research proposal format psychology

Psychology Research Proposal

Proposal maker.

Proposals, whatever they may be, may it be a wedding proposal , business proposal , or a research proposal , all have a similar goal. It is to hear the word “yes” from the mouths of the recipient. Despite that, these proposals give different feelings to the proposer. If you are here to get tips on coming up with a research proposal, you get what I mean. Don’t worry, this article will help you get ideas on how to devise your psychology research proposal.

6+ Psychology Research Proposal Examples

1. cognitive psychology research proposal.

2.  Psychology Counselling Research Proposal

3. Undergraduate Psychology Research Proposal

Size: 94 KB

4. PhD Psychology Research Proposal

Size: 174 KB

5. Forensic Psychology Research Proposal

Size: 353 KB

6. Social Psychology Research Proposal

Size: 683 KB

7. Psychology Research Grant Proposal

Size: 599 KB

What Is a Psychology Research Proposal?

A psychology research proposal is an academic document that a person submits to propose a research project, specifically in the field of clinical psychology. The purpose of research proposals is to outline the research questions and summarize your selected research topic. Another necessary reason for creating this proposal is to present ways that you think would be best in conducting the study and justifying it.

How to Compose a Reliable Psychology Research Proposal

There’s a time psychology students dread. It’s the moment that signifies the beginning of hell week or maybe hell month. It is when the professors ask their students to submit their research proposals.  Coming up with a psychology research proposal might cost you a lot of sleepless nights. To get back the sleep that you deserve, instead of pulling your hair out, read this article and follow the steps mentioned below. 

1. Formulate a Working Title

The title of your educational research should reflect what your study will discuss. Omit unnecessary words. Only keep those words that contribute to the meaning and the impact of your title. Make your title engaging to attract the attention of the readers. It is necessary to take a moment to think about a research title that is both powerful and meaningful.

2. Construct Your Abstract

Abstracts should be short and concise. That said, it should be at least a hundred words and three hundred words at most. Describe your research in your proposal but don’t include too many details yet. A good abstract would provide an introduction to the key objectives and the hypothesis of your proposed research.

3. Include Necessary Components

There are necessary components that make an abstract complete. After your title and abstract statement, you should also include the research scope and your methodology. This segment will explain who your respondents are and how you will deal with possible problems you will encounter while conducting your study. Also, you should include the resources that you will use in the process.

4. Devise Your Appendices

Appendices have sections A to E. Appendix A is where you should cite a list of your sources. In the second section, Appendix B is where you should present your project timeline . Your list of skills and achievements relevant to the research belongs in Appendix C. You should detail your budget plan in Appendix D and print your approval letter in the last appendix.

What are interesting psychology research topics?

You can choose from plenty of compelling topics. Discrimination, social cognition, propaganda, gender roles, and bullying are some examples of it. Whatever topic you choose, the quality of your paper depends on how well you carry out your research. Even the most boring topics can be made interesting by a good researcher.

What are the differences between quantitative and qualitative approaches?

These approaches are two very different things. Qualitative research focuses more on analyzing and interpreting ideas, theories, and data. The methods employed in this approach are discourse analysis, content analysis, and thematic analysis. In contrast, quantitative research deals more with statistics and numbers and often involves a research survey , experiment, and testing hypotheses.

What are the qualitative approaches?

You can apply different approaches in conducting qualitative research. The most common ones are narrative research, action research , ethnography, grounded theory, and phenomenological research. Although all of these falls under the qualitative approach, they incorporate different data collection. Researchers implementing these approaches have varying aims. They also have different perspectives in the direction they should take in conducting their thesis.

The study of psychology focuses on people’s minds and cognitive behavior and how they function in different social settings and environments. That said, there are still a lot of mysteries about how people process their thoughts. If your goal is to uncover one of them, take your first step by composing a foolproof psychology research proposal and get it approved.

Text prompt

• Instructive
• Professional

Generate a proposal for a new school recycling program

Compose a proposal for a school field trip to a science museum.

How to Write a Winning Research Proposal

If you are aspiring to be a psychologist, chances are you need to draft a research proposal as part of of your graduate school applications. If you’re scratching your head, unsure of where to start, this guide is for you. Let’s  explore how to find a research topic that’s both captivating and practical and then the  step-by-step  art of crafting a winning research proposal.

Finding your Research Interests

I wholeheartedly believe that your proposal and research interests should seamlessly connect to your long-term career goals, demonstrating that you have a clear vision of how a psychology graduate program fits into your professional journey. When your research proposal aligns with your personal objectives, it not only showcases your commitment to psychology, but also tells a compelling story about your evolution as a prospective psychologist and your vision for the future. When you’re genuinely passionate, your enthusiasm for the topic will shine through in your proposal and during the application process, favoring your chances of being admitted.

