research proposal sample chemical engineering

Proposal #1
Proposal #2

Before an article, report, or brief is accepted into the the author must first submit a proposal that specifies the importance of the research, the scope and limitations of the research, and the methods for the research. Submitters should read the journal's before submitting.

Roger Bloom
October 1997

Schedule for completion of the literature review. The formal presentation will be on October 27, and the formal report will be completed by December 5. Clark, Raymond L., "Background on 40 CFR Part 197 Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Yucca Mountain," (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1997). vol.274, (November1996), pp. 913-914. (Battelle Press, 1989). vol. 270, (December 1995), pp. 1761-1762. vol.268, (June 1995), pp. 1836-1839.

[Bolt, 1988], [Bolt, 1993], and [Hodgson, 1964]. [Mileti and Fitzpatrick, 1993] and [Bolt, 1993]. [Deshpande, 1987] and [Meyer, 1977], will put into perspective how accurate, or inaccurate, the named methods are and what hurdles face engineers who try to predict earthquakes. Schedule for completion of literature review. The two triangles represent milestones for the project, the first being the formal presentation on November 11, 1996, and the second being the formal report on December 6, 1996. . (New York: W. H. Freeman and Company, 1988). (New York: Scientific American Library, 1993). (Pune, India: The Maharashtra Association for the Cultivation of Science, 1987). (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1964). (Nashville: Sherbourne Press, 1977). (Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1993).

Department Chair Search

For information and to apply visit Faculty Search

Thesis Proposal Exam

The Thesis Proposal Examination consists of the preparation of a written research proposal (15 pages maximum) and an oral presentation and defense of the same before a faculty committee. The purpose of the examination is to judge the student’s apparent ability to plan and conduct high-quality, PhD-level research in chemical engineering. The topic, magnitude and significance of the proposed research should be suitable for the ensuing doctoral program.

There are no restrictions on candidate/advisor consultations, but the extent of these interactions must be disclosed to the examining committee and the graduate office.

The examination will be taken no later than May 31 in the year after passing the Doctoral Candidacy Exam (DCE). For most students, this thesis proposal exam will be taken during their second year in the graduate program. Failure to take the thesis proposal exam in a timely fashion, absent approval of a petition to the faculty for special consideration, constitutes a lack of satisfactory progress toward the PhD degree and constitutes grounds for removal from the PhD program.

The examination date must be chosen in consultation with the candidate’s advisor and the other committee members at least three (3) weeks in advance of the proposed examination date. After scheduling the exam, the candidate informs the graduate program office by completing and submitting the  Request for Thesis Proposal Examination Form (PDF).

A one-page  Project Summary  (PDF)for the written research proposal must be submitted with the Written Proposal. The Written Proposal and Project Summary must be distributed to the Graduate Program Office and the committee members at least one week in advance of the scheduled examination date.

A reminder of the various due dates will be sent to the student and committee after the examination is scheduled.

Examining Committee

The Thesis Proposal Examination Committee consists of at least three faculty members from chemical engineering (including the proposed Dissertation Committee Chair(s)) and at least one cognate faculty member from outside the Chemical Engineering Department. Most students use the Thesis Proposal Exam Committee members as their Dissertation Committee members as well.

The examination consists of the preparation of a written research proposal and an oral presentation and defense of the same before the Thesis Proposal Examination Committee. At the oral examination, the candidate will present a 20-30 minute summary of the research proposal and subsequently be asked questions on the proposal and related matters. The total time for the examination is typically 60–90 minutes. The committee may be expected to pose any question relating to the substance and background of the proposed research and the applicant’s preparation for conducting the research.

Immediately before the oral examination, the advisor shall inform the other committee members of the extent of the collaboration with the candidate and also give an impression of the candidate’s performance in research already conducted.

In evaluating the thesis proposal examination, the primary criterion will be the applicant’s apparent ability to plan and conduct high-quality, PhD-level research in chemical engineering, as measured by the scholarly and technical breadth and depth displayed in the examination.

The examining committee will rate the written proposal and oral presentation as Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair or Poor and provide a few comments to explain the basis for the rating. A rating of Good signifies a proposal and presentation that just meets minimum standards and is the lowest possible passing score. These ratings and comments will be shared with the student and given to the graduate office.

