ANNEX 1 – THE RESEARCH PROPOSAL: OVERVIEW AND

ASSESSMENT

1
1. ABSTRACT

The abstract is a brief summary of the entire proposal, typically ranging from 150 to
250 words. It is different from a thesis statement in that the abstract summarizes the
entire proposal, not just mentioning the study’s purpose or hypothesis. Therefore, the
abstract should outline the proposal’s major headings: the significance (need) of the work,
major objectives, the research question, theoretical framework, methodology and
potential impact of the work. A good abstract accurately reflects the content of the
proposal, while at the same time being coherent, readable, and concise. Do not add
any information in the abstract that is not previously discussed throughout the
proposal. Though it appears first, the abstract should be edited last, as a concise summary
of the proposal.

Note: The abstract forms the reader’s initial impression of the work, and therefore
plays a significant role on whether the application is funded. The abstract speaks for
the proposal when it is separated from it, provides the reader with his or her first
impression of the request, and, by acting as a summary, frequently provides the reader
their last impression. Some reviewers read only the abstract. Thus it is the most important
single element in the proposal.

Assessment criteria:

• Does the abstract outline the proposal’s major headings?

• Is the abstract coherent, readable, and concise?

2
2. RESEARCH PROPOSAL

2.1. ‘State of the Art’: Description of the topic and problem statement

The statement of the problem/research puzzle is an imperative part of the proposal, for in
order for research to be conducted, one must notice a problem in the existing literature
that has not been previously addressed. For this section, the following questions
should be answered: Why does this research study need to be conducted? What
specific issues does this study raise that have not been observed in other literature
pertaining to the topic? Answering these questions will allow readers to understand
why this particular study is important and how the study will attempt to answer new,
never-before asked questions.

Note: A research question derives from a short and concise review of the state of the
art research in your specialization/topic area. A preliminary literature review indicates: (i)
that you have studied the work of the major authors in your research field (ii) that you
are familiar with the major themes relevant to that subject area (iii) what further
investigations you intend to pursue as part of your thesis. You should bear in mind
that you are reviewing the literature in order to develop sharper, more insightful and
focused research questions about your topic. Therefore, your literature review should
lead to and justify your research objectives and questions.

2.2. Aims and objectives

It is appropriate to include a sentence saying ‘The purpose of this study is...’ under this
section. Clearly identify the goal of the study in one precise sentence. For example, the
sentence could look like this: ‘the purpose of this study is to determine whether the
decision of first- semester male students to live with or reject living with their
roommates is related to whether their roommates affirm their self-views or not.’ Why
is this an important area of study? Answer this question under this section.

You will find that moving from research aim to research objectives, to research
questions is quite a difficult task. This, however, will provide a clear focus to your
research and help you structure both the research proposal and the final thesis. The
aim of the research provides a description of what you want to achieve from carrying
out this research. The objectives of the research outline the particular issues that you
need to address in order to achieve the aim above. They are more specific than the
aim, in that they outline the particular dimensions of your research topic, which are
relevant to the overall aim of your research.

2.3. Research question(s)/ hypotheses

The research questions are more specific than your research objectives and specify the
various insights/information that need to be collected in order to achieve the
objectives. Keep in mind that the research question often starts with a Why, How, or
What. Whereas research questions ask what relationships exist between the different
variables in the study, the hypothesis predicts the relationship between variables. List all
the research questions guiding your study, and then include the researcher’s hypothesis
for the study.

3
2.4. Academic and societal relevance

In the section on academic relevance, often referred to as the ‘rationale’ is crucial, because
it is one place in which the researcher sets out that the research is worth doing and
why (see also the sections on literature review and aims/goals of the research proposal
above). You can do this by describing how the results of your research may be used.
Think about how your research may:

- Resolve theoretical or empirical questions/puzzles in your research area and

address ‘gabs’ in the literature currently available;
- Develop better theoretical models in your research area or create new
syntheses between theoretical models and concepts;
- Contribute to a better (or new/alternative/more advanced) understanding of
an empirical phenomenon;
- Contribute a new aspect to the ‘state of the art’ research in your research
area.

Are there other contributions your research will make? If so, describe them in detail.