Reflect on your undergraduate studies and consider what areas of psychology have truly piqued your interests. In what domains of psychology do you see yourself developing a speciality? From there, you can identify an area of research you would like to explore during graduate school.

Doing a Literature Review

Your research proposal needs to contribute something new and relevant to your field. Once you have a general idea of your interests and research area, you can conduct an exhaustive literature review to understand the current state of research in your area. Dive into relevant research articles, books, and reviews. Keep an eye out for gaps or unanswered questions. What aspects of your field are underexplored? Where can you make a meaningful contribution?

You can use Google Scholar to help you identify articles across the web using key terms. Use advanced filtering options to narrow your search to recent articles. Your university library can provide access for the articles you identify.

For a more specialized approach, consider using advanced databases such as PsychINFO or PubMed. They provide tailored search options and keyword functions that help retrieve only the most relevant articles for your research. Ask your university librarian for more information on how to conduct effective literature reviews.

Start with review papers and meta-analyses related to your subject of interest. These provide a broad perspective on the topic and can highlight gaps in the literature that you can explore in your research. The “Future Research” section in scientific articles, usually found at the end, often highlights known gaps in the literature.

Defining Your Research Question

Now, it’s time to narrow your focus. Your broad research interests should become a more specific, manageable research question or hypothesis. Essentially, what is the exact question you will try to answer with your research. The quality of your research question is critical.  Here are four crucial elements to an effective research question:

Clear and Specific

Your research question should be clear and specific. Ambiguity or vagueness can hinder the strength of your proposal. Be concise and express your research question in a single sentence or a brief paragraph. Use plain language that can be easily understood by someone unfamiliar with your field. If your question involves specialized terminology, provide clear definitions. Precision and clarity are key. A vague research question won’t impress admissions committees.

Weak and vague research question

“Does music affect children’s development?

Stronger and more precise research question

“To what extent does exposure to classical music during infancy impact cognitive development and academic achievement in elementary school children?”

Your research question should address a gap or a need that has been identified in the existing literature. Avoid asking questions that have already been extensively explored unless you can propose a unique perspective. If you can’t find an original angle to your research question, go back to the literature you conducted earlier. It’s also never a bad idea to ask peers and colleagues for input or inspiration.

Do not share too much about your proposal unless you trust the persons with whom you share. I’ve heard horror stories of students having their proposals and ideas ‘’stolen’’ by supervisors and other professors.

Consider the practicality of your research question. Can it be answered with the resources and time available for your graduate studies? If your research is too ambitious or requires extensive funding and time, it may not be a suitable fit for your graduate program.

Studying how long-duration space travel affects the mental health of returning astronauts has immense practical relevance, but is not easily feasible. As a student researcher, you have no control over recent space travel, and recruiting astronauts to your study might prove immensely challenging and restricted.

Likewise, a good research question should be testable through empirical methods. It should be framed in a way that allows you to design and conduct experiments, surveys, or other research methods to gather data and find an answer. Testability ensures that your research is grounded in the scientific method. 

You need to know why your research question is worth investigating. Why does it matter, who it may benefit, and how it can advance our understanding of the subject.

Don’t overdo your justification. Avoid hyperbolic claims about changing the world or being “much needed” research. Let the substance of your proposal convey the value, and readers should naturally understand the relevance without being ‘sold’ on it.

Writing Good Hypotheses

Once you’ve defined your research question, you can develop specific research hypotheses. A hypothesis is a clear and testable statement that predicts the relation between variables or the expected outcomes of your research. 

Specific hypotheses lead to more precise and focused research, and they provide a framework for designing your study and guiding your data collection and analysis. Your hypotheses should be supported by what’s been shown in existing literature. 

Keep in mind that not all proposals will have specific hypotheses. If your research question is novel, you might want to explore the subject before making any specific hypotheses, but this needs to be justified in your proposal.   

Good vs Bad Hypotheses Example

Imagine your literature research revealed that engaging in fitness supports cognitive development and academic achievement. You want to know to if small amounts of physical activity has an effect on children’s development . You formulate the following research question:

Research Question.

To what extent does 15-minutes of fitness each morning impact cognitive development and academic achievement in elementary school children?

To make your research proposal stronger, leverage what was shown in the literature to craft a strong, specific hypothesis. For instance,

Weak Hypothesis

Fitness will influence children’s cognitive development and academic achievement

Stronger Hypothesis

Participating in 15 minutes of early-morning fitness activities on school days will lead to a significant improvement in cognitive development and higher scores on end-of-semester academic tests among elementary school children when compared to those who do not engage in such activities.

