research proposal google translate

Voice speed

Text translation, source text, translation results, document translation, drag and drop.

Website translation

Enter a URL

Image translation

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

How to write a good research proposal and apply for a PhD in Translation Studies at Trinity College Dublin

Related Papers

Johann Louw

Lilia Mantai

My research aims to investigate the role of social support in Australian doctoral journeys. PhD candidates report isolation and loneliness in doctoral education despite opportunities to interact with peers. Evidence suggests that doctoral candidates make use of different forms of social support on their doctoral journey, which extends beyond the immediate higher degree research environment. Further, doctoral candidates increasingly use technology as facilitators of social support. Firstly, my paper introduces a new model of social support in the PhD journey. Secondly, I present a review of Australian universities’ higher degree research department websites that shows how different universities address doctoral student support needs. This systematic online review answers questions, such as: how are HDR candidates addressed and portrayed, what support services are linked from the website, what types of support and training does the HDR department offer to its candidates, whether any services are provided for students by students, and how academic community is expressed via the websites. Thirdly, I discuss PhD candidates’ perspectives on the types of social support available at their university and the types of social support that they use and value as discussed in focus groups with PhD candidates. The website review and the focus group findings are compared and discussed against the presented model of social support resulting in implications for further research.

The quality of the PhD experience is of intense interest to researchers and universities alike, and both identify the role of support networks as crucial to PhD experience and PhD completion. Our aim in this paper is to explore the types of interdependencies that PhD candidates identify as important in a successful PhD journey. To do so we use an under utilised yet rich data source: PhD thesis acknowledgements. The paper employs a sample of 79 PhD acknowledgements drawn from diverse disciplines within Australian universities. We illustrate the forms of social support provided, who and what is acknowledged as providing support, and the intersections between the forms and providers of support. Key findings of the paper are that three types of support are evident – academic, technical, and emotional – and that supervisors, families, friends and colleagues are acknowledged for providing all three forms of support. The study confirms the critical place of candidates’ networks in the PhD journey, broadens the view of what constitutes support and identifies the range of individuals involved in the process. Further, it identifies potential in acknowledgements as a source of evidence of social support.

Jen Webb , Axel Bruns , Greg Battye

Thomas Mical

The genealogies of doctoral education in architecture can be traced to earlier distinct academic disciplines, but in the last decade design-based dissertations have changed the discourse and valuation of qualities. This newer strand, extending from integrative /collaborative studio-based learning, aligns more closely with professional doctorates in other fields. From the sole researcher model of Harvard’s doctor of Architecture, to the group-thesis model of the Berlage Institute Rotterdam, to the current reflective practitioner model of RMIT, doctoral architecture education has been customized for crossing between academic design education and into other industries or audiences. The epistemological challenge is to produce exemplary design intelligence and a substantial body of professional knowledge, customized for individual skills and outcomes, in an increasingly decentralized and mobile profession (an Engaged PhD in Architectural Intelligences). As such, the under- examined assumption of customization in architectural design-based doctoral education is here redesigned under the promise of the Mass Customization movement of industrial production, articulated as a promise for mobility and innovation within the educational-industrial complex. From the generated insights into agility and uniqueness as the doctoral values, a new model of decentralized mastery is offered. It will then be argued that this new flexible model aligns theoretically with the Deleuzian notion of Nomad Science, and the alternative forms of knowing implicated in these itinerate models. From Mass Customization and Nomad Science, this paper concludes with a proposal to imagine a radical type of customized and distributed emergent knowledge network, as already exists in some industries, and as seen in the multi-sited doctorates now appearing in some disciplines.

