designation as a project PI confers primary responsibility for the scientific, technical, and fiscal direction of the project to that individual. This designation, once granted to a specific named PI, may not be delegated to any other faculty member or staff member.

However, the University recognizes that there may be special situations for which it is acceptable to grant PI-ship to other individuals. Exceptions to the policy may be granted under special circumstances, and a waiver of PI status is required.

• For example, a researcher who is otherwise not eligible may be approved to serve as PI on externally-funded activities related to the sponsorship of conferences, exhibits, workshops, or public events; specific projects that are part of a larger interdisciplinary program; or career development awards. These exceptions must be approved by the department chair and the school dean.  
• In addition, the University recognizes that there may be other unique and rare situations that warrant an exception to the policy, such as allowing short-term PI-ship for a visiting faculty member or granting permission for a not-yet-approved faculty member to submit a proposal. In addition to department and school approval, these requests must also be approved by the Dean of Research. To learn more see RPH 2.1: Principal Investigator Eligibility and Criteria for Exceptions .
• Note also that the University distinguishes between PI or co-PI and other project personnel designations (e.g., Associate Investigators), as may be needed in the presentation of specific proposal staffing requirements.   

Submission of the proposal in the name of a "nominal" Principal Investigator who then delegates primary responsibility to an ineligible PI is inconsistent with the responsibility of Academic Council members for the intellectual direction of the University and is not permitted. See RPH 14.2: Academic Policies Pertaining to Sponsored Project Proposals .

Check with your school for time required to request a waiver of indirect (F&A) costs

The Dean of Research will consider requests for indirect (F&A) cost waivers in very limited circumstances. The PI should initiate the request for approval first to her department chair and school dean's office; requests must adhere to RPH . If approval is obtained, the request must be sent to the Dean of Research Office for approval.

For projects administered within the School of Medicine, the request must be sent to the Dean of the School of Medicine through the Research Management Group once it is approved by the PI’s department chair.

10 business days or more prior to sponsor deadline

The PI and School/Departmental approvals of the PDRF including attachments (at a minimum, a copy of the draft scientific portion of the proposal, internal budget and budget justification)  should have been completed by now in the SeRA system. This will ensure that approvals from other offices (indirect cost waiver, global affairs review, export control review, etc.) will be completed on time for the final review and endorsement by the Institutional Official (IO). Finally, the proposal forms and documentation should be simultaneously accessible for review in the sponsor’s proposal application portal (ASSIST, Cayuse 424, Fastlane, Research.gov, etc.).  

5 business days or more prior to sponsor deadline

The approvals from other offices are now complete in the PDRF (some are collected within the PDRF such as the export control review while others require for the e-mail approval to be attached to the PDRF, i.e. foundation relations approval) and the proposal is now ready for the institutional official to review. During this review period, your IO will let you know if changes or corrections are needed. 

By the sponsor's deadline date and time

Once the proposal is fully compliant, the proposal is endorsed and submitted by your IO in OSR or RMG (SoM only) to the sponsor on behalf of the University.via the sponsor's requested method. Remember that the proposal may be due by a set time in a different time zone from ours (e.g., MST, EST, foreign country timezone, etc..)

Check eProtocol for panel schedule

If the proposal has an extremely high probability of being awarded soon, request a protocol approval by Stanford compliance panels when the research involves human subjects, stem cells, animal subjects, or hazardous substances.

Who is My Preaward Institutional Official

The Institutional Official (IO) is an individual named by Stanford, who is authorized to act for the institution, and to assume the obligations imposed by federal, state and local laws, regulations, requirements and conditions, as well as Stanford policy that applies to a proposal and award.

The IO reviews, endorses, signs and submits proposals to the sponsor on behalf of Stanford. In signing a proposal and in accepting a corresponding award, this individual certifies that Stanford will comply with the assurances and certifications referenced in the application. 

This individual's signature further certifies that Stanford will be accountable both for appropriate use of funds awarded and performance of the sponsored project activities resulting from the application.

IO Responsibilities by Central Office

Stanford proposal preparation resources.

The Office of Sponsored Research , the School of Medicine's  Research Management Group  and the School of Engineering's Engineering Research Administration group along with your school-based research administrators can help you with your proposal.

In addition Stanford offers support for your proposals from the following offices:

Stanford Research Development Office (RDO), is a unit under VPDoR that aims to strengthen collaborative or strategic research and scholarly activities through support for funding applications. RDO supports research teams from across the University, with an emphasis on complex or strategic proposals. This often includes large, multi-PI, multi-disciplinary proposals, but can also apply to other projects depending on the discipline or specific situation.

RDO’s goal is to enhance the competitiveness of proposals through grantsmanship while reducing the burden on PIs. They provide (pre-)preaward support that might include finding the right fit between project and sponsor, supporting team formation and concept development, coordinating proposal development, and editing of proposals.

University Corporate and Foundation Relations (UCFR) is a central university office that helps to foster relationships between Stanford University and companies and private professional foundations. Part of the Office of Development, they help faculty and external funding partners connect and collaborate to advance mutual goals that align with the university’s research and teaching mission. 

The Office of Science Outreach  (OSO) helps faculty engage in science outreach, including organized activities targeted at youth, school teachers, and the general public that will increase their interest, understanding, and involvement in math, science, and engineering.  

OSO serves faculty throughout the University by assisting them in creating outreach project ideas and proposals, identifying potential partners for them (both within Stanford as well as externally), and facilitating information and resource sharing among all of the University's science outreach programs. 

They can brainstorm/suggest outreach ideas to incorporate in your proposal, review and give feedback on a draft proposal, find a specific audience/partner for your project, or write/acquire letters of support from project partners/participants. OSO also provides programs faculty members can tap into to fulfill outreach requirements while continuing to conduct research and perform teaching duties.

The Stanford Center for Clinical and Translational Education and Research (Spectrum) is an independent research center funded in part by an NIH Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA). Its goal is to accelerate and enhance medical research, from basic discovery to improved patient care.

Global Business Services

Are you planning travel abroad to study, research, or volunteer? Will you be collaborating with international visitors either here at Stanford or abroad? If so, you must be aware of your individual responsibilities for understanding the laws, regulations, and requirements that apply. Prepare for your international academic activity with the wealth of tools and services available to you.

University Libraries Data Management Services

Data management is emerging as a key component of funding agency requirements. Stanford University Libraries offers tools and services to help researchers comply with funding agency provisions on data management and to improve the visibility of their research.

The Data Management Planning Tool provides templates, Stanford-specific guidance, and suggested answer text for creating a data management plan for your next grant submission. The Stanford Digital Repository provides long-term preservation of your important research data in a secure, sustainable stewardship environment, combined with a persistent URL (PURL) that allows for easy data discovery, access, sharing, and reuse.

Sponsor Proposal Preparation Guidelines

Before you prepare a proposal, study and follow the current specific agency/sponsor guidelines to understand your responsibilities. 

Federal agencies

Most federal agencies issue guidelines with the funding opportunities and are attached to the grants.gov listing. 

The National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation, two of our top funders, provide many resources for proposal preparation and award management:

• NIH How to Apply
• NIH Grants Policy
• NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG) and Policy Information

Proposal Submission

Once the proposal has been reviewed by the institutional official, it gets submitted to the sponsor via the method prescribed in the associated solicitation/funding opportunity announcement. The vast majority of our proposals must be submitted via an electronic portal by an institutional official. To guide you in determining the portal to use, please see the below table:

Federal Agencies

• Grants.gov is the official funding opportunity announcement website for the federal government. Stanford University does not use Grants.gov’s electronic proposal submission portal called Workspace.  Once you locate a program announcement in Grants.gov, use the table above to determine the method of submission applicable to that program announcement.  
• Cayuse Proposals (S2S) is a web-based software service that provides faculty researchers and support staff an easier, faster interface to Grants.gov for submitting research proposals to federal agencies. 
• NSF Research.gov is the National Science Foundation online system that support all functions of the proposal process: submission, review, award, and reporting. All reporting functionality (technical and financial)  is in Research.gov. The old NSF FastLane system has been retired.  For a status update on FastLane system decommissioning and transition to Research.gov transition click Here .
• NASA NSPIRES - NASA utilizes this online system to announce NASA funding opportunities. In some instances, pre-proposals and/or full proposals are accepted via NSPIRES.
• NIH ERA Commons is an investigator registration system that works in conjunction with ASSIST and Grants.gov to insure receipt of applications by the National Institutes of Health. All investigators must be registered in NIH Commons prior to submitting proposals to NIH and other Public Health Service agencies.

Private Agencies

Proposals to foundations, corporations and other non-profit agencies are submitted via a variety of methods. Make sure to check the instructions from the sponsor and verify that we are registered for their electronic method of submission. Some foundations also require coordination and prior approval with foundation relations. Please refer to the  Restricted Foundation List.  Applications to restricted foundations require coordination with the  Office of University Foundation Relations.

• Proposal Central supports a variety of non-profit funding agencies in proposal submission. Agencies that utilize this system include the American Cancer Society, the Arthritis Foundation, the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, and the Muscular Dystrophy Association.

Created: 04.01.2021

Updated: 03.25.2024

17 Research Proposal Examples

A research proposal systematically and transparently outlines a proposed research project.

The purpose of a research proposal is to demonstrate a project’s viability and the researcher’s preparedness to conduct an academic study. It serves as a roadmap for the researcher.

The process holds value both externally (for accountability purposes and often as a requirement for a grant application) and intrinsic value (for helping the researcher to clarify the mechanics, purpose, and potential signficance of the study).

Key sections of a research proposal include: the title, abstract, introduction, literature review, research design and methods, timeline, budget, outcomes and implications, references, and appendix. Each is briefly explained below.

Watch my Guide: How to Write a Research Proposal

Get your Template for Writing your Research Proposal Here (With AI Prompts!)

Research Proposal Sample Structure

Title: The title should present a concise and descriptive statement that clearly conveys the core idea of the research projects. Make it as specific as possible. The reader should immediately be able to grasp the core idea of the intended research project. Often, the title is left too vague and does not help give an understanding of what exactly the study looks at.

Abstract: Abstracts are usually around 250-300 words and provide an overview of what is to follow – including the research problem , objectives, methods, expected outcomes, and significance of the study. Use it as a roadmap and ensure that, if the abstract is the only thing someone reads, they’ll get a good fly-by of what will be discussed in the peice.

Introduction: Introductions are all about contextualization. They often set the background information with a statement of the problem. At the end of the introduction, the reader should understand what the rationale for the study truly is. I like to see the research questions or hypotheses included in the introduction and I like to get a good understanding of what the significance of the research will be. It’s often easiest to write the introduction last

Literature Review: The literature review dives deep into the existing literature on the topic, demosntrating your thorough understanding of the existing literature including themes, strengths, weaknesses, and gaps in the literature. It serves both to demonstrate your knowledge of the field and, to demonstrate how the proposed study will fit alongside the literature on the topic. A good literature review concludes by clearly demonstrating how your research will contribute something new and innovative to the conversation in the literature.

Research Design and Methods: This section needs to clearly demonstrate how the data will be gathered and analyzed in a systematic and academically sound manner. Here, you need to demonstrate that the conclusions of your research will be both valid and reliable. Common points discussed in the research design and methods section include highlighting the research paradigm, methodologies, intended population or sample to be studied, data collection techniques, and data analysis procedures . Toward the end of this section, you are encouraged to also address ethical considerations and limitations of the research process , but also to explain why you chose your research design and how you are mitigating the identified risks and limitations.

Timeline: Provide an outline of the anticipated timeline for the study. Break it down into its various stages (including data collection, data analysis, and report writing). The goal of this section is firstly to establish a reasonable breakdown of steps for you to follow and secondly to demonstrate to the assessors that your project is practicable and feasible.

Budget: Estimate the costs associated with the research project and include evidence for your estimations. Typical costs include staffing costs, equipment, travel, and data collection tools. When applying for a scholarship, the budget should demonstrate that you are being responsible with your expensive and that your funding application is reasonable.

Expected Outcomes and Implications: A discussion of the anticipated findings or results of the research, as well as the potential contributions to the existing knowledge, theory, or practice in the field. This section should also address the potential impact of the research on relevant stakeholders and any broader implications for policy or practice.

References: A complete list of all the sources cited in the research proposal, formatted according to the required citation style. This demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with the relevant literature and ensures proper attribution of ideas and information.

Appendices (if applicable): Any additional materials, such as questionnaires, interview guides, or consent forms, that provide further information or support for the research proposal. These materials should be included as appendices at the end of the document.

Research Proposal Examples

Research proposals often extend anywhere between 2,000 and 15,000 words in length. The following snippets are samples designed to briefly demonstrate what might be discussed in each section.

1. Education Studies Research Proposals

See some real sample pieces:

• Assessment of the perceptions of teachers towards a new grading system
• Does ICT use in secondary classrooms help or hinder student learning?
• Digital technologies in focus project
• Urban Middle School Teachers’ Experiences of the Implementation of
• Restorative Justice Practices
• Experiences of students of color in service learning

Consider this hypothetical education research proposal:

The Impact of Game-Based Learning on Student Engagement and Academic Performance in Middle School Mathematics

Abstract: The proposed study will explore multiplayer game-based learning techniques in middle school mathematics curricula and their effects on student engagement. The study aims to contribute to the current literature on game-based learning by examining the effects of multiplayer gaming in learning.

Introduction: Digital game-based learning has long been shunned within mathematics education for fears that it may distract students or lower the academic integrity of the classrooms. However, there is emerging evidence that digital games in math have emerging benefits not only for engagement but also academic skill development. Contributing to this discourse, this study seeks to explore the potential benefits of multiplayer digital game-based learning by examining its impact on middle school students’ engagement and academic performance in a mathematics class.

Literature Review: The literature review has identified gaps in the current knowledge, namely, while game-based learning has been extensively explored, the role of multiplayer games in supporting learning has not been studied.

Research Design and Methods: This study will employ a mixed-methods research design based upon action research in the classroom. A quasi-experimental pre-test/post-test control group design will first be used to compare the academic performance and engagement of middle school students exposed to game-based learning techniques with those in a control group receiving instruction without the aid of technology. Students will also be observed and interviewed in regard to the effect of communication and collaboration during gameplay on their learning.

Timeline: The study will take place across the second term of the school year with a pre-test taking place on the first day of the term and the post-test taking place on Wednesday in Week 10.

Budget: The key budgetary requirements will be the technologies required, including the subscription cost for the identified games and computers.

Expected Outcomes and Implications: It is expected that the findings will contribute to the current literature on game-based learning and inform educational practices, providing educators and policymakers with insights into how to better support student achievement in mathematics.

2. Psychology Research Proposals

See some real examples:

• A situational analysis of shared leadership in a self-managing team
• The effect of musical preference on running performance
• Relationship between self-esteem and disordered eating amongst adolescent females

Consider this hypothetical psychology research proposal:

The Effects of Mindfulness-Based Interventions on Stress Reduction in College Students

Abstract: This research proposal examines the impact of mindfulness-based interventions on stress reduction among college students, using a pre-test/post-test experimental design with both quantitative and qualitative data collection methods .

Introduction: College students face heightened stress levels during exam weeks. This can affect both mental health and test performance. This study explores the potential benefits of mindfulness-based interventions such as meditation as a way to mediate stress levels in the weeks leading up to exam time.

Literature Review: Existing research on mindfulness-based meditation has shown the ability for mindfulness to increase metacognition, decrease anxiety levels, and decrease stress. Existing literature has looked at workplace, high school and general college-level applications. This study will contribute to the corpus of literature by exploring the effects of mindfulness directly in the context of exam weeks.

Research Design and Methods: Participants ( n= 234 ) will be randomly assigned to either an experimental group, receiving 5 days per week of 10-minute mindfulness-based interventions, or a control group, receiving no intervention. Data will be collected through self-report questionnaires, measuring stress levels, semi-structured interviews exploring participants’ experiences, and students’ test scores.

Timeline: The study will begin three weeks before the students’ exam week and conclude after each student’s final exam. Data collection will occur at the beginning (pre-test of self-reported stress levels) and end (post-test) of the three weeks.

Expected Outcomes and Implications: The study aims to provide evidence supporting the effectiveness of mindfulness-based interventions in reducing stress among college students in the lead up to exams, with potential implications for mental health support and stress management programs on college campuses.

3. Sociology Research Proposals

• Understanding emerging social movements: A case study of ‘Jersey in Transition’
• The interaction of health, education and employment in Western China
• Can we preserve lower-income affordable neighbourhoods in the face of rising costs?

Consider this hypothetical sociology research proposal:

The Impact of Social Media Usage on Interpersonal Relationships among Young Adults

Abstract: This research proposal investigates the effects of social media usage on interpersonal relationships among young adults, using a longitudinal mixed-methods approach with ongoing semi-structured interviews to collect qualitative data.

Introduction: Social media platforms have become a key medium for the development of interpersonal relationships, particularly for young adults. This study examines the potential positive and negative effects of social media usage on young adults’ relationships and development over time.

Literature Review: A preliminary review of relevant literature has demonstrated that social media usage is central to development of a personal identity and relationships with others with similar subcultural interests. However, it has also been accompanied by data on mental health deline and deteriorating off-screen relationships. The literature is to-date lacking important longitudinal data on these topics.

Research Design and Methods: Participants ( n = 454 ) will be young adults aged 18-24. Ongoing self-report surveys will assess participants’ social media usage, relationship satisfaction, and communication patterns. A subset of participants will be selected for longitudinal in-depth interviews starting at age 18 and continuing for 5 years.

Timeline: The study will be conducted over a period of five years, including recruitment, data collection, analysis, and report writing.

Expected Outcomes and Implications: This study aims to provide insights into the complex relationship between social media usage and interpersonal relationships among young adults, potentially informing social policies and mental health support related to social media use.

4. Nursing Research Proposals

• Does Orthopaedic Pre-assessment clinic prepare the patient for admission to hospital?
• Nurses’ perceptions and experiences of providing psychological care to burns patients
• Registered psychiatric nurse’s practice with mentally ill parents and their children

Consider this hypothetical nursing research proposal:

The Influence of Nurse-Patient Communication on Patient Satisfaction and Health Outcomes following Emergency Cesarians

Abstract: This research will examines the impact of effective nurse-patient communication on patient satisfaction and health outcomes for women following c-sections, utilizing a mixed-methods approach with patient surveys and semi-structured interviews.

Introduction: It has long been known that effective communication between nurses and patients is crucial for quality care. However, additional complications arise following emergency c-sections due to the interaction between new mother’s changing roles and recovery from surgery.

Literature Review: A review of the literature demonstrates the importance of nurse-patient communication, its impact on patient satisfaction, and potential links to health outcomes. However, communication between nurses and new mothers is less examined, and the specific experiences of those who have given birth via emergency c-section are to date unexamined.

Research Design and Methods: Participants will be patients in a hospital setting who have recently had an emergency c-section. A self-report survey will assess their satisfaction with nurse-patient communication and perceived health outcomes. A subset of participants will be selected for in-depth interviews to explore their experiences and perceptions of the communication with their nurses.

Timeline: The study will be conducted over a period of six months, including rolling recruitment, data collection, analysis, and report writing within the hospital.

Expected Outcomes and Implications: This study aims to provide evidence for the significance of nurse-patient communication in supporting new mothers who have had an emergency c-section. Recommendations will be presented for supporting nurses and midwives in improving outcomes for new mothers who had complications during birth.

5. Social Work Research Proposals

• Experiences of negotiating employment and caring responsibilities of fathers post-divorce
• Exploring kinship care in the north region of British Columbia

Consider this hypothetical social work research proposal:

The Role of a Family-Centered Intervention in Preventing Homelessness Among At-Risk Youthin a working-class town in Northern England

Abstract: This research proposal investigates the effectiveness of a family-centered intervention provided by a local council area in preventing homelessness among at-risk youth. This case study will use a mixed-methods approach with program evaluation data and semi-structured interviews to collect quantitative and qualitative data .

Introduction: Homelessness among youth remains a significant social issue. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of family-centered interventions in addressing this problem and identify factors that contribute to successful prevention strategies.

Literature Review: A review of the literature has demonstrated several key factors contributing to youth homelessness including lack of parental support, lack of social support, and low levels of family involvement. It also demonstrates the important role of family-centered interventions in addressing this issue. Drawing on current evidence, this study explores the effectiveness of one such intervention in preventing homelessness among at-risk youth in a working-class town in Northern England.

Research Design and Methods: The study will evaluate a new family-centered intervention program targeting at-risk youth and their families. Quantitative data on program outcomes, including housing stability and family functioning, will be collected through program records and evaluation reports. Semi-structured interviews with program staff, participants, and relevant stakeholders will provide qualitative insights into the factors contributing to program success or failure.

Timeline: The study will be conducted over a period of six months, including recruitment, data collection, analysis, and report writing.

Budget: Expenses include access to program evaluation data, interview materials, data analysis software, and any related travel costs for in-person interviews.

Expected Outcomes and Implications: This study aims to provide evidence for the effectiveness of family-centered interventions in preventing youth homelessness, potentially informing the expansion of or necessary changes to social work practices in Northern England.

Research Proposal Template

Get your Detailed Template for Writing your Research Proposal Here (With AI Prompts!)

This is a template for a 2500-word research proposal. You may find it difficult to squeeze everything into this wordcount, but it’s a common wordcount for Honors and MA-level dissertations.

Your research proposal is where you really get going with your study. I’d strongly recommend working closely with your teacher in developing a research proposal that’s consistent with the requirements and culture of your institution, as in my experience it varies considerably. The above template is from my own courses that walk students through research proposals in a British School of Education.

Chris Drew (PhD)

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 5 Top Tips for Succeeding at University
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 50 Durable Goods Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 100 Consumer Goods Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 30 Globalization Pros and Cons

8 thoughts on “17 Research Proposal Examples”

Very excellent research proposals

very helpful

Very helpful

Dear Sir, I need some help to write an educational research proposal. Thank you.

Hi Levi, use the site search bar to ask a question and I’ll likely have a guide already written for your specific question. Thanks for reading!

very good research proposal

Thank you so much sir! ❤️

Very helpful 👌

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

• Privacy Policy

Buy Me a Coffee

Home » Research Proposal – Types, Template and Example

Research Proposal – Types, Template and Example

Table of Contents

Research Proposal

Research proposal is a document that outlines a proposed research project . It is typically written by researchers, scholars, or students who intend to conduct research to address a specific research question or problem.

Types of Research Proposal

Research proposals can vary depending on the nature of the research project and the specific requirements of the funding agency, academic institution, or research program. Here are some common types of research proposals:

Academic Research Proposal

This is the most common type of research proposal, which is prepared by students, scholars, or researchers to seek approval and funding for an academic research project. It includes all the essential components mentioned earlier, such as the introduction, literature review , methodology , and expected outcomes.

Grant Proposal

A grant proposal is specifically designed to secure funding from external sources, such as government agencies, foundations, or private organizations. It typically includes additional sections, such as a detailed budget, project timeline, evaluation plan, and a description of the project’s alignment with the funding agency’s priorities and objectives.