The first hypothesis is vague and lacks specificity. It doesn’t provide a clear prediction of the expected outcomes. It doesn’t differentiate between groups exposed to fitness and those who are not. It also doesn’t indicate the direction of the effect (positive, negative, or no effect).

The second hypothesis is stronger because it proposes a clear, testable relation, specifying measurable outcomes, including a comparison group, and establishes a logical connection between early-morning fitness, cognitive development, and academic performance among elementary school children.

Note that these are just examples. Not all hypotheses need a comparison group. I also do not know if these hypotheses would hold in the current literature.

Research Proposal Structure

With a clear and focused research question and hypotheses in mind, the next step is to develop a comprehensive research proposal. Your research proposal outlines what you plan to research and why it’s important, how you intend to do it, and the potential results.

Admissions committees and potential supervisors generally set their own standards on what needs to be included in the proposal and how long it needs to be; student proposals are generally short. Mine was a single page, single-spaced.

Here is what a research proposal should generally include:

Introduction

The introduction is where you set the stage for your research. Give readers essential background information on your topic. Highlight current issues or gaps in knowledge. Present your research question clearly and succinctly in the context of existing literature.

The introduction should clearly let readers understand why your proposed research is important, relevant, and how it contributes to the field. A compelling introduction should capture the attention of readers and convey the “why” behind your research. End by presenting your specific hypotheses and overarching objectives.

The method section is arguably the heart of your proposal. It details how you plan to answer your research question. A well-structured and thoughtful method showcases your readiness and commitment to pursuing research in psychology.

A method section includes the following sub-sections:

Participants

Describe the individuals or groups you intend to study, specifying their characteristics, demographics, and recruitment methods. Highlight the importance of your chosen sample in relation to your research question.

Explain the tools and instruments you will use to collect data. This could involve surveys, questionnaires, interviews, or observations. Justify the measures and discuss their reliability and validity as shown in the literature.

Outline how you will collect your data and what analyses you have planned. This section should provide a clear, replicable plan for your research. Discuss how you’ll implement your research design, including any experimental or observational procedures. 

While you may not have the exact procedure mapped out, you can provide a well-informed outline based on your current understanding and available resources. Think of it as a ‘thought experiment’ to demonstrate your ability to think critically about the research process. As you progress through graduate school, you’ll refine and adapt and change the procedure.

Expected Results

In the expected results section , offer a glimpse of what you anticipate finding. This can be a summary of your hypotheses and what you predict the outcomes will be. It’s essential to relate your expected results back to your research question and the existing literature. This demonstrates your grasp of the subject matter and your ability to make informed predictions.

Implications

The implications section delves into the broader significance of your research. Explain how your findings could impact the field of psychology or have practical applications. Consider the potential contributions to theory, policy, or practice. Discuss how your research might lead to new insights, interventions, or understanding within the realm of psychology.

Limitations

In the limitations section , acknowledge the potential weaknesses or constraints of your research. This demonstrates your awareness of the study’s imperfections and your willingness to address them honestly. Try and avoid staple limitations such as small sample size or generalizability. Discuss the practical limitations, such as resource constraints, methodological weaknesses, or data analysis concerns. A good starting point is to ask yourself if there are any specific limits to the study design (they all have their own limits).

Identifying and addressing limitations showcases your research maturity and thoughtfulness.

End with a comprehensive list of the references you consulted when drafting the proposal. Make sure to format the references in the format requested by the admissions committee and/or supervisor (e.g., APA, MLA)

Adapt as Needed

Be open to adjusting based on the feedback you receive during the application process. Your research proposal is a dynamic document that will evolve over time. Seek feedback from advisors, mentors, and potential supervisors to refine and strengthen each of these sections. A compelling research proposal is a critical step toward gaining acceptance into your desired graduate program in psychology.

What if you hate research?

Some students may find themselves writing research proposals out of necessity, not passion. That’s perfectly okay. You can get matched onto existing research projects if you find supervisors willing to accommodate. Ask potential supervisors what they expect from their graduate students and the level of involvement in research.

Andrew Durand, B.A, Psy. D Student

Related content.

• August 21, 2024

State of AI

How to Write a Psychology Research Proposal

• Rachel R.N.
• June 15, 2024
• How to Guides

What You'll Learn

How to Write an Effective Psychology Research Proposal

Writing a solid research proposal is a crucial first step in conducting a successful psychology study. A well-crafted proposal not only demonstrates your understanding of the research topic but also convinces others that your study is methodologically sound, feasible, and likely to yield valuable insights. This comprehensive guide will walk you through the essential components of a psychology research proposal, providing detailed explanations, examples, and tips to help you create a compelling and well-structured document.

Introduction

The introduction sets the stage for your research by providing background information, establishing the significance of your study, and clearly stating your research question or hypothesis.