David Newsome

SIVABALA NAIDU , Fatemeh khozaei

Shulin Yu & Icy Lee

While much feedback research in L1 and L2 writing has been conducted in pre-university and university contexts, little attention has been paid to supervisors’ comments at the graduate level. Specifically, the nature and role of supervisors’ commentary on the writing of graduate-level academic genre is under-explored. Designed to fill such an important void in the existing research literature, the present study, framed by the socio-cultural theory, aims to explore the nature and role of supervisors’ written comments on doctoral research proposals. A primarily qualitative analysis of the drafts of three doctoral research proposals, the written comments in the drafts of these proposals, and interview data with three Phd applicants and two prospective PhD supervisors revealed that supervisors’ comments on doctoral research proposals were primarily feedback-oriented rather than assessment-focused. Such a commentary practice played an important role in facilitating the initiation of the applicants into the academic community through scaffolding the academic writing process, building a quasi-supervisory relationship, as well as enhancing motivation and confidence. The paper concludes with the implications of the study, as well as suggestions for future research.

RELATED PAPERS

International Journal of Cardiology

Philip Kirlin

Gary Takeuchi

Shankar Kambhampaty

Plant and Soil

xavier chiriboga

Revista Sexologia Y Sociedad

Felix Sanchez

Crop Protection

Paul Nampala

International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications

Haris Ahmad

sheraz khan

Statistics in Medicine

VICTOR MORENO

Kees Doevendans

International journal of epidemiology

Holly Schuh

Civil Engineering and Architecture

Tarek Abou El Seoud

Nibret Moges

Ancient Mesoamerica

Nicholas Dunning

ana libia clavijo

Terhemat, 0856-5949-0974 WA, Masuk Dufan

explore dufan

Materia socio-medica

Nurija Bilalovic

2016 IEEE International Symposium on Inertial Sensors and Systems

Andrei Shkel

Endocrine Practice

Mustafa Koçak

Materials Chemistry and Physics

Sheikh Manjura Hoque

H2Open Journal

Radouane El amri

JOHN EDUAR RINCON MONROY

rafael molina herrero

The Journal of Immunology

Luciano Adorini

Dr. Manju Saddi

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Advanced search

Saved to my library.

Writing a Grant Proposal for a Collaborative Study

• First Online: 12 January 2023

Cite this chapter

• Savio George Barreto 3 , 4  

361 Accesses

Funding agencies, too, have come to realize the importance of collaboration in facilitating the translation of research into practice and are increasingly laying down requirements mandating the elucidation of the plan for dissemination and translation of research as a condition for funding. This requirement from funding agencies has led to researchers now having to pursue collaborators and develop collaborations actively. The current chapter will provide the reader with an insight into what specific aspects of a collaborative grant proposal need due attention to minimize discord and disharmony and maximize research output and its translation for the betterment of the end-users, namely, the community.

The best ideas emerge when very different perspectives meet Frans Johansson

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

McIntyre D. Bridging the gap between research and practice. Camb J Educ. 2005;35(3):357–82.

Article   Google Scholar  

Haines A, Jones R. Implementing findings of research. BMJ. 1994;308(6942):1488–92.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Nystrom ME, Karltun J, Keller C, Andersson GB. Collaborative and partnership research for improvement of health and social services: researcher’s experiences from 20 projects. Health Res Policy Syst. 2018;16(1):46.

Golden-Biddle K, Reay T, Petz S, Witt C, Casebeer A, Pablo A, et al. Toward a communicative perspective of collaborating in research: the case of the researcher-decision-maker partnership. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2003;8(Suppl 2):20–5.

Dopke L, Crawley W. Strategies for increasing the efficacy of collaborative grant writing groups in preparing federal proposals. J Res Adm. 2013;44(1):36–61.

Google Scholar  

National Health and Medical Research Council. Collaborative research: a guide supporting the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research. 2020. https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/attachments/Collaborative-Research-Guide-20.pdf .

Australian Government. National Health and Medical Research Council. Research Governance Handbook: guidance for the national approach to single ethical review. 2011. https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/reports/research-governance-handbook.pdf .

Winston JRB. A suggested procedure for determining order of authorship in research publications. J Couns Dev. 1985;63:515–8.

Gaffey A. Determining and negotiating authorship. 2015. http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2015/06/determining-authorship .

