Research Proposal Skill (Research Methods)

Overview

This skill produces research proposals as .docx files for individual written assignments in research methods courses (e.g., OL652E at Malmö University). The proposal must be 2,000 words (+/- 10%, excluding diagrams, figures, and references), connect to a UN Sustainable Development Goal (SDG), and address leadership and organisation for sustainability. The skill is adaptable to any research methods course with similar assignment structures.

When to Use This Skill

Use when the user asks you to:

• Write or draft a research proposal for a research methods course
• Revise or improve an existing research proposal draft
• Structure a research idea into the required proposal format
• Get help with any section of the research proposal (background, methods, etc.)
• Develop research questions for both qualitative and quantitative perspectives

Assignment Requirements

Format: 1 document, 2,000 words +/- 10% (1,800–2,200 words body text, excluding diagrams, figures, and references)

Grading scale: A (Excellent), B (Very Good), C (Good), D (Satisfactory), E (Pass), U (Fail)

Core requirement: Use one of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and choose a topic within leadership and organisation for sustainability.

Proposal Structure

a) Background and Problem Discussion (approx. 500–750 words)

This section establishes the research territory and identifies the gap or problem.

Required elements:

1. Actualizing the research area
   • "So what?" — Why is this an important area to study empirically?
   • Connect to real-world urgency (policy, practice, societal trends)
   • Link to relevant SDG(s)
2. Literature and theory positioning
   • What leadership, organisation, and sustainability literature and theories will be used, and why?
   • Begin a problematization of the research area based on current literature
   • Use problematization over gap-spotting where possible (per Sandberg & Alvesson, 2011 — a key course reading)
3. Research problem
   • What potential contribution can the research make to the existing body of knowledge?
   • What societal values will the research potentially address?
4. Purpose statement
   • Clear, concise statement of the research aim
   • Should logically follow from the problem discussion

Writing guidance:

• Use a funnel structure: broad context → specific problem → purpose
• Follow "setting the hook" principles (Grant & Pollock, 2011): open with a compelling framing that signals why the reader should care
• Integrate at least 8–12 citations in this section
• Balance empirical evidence with theoretical framing

b) Previous Studies (approx. 500 words)

A focused review of 4–6 relevant empirical articles.

Required elements:

• Review each article in terms of:
  • Research questions
  • Scope of study
  • Methods (aim for a balance of quantitative and qualitative studies)
  • Data used
  • Results/findings
• Explain how your proposed research can use / build on / support / differ from these studies

Writing guidance:

• Do not just summarise — synthesise and compare across studies
• Organise thematically or methodologically, not article-by-article
• Show awareness of both methodological traditions (qual and quant)
• Identify what the studies collectively leave unaddressed (this feeds into your contribution)
• Use a mini review matrix to keep track:

c) Methods and Research Questions (approx. 500 words)

Dual-perspective methodological design covering both qualitative and quantitative approaches.

Required elements:

1. Qualitative perspective:
   • Two tentative research questions (must align with purpose)
   • Brief explanation of potential data gathering method (e.g., semi-structured interviews, focus groups, document analysis)
   • Brief explanation of potential data analysis method (e.g., thematic analysis, content analysis, narrative analysis)
2. Quantitative perspective:
   • Two tentative research questions (must align with purpose)
   • Brief explanation of potential data gathering method (e.g., survey, secondary data, experimental design)
   • Brief explanation of potential data analysis method (e.g., regression, descriptive statistics, SEM)
3. Research plan illustration:
   • A brief timeline or process diagram showing how you would manage the research process
   • Based on the research process model from the introductory lecture
   • Gustav's guidance: "basically I want you to reflect a bit (very briefly) how the process would materialize (time management and consider it a way to start thinking about how to create a plan to finalize the thesis on time)"
   • This is a minor part of the grade — keep it concise

Writing guidance for research questions:

• Qualitative RQs typically start with "How" or "What" and explore experiences, perceptions, meanings
• Quantitative RQs typically ask about relationships, differences, effects, and include measurable variables
• All four RQs must clearly align with the stated purpose
• Reference Agee (2009) and Creswell for research question formulation principles

d) Practical Contribution and Stakeholder Perspective (approx. 250–500 words)

Required elements:

• To whom could the research be interesting and relevant? (practitioners, policymakers, organisations, communities)
• How can the knowledge generated be useful for them?

Writing guidance:

• Be specific about stakeholder groups
• Connect back to the SDG and societal values mentioned in section (a)
• Consider multiple levels: organisational, sectoral, policy, community
• Avoid vague claims — describe concrete ways findings could be applied

e) Reference List

• APA 7 format
• All sources cited in the text must appear here
• Minimum ~15–20 references for a strong proposal
• Include a mix of: foundational theories, recent empirical studies, methodological sources, policy/institutional sources

Assessment Criteria

The grading criteria are adopted from Hug & Aeschbach (2020) and emphasise:

Grade Targets

Writing Quality Standards

Academic Voice

• Third person preferred (first person acceptable for methodological choices: "I propose to...")
• Hedging language for uncertain claims ("suggests," "indicates," "may contribute to")
• Define key concepts on first use
• British English spelling conventions (organisation, analyse, behaviour) — consistent with MAU/Swedish academic norms

Problematization over Gap-Spotting

Following Sandberg & Alvesson (2011), a key course reading:

• Gap-spotting (weaker): "No study has examined X" — identifies an absence
• Problematization (stronger): Challenges assumptions in existing literature, questions taken-for-granted positions, reveals tensions between theories or between theory and practice
• Aim for problematization to achieve higher grades

Flow and Coherence

The proposal must read as one integrated argument, not five disconnected sections:

• Background → identifies the problem and theoretical territory
• Previous studies → shows what has been done and what remains
• Methods → explains how to address what remains
• Practical contribution → shows why it matters beyond academia
• The purpose statement is the hinge connecting all sections

Citation Style (APA 7)

Read ../../references/apa7-guide.md for the complete APA 7 reference (shared with academic-essay skill).