Background and Rationale

Start by briefly describing the broader context of your research topic and the existing literature. Use this section to demonstrate your familiarity with the subject matter and highlight the importance of your study. For example:

“Stress and anxiety are common experiences among college students, and numerous studies have explored their impact on academic performance. However, most of these studies have focused on traditional classroom settings. With the growing popularity of online education, it’s essential to understand how stress and anxiety affect the performance of students enrolled in virtual learning environments, where the learning experience and potential stressors may differ from those in traditional classrooms.”

Explain why your study is necessary and how it will contribute to the field of psychology. Highlight any gaps or limitations in the current knowledge that your research aims to address.

Research Question or Hypothesis

Clearly and concisely state your research question or hypothesis. This statement should be focused and directly aligned with the purpose of your study. For example:

“This study aims to investigate the relationship between perceived stress levels, anxiety symptoms, and academic performance among online nursing students.”

Alternatively, you could present a specific hypothesis, such as:

“It is hypothesized that higher levels of perceived stress and anxiety will be associated with lower academic performance among online nursing students.”

Literature Review

The literature review section demonstrates your in-depth understanding of the existing research related to your topic and highlights the gaps that your study aims to fill.

Summarize Relevant Research

Provide a comprehensive overview of the key theories, concepts, and findings from previous studies that are relevant to your research question or hypothesis. Organize this section logically, using subheadings to group related studies together. For example:

Stress and Academic Performance

• Summarize studies that have explored the relationship between stress and academic performance in various student populations.
• Highlight any conflicting findings or limitations in these studies.

Anxiety and Academic Performance

• Summarize research focused specifically on the impact of anxiety on academic performance.
• Discuss any differences or similarities between the findings and those related to stress.

Online Learning and Student Well-being

• Review studies that have investigated the unique challenges and stressors faced by online students.
• Discuss how these factors may influence academic performance in virtual learning environments.

Identify Gaps and Limitations

After summarizing the existing literature, clearly point out the gaps or limitations in the current knowledge that your study will address. Explain how your research will contribute to filling these gaps or overcoming these limitations. For example:

“While several studies have examined the impact of stress and anxiety on academic performance in traditional classroom settings, there is a lack of research specifically exploring these relationships among online nursing students. Additionally, most existing studies have focused on stress or anxiety in isolation, rather than investigating their combined effects. This study aims to address these gaps by examining the influence of both perceived stress levels and anxiety symptoms on the academic performance of online nursing students.”

Research Methodology

This section outlines the specific methods and procedures you will use to conduct your study. It should be detailed enough for others to understand and potentially replicate your research.

Study Design

Describe the type of study you will be conducting (e.g., experimental, correlational, qualitative) and provide a clear rationale for your choice. For example:

“This study will employ a correlational research design to investigate the relationships between perceived stress levels, anxiety symptoms, and academic performance among online nursing students. A correlational design is appropriate for this research as it allows us to examine the strength and direction of associations between these variables without manipulating them experimentally.”

Participants and Sampling

Explain who your target population is and how you will recruit and select participants for your study. Provide details on your sampling method (e.g., random, convenience, stratified), sample size calculations, and any inclusion or exclusion criteria. For example:

“The target population for this study is undergraduate nursing students enrolled in online degree programs at [University Name]. Participants will be recruited through email invitations sent to all eligible students. A convenience sampling method will be used, with the goal of obtaining a sample size of at least 200 participants. To be included in the study, participants must be currently enrolled in an online nursing program and be at least 18 years old.”

Data Collection

Describe the instruments or measures you will use to collect data and provide information on their reliability and validity. Explain the procedures you will follow for data collection, including any specific instructions or protocols. For example:

“Perceived stress levels will be measured using the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), a widely used and validated self-report instrument (Cohen et al., 1983). The PSS consists of 10 items that assess the degree to which individuals appraise situations in their lives as stressful over the past month. Anxiety symptoms will be assessed using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) scale (Spitzer et al., 2006), a reliable and valid measure of anxiety severity.

Academic performance data, including current grade point average (GPA) and course grades, will be obtained from the university’s student records system with participants’ consent.

Data collection will be conducted online through a secure survey platform. Participants will receive a link to the survey, which will include informed consent information, demographic questions, the PSS, the GAD-7, and instructions for providing access to their academic records.”

Data Analysis

Outline the statistical tests or analytical methods you plan to use to analyze your data and answer your research question or test your hypothesis. Justify your choice of analytical approach and explain how it aligns with your study design and data collection methods. For example:

“Descriptive statistics, including means, standard deviations, and correlations, will be calculated for all study variables. Multiple regression analysis will be used to examine the relationships between perceived stress levels, anxiety symptoms, and academic performance (GPA and course grades). Perceived stress and anxiety scores will be entered as predictor variables, and academic performance measures will serve as the outcome variables.

