WRITING A THESIS PROPOSAL

(Henrike Korner, 1997 Learning Assistance entre, T!e "ni#ersit$ o% S$&ne$'

Length, scope, depth and originality of the thesis depend on the degree which it is for. The
following table presents an overview of the general expectations of a thesis at Honours,
Masters and PhD level.
HONO"RS (ASTERS (INOR
THESIS
(ASTERS
(A)OR THESIS
PH*
D!"#"T"$# % substantial
pro&ect which
de'onstrates an
understanding of
the
research process
and
scholarly
conventions of the
discipline
( %n ordered, critical
exposition of
)nowledge gained
through students
own
e*ort+
( de'onstrate sound
understanding of
research process
'ar)s possession of
advanced )nowledge
in a specialist ,eld
(candidate has
conducted a
substantial piece of
research+
( has been conceived,
conducted and
reported
by the candidate
under
acade'ic
supervision
in an acade'ic
environ'ent for a
prescribed period
-.$P -i'ilar to Masters
'inor thesis
( not necessarily new
line
of en/uiry or
contribution to
)nowledge, but still0
locate topic in context
of
critical review+
( de'onstrate
)nowledge
of appropriate
'ethodology
not necessarily new line
of en/uiry, but shows
that student has
'astered research and
synthesising s)ills in
producing a contribution
to )nowledge
si'ilar to Masters
1esearch degree, but
deeper, 'ore
co'prehensive
treat'ent of sub&ect
1
-.H$L%1-H"P de'onstrate ability to
present study in a
disciplined way in
scholarly conventions
of the discipline
( shows evidence of
independent
investigation
and testing of
hypotheses+
( ability to 'a)e critical
use
of published wor)+
( appreciation of
relationship of topic to
wider ,eld of
)nowledge+
( co'petence in
independent wor)+
- understanding of
- approaches and
techni/ues
appropriate to
research /uestion+
- should draw
generalisations or
further
hypotheses for testing
( de'onstrates
authority in
candidates
,eld and shows
evidence of
)nowledge
in relevant cognate
,eld+
( 'astery of
appropriate
'ethodological
techni/ues and
awareness of
li'itations+
( 'a)es a distinct
contribution to
)nowledge+
( originality of
approach
or interpretation+
( ability to
co''unicate
research ,ndings
e*ectively in
professional and
international
contexts+
( research
apprenticeship
is co'plete and
holder
is ad'itted to the
co''unity of
scholars
in the discipline
L#2TH 3aries by
depart'ent+
depends on
weighting against
coursewor)
45,555 65,555 words,
depends on weighting
against
coursewor)
varies by faculty+ 'ax.
75,555 words
'ax. 455,555
8adapted fro' Powels, 499:06:(67;
*i+erences Accor&ing To *isci,-ines
There are also considerable di*erences between the sciences, the hu'anities and the social
sciences as far as students range of topic choice, students degree of freedo' in choosing
speci,c research /uestions, and the overall ti'ing of the research pro&ect is concerned. The
following table provides an overview of disciplinary in<uences on topic selection.
-."#.- H=M%#"T"- -$."%L -."#.-> %PPL"D
P1$!--"$#%L
!"LD-
1%#2 restricted range of choice+ suitable
topics 'ade available by
depart'ent according to sta*
expertise, research interest and
research funding
students usually re/uired to
initiate own topics+ ta)e into
account supervisors interests
and availability of data
wide range of practices0 fro'
close direction of science
'odel to deliberate absence of
direction of the hu'anities
'odel
D21 $!
!1D$M
students 'ay have 'ore
freedo' on deciding research
/uestion, but often close direction
by supervisor
supervisor reluctant to
interfere in topic choice,
theoretical perspective, 'ethod,
speci,c research /uestion
topics and research /uestions
often derived fro' ,eld of
students professional practice
2="D%#. research /uestion decided early+ supervisor guides student in identi,cation of speci,c
2
T"M"#2 schedules, ti'elines, deadlines are
i'portant
understanding how the chosen
theoretical fra'ewor) is
situated against existing
theoretical develop'ent in the
,eld or in related ,elds
research /uestion 'ay ta)e
considerable ti'e as students
re/uire a good deal of
disciplinary and
'ethodological grounding
before they are able to
for'ulate speci,c research
/uestions
Pro,osa- Hea&ings.