Dissertation or Thesis Proposal

Students pursuing a master’s or doctoral degree often need to submit a proposal outlining their intended research for their dissertation or thesis. These proposals are usually more extensive and comprehensive, including an in-depth literature review, theoretical framework, research questions or hypotheses, and a detailed methodology.

Research Project Proposal

This type of proposal is often prepared by researchers or research teams within an organization or institution. It outlines a specific research project that aims to address a particular problem, explore a specific area of interest, or provide insights for decision-making. Research project proposals may include sections on project management, collaboration, and dissemination of results.

Research Fellowship Proposal

Researchers or scholars applying for research fellowships may be required to submit a proposal outlining their proposed research project. These proposals often emphasize the novelty and significance of the research and its alignment with the goals and objectives of the fellowship program.

Collaborative Research Proposal

In cases where researchers from multiple institutions or disciplines collaborate on a research project, a collaborative research proposal is prepared. This proposal highlights the objectives, responsibilities, and contributions of each collaborator, as well as the overall research plan and coordination mechanisms.

Research Proposal Outline

A research proposal typically follows a standard outline that helps structure the document and ensure all essential components are included. While the specific headings and subheadings may vary slightly depending on the requirements of your institution or funding agency, the following outline provides a general structure for a research proposal:

• Title of the research proposal
• Name of the researcher(s) or principal investigator(s)
• Affiliation or institution
• Date of submission
• A concise summary of the research proposal, typically limited to 200-300 words.
• Briefly introduce the research problem or question, state the objectives, summarize the methodology, and highlight the expected outcomes or significance of the research.
• Provide an overview of the subject area and the specific research problem or question.
• Present relevant background information, theories, or concepts to establish the need for the research.
• Clearly state the research objectives or research questions that the study aims to address.
• Indicate the significance or potential contributions of the research.
• Summarize and analyze relevant studies, theories, or scholarly works.
• Identify research gaps or unresolved issues that your study intends to address.
• Highlight the novelty or uniqueness of your research.
• Describe the overall approach or research design that will be used (e.g., experimental, qualitative, quantitative).
• Justify the chosen approach based on the research objectives and question.
• Explain how data will be collected (e.g., surveys, interviews, experiments).
• Describe the sampling strategy and sample size, if applicable.
• Address any ethical considerations related to data collection.
• Outline the data analysis techniques or statistical methods that will be applied.
• Explain how the data will be interpreted and analyzed to answer the research question(s).
• Provide a detailed schedule or timeline that outlines the various stages of the research project.
• Specify the estimated duration for each stage, including data collection, analysis, and report writing.
• State the potential outcomes or results of the research.
• Discuss the potential significance or contributions of the study to the field.
• Address any potential limitations or challenges that may be encountered.
• Identify the resources required to conduct the research, such as funding, equipment, or access to data.
• Specify any collaborations or partnerships necessary for the successful completion of the study.
• Include a list of cited references in the appropriate citation style (e.g., APA, MLA).

———————————————————————————————–

Research Proposal Example Template

Here’s an example of a research proposal to give you an idea of how it can be structured:

Title: The Impact of Social Media on Adolescent Well-being: A Mixed-Methods Study

This research proposal aims to investigate the impact of social media on the well-being of adolescents. The study will employ a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews to gather comprehensive data. The research objectives include examining the relationship between social media use and mental health, exploring the role of peer influence in shaping online behaviors, and identifying strategies for promoting healthy social media use among adolescents. The findings of this study will contribute to the understanding of the effects of social media on adolescent well-being and inform the development of targeted interventions.

1. Introduction

1.1 Background and Context:

Adolescents today are immersed in social media platforms, which have become integral to their daily lives. However, concerns have been raised about the potential negative impact of social media on their well-being, including increased rates of depression, anxiety, and body dissatisfaction. It is crucial to investigate this phenomenon further and understand the underlying mechanisms to develop effective strategies for promoting healthy social media use among adolescents.

1.2 Research Objectives:

The main objectives of this study are:

• To examine the association between social media use and mental health outcomes among adolescents.
• To explore the influence of peer relationships and social comparison on online behaviors.
• To identify strategies and interventions to foster positive social media use and enhance adolescent well-being.

2. Literature Review

Extensive research has been conducted on the impact of social media on adolescents. Existing literature suggests that excessive social media use can contribute to negative outcomes, such as low self-esteem, cyberbullying, and addictive behaviors. However, some studies have also highlighted the positive aspects of social media, such as providing opportunities for self-expression and social support. This study will build upon this literature by incorporating both quantitative and qualitative approaches to gain a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between social media and adolescent well-being.

3. Methodology

3.1 Research Design:

This study will adopt a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews. The quantitative phase will involve administering standardized questionnaires to a representative sample of adolescents to assess their social media use, mental health indicators, and perceived social support. The qualitative phase will include in-depth interviews with a subset of participants to explore their experiences, motivations, and perceptions related to social media use.

3.2 Data Collection Methods:

Quantitative data will be collected through an online survey distributed to schools in the target region. The survey will include validated scales to measure social media use, mental health outcomes, and perceived social support. Qualitative data will be collected through semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of participants. The interviews will be audio-recorded and transcribed for thematic analysis.

3.3 Data Analysis:

Quantitative data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics and regression analysis to examine the relationships between variables. Qualitative data will be analyzed thematically to identify common themes and patterns within participants’ narratives. Integration of quantitative and qualitative findings will provide a comprehensive understanding of the research questions.

4. Timeline

The research project will be conducted over a period of 12 months, divided into specific phases, including literature review, study design, data collection, analysis, and report writing. A detailed timeline outlining the key milestones and activities is provided in Appendix A.

5. Expected Outcomes and Significance

This study aims to contribute to the existing literature on the impact of social media on adolescent well-being by employing a mixed-methods approach. The findings will inform the development of evidence-based interventions and guidelines to promote healthy social media use among adolescents. This research has the potential to benefit adolescents, parents, educators, and policymakers by providing insights into the complex relationship between social media and well-being and offering strategies for fostering positive online experiences.

6. Resources

The resources required for this research include access to a representative sample of adolescents, research assistants for data collection, statistical software for data analysis, and funding to cover survey administration and participant incentives. Ethical considerations will be taken into account, ensuring participant confidentiality and obtaining informed consent.

7. References

Research Proposal Writing Guide

Writing a research proposal can be a complex task, but with proper guidance and organization, you can create a compelling and well-structured proposal. Here’s a step-by-step guide to help you through the process:

• Understand the requirements: Familiarize yourself with the guidelines and requirements provided by your institution, funding agency, or program. Pay attention to formatting, page limits, specific sections or headings, and any other instructions.
• Identify your research topic: Choose a research topic that aligns with your interests, expertise, and the goals of your program or funding opportunity. Ensure that your topic is specific, focused, and relevant to the field of study.
• Conduct a literature review : Review existing literature and research relevant to your topic. Identify key theories, concepts, methodologies, and findings related to your research question. This will help you establish the context, identify research gaps, and demonstrate the significance of your proposed study.
• Define your research objectives and research question(s): Clearly state the objectives you aim to achieve with your research. Formulate research questions that address the gaps identified in the literature review. Your research objectives and questions should be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART).
• Develop a research methodology: Determine the most appropriate research design and methodology for your study. Consider whether quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods approaches will best address your research question(s). Describe the data collection methods, sampling strategy, data analysis techniques, and any ethical considerations associated with your research.
• Create a research plan and timeline: Outline the various stages of your research project, including tasks, milestones, and deadlines. Develop a realistic timeline that considers factors such as data collection, analysis, and report writing. This plan will help you stay organized and manage your time effectively throughout the research process.
• A. Introduction: Provide background information on the research problem, highlight its significance, and introduce your research objectives and questions.
• B. Literature review: Summarize relevant literature, identify gaps, and justify the need for your proposed research.
• C . Methodology: Describe your research design, data collection methods, sampling strategy, data analysis techniques, and any ethical considerations.
• D . Expected outcomes and significance: Explain the potential outcomes, contributions, and implications of your research.
• E. Resources: Identify the resources required to conduct your research, such as funding, equipment, or access to data.
• F . References: Include a list of cited references in the appropriate citation style.
• Revise and proofread: Review your proposal for clarity, coherence, and logical flow. Check for grammar and spelling errors. Seek feedback from mentors, colleagues, or advisors to refine and improve your proposal.
• Finalize and submit: Make any necessary revisions based on feedback and finalize your research proposal. Ensure that you have met all the requirements and formatting guidelines. Submit your proposal within the specified deadline.

Research Proposal Length

The length of a research proposal can vary depending on the specific guidelines provided by your institution or funding agency. However, research proposals typically range from 1,500 to 3,000 words, excluding references and any additional supporting documents.

Purpose of Research Proposal

The purpose of a research proposal is to outline and communicate your research project to others, such as academic institutions, funding agencies, or potential collaborators. It serves several important purposes:

• Demonstrate the significance of the research: A research proposal explains the importance and relevance of your research project. It outlines the research problem or question, highlights the gaps in existing knowledge, and explains how your study will contribute to the field. By clearly articulating the significance of your research, you can convince others of its value and potential impact.
• Provide a clear research plan: A research proposal outlines the methodology, design, and approach you will use to conduct your study. It describes the research objectives, data collection methods, data analysis techniques, and potential outcomes. By presenting a clear research plan, you demonstrate that your study is well-thought-out, feasible, and likely to produce meaningful results.
• Secure funding or support: For researchers seeking funding or support for their projects, a research proposal is essential. It allows you to make a persuasive case for why your research is deserving of financial resources or institutional backing. The proposal explains the budgetary requirements, resources needed, and potential benefits of the research, helping you secure the necessary funding or support.
• Seek feedback and guidance: Presenting a research proposal provides an opportunity to receive feedback and guidance from experts in your field. It allows you to engage in discussions and receive suggestions for refining your research plan, improving the methodology, or addressing any potential limitations. This feedback can enhance the quality of your study and increase its chances of success.
• Establish ethical considerations: A research proposal also addresses ethical considerations associated with your study. It outlines how you will ensure participant confidentiality, obtain informed consent, and adhere to ethical guidelines and regulations. By demonstrating your awareness and commitment to ethical research practices, you build trust and credibility in your proposed study.

Importance of Research Proposal

The research proposal holds significant importance in the research process. Here are some key reasons why research proposals are important:

• Planning and organization: A research proposal requires careful planning and organization of your research project. It forces you to think through the research objectives, research questions, methodology, and potential outcomes before embarking on the actual study. This planning phase helps you establish a clear direction and framework for your research, ensuring that your efforts are focused and purposeful.
• Demonstrating the significance of the research: A research proposal allows you to articulate the significance and relevance of your study. By providing a thorough literature review and clearly defining the research problem or question, you can showcase the gaps in existing knowledge that your research aims to address. This demonstrates to others, such as funding agencies or academic institutions, why your research is important and deserving of support.
• Obtaining funding and resources: Research proposals are often required to secure funding for your research project. Funding agencies and organizations need to evaluate the feasibility and potential impact of the proposed research before allocating resources. A well-crafted research proposal helps convince funders of the value of your research and increases the likelihood of securing financial support, grants, or scholarships.
• Receiving feedback and guidance: Presenting a research proposal provides an opportunity to seek feedback and guidance from experts in your field. By sharing your research plan and objectives with others, you can benefit from their insights and suggestions. This feedback can help refine your research design, strengthen your methodology, and ensure that your study is rigorous and well-informed.
• Ethical considerations: A research proposal addresses ethical considerations associated with your study. It outlines how you will protect the rights and welfare of participants, maintain confidentiality, obtain informed consent, and adhere to ethical guidelines and regulations. This emphasis on ethical practices ensures that your research is conducted responsibly and with integrity.
• Enhancing collaboration and partnerships: A research proposal can facilitate collaborations and partnerships with other researchers, institutions, or organizations. When presenting your research plan, you may attract the interest of potential collaborators who share similar research interests or possess complementary expertise. Collaborative partnerships can enrich your study, expand your resources, and foster knowledge exchange.
• Establishing a research trajectory: A research proposal serves as a foundation for your research project. Once approved, it becomes a roadmap that guides your study’s implementation, data collection, analysis, and reporting. It helps maintain focus and ensures that your research stays on track and aligned with the initial objectives.

When to Write Research Proposal

The timing of when to write a research proposal can vary depending on the specific requirements and circumstances. However, here are a few common situations when it is appropriate to write a research proposal:

• Academic research: If you are a student pursuing a research degree, such as a Ph.D. or Master’s by research, you will typically be required to write a research proposal as part of the application process. This is usually done before starting the research program to outline your proposed study and seek approval from the academic institution.
• Funding applications: When applying for research grants, scholarships, or funding from organizations or institutions, you will often need to submit a research proposal. Funding agencies require a detailed description of your research project, including its objectives, methodology, and expected outcomes. Writing a research proposal in this context is necessary to secure financial support for your study.
• Research collaborations: When collaborating with other researchers, institutions, or organizations on a research project, it is common to prepare a research proposal. This helps outline the research objectives, roles and responsibilities, and expected contributions from each party. Writing a research proposal in this case allows all collaborators to align their efforts and ensure a shared understanding of the project.
• Research project within an organization: If you are conducting research within an organization, such as a company or government agency, you may be required to write a research proposal to gain approval and support for your study. This proposal outlines the research objectives, methodology, resources needed, and expected outcomes, ensuring that the project aligns with the organization’s goals and objectives.
• Independent research projects: Even if you are not required to write a research proposal, it can still be beneficial to develop one for your independent research projects. Writing a research proposal helps you plan and structure your study, clarify your research objectives, and anticipate potential challenges or limitations. It also allows you to communicate your research plans effectively to supervisors, mentors, or collaborators.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Proposal – Types, Examples, and Writing Guide

Business Proposal – Templates, Examples and Guide

How To Write A Research Proposal – Step-by-Step...

Grant Proposal – Example, Template and Guide

How To Write A Business Proposal – Step-by-Step...

How To Write A Proposal – Step By Step Guide...

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS. A lock ( Lock Locked padlock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Chapter II: Proposal Preparation Instructions

Chapter ii table of contents.

• Deviations from NSF Proposal Preparation and Submission Requirements
• Requests for Reasonable and Accessibility Accommodations
• NSF Disclosure Requirements
• Proposal Pagination Instructions
• Proposal Font, Spacing and Margin Requirements
• Page Formatting
• Authorization to Deviate from NSF Proposal Preparation Requirements
• List of Suggested Reviewers or Reviewers Not to Include
• Proprietary or Privileged Information
• Proposal Certifications Provided by the Organization
• Certification Provided by Senior Personnel
• Submission of Proposals by Former NSF Staff

Cover Sheet

• Project Summary
• Table of Contents

(i) Content

(ii) page limitations and inclusion of uniform resource locators (urls) within the project description, (iii) results from prior nsf support, (iv) unfunded collaborations, (v) group proposals, (vi) proposals for renewed support.

• References Cited

(a) Senior Personnel Salaries & Wages Policy

(b) Administrative and Clerical Salaries & Wages Policy

(c) Procedures

(d) Confidential Budgetary Information

• (ii) Fringe Benefits
• (iii) Equipment

(a) General

(b) Domestic Travel

(c) Foreign Travel

• (v) Participant Support
• (a) Materials and Supplies (including Costs of Computing Devices)
• (b) Publication/Documentation/Dissemination
• (c) Consultant Services (also referred to as Professional Service Costs)
• (d) Computer Services
• (e) Subawards
• (vii) Total Direct Costs
• (viii) Indirect Costs
• (ix) Total Direct and Indirect Costs
• (xi) Amount of This Request
• (xii) Cost Sharing

(a) Entertainment

(b) Meals and Coffee Breaks

(c) Alcoholic Beverages

(d) Home Office Workspace

(e) Prohibition on Certain Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services or Equipment

• Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources
• (a) Senior Personnel
• (b) Other Personnel
• (c) Equipment Proposals
• (ii) Current and Pending Support
• (iii) Collaborators & Other Affiliations Information
• (i) Postdoctoral Researcher Mentoring Plan
• (ii) Plans for Data Management and Sharing of the Products of Research
• (iii) Rationale for Performance of All or Part of the Project Off-campus or Away from Organizational Headquarters
• (iv) Documentation of Collaborative Arrangements of Significance to the Proposal through Letters of Collaboration
• (v) Federal Environmental Statutes
• (vi) Antarctic Proposals
• (vii) Research in a Location Designated, or Eligible to be Designated, a Registered Historic Place
• (viii) Research Involving Field Experiments with Genetically Engineered Organisms
• (ix) Documentation Regarding Research Involving the Use of Human Subjects, Hazardous Materials, Live Vertebrate Animals, or Endangered Species
• (x) Special Components in New Proposals or in Requests for Supplemental Funding
• Beginning Investigators (applies to proposals submitted to the Biological Sciences Directorate only)
• Collaborative Proposals
• Proposals Involving Live Vertebrate Animals
• Proposals Involving Human Subjects
• Potential Life Sciences Dual Use Research of Concern (DURC)
• Projects Requiring High-Performance Computing Resources, Data Infrastructure or Advanced Visualization Resources
• International Activities
• Safe and Inclusive Working Environments for Off-Campus or Off-Site Research
• Planning Proposal
• Rapid Response Research (RAPID)
• EArly-concept Grants for Exploratory Research (EAGER)
• Research Advanced by Interdisciplinary Science and Engineering (RAISE)
• Grant Opportunities for Academic Liaison with Industry (GOALI)
• Ideas Lab Proposal
• Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities (FASED)
• Career Life Balance (CLB) Supplemental Funding Requests
• Conference Proposal
• Equipment Proposal
• Travel Proposal
• Center Proposal
• Research Infrastructure Proposal

Exhibit II-1: Proposal Preparation Checklist

Exhibit II-2:Potentially Disqualifying Conflicts of Interest

Exhibit II-3: Definitions of Categories of Personnel

Each proposing organization that is new to NSF or has not had an active NSF assistance award within the previous five years should be prepared to submit basic organization and management information and certifications, when requested, to the applicable award-making division within the Office of Budget, Finance & Award Management (BFA). The requisite information is described in the NSF Prospective New Awardee Guide . The information contained in this Guide will assist the organization in preparing documents which NSF requires to conduct administrative and financial reviews of the organization. This Guide also serves as a means of highlighting the accountability requirements associated with Federal awards.

Proposers should be aware of core strategies that are essential to the fulfillment of NSF's mission, as articulated in Building the Future: Investing in Discovery and Innovation - NSF Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years (FY) 2018 – 2022. These strategies are integrated in the program planning and implementation process, of which proposal review is one part. NSF's mission is particularly well-implemented through the integration of research and education and broadening participation in NSF programs, projects, and activities.

One of the strategic objectives in support of NSF’s mission is to foster integration of research and education through the programs, projects, and activities it supports at NSF recipient organizations. These organizations recruit, train, and prepare a diverse science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce to advance the frontiers of science and participate in the U.S. technology-based economy. NSF’s contribution to the national innovation ecosystem is to provide cutting-edge research under the guidance of the Nation’s most creative scientists and engineers. NSF also supports development of a strong STEM workforce by investing in building the knowledge that informs improvements in STEM teaching and learning.

NSF will not tolerate research misconduct in proposing or performing research funded by NSF, reviewing research proposals submitted to NSF, or in reporting research results funded by NSF. For additional information, see Chapters I.D.3., IX.B., and XII.C.

NSF’s mission calls for the broadening of opportunities and expanding participation of groups, organizations, and geographic regions that are underrepresented in STEM disciplines, which is essential to the health and vitality of science and engineering. NSF is committed to this principle of diversity and deems it central to the programs, projects, and activities it considers and supports.

Return to top

A. Conformance with Instructions for Proposal Preparation

1. deviations from nsf proposal preparation and submission requirements.

Unless specified in a program solicitation, all proposals must comply with the proposal preparation instructions contained in Part I of the PAPPG or the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide . Conformance will be strictly enforced unless a written deviation authorization is received in advance of proposal submission from the cognizant NSF Assistant Director/Office Head or designee. Such deviation authorizations must be uploaded as a single-copy document and include the name, date, and title of the NSF official, and the nature of the deviation authorized. (See section C.1 below for additional information.)

Except as noted above, NSF will not accept or will return without review proposals that are not consistent with these instructions. See Chapter IV.B for additional information.

2. Requests for Reasonable and Accessibility Accommodations

NSF is dedicated to fostering and maintaining a diverse and inclusive digital environment that eliminates barriers and ensures our programs, systems, and services are accessible to everyone as required by Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, as amended in 2017 . Individuals with disabilities who need reasonable accommodations as part of the proposal process must contact the Office of Equity and Civil Rights’ (OECR) Disability Program Manager (DPM) at [email protected] at least 30 calendar days prior to the proposal deadline date. Individuals with disabilities who need accessibility accommodations to access NSF proposal submission and award management systems, websites and other digital content must contact the NSF Section 508 Compliance Officer at least 30 calendar days prior to the proposal deadline date. For reasonable accommodation requests, NSF may request medical documentation signed and dated by the proposer’s physician that describes a) the nature, severity, and duration of the impairment; b) the activities the impairment limits; and c) why and how the particular reasonable accommodation requested will assist the proposer.

The information provided in support of a reasonable accommodation request is confidential and available only to designated agency staff that are responsible for providing and/or coordinating accommodation services. Decisions on reasonable accommodations are made by the DPM, in concert with applicable agency officials and based on the information provided. It is important to note that the desired request may not always be the accommodation that is ultimately provided. NSF is not required to provide accommodations that impose an “undue hardship” on the operation of the organization or that fundamentally alter the nature of its programs or activities. Requests for reasonable or accessibility accommodations may not include personal use items or extensions to proposal deadline dates. All proposals must be received by the deadline date specified in the NSF funding opportunity

Back to top

B. NSF Disclosure Requirements

As part of the proposal preparation and submission process, all senior personnel identified on a proposal are required to submit information to assist reviewers and program staff in making informed recommendations and funding decisions. These disclosures are provided in the following proposal sections:

• Biographical Sketch; (see Chapter II,D.h(i));
• Current and Pending Support (see Chapter II.D.h(ii); and
• Collaborators and Other Affiliations (see Chapter II.D.h(iii)).

It is vital that submission of such disclosure information be taken seriously. The Biographical Sketch and Current and Pending Support documents require the individual to certify that the information provided is accurate, current, and complete. Violation of disclosure requirements may lead to criminal, civil, and/or administrative consequences as may be deemed appropriate based upon the particular facts of the violation. Violations will be thoroughly investigated by the NSF OIG and referred to criminal and/or civil offices within the Department of Justice, when warranted.

Depending on the facts surrounding the violation, and consistent with due process requirements, NSF may consider a range of actions. Such actions include, but are not limited to:

• non-acceptance of a proposal submitted to NSF;
• ensuring that individual(s) who violate these requirements are not permitted to perform work under an NSF award;
• ineligibility for participation as an NSF reviewer;
• suspension or termination of an award; and/or
• placement of the individual or research organization in SAM or the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) to alert other agencies.

NSF will require senior personnel on potential awards to submit updated Current and Pending Support information prior to award, as well as part of the annual and final reporting process, when applicable.

