This guide provides a comprehensive overview of dissertation proposal requirements based on the templates and guidelines available in the project.
Reference Templates Location:
requirements/proposal/
This Guide Location:
notebook/proposal_requirements_guide.rmd
Available reference documents:
This guide will help you:
Important: This guide covers the proposal phase only—the stage where you seek committee approval to conduct your research. The full dissertation comes after proposal approval.
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Chapter 2: Comprehensive Literature Review
Chapters 3-N: Published/Submitted Papers
Final Chapter: Integration and Synthesis
Conclusions and Future DirectionsChapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Chapter 3: Methodology
Chapter 4: Results
Chapter 5: Discussion and ConclusionsRequirements:
Example Structure:
Primary Research Question:
- Main question driving the research
Secondary Research Questions:
- Supporting questions
- Specific aspects of primary question
- Measurable outcomesRequired Elements:
Quality Standards:
Must Include:
Types of Contributions:
Background and Context
Research Objectives
Significance
Organization
Theoretical Framework
Empirical Research Review
Synthesis and Gaps
Required Components:
Acceptable Publication Venues:
Quality Standards:
Synthesis of Findings
Addressing Research Questions
Theoretical and Practical Implications
Limitations
Future Research Directions
Background
Problem Statement
Research Questions/Hypotheses
Research Question 1: [Clear, specific question]
Hypothesis 1a: [Testable hypothesis]
Hypothesis 1b: [Testable hypothesis]
Research Question 2: [Clear, specific question]
Hypothesis 2a: [Testable hypothesis]Significance and Contribution
Proposed Dissertation Organization
Option A: Thematic Organization
Option B: Theoretical Organization
Option C: Methodological Organization
Not just summary - must include:
Must include visual representation:
[Independent Variables] → [Mediating Variables] → [Dependent Variables]
↓
[Moderating Variables]Required Elements:
Required Details:
Must Specify:
Required Documentation:
Organization:
Required Elements:
Note: For proposal, this chapter is anticipated/expected results
Required Sections for Proposal:
Note: For the proposal, this outlines your planned discussion approach, not actual discussion of results.
Your proposal will be evaluated using a formal rubric covering 11 dimensions across two categories:
Scoring Scale: Each dimension is scored 1-10 across four scholarship levels:
To Pass: You must demonstrate “Developed Scholarship” or better (6+ points) in ALL dimensions.
| Score Level | Criteria |
|---|---|
| Exemplary (9-10) | Questions are well-developed and significant to the field. Research has potential to address critical issues and make a significant contribution. |
| Developed (6-8) | Questions are well-developed and justified by existing literature. Potential contribution is well-documented. |
| Developing (3-5) | Questions are well-developed, but significance to the field is not clear. Clear justification for the research is missing. |
| Emerging (1-2) | Research questions are not well developed. Not clear what makes the research interesting or important. |
| Score Level | Criteria |
|---|---|
| Exemplary (9-10) | Thorough review that integrates existing literature in a new and insightful way. Identifies gaps in the literature and compellingly argues how current research will address that gap. Citations are robust and consistently formatted. |
| Developed (6-8) | Thorough review that draws connections among perspectives and integrates the literature in a meaningful way. Draws clear relationship between existing literature and research question. Demonstrates clear mastery of the field. Citations are sufficient and consistently formatted. |
| Developing (3-5) | Provides general discussion of previous findings. However, limited viewpoints are represented. Work is mostly summarized, and weak connections are made to the research question. Missing clear understanding of key concepts. Citations are lacking and inconsistently formatted. |
| Emerging (1-2) | Literature review does not include important references to the subject matter. No connections are made to the research question. Literature review primarily summarizes work at a surface level. Citations are insufficient and improperly formatted. |
| Score Level | Criteria |
|---|---|
| Exemplary (9-10) | Creative method and design are presented with clear explanation of methodological choices. Alternative means of analysis are considered and discussed. |
| Developed (6-8) | Robust method and design sufficient to address research questions. Connection between method and analyses understood and developed. Multiple methods of analysis are considered. |
| Developing (3-5) | Exhibits basic understanding of research method and design. Identifies limitations of approach – but not fully addressed. Connection between method and data analysis not clearly developed. |