Moderation analyses will also be conducted to investigate whether the relationship between perceived stress and academic performance is moderated by anxiety levels, and vice versa. Appropriate assumptions for multiple regression will be checked, and any violations will be addressed using recommended techniques (e.g., data transformations, robust standard errors).

An alpha level of 0.05 will be used to determine statistical significance for all analyses. Effect sizes (e.g., R-squared, Cohen’s f-squared) will be reported to assess the practical significance of any significant findings.”

Expected Outcomes and Implications

In this section, you should discuss the potential outcomes of your study and their significance for the field of psychology and related areas.

Anticipated Results

Based on your literature review and research question or hypothesis, describe the results you expect to find and how they might contribute to existing knowledge or theory. For example:

“Based on previous research suggesting negative associations between stress, anxiety, and academic performance, it is expected that higher levels of perceived stress and anxiety symptoms will be associated with lower GPAs and course grades among online nursing students.

Additionally, it is hypothesized that anxiety may moderate the relationship between perceived stress and academic performance, such that the negative impact of stress on academic performance is more pronounced among students with higher levels of anxiety.”

Implications and Applications

Explain the broader implications of your anticipated results and how they might be applied in practice. Consider how your findings could inform interventions, policies, educational practices, or support services related to your research topic. For example:

“The findings from this study could have important implications for supporting the academic success and well-being of online nursing students. If perceived stress and anxiety are found to be significant predictors of academic performance, this could inform the development of targeted interventions or support services aimed at helping online students manage stress and anxiety more effectively.

Additionally, the results may guide the implementation of stress management and anxiety reduction programs tailored specifically for online learners, taking into account the unique challenges and stressors they face in virtual learning environments.

Furthermore, insights from this study could inform institutional policies and practices related to online course design, workload management, and the provision of mental health resources for online students, ultimately enhancing the overall online learning experience and promoting student success.”

Ethical Considerations

“This study will be conducted in compliance with ethical guidelines and principles outlined by the [Institutional Review Board or Ethics Committee]. Participation in the study will be voluntary, and informed consent will be obtained from all participants before data collection. Participants will be informed of their right to withdraw from the study at any time without consequences.

To protect participant confidentiality, all data will be de-identified and stored securely. Only research personnel directly involved in the study will have access to the data. Participant names or other identifying information will not be included in any reports or publications resulting from this research.

While the study procedures are not expected to cause significant distress or harm, there is a potential risk that some participants may experience heightened anxiety or stress when completing the self-report measures or reflecting on their academic experiences. To mitigate this risk, the survey will include resources for mental health support services available to students. Additionally, the research team will be prepared to provide referrals to counseling services if needed.

No deception will be used in this study, and participants will be fully informed about the nature and purpose of the research before providing consent.”

Timeline and Resources

Provide a realistic timeline for completing your study, including key milestones and deadlines. Additionally, outline the resources (e.g., personnel, equipment, funding) required to carry out your research and explain how you will secure them. For example:

“The proposed study is expected to span approximately 12 months, with the following tentative timeline:

• Months 1-2: Obtain ethical approval, finalize study materials and procedures
• Months 3-4: Participant recruitment and data collection
• Months 5-6: Data entry, cleaning, and preliminary analyses
• Months 7-8: Advanced statistical analyses and interpretation of results
• Months 9-10: Write-up of research report/thesis
• Months 11-12: Dissemination of findings (e.g., conference presentations, publication submissions)

To successfully complete this research, the following resources will be required:

Personnel: The research team will consist of the principal investigator (a graduate student in psychology) and a faculty supervisor with expertise in the research area. Additional research assistants may be recruited to aid in data collection and entry if needed.

Equipment and Software: Access to a secure online survey platform (e.g., Qualtrics) for data collection, as well as statistical software (e.g., SPSS, R) for data analysis. Computers and office supplies will also be necessary.

Funding: Funding will be sought through internal grants and awards offered by the university to support graduate student research. Additionally, external funding opportunities relevant to the research topic will be explored.

If additional resources are required, alternative sources of funding or support will be identified and pursued as necessary.”

Summarize the main points of your research proposal, emphasizing the significance of your study and its potential contributions to the field of psychology and related areas.

“In conclusion, this research proposal outlines a study designed to investigate the relationships between perceived stress levels, anxiety symptoms, and academic performance among online nursing students. By addressing existing gaps in the literature and employing rigorous methodological approaches, this study has the potential to generate valuable insights into the unique challenges and experiences of online learners.