Success on the examination fulfills one of the requirements for the PhD degree. A student who does not pass the thesis proposal exam in their first attempt may take it a second time but no later than October 15. Failing twice to pass the thesis proposal examination is considered sufficient reason to terminate the applicant’s enrollment in the Department’s Doctoral Program.

Thesis Proposal Exam Results Report

Guidelines for Preparing for the Thesis Proposal Examination

• The applicant should read the  Proposal Writer’s Guide  (Office of Research and Sponsored Projects of The University of Michigan). The discussion of the Introduction, Background and Description of Proposed Research sections will likely be the most useful.
• The  written proposal (WP)  may be organized in any form that the applicant feels is most appropriate but should include the items listed below. Some suggestions for suitable preparation for the  oral examination (OE)  are also indicated.

Introduction  (including a statement of the problem, purpose and significance of the research).

Background  (including a literature survey and a description of research already performed by the applicant).

WP:  The literature review should be selective and critical.

OE:  The applicant is expected to be intimately familiar with the relevant literature, the opinions of previous workers in the subject, and to be critical of shortcomings in earlier work.

Description of Proposed Research  (including method or approach and expected difficulties). This must constitute about 50% of the text of the written proposal. The Project Description should provide a clear statement of the work to be undertaken and must include: objectives for the period of the proposed work and expected significance; relation to the present state of knowledge in the field and to work in progress at Michigan and elsewhere. The Project Description should outline the general plan of work, including the broad design of activities to be undertaken and, where appropriate, provide a clear description of experimental methods and procedures.

WP:  A specific research program should be put forth (e.g., identify variables to be studied and their levels); the expected research program sequence; decision points expected during the course of the research; the methods of data reduction, evaluation, interpretation and presentation, etc.

OE:  The applicant is expected to display a thorough grasp of the physics, biology, chemistry, mathematics, etc., relevant to the conduct of the theoretical or experimental research program. The methods used by others or proposed to be used should be thoroughly understood.

A  timetable  for conducting and reporting the research: The timetable should be clearly based upon the scope of the work described in the description of the proposed research.

List of references . Each reference must include the names of all authors (in the same sequence in which they appear in the publication), the article and journal title, book title, volume number, page numbers and year of publication.

Curriculum Vitae .

The written research proposal must not be longer than 15 pages of text (including figures, excluding title page, list of references, and CV), of which about 50% must be the description of the proposed research.

Use one of the following typefaces: Arial, Times, Times New Roman, Palatino (if using a Mac), Courier New, Palatino Linotype, Computer Modern family of fonts at a font size of 11 points or larger. A font size of less than 11 points may be used for mathematical formulas or equations, figure, table or diagram captions and when using a Symbol font to insert Greek letters or special characters.

No more than six lines of text within a vertical space of one inch.

Margins, in all directions, must be at least an inch.

While line spacing (single-spaced, double-spaced, etc.) is at the discretion of the proposer, established page limits must be followed.

The  project summary  (pdf) is not more than one page, and it should be a self-contained description of the activity proposed. The summary should include a statement of objectives and methods to be employed. It must clearly address the intellectual merit of the proposed activity. It should be informative to other persons working in the same or related fields and, insofar as possible, understandable to a scientifically or technically literate lay reader. Potential hazards and safety precautions should be identified. The members of the proposed dissertation committee should be included on the Project Summary.

Sample Project Proposals

Main navigation.

Check out a few sample grant proposals below. Read ones annotated with reviewer notes (even if the topic is outside your area of interest) to learn what reviewers look for. You can also see also how resubmitted proposals respond to reviewer comments.

Please note that these proposals serve as exemplars for students applying for VPUE Student Grants. They may not be copied, retained, or distributed, and their use is subject to the Stanford Honor Code.