| Emerging (1-2) | Methods do not adequately address the questions. Does not consider potential biases/limitations of method. |
| Score Level | Criteria |
|---|---|
| Exemplary (9-10) | Creative measurement approach with clear explanation of measurement choices. Alternative means of measurement are considered and discussed. |
| Developed (6-8) | Creative measurement approach to address limitations of existing approaches or measurements. Connection between measurement and research questions understood. |
| Developing (3-5) | Exhibits basic understanding of measurement or feature engineering. Identifies limitations of measurement – but not fully addressed. |
| Emerging (1-2) | Methods section does not adequately address measurement or feature engineering. Does not consider potential biases/limitations of measurement. |
| Score Level | Criteria |
|---|---|
| Exemplary (9-10) | Writing is fluid, precise, and clear. Tone is professional and scholarly. Voice is authoritative and conveys clear understanding. Formatting enhances flow and readability. |
| Developed (6-8) | Writing is fluid, precise, and clear. Tone is professional and scholarly. Adequate transitions between ideas but lacks clear authoritative voice. Formatting is clear and consistent. |
| Developing (3-5) | Writing is organized and clear. May lack adequate transitions and scientific precision. Tone is informal and lacking depth. Formatting is consistent but difficult to read. |
| Emerging (1-2) | Heavy reliance on jargon. Difficult to read. Terms not sufficiently defined. Formatting is inconsistent and unreadable. |
| Score Level | Criteria |
|---|---|
| Exemplary (9-10) | Specific ethical concerns are addressed and resolved. |
| Developed (6-8) | General ethical issues (fairness, risks/benefits) are discussed/considered. |
| Developing (3-5) | Limited consideration of basic ethical issues. |
| Emerging (1-2) | Ethical issues not considered. |
| Score Level | Criteria |
|---|---|
| Exemplary (9-10) | Provides clear plan for completing dissertation in a timely manner. Plan addresses resources and skills needed along with alternative solutions. |
| Developed (6-8) | Provides general plan for dissertation completion. Plan addresses resources and skills needed. |
| Developing (3-5) | Needs improvement on a plan to complete the dissertation. Plan does not consider the resources or skills needed for completion. |
| Emerging (1-2) | Does not provide a plan for completing the dissertation. |
| Score Level | Criteria |
|---|---|
| Exemplary (9-10) | Introduction provides clear and concise organization. Main purpose of research is identified and well argued. Research questions are clear. Contributions to the field are discussed. Method is laid out with feasible plan for completion. |
| Developed (6-8) | Main points are explained and provide sufficient detail. Research questions are clear. Method is clear with plan for execution. |
| Developing (3-5) | Introduction outlines the main issues. Some details are missing. Methods are generally clear. |
| Emerging (1-2) | Introduction is underdeveloped. Purpose is unclear. Main sections missing critical information. |
| Score Level | Criteria |
|---|---|
| Exemplary (9-10) | Excellent organization. Introduction outlines full presentation. Main points lead directly from one to the other. Clear summary and conclusions. |
| Developed (6-8) | Good organization. Introduction provides an overview of presentation. Transitions are adequate. |
| Developing (3-5) | Overall organization is appropriate. Some abrupt content changes are noted. |
| Emerging (1-2) | Difficult to follow. Moves back and forth through main ideas. |
| Score Level | Criteria |
|---|---|
| Exemplary (9-10) | Slides are creative and provide balance between words and illustrations. Models are well diagrammed. Designed to highlight main points as well as subtle issues of interest. |
| Developed (6-8) | Slides are well constructed and informative. Convey appropriate amount of information. Easy to read and follow main points. |
| Developing (3-5) | Slides are organized and present relevant information. Too many words on most slides. Little effort to make them engaging. |
| Emerging (1-2) | Individual slides do not follow an overall plan. Numerous errors and formatting issues are evident. |
Key PPT Guidelines:
| Score Level | Criteria |
|---|---|
| Exemplary (9-10) | Questions are answered completely with full explanations provided for all answers. Alternatives are fully considered and addressed. Exhibits flexibility when presented options. |
| Developed (6-8) | Questions are understood and answered completely. Explanations are provided for most answers. Alternative possibilities are considered. |
| Developing (3-5) | Generally understands the questions and provides basic answers. Does not consider alternatives. Some parts of questions are not addressed. |
| Emerging (1-2) | Questions are poorly understood. Answers are insufficient. |
Criteria: All committee members agree student demonstrates “Developed Scholarship” or better (6+ points) in ALL 11 rubric dimensions.