Dunleavy K, Brown E. Intellectual property agreements. A university of Bristol guide for collaboration and knowledge exchange. 2018. http://www.bristol.ac.uk/media-library/sites/brigstow/documents/UoB%20IP%20Guide_Final_web%20ready%20Aug18.pdf .

Barreto SG. Editing for language: content and avoiding ambiguity in data presentation. In: Parija SC, Kate V, editors. Thesis writing for master’s and PhD program. 1st ed. Singapore: Springer Nature; 2018. p. 199–205.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Hepatopancreatobiliary and Liver Transplant Unit, Division of Surgery and Perioperative Medicine, Flinders Medical Centre, Adelaide, SA, Australia

Savio George Barreto

College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Sri Balaji Vidyapeeth University, Pondicherry, India

Subhash Chandra Parija

Department of General and Gastrointestinal surgery, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), Pondicherry, India

Vikram Kate

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Barreto, S.G. (2023). Writing a Grant Proposal for a Collaborative Study. In: Parija, S.C., Kate, V. (eds) Grant writing for medical and healthcare professionals. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-7018-4_13

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-7018-4_13

Published : 12 January 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-19-7017-7

Online ISBN : 978-981-19-7018-4

eBook Packages : Biomedical and Life Sciences Biomedical and Life Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Privacy Policy

Home » How To Write A Research Proposal – Step-by-Step [Template]

How To Write A Research Proposal – Step-by-Step [Template]

Table of Contents

How To Write a Research Proposal

Writing a Research proposal involves several steps to ensure a well-structured and comprehensive document. Here is an explanation of each step:

1. Title and Abstract

• Choose a concise and descriptive title that reflects the essence of your research.
• Write an abstract summarizing your research question, objectives, methodology, and expected outcomes. It should provide a brief overview of your proposal.

2. Introduction:

• Provide an introduction to your research topic, highlighting its significance and relevance.
• Clearly state the research problem or question you aim to address.
• Discuss the background and context of the study, including previous research in the field.

3. Research Objectives

• Outline the specific objectives or aims of your research. These objectives should be clear, achievable, and aligned with the research problem.

4. Literature Review:

• Conduct a comprehensive review of relevant literature and studies related to your research topic.
• Summarize key findings, identify gaps, and highlight how your research will contribute to the existing knowledge.

5. Methodology:

• Describe the research design and methodology you plan to employ to address your research objectives.
• Explain the data collection methods, instruments, and analysis techniques you will use.
• Justify why the chosen methods are appropriate and suitable for your research.

6. Timeline:

• Create a timeline or schedule that outlines the major milestones and activities of your research project.
• Break down the research process into smaller tasks and estimate the time required for each task.

7. Resources:

• Identify the resources needed for your research, such as access to specific databases, equipment, or funding.
• Explain how you will acquire or utilize these resources to carry out your research effectively.

8. Ethical Considerations:

• Discuss any ethical issues that may arise during your research and explain how you plan to address them.
• If your research involves human subjects, explain how you will ensure their informed consent and privacy.

9. Expected Outcomes and Significance:

• Clearly state the expected outcomes or results of your research.
• Highlight the potential impact and significance of your research in advancing knowledge or addressing practical issues.

10. References:

• Provide a list of all the references cited in your proposal, following a consistent citation style (e.g., APA, MLA).

11. Appendices:

• Include any additional supporting materials, such as survey questionnaires, interview guides, or data analysis plans.

Research Proposal Format

The format of a research proposal may vary depending on the specific requirements of the institution or funding agency. However, the following is a commonly used format for a research proposal:

1. Title Page:

• Include the title of your research proposal, your name, your affiliation or institution, and the date.

2. Abstract:

• Provide a brief summary of your research proposal, highlighting the research problem, objectives, methodology, and expected outcomes.

3. Introduction:

• Introduce the research topic and provide background information.
• State the research problem or question you aim to address.
• Explain the significance and relevance of the research.
• Review relevant literature and studies related to your research topic.
• Summarize key findings and identify gaps in the existing knowledge.
• Explain how your research will contribute to filling those gaps.