Document Generation

Use docx-js for Word document creation.

Page Setup

// Standard portrait
{ width: 12240, height: 15840, margin: { top: 1440, right: 1440, bottom: 1440, left: 1440 } }

Typography

• Body: Arial or Times New Roman, 12pt (size: 24 half-points)
• Line spacing: double (line: 480)
• Paragraph spacing: 200 after
• Headings: Bold, hierarchical sizing (H1: 14pt, H2: 13pt, H3: 12pt)

Document Sections

1. Title Page (portrait, no header/footer)
   • Title of the research proposal
   • Student name
   • Course name and code (e.g., OL652E — Research Methods)
   • Programme: Master Programme Leadership and Organisation for Sustainability (SALSU)
   • Institution: Malmö University, Faculty of Culture and Society
   • Date
2. Proposal Body (portrait, with page numbers)
   • Sections a–d as numbered headings
3. Reference List (portrait, hanging indent)

Reference List Formatting

• Hanging indent: indent: { left: 720, hanging: 720 }
• Font size: 11pt (22 half-points)
• Alphabetical by first author surname
• Include DOI as hyperlink where available

Zotero Integration (Citation Helper)

When drafting the proposal, use the /scholar:citation-helper skill to search the researcher's Zotero library (the Zotero CSL-JSON library configured in the plugin's .local.md file (default: references/salsu-library.json)) for sources rather than inventing or web-searching for references.

Citation Workflow During Drafting

1. For each claim needing a citation: Search the Zotero library first using /scholar:citation-helper (Operation 1 or 5)
2. Insert Pandoc citation keys: Use [@citekey] format (e.g., [@sandberg.alvesson2011])
3. Multiple sources: [@key1; @key2]
4. Narrative citations: @citekey (e.g., @sandberg.alvesson2011 argue that...)

Source Lookup Priority

0. ZOTERO: Search the Zotero CSL-JSON library configured in the plugin's .local.md file by author, title, keyword, year
   ├── Match found → Use [@citekey] — researcher already has this source
   └── No match ↓
1. LOCAL PDFs: Search the local PDFs directory configured in .local.md for relevant papers (especially course readings)
   └── No match ↓
2. WEB SEARCH: Search for additional academic sources (fallback)

Prioritise sources the researcher already has. Course readings in the local PDFs directory are particularly relevant for research methods proposals.

Reference List Generation

After drafting, use /scholar:citation-helper Operation 4 to generate the APA 7 reference list from all [@citekey] citations in the document.

Process

1. Clarify the research topic: Ask the user for their topic, SDG focus, and any theories they want to use. If they already have a draft, read it first.
2. Develop the argument arc: Problem → gap/tension in literature → purpose → questions → methods → contribution. Ensure logical flow.
3. Search Zotero library: Use /scholar:citation-helper to find relevant sources for the background, theories, and previous studies sections.
4. Draft section by section following the word targets, citing with [@citekey] format:
   • a) Background & problem: 500–750 words
   • b) Previous studies: ~500 words
   • c) Methods & RQs: ~500 words
   • d) Practical contribution: 250–500 words
5. Generate reference list: Use /scholar:citation-helper Operation 4 to build the reference list from cited keys.
6. Verify alignment: Check that RQs align with purpose, methods fit RQs, and contribution connects back to the problem.
7. Check word count: Total body must be 1,800–2,200 words (excluding references, figures, diagrams).
8. Build DOCX with professional formatting (or use Pandoc with --citeproc and the APA CSL file configured in .local.md for automatic citation rendering).
9. Final check against grading criteria: Originality, relevance, soundness, coherence, quality, feasibility.

Key Course Readings (for methodological grounding)

These readings are available in the course materials and should inform the proposal's methodology:

• Sandberg & Alvesson (2011) — Problematization vs. gap-spotting in research question construction
• Grant & Pollock (2011) — "Setting the hook" — how to frame a compelling research introduction
• Shepherd & Wiklund (2020) — Templates and heuristics for academic writing
• Agee (2009) — Developing qualitative research questions as a reflective process
• Creswell (course book) — Research design, question formulation, qualitative/quantitative methods
• Hug & Aeschbach (2020) — Criteria for assessing research grant applications (basis for grading rubric)

Reference: Sample Proposal

A sample research proposal from a previous cohort demonstrates:

• How to structure background with theory integration (PoS&SD, HERO model, JD-R model)
• How to formulate a clear purpose connecting to SDGs (SDG 3, SDG 8)
• How to present research questions
• How to describe qualitative methodology (semi-structured interviews, content analysis)
• How to frame practical contributions
• APA 7 reference formatting

Note: The sample is from the thesis course and is longer/more developed than what is required for a research methods proposal (e.g., OL652E). Use it as a reference for quality and structure, not length.