Outcome: - Proposal approved - May require minor revisions - Can proceed with dissertation research
Criteria: Majority of committee members indicate “Developing Scholarship” (3-5 points) in one or more dimensions.
Outcome: - Conditional approval - Specific revisions required - Revisions must be reviewed and approved by committee - Proposal milestone approved only after revisions complete
Criteria: Majority of committee members indicate “Emerging Scholarship” (1-2 points) in several dimensions.
Outcome: - Proposal not approved - Major revisions required - May need to resubmit entire proposal - May need to redo oral defense
Before submitting your proposal, evaluate yourself on each dimension:
Written Proposal: - [ ] Research questions are significant and well-justified (Score 6+?) - [ ] Literature review integrates and critiques (not just summarizes) (Score 6+?) - [ ] Methodology is detailed, appropriate, and considers alternatives (Score 6+?) - [ ] Measurement approach is clear and limitations addressed (Score 6+?) - [ ] Writing is scholarly, clear, and authoritative (Score 6+?) - [ ] Ethical concerns are discussed and addressed (Score 6+?) - [ ] Feasibility plan includes resources and timeline (Score 6+?)
Oral Presentation: - [ ] Content covers all key points with clear organization (Score 6+?) - [ ] Organization flows logically with smooth transitions (Score 6+?) - [ ] Slides are well-designed, balanced, and engaging (Score 6+?) - [ ] Can answer questions completely and consider alternatives (Score 6+?)
If any item is below 6 points, revise before submission!
Typical Process:
Required Content:
Types of Questions to Expect:
Clarification Questions: - “Can you explain how you will measure X?” - “What do you mean by Y?”
Challenge Questions: - “Why did you choose this approach over Z?” - “How will you address [potential issue]?”
Feasibility Questions: - “Is this timeline realistic?” - “Do you have access to needed resources?”
Extension Questions: - “Have you considered [alternative approach]?” - “What if you find [unexpected result]?”
Most common outcome
Rare outcome
Rehearsal Strategy:
# Create presentation timeline
timeline <- data.frame(
Section = c("Introduction", "Literature", "Methodology", "Contributions"),
Minutes = c(5, 7, 12, 4),
Slides = c(3, 4, 8, 3)
)
timeline$Cumulative_Time <- cumsum(timeline$Minutes)
print(timeline)Common Question Categories:
| Category | Example Questions | Preparation Strategy |
|---|---|---|
| Methodology | Why this design? | Know alternatives and tradeoffs |
| Literature | Did you consider [X]? | Comprehensive literature review |
| Feasibility | Can you complete this? | Realistic timeline and resources |
| Contribution | What’s novel here? | Clear articulation of gap |
| Analysis | How will you analyze? | Detailed analysis plan |
Checklist:
Do:
Don’t:
Effective Response Pattern:
Handling Difficult Questions:
Font: Times New Roman, 12pt
Line Spacing: Double-spaced (text)
Margins: 1 inch (all sides)
Page Numbers: Bottom center or top right
Headers: As required by style guideTypically APA 7th Edition
In-text citations:
Single author: (Smith, 2024)
Two authors: (Smith & Jones, 2024)
Three or more: (Smith et al., 2024)
Multiple sources: (Jones, 2023; Smith, 2024)Reference format:
Journal article:
Author, A. A., & Author, B. B. (Year). Title of article.