**To view the following samples, Stanford affiliates will be required to login with their SUNET ID. Individuals external to Stanford will not be granted access to these proposals and any requests for access will be automatically declined/deleted. **

• Arts, Creative Project, Visual Arts, Major Grant ( S. Bedford )
• Arts, Creative Writing, Chappell Lougee Scholarship ( J. Kim )
• Arts, Creative Writing, Chappell Lougee Scholarship, annotated (w/ remote plan) ( L. Laniyan )
• Arts, Music, Theater, Small Grant, annotated ( T. Pauly )
• Humanities, English, Major Grant ( J. Schaffer )
• Humanities, History, Chappell Lougee Scholarship, annotated (w/ remote plan) ( A. Kassam )
• Humanities, History, Major Grant, annotated ( J. Sonnenberg )
• Humanities, Religious Studies, Small Grant, annotated ( L. Funk )
• Humanities, Classics, Chappell Lougee Scholarship ( S. Beller )
• STEM, Biology, Major Grant, annotated ( J. Bui )
• STEM, Biology, Major Grant, annotated (w/ remote plan) ( S. Kong )
• STEM, Biology, Small Grant ( J. McGregor )
• STEM, Chemical Engineering, Major Grant ( J. O'Leary )
• STEM, Geological and Environmental Sciences, Major Grant, annotated ( V. Rosen )
• STEM, Geological and Environmental Sciences, Small Grant, annotated ( C. Kremer )
• STEM, Mathematics, Major Grant, annotated (w/ remote plan) ( M. Stevens )
• STEM, Physics, Major Grant ( J. Chaves )
• Senior Synthesis Project, Small Grant, annotated ( J. O'Leary )
• Social Science, Anthropology, Chappell Lougee Scholarship ( N. Follmann )
• Social Science, CDDRL, Small Grant ( A. Schickele )
• Social Science, Psychology, Major Grant, annotated ( C. Eggleston )
• Social Science, Sociology, Chappell Lougee Scholarship, annotated (w/ remote plan) ( A. Gomez )
• Social Science, Urban Studies, Major Grant, annotated ( K. Parish )

• eng.umd.edu
• Faculty Directory
• Staff Directory
• Doctor of Philosophy

Ph.D. Dissertation Proposal

The Ph.D. Thesis Proposal is an oral examination and an integral part of the Ph.D. approval process.

Students who successfully pass the Research Aptitude Examination are recommended to take the Ph.D. Proposal exam within 24 months of passing the Research Aptitude Examination. However, they must pass the Ph.D. Proposal exam within 48 months of passing the Research Aptitude Examination to remain in good standing (unless otherwise approved by the graduate studies committee). If the student successfully completes the requirements for an M.S. degree within 18 months of passing the Research Aptitude Examination, an additional 6 months is added to both limits.

The proposal committee must include at least three members of the faculty in ChBE. These faculty members are listed on the Faculty page of this website. All of these members will normally serve on the final dissertation committee.

An exemption from the above requirement can be granted under special cases. To request an exemption, the student’s advisor must petition the Graduate Director detailing specific reasons for the request and listing the modified committee. The Graduate Director will make a decision on the request after consulting with the Graduate Studies Committee.

The candidate must submit an electronic document to the committee at least 5 business days before the examination. If requested by a committee member, a hardcopy will be provided. The proposal must follow one of the two template options provided on-line with both requiring a maximum of 15 pages (description and graduation timeline) single spaced with font and margin definitions described in this template. Double spaced is allowed at the discretion of the faculty advisor and all single-spaced page limits will be doubled. Additional material to supplement the proposal may be included in the appendix but should be limited to supplementary figures, tables, detailed methods, or complex theoretical derivations. This document must be prepared with the consultation of the thesis advisor and be approved before sending out to the PhD proposal committee. 

For formatting requirements, download a template:

• Proposal Template (.doc)
• Proposal Template (.pdf)

Abstract/Summary Submission and Announcement

Please submit a completed abstract (or summary), proposal title, and the time, date and location of your proposal exam to Kathy Gardinier ( [email protected] ) one week in advance . This will be announced to the ChBE community. 

The following must be documented on the final page(s) of each student's written proposal:

A list of publications on which the student is either the first author or a co-author. Provide the full citation (title, all authors, DOI, etc.). Subdivide into:

Publications that have appeared in print: specify full citation

Publications that have been submitted and are under review: specify dates

Publications that will be submitted after the defense: specify tentative titles and dates

A list of conference presentations on which the student is either the first author or a co-author. Provide full details (title, authors, etc.). Specify speaker. Subdivide into:

Presentations that have been delivered

Presentations that have been scheduled (abstract accepted): specify dates

Presentations for which abstracts will be submitted: specify tentative titles and dates

The candidate must prepare an oral presentation, approximately 25-30 minutes in length. The seminar is open; however, the final deliberations are closed to all but the committee members.

