My earlier question was to find out whether hypotheses should be part of a research proposal. I asked this question because, when I study the structure of empirical articles, I realize hypotheses are developed right after literature review because they are based on the literature. However, in many proposals, such a detailed literature review section is missing as such, setting hypotheses in proposals appears like they are hanging. My real concern is the sequence of the parts of a proposal. Does it mean, proposals must have a section on a literature review? I would be happy to have your thoughts on this question. Thank you.
Demonstrating how ideas have been synthesised by mentioning at least 2 key sources would seem the best scholarly approach. That way, positioning your idea is made clear from the outset. If an idea is totally new, its newness still needs contextualising - new in relation to what? If the approach is new, use existing scholarship to demonstrate how; if the topic and approach are both new, demonstrate their uniqueness by comparing and contrasting it to what has been done previously. In my opinion, a proposal or abstract should follow the same logic as any longer piece of writing - introduce the topic, say where it fits within current scholarship, describe the approach and why, describe the findings, then conclude with whether the results of the research prove or refute the thesis. Obviously a proposal differs somewhat in that you cannot mention outcomes before the research has been completed, but it is possible to say what you're hoping to discover.
There should be a hypothesis for research, so that systematic work can be done.@
- Badges
- Science topic