The policy and societal relevance and impact of the proposed research to non-academic
stakeholders, including policy makers, and engagement with these stakeholders may
include the one or several of the following elements:

- Stating reasons for undertaking or not undertaking stakeholder engagement;

- Identification of appropriate stakeholders and why they are relevant to the
project (what role they could play), and the desired outcomes of engaging with
specific stakeholders;
- Clear statement of the policy application (e.g. details which cite the relevance
of the research to policy instruments and current legislation or the importance
of this work for solving pressing societal issues);
- Identification of policy makers who are end users of the research results and
ways to engage them;
- Identification of specific end-users (organisations, and, if possible, to name
individuals within these organisations).

Assessment criteria:

• Is the topic of this thesis sufficiently focused?

• Is the problem/research question described in a clear and concise
manner?
• Is previous literature leading up to the research question adequately
described?
• Is the wider significance (or rationale) of the research question made
explicit?
• Is the problem well positioned vis-à-vis existing scholarship and
societal problems?

4
3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

This section will detail the theory that is guiding the proposed study, and include a
justification and rationalization of the theoretical and/or philosophical assumptions
(and key concepts/variables) adopted in function of answering the research question.
For example, if the objective of the study is to explain why there has been little
progress in the development of a common EU energy policy, the researcher might
propose to draw on assumptions of the liberal intergovernmentalist school of thought
to explain the phenomenon. This section would then offer a concise summary of the
approach and its key assumptions, and why it was chosen (instead of, for example, a
neo-functionalist perspective) to explain the research puzzle.

It is important to remember that each research question will have to be addressed

separately, and for each, the researcher has outline why or how theoretical assumption
‘xyz’ will help to answer that particular research question. Often, students ask a ‘how’
question (e.g. through what processes did a phenomenon emerge?), followed by a
‘why’ question (e.g. what factors caused the phenomenon to emerge?). Note that each
of these questions is likely to require the researcher to draw on different theories or
assumptions. For example, whereas ‘governance’ approaches tend to focus on the
specific processes through which the EU’s rules and norms are ‘downloaded’ by the
member states or non-EU countries (and help answering the ‘how’ question),
traditional European integration theories such as liberal intergovernmentalism or neo-
functionalism offer concrete propositions on what factors drive the processes through
which countries integrate in and with the EU (which helps answering the ‘why’
question).

Assessment criteria:

• Is the relevant theoretical literature integrated comprehensively

(within the scope of a research plan)?
• Is the treatment of the literature appropriate (critical, but balanced)?
• Does the student use relevant and appropriate concepts and
theories?

5
4. METHODOLOGY

This section elaborates on the research design (qualitative, quantitative or mixed

methods design) and concrete research methods employed by the researcher to collect
(e.g. qualitative interviewing, survey data methodology, process tracing/document
analysis, archival research) and analyse data (e.g. historical analysis, discourse analysis,
linear and generalized linear regression, etc). You need to justify why the chosen
methods were selected as the most appropriate for your research, amongst the many
alternative ones. It is not sufficient to say, for example, ‘suitable respondents are
sampled using a quota sampling technique and then surveyed using a postal
questionnaire’ and then leave it at that. If you have not taken the opportunity to justify
your research choices to a reader they could be correct in assuming that you have, by
chance, merely guessed at what would work and, more by luck than judgment, arrived
at the ‘correct’ solution to the problem. In this section, you will also introduce your
case studies (or sample) and justify why your choice will enable you to draw meaningful
(valid and potentially generalizable) conclusions from your research.

It is very important that you relate every chosen method back to the needs of each of
your research question(s) and hypotheses. For example, explaining why there has been
little progress in the development of a common EU energy policy by drawing on the
intergovernmentalist assumption that integration is the result of intergovernmental
bargaining might require you to analyse the extent to which a set of member states
share the same ideological and geopolitical vision (-> document analysis/ discourse
analysis) but also the bargaining dynamics between states (-> statistical analysis
determining the conditions under which bargaining among the member states leads to
more or less positive integration in the field of energy policy).

Ultimately, the research questions, hypotheses, theory and methodology sections

should all connect logically to one another: The research questions/hypothesis
introduces a number of key concepts and/or variables which are further defined and
related to one another by a theoretical framework. The research design (quantitative,
qualitative) specifies from where the data for your key concepts/variables is retrieved
(sample, case studies) and how it is collected and analysed.

Assessment criteria

• Does the proposed selection of empirical data/primary sources helpto

answer the research question?
• Are the potentials and limitations of available data/primary sources
acknowledged?
• Does the student provide insight in/use appropriate and feasible
qualitative and/or quantitative method(s) for data collection and
analysis of the thesis?