NSF may consider the following factors, where relevant and consistent with applicable laws and regulations, in determining the appropriate consequences for violations of disclosure requirements:

• harm or potential harm to NSF, the Federal Government, U.S. taxpayers, and other national interests;
• intent of the offender;
• the offender’s knowledge of requirements;
• pattern of violation versus isolated incident;
• existence and timing of self-disclosure;
• policies, procedures, and training available to the offender; and
• any other mitigating factors.

C. Format of the Proposal

Prior to submission, it is strongly recommended that proposers conduct an administrative review to ensure that proposals comply with the guidelines established in Part I of the PAPPG or the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide . The Proposal Preparation Checklist (Exhibit II-1) may be used to assist in this review. The checklist is not intended to be an all-inclusive repetition of the required proposal contents and associated proposal preparation guidelines. It is, however, meant to highlight certain critical items so they will not be overlooked when the proposal is prepared.

During completion of the proposal setup wizard in Research.gov, the PI will be prompted to select the applicable response that describes the nature and type of proposal being developed:

• Research (see Chapter II, Sections A through D);
• Planning Proposal (see Chapter II.F.1);
• Rapid Response Research (RAPID) (see Chapter II.F.2);
• Early-concept Grants for Exploratory Research (EAGER) (see Chapter II.F.3);
• Research Advanced by Interdisciplinary Science and Engineering (RAISE) (see Chapter II.F.4);
• Grant Opportunities for Academic Liaison with Industry (GOALI) (see Chapter II.F.5);
• Ideas Lab (see Chapter II.F.6);
• Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities (FASED) (see Chapter II.F.7);
• Career-Life Balance (CLB) Supplemental Funding Requests (see Chapter II.F.8);
• Conference (see Chapter II.F.9);
• Equipment (see Chapter II.F.10);
• Travel (see Chapter II.F.11);
• Center (see relevant funding opportunity and Chapter II.F.12);
• Research Infrastructure (see relevant funding opportunity and Chapter II.F.13); or
• Fellowship (see relevant funding opportunity).

Whether the proposal is:

• A collaborative proposal from one organization (see Chapter II.E.3.a);
• A collaborative proposal from multiple organizations (see Chapter II.E.3.b); or
• Not a collaborative proposal.

The requested proposal information noted above will be used to determine the applicable proposal preparation requirements that must be followed. Proposers are strongly advised to review the applicable sections of Part I of the PAPPG pertinent to the type of proposal being developed prior to submission.

All proposals are checked for compliance with applicable requirements prior to submission in Research.gov. Additional information on NSF auto-compliance checks is available on the NSF website .

1. Proposal Pagination Instructions

For proposals submitted via Research.gov, the system will automatically paginate a proposal. Each section of the proposal that is uploaded as a file should leave out page numbering unless otherwise directed within Research.gov.

2. Proposal Font, Spacing, and Margin Requirements

The proposal must conform to the following requirements:

Use one of the following fonts identified below:

• Arial [6] (not Arial Narrow), Courier New, or Palatino Linotype at a font size of 10 points or larger;
• Times New Roman at a font size of 11 points or larger; or
• Computer Modern family of fonts at a font size of 11 points or larger.

A font size of less than 10 points may be used for mathematical formulas or equations, figures, tables, or diagram captions and when using a Symbol font to insert Greek letters or special characters. Other fonts not specified above, such as Cambria Math, may be used for mathematical formulas, equations, or when inserting Greek letters or special characters. PIs are cautioned, however, that the text must still be readable.

No more than six lines of text within a vertical space of one inch.

Margins, in all directions, must be at least an inch. No proposer-supplied information may appear in the margins.

Paper size must be no larger than standard letter paper size (8 ½ by 11”) .

These requirements apply to all uploaded sections of a proposal, including supplementary documentation.

3. Page Formatting

Proposers are strongly encouraged to use only a standard, single-column format for the text.

The guidelines specified above establish the minimum font size requirements; however, PIs are advised that readability is of paramount importance and should take precedence in selection of an appropriate font for use in the proposal. Use of a small font size makes it difficult for reviewers to read the proposal; consequently, the use of small fonts not in compliance with the above guidelines may be grounds for NSF to return the proposal without review. Adherence to font size and line spacing requirements also is necessary to ensure that no proposer will have an unfair advantage, by using smaller font or line spacing to provide more text in the proposal.

D. Proposal Contents

1. single-copy documents.

Certain categories of information that are submitted in conjunction with a proposal are for "NSF Use Only." As such, the information is not provided to reviewers for use in the review of the proposal. With the exception of NSF-specific proposal certifications, these documents should be submitted in Research.gov. A summary of each of these categories follows:

a. Authorization to Deviate from NSF Proposal Preparation Requirements (if applicable)

Instructions for obtaining authorization to deviate from NSF proposal preparation instructions are provided in Chapter II.A.

b. List of Suggested Reviewers or Reviewers Not to Include (optional)

Proposers may include a list of suggested reviewers (including email address and organizational affiliation) who they believe are especially well qualified to review the proposal. Proposers also may designate persons they would prefer not to review the proposal. These suggestions are optional. Exhibit II-2 contains information on conflicts of interest that may be useful in preparation of this list.

The cognizant Program Officer handling the proposal considers the suggestions and may contact the proposer for further information. The decision regarding whether to use these suggestions, however, remains with the Program Officer.

c. Proprietary or Privileged Information (if applicable)

Instructions for submission of proprietary or privileged information are provided in Chapter II.E.1.

See also Chapter II.B. for additional information on Single Copy Documents.

d. Proposal Certifications Provided by the Organization

Government-wide certifications and representations are provided by the proposer on an annual basis in SAM (see PAPPG Chapter I.G.2). Note that the box for "Disclosure of Lobbying Activities" must be checked on the Cover Sheet if, pursuant to the Lobbying certification provided in SAM, submission of the SF LLL is required. The AOR must use the "Authorized Organizational Representative function" to sign and submit the proposal, including NSF-specific proposal certifications. It is the proposing organization's responsibility to assure that only properly authorized individuals perform this function. [7]

See also PAPPG Chapters II.F.8 and II.F.11 for additional information on proposal certifications.

The required NSF-specific proposal certifications are as follows:

(i) Certification for Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) or Individual Proposer:

The AOR is required to complete certifications regarding the accuracy and completeness of statements contained in the proposal, as well as to certify that the organization (or individual) agrees to accept the obligation to comply with award terms and conditions.

(ii) Certification Regarding Conflict of Interest:

The AOR is required to complete certifications stating that the organization has implemented and is enforcing a written policy on conflicts of interest (COI), consistent with the provisions of Chapter IX.A: that, to the best of the AOR’s knowledge, all financial disclosures required by the conflict of interest policy were made; and that conflicts of interest, if any, were, or prior to the organization’s expenditure of any funds under the award, will be, satisfactorily managed, reduced or eliminated in accordance with the organization’s conflict of interest policy. Conflicts that cannot be satisfactorily managed, reduced or eliminated, and research that proceeds without the imposition of conditions or restrictions when a conflict of interest exists, must be disclosed to NSF via use of NSF’s electronic systems.

(iii) Certification Regarding Flood Hazard Insurance [8] :

Two sections of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 USC §4012a and §4106) bar Federal agencies from giving financial assistance for acquisition or construction purposes in any area identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as having special flood hazards unless the:

(1) community in which that area is located participates in the national flood insurance program; and

(2) building (and any related equipment) is covered by adequate flood insurance.

By signing the certification pages, AORs for prospective recipients located in FEMA-designated special flood hazard areas are certifying that adequate flood insurance has been or will be obtained in the following situations:

(1) for NSF awards for the construction of a building or facility, regardless of the dollar amount of the award; and

(2) for other NSF awards when more than $25,000 has been budgeted in the proposal for repair, alteration, or improvement (construction) of a building or facility.

Prospective recipients should contact their local government or a Federally-insured financial institution to determine what areas are identified as having special flood hazards and the availability of flood insurance in their community.

(iv) Certification Regarding Responsible and Ethical Conduct of Research (RECR):

Note: The requirement specified in Section 7009 of the America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science (COMPETES) Act (42 USC 1862o–1), as amended, to have a plan to provide appropriate training and oversight in the responsible and ethical conduct of research to faculty and other senior personnel who will be supported by NSF to conduct research will go into effect for new proposals submitted or due on or after July 31, 2023. NSF, however, encourages the community to establish such training and oversight for faculty and other senior personnel prior to the July 31, 2023, implementation. In the interim, proposers must continue to meet the guidance specified in PAPPG Chapter IX.B.

The AOR is required to complete a certification that the institution has a plan to provide appropriate training and oversight in the responsible and ethical conduct of research to undergraduate students, graduate students, postdoctoral researchers, faculty, and other senior personnel who will be supported by NSF to conduct research and that such training addresses mentor training and mentorship.

NSF’s RECR policy is available in Chapter IX.B. While training plans are not required to be included in proposals submitted to NSF, institutions are advised that they are subject to review upon request. NSF has provided funding to the Online Ethics Center for S&E , an online collaborative resource environment that provides resources that may be used by the institution in developing their training plan. This site contains RECR resources by discipline, provides links to published codes of ethics, as well as includes pages dedicated to resources produced or used by specific professional groups.

(v) Certification Regarding Organizational Support:

The AOR is required to complete a certification that there is organizational support for the proposal as required by Section 526 of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010. This support extends to the portion of the proposal developed to satisfy the broader impacts review criterion as well as the intellectual merit review criterion, and any additional review criteria specified in the solicitation. Organizational support will be made available, as described in the proposal, in order to address the broader impacts and intellectual merit activities to be undertaken.

(vi) Certification Regarding Dual Use Research of Concern:

The AOR is required to complete a certification that the organization will be or is in compliance with all aspects of the United States Government Policy for Institutional Oversight of Life Sciences Dual Use Research of Concern.

(vii) Certification Requirement Specified in the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021, Section 223(a)(1) (42 USC 6605(a)(1)):

The AOR is required to complete a certification that each individual employed by the organization and identified on the proposal as senior personnel has been made aware of the certification requirements identified in the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021, Section 223(a)(1) (42 USC 6605(a)(1)).

(viii) Safe and Inclusive Working Environments for Off-Campus or Off-Site Research

For each proposal that proposes to conduct research off-campus or off site, the AOR must complete a certification that the organization has a plan in place  for this proposal regarding safe and inclusive working environments.  See Chapter II.E.9 for additional information.

e. Certification Requirement for Senior Personnel Specified in the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021, Section 223(a)(1) (42 USC 6605(a)(1)):

In accordance with Section 223(a)(1) of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (42 USC 6605(a)(1)),senior personnel are required to certify in SciENcv that the information provided in their Biographical Sketch and Current and Pending Support documents are accurate, current, and complete.

Senior personnel are required to update their Current and Pending Support disclosures prior to award, and at any subsequent time the agency determines appropriate during the term of the award.

False representations may be subject to prosecution and liability pursuant to, but not limited to, 18 U.S.C. §§287, 1001, 1031 and 31 U.S.C. §§3729-3733 and 3802.

See additional information on NSF Disclosure Requirements in Chapter II.B.

f. Submission of Proposals by Former NSF Staff

For one year following separation from the Foundation, any communication with NSF by a former employee or IPA must be done through use of a "substitute negotiator." Unless a substitute negotiator has been designated by the proposer/recipient, the Division of Grants and Agreements (DGA) or the Division of Acquisition and Cooperative Support (DACS) will not process a new proposal with a former employee or IPA as PI or co-PI. If it has been less than a year since a former employee separated from NSF or an IPA ended their appointment and they submit a proposal, documentation from the AOR needs to be included which designates a substitute negotiator for that proposal. The substitute negotiator must be from the same organization as the PI or co-PI for whom the negotiator is required. A co-PI on a new proposal should designate the PI as the substitute negotiator. This information should be submitted as a single copy document and uploaded in the “Additional Single Copy Documents” category.

2. Sections of the Proposal

The sections described below represent the body of a research proposal submitted to NSF. Failure to submit the required sections will result in the proposal not being accepted [9] , or being returned without review. See Chapter IV.B for additional information.

A full research proposal must contain the following sections [10] . Note that the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide may use different naming conventions, and sections may appear in a different order than in Research.gov, however, the content is the same:

• Project Description
• Budget and Budget Justification

(i) Biographical Sketch(es)

• (iii)Collaborators and Other Affiliations (see also PAPPG Chapter II.D.1 for additional information on submission of single copy documents
• (i) Postdoctoral Mentoring Plan (if applicable)
• (ii) Data Management Plan

The proposal preparation instructions for Planning, RAPID, EAGER, RAISE, GOALI, Ideas Lab, FASED, conference, equipment, travel, center, research infrastructure, and fellowship proposal types may deviate from the above content requirements.

All proposals submitted to NSF will be reviewed using the two NSB-approved merit review criteria described in greater length in Chapter III.

a. Cover Sheet

There are seven components of the Cover Sheet. The Cover Sheet data elements are as follows:

The proposed duration for which support is requested should be consistent with the nature and complexity of the proposed activity. The Foundation encourages proposers to request funding for durations of three to five years when such durations are necessary for completion of the proposed work and are technically and managerially advantageous. The requested start date should allow at least six months for NSF review, processing, and decision. PIs should consult their organization’s SPO for unusual situations (e.g., a long lead time for procurement) that create problems regarding the proposed start date. Specification of a desired start date for the project is important and helpful to NSF staff; however, requests for specific start dates may not be met.

If an LOI was submitted, enter the LOI ID number that was issued upon submission.

If a preliminary proposal was submitted, and the organization was either invited or encouraged/discouraged to submit a full proposal, provide the Preliminary Proposal Number.

The information on the Awardee Organization is prefilled on the Cover Sheet based on the login information entered. NSF uses the legal business name and physical address from the organizations’ SAM registration.

The awardee organization name, address, NSF organization code, UEI, and Employer Identification Number/Taxpayer Identification Number are derived from the profile information provided by the organization or pulled by NSF from the SAM database and are not entered when preparing the Cover Sheet.

Organizations must identify their status by checking all the applicable boxes on the Cover Sheet:

For-profit organizations must be U.S.-based commercial organizations, including small businesses, with strong capabilities in scientific or engineering research or education and a passion for innovation. See PAPPG Chapter I.E.3 for additional information.

A small business must be organized for profit, independently owned, and operated (not a subsidiary of, or controlled by, another firm), have no more than 500 employees, and not be dominant in its field.

A minority business must be: (i) at least 51 percent owned by one or more minority or disadvantaged individuals or, in the case of a publicly owned business, have at least 51 percent of the voting stock owned by one or more minority or disadvantaged individuals; and (ii) one whose management and daily business operations are controlled by one or more such individuals.

A woman-owned business must be at least 51 percent owned by a woman or women, who also control and operate it. "Control" in this context means exercising the power to make policy decisions. "Operate" in this context means being actively involved in the day-to-day management.

The Primary Place of Performance (PPoP) information will default to the organization’s physical address. If the project will be performed at a location other than the awardee organization, provide the following information (where applicable).

• Organization Name (identify the organization name of the primary site where the work will be performed, if different than the awardee);
• Street Address;
• State/Territory; and
• 9-digit Postal Code.

Note that not all fields listed above are required. Research.gov specifies the fields that are required for projects that will be performed at locations other than that of the proposing organization.

For research infrastructure projects, the project/performance site should correspond to the physical location of the asset. For research infrastructure that is mobile or geographically distributed, information for the primary site or organizational headquarters (as defined by the proposer) should be provided.

If the proposal is being submitted for consideration by another Federal agency, the abbreviated name(s) of the Federal agency(ies) must be identified in the space provided.

If any of the following items on the Cover Sheet are applicable to the proposal being submitted, the relevant box(es) must be checked.

Beginning Investigator (See Chapter II.E.2) (Note: this box is applicable only to proposals submitted to the Biological Sciences Directorate.)

Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (See Chapter II.D.1.d)

Proprietary or Privileged Information (See Chapter II.D.1.c and II.E.1)

Special Exceptions to the Deadline Date Policy (See Chapter I.F.3)

Historic Places (See Chapter II.D.2.i(vii))

Live Vertebrate Animals [12] (See Chapter II.E.4)

Human Subjects [13] (See Chapter II.E.5)

Funding of an International Branch Campus of a U.S. IHE (See Chapter I.E.1) – If this box is checked, the proposer also must enter the name of the applicable country(ies) in the International Activities Country Name(s) box described below.

Funding of a Foreign Organization or Foreign Individual (See Chapter I.E.6) – If this box is checked, the proposer also must enter the name of the applicable country(ies) in the International Activities Country Name(s) box described below.

International Activities Country Name(s) – each proposal that describes an international activity, proposers should list the primary countries involved. An international activity is defined as research, training, and/or education carried out in cooperation with international counterparts either overseas or in the U.S. using virtual technologies. Proposers also should enter the country/countries with which project participants will engage and/or travel to attend international conferences. If the specific location of the international conference is not known at the time of the proposal submission, proposers should enter “Worldwide”. (See Chapter II.E.8)

Potential Life Sciences Dual Use Research of Concern (DURC) (See Chapters II.E.6 and XI.B.5)

Off-Campus or Off-Site Research – For purposes of this requirement, off-campus or off-site research is defined as data/information/samples being collected off-campus or off-site, such as fieldwork and research activities on vessels and aircraft. (See Chapter II.D.1.d(viii) and II.E.9).

b. Project Summary

Each proposal must contain a summary of the proposed project not more than one page in length. The Project Summary consists of an overview, a statement on the intellectual merit of the proposed activity, and a statement on the broader impacts of the proposed activity.

The overview includes a description of the activity that would result if the proposal were funded and a statement of objectives and methods to be employed. The statement on intellectual merit should describe the potential of the proposed activity to advance knowledge. The statement on broader impacts should describe the potential of the proposed activity to benefit society and contribute to the achievement of specific, desired societal outcomes.

The Project Summary should be informative to other persons working in the same or related fields, and, insofar as possible, understandable to a broad audience within the scientific domain. It should not be an abstract of the proposal.

c. Table of Contents

A Table of Contents is automatically generated for the proposal. The proposer cannot edit this form.

d. Project Description (including Results from Prior NSF Support)

The Project Description should provide a clear statement of the work to be undertaken and must include the objectives for the period of the proposed work and expected significance; the relationship of this work to the present state of knowledge in the field, as well as to work in progress by the PI under other support.

The Project Description should outline the general plan of work, including the broad design of activities to be undertaken, and, where appropriate, provide a clear description of experimental methods and procedures. Proposers should address what they want to do, why they want to do it, how they plan to do it, how they will know if they succeed, and what benefits could accrue if the project is successful. The project activities may be based on previously established and/or innovative methods and approaches, but in either case must be well justified. These issues apply to both the technical aspects of the proposal and the way in which the project may make broader contributions.

The Project Description also must contain, as a separate section within the narrative, a section labeled “Broader Impacts”. This section should provide a discussion of the broader impacts of the proposed activities. Broader impacts may be accomplished through the research itself, through the activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to the project. NSF values the advancement of scientific knowledge and activities that contribute to the achievement of societally relevant outcomes. Such outcomes include, but are not limited to: full participation of women, persons with disabilities, and underrepresented minorities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM); improved STEM education and educator development at any level; increased public scientific literacy and public engagement with science and technology; improved well-being of individuals in society; development of a diverse, globally competitive STEM workforce; increased partnerships between academia, industry, and others; improved national security; increased economic competitiveness of the U.S.; use of science and technology to inform public policy; and enhanced infrastructure for research and education. These examples of societally relevant outcomes should not be considered either comprehensive or prescriptive. Proposers may include appropriate outcomes not covered by these examples.

Plans for data management and sharing of the products of research, including preservation, documentation, and sharing of data, samples, physical collections, curriculum materials and other related research and education products should be described in the Special Information and Supplementary Documentation section of the proposal (see Chapter II.D.2.i(ii) for additional instructions for preparation of this section).

For proposals that include funding to an International Branch Campus of a U.S. IHE or to a foreign organization or foreign individual (including through use of a subaward or consultant arrangement), the proposer must provide the requisite explanation/justification in the project description. See Chapter I.E for additional information on the content requirements.

Brevity will assist reviewers and Foundation staff in dealing effectively with proposals. Therefore, the Project Description (including Results from Prior NSF Support, which is limited to five pages) may not exceed 15 pages. Visual materials, including charts, graphs, maps, photographs, and other pictorial presentations are included in the 15-page limitation. PIs are cautioned that the Project Description must be self-contained, and that URLs must not be used because: 1) the information could circumvent page limitations; 2) the reviewers are under no obligation to view the sites; and 3) the sites could be altered or deleted between the time of submission and the time of review.

Conformance to the 15-page limit will be strictly enforced and may not be exceeded unless a deviation has been specifically authorized. (Chapter II.A contains information on deviations.)

The purpose of this section is to assist reviewers in assessing the quality of prior work conducted with prior or current NSF funding. If any PI or co-PI identified on the proposal has received prior NSF support including:

an award with an end date in the past five years; or

any current funding, including any no cost extensions

Information on the award is required for each PI and co-PI , regardless of whether the support was directly related to the proposal or not. In cases where the PI or any co-PI has received more than one award (excluding amendments to existing awards), they need only report on the one award that is most closely related to the proposal. Support means salary support, as well as any other funding awarded by NSF, including research, Graduate Research Fellowship, Major Research Instrumentation, conference, equipment, travel, and center awards, etc.

The following information must be provided:

(a) the NSF award number, amount and period of support;

(b) the title of the project;

(c) a summary of the results of the completed work, including accomplishments, supported by the award. The results must be separately described under two distinct headings: Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts;

(d) a listing of the publications resulting from the NSF award (a complete bibliographic citation for each publication must be provided either in this section or in the References Cited section of the proposal); if none, state “No publications were produced under this award.”

(e) evidence of research products and their availability, including, but not limited to: data, publications, samples, physical collections, software, and models, as described in any Data Management Plan; and

(f) if the proposal is for renewed support, a description of the relation of the completed work to the proposed work.

If the project was recently awarded and therefore no new results exist, describe the major goals and broader impacts of the project. Note that the proposal may contain up to five pages to describe the results. Results may be summarized in fewer than five pages, which would give the balance of the 15 pages for the Project Description.

Any substantial collaboration with individuals not included in the budget should be described in the Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources section of the proposal (see Chapter II.D.2.g) and documented in a letter of collaboration from each collaborator. Such letters should be provided in the supplementary documentation section of Research.gov and follow the format instructions specified in Chapter II.D.2.i. Collaborative activities that are identified in the budget should follow the instructions in Chapter II.E.3.

NSF encourages submission of proposals by groups of investigators; often these are submitted to carry out interdisciplinary projects. Unless stipulated in a specific program solicitation, however, such proposals will be subject to the 15-page Project Description limitation established in Section (ii) above. PIs who wish to exceed the established page limitations for the Project Description must request and receive a deviation in advance of proposal submission. (Chapter II.A contains information on deviations.)

