1. Approaching the Research Proposal Before you can start writing your proposal you need to clarify exactly what you will be doing, why, and how. This is no easy task.

2. Step 1: Think of an idea This is a difficult task and it takes TIME Use personal experiences, journal articles you’ve read, classroom or textbook topics, issues you’ve see on the news, discussions with others etc. Think of how it can be done practically Discuss your idea with others Look at what the research has ALREADY FOUND! You won’t simply repeat that research but it could give you ideas for conceptual replication and elaboration. This will be a preliminary search just to help stimulate your ideas – you’ll do more searching later….

3. Step 2: Reformulate your idea into a question that will guide the rest of your literature search. Identify key words or concepts from your idea and questions. Begin to narrow down your ideas into a workable study – you can’t study everything at once. Try combining ideas from multiple areas that would seem to go together.

4. Step 3: Go back to the literature for studies similar to your ideas. You’ll be amazed at how much you missed the first time you searched the literature. Now that you have a better idea of your topic, you can narrow down your search for research more relevent to your topic. Think about how you can extend what the research already tells us. Search for new keywords and continue the search. Look for new combinations of keywords or different ways of labeling a topic (e.g. aggressive and aggression and violent and violence).

5. Introduction This is where you will tell people about what the topic of your research will be and why it’s worth doing (and why they want to continue reading). Start by defining the problem or issue. Define the key variable so they know what you’re talking about. Then discuss what the research in the area has already found. This is the literature review to educate the reader (including a critical review and progression of ideas in the field). It is focused on issues relevant to your topic and to the factors in your study. This should ultimately justify your predictions and flow logically – what’s missing, what’s wrong and how will your study add to current knowledge?

6. Remember: You must convince the reader that… Your research is a good idea, practical and worth doing You have read the literature on your topic You are aware of major issues surrounding your topic of research

7. Predictions Introduction should lead to your hypothesis or hypotheses. Be specific about what you expect to find with regards to you variables.

8. Method Still has same 3 main sections: Participants Who would you include What would be key characteristics How would selection be done Materials What are the tools that would be used Explain as you would a completed study

9. Method Procedure How you would conduct the research Step by step Order of events Controls

10. Results Talk about proposed analyses How would you treat raw data? What statistics would you use? ANOVA? Regressions? Chi Square? what are key variables (e.g. IV, DV, predictor, criterion) what are levels of variables, categories etc. what are relevant groups (e.g. treatment/control) what is the model used (e.g. full factorial, partial factorial) What comparisons would you need to make? Post Hocs/strength of effect etc. if necessary. Plot expected outcomes if necessary

11. Discussion Explain potential implications link to research Methodological / design issues (without sounding self defeating) Future research directions

12. References APA style for all sources cited

13. Common Mistakes INTRODUCTION Failure to provide context/research around which the research question developed in the intro Failure to cite important / relevant research Failure to stay focused Lack of clarity and flow Failure to present coherent, logical arguments Weak organization Ambiguous, confusing language (again, CLARITY) Dwelling on unimportant issues Unrealistic

14. Common Mistakes METHOD Lack of foresight/planning for participants APA violations Tools not explained Procedure can’t be replicated (CLARITY) Mixing procedures and materials Ambiguous explanations Lack of planning

15. Common Mistakes RESULTS Lack of description of treatment of data Wrong statistics Ambiguous reference to statistics

16. Common Mistakes DISCUSSION Not explaining findings Implications not linked to theory / research Implications not specific to expected findings Lack of clarity Poor discussion of methodological considerations Future research directions unclear