How to Write a PhD Research Proposal: Step-by-Step Guide and Template

Let me be honest with you: most people find their first research proposal hard to write. You are asked to plan three or four years of research before you have even started, in a few pages, for people you have never met. It feels a bit like being asked to describe a house you have not built yet.

The good news is that a proposal is not a test of whether you already know the answers. It is a test of whether you can ask a good question and plan a sensible way to answer it. That is a skill, and skills can be learned. In this guide I break the whole job into seven small steps, show you how to write each part of the proposal with real examples, and give you a template at the end. The examples follow one sample topic, from the field I work in, so you can watch a proposal grow from idea to finished draft.

Before we start, watch this lesson from my course. I show how I draft a research proposal inside MS Word with the help of Claude, without letting AI do the thinking for me.

Lesson · 21:39

Think about the person on the other side. A busy professor opens your email between a lecture and a lab meeting. They are not looking for a perfect project. They are asking themselves a few quiet questions: Does this person understand the field? Is the idea worth doing? Can it be done in three or four years? Would I enjoy supervising this? Your proposal should answer all of these without them having to dig.

Universities say much the same thing. The University of Liverpool explains that schools review your proposal to judge the quality of the research and whether they have the expertise to supervise it. The University of Edinburgh asks for a proposal that makes clear the importance of your topic, its scope and how you will carry it out, and that is “clear, objective, succinct and realistic” in its objectives.

↑ Back to topNext: The PROPOSE formula in 7 steps →

I call this the PROPOSE formula because it is easy to remember and it follows the order in which your thinking naturally develops. You do not write the proposal from top to bottom. You build it like this:

1. P: Pick a problem. Choose a topic you care about and find a real research gap in recent reviews.
2. R: Review the literature. Show what is known, what is debated and exactly where your gap sits.
3. O: Objectives and questions. Turn the gap into one clear aim, three or four objectives and focused questions.
4. P: Plan the methods. Explain how you will answer each question, and why that method is the right one.
5. O: Outcomes and impact. Say what will be new, who will benefit and why it matters now.
6. S: Schedule and resources. Show a realistic three-year timeline, the resources you need and any ethics issues.
7. E: Edit and send. Write the title and abstract last, polish hard, get feedback and tailor it to each supervisor.

↑ Back to topNext: Pick a problem and find your gap →

Your topic is going to live with you for three or four years, so please pick something that makes you curious, not just something that sounds impressive. The sweet spot is where three things meet: what you enjoy, what the field still does not know, and what a supervisor can help you with.

1. 1Go broadPick an area you enjoy and have some background in.
2. 2Read reviews5–10 recent review articles from good journals.
3. 3List the unknownsLook for “remains unclear”, “few studies” and “future research”.
4. 4Check it is openSearch the newest papers on that exact gap.
5. 5Match a supervisorFind people who publish close to your gap.

Here is how this looks for our sample topic. Notice how each version gets more specific:

In these lessons I show exactly how I find gaps, how many papers you really need to read, and how to tell a strong gap from a weak one:

Lesson · 34:51

Lesson · 6:58

Want more depth on gap-finding and the rest of the writing process? My complete scientific writing guide covers literature searching, reading and writing in detail.

↑ Back to topNext: Review the literature →

A common mistake is to treat the literature review like a school essay that lists every paper you read. In a proposal you have no space for that. Think of it as a funnel: start with the big picture, narrow down through two or three themes, and land right on your gap.

1. OpenThe big picture. Why does this field matter? One short paragraph with a striking fact.
2. Theme 1What we know. The main findings that most studies agree on.
3. Theme 2Where it gets messy. Conflicting results, weak methods or missing contexts.
4. Theme 3Closest to your work. The few studies nearest to your question, and their limits.
5. LandThe gap. One or two sentences: what is still unknown, and why that matters.

Search properly from the start. Use Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar, save everything in a reference manager such as EndNote or Zotero, and keep a simple literature table: author, year, method, main finding and limitation. That table will write half of this section for you.

Lesson · 56:05

Lesson · 31:00

Manage every reference with EndNote

Here is a small habit that saves weeks of pain later: never type a reference by hand. From the very first search, send every useful paper to a reference manager. I use and teach EndNote; the free Zotero works the same way if your university has no EndNote licence. When your supervisor asks you to switch from APA to Harvard the night before a deadline, you will change the whole reference list in one click instead of crying over it.

My EndNote crash course takes you from installing it to a finished, perfectly formatted reference list. It is also part of both my Scientific Writing playlist and my Systematic Review and Meta-analysis series.