The findings may inform the development of targeted interventions, support services, and institutional policies aimed at promoting the well-being and academic success of online students. Additionally, this research could contribute to a deeper understanding of the complex interplay between stress, anxiety, and academic outcomes, potentially informing theoretical frameworks and future research directions in this area.

With a well-established research design, appropriate data collection and analysis methods, and a commitment to ethical research practices , this study is well-positioned to make meaningful contributions to the fields of psychology, nursing education, and online learning. By shedding light on the factors influencing the academic performance of online nursing students, this research has the potential to positively impact the educational experiences and outcomes of this growing student population.”

By including detailed explanations, examples, and methodological considerations throughout each section, this guide aims to provide a comprehensive resource for developing a strong and well-structured psychology research proposal. Remember to tailor the content to your specific research topic and ensure that your proposal aligns with the guidelines and requirements of your institution or funding agency.

Related Articles

How to Write an Essay quickly: 3 Different Methods

50+ Good Research Paper Topics Mental Health with Prompts

How to write your research proposal, with examples of good proposals.

Psychology Research Proposal Paper Sample

Start by filling this short order form order.studyinghq.com

And then follow the progressive flow. 

Having an issue, chat with us here

Cathy, CS. 

New Concept ? Let a subject expert write your paper for You​

Yet to start your paper have a subject expert write for you now, test our paper writing service for less, already began delegate the remaining part to our professional writers.

📕 Studying HQ

Typically replies within minutes

Hey! 👋 Need help with an assignment?

🟢 Online | Privacy policy

WhatsApp us

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Starting the research process
• How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates

How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates

Published on October 12, 2022 by Shona McCombes and Tegan George. Revised on September 5, 2024.

A research proposal describes what you will investigate, why it’s important, and how you will conduct your research.

The format of a research proposal varies between fields, but most proposals will contain at least these elements:

Introduction

Literature review.

• Research design

Reference list

While the sections may vary, the overall objective is always the same. A research proposal serves as a blueprint and guide for your research plan, helping you get organized and feel confident in the path forward you choose to take.

Table of contents

Research proposal purpose, research proposal examples, research design and methods, contribution to knowledge, research schedule, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about research proposals.

Academics often have to write research proposals to get funding for their projects. As a student, you might have to write a research proposal as part of a grad school application , or prior to starting your thesis or dissertation .

In addition to helping you figure out what your research can look like, a proposal can also serve to demonstrate why your project is worth pursuing to a funder, educational institution, or supervisor.

Research proposal length

The length of a research proposal can vary quite a bit. A bachelor’s or master’s thesis proposal can be just a few pages, while proposals for PhD dissertations or research funding are usually much longer and more detailed. Your supervisor can help you determine the best length for your work.

One trick to get started is to think of your proposal’s structure as a shorter version of your thesis or dissertation , only without the results , conclusion and discussion sections.

Download our research proposal template

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Writing a research proposal can be quite challenging, but a good starting point could be to look at some examples. We’ve included a few for you below.

• Example research proposal #1: “A Conceptual Framework for Scheduling Constraint Management”
• Example research proposal #2: “Medical Students as Mediators of Change in Tobacco Use”

Like your dissertation or thesis, the proposal will usually have a title page that includes:

• The proposed title of your project
• Your supervisor’s name
• Your institution and department

The first part of your proposal is the initial pitch for your project. Make sure it succinctly explains what you want to do and why.

Your introduction should:

• Introduce your topic
• Give necessary background and context
• Outline your  problem statement  and research questions

To guide your introduction , include information about:

• Who could have an interest in the topic (e.g., scientists, policymakers)
• How much is already known about the topic
• What is missing from this current knowledge
• What new insights your research will contribute
• Why you believe this research is worth doing

As you get started, it’s important to demonstrate that you’re familiar with the most important research on your topic. A strong literature review  shows your reader that your project has a solid foundation in existing knowledge or theory. It also shows that you’re not simply repeating what other people have already done or said, but rather using existing research as a jumping-off point for your own.

In this section, share exactly how your project will contribute to ongoing conversations in the field by:

• Comparing and contrasting the main theories, methods, and debates
• Examining the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches
• Explaining how will you build on, challenge, or synthesize prior scholarship

Following the literature review, restate your main  objectives . This brings the focus back to your own project. Next, your research design or methodology section will describe your overall approach, and the practical steps you will take to answer your research questions.

To finish your proposal on a strong note, explore the potential implications of your research for your field. Emphasize again what you aim to contribute and why it matters.

For example, your results might have implications for:

• Improving best practices
• Informing policymaking decisions
• Strengthening a theory or model
• Challenging popular or scientific beliefs
• Creating a basis for future research

Last but not least, your research proposal must include correct citations for every source you have used, compiled in a reference list . To create citations quickly and easily, you can use our free APA citation generator .