See Chapter V for guidance on preparation of renewal proposals.

e. References Cited

Reference information is required. Each reference must include the names of all authors (in the same sequence in which they appear in the publication), the article and journal title, book title, volume number, page numbers, and year of publication. (See also Chapter II.D.2.d(iii)(d)) If the proposer has a website address readily available, that information should be included in the citation. It is not NSF's intent, however, to place an undue burden on proposers to search for the URL of every referenced publication. Therefore, inclusion of a website address is optional. A proposal that includes reference citation(s) that do not specify a URL is not considered to be in violation of NSF proposal preparation guidelines and the proposal will still be reviewed.

Proposers must be especially careful to follow accepted scholarly practices in providing citations for source materials relied upon when preparing any section of the proposal. While there is no established page limitation for the references, this section must include bibliographic citations only and must not be used to provide parenthetical information outside of the 15-page Project Description.

f. Budget and Budget Justification

The proposal budget sets forth how much money the proposer is requesting, by category, to complete the project. The budget justification provides a more detailed breakdown of proposed spending in each category as well as a justification supporting the numbers provided in each budget category. This information is relied upon by NSF in formulating the total award amount and final award budget that is incorporated into any resultant award. (See PAPPG Chapter VI.B.1.)

Each proposal must contain a budget for each year of support requested. The budget justification must be no more than five pages per proposal. The amounts for each budget line item requested must be documented and justified in the budget justification as specified below.

For proposals that contain a subaward(s), each subaward must include a separate budget justification of no more than five pages. See Chapter II.D.2.f(vi)(e) for further instructions on proposals that contain subawards. For collaborative proposals submitted by multiple organizations, each organization must include a separate budget justification of no more than five pages.

The proposal may request funds under any of the categories listed so long as the item and amount are considered necessary, reasonable, allocable, and allowable under 2 CFR §200, Subpart E, NSF policy, and/or the program solicitation. For-profit entities are subject to the cost principles contained in the Federal Acquisition Regulation, Part 31. Amounts and expenses budgeted also must be consistent with the proposing organization's policies and procedures and cost accounting practices used in accumulating and reporting costs.

Proposals for mid-scale and major facilities also should consult NSF’s Research Infrastructure Guide as well as the relevant solicitation for additional budgetary preparation guidelines.

(i) Salaries and Wages (Lines A and B on the Proposal Budget)

NSF regards research as one of the normal functions of faculty members at institutions of higher education. Compensation for time normally spent on research within the term of appointment is deemed to be included within the faculty member’s regular organizational salary.

As a general policy, NSF limits the salary compensation requested in the proposal budget for senior personnel to no more than two months of their regular salary in any one year. (See Exhibit II-3 for the definitions of Senior Personnel.) It is the organization’s responsibility to define and consistently apply the term “year”, and to specify this definition in the budget justification. This limit includes salary compensation received from all NSF-funded grants . This effort must be documented in accordance with 2 CFR §200, Subpart E, including 2 CFR §200.430(i). If anticipated, any compensation for such personnel in excess of two months must be disclosed in the proposal budget, justified in the budget justification, and must be specifically approved by NSF in the award notice budget. [14]

Under normal rebudgeting authority, as described in Chapters VII and X, a recipient can internally approve an increase or decrease in person months devoted to the project after an award is made, even if doing so results in salary support for senior personnel exceeding the two-month salary policy. No prior approval from NSF is necessary unless the rebudgeting would cause the objectives or scope of the project to change. NSF prior approval is necessary if the objectives or scope of the project change.

These same general principles apply to other types of non-academic organizations.

In accordance with 2 CFR §200.413, the salaries of administrative and clerical staff should normally be treated as indirect costs (F&A). Direct charging of these costs may be appropriate only if all the conditions identified below are met:

(i) Administrative or clerical services are integral to a project or activity;

(ii) Individuals involved can be specifically identified with the project or activity;

(iii) Such costs are explicitly included in the approved budget or have the prior written approval of the cognizant NSF Grants and Agreements Officer; and

(iv) The costs are not also recovered as indirect costs.

Conditions (i) (ii) and (iv) above are particularly relevant for consideration at the budget preparation stage.

The names of the PI(s), faculty, and other senior personnel and the estimated number of full-time-equivalent person-months for which NSF funding is requested, and the total amount of salaries requested per year, must be listed. For consistency with the NSF cost sharing policy, if person months will be requested for senior personnel, a corresponding salary amount must be entered on the budget. If salary and person months are not being requested for an individual designated as senior personnel, they should be removed from Section A of the budget. Their name(s) will remain on the Cover Sheet and the individual(s) role on the project should be described in the Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources section of the proposal.

For postdoctoral associates and other professionals, the total number of persons for each position must be listed, with the number of full-time-equivalent person-months and total amount of salaries requested per year. For graduate and undergraduate students, secretarial, clerical, technical, etc., whose time will be charged directly to the project, only the total number of persons and total amount of salaries requested per year in each category is required. Compensation classified as salary payments must be requested in the salaries and wages category. Salaries requested must be consistent with the organization’s regular practices. The budget justification should detail the rates of pay by individual for senior personnel, postdoctoral associates, and other professionals.

The proposing organization may request that salary data on senior personnel not be released to persons outside the Government during the review process. In such cases, the item for senior personnel salaries in the proposal may appear as a single figure and the person-months represented by that amount omitted. If this option is exercised, senior personnel salaries and person-months must be itemized in a separate statement and forwarded to NSF in accordance with the instructions specified in Chapter II.E.1. This statement must include all of the information requested on the proposal budget for each person involved. NSF will not forward the detailed information to reviewers and will hold it privileged to the extent permitted by law. The information on senior personnel salaries will be used as the basis for determining the salary amounts shown in the budget. The box for "Proprietary or Privileged Information" must be checked on the Cover Sheet when the proposal contains confidential budgetary information. [15]

(ii) Fringe Benefits (Line C on the Proposal Budget)

If the proposer’s usual accounting practices provide that its contributions to employee benefits (leave, employee insurance, social security, retirement, other payroll-related taxes, etc.) be treated as direct costs, NSF award funds may be requested to fund fringe benefits as a direct cost. These are typically determined by application of a calculated fringe benefit rate for a particular class of employee (full time or part-time) applied to the salaries and wages requested. They also may be paid based on actual costs for individual employees if that institutional policy has been approved by the cognizant Federal agency. See 2 CFR §200.431 for the definition and allowability of inclusion of fringe benefits on a proposal budget.

(iii) Equipment (Line D on the Proposal Budget)

Equipment is defined as tangible personal property (including information technology systems) having a useful life of more than one year and a per-unit acquisition cost which equals or exceeds the lesser of the capitalization level established by the proposer for financial statement purposes, or $5,000. It is important to note that the acquisition cost of equipment includes modifications, attachments, and accessories necessary to make an item of equipment usable for the purpose for which it will be purchased. Items of needed equipment must be adequately justified, listed individually by description and estimated cost.

Allowable items ordinarily will be limited to research equipment and apparatus not already available for the conduct of the work. General purpose equipment such as office equipment and furnishings, and information technology equipment and systems are typically not eligible for direct cost support. Special purpose or scientific use computers or associated hardware and software, however, may be requested as items of equipment when necessary to accomplish the project objectives and not otherwise reasonably available. Any request to support such items must be clearly disclosed in the proposal budget, justified in the budget justification, and be included in the NSF award budget. See 2 CFR §200.313 and 200.439 for additional information.

(iv) Travel (Line E on the Proposal Budget)

When anticipated, travel and its relation to the proposed activities must be specified, itemized, and justified by destination and cost. Funds may be requested for field work, attendance at meetings and conferences, and other travel associated with the proposed work, including subsistence. To qualify for support, however, attendance at meetings or conferences must be necessary to accomplish proposal objectives or disseminate research results. Travel support for dependents of key project personnel may be requested only when the travel is for a duration of six months or more either by inclusion in the approved budget or with the prior written approval of the cognizant NSF Grants and Agreements Officer. Temporary dependent care costs above and beyond regular dependent care that directly result from travel to conferences are allowable costs provided that the conditions established in 2 CFR §200.475 are met.

Allowance for air travel normally will not exceed the cost of round-trip, economy airfares. Persons traveling under NSF awards must travel by U.S.-Flag Air carriers, if available.

Domestic travel includes travel within and between the U.S., its territories, and possessions. [16] Travel, meal, and hotel expenses of recipient employees who are not on travel status are unallowable. Costs of employees on travel status are limited to those specifically authorized by 2 CFR §200.475.

Travel outside the areas specified above is considered foreign travel. When anticipated, the proposer must enter the names of countries and dates of visit on the proposal budget, if known.

(v) Participant Support (Line F on the Proposal Budget)

This budget category refers to direct costs for items such as stipends or subsistence allowances, travel allowances, and registration fees paid to or on behalf of participants or trainees (but not employees) in connection with NSF-sponsored conferences or training projects. Any additional categories of participant support costs other than those described in 2 CFR §200.1 (such as incentives, gifts, souvenirs, t-shirts, and memorabilia), must be justified in the budget justification, and such costs will be closely scrutinized by NSF. (See also Chapter II.F.7.) Speakers and trainers generally are not considered participants and should not be included in this section of the budget. However, if the primary purpose of the individual’s attendance at the conference is learning and receiving training as a participant, then the costs may be included under participant support. If the primary purpose is to speak or assist with management of the conference, then such costs should be budgeted in appropriate categories other than participant support.

For some educational projects conducted at local school districts, the participants being trained are employees. In such cases, the costs must be classified as participant support if payment is made through a stipend or training allowance method. The school district must have an accounting mechanism in place (i.e., sub-account code) to differentiate between regular salary and stipend payments.

To help defray the costs of participating in a conference or training activity, funds may be proposed for payment of stipends, per diem or subsistence allowances, based on the type and duration of the activity. Such allowances must be reasonable, in conformance with the policy of the proposing organization and limited to the days of attendance at the conference plus the actual travel time required to reach the conference location. Where meals or lodgings are furnished without charge or at a nominal cost (e.g., as part of the registration fee), the per diem or subsistence allowance should be correspondingly reduced. Although local participants may participate in conference meals and coffee breaks, funds may not be proposed to pay per diem or similar expenses for local participants in the conference. Costs related to an NSF-sponsored conference (e.g., venue rental fees, catering costs, supplies, etc.) that will be secured through a service agreement/contract should be budgeted on line G.6., “Other Direct Costs” to ensure appropriate allocation of indirect costs.

This section of the budget also may not be used for incentive payments to research subjects. Human subject payments should be included on line G.6. of the NSF budget under “Other Direct Costs,” and any applicable indirect costs should be calculated on the payments in accordance with the organization’s Federally negotiated indirect cost rate.

Funds may be requested for the travel costs of participants. If so, the restrictions regarding class of accommodations and use of U.S.-Flag air carriers are applicable. [17] In training activities that involve off-site field work, costs of transportation of participants are allowable. The number of participants to be supported must be entered in the parentheses on the proposal budget. Participant support costs must be specified, itemized, and justified in the budget justification section of the proposal. Indirect costs (F&A) are not usually allowed on costs budgeted as participant support unless the recipient’s current, Federally approved indirect cost rate agreement provides for allocation of F&A to participant support costs. Participant support costs must be accounted for separately should an award be made.

(vi) Other Direct Costs (Lines G1 through G6 on the Proposal Budget)

Any costs proposed to an NSF project must be allowable, reasonable, and directly allocable to the supported activity. When anticipated, the budget must identify and itemize other anticipated direct costs not included under the headings above, including materials and supplies, publication costs, and computer and vendor services. Examples include aircraft rental, space rental at research establishments away from the proposing organization, minor building alterations, payments to human subjects, and service charges. Reference books and periodicals only may be included on the proposal budget if they are specifically allocable to the project being supported by NSF.

(a) Materials and Supplies (including Costs of Computing Devices) (Line G1 on the Proposal Budget)

When anticipated, the proposal budget justification must indicate the general types of expendable materials and supplies required. Supplies are defined as all tangible personal property other than those described in paragraph (d)(iii) above. A computing device is considered a supply if the acquisition cost is less than the lesser of the capitalization level established by the proposer or $5,000, regardless of the length of its useful life. In the specific case of computing devices, charging as a direct cost is allowable for devices that are essential and allocable, but not solely dedicated, to the performance of the NSF project. Details and justification must be included for items requested to support the project.

(b) Publication/Documentation/Dissemination (Line G2 on the Proposal Budget)

The proposal budget may request funds for the costs of documenting, preparing, publishing or otherwise making available to others the findings and products of the work to be conducted under the award. This generally includes the following types of activities: reports, reprints, page charges or other journal costs (except costs for prior or early publication); necessary illustrations; cleanup, documentation, storage and indexing of data and databases; development, documentation and debugging of software; and storage, preservation, documentation, indexing, etc., of physical specimens, collections, or fabricated items. Line G.2. of the proposal budget also may be used to request funding for data deposit and data curation costs. [18]

(c) Consultant Services (also referred to as Professional Service Costs) (Line G3 on the Proposal Budget) [19]

The proposal budget may request costs for professional and consultant services. Professional and consultant services are services rendered by persons who are members of a particular profession or possess a special skill, and who are not officers or employees of the proposing organization. Costs of professional and consultant services are allowable when reasonable in relation to the services rendered and when not contingent upon recovery of costs from the Federal government. Anticipated services must be justified, and information furnished on each individual’s expertise, primary organizational affiliation, normal daily compensation rate, and number of days of expected service. Consultants’ travel costs, including subsistence, may be included. If requested, the proposer must be able to justify that the proposed rate of pay is reasonable. Additional information on the allowability of consultant or professional service costs is available in 2 CFR §200.459. In addition to other provisions required by the proposing organization, all contracts made under the NSF award must contain the applicable provisions identified in 2 CFR §200 Appendix II.

(d) Computer Services (Line G4 on the Proposal Budget)

The cost of computer services, including computer-based retrieval of scientific, technical, and educational information, may be requested only where it is institutional policy to charge such costs as direct charges. A justification based on the established computer service rates at the proposing organization must be included. The proposal budget also may request costs for leasing of computer equipment.

(e) Subawards (Line G5 on the Proposal Budget) [20] [21]

Except for the purpose of obtaining goods and services for the proposer's own use which creates a procurement relationship with a contractor, no portion of the proposed activity may be subawarded or transferred to another organization without prior written NSF authorization. Such authorization must be provided either through approval specifically granted in the award notice or by receiving written prior approval from the cognizant NSF Grants and Agreements Officer after an award is issued. If the subaward organization is changed, prior approval of the new subaward organization must be obtained from the cognizant NSF Grants and Agreements Officer.

If known at the time of proposal submission, the intent to enter into such arrangements must be disclosed in the proposal. A separate budget and a budget justification of no more than five pages, must be provided for each subrecipient, if already identified. The description of the work to be performed must be included in the project description.

All proposing organizations are required to make a case-by-case determination regarding the role of a subrecipient versus contractor for each agreement it makes. 2 CFR §200.331 provides characteristics of each type of arrangement to assist proposing organizations in making that determination. However, inclusion of a subaward or contract in the proposal budget or submission of a request after issuance of an NSF award to add a subaward or contract will document the required organizational determination.

NSF does not negotiate rates for organizations that are not direct recipients of NSF funding (e.g., subrecipients). Consistent with 2 CFR §200.332, NSF recipients must use the domestic subrecipient’s applicable U.S. Federally negotiated indirect cost rate(s). If no such rate exists, the NSF recipient must determine the appropriate rate in collaboration with the subrecipient. The appropriate rate will be: a negotiated rate between the NSF recipient and the subrecipient; a prior rate negotiated between a different pass-through entity and the same subrecipient, or the de minimis indirect cost recovery rate of 10% of modified total direct costs.

It is also NSF’s expectation that NSF recipients will use foreign subrecipients’ applicable U.S. Federally negotiated indirect cost rate(s). However, if no such rate exists, the NSF recipient will fund the foreign subrecipient using the de minimis indirect cost rate recovery of 10% of modified total direct costs. See also Chapter I.E.2. for additional requirements on issuance of a subaward or consultant arrangement to a foreign organization or a foreign individual.

Proposers are responsible for ensuring that proposed subrecipient costs, including indirect costs, are reasonable and appropriate.

(f) Other (Line G6 on the Proposal Budget) [22]

Any other direct costs not specified in Lines G.1. through G.5. must be identified on Line G.6. Such costs must be itemized and detailed in the budget justification. Examples include:

• Contracts for the purpose of obtaining goods and services for the proposer’s own use (see 2 CFR §200.331 for additional information); and
• Incentive payments, for example, payments to human subjects or incentives to promote completion of a survey, should be included on line G.6. of the NSF budget. Incentive payments should be proposed in accordance with organizational policies and procedures. Indirect costs should be calculated on incentive payments in accordance with the organization’s approved U.S. Federally negotiated indirect cost rate(s). Performance based incentive payments to employees as described in 2 CFR §200.430(f) should not be included in this section of the budget.

(vii) Total Direct Costs (Line H on the Proposal Budget)

The total amount of direct costs requested in the budget, to include Lines A through G, must be entered on Line H.

(viii) Indirect Costs (also known as Facilities and Administrative Costs (F&A) for Colleges and Universities) (Line I on the Proposal Budget)

Except where specifically identified in an NSF program solicitation, the applicable U.S. Federally negotiated indirect cost rate(s) must be used in computing indirect costs (F&A) for a proposal. Use of an indirect cost rate lower than the organization’s current negotiated indirect cost rate is considered a violation of NSF’s cost sharing policy. See section (xii) below. The amount for indirect costs must be calculated by applying the current negotiated indirect cost rate(s) to the approved base(s), and such amounts must be specified in the budget justification. Indirect cost recovery for IHEs is additionally restricted by 2 CFR §200, Appendix III, paragraph C.7. which specifies Federal agencies are required to use the negotiated F&A rate that is in effect at the time of the initial award throughout the life of the sponsored agreement. Additional information on the charging of indirect costs to an NSF award is available in Chapter X.D.

Domestic proposing organizations that do not have a current negotiated rate agreement with a cognizant Federal agency may choose to apply the de minimis rate of 10% to a base of modified total direct costs (MTDC) as authorized by 2 CFR §200.414(f). No supporting documentation is required for proposed rates of 10% or less of modified total direct costs. Organizations without a current negotiated indirect cost rate agreement and that wish to request indirect cost rate recovery above 10% should prepare an indirect cost proposal based on expenditures for its most recently ended fiscal year. Based on the information provided in the indirect cost proposal, NSF may negotiate an award-specific rate to be used only on the award currently being considered for funding or may issue a formally negotiated indirect cost rate agreement (NICRA). The contents and financial data included in indirect cost proposals vary according to the make-up of the proposing organization. Instructions for preparing an indirect cost rate proposal can be found on the NSF website . NSF formally negotiates indirect cost rates for the organizations for which NSF has rate cognizance. NSF does not negotiate rates for entities that do not yet hold direct NSF funding, nor does NSF negotiate rates for subrecipients.

Foreign organizations that do not have a current U.S. Federally negotiated indirect cost rate(s) are limited to a de minimis indirect cost rate recovery of 10% of modified total direct costs. Foreign recipients that have a U.S. Federally negotiated indirect cost rate(s) may recover indirect costs at the current negotiated rate.

(ix) Total Direct and Indirect Costs (F&A) (Line J on the Proposal Budget)

The total amount of direct and indirect costs (F&A) (sum of Lines H and I) must be entered on Line J.

(x) Fees (Line K on the Proposal Budget)

This line is available for use only by the SBIR/STTR programs and Major Facilities programs when specified in the solicitation.

(xi) Amount of This Request (Line L on the Proposal Budget)

The total amount of funds requested by the proposer.

(xii) Cost Sharing (Line M on the Proposal Budget)

The National Science Board issued a report entitled " Investing in the Future: NSF Cost Sharing Policies for a Robust Federal Research Enterprise " (NSB 09-20, August 3, 2009), which contained eight recommendations for NSF regarding cost sharing. In implementation of the Board’s recommendation, NSF’s guidance [23] is as follows:

Voluntary Committed and Uncommitted Cost Sharing

As stipulated in 2 CFR §200.1, Voluntary committed cost sharing means cost sharing specifically pledged on a voluntary basis in the proposal's budget or the Federal award on the part of the non-Federal entity and that becomes a binding requirement of Federal award.” As such, to be considered voluntary committed cost sharing, the amount must appear on the NSF proposal budget and be specifically identified in the approved NSF budget. [24] Unless required by NSF (see the section on Mandatory Cost Sharing below), inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited and Line M on the proposal budget will not be available for use by the proposer. NSF Program Officers are not authorized to impose or encourage mandatory cost sharing unless such requirements are explicitly included in the program solicitation.

In order for NSF, and its reviewers, to assess the scope of a proposed project, all organizational resources necessary for, and available to, a project must be described in the Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources section of the proposal (see Chapter II.D.2.g for further information). While not required by NSF, the recipient may, at its own discretion, continue to contribute voluntary uncommitted cost sharing to NSF-sponsored projects. As noted above, however, these resources are not auditable by NSF and should not be included in the proposal budget or budget justification.

Mandatory Cost Sharing

Mandatory cost sharing will only be required for NSF programs when explicitly authorized by the NSF Director, the NSB, or legislation. A complete listing of NSF programs that require cost sharing is available on the NSF website . In these programs, cost sharing requirements will be clearly identified in the solicitation and must be included on Line M of the proposal budget. For purposes of budget preparation, the cumulative cost sharing amount must be entered on Line M of the first year’s budget. Should an award be made, the organization’s cost sharing commitment, as specified on the first year’s approved budget, must be met prior to the award end date.

Such cost sharing will be considered as an eligibility, rather than a review criterion. Proposers are advised not to exceed the mandatory cost sharing level or amount specified in the solicitation. [25]

When mandatory cost sharing is included on Line M, and accepted by the Foundation, the commitment of funds becomes legally binding and is subject to audit. When applicable, the estimated value of any in-kind contributions also should be included on Line M. An explanation of the source, nature, amount, and availability of any proposed cost sharing must be provided in the budget justification [26] . It should be noted that contributions derived from other Federal funds or counted as cost sharing toward projects of another Federal agency must not be counted towards meeting the specific cost sharing requirements of the NSF award.

Failure to provide the level of cost sharing required by the NSF solicitation and reflected in the NSF award budget may result in termination of the NSF award, disallowance of award costs and/or refund of award funds to NSF by the recipient.

(xiii) Allowable and Unallowable Costs

2 CFR §200, Subpart E provides comprehensive information regarding costs allowable under Federal awards. The following categories of unallowable costs are highlighted because of their sensitivity:

Costs of entertainment, amusement, diversion and social activities, and any costs directly associated with such activities (such as tickets to shows or sporting events, meals, lodging, rentals, transportation, and gratuities) are unallowable. When costs typically considered as entertainment are necessary to accomplish the proposed objectives, they must be included in the budget and justified in the budget justification. Travel, meal, and hotel expenses of recipient employees who are not on travel status are unallowable. See also 2 CFR §200.438.

No funds may be requested for meals or coffee breaks for intramural meetings of an organization or any of its components, including, but not limited to, laboratories, departments, and centers. (See 2 CFR §200.432, for additional information on the charging of certain types of costs generally associated with conferences supported by NSF.) Meal expenses of recipient employees who are not on travel status are unallowable. See also 2 CFR §200.438.

No NSF funds may be requested or spent for alcoholic beverages.