Journal Name, volume(issue), pages. https://doi.org/xxxxx
Book:
Author, A. A. (Year). Title of book. Publisher.Requirements:
Example table format:
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables
Variable M SD Min Max
─────────────────────────────────────────
Age 35.2 8.7 22 65
Experience 8.5 5.2 1 30
Satisfaction 4.2 0.8 1 5
─────────────────────────────────────────
Note. N = 250. M = mean; SD = standard deviation.Context: This section covers the timeline for the entire dissertation process to help you understand where the proposal fits in the overall journey.
Month 1-2: Literature review and research questions
Month 3-4: Methodology development
Month 5: Writing and revisions
Month 6: Defense preparation and defenseIf human subjects research:
- Prepare IRB application
- Submit for review
- Address reviewer comments
- Obtain approval
Note: This phase begins AFTER your proposal is approved.Varies by design:
- Surveys: 1-3 months
- Experiments: 3-6 months
- Longitudinal: 6-12+ months
- Secondary data: 1-2 months (access and preparation)Month 1-3: Data cleaning and preliminary analysis
Month 4-6: Full analysis and results writing
Month 7-9: Discussion and conclusions
Month 10-12: Revisions and committee reviewMonth 1-2: Committee review and feedback
Month 3: Defense preparation
Month 4: Defense and final revisions# Create a simple timeline visualization
library(ggplot2)
timeline <- data.frame(
Phase = c("Proposal", "IRB", "Data Collection",
"Analysis", "Writing", "Defense"),
Start = c(1, 7, 10, 16, 20, 30),
Duration = c(6, 3, 6, 4, 10, 3)
)
timeline$End <- timeline$Start + timeline$Duration
ggplot(timeline, aes(x = Start, xend = End, y = Phase, yend = Phase)) +
geom_segment(size = 10, color = "steelblue") +
labs(title = "Dissertation Timeline",
x = "Months from Start",
y = "Phase") +
theme_minimal()Key Milestones (Full Dissertation Process):
PROPOSAL PHASE (Current Focus):
POST-PROPOSAL PHASE (After Approval):
Problem:
"I will study all factors affecting organizational success"Solution:
"I will examine how leadership style and organizational culture
influence employee engagement in technology startups"Problem:
"How do things work in organizations?"Solution:
"How does transformational leadership impact employee innovation
behavior, and is this relationship mediated by psychological safety?"Problem: - 20 sources, mostly textbooks - No recent publications - Missing key theorists
Solution: - 60-80 peer-reviewed sources - Majority from last 5 years - Comprehensive theory coverage
Problem: - “I’ll collect some surveys” - No power analysis - Unclear sampling strategy
Solution: - Detailed procedures - Sample size justified (N = 250, power = .80, α = .05) - Clear recruitment plan
Problem:
Month 1: Collect data from 500 participants
Month 2: Analyze and write
Month 3: DefendSolution:
Months 1-3: Pilot test and refine instruments
Months 4-6: Data collection (allowing for delays)
Months 7-8: Analysis
Months 9-12: Writing and revisionsProblem: - “Others have studied this” - Can’t articulate what’s new
Solution: - “This extends [Theory X] to [new context]” - “First study to examine [specific relationship]” - “Addresses methodological limitation in prior work”
Problem: - Causal question with correlational design - Exploratory question with confirmatory approach
Solution: - Align design with questions - Justify design choice - Acknowledge limitations
Problem: - Submit same draft repeatedly - Don’t address comments - Defensive responses
Solution: - Carefully review all feedback - Make requested changes - Explain reasoning for decisions
Problem: - Grammatical errors throughout - Unclear sentences - Disorganized structure
Solution: - Multiple revisions - Peer review - Writing center consultation - Professional editing (if allowed)
Problem: - Reading from slides - Can’t answer basic questions - Unfamiliar with recent literature
Solution: - Practice presentation 5+ times - Anticipate questions - Re-read key literature before defense
Questions They Ask:
How to Demonstrate:
Questions They Ask:
How to Demonstrate:
Questions They Ask:
How to Demonstrate:
Questions They Ask:
How to Demonstrate:
Your chair is your primary advisor
Responsibilities:
Best Practices:
Each brings expertise
Best Practices:
When committee members disagree:
Writing Center
- Proposal review
- Writing workshops
- One-on-one consultations
Statistical Consulting
- Methodology design
- Power analysis
- Analysis planning
Library Services
- Literature search training
- Citation management
- Research data managementThe dissertation proposal is:
The proposal is not:
“The proposal doesn’t have to be perfect. It has to be approved.”
