The formulation of a research proposal is a process.

Discuss this statement and analyse the key

stages of this process. Use examples of research from your subject area or area of interest to illustrate
your arguments.

Introduction
When formulating a research proposal, most scholars agree with Robsons (2011) assertion that there
is no consensus, nor indeed a universal formula, concerning the process(es) involved. Accordingly,
this paper argues that formulating a research proposal is not a linear process, but represents a more
untidy and (re)iterative procedure, contingent upon the context of the research and researcher (Punch
2006). With this in mind, and the limited scope of this paper to discuss these issues in their entirety,
subject matter concerns the authors grant to research occidentalism in Southeast Asia. The paper
comprises three main sections, representing three fundaments of the design process: formulating the
research question; grounding research within existing theory and literature; finally, choosing
appropriate methods. It concludes by reflecting upon the issues discussed and what this reveals about
doing research.
Formulating a research question
It is well established that research questions are fundamental to the structure of the research proposal.
They act as a referral point and reminder of the problems needing to be solved. Contrary to perceiving
this process as one needing to be overcome and then left alone, one should constantly verify each
stage of the design against the research question, ensuring coherence and consistency throughout the
research proposal (Punch 2006). This process of referral prevents, or at least limits, confusion which
could arise from the vast amount of questions being asked (Miles and Huberman 1994). For instance,
this authors Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) 1+3 proposal asked: What is the
relevance of the idea of the West in contemporary political discourse in Malaysia and Singapore?
Referral back to this question reminded the researcher of the qualitative, discursive mode of analysis
reinforcing the idea that sometimes, it is merely a question of logic (Punch 2006).
The formulation of the research question is itself a variable process. Researchers either
operate from the specific to the general (inductive) or from the general to the specific (deductive).
This authors research proposal employed a deductive approach, involving constant trimming down
(Punch 2006) of the subject matter, so as to foster a manageable and feasible project (see Figure 1).
There are clear, logical links between the different levels of abstraction, providing a strong framework
for the write-up of the project (Punch 2005).

Research Area: Occidentalism
Research Topic: Narratives of occidentalism in Southeast Asia
General Research Question: What is the relevance of the idea of the West in contemporary
political discourse in Malaysia and Singapore?
Specific Research Questions: 1. What are the dominant narratives which have informed key
political thinkers, and how have these changed?
2. How have these narratives been employed to negotiate the
relationship between Malaysia and Singapore, and between them
and the wider Asian region?
Figure 1: A deductive approach to question development