Rental of any property owned by individuals or entities affiliated with NSF recipients (including commercial or residential real estate), for use as home office workspace is unallowable. See 2 CFR §200.465(f).

Section 889 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 (Public Law 115-232) prohibits the head of an executive agency from obligating or expending loan or grant funds to procure or obtain, extend, or renew a contract to procure or obtain, or enter into a contract (or extend or renew a contract) to procure or obtain the equipment, services, or systems as identified in section 889 of the NDAA for FY 2019. See 2 CFR §§200.216, 200.471, PAPPG Chapter X.F, and the applicable award terms and conditions for additional information.

g . Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources

This section of the proposal is used to assess the adequacy of the resources available to perform the effort proposed to satisfy both the Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts review criteria. Proposers should describe only those resources that are directly applicable. Proposers should include an aggregated description of the internal and external resources (both physical and personnel) that the organization and its collaborators, and subawardees will provide to the project, should it be funded. Such information must be provided in this section, in lieu of other parts of the proposal (e.g., Budget Justification, Project Description). The description should be narrative in nature and must not include any quantifiable financial information. Reviewers will evaluate the information during the merit review process and the cognizant NSF Program Officer will review it for programmatic and technical sufficiency.

Although these resources are not considered voluntary committed cost sharing as defined in 2 CFR §200.1, the Foundation does expect that the resources identified in the Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources section will be provided, or made available, should the proposal be funded. Chapter VII.B.1 specifies procedures for use by the recipient when there are postaward changes to objectives, scope, or methods/procedures.

h. Senior Personnel Documents

Note: The mandate to use SciENcv only for preparation of the biographical sketch will go into effect for new proposals submitted or due on or after October 23, 2023. In the interim, proposers may continue to prepare and submit this document via use of SciENcv or the NSF fillable PDF. NSF, however, encourages the community to use SciENcv prior to the October 2023 implementation.

This section of the proposal is used to assess how well qualified the individual, team, or organization is to conduct the proposed activities. A Biographical Sketch (limited to three pages) must be provided separately for each individual designated as senior personnel through use of SciENcv ( Science Experts Network Curriculum Vitae ). SciENcv will produce an NSF-compliant PDF version of the Biographical Sketch. Senior personnel must prepare, save, certify, and submit these documents as part of their proposal via Research.gov or Grants.gov.

Senior personnel include the individuals designated by the proposer/awardee organization and approved by NSF who contribute in a substantive, meaningful way to the scientific development or execution of a research and development project proposed to be carried out with a research and development award. [27]

A table entitled, NSPM-33 Implementation Guidance Pre- and Post-award Disclosures Relating to the Biographical Sketch and Current and Pending (Other) Support [28] has been created to provide helpful reference information regarding pre-award and post-award disclosures. The table includes the types of activities to be reported, where such activities must be reported in the proposal, as well as when updates are required in the proposal and award lifecycle. A final column identifies activities that are not required to be reported.

Inclusion of additional information beyond that specified below may result in the proposal being returned without review. Do not submit any personal information in the Biographical Sketch. This includes items such as: home address; home telephone, fax, or cell phone numbers; home e-mail address; driver’s license number; marital status; personal hobbies; and the like. Such personal information is not appropriate for the Biographical Sketch and is not relevant to the merits of the proposal. NSF is not responsible or in any way liable for the release of such material. (See also Chapter III.H ).

The format of the Biographical Sketch is as follows:

*= required

(i) *Name: Enter the name of the senior person (Last name, First name, Middle name, including any applicable suffix).

(ii) ORCID ID [29] (Optional): Enter the ORCID ID of the senior person.

(iii) *Position Title: Enter the current position title of the senior person.

(i) Name: Enter the name of the primary organization of the senior person.

(ii) Location: Enter the City, State/Province, and Country where the primary organization is located. If the State/Province is not applicable, enter N/A. Indicate “virtual” if the project is not based in a physical location.

Provide a list of the senior person’s professional preparation (e.g., education and training), listed in reverse chronological order by start date. Include all postdoctoral and fellowship training, as applicable, listing each separately. Also include the baccalaureate degree or other initial professional education.

For each entry provide:

• the name of the organization;
• the location of the organization: Enter the City, State/Province, and Country where the primary organization is located. If the State/Province is not applicable, enter N/A.
• the degree received (if applicable);
• the month and year the degree was received (or expected receipt date). For fellowship applicants only, also include the start date of the fellowship; and
• the field of study.

Provide a list, in reverse chronological order by start date, of all the senior person’s academic, professional, or institutional appointments and positions, beginning with the current appointment (including the associated organization and location). Appointments and positions include any titled academic, professional, or institutional position whether or not remuneration is received, and whether full-time, part-time, or voluntary (including adjunct, visiting, or honorary).

• Start date: YYYY
• End date: YYYY
• Appointment or Position Title
• Name of organization
• Department (if applicable)
• Location of organization: City, State/Province, Country

With regard to professional appointments, senior personnel must only identify all current domestic and foreign professional appointments outside of the individual's academic, professional, or institutional appointments at the proposing organization.

Provide a list of: (i) up to five products most closely related to the proposed project; and (ii) up to five other significant products, whether or not related to the proposed project that demonstrate the senior person’s qualifications to carry out the project as proposed. Acceptable products must be citable and accessible, including but not limited to:

• publications, conference papers, and presentations;
• website(s) or other Internet site(s);
• technologies or techniques;
• inventions, patent applications, and/or licenses; and
• other products, such as data, databases, or datasets, physical collections, audio or video products, software, models, educational aids or curricula, instruments or equipment, research material, interventions (e.g., clinical or educational), or new business creation.

Only the list of ten will be used in the review of the proposal.

Each product must include full citation information including:

• names of authors;
• product title;
• date of publication or release;
• website URL;
• other persistent identifier (if available); and
• other relevant citation information (e.g., in the case of publications, title of enclosing work such as journal or book, volume, issue, pages).

If any of the items specified above is not applicable, enter N/A.

Senior personnel who wish to include publications in the products section of the Biographical Sketch that include multiple authors may, at their discretion, choose to list one or more of the authors and then " et al " in lieu of including the complete listing of authors' names.

Provide a list of up to five distinct examples that demonstrates the broader impact of the individual’s professional and scholarly activities that focus on the integration and transfer of knowledge as well as its creation. Examples may include, among others: innovations in teaching and training; contributions to the science of learning; development and/or refinement of research tools; computation methodologies and algorithms for problem-solving; development of databases to support research and education; broadening the participation of groups underrepresented in STEM; participation in international research collaborations; participation in international standards development efforts; and service to the scientific and engineering community outside of the individual’s immediate organization.

Synergistic activities must be specific and must not include multiple examples to further describe the activity. Examples with multiple components, such as committee member lists, sub-bulleted highlights of honors and prizes, or a listing of organizations for which the individual has served as a reviewer, are not permitted.

When the individual signs the certification on behalf of themselves, they are certifying that the information is current, accurate, and complete. This includes, but is not limited to, information related to domestic and foreign appointments and positions. Misrepresentations and/or omissions may be subject to prosecution and liability pursuant to, but not limited to, 18 U.S.C. §§287, 1001, 1031 and 31 U.S.C. §§3729-3733 and 3802.

For the personnel categories listed below, the proposal also may include information on exceptional qualifications that merit consideration in the evaluation of the proposal. While the requirement to use SciENcv for preparation and submission of the biographical sketch is for any individual designated as senior personnel, the biographical information for 'other personnel' may be freeform. The biographical information must be clearly identified as “Other Personnel” biographical information and uploaded as a single PDF file in the Other Supplementary Documents section of the proposal.

(1) Postdoctoral associates

(2) Other professionals

(3) Students (research assistants)

For equipment proposals, the following must be provided for each auxiliary user:

(1) Short biographical sketch; and

(2) List of up to five publications most closely related to the proposed acquisition.

Such information should be clearly identified as “Equipment Proposal” biographical information and uploaded as a single PDF file in the Other Supplementary Documents section of the proposal.

(ii) Current and Pending (Other) Support

Note: The mandate to use SciENcv only for the preparation of Current and Pending (Other) Support information will go into effect for new proposals submitted or due on or after October 23, 2023. In the interim, proposers may continue to prepare and submit this document via use of SciENcv or the NSF fillable PDF. NSF, however, encourages the community to use SciENcv prior to the October 2023 implementation.

(a) Current and Pending (Other) Support [30] information is used to assess the capacity of the individual to carry out the research as proposed and helps assess any potential scientific and budgetary overlap/duplication, as well as overcommitment with the project being proposed. Note that there is no page limitation for this section of the proposal, though some fields have character limitations for consistency and equity.

(b) Senior personnel include the individuals designated by the proposer/awardee organization and approved by NSF who contribute in a substantive, meaningful way to the scientific development or execution of a research and development project proposed to be carried out with a research and development award. [31]

( c) Current and Pending (Other) Support must be provided separately for each individual designated as senior personnel through use of SciENcv. SciENcv will produce an NSF-compliant PDF version of the Current and Pending (Other) Support. Senior personnel must prepare, save, certify, and submit these documents as part of their proposal via Research.gov or Grants.gov.

(d) Consistent with NSPM-33, senior personnel are required to disclose contracts associated with participation in programs sponsored by foreign governments, instrumentalities, or entities, including foreign government-sponsored talent recruitment programs [32] . Further, if an individual receives direct or indirect support that is funded by a foreign government-sponsored talent recruitment program, even where the support is provided through an intermediary and does not require membership in the foreign government-sponsored talent recruitment program, that support must be disclosed. Senior personnel must also report other foreign government sponsored or affiliated activity. Note that non-disclosure clauses associated with these contracts are not acceptable exemptions from this disclosure requirement.

(e) A table entitled, NSPM-33 Implementation Guidance Pre- and Post-award Disclosures Relating to the Biographical Sketch and Current and Pending (Other) Support [33] has been created to provide helpful reference information regarding pre-award and post-award disclosures. The table includes the types of activities to be reported, where such activities must be reported in the proposal, as well as when updates are required in the proposal and award lifecycle. A final column identifies activities that are not required to be reported.

(f) Do not submit any personal information in the Current and Pending (Other) support. This includes items such as: home address; home telephone, fax, or cell phone numbers; home e-mail address; driver’s license number; marital status; personal hobbies; and the like. Such personal information is not appropriate for current and pending (other) support and is not relevant to the merits of the proposal. NSF is not responsible or in any way liable for the release of such material.

(g) A separate submission must be provided for each active project/pending proposal as well as in-kind contributions using the format specified below.

The formats of Current and Pending (Other) Support are as follows:

*Name: Enter the name of the senior person (Last name, First name, Middle name, including any applicable suffix).

ORCID ID [34] (Optional): Enter the ORCID ID of the senior person.

*Position Title: Enter the current position title of the senior person.

*Name: Enter the name of the primary organization of the senior person.

*Location: Enter the City, State/Province, and Country where the primary organization is located. If the State/Province is not applicable, enter N/A.

In this section, disclose ALL existing projects, as well as all projects currently under consideration for funding, in accordance with the definitions for “current” and “pending” below. Unless otherwise specified, there is no page or character limit.

*Project/Proposal Title: Enter the title of each project/proposal being reported.

*Status of Support: Select the appropriate status type as defined below:

• Current – all ongoing projects, or projects with ongoing obligations, from whatever source irrespective of whether such support is provided through the proposing organization or is provided directly to the individual.
• Pending – any proposal currently under consideration for funding (including this proposal) from whatever source irrespective of whether such support is provided through the proposing organization or is provided directly to the individual.

Proposal/Award Number (if available): Enter the applicable proposal/award number for each proposal and/or award, if available.

*Source of Support: Identify the entity for each proposal and/or award that is providing the support. Include all Federal, State, Tribal, territorial, local, foreign, public, or private foundations, non-profit organizations, industrial or other commercial organizations, or internal funds allocated toward specific projects.

*Primary Place of Performance: Identify the primary location where the project or activity is being executed. Enter the City, State/Province, and Country where the organization is located. If the State/Province is not applicable, enter N/A. Indicate “virtual” if the project is not based in a physical location.

*Project/Proposal Start Date: Indicate the start date (MM/YYYY) of the project/activity as proposed/approved.

*Project/Proposal End Date: Indicate the end date (MM/YYYY) of the project/activity as proposed/approved.

*Total Award Amount: Enter the total award amount for the entire period of performance, including indirect costs, rounded to the nearest dollar. If the support is in a foreign country’s currency, convert to U.S. dollars at time of submission.

*Person-Month(s) (or Partial Person-Months) Per Year Committed to the Project: Enter how much time the individual anticipates is necessary to complete the scope of work on the proposed project or award. Enter the number of person-months (even if unsalaried) for the current budget period and enter the proposed person-months for each subsequent budget period. If the individual is reporting person-months that span two calendar years, the individual should enter the latter year. For example, if the entry covers the organization’s fiscal year of June 2023 through May 2024, the individual would enter “2024” for the year and include the corresponding person-months as defined and used by the organization in proposals submitted to NSF. If the time commitment is not readily ascertainable, reasonable estimates should be provided.

*Overall Objectives: Provide a brief statement of the overall objectives of the proposal/award. This field is limited to 1500 characters.

*Statement of Potential Overlap: Provide a description of the potential overlap with any pending proposal or award and this proposal in terms of scope, budget, or person-months planned or committed to the project by the individual. If there is no potential overlap, enter N/A in this field.

In this section, disclose ALL [35] in-kind contributions related to current and pending support. In-kind contributions include, but are not limited to, office/laboratory space, equipment, supplies, and employee or student resources.

• Current – all in-kind contributions obligated from whatever source irrespective of whether such support is provided through the proposing organization or is provided directly to the individual.
• Pending – all in-kind contributions currently under consideration from whatever source irrespective of whether such support is provided through the proposing organization or is provided directly to the individual.

*In-Kind Contribution Start Date: Indicate the start date (MM/YYYY) of the in-kind contribution as proposed/approved.

*In-Kind Contribution End Date: Indicate the end date (MM/YYYY) of the in-kind contribution as proposed/approved.

*Source of Support: Identify the entity(ies) that is/are providing the in-kind contribution. Include, for example, Federal, State, Tribal, territorial, local, foreign, public, or private foundations, non-profit organizations, industrial or other commercial organizations, or internal funds allocated toward specific projects.

*Summary of In-Kind Contribution(s): Provide a summary of the in-kind contribution(s) not intended for use on the project/proposal being proposed to NSF, whether or not it has an associated time commitment. If the time commitment or dollar value is not readily ascertainable, reasonable estimates should be provided.

*Person-Month(s) (or Partial Person-Months) Per Year Associated with the In-kind Contribution: Enter how much time the individual anticipates is necessary to complete the scope of work associated with the in-kind contribution. Enter the number of person-months (even if unsalaried) for the current budget period and enter the proposed person-months for each subsequent budget period. If the individual is reporting person-months that span two calendar years, the individual should enter the latter year. For example, if the entry covers the organization’s fiscal year of June 2023 through May 2024, the individual would enter “2024” for the year and include the corresponding person-months as defined and used by the organization in proposals submitted to NSF. If the time commitment is not readily ascertainable, reasonable estimates should be provided.

*U.S. Dollar Value of In-Kind Contribution: Enter the U.S. dollar value of the in-kind contribution. If the dollar value is not readily ascertainable, reasonable estimates should be provided. If the support is in a foreign country’s currency, convert to U.S. dollars at time of submission, rounded to the nearest dollar.

*Overall Objectives: Provide a brief statement of the overall objectives of the in-kind contribution(s). This field is limited to 1500 characters.

*Statement of Potential Overlap: Provide a description of the potential overlap with any current or pending in-kind contribution and this proposal in terms of scope, budget, or person-months planned or committed to the project by the individual. If there is no overlap, then enter N/A in the field.

When the individual signs the certification on behalf of themselves, they are certifying that the information is current, accurate, and complete. This includes, but is not limited to, information related to current, pending, and other support (both foreign and domestic) as defined in 42 U.S.C. §§6605. Misrepresentations and/or omissions may be subject to prosecution and liability pursuant to, but not limited to, 18 U.S.C. §§ 287, 1001, 1031 and 31 U.S.C. §§3729-3733 and 3802.

(h) The individual also must report any proposal, other than the proposal currently being submitted, that will likely be submitted imminently or in the near future.

(i) Prior to making a funding recommendation, the cognizant NSF program officer will request that an updated version of Current and Pending (Other) Support be submitted via Research.gov.

(iii) Collaborators & Other Affiliations Information (Single Copy Document) (See Chapter II.D.1 for additional information on Single Copy Documents.)

The following information regarding collaborators and other affiliations (COA) must be separately provided for each individual identified as senior personnel on the project. The COA information must be provided through use of the COA template . The information in the tables is not required to be sorted, alphabetically or otherwise. Refer to the frequently asked questions on the COA template page for additional information.

There are five separate categories of information which correspond to the five tables in the COA template:

COA template Table 1:

List the individual’s last name, first name, middle initial, and organizational affiliation in the last 12 months.

COA template Table 2:

List names as last name, first name, middle initial, for whom a personal, family, or business relationship would otherwise preclude their service as a reviewer. In the “Type of Relationship” column please specify the personal, family, or business relationship involved.

COA template Table 3:

List names as last name, first name, middle initial, and provide organizational affiliations, if known, for the following:

• The individual’s Ph.D. advisors; and
• All of the individual’s Ph.D. thesis advisees.

COA template Table 4:

• Co-authors on any book, article, report, abstract or paper with collaboration in the last 48 months (publication date may be later); and
• Collaborators on projects, such as funded awards, graduate research, or others in the last 48 months.

COA template Table 5:

List editorial board, editor-in chief, and co-editors with whom the individual interacts. An editor-in-chief must list the entire editorial board.

• Editorial Board: [36] List name(s) of editor-in-chief and journal in the past 24 months; and
• Other co-Editors of journal or collections with whom the individual has directly interacted in the last 24 months.

The template has been developed to be fillable, however, the content and format requirements must not be altered by the user. When completing the template, do not change the column sizes or the font type. The instructions at the top of the template may be deleted, and rows may be inserted as needed to provide additional names [37] .

This information is used to manage reviewer selection. See Exhibit II-2 for additional information on potential reviewer conflicts.

i. Special Information and Supplementary Documentation

Except as specified below, Special Information and Supplementary Documentation must be included as part of the Project Description (or part of the Budget Justification), if it is relevant to determining the quality of the proposed work. Information submitted in the following areas is not considered part of the 15-page Project Description limitation. This Special Information and Supplementary Documentation section also is not considered an appendix. Specific guidance on the need for additional documentation may be obtained from the organization’s SPO or in the references cited below.

(i) Postdoctoral Researcher Mentoring Plan . Each proposal [38] that requests funding to support postdoctoral researchers [39] must upload under "Mentoring Plan" in the supplementary documentation section of Research.gov, a description of the mentoring activities that will be provided for such individuals. In no more than one page, the mentoring plan must describe the mentoring that will be provided to all postdoctoral researchers supported by the project, regardless of whether they reside at the submitting organization, any subrecipient organization, or at any organization participating in a simultaneously submitted collaborative proposal. Proposers are advised that the mentoring plan must not be used to circumvent the 15-page Project Description limitation. See Chapter II.E.3 for additional information on collaborative proposals. Mentoring activities provided to postdoctoral researchers supported on the project will be evaluated under the Broader Impacts review criterion.

Examples of mentoring activities include but are not limited to: career counseling; training in preparation of proposals, publications and presentations; guidance on ways to improve teaching and mentoring skills; guidance on how to effectively collaborate with researchers from diverse backgrounds and disciplinary areas; and training in responsible professional practices.

(ii) Plans for Data Management and Sharing of the Products of Research . Proposals must include a document of no more than two pages uploaded under “Data Management Plan” in the supplementary documentation section of Research.gov. This supplementary document should describe how the proposal will conform to NSF policy on the dissemination and sharing of research results (see Chapter XI.D.4 ), and may include:

• the types of data, samples, physical collections, software, curriculum materials, and other materials to be produced in the course of the project;
• the standards to be used for data and metadata format and content (where existing standards are absent or deemed inadequate, this should be documented along with any proposed solutions or remedies);
• policies for access and sharing including provisions for appropriate protection of privacy, confidentiality, security, intellectual property, or other rights or requirements;
• policies and provisions for re-use, re-distribution, and the production of derivatives; and
• plans for archiving data, samples, and other research products, and for preservation of access to them.

Data management requirements and plans specific to the Directorate, Office, Division, Program, or other NSF unit, relevant to a proposal are available on the NSF website . If guidance specific to the program is not available, then the requirements established in this section apply.

Simultaneously submitted collaborative proposals and proposals that include subawards are a single unified project and should include only one supplemental combined Data Management Plan, regardless of the number of non-lead collaborative proposals or subawards included. In such collaborative proposals, the data management plan should discuss the relevant data issues in the context of the collaboration.

A valid Data Management Plan may include only the statement that no detailed plan is needed, as long as the statement is accompanied by a clear justification. Proposers who feel that the plan cannot fit within the limit of two pages may use part of the 15-page Project Description for additional data management information. Proposers are advised that the Data Management Plan must not be used to circumvent the 15-page Project Description limitation. The Data Management Plan will be reviewed as an integral part of the proposal, considered under Intellectual Merit or Broader Impacts or both, as appropriate for the scientific community of relevance.

(iii) Rationale for Performance of All or Part of the Project Off-campus or Away from Organizational Headquarters .

(iv) Documentation of Collaborative Arrangements of Significance to the Proposal through Letters of Collaboration . (See Chapter II.D.2.d.(iv).) Letters of collaboration should be limited to stating the intent to collaborate and should not contain endorsements or evaluation of the proposed project. While not required, the following format may be used in preparation of letters of collaboration:

"If the proposal submitted by Dr. [insert the full name of the Principal Investigator] entitled [insert the proposal title] is selected for funding by NSF, it is my intent to collaborate and/or commit resources as detailed in the Project Description or the Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources section of the proposal."

While letters of collaboration are permitted, unless required by a specific program solicitation, letters of support should not be submitted as they are not a standard component of an NSF proposal. A letter of support is typically from a key stakeholder such as an organization, collaborator, or Congressional Representative, and is used to convey a sense of enthusiasm for the project and/or to highlight the qualifications of the PI or co-PI. A letter of support submitted in response to a program solicitation requirement must be unique to the specific proposal submitted and cannot be altered without the author’s explicit prior approval. Proposals that contain letters of support not authorized by the program solicitation may be returned without review.

(v) In order for NSF to comply with Federal Environmental Statutes (including, but not limited to, the National Environmental Policy Act (42 USC §4321, et seq.)), the National Historic Preservation Act (54 USC §306108 [previously codified at 16 USC §470, et seq.], and the Endangered Species Act (16 USC §1531, et seq.), the proposer may be requested to submit supplemental post-proposal submission information to NSF in order that a reasonable and accurate assessment of environmental impacts by NSF may be made. Supplemental information also may be requested to assist NSF in complying with Executive Orders and Presidential memoranda directing Federal agencies to carry out their obligations to engage in Tribal consultation when Tribal interests may be impacted. The types of information that may be requested is shown in the Organization Environmental Impacts Checklist .