Crash course · 2:48:52

Going further: a systematic review or meta-analysis

Here is a trick many successful PhD students use: they turn the literature review in their proposal into a systematic review, and sometimes a meta-analysis, as the first objective and the first paper of the PhD. It shows a supervisor that you can search the literature properly, and it often gives you a publication in year one. If your gap is about conflicting results, a meta-analysis can be the perfect way to settle the question.

I made a free Systematic Review and Meta-analysis series on YouTube that starts from zero: what these reviews are, the statistics and key terms you need, a 12-step method, and how to define your research question. Start with these two lessons:

SR & MA series · 22:19

SR & MA series · 52:48

Want to see how a systematic review and meta-analysis fit together step by step? My scientific writing guide has an eight-step walkthrough with PRISMA 2020, risk of bias, GRADE and a short R example.

↑ Back to topNext: Objectives and research questions →

This is the heart of your proposal. If a supervisor reads only one section closely, it is usually this one. The trick is to understand how the pieces fit together:

Aim
To identify and test native bacteria from arid soils of Pakistan that can protect wheat yield under drought.

Objectives
1. Isolate bacteria from the rhizosphere of wheat grown in arid regions and screen them for drought-tolerance and plant growth-promoting traits.
2. Test the best isolates on wheat growth and physiology under controlled drought in the greenhouse.
3. Evaluate the two most promising isolates in field trials at two arid sites over two seasons.
4. Study how the inoculants change the root microbiome, using amplicon sequencing.

Research questions
RQ1. Which native isolates show the strongest drought-tolerance and growth-promoting traits?
RQ2. Do these isolates improve wheat biomass, relative water content and yield under drought?
RQ3. Do the effects hold in the field, and how do they change the root microbial community?

Use action verbs that describe something you can actually finish: identify, measure, compare, test, model, evaluate, develop. Avoid fuzzy verbs such as understand, explore or study on their own, because no one can tell when they are done.

These lessons walk through turning a gap into questions, with examples from microbiology and bioinformatics, and then pulling keywords from those questions for your literature search:

Lesson · 13:11

Lesson · 15:16

↑ Back to topNext: Plan your methods →

The methodology is often the longest section, around 600 to 800 words. It is where supervisors decide whether your plan is realistic. A simple way to stay organised is to write one short sub-section per objective, so the reader can see that nothing is missing.

What to include in your methods

• Research design: experimental, observational, qualitative, mixed methods or computational, and why
• Data or samples: what, where, how many and how you will get access
• Techniques and tools: lab methods, surveys, interviews, archives, software or models
• Analysis: the statistical or qualitative approach for each question
• Risks and backup plans: what could go wrong and what you will do instead

The right methods depend on your discipline. Liverpool’s guidance gives examples such as visiting libraries or archives, fieldwork and interviews, and for many science projects it will be experiments and data analysis. If you are not sure which design fits, a methods book such as Creswell and Creswell’s Research Design is a good friend (see the book list).

↑ Back to topNext: Outcomes, originality and impact →

This is where your passion is allowed to show. Liverpool’s guidance encourages you to communicate your passion for the subject, and Edinburgh asks you to explain why the research is important or timely and how it benefits wider society or the research community. Be enthusiastic, but stay concrete: big claims without evidence make reviewers nervous.

↑ Back to topNext: Schedule, resources and ethics →

A timeline proves you have thought about how research really happens: slow starts, failed experiments and the months it takes to write a thesis. Build in buffer time. Supervisors trust a plan that admits things take longer than expected.

A three-year plan in half-year blocks. Use months or quarters if your programme expects more detail.

Resources

List what you need and where it will come from: lab equipment and consumables, field sites, datasets, software, computing power, training courses and travel. If something is expensive or hard to access, say how you will get it, for example through the supervisor’s lab or a partner institute.

Ethics, data and safety

If your work involves people, animals, personal data, genetically modified organisms or fieldwork in sensitive places, say which approvals you will need and how you will protect participants and data. For many projects a short paragraph is enough, but leaving it out completely looks careless.

Lesson · 7:05

Lesson · 6:53

↑ Back to topNext: Edit, polish and send →

The title

A good title is specific and tells the reader your topic, approach and context in about 10 to 20 words. Liverpool notes that your title is tentative and can change during the research, so do not agonise over it.

The abstract

The abstract is a 150 to 250 word summary of the whole proposal. Liverpool calls it a concise statement of your intended research. Write it in five moves: problem, gap, aim, methods and expected outcome.