- Adapted for proposal milestone
Research Question [Number]: [Clear, focused question]
Independent Variable(s): [What you're manipulating/examining]
Dependent Variable(s): [What you're measuring]
Moderator(s): [Conditions that change the relationship]
Mediator(s): [Variables that explain the relationship]
Hypothesis [Number.Letter]: [Specific, testable prediction]
Rationale: [Theory or literature supporting this hypothesis]I. Introduction
A. Overview of topic
B. Search strategy
C. Organization of review
II. Theoretical Framework
A. Theory 1
1. Core concepts
2. Application to topic
B. Theory 2
1. Core concepts
2. Application to topic
C. Synthesis
III. Empirical Research
A. Theme 1
1. Key studies
2. Findings
3. Limitations
B. Theme 2
[same structure]
C. Theme 3
[same structure]
IV. Research Gaps and Study Rationale
A. Identified gaps
B. How current study addresses gaps
C. Expected contributions
V. Conclusion
A. Summary
B. Transition to methodologySlide 1: Title
- Title, your name, date, committee
Slide 2-3: Introduction
- Problem statement
- Why it matters
- Research questions
Slide 4-6: Literature Review
- Theoretical framework diagram
- Key findings from literature
- Research gaps
Slide 7-12: Methodology
- Research design
- Participants/sample
- Procedures
- Data collection
- Analysis plan
- Timeline
Slide 13-14: Expected Contributions
- Theoretical contributions
- Practical implications
- Significance
Slide 15: Questions
- Thank committee
- Open for questionsDissertation Support:
Templates Location:
requirements/proposal/
This Guide Location:
notebook/proposal_requirements_guide.rmd
University Handbook:
Style Guides:
Weak:
How does leadership affect employees?Strong:
How does servant leadership influence employee organizational
citizenship behavior, and is this relationship mediated by
organizational trust and moderated by power distance orientation?Weak:
I will use surveys because they are convenient.Strong:
A cross-sectional survey design is appropriate for this study
because it allows for: (a) examination of relationships between
variables (Creswell, 2018), (b) collection of data from a large,
geographically dispersed sample (Fowler, 2014), and (c) cost-
effective data collection given resource constraints (Dillman
et al., 2014). The cross-sectional design is justified as the
research questions focus on relationships rather than causal
effects, and the theoretical model does not require temporal
precedence (Maxwell & Loomis, 2003).Recommended Actions:
Format Selection (For Your Proposal):
Proposal Development:
Proposal Defense Preparation:
Success Factors (For Proposal Approval):
You are capable of completing this PROPOSAL milestone!
Thousands of students successfully defend their dissertation proposals each year. With:
You will join them in getting proposal approval!
Remember: This is just the first major milestone. Once your proposal is approved, you’ll move forward to conduct your actual research and complete your dissertation.
Contact your dissertation advisor to discuss:
Good luck with your dissertation proposal development and defense!