(vi) Antarctic Proposals to any NSF program require “Logistical Requirements and Field Plan” supplementary documents to be submitted with the proposal. See “proposal with fieldwork” in Chapter V.A of the Antarctic Research solicitation. Special budgetary considerations also apply. See also Chapter V.B of the Antarctic Research solicitation.

(vii) Research in a Location Designated, or Eligible to be Designated, a Registered Historic Place . (See Chapter XI.J). Where applicable, the box for “Historic Places” must be checked on the Cover Sheet.

(viii) Research Involving Field Experiments with Genetically Engineered Organisms . (See Chapter XI.B.2 )

(ix) Documentation Regarding Research Involving the Use of Human Subjects, Hazardous Materials, Live Vertebrate Animals, or Endangered Species . (See Chapter II.E.4, Chapter II.E.5, and Chapter XI.B ).

(x) Special Components in New Proposals or in Requests for Supplemental Funding. This includes, for example, Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities (FASED), Research Opportunity Awards (ROAs), Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REUs), Facilitating Research at Primarily Undergraduate Institutions (RUIs), Research Experiences for Veterans (REV), and Research Experiences for Teachers, and Research Experiences for Graduates. See Chapter II.F.7 for information on FASED, and, for the other programs identified, consult the relevant solicitation or Dear Colleague Letter.

In addition, the supplementary documentation section should alert NSF officials to unusual circumstances that require special handling, including, for example, proprietary or other privileged information in the proposal, matters affecting individual privacy, required intergovernmental review under E.O. 12372 (Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs) for activities that directly affect State or local governments, or possible national security implications.

E. Special Processing Instructions

1. proprietary or privileged information.

Patentable ideas, trade secrets, privileged or confidential commercial or financial information, disclosure of which may harm the proposer, should be included in proposals only when such information is necessary to convey an understanding of the proposed project. Such information must be clearly marked in the proposal and be appropriately labeled with a legend such as,

• "The following is (proprietary or confidential) information that (name of proposing organization) requests not be released to persons outside the Government, except for purposes of review and evaluation."

Such information also may be included as a separate statement. If this method is used, the statement must be submitted as a single-copy document in the Proposal Preparation Module in Research.gov. (See also Chapter II.D.1 for further information regarding submission of single-copy documents.) [40]

The box for "Proprietary or Privileged Information" must be checked on the Cover Sheet when the proposal contains such information. While NSF will make every effort to prevent unauthorized access to such material, the Foundation is not responsible or in any way liable for the release of such material.

2. Beginning Investigators (applies to proposals submitted to the Biological Sciences Directorate only)

Research proposals to the Biological Sciences Directorate ONLY (not proposals for conferences) cannot be duplicates of proposals to any other Federal agency for simultaneous consideration. The only exceptions to this rule are: (1) when the Program Officers at the relevant Federal agencies have previously agreed to joint review and possible joint funding of the proposal; or (2) proposals for PIs who are beginning investigators (individuals who have not been a PI or co-PI on a Federally funded award with the exception of doctoral dissertation, postdoctoral fellowship or research planning grants). For proposers who qualify under this latter exception, the box for "Beginning Investigator" must be checked on the Cover Sheet.

3. Collaborative Proposals

A collaborative proposal is one in which investigators from two or more organizations wish to collaborate on a unified research project. Collaborative proposals may be submitted to NSF in one of two methods: as a single proposal, in which a single award is being requested (with subawards administered by the lead organization); or by simultaneous submission of proposals from different organizations, with each organization requesting a separate award. In either case, the lead organization’s proposal must contain all of the requisite sections as a single package to be provided to reviewers (that will happen automatically when procedures below are followed). All collaborative proposals must clearly describe the roles to be played by the other organizations, specify the managerial arrangements, and explain the advantages of the multi-organizational effort within the Project Description.

Submission of a collaborative proposal from one organization

The single proposal method allows investigators from two or more organizations who have developed an integrated research project to submit a single, focused proposal. A single investigator bears primary responsibility for the administration of the award and discussions with NSF, and, at the discretion of the organizations involved, investigators from any of the participating organizations may be designated as co-PIs. Note, however, that if awarded, a single award would be made to the submitting organization, with any collaborators listed as subawards. (See Chapter II.D.2.f(vi)(e) for additional instructions on preparation of this type of proposal.)

If a proposed subaward includes funding to support postdoctoral researchers, the mentoring activities to be provided for such individuals must be incorporated in the supplemental mentoring plan outlined in Chapter II.D.2.i(i) .

Submission of a collaborative proposal from multiple organizations

Simultaneous submission of proposals allows multiple organizations to submit a unified set of certain proposal sections, as well as information unique to each organization as specified below. All collaborative proposals arranged as separate submissions from multiple organizations must be submitted via Research.gov. For these proposals, the project title must begin with the words "Collaborative Research:” If funded, each organization bears responsibility for a separate award.

Required sections of the proposal differ based on the organization’s role. The following sections are required for a collaborative proposal submitted by:

See Chapter II.D.2.i for additional guidance on the mentoring and data management plan requirements for collaborative proposals. NSF will combine the proposal submission for printing or electronic viewing.

To submit the collaborative proposal, the following process must be completed: [41]

(i) Each non-lead organization must assign their proposal a proposal PIN. This proposal PIN and the temporary proposal ID generated by Research.gov when the non-lead proposal is created must be provided to the lead organization before the lead organization submits its proposal to NSF.

(ii) The lead organization must then enter each non-lead organization(s) proposal PIN and temporary proposal ID into the Research.gov lead proposal by using the "Link Collaborative Proposals" option found on the "Form Preparation" screen.

(iii) All components of the collaborative proposal must meet any established deadline date, and failure to do so may result in the entire collaborative proposal being returned without review.

(iv) Each collaborative proposal that includes funding to an International Branch Campus of a U.S. IHE or to a foreign organization or foreign individual (including through use of a subaward or consultant arrangement), must check the appropriate box on the proposal cover sheet. The requirement to check the box only applies to the proposing organization that includes the international component. The lead organization also must provide the requisite explanation/justification in the project description. See Chapter I.E. for additional information on the content requirements.

(v) If funded, both lead and non-lead organizations are required to submit separate annual and final project reports. These reports should reference the work of the collaborative, while focusing on the distinct work conducted at each funded organization.

4. Proposals Involving Live Vertebrate Animals 

Any project proposing use of live vertebrate animals for research or education shall comply with the Animal Welfare Act (7 USC 2131, et seq .) and the regulations promulgated thereunder by the Secretary of Agriculture (9 CFR 1.1-4.11) pertaining to the humane care, handling, and treatment of live vertebrate animals held or used for research, teaching, or other activities supported by Federal awards. In accordance with these requirements, proposed projects involving use of any live vertebrate animal for research or education must be approved by the submitting organization's Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) before an award can be made. For this approval to be accepted by NSF, the organization must have a current Public Health Service (PHS) Approved Assurance. See also Chapter XI.B.3 for additional information on the administration of awards that utilize live vertebrate animals. Note that for some types of live vertebrate animals, additional review may be required.

Any project proposing use of live vertebrate animals for research or education must comply with the provision in the PHS Assurance for Institutional Commitment (Section II) that requires the submitting organization to establish and maintain a program for activities involving animals in accordance with the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals ( Guide ). Taxon-specific guidelines may be used as supplemental references. [42] Departures from the Guide must be approved by the IACUC and based on scientific, veterinary, medical, or animal welfare issues (for more information, see Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare (OLAW) Departures from the Guide ).

• (i) rationale for involving animals;
• (ii) choice of species and number of animals to be used;
• (iiii) description of the proposed use of the animals;
• (iv) exposure of animals to discomfort, pain, or injury; and
• (v) description of any euthanasia methods to be used.
• Research facilities subject to the Animal Welfare Act using or intending to use live animals in research and who receive Federal funding are required to register the facility with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), US Department of Agriculture. A current listing of licensed animal dealers also may be obtained from APHIS. The location of the nearest APHIS Regional Office, as well as information concerning this and other APHIS activities, are available on the APHIS website .
• Projects involving the care or use of live vertebrate animals at an international organization or international field site also require approval of research protocols by the U.S. recipient’s IACUC. If the project is to be funded through an award to an international organization or through an individual fellowship award that will support activities at an international organization, NSF will require a statement from the international organization explicitly listing the proposer’s name and referencing the title of the award to confirm that the activities will be conducted in accordance with all applicable laws in the international country and that the International Guiding Principles for Biomedical Research Involving Animals will be followed.
• (i) The box for "Live Vertebrate Animals" must be checked on the Cover Sheet if care and use of live vertebrate animals is envisioned.
• (ii) The date of IACUC approval of the animal-use protocol covering the proposed work, if such approval has been granted prior to proposal submission, must be identified in the space provided. If IACUC approval has not been obtained prior to submission, the proposer should indicate "Pending" in the space provided for the approval date. If a decision is made to fund the proposal,the organization must provide a copy of the approval letter from the IACUC. The approval letter must affirm that an animal-use protocol covering the proposed activities has been approved and should explicitly list the organization’s PHS Animal Welfare Assurance Number, the proposer’s name, the title and number of the NSF proposal, and the date of IACUC approval, as well as show an organizational signature. The approval letter must be provided to the cognizant NSF Program Officer before an award can be issued.
• (iii) The PHS-approved Animal Welfare Assurance Number must be entered in the space provided. If a PHS Animal Welfare Assurance has not been obtained prior to submission, the proposer should indicate “Pending” in the space provided for the PHS Animal Welfare Assurance Number. If a decision is made to fund the proposal, the cognizant NSF Program Officer will notify the NSF Animal Welfare Officer to initiate negotiation of a PHS-approved Animal Welfare Assurance with OLAW. A PHS Animal Welfare Assurance must be approved by OLAW before an award can be issued.
• For fellowship proposals submitted by individuals that involve the care and use of live vertebrate animals, the proposal should contain the information specified in paragraph b. above. In addition, a copy of the approval letter from the IACUC of the organization that provides oversight of the proposed work should be included as an “Other Supplementary Document” in Research.gov. The approval letter must affirm that an animal-use protocol covering the proposed activities has been approved and should explicitly list the organization’s PHS Animal Welfare Assurance Number, the proposer’s name, the title and number of the NSF proposal, and the date of IACUC approval, as well as show an organizational signature. If IACUC approval has not been obtained prior to submission, the individual should indicate “Pending” in the space provided for the approval date. If a decision is made to fund the proposal,the individual must provide a signed copy of the official IACUC approval letter (which includes the items specified above) to the cognizant NSF Program Officer before an award can be issued.

See also Chapter XI.B.3 for additional information on the administration of awards that include use of live vertebrate animals.

5. Proposals Involving Human Subjects

Projects involving research with human subjects must ensure that subjects are protected from research risks in conformance with the relevant Federal policy known as the Common Rule (Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, 45 CFR §690). All projects involving human subjects must either have: (1) approval from an Institutional Review Board (IRB); or, (2) an IRB determination that the project is exempt from review, in accordance with the applicable subsection, as established in 45 CFR §690.104(d) of the Common Rule. If certification of exemption is provided after submission of the proposal and before the award is issued, the exemption number corresponding to one or more of the exemption categories also must be included in the documentation provided to NSF.

NSF cannot accept any IRB document that requires continued monitoring of the award activities involving human subjects by NSF. For projects lacking definite plans for the use of human subjects, their data, or their specimens, pursuant to 45 CFR §690.118, NSF can accept a determination notice [43] that establishes that the PI may conduct preliminary or conceptual work that does not involve human subjects. Further instructions are provided in paragraph (iv) below.

If the project involves human subjects and is to be performed outside of the U.S., evidence of IRB approval is required. If IRB approval is provided, and a Federal Wide Assurance (FWA) is not on file with the Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) , NSF may decline to support the project. Pursuant to 45 CFR §690.101(g), the Common Rule is not intended to supersede any additional protections that may be afforded to human subjects under foreign laws or regulations. OHRP maintains the International Compilation of Human Research Standards which contains a listing of over 1000 laws, regulations, and guidelines on human subjects protections in 130 countries and from many organizations. This site is an excellent resource regarding the conduct of human subjects research in an international setting.

The following information regarding the organization’s intention to use human subjects as part of the project should be provided on the Cover Sheet:

• (i) The box for "Human Subjects" must be checked on the Cover Sheet if use of human subjects is envisioned.
• (ii) If human subject activities are exempt from IRB review, provide the exemption number(s) corresponding to one or more of the exemption categories. The eight categories of research that qualify for exemption from coverage by the regulations are defined in the Common Rule for Protection of Human Subjects.
• (iii) If the research is not designated as exempt, and has an approved, unexpired protocol at the time of submission, the IRB approval date should be identified in the space provided. If IRB approval has not been obtained at the time of submission, the proposer should indicate "Pending" in the space provided for the approval date. If a decision is made to fund the proposal, a signed copy of the IRB approval letter must be provided to the cognizant program prior to award. The letter should indicate approval of the proposed activities and must be submitted prior to an award being issued.

(iv) If the project lacks definite plans regarding use of human subjects, their data or their specimens, pursuant to 45 CFR §690.118, the proposer must check the box for "Human Subjects" on the Cover Sheet and enter “Pending” in the space provided for the approval date. If available at the time of proposal submission, the determination notice should be uploaded as an “Other Supplementary Document”. If the determination notice is not available, and, the decision is made to fund the proposal, a determination notice must be provided to the cognizant program prior to award.

NSF will be flexible with the form that this notice takes, as long as the written determination makes clear that no work with human subjects, including recruitment, will be conducted until full IRB approval is obtained. NSF will add a term and condition to the award that prevents any research involving human subjects from being carried out, or otherwise restricts the drawing down of funds, until IRB approval has been obtained. The PI may conduct preliminary or conceptual work that does not involve human subjects while the protocol is being developed or is under review, consistent with organizational guidelines.

• (v) The FWA Number that the proposer has on file with OHRP should be entered, if available.

See also Chapter XI.B.1 for additional information on the administration of awards that include use of human subjects.

6. Potential Life Sciences Dual Use Research of Concern (DURC)

Applicability

This section applies to all research, for which NSF award funds may be used, that potentially falls within the scope of the U.S. Government Policy for Institutional Oversight of Life Sciences Dual Use Research of Concern as published in September, 2014, and/or would fall under the Department of Health and Human Service’s Framework for Guiding Decisions about Proposed Research Involving Enhanced Potential Pandemic Pathogens , as published in January 2017, hereafter referred to as the "Policy".

NSF Implementation of the Policy

NSF is committed to preserving the benefits of life sciences research while minimizing the risk of misuse of the knowledge, information, products, or technologies provided by such research. The purpose of NSF’s implementation of the Policy is to clarify proposer expectations about NSF-funded research with certain high-consequence pathogens and toxins with potential to be considered DURC or involve enhanced potential pandemic pathogens (PPPs).

Proposing organizations are responsible for identifying NSF-funded life sciences proposals that could potentially be considered DURC or involve enhanced PPPs as defined in the Policy and for compliance with the requirements established in that Policy therein.

The box for “Potential Life Sciences Dual Use Research of Concern” must be checked on the Cover Sheet if use of select agents or other enhanced potential pandemic pathogens, as defined by the Policy, are envisioned, and those agents or PPPs are used in ways that lead to enhancement of specific properties specified within the Policy.

If a decision is made to fund the proposal, and use of a select agent as identified by the Policy is proposed, the proposer must submit evidence of registration of the select agent with the CDC or USDA as required by the Select Agent Regulations . In addition, the proposer must submit a justification demonstrating how the potential benefits of the research far outweigh the risks. The justification must be signed and certified by the Institutional Biosafety Committeeor other appropriate Institutional Review Entity whose role includes review of research involving agents covered under the Policy before an award can be issued.

NSF will not fund research that would be considered to lead to a gain of function of agents associated with the U.S. Government Policy on DURC (See also Chapter XI.B.5 for additional information.) NSF also will not fund research that involves the creation, transfer, or use of enhanced PPPs except under special circumstances where the potential benefits to society far outweigh the risks and all other conditions of the Policy are met.

7. Projects Requiring High-Performance Computing Resources, Data Infrastructure, or Advanced Visualization Resources

Many research projects require access to computational, data and/or visualization resources in order to complete the work proposed. Typically, such resources will be described in the proposal under Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources. However, for those projects that require such resources at scales beyond what may be available locally, NSF supports a number of national resources. For the most computationally- and/or data-intensive projects, the Frontera system at the Texas Advanced Computing Center (TACC) at the University of Texas at Austin is the most suitable. Frontera is designed to support research teams requiring the most advanced computational and data capabilities. The Office of Advanced Cyberinfrastructure within the Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering oversees the allocation process for this system. Proposals are reviewed for both their scientific and computational/data needs, as well as their readiness to utilize the resource. The Frontera system is among the largest and most powerful supercomputers ever deployed at a U.S. IHE; it offers over 16,000 processors, as well as significant other processing capabilities, to advance research that would not otherwise be possible. More information about the system and how researchers can request access can be found on the Frontera website .

The National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) provides high-performance computing resources for NSF-funded researchers in atmospheric and related sciences. To access these supercomputers, data storage systems, and other resources, users must apply for allocations through NCAR. Applications are reviewed, and time is allocated according to the needs of the projects and the availability of resources. More details on the allocations process can be found on the NCAR website . The intention to request use of these NSF-supported national resources should be described in the Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources section of the proposal. No letter of support or collaboration is required.

The most general set of large computational and data resources funded by NSF are accessible through the eXtreme Science and Engineering Discovery Environment (XSEDE) project. XSEDE provides the integrating fabric for a collection of very powerful supercomputers, a high-throughput computing environment, high-volume data storage facilities, and advanced visualization services, connected by a high-bandwidth private network. Additionally, XSEDE offers an education and outreach program on how to use its services, and an extended collaborative support program to assist researchers in using the advanced computational resources. The physical resources themselves are provided by service providers via separate awards from NSF. Allocations of those resources for large projects are determined by the XSEDE Resource Allocation Committee, which meets quarterly, using an external set of experts. Smaller requests do not require a proposal or review, and a simple online process may be used to request such an allocation. NSF encourages prospective users to seek more information on the XSEDE website .

For researchers requiring high-throughput computing – computing that is characterized by executing large numbers of tasks over a long period of time - The Partnership to Advance Throughput Computing (PATh) makes Distributed High Throughput Computing (dHTC) capacity available to researchers through a fabric of services. These services enable the federation of resources into an effective source of computing capacity for a wide spectrum of science applications. PATh supports single-PIs and collaborative science groups across science and engineering disciplines to join the cohort of international physical science collaborations who have leveraged the dHTC paradigm for decades. More information on accessing dHTC services and computing capacity can be found on the PATh website.

8. International Activities

• International Research/Education/Training Activities. For each proposal that describes an international activity, PIs should list the primary countries involved on the Cover Sheet.
• An international activity is defined as research, training, and/or education carried out in cooperation with foreign counterparts either overseas or in the U.S. using virtual technologies. If the “Funding of an International Branch Campus of a U.S. IHE, including through use of a subaward or consultant agreement” box or “Funding of a Foreign Organization, including through use of a subaward or consultant agreement” box is checked on the Cover Sheet, the proposer also must enter the name of the applicable country(ies) in the International Activities Country Name(s) box(es) on the Cover Sheet. (See also PAPPG Chapter I.E for additional information.)
• International Conferences. Proposers also should enter on the Cover Sheet the country/countries with which project participants will engage and/or travel to attend international conferences. If the specific location of the international conference is not known at the time of the proposal submission, proposers should enter “Worldwide” on the Cover Sheet.
• Work in foreign countries. Some governments require nonresidents to obtain official approval to carry out investigations within their borders and coastal waters under their jurisdiction. PIs are responsible for obtaining the required authorizations. Advance coordination should minimize disruption of the research. (See Chapter XI.B.4.)

9. Safe and Inclusive Working Environments for Off-Campus or Off-Site Research

It is NSF policy (see Chapter XI.A.1.g.) to foster safe and harassment-free environments wherever science is conducted. NSF’s policy recognizes that a community effort is essential to eliminate sexual and other forms of harassment in science and to build inclusive scientific climates where people can learn, grow, and thrive. Accordingly, for each proposal that proposes to conduct research off-campus or off site [44] , the AOR must complete a certification [45] that the organization has a plan in place for that proposal that describes how the following types of behavior will be addressed:

• Abuse of any person, including, but not limited to, harassment, stalking, bullying, or hazing of any kind, whether the behavior is carried out verbally, physically, electronically, or in written form; or
• Conduct that is unwelcome, offensive, indecent, obscene, or disorderly.

This plan should also identify steps the proposing organization will take to nurture an inclusive off-campus or off-site working environment, e.g., trainings; processes to establish shared team definitions of roles, responsibilities, and culture, e.g., codes of conduct; and field support, such as mentor/mentee support mechanisms, regular check-ins, and/or developmental events

Communications within team and to the organization should be considered in the plan, minimizing singular points within the communications pathway (e.g., a single person overseeing access to a single satellite phone), and any special circumstances such as the involvement of multiple organizations or the presence of third parties in the working environment should be taken into account.  The process or method for making incident reports as well as how any reports received will be resolved should also be accounted for.

 The organization’s plan for the proposal must be disseminated to individuals participating in the off-campus or off-site research prior to departure.  Proposers should not submit the plan to NSF for review.

F. Other Types of Proposals

In addition to standard research proposals that follow the proposal preparation instructions contained in sections A through D of this chapter, there are other types of proposals that may be submitted to NSF. Each of them is described below, along with instructions that may supplement or deviate from NSF's standard proposal preparation instructions specified in sections A through D of this chapter. All proposals will be evaluated through use of the two National Science Board (NSB)-approved merit review criteria of Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts.

1. Planning Proposal

A planning proposal is a type of proposal used to support initial conceptualization, planning and collaboration activities that aim to formulate new and sound plans for large-scale projects in emerging research areas for future submission to an NSF program. This type of proposal is not intended to provide seed funding for a proposal that has been declined, nor is it appropriate for preliminary research on efforts that are aligned with established research programs. Rather, planning proposals are appropriate for the development of larger-scale proposals in specific areas in which NSF wishes to ensure a sufficiently robust competition in the future. These include areas in which NSF is initiating new funding opportunities; assessment of infrastructure (including cyberinfrastructure) needs; and/or large-scale research, infrastructure (including cyberinfrastructure), or training efforts that require coordination of multi-disciplinary approaches, expertise, and/or organizations at regional scales. In these cases, NSF is especially interested in activities that would catalyze new collaborations that broaden the participation of individuals or organizations underrepresented in NSF award portfolios.

PIs are advised that they must submit a Concept Outline prior to submission of a planning proposal. This will aid in determining the appropriateness of the work for consideration under this type of proposal. Concept Outlines can be submitted either by email to a cognizant Program Officer or via the Program Suitability and Proposal Concept Tool (ProSPCT ). An NSF funding opportunity that includes planning proposals will provide specific guidance on submission of Concept Outlines using either email or the ProSPCT form. See Chapter I.D.1 for additional information on Concept Outlines. For Concept Outlines that must be submitted via ProSPCT, users must have a valid Login.gov account to access the tool. PIs will receive an email from the cognizant NSF program officer that specifies whether a full proposal may be submitted. The email confirming approval to submit a planning proposal must be uploaded by the prospective PI in the “Program Officer Concurrence Email” section of Research.gov.