The student must secure a majority of positive votes to pass. The student may apply for admission to candidacy to the Ph.D. program upon passing the Ph.D. Proposal exam.

Otto H. York Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering

Research Proposal

Research Proposal:  Within six months of forming the dissertation committee (i.e., no more than nine months after passing the qualifying examination), doctoral students must make an oral presentation to their Doctoral Dissertation Committee on the scope of their proposed research. Prior to the presentation, the PhD candidate has to develop a PhD Research Proposal. The proposal is a written document identifying the topic for the PhD candidate’s planned doctoral dissertation. Further, the proposal should describe preliminary work done by the candidate as well as provide a detailed plan for the rest of the dissertation research. The Doctoral Dissertation Committee reviews the written proposal and hears an oral presentation by the PhD candidate outlining the main points of the proposal. The oral presentation typically lasts 30 – 40 min, and it is followed by a discussion led by the PhD Dissertation Committee members. The Doctoral Dissertation Committee must formally approve the proposal within a maximum of three additional months.  This ensures meeting the requirements that doctoral students must have an approved dissertation committee and an approved dissertation proposal within a year of passing the qualifying examination.  The approved and signed proposal must be submitted to the Advisor for Graduate Studies so that it is kept in the student’s file.

To confirm defense of your proposal, fill out the form at this linked page https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfn3tcm8Wbh0OCmjXSGFA3C3j2kqXyO...

NSF Fellowship Research Proposal

Criteria for success.

• Your proposed research is eligible for the Fellowship (e.g., you do not propose research about a particular disease or on clinical practice).
• Your research proposal convinces a panel of academics that you are qualified to receive the Fellowship, with equal consideration of the Intellectual Merit and Broader Impact criteria.
• You show that the proposed research is creative, original, or transformative.
• You show that you are actually capable of performing the research.
• Your proposal meets the formatting and page limit criteria.

The sections, their sizes, and their order is just an example, not the rule.

Your research proposal (technically, the “Graduate Research Plan Statement”) is part of an application that should convince the selection panel to award you the Fellowship. The proposal is the part of the application where you get to lay out a plan for your graduate research career. The personal statement gives you space to explain the big picture of your past and future career; the research proposal is a place for more nuts and bolts. It is an opportunity to convince the selection panel that you are capable of being a successful researcher: that you have the intellectual ability to propose a creative, feasible plan of research.

Note that if you win the Fellowship, no one will actually hold you to this particular research plan; this is a demonstration of critical thinking, not a commitment.

Your entire application will be “reviewed online by virtual panels of disciplinary and interdisciplinary scientists and engineers and other professional graduate education experts”. These are academics, usually from your broad area of science (e.g., engineering) but not from your specific area (e.g., colloid simulations using MD). They will judge your application using some combination of (a) the NSF’s official criteria for the Fellowship and (b) their own ideas about what constitutes good science.

The people on the committee read many, many applications. Make it easy for them to figure out that you are qualified for the award by referencing the Intellectual Merit and Broader Impact criteria that they use to judge your application. It may be wise to, for example, have sections in your proposal that are explicitly labeled “Intellectual Merit” and “Broader Impacts”. It may also be wise to have an “Abstract” or “Executive Summary” at the beginning of the proposal. Use simple language rather than field jargon.

The selection panel knows that this is a graduate student fellowship and not the sort of grant that is going to a principal investigator. Real grants are big documents with heaps of citations and references. Because this application is about funding you and not a specific project, the panel is more interested in seeing what your proposal says about you rather than about your project. Spend more words showing that you are capable and creative rather than showing that you can cite many papers.

Do your homework

A mature and sophisticated proposal for research is more likely to win you the Fellowship. Before sitting down to write, do your homework. Read the literature in the field to ensure the project that you are proposing is both novel and feasible.

Find mentors to help you develop and refine your ideas. Senior scientists such as postdocs and faculty members have more experience writing research proposals and can give valuable feedback. Additionally, they may be representative of members of your selection committee. Your proposal should also excite someone who is in your exact field. If they have any reservations about whether the project is interesting or feasible, then scientists outside your field will have an even more difficult time believing that the research is worth pursuing.

