Research & Investigation

One of the most indispensable facts of the academic life is to know how to craft sensible proposal to carry out the research study. No matter what hits you hard while you study theoretical science of our environment, your objective for research proposal is to convince (sell) the reviewer on the importance of your project, your knowledge of the field and your ability to carry out the research. Writing proposal starts at the beginning of your project. At this stage, you clearly state the subject matter of environmental field you sought to carry out. You will cite on-going issue of environmental problems and you state your objective in the prevailing situation. To fulfill your objective you will tell how you are going to measure variables and by using what methods. Finally, you will describe your work plan with time table to finish your total study and incidental total cost.

It is always easier said than done but writing proposal is not too that hard; once you immersed into the subject matter and field environmental problems then you start to take a grip on it. So without further ado let's get into its systematic itinerary.

INTRODUCTION

Consists of:
A. Statements of the Problem: First Impression are Important.

1. Show the problem in perspective of the broader field in which it is embedded. Ask question which field you are interested. If you are a Bachelor’s student of environmental science in Tri-Chandra or a Master’s degree graduate at Central Department, the nature of environmental problem is not dictated by your position, it will continue to happen no matter what. You job is find the loophole where you can enter and work to grow existing knowledge.

2. Generality of the research: emphasize general significance, point to its contribution to theory, and give examples of how knowledge gained can be very important to the overall implication to the integrity of human-environmental system. Discuss equally important outcomes even if project is not fully successful.

3. Be to limit scope: a common problem of proposals is that they are too ambitious (lifetime work). A more focused project will out-compete a “shotgun” approach.

4. Set frames of reference and working definitions.

5. Be accurate: No false statements or exaggerations.

B. Related Research or Background and Progress to Date.

This is important; it shows the reviewer your grasp of the field, your ability to critique research of others, the breadth of your knowledge.

1. Do not limit the review to studies only

2. Survey the results of a select, related group of studies. Emphasize particularly important current areas of research and important peripheral areas. For sources of information examine: recent review papers; citation indices; contents of recent numbers or relevant journals; unpublished sources.

3. The above survey should be in sufficient detail for a non-specialist reviewer. Point out technical or interpretive flaws, but be constructive and positive.

4. Avoid using too many references. Your proposal will be judged more by how you deal with the references you cite than by how many references you cite.

5. Don’t say that “no literature exists” on a topic. This is a “red flag” to reviewers. Say “information is very limited” only if that can be documented.

6. Show how the project you are proposing will build on, improve on, and extend knowledge regarding the research you have just reviewed.

OBJECTIVES

Restate the problem in terms of your specific goals.

A. These goal should be: Specific, Concrete and Feasible

Make general statement, and then list the goals in no more than one or two sentences each. List in chronological order, in outline form. These goals can be listed as:

1. Objectives
2. Hypothesis to be tested
3. Questions to be answered.

B. Errors that are frequently made:
1. Goals too vague
2. Not setting goals sequentially
3. Not covering all objectives listed in the introduction or procedures section.

PROCEDURES

Begin by summarizing techniques that are general, that will be used throughout the study, though perhaps with modification. Provide a brief description of the study areas. Then, start with objective 1, and treat each objective in sequence.

The following should be considered when describing procedures:

a) Sample sixes required. How will they be determined? Consider that with regard to samples sizes: larger samples increase precision; smaller sample sixes may be legitimate when differences among samples are large; high variability within data sets requires larger sample sizes.

b) Alternative explanations: the structure of study must test for and accommodate serious alternative explanations. Show that you have considered these.

c) Control for contaminating factors. Common contaminating factors include: Lack of experimental controls and Observer effects.Blind experiments are a good way to avoid contaminating factors.Contaminating factors can be mitigated by interpretations of data and data analyses that are conservative, i.e. that clearly area not biased in favor of your hypotheses.

d) Consider how you might avoid undesirable variation in your data. For example.

1. Objectivity: Train data collectors and yourself to score data in the same way. Use data sheets, write protocols prominently in notebooks.
2. Appropriate measures/scales: Consider what measures you will use relative to the kinds of data you are gathering.
3. Reliability: replicate experiments, or have temporal or spatial replicates in your observation.

e) Methods of analysis must be consistent with the objectives and design of your study; e.g. Methods of statistical analysis those that are most appropriate. If you review an experimental design in detail, consider how you will deal with;
1. Missing date
2. Unequal cell frequencies
3. Categorical data/ parametric vs. non parametric tests

f) Show awareness of where departures in your experimental plan may occur.

STATEMENT OF RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE

This is a brief (one or two paragraph) statement reiterating major aspects of why this research project is important. Both specific and general aspects of the projects significance should be emphasized. This final statement of research significance should not be a verbatim reiteration of statements made in the introduction. Avoid hyperbole.

WORK PLAN/ TIME TABLE

Provide a clear, sequential statement of the operations to be performed. This provides a practical schedule for the work to be done. It provides a basis for funding agencies to consider their resource allocations, as these allocations often have scheduling constraints. The work plan must allow for all of the procedures outlined previously. This should include:
a) A simple schedule (beginning and ending dates) for completing all activities.
b) Graphical flow chart or diagram showing interrelationships among various activities.
c) Information on where (geographic location) various components of the research will be conducted.

BUDGET

The budget is an operational statement of the project in monetary terms. Basic budgetary needs should follow easily from a carefully though-out proposal; i.e. budget preparation is a good test of how carefully details of the research have been described.

a) Follow the budget format specified by the granting agency. If no format is specified, format the budget as a table with various categories, with appropriate subcategories. Subtotal amounts with each category, grand total across all categories.

b) Basic categories may vary but area likely to include; travel; salaries; per-diem costs; research station costs; major equipment; expendable equipment and supplies; miscellaneous (equipment maintenance, publication costs, computer cost etc.); overhead.

c) Know the peculiarities of the granting agency to which you are applying. For example, some don’t pay salaries, others don’t pay for major equipment, and others don’t pay overhead. Know approximate award levels that are typical of the funding agency. For example you can ask the National Geographic Society for $ 20,000 US but not $ 500,000 US. Know it.

d) Provide a narrative rationale for all major items in your budget.

e) e) Be realistic. Do not be too conservative, attempt to cover your research needs.

REFERENCE

G.F. McCracken, with thanks to S.E. Riechert and D.R. Krathwohl’s, How to prepare a research proposal.