It is worth noting that, whilst the research question directs subsequent areas of the proposal,
the question itself evolves through engagement with other factors, such as the literature review
(Matthews and Ross 2010). The research question thus affects, and is affected by, various stages of
the proposal. de Vaus (2001) further acknowledges the influence of external factors for instance, our
insights can change as a result of consulting insiders or experts in the field, forcing us to question our
knowledge in ways that hitherto may not have been possible. These points reinforce the notion that
question development is messy, iterative and cyclical (Punch 2006: 25).
In sum, question development is an integral part of the research design. It systematises the
project, giving it structure whilst simultaneously keeping it within manageable boundaries (Punch
2005). Good questions indicate the type of data required for analysis (ibid), keeping the research and
researcher focused throughout the project. Yet it remains a very complex process, and as the next
section reveals, the questions asked are inherently linked to the theory within which key concepts are
embedded.
Theory and literature
Determining the theoretical perspectives which guide your research affects: the nature of questions
asked and method of analysis (Punch 2006); evaluation of that research, especially where funding is
involved (Punch 2006; Lorion 1995); and the internal and external validity of the research (de Vaus
2001). Each of these issues are discussed in turn.
This authors ontological beliefs are informed by constructionism, which emphasises the
agency of individuals in the construction of their own reality (Kitchin and Tate 2000). The mode of
analysis thus requires an investigation into the ways in which Malaysians and Singaporeans have
constructed their own vision of the West to make sense of the world in which they live. Allied to
this is an idealist epistemology, concerning the notion that reality is a social construction (Unwin
1992). Accordingly, in-depth interviews were chosen as the primary method of analysis, enabling an
insight into their understanding of the world.
Theory and literature are explicitly linked to the researchs original contribution to knowledge
(Lorion 1995). Successful grantsmanship cannot be achieved without first substantively reviewing the
state of the research field, for cutting edge knowledge is the primary aspect which necessitates
funding (ibid). Indeed, Punch (2006) recognises the researchers responsibility to locate their research
within previous work, allowing theoretical, historical and in the context of grantsmanship, financial
justifications to be made for the study. Thus, where funding is involved, a critical examination of
literature is required to justify the prioritisation of that research. Concerning the authors proposal, the
body of literature surrounding occidentalism is itself sketchy, with case studies lacking in quantity.
Competing theories have contributed toward an ambiguous concept which remains embryonic in
development. Further, this body of literature has remained inherently tied to cultural studies material
and disconnected from the realm of critical geopolitics (see Appendix 1 for research context). These
two aspects reinforce the necessity of the authors research within a youthful theoretical field.
de Vaus (2001) expounds the importance of achieving internal and external validity within
research proposals. That this research has been designed to eliminate competing interpretations of
occidentalism and thus minimise theoretical ambiguities, according to de Vaus (2001), reinforces the
internal validity of the research. His ideals concerning external validity, however, necessitate further
examination. He notes that, for research to be classified as externally valid, the results must apply
more extensively (ibid). However this is an outdated view of modern research especially within
occidentalism, which embraces the plurality of global culture (Bonnett 2002). There will never be a
universal definition of occidentalism; different meanings of the West are particular to their localised
contexts.
Though the role of theory and literature is debatable (see Thomas 2002 for discussion of
theorys restrictive effect on practice; see Punch 2005 for discussion of how literature shapes our
perception of the topic), the general consensus is that they have a part to play within the research
proposal. Review of these aspects shapes the questions which are asked and the methodologies which
are formulated. Where funding is involved, this is essential in demonstrating how research will
contribute to new knowledge (Lorion 1995). The next section discusses the interplay between
research design and methods.
Methods and research design
Establishing the methods to be used is a fundamental aspect of the research proposal. Aspects to
consider include: whether research will be qualitative or quantitative; the link between conceptual
framework and method choice; and the level of methodological expertise required.
The question of whether to embrace a qualitative or quantitative approach is essential to
social science research. Albeit a major organising principle for some research (see Punch 2006 for
discussion of the practicalities of each alternative), in other cases it is not. For instance, the authors
choice was already shaped through the nature of the research question. As Punch (2006) notes,
attempts to understand cultural behaviours almost always lead to a qualitative approach. This
reflexive aspect of research design reflects the levels of interplay and dialogue between different
stages of the research process.
A conceptual framework, according to Punch (2005), develops naturally from the research
question. Qualitative designs adopt a more variable framework, known as an unfolding research
design (Punch 2006). In this respect the proposal should indicate how the design will unfold, allowing
structure to emerge as the research progresses (ibid). The authors research proposal is qualitative and
thus innately unfolding. Though it will involve interviewing a select group of contemporary political
thinkers from Malaysia and Singapore, it was too early at the time of writing to acknowledge who
these subjects may be (the research will be conducted in 2014). Consequently, this section of the
proposal was left blank. This reflects the idea that research should be cutting edge, and as Lorion
(1995) acknowledges regarding grantsmanship, grounded in forthcoming realms of enquiry.
As with all aspects of the proposal, the role of the conceptual framework is contested. Robson
(2011) advocates developing the framework before even the research question, establishing key
constructs or relationships to be studied; these should face constant re-examination throughout the
design process. Maxwell (2005: 33) adopts a broader conception of the term to engulf concepts,
assumptions, expectations, beliefs and theories which guide research a more explicit connection
between framework and theoretical context. Establishing the role of the framework may be futile, for
all aspects of research are interrelated. Regardless, its value is in helping you select the most
important data for analysis (Robson 2011).
As regards the unplanned nature of qualitative research, a key question to ask concerns the
level of methodological expertise which should be demonstrated. This point is especially prevalent
within grantsmanship. For Herek (1995: 85), the challenge of grantsmanship involves choices about
which variables to observe...to make these assumptions explicit, to examine them critically. This is a
point of dispute, for the authors proposal certainly deviates from these aspects. In not explicitly
acknowledging who will be interviewed, the researcher cannot be expected to make a critical
examination of what the methodology will entail. Rather, Punch (2006: 55) exhorts the researcher to
demonstrate a general idea of what technique(s) would be required, for methodology at the stage of
the proposal is normally a question of logic over technicality. He does however advise the researcher
to consult relevant institutional guidelines for clarification.
Closer examination of ESRC research guidelines reveals that methodology does not play so
great a part in 1+3 proposals. Under the section entitled Criteria and Guidance, the requirements
read: A strong application will demonstrate an interest in and understanding of the proposed research
area, its importance and wider context and the possible methodology and timescale (Economic and
Social Research Council 2010: 6, emphasis added). The use of the term possible reflects that, in the
temporal context of the PhD, the review panel accept that internal and external factors may affect or
alter the methodology by the time research is conducted.
In reflection, there is no denying the fundamentality of establishing methods in the proposal.
Yet in context of the aforementioned, it is worth remembering Punchs (2006) view that so long as
methods match the questions, ensuring the logic and validity of the proposal, there should be a level
of fluidity in this process. The final section reflects upon the points covered in this paper.
Conclusion
The idea that formulating a research proposal is simply a process suggests a linear sense of
progression, shifting from stage to stage to emerge with a detailed research framework. Yet as
discussed, this conceals the multifaceted nature of doing research. In reality, processes of constant
verification and validation must ensure coherence and consistency, reflecting levels of dialogue and
dynamicity between all areas of the proposal. Each stage thus shapes and is (re)shaped by other
factors at play in the proposal. For instance, the questions asked corresponded to the authors
theoretical perspectives and in turn shaped the methods to be used, demonstrating the level of
interplay between different stages. Accordingly, who you are plays a central role in the research
process (Kirby and McKenna, 1989). There is no agreed way to doing research, involving strict
conformation to universal norms and regulations; as Brewer and Hunter (2005) affirm, so long as the
end product is good, it is irrelevant how the proposal emerged.
Bibliography