/io-og$ (P!*' Ant!ro,o-og$
(P!*'
Po-it0 Science (P!*' E&1cation ((E&'
%i'
4. to describe
6. to test theory ...
8?hy is research
i'portant ( show
gaps;
Proble' ". The proble'
4.4 @ac)ground
4.6 "ntroduction
4.A Purpose of study
4.: Hypotheses
4.7 De,nitions
4.B Deli'itations and
Li'itations
@ac)ground Literature review
8short;
-ubproble's 8C
/uestions;
6. Theoretical fra'ewor)
and lit, review
6.4 DD
6.6 DD.
%dditional /uestions Method Hypotheses 8:; A. Methodology
A.4
A.6
Theory Map Deli'itations :. %pplication of ,ndings
Ti'etable @ibliography De,nitions of ter's 7. .onclusion
Methodology 1eferences
@asic reading list
Length0 B pages Proposal0 E pages
@ibliography0 49
pages
Length0 9 pages Length0 49 pages
E2AL"ATION O3 THE PROPOSAL
The following list shows the criteria that co''ittees and exa'iners loo) for in proposals
and ,nished theses. "t would be useful to )eep those criteria in 'ind as you are writing your
proposal and your thesis to focus on the relevant criteria 8The ite's 'ar)ed F are used to
evaluate the ,nal thesis, not proposals.;
HARATERISTIS /EING E2AL"ATE*
". Title is clear and concise.
6. Proble' is signi,cant and clearly stated.
A. Li'itations and deli'itations of the study are stated.
:. Deli'itations are well de,ned and appropriate to solutions of the proble'.
7. %ssu'ptions are clearly stated.
B. %ssu'ptions are tenable.
C. The research pro&ected by the proposal does not violate hu'an rights or con,dence.
3
E. "'portant ite's are well de,ned.
9. -peci,c /uestions to be studied are clearly stated.
45. Hypotheses, ele'ents, or research /uestions are clearly stated.
44 Hypotheses, ele'ents, or research /uestions are testable, discoverable or answerable.
46. Hypotheses, ele'ents, or research /uestions derive fro' the review of the literature.
4A. 1elationship of study to previous research is clear.
4:. 1eview of literature is eGciently su''arised.
47. Procedures are described in detail.
4B. Procedures are appropriate for the solution of the proble'.
4C. Population and sa'ple are clearly described.
4E. Method of sa'pling is appropriate.
49. 3ariables have been controlled.
65. Data gathering 'ethods are described
64. Data gathering 'ethods are appropriate to solution of the proble'.
66. 3alidity and reliability of data gathering are explained.
6A. %ppropriate 'ethods are used to analyse data.
6:. -entence structure and punctuation are correct.
67. Mini'u' of typographical errors.
6B. -pelling and gra''ar are correct.
6C. Material is clearly written.
6E. Tone is unbiased and i'partial.
69. $verall rating of creativity and signi,cance of the proble'.
A5. F Tables and ,gures are used e*ectively.
A4. F 1esults of analysis are presented clearly.
A6. F Ma&or ,ndings are discussed clearly and related to previous research.
AA. F "'portance of ,ndings is explained.
A:. FThe relationship between the research and the ,ndings is de'onstrated with tight, logical
reasoning.
A7. F .onclusions are clearly stated.
AB. F .onclusions are based on the results.
AC. F2eneralisations are con,r'ed.
AE. FLi'itations and wea)nesses of study is discussed.
A9. F "'plications of ,ndings for the ,eld are discussed.
:5 .F -uggestions for further research are cited.
:4. F $verall rating of the conduct of the study and the ,nal docu'ent.
8Mauch and @irch, 49E9094(9A;
F#ot evaluated in proposal but in ,nished thesis only.
4