Demonstrate creativity

There’s typically a tradeoff between risk/reward and credibility. Low-risk projects, like obvious, simple extensions of your undergraduate thesis research, tend to be very credible: it’s clear that you can do them. They also tend to be low on reward. Projects that are very ambitious and have huge rewards tend to be unbelievable and impossible for a grad student. There’s a sweet spot in between: find a problem that you can probably solve and that demonstrates that you took some initiative, know your field, and have some creative thoughts.

Include Intellectual Merit and Broader Impact criteria

Read the program solicitation so you know what “Intellectual Merit” and “Broader Impacts” mean to the NSF, and show that your proposed research meets those criteria. In particular, do not just make up your own ideas about what “Broader Impacts” means. The NSF has specific lists of activities that constitute Broader Impacts. These criteria are so important that the solicitation even says that “applicants must include separate statements on Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts in their written statements [… and] should include headings for Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts in their statements.”

Write for a reader who is outside of your field and short on attention

It’s more important that all the members of your panel understand your work than that you impress the one member of the panel who happens to be in your field. When you write a paper or a grant, it will probably be minutely reviewed by people in your exact field. However, your panel for the NSF GRFP will likely not be in your field, and your application will be one of many they read. They may very well miss points in your proposal that you think are “subtle” or “implicit.” Explicitly state what you are doing and why, and make it clear even to someone who does not know your field, and who is fatigued from reading many applications.

Lay out concrete hypotheses, approaches, and outcomes

Strong research proposals say what motivates the project, how the project will get done, and what the project’s outcome will mean with respect to the motivating scientific question. In the life sciences, scientists often label their hypotheses or objectives as “specific aims”.

When discussing research approach and outcomes, make it clear that the project has a clear endpoint that is well within the timeline of a PhD. It’s great if your project leads into a lifelong line of research, but the NSF GRFP only funds graduate study. To win the Fellowship, the proposed research should be able to be completed within a few years.

As best you can, describe concrete outcomes. Will you discover a protein? Will you have designed a certain tool? Having a concrete outcome can help you show how your research will meet the Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts criteria, by saying, “Once I have X in hand, Y will be intellectually possible or will have Z effect on society.”

You may also indicate multiple possible outcomes, showing that you have given careful thought to the project. For example, you could say, “If we observe X then we will take route Y. However, if we observe Z , we will have to look at an alternative route.” Research does not always go according to plan, and showing alternative ways to complete the project will show that you are prepared to be a successful graduate student researcher.

Your research proposal will be judged, in part, on the basis of whether or not the panel members believe you will actually be able to carry it out. It might therefore be wise to name the key resources in your target institution and program. Your success as a graduate student will depend on your advisor’s mentorship, the opportunity for collaboration with other scientists, and the resources that you will have at your target institution. Make it clear that you will have the right equipment and intellectual input that you will need to solve your problem. (Again, this is not because you’ll be expected to actually complete this research. Rather, the goal is to demonstrate your resourcefulness, and the likelihood that you’ll excel as a researcher in general.)

Resources and Annotated Examples

Annotated example 1.

This is a research statement that was part of an MIT ChemE graduate student’s successful NSF GRFP application (written while an undergraduate). 1 MB

PhD Proposal Guidelines

The dissertation proposal serves as the plan for the PhD research project, and as a means to ensure that the planned research is appropriate for a dissertation. It is not required that the student should have already obtained new results in the proposed research.

The basic purposes of all research proposals are to convince the reader that:

It is not enough simply to describe previous works, your project, and your methods.  Explicitly addressing the following is strongly recommended:

  • Problem statement/description of the problem area

• Significance/relevance of the research (the “so what” question)

• Purpose/goal of the research

• Research questions/testable hypotheses/objectives

• Critical (exposing strengths and limitations) summary of background literature

• Theoretical/conceptual framework

B. Methods (as long as necessary)

• Proposed methods (provide as much detail as possible)

• Data collection (instrument(s) and methods)

• Data analysis strategy and methods

• Timeline/schedule – from acceptance of proposal to thesis submission and defense

• Brief discussion of risks (i.e., the unexpected happening), and contingency plans to adjust

  C. Dissemination (1-2 pages)

  • Format of the dissertation (monograph vs. article-based)

• Plan for publication/dissemination of the research

D. Appendices (as long as necessary)