Make it easy to read

Edinburgh’s guidance is wonderfully practical here: use a clear title, section headings, short paragraphs and short sentences, and include images, charts or diagrams where they are allowed and useful. One simple diagram of your workflow, from samples to results, can explain more than a page of text.

• Every objective has a matching method and a place on the timeline
• The gap is stated clearly at the end of the literature review
• Sentences are short; jargon is explained once
• Word count and format match the programme’s instructions
• All references are real, recent where possible, and formatted in one style
• A mentor, supervisor or senior student has read it
• The proposal is tailored to the supervisor’s research and the university

Using AI tools honestly

AI tools can help you brainstorm, find papers, organise an outline and polish your English. They cannot have your idea for you, and supervisors can usually tell when a proposal was generated rather than thought through. Check every claim and every reference yourself, write in your own words, and follow the university’s policy on AI use.

Lesson · 5:26

Lesson · 10:58

Sending it to supervisors

Edinburgh notes that supervisors may help you refine your proposal even if they cannot take you on, so do not be shy about asking. Write a short, polite email: who you are, why their work interests you (mention a specific paper), a two-line summary of your idea, and your proposal and CV attached. If you also apply for external funding, be ready to rewrite the proposal in the funder’s format. My guide to the CV, motivation letter, SOP and LOR helps with the rest of the application.

↑ Back to topNext: The research proposal template →

Word budgets are a guide for a proposal of about 2,500 words. If your university gives a different limit or its own template, follow theirs.

[WORKING TITLE: specific, 10–20 words: topic + approach + context]

Applicant: [Your name] | Proposed supervisor: [Name] | Programme: [PhD in ...] | Date: [ ]

1. ABSTRACT (150–250 words)
[Problem: one or two sentences on the problem and why it matters.]
[Gap: what is still unknown.]
[Aim: This project aims to ...]
[Methods: in one or two sentences, how you will do it.]
[Expected outcome: what the project will deliver and why it matters.]

2. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND (300–400 words)
[Start with the big picture and a striking fact or figure, with a citation.]
[Narrow down to your specific problem.]
[Explain why it matters now: social, scientific, economic or policy reasons.]
[End with one sentence that previews your aim.]

3. LITERATURE REVIEW AND RESEARCH GAP (500–700 words)
3.1 [Theme 1: what is well established]
[Summarise and compare key studies; group them, do not list them.]
3.2 [Theme 2: where findings conflict or methods are weak]
[Explain the disagreement and possible reasons.]
3.3 [Theme 3: studies closest to your question and their limitations]
Research gap: [However, ... remains unknown because ... . This project addresses this gap by ... .]

4. AIM, OBJECTIVES AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS (150–250 words)
Aim: To [overall goal].
Objectives:
  1. To [action verb + what + where/how].
  2. To [ ... ].
  3. To [ ... ].
  (4. To [ ... ].)
Research questions / hypotheses:
  RQ1. [Question linked to Objective 1]
  RQ2. [Question linked to Objective 2]
  RQ3. [Question linked to Objective 3]
  (H1. [Testable prediction, if your field uses hypotheses])

5. METHODOLOGY (600–800 words)
5.1 Research design: [experimental / observational / qualitative / mixed / computational, and why it suits your questions]
5.2 Objective 1: [data or samples, techniques, analysis]
5.3 Objective 2: [data or samples, techniques, analysis]
5.4 Objective 3: [data or samples, techniques, analysis]
5.5 Data analysis: [statistical or qualitative methods, software]
5.6 Risks and contingency plans: [what could go wrong, and plan B]

6. SIGNIFICANCE AND EXPECTED OUTCOMES (200–300 words)
Originality: [what is new about your question, setting, method or combination]
Contribution to knowledge: [what the field will learn]
Wider impact: [who benefits: society, industry, policy, practice]
Expected outputs: [journal papers, datasets, software, products, policy briefs, conference talks]

7. TIMELINE (100–200 words + Gantt chart)
Year 1: [literature review, training, Objective 1]
Year 2: [Objectives 2 and 3, first papers, conference]
Year 3: [Objective 3/4, final papers, thesis writing]
(Year 4: [if applicable])
[Insert a simple Gantt chart: tasks as rows, months/quarters as columns.]

8. RESOURCES AND ETHICS (100–150 words)
Resources: [equipment, data access, software, training, travel, and where they come from]
Ethics and data: [approvals needed, consent, data protection, safety, and how you will handle them]

9. REFERENCES
[25–40 references in one consistent style (e.g. APA or Harvard), managed in EndNote or Zotero.
Include recent studies and key classic papers. Check every reference yourself.]