Some institutions or funders require a detailed timeline of the project, asking you to forecast what you will do at each stage and how long it may take. While not always required, be sure to check the requirements of your project.

Here’s an example schedule to help you get started. You can also download a template at the button below.

Download our research schedule template

If you are applying for research funding, chances are you will have to include a detailed budget. This shows your estimates of how much each part of your project will cost.

Make sure to check what type of costs the funding body will agree to cover. For each item, include:

• Cost : exactly how much money do you need?
• Justification : why is this cost necessary to complete the research?
• Source : how did you calculate the amount?

To determine your budget, think about:

• Travel costs : do you need to go somewhere to collect your data? How will you get there, and how much time will you need? What will you do there (e.g., interviews, archival research)?
• Materials : do you need access to any tools or technologies?
• Help : do you need to hire any research assistants for the project? What will they do, and how much will you pay them?

If you want to know more about the research process , methodology , research bias , or statistics , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

Methodology

• Sampling methods
• Simple random sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Cluster sampling
• Likert scales
• Reproducibility

 Statistics

• Null hypothesis
• Statistical power
• Probability distribution
• Effect size
• Poisson distribution

Research bias

• Optimism bias
• Cognitive bias
• Implicit bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Anchoring bias
• Explicit bias

Once you’ve decided on your research objectives , you need to explain them in your paper, at the end of your problem statement .

Keep your research objectives clear and concise, and use appropriate verbs to accurately convey the work that you will carry out for each one.

I will compare …

A research aim is a broad statement indicating the general purpose of your research project. It should appear in your introduction at the end of your problem statement , before your research objectives.

Research objectives are more specific than your research aim. They indicate the specific ways you’ll address the overarching aim.

A PhD, which is short for philosophiae doctor (doctor of philosophy in Latin), is the highest university degree that can be obtained. In a PhD, students spend 3–5 years writing a dissertation , which aims to make a significant, original contribution to current knowledge.

A PhD is intended to prepare students for a career as a researcher, whether that be in academia, the public sector, or the private sector.

A master’s is a 1- or 2-year graduate degree that can prepare you for a variety of careers.

All master’s involve graduate-level coursework. Some are research-intensive and intend to prepare students for further study in a PhD; these usually require their students to write a master’s thesis . Others focus on professional training for a specific career.

Critical thinking refers to the ability to evaluate information and to be aware of biases or assumptions, including your own.

Like information literacy , it involves evaluating arguments, identifying and solving problems in an objective and systematic way, and clearly communicating your ideas.

The best way to remember the difference between a research plan and a research proposal is that they have fundamentally different audiences. A research plan helps you, the researcher, organize your thoughts. On the other hand, a dissertation proposal or research proposal aims to convince others (e.g., a supervisor, a funding body, or a dissertation committee) that your research topic is relevant and worthy of being conducted.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. & George, T. (2024, September 05). How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved September 11, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/research-process/research-proposal/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write a problem statement | guide & examples, writing strong research questions | criteria & examples, how to write a literature review | guide, examples, & templates, what is your plagiarism score.

Designing and Proposing Your Research Project

Available formats, also available from.

• Table of contents
• Contributor bios
• Reviews and awards
• Book details
• Supplemental Resources

Designing your own study and writing your research proposal takes time, often more so than conducting the study. This practical, accessible guide walks you through the entire process.

You will learn to identify and narrow your research topic, develop your research question, design your study, and choose appropriate sampling and measurement strategies.

The figures, tables, and exhibits offer a wealth of relatable examples, and students can use the many activities and worksheets to explore and apply concepts, as individuals or in groups.

This book is part of APA's Concise Guides to Conducting Behavioral, Health, and Social Science Research series. Aimed at undergraduate students in research methods courses or others with a lab or research project, each book describes a key stage in the research process. Collectively, these books provide a solid grounding in research from start to finish.

Series Foreword

• Introduction
• Choosing Your Research Question and Hypotheses
• Choosing Your Study's Purpose
• Choosing Whether to Use a Qualitative, Quantitative, or Mixed-Methods Approach
• Understanding Terms for Quantitative Studies: Concepts, Constructs, and Variables
• Choosing Your Design
• Choosing Your Sample
• Planning Your Measurement Strategy for Collecting Data
• Establishing Validity for Quantitative Studies
• Establishing Validity for Qualitative Studies

About the Authors

About the Series Editor

Jennifer Brown Urban, PhD, is a professor in the Department of Family Science and Human Development at Montclair State University, where she also directs the Research on Evaluation and Developmental Systems Science lab.

She is trained as a developmental scientist with specific expertise in youth development and program evaluation. Her scholarship is encapsulated under the umbrella of systems science, including both theoretical approaches and methodologies.