Planning proposals do not constitute any commitment on behalf of the PI/co-PI(s) or their organizations to submit a future proposal or carry out a research, education, or infrastructure project, nor do they imply an intent on the part of NSF to support a future proposed project beyond the planning grant.

The following provides guidance regarding the preparation, review, or administration of planning proposals/awards:

The Project Description is expected to be brief and must be no more than eight pages. It must include clear statements as to why this project is appropriate for planning proposal, including how the funds will be used to formulate a sound approach for future submission to an NSF program. Note this proposal preparation instruction deviates from the standard proposal preparation instructions contained in this Guide; planning proposals must otherwise be compliant with the proposal preparation requirements specified in Part I of the PAPPG.

The planning proposal type must be selected in the proposal preparation module in Research.gov.

Only internal merit review is required for planning proposals. In some instances, Program Officers may elect to obtain external reviews to inform their decision. If external review is to be obtained, then the PI will be informed in the interest of maintaining the transparency of the review and recommendation process.

Email documentation from at least one NSF Program Officer confirming approval to submit a planning proposal must be uploaded by the PI as a document entitled "Planning – Program Officer Concurrence Email" in the Supplementary Documentation section of Research.gov.

Requests may be for up to $100,000 per year (including indirect costs) and for up to two years in duration. The award size, however, will be consistent with the scope of the proposed planning activities and of a size comparable to planning grants in similar areas.

Planning proposals are not eligible for reconsideration, if declined. See PAPPG Chapter IV.D.2.b.

No-cost extensions and requests for supplemental funding will be processed in accordance with standard NSF policies and procedures.

NSF does not anticipate renewal of planning awards. However, renewed funding of a planning award may be requested only through submission of a Traditional or Accomplishment-Based Renewal proposal that will be subject to full external merit review. See Chapter V for further information.

2. Rapid Response Research (RAPID) Proposal

RAPID is a type of proposal used when there is a severe urgency with regard to availability of or access to, data, facilities or specialized equipment, including quick-response research on natural or anthropogenic events and similar unanticipated occurrences.

RAPID proposals are NOT for:

projects that are appropriate for submission as "regular" NSF proposals;

events that are unanticipated due to lack of awareness of timelines; or

collection of only non-perishable data.

PIs are advised that they must submit a Concept Outline prior to submission of a RAPID proposal. This will aid in determining the appropriateness of the work for consideration under this type of proposal. Concept Outlines can be submitted either by email to a cognizant Program Officer or via ProSPCT . An NSF funding opportunity that includes RAPID proposals will provide specific guidance on submission of Concept Outlines using either email or via ProSPCT.  See Chapter I.D.1 for additional information on Concept Outlines. For Concept Outlines that must be submitted via ProSPCT, users must have a valid Login.gov account to access the tool. The prospective PI will receive an email from the cognizant NSF program officer that specifies whether a full proposal may be submitted. The email confirming approval to submit a RAPID proposal must be uploaded by the prospective PI in the “Program Officer Concurrence Email” section of Research.gov.

The following provides guidance regarding the preparation, review, or administration of RAPID proposals/awards:

The Project Description is expected to be brief and must be no more than five pages. It must include clear statements as to why the proposed research is urgent and why RAPID is the most appropriate type of proposal for supporting the proposed work. Note this proposal preparation instruction deviates from the standard proposal preparation instructions contained in this Guide; RAPID proposals must otherwise be compliant with the proposal preparation requirements specified in Part I of the PAPPG.

The “RAPID” proposal type must be selected in the proposal preparation module in Research.gov.

The project title will be preceded by the prefix “RAPID:”

Only internal merit review is required for RAPID proposals. In some instances, Program Officers may elect to obtain external reviews to inform their decision. If external review is to be obtained, then the PI will be informed in the interest of maintaining the transparency of the review and recommendation process.

Email documentation from at least one NSF Program Officer confirming approval to submit a RAPID proposal must be uploaded by the PI as a document entitled “RAPID – Program Officer Concurrence Email” in the Supplementary Documentation section of Research.gov.

Requests may be for up to $200K (including indirect costs) and up to one year in duration. The award size, however, will be consistent with the project scope and of a size comparable to grants in similar areas.

RAPID proposals are not eligible for reconsideration, if declined. See Chapter IV.D.2.b.

Renewed funding of RAPID awards may be requested only through submission of a Traditional or Accomplishment-Based Renewal proposal that will be subject to full external merit review. See Chapter V for further information.

3. EArly-concept Grants for Exploratory Research (EAGER)

EAGER is a type of proposal used to support exploratory work in its early stages on untested, but potentially transformative, research ideas or approaches. This work may be considered especially "high risk-high payoff" in the sense that it, for example, involves radically different approaches, applies new expertise, or engages novel disciplinary or interdisciplinary perspectives. These exploratory proposals also may be submitted directly to an NSF program, but the EAGER proposal type should not be used for projects that are appropriate for submission as “regular” (i.e., non-EAGER) NSF proposals.

EAGER proposals are NOT:

for projects that are appropriate for submission as "regular" NSF proposals;

for planning grants;

to support the collection of preliminary data; or

to provide services to NSF.

PIs are advised that they must submit a Concept Outline prior to submission of a EAGER proposal. This will aid in determining the appropriateness of the work for consideration under this type of proposal. Concept Outlines can be submitted either by email to a cognizant Program Officer or via ProSPCT . An NSF funding opportunity that includes EAGER proposals will provide specific guidance on submission of Concept Outlines using either email or via ProSPCT. See Chapter I.D.1 for additional information on Concept Outlines. For Concept Outlines that must be submitted via ProSPCT, users must have a valid Login.gov account to access the tool. The prospective PI will receive an email from the cognizant NSF program officer that specifies whether a full proposal may be submitted. The email confirming approval to submit a EAGER proposal must be uploaded by the prospective PI in the “Program Officer Concurrence Email” section of Research.gov.

The following provides guidance regarding the preparation, review, or administration of EAGER proposals/awards:

The Project Description is expected to be brief and must be no more than eight pages. It must include clear statements as to why this project is appropriate for EAGER funding, including why it does not fit into existing programs and why it is a good fit for EAGER. Note this proposal preparation instruction deviates from the standard proposal preparation instructions contained in this Guide; EAGER proposals must otherwise be compliant with the proposal preparation requirements specified in Part I of the PAPPG.

The “EAGER” proposal type must be selected in the proposal preparation module in Research.gov.

The project title will be preceded by the prefix “EAGER:”

Only internal merit review is required for EAGER proposals. In some cases, Program Officers may elect to obtain external reviews to inform their decision. If external review is to be obtained, then the PI will be informed in the interest of maintaining the transparency of the review and recommendation process.

Requests may be for up to $300K (including indirect costs) and up to two years in duration. The award size, however, will be consistent with the project scope and of a size comparable to grants in similar areas.

EAGER proposals are not eligible for reconsideration, if declined. See Chapter IV.D.2.b.

Renewed funding of an EAGER award may be requested only through submission of a Traditional or Accomplishment-Based Renewal proposal that will be subject to full external merit review. See Chapter V for further information.

4. Research Advanced by Interdisciplinary Science and Engineering (RAISE)

RAISE is a type of proposal that may be used to support bold, interdisciplinary projects whose:

Scientific advances lie in great part outside the scope of a single program or discipline, such that substantial funding support from more than one program or discipline is necessary.

Lines of research promise transformational advances.

Prospective discoveries reside at the interfaces of disciplinary boundaries that may not be recognized through traditional review or co-review.

To receive funding as a RAISE-appropriate project, all three criteria must be met. RAISE is not intended to be used for projects that can be accommodated within other types of proposals or that continue well established practices.

Prospective PIs are advised that they must submit a Concept Outline prior to submission of a RAISE proposal. This will aid in determining the appropriateness of the work for consideration under this type of proposal. Concept Outlines can be submitted either by email to a cognizant Program Officer or via ProSPCT . An NSF funding opportunity that includes RAISE proposals will provide specific guidance on submission of Concept Outlines using either email or via ProSPCT. See Chapter I.D.1 for additional information on Concept Outlines. For Concept Outlines that must be submitted via ProSPCT, users must have a valid Login.gov account to access the tool. The prospective PIs will receive emails from the cognizant NSF program officers that specifies whether a full proposal may be submitted. Please note, this may be a single email message that identifies at least two NSF program officers who jointly considered the RAISE Concept Outline. The email(s) confirming approval to submit a RAISE proposal must be uploaded by the prospective PIs in the “Program Officer Concurrence Email” section of Research.gov.

Contingent on Program Officers’ approval to submit a proposal:

RAISE proposals must be compliant with Part I of the PAPPG unless a deviation from the standard proposal preparation requirements is indicated below.

NSF will not accept a RAISE separately submitted collaborative proposal from multiple organizations. A collaborative proposal must be submitted as a single proposal from one organization, with any collaborators identified as subawardee organizations.

The RAISE proposal type must be selected in the proposal preparation module in Research.gov.

The project title will be preceded by the prefix “RAISE:”

Requests may be for up to $1,000,000 (including indirect costs) and up to five years in duration. The award size and duration will be consistent with the project scope.

The proposal must explicitly address how the project is better suited for RAISE than for a regular NSF review process.

Only internal merit review is required for RAISE proposals. Program Officers may elect to obtain external reviews to inform their decision. If external review is to be obtained, then the PI will be informed in the interest of maintaining the transparency of the review and recommendation process.

The interdisciplinary and transformative potential of the project will be evaluated within the intellectual merit of the proposal.

RAISE proposals are not eligible for reconsideration, if declined. See Chapter IV.D.2.b.

RAISE awards are not eligible for renewal.

5. Grant Opportunities for Academic Liaison with Industry (GOALI)

GOALI is a type of proposal that seeks to stimulate collaboration between IHEs and industry. Under this proposal type, academic scientists, and engineers request funding either in conjunction with a regular proposal submitted to a standing NSF program, unsolicited proposal, or as a supplemental funding request to an existing NSF-funded award. GOALI is not a separate program; GOALI proposals must be submitted to an active NSF funding opportunity and must be submitted in accordance with the deadlines specified therein. A proposer interested in submitting a GOALI proposal or a GOALI supplemental funding request to an existing NSF-funded award must contact the cognizant NSF Program Officer listed in the relevant funding opportunity prior to submission. Special interest is focused on affording opportunities for:

• Interdisciplinary IHE-industry teams to conduct collaborative research projects, in which the industry research participant provides critical research expertise, without which the likelihood for success of the project would be diminished;
• Faculty, postdoctoral scholars, and students to conduct research and gain experience in an industrial setting; and
• Industrial scientists and engineers to bring industry's perspective and integrative skills to academe.

GOALI proposals should focus on research that addresses shared interests by academic researchers and industrial partners. The research should further scientific and engineering foundations to enable future breakthrough technologies with the potential to address critical industry needs. Industry involvement assures that the research is industrially relevant. PIs are expected to integrate their research objectives with educational and industrial needs.

Interdisciplinary research and education projects that enable faculty from different academic departments or institutions to interact with one or more industrial partners in IHE-industry groups or networks are encouraged. Proposals may include the participation of a "third partner" such as a National Laboratory or a non-profit organization. NSF funding can be used for IHE research/education activities and may support activities of faculty and their students and research associates in the industrial setting. NSF funds are not permitted to be used to support the industrial research partner except as noted below for small businesses.

In addition to any program-specific review criteria defined in the solicitation, reviewers may be asked to evaluate the degree and extent to which industry will be involved with the proposed research and the extent to which students and/or post-doctoral scholars will benefit from the interaction. The proposed research should be transformative, beneficial to industry, and further collaboration between the institution of higher education and industrial partners.

The industrial participant cannot use or receive any NSF funds on a GOALI award with the exception of small businesses that meet these requirements and are not currently funded NSF SBIR/STTR recipients:

• Must be a small business (fewer than 500 employees) located in the U.S;
• At least 50% of the company’s equity must be owned by U.S. citizens or permanent residents; and
• All funded work must take place in the U.S. (including work done by consultants and contractors).

In addition to the above requirements, the size of the subaward to the small business partner must not exceed one-third of the total award budget. The proposal must disclose any financial interest that the PI, co-PI, Senior Personnel and/or IHE have in the small business partner and identify appropriate mitigation of any financial conflict of interest.

Review of GOALI proposals should assess the following aspects in addition to evaluating the Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts of the proposal.

• What new knowledge generated by the proposed work could lead to innovations that can help address societal challenges?
• What critical role do the partner(s) bring to the collaboration without which the proposed project cannot be successfully executed?
• What is the anticipated longer term societal impact coming forth from the GOALI research project if successful?
• What opportunities for industrial experience and training could the proposed GOALI project create for students/postdoctoral scholars/faculty?

Specific instructions for each type of request are provided below.

a. Requests as part of a competitive proposal submission

GOALI proposals must follow the deadlines applicable to an existing funding opportunity as well as the following GOALI-specific requirements: For GOALI collaborative proposals, the proposal must be submitted by a single organization with any collaborators listed as subawards. Collaborative proposals submitted through multiple organizations will not be accepted. See PAPPG Chapter II.E.3 for additional information.

(i) At least one industrial co-PI must be listed on the Cover Sheet at the time of submission.

(ii) The IHE-industry interaction should be described in the Project Description;

(iii) A GOALI-Industrial PI Confirmation Letter from the industrial partner that confirms the participation of a co-PI from industry must be submitted with the proposal (if applicable, the letter also must state the degree of industrial participation as well as detail any support that the industry is providing to the institution of higher education). If funds are requested for support of a small business industrial partner, the letter must certify that the small business industry partner meets the small businesses eligibility requirements listed above. All GOALI-related confirmation letters must be uploaded under "GOALI-Industrial PI Confirmation Letter" in Research.gov. This supplementary documentation will not be counted towards the 15-page Project Description limitation; and

(iv) IHE and industrial partners should agree in advance as to how intellectual property (IP) rights will be handled. A signed IHE-industry agreement on IP (including publication and patent rights) must be submitted prior to issuance of an award. All such IP agreements must be consistent with federal law and terms and conditions of the award. NSF is responsible neither for the agreement reached nor the IP information exchanged between the institution of higher education and the industrial partner.

b. Supplemental funding requests to existing NSF awards

Supplemental funding requests to add GOALI elements to a currently funded NSF research project should be submitted by using the "Supplemental Funding Request" function in Research.gov. Such requests should include a brief description of the proposed activity, a budget, and a budget justification, in addition to items (ii)-(iv) above. At least one industrial participant must be included in the GOALI activity and must be specified in the GOALI-Industrial PI Confirmation Letter.

6. Ideas Lab Proposal

"Ideas Lab" is a type of proposal to support the development and implementation of creative and innovative project ideas that have the potential to transform research paradigms and/or solve intractable problems. An Ideas Lab may be run independently, or in parallel, with the issuance of an NSF funding opportunity on the same topic. These project ideas typically will be high-risk/high-impact, as they represent new and unproven ideas, approaches and/or technologies.

The Ideas Lab type of proposal is implemented using the four-stage process described below:

a. Stage 1: Selection of Panelists

There are two separate panels convened for an Ideas Lab: a selection panel and an Ideas Lab panel. The role of the selection panel is to provide advice on the selection of participants. The role of the Ideas Lab panel is to provide an assessment of the project ideas developed during the Ideas Lab. The individuals selected to participate in each of these panels are subject matter experts for the specific topic of the Ideas Lab. All panelists are barred from receiving any research funding through, or in any other way collaborating on, the particular Ideas Lab in which they are involved.

b. Stage 2: Selection of Participants

A "call for participants" solicitation that describes the specific focus of the Ideas Lab will be issued. The solicitation will specify the content and submission instructions for such applications.

The Project Description is limited to two pages and should include information regarding the applicant’s specific expertise and interest in the topic area, as well as certain personal attributes that enhance the success of the Ideas Lab workshop (e.g., experience and interest in working in teams, communication skills, level of creativity, willingness to take risks). Applicants also must include a Biographical Sketch and Current and Pending Support information (both of which must be prepared in accordance with standard NSF formatting guidelines). All other elements of a "full proposal" are waived (i.e., Project Summary, References Cited, Budget and Budget Justification, Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources). The application must be submitted as a preliminary proposal in Research.gov. No appendices or supplementary documents may be submitted.

Applicants are notified electronically of NSF’s decision regarding whether they are invited or not invited to participate in the Ideas Lab. Applicants will be informed about the context of the review and the criteria that were used to assess the applications in the form of a panel summary but will not receive individual reviews or other review-related feedback.

c. Stage 3: Ideas Lab

The agenda and duration [46] of the Ideas Lab are communicated to meeting participants by the cognizant NSF Program Officer. Typically, anonymous real-time peer review involving the participants and the Ideas Lab panel is incorporated into the workshop format, providing iterative constructive feedback during the development of project ideas. The Ideas Lab concept incorporates a "guided creativity" process, thus the use of a facilitator(s) is included, both to guide the creation of interdisciplinary teams and the creative development of ideas, and to ensure that the workshop progresses in a productive manner. At the end of the Ideas Lab, the Ideas Lab panel will provide a consensus report summarizing their evaluation of each project idea. The recommendations of the Ideas Lab panel are advisory to NSF. Within seven to fourteen calendar days following the Ideas Lab, the NSF Program Officers will determine which project ideas are meritorious and should be invited as full proposals. At the NSF Program Officers’ discretion (subject to Division Director concurrence), they may invite none, some, or all of the project ideas as full proposals, with the final funding decision to occur after the full proposals have been received and reviewed. Invited full proposals (which are prepared in accordance with standard research proposal formatting guidelines) must be submitted within two months of receiving NSF notification after the Ideas Lab.

d. Stage 4: Review and recommendation of full proposals

Invited proposals will be reviewed internally by the cognizant NSF Program Officers, the Ideas Lab panelists, and other external reviewers, as appropriate. Resulting awards will be administered in accordance with standard NSF policies and procedures, including no-cost extensions and supplemental funding requests. Renewed funding of an Ideas Lab award may be requested only through submission of a full proposal that will be subject to external merit review. Such proposals would be designated as an “Ideas Lab renewal.”

7. Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities (FASED)

As part of its effort to promote full utilization of highly qualified scientists, mathematicians, and engineers, and to develop scientific and technical talent, the Foundation has the following goals:

• to reduce or remove barriers to participation in research and training by persons with physical disabilities by providing special equipment and assistance under awards made by NSF; and
• to encourage persons with disabilities to pursue careers in science and engineering by stimulating the development and demonstration of special equipment that facilitates their work performance.

Persons with disabilities eligible for facilitation awards include PIs, other senior personnel, and graduate and undergraduate students. The cognizant NSF Program Officer will make decisions regarding what constitutes appropriate support on a case-by-case basis. The specific nature, purpose, and need for equipment or assistance should be described in sufficient detail in the proposal to permit evaluation by knowledgeable reviewers.

There is no separate program for funding of special equipment or assistance. Requests are made in conjunction with regular competitive proposals, or as a supplemental funding request to an existing NSF award. Specific instructions for each type of request are provided below.

Funds may be requested to purchase special equipment, modify equipment, or provide services required specifically for the work to be undertaken. Requests for funds for equipment or assistance that compensate in a general way for the disabling condition are not permitted. For example, funds may be requested to provide: prosthetic devices to manipulate a particular apparatus; equipment to convert sound to visual signals, or vice versa, for a particular experiment; access to a special site or to a mode of transportation (except as defined below); a reader or interpreter with special technical competence related to the project; or other special-purpose equipment or assistance needed to conduct a particular project. Items, however, such as standard wheelchairs, prosthetics, hearing aids, TDD/text-phones, or general readers for the blind would not be supported because the need for them is not specific to the proposed project. Similarly, ramps, elevators, or other structural modifications of research facilities are not eligible for direct support under this program.

No maximum funding amount has been established for such requests. It is expected, however, that the cost (including equipment adaptation and installation) will not be a major component of the total proposed budget for the project. Requests for funds for special equipment or assistance to facilitate the participation of individuals with disabilities should be included in the proposed budget for the project and documented in the budget justification. The specific nature, purpose and need for such equipment or assistance should be described in sufficient detail in the Project Description to permit evaluation of the request by knowledgeable reviewers.

Supplemental funds for special equipment or assistance to facilitate participation in NSF-supported projects by persons with disabilities may be requested under existing NSF awards. Normally, title is vested in the recipient organization for equipment purchased in conjunction with NSF-supported activities. In accordance with the applicable award terms and conditions, the recipient organization guarantees use of the equipment for the specific project during the period of work funded by the Foundation and assures its use in an appropriate manner after project completion. In instances involving special equipment for persons with disabilities, the need for such may be unique to the individual. In such cases, the recipient organization may elect to transfer title to the individual to assure appropriate use after project completion.

Supplemental funding requests should be submitted by using the “Supplemental Funding Request” function in Research.gov and should include a brief description of the request, a budget, and a budget justification. Requests must be submitted at least two months before funds are needed. Funding decisions will be made on the basis of the justification and availability of program funds with any resultant funding provided through a formal amendment of the existing NSF award.

8. Career Life Balance (CLB) Supplemental Funding Requests

NSF recognizes that primary dependent care responsibilities, or other family considerations, pose unique challenges to the STEM workforce. Career-Life Balance supplemental funding to existing awards may be requested as described below:

• To support additional personnel (e.g., a technician or research assistant) to sustain research when the PI, co-PI, or other member of the senior personnel is on family leave for either primary dependent care responsibilities or other direct family considerations; and
• To support additional personnel (e.g., a technician or research assistant) to sustain research while a postdoctoral researcher or graduate student being supported by NSF on the award is on family leave for either primary dependent care responsibilities or other direct family considerations.

Postdoctoral fellowship recipients may request supplemental funding:

Provided that a postdoctoral fellowship award, funded through one of NSF’s postdoctoral fellowship programs, is made to an organization and not directly to the fellow, the recipient may request supplemental funding for the following purpose:

• To support additional personnel (e.g., a technician or research assistant) to sustain research while the postdoctoral fellow being supported by NSF on the award is on family leave for either primary dependent care responsibilities or other direct family considerations.

NSF postdoctoral fellows who receive funding directly from NSF rather than through an organization are ineligible to receive CLB supplements.

• To support additional personnel (e.g., a technician or research assistant) to sustain the research of the NSF Graduate Research Fellow on approved medical deferral due to primary dependent care (family leave) situations. [47]

Special Instructions for the Preparation and Submission of CLB Supplemental Funding Requests

For all eligible categories noted above, the supplemental funding request may include funding for up to six months of salary support or stipend for a maximum of $30,000 in direct costs of salary compensation or stipend, but the duration of the salary or stipend support may not exceed the duration of the family leave. Fringe benefits and associated indirect costs (F&A), but not tuition, may be included in addition to the salary costs, and therefore, the total supplemental funding request may exceed $30,000.