The full Scientific Writing course, including the masterclass recording, teaches every skill you need for this template. Give it 2 to 5 hours a day while you write.

Masterclass · 2:46:27

Course videos for proposal writers

39 of the 59 lessons, picked for writing a proposal and grouped by step; the number is the position in the playlist. Open the full playlist on YouTube

Guides, books and links

University guides and tools

• 1
  University of Liverpool: research proposalSections and the 2,000–3,000 word guide
• 2
  University of Edinburgh: writing a proposalStyle tips and what assessors look for
• 3
  University of Manchester: research proposalAnother university’s guidance to compare
• 4
  Scientific Writing Zero-to-Hero playlistAll 59 free videos
• 5
  Scientific Writing Master ClassComplete recording, 2 h 46 min
• 6
  Using AI tools in Scientific WritingFree course with certificate
• 7
  Systematic Review and Meta-analysis seriesFree 16-video series on YouTube
• 8
  Systematic Review and Meta-analysis courseTwo-month, self-paced program
• 9
  EndNote crash courseReference management from zero, 2 h 49 min
• 10
  VitaeSupport for doctoral researchers
• 11
  ORCIDYour free researcher ID
• 12
  ZoteroFree reference manager
• 13
  Connected PapersMap the literature around a key paper
• 14
  Marie Skłodowska-Curie ActionsFunded doctoral networks in Europe
• 15
  DAADPhD study and scholarships in Germany

Books worth reading

1. Punch, K. F. (2016). Developing Effective Research Proposals (3rd ed.). SAGE. A short, practical book on proposals in any field.
2. Denicolo, P. & Becker, L. (2012). Developing Research Proposals. SAGE. Part of the Success in Research series; very good on what reviewers want.
3. Creswell, J. W. & Creswell, J. D. (2023). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (6th ed.). SAGE. The classic book for choosing and justifying your methods.
4. Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., Williams, J. M., Bizup, J. & FitzGerald, W. T. (2016). The Craft of Research (4th ed.). University of Chicago Press. How to turn a topic into a question and an argument.
5. Phillips, E. M. & Johnson, C. G. (2022). How to Get a PhD (7th ed.). Open University Press. What the PhD journey really looks like, and how to plan for it.

Related guides on Codanics

• 1
  The complete scientific writing guideTheses, papers, reviews and meta-analysis
• 2
  Using AI tools in Scientific WritingFree course with certificate
• 3
  Systematic Review and Meta-analysisTurn your literature review into a paper
• 4
  CV, motivation letter, SOP and LORThe rest of your PhD application
• 5
  Study abroad for a PhDFind and apply for PhDs abroad
• 6
  Marie Curie PhD positionsFunded PhDs in Europe
• 7
  Postdoc and MSCA fellowship guideAfter your PhD
• 8
  AI tools for students and academicsTools for research and study
• 9
  Prompt engineering guideGet better answers from AI
• 10
  Conference posters with AI toolsPresent your research
• 11
  LinkedIn networking guideGet noticed by supervisors
• 12
  ABC of Statistics (free book)Plan your data analysis

More research, AI and career guides on the Codanics blog.

Key terms explained

Short definitions of the words used in this guide

Research proposal

A short plan of the research you want to do: problem, questions, methods, significance and timeline.

Research gap

Something important that is unknown, unclear or contradictory in the current literature.

Aim

The single overall goal of your research project.

Objectives

Specific, measurable steps that together achieve the aim.

Research question

A focused question your research will answer.

Hypothesis

A testable prediction about the result of your research.

Methodology

The overall approach and the specific methods you will use to answer your questions.

Literature review

A focused summary and comparison of existing studies that leads to your research gap.

Originality

What is new about your research: the question, setting, method or combination.

Impact

The benefit of your research beyond academia, for society, industry, policy or practice.

Gantt chart

A chart that shows tasks as rows and time as columns, used for research timelines.

Reference manager

Software such as EndNote or Zotero that stores your sources and builds citations and reference lists automatically.

Systematic review

A review that uses a pre-defined, reproducible method to find, select and appraise all studies on a question.

Meta-analysis

A statistical combination of results from several studies into one pooled estimate.

Feasibility

Whether the project can realistically be done with the time, skills and resources available.

Frequently asked questions

One last thing. Your first draft will not be good, and that is completely fine. Every strong proposal you have ever admired started as a messy page. Write it, put it away for a day, then make it better. You can do this.