6
5. FEASIBILITY: WORK PLAN

In this section you need to describe in detail what you plan to do until completion of
your research project/thesis. Prepare an outline of your proposed chapter structure,
list the stages of your project in a table format, indicate deadlines you have set for
completing each stage of the project (e.g. for individual chapters, field work, etc.) and
discuss any particular challenges that need to be overcome.

Note: The work plan for the RMES thesis should include the output that you will
produce in the course Research Project (RES 5031) in Period 5: a first draft of the
introduction chapter (including a concise literature review), a first draft of the
theory/methodology chapter and a first draft of one empirical chapter (to try out the
application of your theory/methodology).

Assessment criteria:

• Is the project feasible?

• Is the proposed work plan realistic and expedient?

7
 HELP, HOW
CAN I DO ALL
THIS?

A good way to grasp the logic of a research proposal is to imagine that you are going
to build a cupboard from scratch.

Before you go to the DIY store, you will want to write some kind of ‘proposal’ to know
what you need to buy to be able to build your cupboard. First, you probably try to find
an instruction manual outlining the basic setup and requirements for building a
cupboard (theoretical framework).

However, you still need to decide on how big or small the cupboard will be and/or
what texture/colour it should have (e.g. what specific design it should have). And the
specific design (alongside the more general setup of the cupboard outlined in your
instruction manual) in turn determine not only how many and what type of materials
you are going to buy (plastic, wood?) (i.e. what to collect and where) but also the tools you
need to get to work with those materials to eventually build the cupboard.

In addition to these all these considerations, you will also want to take into account
the size of the room into which the cupboard needs to fit and your budget (feasibility
of your undertaking) as well as the opinions/preferences of your family/housemates
(relevance for stakeholders).

A similar detailed step-by-step planning effort is required when you draw up the
proposal for your research project – the challenge is to think through the entire process of
how you will answer your research question.

8
ANNEX 2 – STRUCTURE OF THE RESEARCH PROPOSAL

Cover page including:

- Provisional title of the thesis OR the pilot study

- EITHER: “RMES Thesis Proposal, including work plan for a pilot study”
OR: “RMES Thesis - Pilot Study Proposal” 1
- Student name and ID
- Proposed supervisor(s) (first ideas)
- Date

1. Abstract
(max. 250 words)

2. Research proposal
(max. 2000 words for 2a-2e)

2a. State of the art, aims and objectives of the proposed research, academic
relevance

2b. Research question(s) (and hypotheses)

2c. Theoretical framework, concepts and hypotheses

2d. Methodology (data collection & analysis methods, ethical implications)

2e. Societal relevance

2f. Literature references

3. Work Plan

• Describe the various stages (activities, timetable & output) of carrying out
research for the pilot study (to be implemented during the 8-week course
‘Research Project’ in Period 5.

1 Option 1: The proposal sets out a full research design for the ‘pilot study’ in the course ‘Research
Project’, including a detailed work plan.
Option 2: The proposal sets out a full research design for the RMES Thesis, including a detailed
work plan for the ‘pilot study’ in the course ‘Research Project’

9
ANNEX 3 - ASSESSMENT FORM RESEARCH PROPOSAL

Criteria Points of attention

1. Formal requirements Does the thesis plan fulfill the formal requirements?
Does it present references in a consistent way?
Is the student’s use of language convincing?

2. Abstract Does the abstract outline the proposal’s major headings?

Is the abstract coherent, readable, and concise?

3. Research Question Is the topic of this thesis sufficiently focused?

(state of the art, aims Is the problem/research question described in a clear and concise
and rationale, academic manner?
& societal relevance) Is previous literature leading up to the research question adequately
described?
Is the wider significance (or rationale) of the research question
made explicit?
Is the problem well positioned vis-à-vis existing scholarship and
societal problems?
4. Theoretical Is the relevant theoretical literature integrated comprehensively
framework (within the scope of a research plan)?
Is the treatment of the literature appropriate (critical, but
balanced)?
Does the student use relevant and appropriate concepts and
theories?
5. Methodology Does the proposed selection of empirical data/primary sources
help to answer the research question?
Are the potentials and limitations of available data/primary sources
acknowledged?
Does the student provide insight in/use appropriate and feasible
qualitative and/or quantitative method(s) for data collection
and analysis of the thesis?

6. Feasibility Is the project feasible?

Is the proposed work plan realistic and expedient?
7. Comments or Any suggestions that should be taken into account during the
suggestions implementation of the project (if the proposal is overall
positively assessed) or during the revision of the thesis proposal
(if the proposal is assessed with a ‘fail’)?