5. Research Objectives:

• Clearly state the specific objectives or aims of your research.
• Ensure that the objectives are clear, focused, and aligned with the research problem.

6. Methodology:

• Describe the research design and methodology you plan to use.
• Explain the data collection methods, instruments, and analysis techniques.
• Justify why the chosen methods are appropriate for your research.

7. Timeline:

8. Resources:

• Explain how you will acquire or utilize these resources effectively.

9. Ethical Considerations:

• If applicable, explain how you will ensure informed consent and protect the privacy of research participants.

10. Expected Outcomes and Significance:

11. References:

12. Appendices:

Research Proposal Template

Here’s a template for a research proposal:

1. Introduction:

2. Literature Review:

3. Research Objectives:

4. Methodology:

5. Timeline:

6. Resources:

7. Ethical Considerations:

8. Expected Outcomes and Significance:

9. References:

10. Appendices:

Research Proposal Sample

Title: The Impact of Online Education on Student Learning Outcomes: A Comparative Study

1. Introduction

Online education has gained significant prominence in recent years, especially due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This research proposal aims to investigate the impact of online education on student learning outcomes by comparing them with traditional face-to-face instruction. The study will explore various aspects of online education, such as instructional methods, student engagement, and academic performance, to provide insights into the effectiveness of online learning.

2. Objectives

The main objectives of this research are as follows:

• To compare student learning outcomes between online and traditional face-to-face education.
• To examine the factors influencing student engagement in online learning environments.
• To assess the effectiveness of different instructional methods employed in online education.
• To identify challenges and opportunities associated with online education and suggest recommendations for improvement.

3. Methodology

3.1 Study Design

This research will utilize a mixed-methods approach to gather both quantitative and qualitative data. The study will include the following components:

3.2 Participants

The research will involve undergraduate students from two universities, one offering online education and the other providing face-to-face instruction. A total of 500 students (250 from each university) will be selected randomly to participate in the study.

3.3 Data Collection

The research will employ the following data collection methods:

• Quantitative: Pre- and post-assessments will be conducted to measure students’ learning outcomes. Data on student demographics and academic performance will also be collected from university records.
• Qualitative: Focus group discussions and individual interviews will be conducted with students to gather their perceptions and experiences regarding online education.

3.4 Data Analysis

Quantitative data will be analyzed using statistical software, employing descriptive statistics, t-tests, and regression analysis. Qualitative data will be transcribed, coded, and analyzed thematically to identify recurring patterns and themes.

4. Ethical Considerations

The study will adhere to ethical guidelines, ensuring the privacy and confidentiality of participants. Informed consent will be obtained, and participants will have the right to withdraw from the study at any time.

5. Significance and Expected Outcomes

This research will contribute to the existing literature by providing empirical evidence on the impact of online education on student learning outcomes. The findings will help educational institutions and policymakers make informed decisions about incorporating online learning methods and improving the quality of online education. Moreover, the study will identify potential challenges and opportunities related to online education and offer recommendations for enhancing student engagement and overall learning outcomes.

6. Timeline

The proposed research will be conducted over a period of 12 months, including data collection, analysis, and report writing.

The estimated budget for this research includes expenses related to data collection, software licenses, participant compensation, and research assistance. A detailed budget breakdown will be provided in the final research plan.

8. Conclusion

This research proposal aims to investigate the impact of online education on student learning outcomes through a comparative study with traditional face-to-face instruction. By exploring various dimensions of online education, this research will provide valuable insights into the effectiveness and challenges associated with online learning. The findings will contribute to the ongoing discourse on educational practices and help shape future strategies for maximizing student learning outcomes in online education settings.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

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

Grant Proposal – Example, Template and Guide

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

Business Proposal – Templates, Examples and Guide

Proposal – Types, Examples, and Writing Guide

How to choose an Appropriate Method for Research?

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.

Accelerating Research Translation (ART)

View guidelines, important information for proposers.

