Expectations

The School of Psychology requires applicants to submit a preliminary research proposal with their online application: it doesn't have to be "set in stone" (we recognise that research often evolves over the course of the HDR), but we do request one at the point of application to ensure there are the beginnings of a feasible (in terms of time, resources, funding, etc.) project. Your proposal is reviewed by the Schools Director of Higher Degree Research before your application is finalised [just to ensure practical alignment: e.g., no animal research]. The proposal should use the following structure (the word count is a minimum guideline only):

1. Research project working title (maximum 30 words)
2. Description of the project in non-specialist language (200 words)
3. Project methodology (150 words)
4. Participant recruitment including strategies for recruiting participants, the cost of recruiting participants and how this will be funded (100 words)
5. Significance of the project (150 words)
6. Resources required to complete the project (for example, expertise, facilities, funding, travel).

Exemplar

Ella Tremaine kindly offered for others to use her proposal as a template for what is expected. Note this was for a different university so doesn’t adhere to the word count.

Tremaine_Ella_PhDproposal_Final.docx

Goalposts

The key criteria we’re optimising for are (translating from here)…

1. Research output quality — how likely is the research from this thesis going to get into excellent journals?
   • In general, does it use novel approaches to answer a compelling question?
   • Excellent journals = IF health > 4.5; IF psych > 3.5; Education 5 or 5*
   • Methods that gets in to these journals:
2. Tractability — is this something that a PhD student could realistically complete?
3. Mission alignment — how well does this promote ‘knowledge leadership for a better world’?
   • Generally, this aligns to the Effective Altruism INT framework:
     • What effects lots of people and effects them a lot (importance)?
     • Where is there lots of low-hanging fruit (neglectedness)?
     • (Tractability is already assessed above because it's especially important here)
   • Caveats: it's generally better to focus on the areas where there's no conflict between common sense intuitions and efforts to maximise the good. Metaphorically, don't push anyone off the bridge in your proposal. Practically, it might be easier to talk about things universally accepted to being 'good': better stewardship of the planet for the future, helping the poor, improving health, improving education, 'good decision-making'. It's easier to focus less on areas more prone to judgement and debate: 'improving morality', 'ethical behaviour'. "Expanding circle of concern" is more universally good, and so is "more effective interventions." It's more controversial if someone is harmed in the process of doing good. Court controversy later.
4. Engagement — how well does this forge industry partnerships that benefit the community?
   • Can we consider an industry partner? Someone at the coal face who is trying to solve similar problems?
   • At least, does this solve a real world problem a human would face? Basically, make sure this isn't another stupid psychology study about how the colour purple makes you feel.
5. Personal fit — can I leverage what I’ve already done to show I can do this too?

Recommended process

Don’t feel like you’re 100% beavering away on your own. I think shorter feedback loops keep people out of blind alleys. Consider asking for feedback on:

1. Your ordered list of brainstormed titles, prioritised by your level of excitement
   1. We review and choose one via email, I’ll help pick a co-supervisor
2. An outline of the proposal’s headings as full sentences
   1. A few nudges at this stage can help you craft a compelling narrative
3. A rough first draft of your proposal, not proofed.
   1. Just to get feedback on the shape, style, and evidence
4. A final draft that’s been proofed.

Recommended structure

For your proposal document