Bonnett, A. (2002) Makers of the west: National identity and occidentalism in the work of Fukuzawa
yukichi and Ziya Gkalp Scottish Geographical Journal 118(3) pp.165-182

Brewer, J.D. and Hunter, A. (2005). Foundations of Multimethod Research: Synthesizing Styles
Thousand Oaks: Sage

de Vaus, D. (2001). Research Design in Social Research London: Sage

Economic and Social Research Council (2010) ESRC Studentships 2010/11 Selection
Arrangements: Internal Staff Guidance Swindon: Economic and Social Research Council

Herek, G. (1995). Developing a Theoretical Framework and Rationale for a Research Proposal in
Pequegnat, W. and Stover, E. (Eds.) How to Write a Successful Research Grant Application: A Guide
for Social and Behavioral Scientists New York: Plenum Press

Kirby, S. and McKenna, K. (1989). Experience, Research, Social Change: Methods from the
Margins Toronto: Garamond

Kitchin, R. and Tate, N.J. (2000). Conducting Research in Human Geography: Theory,
Methodology and Practice Harlow: Prentice Hall

Lorion, R.P. (1995). Grantsmanship: A View from Inside and Out in Pequegnat, W. and Stover, E.
(Eds.) How to Write a Successful Research Grant Application: A Guide for Social and Behavioral
Scientists New York: Plenum Press

Matthews, B. and Ross, L. (2010). Research Methods: A Practical Guide for the Social Sciences
Harlow: Pearson Education Limited

Maxwell, J.A. (2005). Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach 2
nd
Edition Thousand
Oaks: Sage

Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook 2
nd

Edition Thousand Oaks: Sage

Punch, K. (2005). Introduction to Social Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches 2
nd

Edition London: Sage

Punch, K. (2006). Developing Effective Research Proposals 2
nd
Edition London: Sage

Robson, C. (2011). Real World Research 3
rd
Edition Chichester: Wiley

Thomas, G. (2002) Theorys spell on qualitative inquiry and educational research British
Educational Research Journal 20 pp.419-434

Unwin, T. (1992). The Place of Geography Harlow: Longman