All proposals must be submitted in accordance with the requirements specified in this funding opportunity and in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) that is in effect for the relevant due date to which the proposal is being submitted. It is the responsibility of the proposer to ensure that the proposal meets these requirements. Submitting a proposal prior to a specified deadline does not negate this requirement.

Supports institutions of higher education that seek to build capacity and infrastructure for translation of fundamental academic research into tangible solutions that benefit the public.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) seeks to increase the scale and pace of advancing discoveries made while conducting academic research into tangible solutions that benefit the public. This is the primary aim of the “Accelerating Research Translation” (ART) program. Specifically, the primary goals of this program are to build capacity and infrastructure for translational research at U.S. Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs) and to enhance their role in regional innovation ecosystems. In addition, this program seeks to effectively train graduate students and postdoctoral researchers in translational research, benefiting them across a range of career options.

A particular intent of ART is to support IHEs that want to build the necessary infrastructure to boost the overall institutional capacity to accelerate the pace and scale of translation of fundamental research outcomes into practice by supporting the development of a range of activities essential for this activity. The ART program is not intended to support IHEs that already have high levels of translational research activity as part of their R&D enterprise (as noted by their number of invention disclosures, patents issued, start-ups, licenses/options, revenue from royalties, the overall volume of industry-funded research, broad adoption of research outputs by communities or constituents, etc.). Such institutions are encouraged to become part of the ART network as valuable collaborators, providing expertise in building the necessary infrastructure for translational research at other IHEs responding to this solicitation. The ART program is also not intended as a resource for conducting additional fundamental research. See sections II and VI of this solicitation for additional information.

This solicitation seeks proposals that enable IHE-based teams to propose a blend of: (1) activities that will help build and/or strengthen the institutional infrastructure to sustainably grow the institutional capacity for research translation in the short and long terms; (2) educational/training opportunities, especially for graduate students and postdoctoral researchers, to become entrepreneurs and/or seek use-inspired and/or translational research-oriented careers in the public and/or private sectors; and (3) specific, translational research activities that offer immediate opportunities for transition to practice to create economic and/or societal impact. The funded teams will form a nationwide network of ‘ART Ambassadors’ who will champion the cause of translational research.

Updates and announcements

Nsf announces first-ever accelerating research translation awards to empower academic institutions, review for the nsf accelerating research translation (art) program, program contacts.

Please address any program-related inquiries to [email protected]. 

Program events

• March 30, 2023 - Office Hours: Accelerating Research Translation (ART)
• March 29, 2023 - Office Hours: Accelerating Research Translation (ART)
• March 24, 2023 - Office Hours: Accelerating Research Translation (ART)
• March 23, 2023 - Office Hours: Accelerating Research Translation (ART)
• March 22, 2023 - Office Hours: Accelerating Research Translation (ART)
• March 21, 2023 - Office Hours: Accelerating Research Translation (ART)
• March 16, 2023 - Webinar: Accelerating Research Translation (ART) Overview and…
• February 21, 2023 - Accelerating Research Translation (ART) Introduction Webinar

Awards made through this program

Organization(s).

• Directorate for Technology, Innovation and Partnerships (TIP)
• Division of Innovation and Technology Ecosystems (TIP/ITE)
• Division of Translational Impacts (TIP/TI)
• Directorate for Biological Sciences (BIO)
• Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE)
• Directorate for Engineering (ENG)
• Directorate for Geosciences (GEO)
• Office of Integrative Activities (OD/OIA)
• Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MPS)
• Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (SBE)
• Directorate for STEM Education (EDU)

How Google Translate squeezes deep learning onto a phone

July 29, 2015

Posted by Otavio Good, Software Engineer, Google Translate

• Machine Intelligence

Other posts of interest

May 13, 2024

• Machine Intelligence ·
• Natural Language Processing ·
• Security, Privacy and Abuse Prevention

May 1, 2024

• Algorithms & Theory ·

April 23, 2024

• Software Systems & Engineering