All requests for CLB supplemental funding support must be submitted by using the “Supplemental Funding Request” function in Research.gov and must be adequately justified. It may take NSF up to two months or more to process such a request. CLB supplemental funding requests will usually be reviewed internally unless the program officer determines that the advice of external reviewers is essential.

The CLB supplemental funding request must:

(i) Clearly specify that it is a CLB supplemental funding request;

(ii) Provide a description of how the technician, research assistant, or equivalent would be used to sustain the research effort while the PI, co-PI or other member of the senior personnel is on family leave, the postdoctoral researcher or graduate student is on family leave, or the NSF Graduate Research Fellow is on medical deferral due to a family leave situation;

(iii) Provide a budget and budget justification in support of the requested costs;

(iv)Identify the proposed period of performance for the technician, research assistant, or equivalent;

(v) Include the following statement:

• "The Authorized Organizational Representative hereby certifies that the request for a technician (or equivalent) is because the (PI/co-PI/senior personnel/NSF Graduate Research Fellow/postdoctoral researcher/graduate student) is, or will be, on family leave status (or equivalent) from the organization in accordance with the organization’s policies. The Authorized Organizational Representative also affirms that the organization is able to fill the position for which funding is being requested, in an appropriate timeframe."

(vi) GRFP recipients must include a letter from the Fellow’s faculty advisor supporting the CLB/GRFP supplemental funding request;

• No privacy-related information should be included in the request, i.e., the rationale for leave should not be disclosed to NSF;
• Questions about the submission of a CLB supplemental funding request should be addressed to the cognizant NSF program officer.

9. Conference Proposal [48]

NSF supports conferences in special areas of science and engineering that bring experts together to discuss recent research or education findings or to expose other researchers or students to new research and education techniques. NSF encourages the convening in the U.S. of major international conferences.

A conference proposal will be supported only if equivalent results cannot be obtained by attendance at regular meetings of professional societies. Although requests for support of a conference proposal ordinarily originates with educational institutions or scientific and engineering societies, they also may come from other groups. Shared support by several Federal agencies, States or private organizations is encouraged. A conference proposal should generally be submitted at least a year in advance of the scheduled date. Conferences, including the facilities in which they are held, funded in whole or in part with NSF funds, must be accessible to participants with disabilities.

It is NSF policy (see Chapter XI.A.1.g.) to foster harassment-free environments wherever science is conducted, including at NSF-sponsored conferences. Proposers are required to have a policy or code-of-conduct that addresses sexual harassment, other forms of harassment [49] , and sexual assault, and that includes clear and accessible means of reporting violations of the policy or code-of-conduct. The policy or code-of-conduct must address the method for making a complaint as well as how any complaints received during the conference will be resolved. This policy or code-of-conduct must be disseminated to conference participants prior to attendance at the conference as well as made available at the conference itself. Proposers should not submit the policy or code-of-conduct to NSF for review.

A conference proposal must contain the elements identified below:

• Collaborators & Other Affiliations Information (see Chapter II.C.2.h(i)) (for conference proposals in excess of $50,000)

Project Summary (see Chapter II.D.2.b)

• A statement of the need for such a gathering and a list of topics;

A listing of recent meetings on the same subject, including dates and locations;

• The names of the chairperson and members of organizing committees and their organizational affiliations;
• Information on the location and probable date(s) of the meeting and the method of announcement or invitation;
• A statement of how the meeting will be organized and conducted, how the results of the meeting will be disseminated and how the meeting will contribute to the enhancement and improvement of scientific, engineering and/or educational activities;
• A plan for recruitment of, and support for, speakers and other attendees, that includes participation of groups underrepresented in science and engineering (e.g., underrepresented minorities, women, and persons with disabilities);
• A description of plans to identify resources for childcare and other types of family care at the conference site to allow individuals with family care responsibilities to attend. Attendance for some participants will be dependent on the availability of such resources. This information should help enable attendees to make arrangements for family care, as needed; and

Results from Prior NSF Support (up to five pages). If any PI or co-PI identified on the proposal has received prior NSF support including:

Information on the award is required for each PI and co-PI , regardless of whether the support was directly related to the proposal or not. See Chapter II.D.2.d(iii) for additional instructions on preparation of this section.

any current funding, including any no cost extensions,

Proposal Budget and Budget Justification: A budget, and budget justification for the conference prepared in accordance with Chapter II.D.2.f. The following provides a listing of the types of costs that may be included on a conference budget. When anticipated, such costs should be specifically and clearly identified in the proposed scope or work and budget. Note that registration fees under NSF-supported conferences are considered program income. For additional information on program income generated from conferences, see Chapter VIII.D.4.

• Conference Facilities. Rental of facilities and necessary equipment.
• Supplies. Expendable materials and supplies necessary for the meeting.
• Conference Services. Costs of translation services, audio visual, webcast, and computer services for recording, transmitting, and transcribing the proceedings.
• Publication Costs. Costs of publishing the proceedings.
• Salaries. Salaries of professional personnel, editorial, clerical, and other staff members in proportion to the time or effort devoted to the preparation and conduct of the conference and summarizing its results.
• Consultant Services and Speaker Fees. Reasonable fees and travel allowances and per diem (or meals provided in lieu of per diem). Consultants’ travel costs, including subsistence, may be included. If requested, the proposer must be able to justify that the proposed rate of pay is reasonable. Additional information on the allowability of consultant or professional service costs is available in 2 CFR §200.459. In addition to other provisions required by the proposing organization, all contracts made under the NSF award must contain the applicable provisions identified in 2 CFR §200, Appendix II.
• Meals and Coffee Breaks. Meals that are an integral and necessary part of a conference (e.g., working meals where business is transacted). Funds may be included for furnishing a reasonable amount of hot beverages or soft drinks to conference participants and attendees during periodic coffee breaks. Proposed costs for meals must be reasonable and otherwise allowable to the extent such costs do not exceed charges normally allowed by the recipient organization in its regular operations as the result of the recipient organizations’ written policies. In the absence of an acceptable, written recipient organizational policy regarding meal costs, 2 CFR §200.475(d) will apply. Costs that will be secured through a service agreement/contract should be budgeted under Line G.6, Other Direct Costs, to ensure the proper allocation of indirect costs.
• Participant Support Costs. (See Chapter II.D.2.f(v)).
• Dependent Care Costs. As needed, the costs of identifying, but not providing, locally available dependent care resources may be included.

The following provides a listing of the types of costs that are not allowable for inclusion on a conference budget:

(i) Meals and Coffee Breaks for Intramural Meetings. NSF funds may not be included or spent for meals or coffee breaks for intramural meetings of an organization or any of its components, including, but not limited to, laboratories, departments, and centers, as a direct cost.

(ii) Entertainment. Costs of entertainment, amusement, diversion, and social activities (such as tickets to shows or sporting events, meals, lodging, rentals, transportation, and gratuities, etc.) are unallowable and may not be requested. Travel, meal, and hotel expenses of recipient employees who are not on travel status also are not permitted. See also Chapter II.D.2.f(xiii)(a) and 2 CFR §200.438.

(iii) Alcoholic Beverages. No NSF funds may be requested or spent for alcoholic beverages.

(iv) Speaker Fees. Speakers and trainers are not considered participants and should not be included in this section of the budget. However, if the primary purpose of the individual’s attendance at the conference is learning and receiving training as a participant, then the costs may be included under participant support. If the primary purpose is to speak or assist with management of the conference, then such costs should be budgeted in appropriate categories other than participant support.

• Current and Pending Support: The support requested or available from other Federal agencies and other sources. (See Chapter II.D.2.h(ii)).
• Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources: If there will be support from other sources for the conference, such information should be included in the Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources section of the proposal. The description should be narrative in nature and must not include any quantifiable financial information. Chapter II.D.2.g should be consulted to prepare this portion of the proposal. If included, these resources will not be auditable and must not be included in the proposal budget or budget justification. A description of such support should be included in the Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources section of the proposal.
• Data Management Plan: Plans for management and sharing of any data products resulting from the activity. (See Chapter II.D.2i(ii)).

10. Equipment Proposal

A proposal for specialized equipment may be submitted by an organization for: individual investigators; groups of investigators within the same department; several departments; organization(s) participating in a collaborative or joint arrangement; any components of an organization; or a region. One individual must be designated as PI. Investigators may be working in closely related areas, or their research may be multidisciplinary.

An equipment proposal must contain all of the following proposal sections:

• Collaborators & Other Affiliations Information (see Chapter II.D.2.h(iii).);
• Cover Sheet;
• Project Summary (see Chapter II.D.2.b);
• an overall acquisition plan which discusses arrangements for acquisition, maintenance, and operation. Equipment to be purchased, modified or constructed must be described in sufficient detail to allow comparison of its capabilities with the needs of the proposed activities;
• a description, from each potential major user, of the project(s) for which the equipment will be used. This description must be succinct, not necessarily as detailed as in a full research proposal and must emphasize the intrinsic merit of the activity and the importance of the equipment to it. A brief summary will suffice for auxiliary users; and
• a description of comparable equipment already at the proposing organization(s), if applicable, and an explanation of why it cannot be used. This includes comparable government-owned equipment that is on-site.
• Biographical Sketch(es) of the person(s) who will have overall responsibility for maintenance and operation of the equipment and a brief statement of qualifications. (Chapter II.D.2.h(i) should be consulted to prepare this portion of the proposal; also see Chapter II.D.2.h(i)(c).
• Proposal Budget and Budget Justification: A budget and budget justification for the operation, maintenance, and administration of the proposed equipment (Chapter II.D.2.f should be consulted to prepare this portion of the proposal).
• Current and Pending Support: Chapter II.D.2.h(ii) should be consulted to prepare this portion of the proposal.
• Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources that includes a description of the physical facility, including floor plans or other appropriate information, where the equipment will be located; a narrative description of the source of funds available for operation and maintenance of the proposed equipment; a brief description of other support services available, and a statement of why the equipment is severable or non-severable from the physical facility (Chapter II.C.2.i should be consulted to prepare this portion of the proposal).
• Data Management Plan: (see Chapter II.D.2.i(ii)).
• Postdoctoral Mentoring Plan (if applicable): Chapter II.D.2.i(i) should be consulted to prepare this portion of the proposal.

This type of proposal normally competes with proposals for research or education projects. [50]

11. Travel Proposal

A proposal for travel support, either domestic and/or international, for participation in scientific and engineering meetings is handled by the NSF organizational unit with program responsibility for the area of interest.

A group travel proposal is encouraged as the primary means of support for travel. A university, professional society or other non-profit organization may apply for funds to enable it to coordinate and support participation in one or more scientific meeting(s). A proposal submitted for this purpose must contain the elements identified below, with particular attention to plans for composition and recruitment of the travel group. Information on planned speakers should be provided, where available, from the conference organizer.

Project Description (not to exceed 15 pages) that includes:

A statement of the need for attending such a gathering and a list of topics;

Information on the location and probable date(s) of the meeting;

A statement of how the meeting will be organized and conducted, how the results of the meeting will be disseminated and how the meeting will contribute to the enhancement and improvement of scientific, engineering and/or educational activities; and

Proposal Budget and Budget Justification: A budget and budget justification for the travel prepared in accordance with Chapter II.D.2.f. A group travel proposal may request support only for the travel costs of the proposed activity. A recipient of a group travel award is required to retain supporting documentation that funds were spent in accordance with the original intent of the proposal. Such documentation may be required in final reports and is subject to audit. Guidance on specific costs relevant to a group travel proposal is highlighted below.

Travel, meal, and hotel expenses of recipient employees who are not on travel status are unallowable. Costs of employees on travel status are limited to those specifically authorized by 2 CFR §200.475.

Temporary dependent care costs (a dependent is defined in 26 USC 152) above and beyond regular dependent care that will directly result from travel to conferences are allowable costs provided that the costs are:

(i) a direct result of the individual’s travel for the NSF conference award;

(ii) consistent with the recipient's documented travel policy for all employee travel; and

(iii)only temporary during the travel period.

See 2 CFR §200.475 for additional information on travel costs.

For proposals to support travel to international destinations, in accordance with the Fly America Act (49 USC 40118), any air transportation to, from, between, or within a country other than the U.S. of persons or property, the expense of which will be assisted by NSF funding, must be performed by or under a code-sharing arrangement with a U.S.-flag air carrier if service provided by such a carrier is available (see Comptroller General Decision B-240956, dated September 25, 1991). Tickets (or documentation for electronic tickets) must identify the U.S. flag air carrier’s designator code and flight number. See Chapter XI.F for additional information.

Current and Pending Support: The support requested or available from other Federal agencies and other sources. Chapter II.D.2.h(ii) must be consulted to prepare this portion of the proposal.

Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources: If there will be support from other sources for the travel, a description of such support must be included in the Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources section of the proposal. The description should be narrative in nature and must not include any quantifiable financial information. Chapter II.D.2.g must be consulted to prepare this portion of the proposal. If included, these resources will not be auditable and must not be included in the proposal budget or budget justification.

Data Management Plan: Plans for management and sharing of any data products resulting from the activity. Chapter II.D.2.i(ii) must be consulted to prepare this portion of the proposal.

By signing the Cover Sheet, the AOR is certifying that prior to the proposer’s participation in the meeting, the proposer will assure that the meeting organizer has a written policy or code-of-conduct that addresses sexual harassment, other forms of harassment, and sexual assault, and that includes clear and accessible means of reporting violations of the policy or code-of-conduct. The policy or code-of-conduct must address the method for making a complaint as well as how any complaints received during the meeting will be resolved. The proposer is not required to submit the meeting organizer’s policy or code-of-conduct for review by NSF.

12. Center Proposal

NSF provides support for a variety of individual Centers and Centers programs that contribute to the Foundation's vision as outlined in the NSF Strategic Plan. Centers exploit opportunities in science, engineering, and technology in which the complexity of the research problem(s) or the resources needed to solve the(se) problem(s) require the advantages of scope, scale, change, duration, equipment, facilities, and students that can only be provided by an academic research center. They focus on investigations at the frontiers of knowledge not normally attainable through individual investigations, at the interfaces of disciplines and/or by incorporating fresh approaches to the core of disciplines. Centers focus on integrative learning and discovery and demonstrate leadership in broadening participation through focused investments in a diverse set of partner organizations and individuals. In doing so, they draw upon, and contribute to, the development of the Nation's full intellectual talent. Most Center awards are limited to a maximum duration of ten years and are often subject to mid-course external merit review. Proposers interested in learning more about current or future NSF Centers are encouraged to contact the appropriate disciplinary NSF Program Officer. Centers are not considered research infrastructure but will often use research infrastructure to meet their objectives.

13. Research Infrastructure Proposal

As an integral part of its responsibility for strengthening the science and engineering capacity of the country, NSF provides support for the design, construction, operation, and upgrade of research infrastructure. NSF defines research infrastructure as any combination of facilities, equipment, instrumentation, computational hardware and software, and the necessary supporting human capital. Research infrastructure includes major research instrumentation, mid-scale projects and major facilities. NSF depends on the research communities to provide the justification as well as the capabilities to manage the development and implementation of research infrastructure projects. Justification normally occurs through National Academies studies, workshop reports, professional society activities, and other community-based mechanisms, including engineering studies and research projects related to the development of new technologies. Many of these mechanisms are funded by interested NSF Programs on the basis of merit-reviewed proposals.

The NSF process and funding mechanisms for development and implementation of research infrastructure projects depends, in part, on the scale of the project. Construction of the largest projects, major facilities, is typically supported through the Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) account. Proposers are strongly encouraged to contact the appropriate NSF Program to discuss the availability of funding and the appropriate funding mechanisms in advance of proposal submission. The Research Infrastructure Guide, a public document managed by the Large Facilities Office, contains policies and procedures related to NSF oversight and Recipient management of larger research infrastructure projects funded by NSF. The purpose of the Research Infrastructure Guide is to: (1) provide guidance to NSF staff on conducting appropriate oversight and to recipients in carrying out effective project planning and management; and (2) clearly state the required policies and procedures as well as pertinent good practices for each life-cycle stage.

Footnotes to Chapter II

[6] Macintosh users also may use Helvetica and Palatino fonts.

[7] Detailed instructions for completion of this process are available in Research.gov.

[8] This government-wide certification is not included in SAM and must be submitted as part of an NSF proposal.

[9] Proposal Not Accepted is defined as Research.gov will not permit submission of the proposal by the AOR.

[10] See Chapter II.F. for the proposal preparation requirements for other types of proposals submitted to NSF.

[11] See PAPPG Chapter II.D.2.i for additional information on submission of special information and supplementary documentation.

[12] If the proposal includes use of live vertebrate animals, supplemental information is required. See Chapter II.E.4. for additional information.

[13] If the proposal includes use of human subjects, supplemental information is required. See Chapter II.E.5. for additional information.

[14] NSF recipients remain subject to the provisions of OMB M-01-06, “ Clarification of OMB A-21 Treatment of Voluntary Uncommitted Cost Sharing and Tuition Remission Costs ” regarding requirements for committing and tracking “some level” of faculty (or senior researcher) effort as part of the organized research base.

[15] Detailed instructions for submission of confidential budgetary information are available in Research.gov.

[16] According to the IRS, US territories and possessions are as follows: Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Midway Island, Wake Island, Palmyra Island, Howland Island, Johnston Island, Baker Island, Kingman Reef, Jarvis Island, and other US islands, cays, and reefs that are not part of the 50 States.

[17] See Chapter XI.F, Grant General Conditions (GC-1) Article 10, and Article 14 in the NSF Agency Specific Requirements to the Research Terms and Conditions, as applicable, for additional information on travel restrictions.

[18] A data deposit cost is a one-time charge paid at the time a data set is deposited into a data repository. Data curation costs are expenses associated with preparing data into a form that others can use.

[19] In the rare case of funding to a foreign organization or foreign individual, see Chapter I.E.2 for additional requirements.

[20] A subaward may be provided through any form of legal agreement, including an agreement that the proposing organization considers a contract. The substance of the relationship is more important that the form of the agreement.

[21] In the rare case of funding to a foreign organization or foreign individual, see Chapter I.E.2 for additional requirements.

[22] In the rare case of funding to a foreign organization or foreign individual, see Chapter I.E.2 for additional requirements.

[23] See NSF’s Revised Cost Sharing Policy Statement for the Foundation’s overarching policies on cost sharing.

[24] Inclusion in the Budget Justification also meets this definition.

[25] For further information on procedures for inclusion of programmatic cost sharing in an NSF solicitation, see: http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/csdocs/principles.pdf .

[26] 2 CFR §200.306 describes criteria and procedures for the allowability of cash and in-kind contributions in satisfying cost sharing and matching requirements.

[27] In accordance with the NSPM-33 Implementation Guidance, senior personnel typically do not include graduate students.

[28] This table supersedes in its entirety, Table 2a and Paragraph 7 of the Disclosure Requirements and Standardization Section of the NSPM-33 Implementation Guidance.

[29] See https://orcid.org for information on obtaining an ORCID ID.

[30] According to 42 U.S.C §§ 6605, "current and pending support": (A) means all resources made available, or expected to be made available, to an individual in support of the individual's research and development efforts, regardless of (i) whether the source of the resource is foreign or domestic; (ii) whether the resource is made available through the entity applying for a research and development award or directly to the individual; or (iii) whether the resource has monetary value; and (B) includes in-kind contributions requiring a commitment of time and directly supporting the individual's research and development efforts, such as the provision of office or laboratory space, equipment, supplies, employees, or students.

[31] In accordance with the NSPM-33 Implementation Guidance, senior personnel typically do not include graduate students.

[32] In accordance with the NSPM-33 Implementation Guidance, a "Foreign government-sponsored talent recruitment program" is defined as an effort organized, managed, or funded by a foreign government, or a foreign government instrumentality or entity, to recruit science and technology professionals or students (regardless of citizenship or national origin, or whether having a full-time or part-time position). Some foreign government-sponsored talent recruitment programs operate with the intent to import or otherwise acquire from abroad, sometimes through illicit means, proprietary technology or software, unpublished data and methods, and intellectual property to further the military modernization goals and/or economic goals of a foreign government. Many, but not all, programs aim to incentivize the targeted individual to relocate physically to the foreign state for the above purpose. Some programs allow for or encourage continued employment at United States research facilities or receipt of Federal research funds while concurrently working at and/or receiving compensation from a foreign institution, and some direct participants not to disclose their participation to United States entities. Compensation could take many forms including cash, research funding, complimentary foreign travel, honorific titles, career advancement opportunities, promised future compensation, or other types of remuneration or consideration, including in-kind compensation.

[33] This table supersedes in its entirety, Table 2a and Paragraph 7 of the Disclosure Requirements and Standardization Section of the NSPM-33 Implementation Guidance.

[34] See https://orcid.org for information on obtaining an ORCID ID.

[35] See the table entitled, NSPM-33 Implementation Guidance Pre- and Post-award Disclosures Relating to the Biographical Sketch and Current and Pending (Other) Support for instructions on in-kind support for use on the project being proposed.

[36] Editorial board does not include Editorial Advisory Board, Scientific Editorial Board, or any other subcategory of Editorial Board. It is limited to those individuals who perform editing duties or manage the editing process (i.e., editor in chief).

[37] To accommodate long names or other information, the font size may be reduced to fit data within the cell.

[38]  For purposes of meeting the mentoring requirement, simultaneously submitted collaborative proposals, and collaborative proposals that include subawards, constitute a single unified project. Therefore, only one mentoring plan must be submitted for the entire project.

[39] In situations where a postdoctoral researcher is listed in Section A of the NSF Budget, and is functioning in a Senior Personnel capacity (i.e., responsible for the scientific or technical direction of the project), a mentoring plan is not required.

[40] Detailed instructions for submission of proprietary or privileged information are available in Research.gov.

[41] Detailed instructions for the preparation and submission of collaborative proposals are available in Research.gov.

[42] Guidelines to the use of Wild Birds in Research; Guidelines of the American Society of Mammologists for the Use of Wild Mammals in Research; Guidelines for the Use of Fishes in Research; and Guidelines for the Use of Live Amphibians and Reptiles in Field and Laboratory Research.

[43] An NSF-approved format for submission of these determinations is available on the NSF website.

[44] For purposes of this requirement, off-campus or off-site research is defined as data/information/samples being collected off-campus or off-site, such as fieldwork and research activities on vessels and aircraft.

[45] See also Chapter II.D.1.d(viii).

[46] Ideas Labs are generally one to five days in duration.

[47] The supplemental funding described in this section of the PAPPG is in addition to the limited paid leave option for Fellows on Tenure with an NSF-approved medical deferral.

[48] This coverage also applies to symposia and workshop proposals.

[49] For purposes of this requirement, "other forms of harassment" is defined as "Non-gender or non-sex-based harassment of individuals protected under federal civil rights laws, as set forth in organizational policies or codes of conduct, statutes, regulations, or executive orders."

[50] See Chapter IX.D. for additional information on the administration of equipment awards.

[51] Proposal Not Accepted is defined as Research.gov will not permit submission of the proposal.

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS. A lock ( Lock Locked padlock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Document Library sub navigation

• All Documents
• National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES)
• Obtaining Documents
• Search Documents
• Document Library

NSF Grants.gov Application Guide - May 2024

For more information about file formats used on the NSF site, please see the Plug-ins and Viewers page.