10
ANNEX 4 – RMES THESIS REQUIREMENTS

The MSc thesis is an individually written piece of work of academic level on a topic
directly related to the curriculum of the RMES.

The thesis must be between 26.000 - 30.000 words, including the notes, bibliography
or annexes.

The thesis has to be based on:

▪ An extensive review of relevant academic literature
▪ The use of relevant and appropriate concepts and theories
▪ A critical selection and processing of data
▪ The application of appropriate analytical methods
▪ A balanced and critical interpretation of results in light of existing knowledge

The thesis should present the conclusions of the research done in an academic and
professional manner.

The thesis should fulfill the requirements of the FASoS Writing Style Guide.

11
ANNEX 5 - RMES THESIS ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES

A B C D E F G
Overall
General Structure Conclusions, Presentation,
Mark Description of and Line of Treatment of Empirical Insights, Format and
(%) Standard Conception Organisation Argument Literature Content Contribution Technicalities
Design/methods
Excellent, An original
Clear and Excellent, excellent, with
clearly and contribution
Distinction: ambitious complete and insights &
Excellent and critically to knowledge
9-10 Peer review with evaluative, with depths of Excellent
clear supported, publishable in
journal quality significant significant analysis
and well a respected
originality value added illuminating for
balanced journal
markers
Design/methods
Excellent,
Clear and Excellent, excellent, with Memorable as
clearly and
Exceptional ambitious complete and insights & an instance of
Excellent and critically
8.5 for graduate with evaluative, with depths of outstanding Excellent
clear supported,
work significant significant analysis graduate work
and well
originality value added illuminating for at FASoS
balanced
markers
Design/methods
Excellent, Clear,
Clear and Excellent, excellent, with
clearly and balanced and
Outstanding ambitious complete and insights &
Excellent and critically contextualised
8 for graduate with evaluative, with depths of Excellent
clear supported, , with
work significant significant analysis
and well significant
originality value added illuminating for
balanced originality
markers
Wholly Design/methods Well
Clear and Well
appropriate well developed connected to
Significantly realistic with Well developed,
and accurate; (+ some analysis, well Systematic, clear,
above the some structured, clearly
7.5 critical, with problems); qualified and accurate and
average for ambition organised and supported,
clear outcome strong critical contextualised thorough
graduate work and balanced well
and 'added interpretation , with some
originality balanced
value' and reflection originality
Well
Appropriate, Design/methods connected to
Well
Average work, accurate and well developed analysis, some
Well developed,
though better Clear, well critical with (+ some qualification Systematic, clear,
6.5 - structured, clearly
than what is bounded minor gaps; problems); some and accurate and
7 organised and supported
minimally and realistic clear and critical contextualisati thorough
balanced and
required relevant interpretation on, with
balanced
outcome and reflection modest
originality
Reasonably
Well
Clearly Appropriate; Design and clear and
developed,
Work of an identified mostly methods connected to Systematic, clear,
Quite well with
average quality and justified, complete and adequate for the analysis; accurate and
structured, limitations
6 and minimally but not well accurate; task; but some limited thorough, but
organised and in
sufficient to bounded evaluative; clear problems and qualification; with minor
balanced supporting
pass and/or & relevant limited critical and with problems
evidence/lo
unrealistic outcome interpretation limited
gic
originality
Design and Adequately
Adequately
Adequately Scope/accurac methods clear and
Not of identified Adequately Adequately
developed, y OK with adequate for the connected to
sufficient and justified, clear and accurate and
5– but some some gaps; task, but analysis; but
quality to pass, but poorly coherent, but clear, but perhaps
5.5 problems in limited analysis important with several
but in principle bounded perhaps with some major
treating and outcome problems and limitations
remediable and/or imbalanced problems
evidence unclear little critical and probably
unrealistic
interpretation no originality
Attempt
Attempt at
made to Absent or
Fundamentally Absent or suitable Methodologicall
identify and Absent or very unclear, Not adequately
flawed and very weak scope/coverag y very weak;
justify aim very weak with very accurate and
requires initial e, but major results very
<5 and explanation, poor clear, and with
rethinking the explanation gaps & poorly linked to
question, articulation connection to several major
thesis project in and later inaccuracy; question or to
but very and balance prior evidence problems
order to remedy development little/no data presented
unclear/ or analysis
analysis
confused

12