Dr. Urban's most recent research focuses on character development and innovative approaches to program evaluation and planning. She is currently principal investigator on several grant-funded projects. The goals of this work are to build the capacity of youth program practitioners and evaluators to engage in high-quality evaluation of character development programs, to determine the key features of character development programs that promote positive youth development, and to advance the application of character science in multiple contexts to enhance human flourishing across the lifespan.

She uses mixed-method approaches in her own research and has mentored many undergraduate and graduate students in designing and executing applied research projects.

Bradley Matheus van Eeden-Moorefield, PhD, is an associate professor in the Department of Family Science and Human Development at Montclair State University and director of the PhD program.

His research includes a strong social justice commitment to understanding and strengthening marginalized families, with his most recent work focused on stepfamilies headed by same-sex couples. Much of this research focuses on identifying how factors in the social world (e.g., stigma, stereotypes, policy) influence everyday family life and how each influence various indicators of individual (e.g., depression, happiness) and family well-being (stability).

Dr. van Eeden-Moorefield uses various qualitative and quantitative methodologies and has particular expertise in Internet-based methodologies.

He has provided training to various family and childcare practitioners and uses his previous clinical experiences to translate research into practice and practice into research.

The chapters are organized around the choices students need to make, rather than the types of research and issues specific to each type — an important distinguishing feature that sets this book apart from other research methods text…. In the current environment of increasing interdisciplinarity, this text is very useful to students who find themselves coming to social science research from other disciplines, or to students in need of clear guidelines who do not have the time to complete another entire research methods course. — Choice

Urban and van Eeden-Moorefield take the often daunting topic of research methods and make it — dare I say — fun and engaging. Through personal stories and good humor, they demystify the research process and find ways to connect research to everyday life and experiences. This book should be a required supplementary text for every introductory research methods course. —William M. Trochim, PhD Professor, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY

The authors use vivid and engaging examples and masterfully crafted exhibits to create an irresistible proposition to students: "You can do excellent research and enjoy doing it!" They creatively help readers understand and make the choices involved in exemplary research. This book is an invaluable asset for students in psychology and in the social and behavioral sciences more generally. —Richard M. Lerner, PhD Bergstrom Chair in Applied Developmental Science and Director, Institute for Applied Research in Youth Development, Tufts University, Medford, MA

This book will help beginning researchers identify a meaningful and testable research question as well as deal with basic choices in designing their study. The accessible text and a host of tables guide readers through key issues in designing and proposing a research project. —Melvin M. Mark, PhD Professor and Head of Psychology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park

Welcome to the supplemental resources for Designing and Proposing Your Research Project . The links below provide copies of many of the worksheets seen throughout the text for ease of use.

We also have included several features referred to, but not discussed at length, in the text. These include handouts on ethics, mixed-methods designs, writing integrated literature reviews, and an example research proposal format.

We hope you find these extra features useful. Good luck!

• Anatomy of a Research Article and Comparison of Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches to Research (PDF: 35KB)
• Research Design and Ethics (PDF: 18KB)
• Integrated Literature Review, Research Question-Hypothesis (PDF: 9KB)
• Mixed Methods Approaches (PDF: 32KB)
• Research Proposal Format Example (PDF: 9KB)
• Worksheet: Planning for Trustworthiness in My Study (PDF: 7KB)
• Worksheet: Planning and Tracking Validity in My Study (PDF: 28KB)

You may also like

We use cookies on reading.ac.uk to improve your experience, monitor site performance and tailor content to you

Read our cookie policy to find out how to manage your cookie settings

This site may not work correctly on Internet Explorer. We recommend switching to a different browser for a better experience.

Writing your research proposal

When applying to study for a PhD or MPhil in the School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences, you will typically need to send us an initial 500-word research proposal.

The content and structure of your research proposal will be influenced by the nature of the project you wish to pursue. The guidance and suggested headings provided here should help you to structure and present your ideas clearly.

Your initial research proposal

When writing your initial research proposal, you can either address it to the School generally, or to a specific supervisor if you have one in mind. 

Potential supervisors in the School will review your initial research proposal, and get in touch with you to discuss it. Your proposal may change following this conversation. Depending on the supervisor and the outcome of this discussion, you may be asked to produce a longer research proposal of between 2,000 and 4,000 words.

Tips on writing a research proposal

Before you write your research proposal, we strongly recommend that you check our  research page  and  individual supervisor profiles  to view our areas of expertise.

• You should avoid the use of overly long sentences and technical jargon.
• It is important that the proposed research is realistic and feasible so that the outcomes can be achieved within the scale of a typical research degree programme. This is usually three years full-time for a PhD (or two years for an MPhil). 
• A strong research proposal can and should make a positive first impression about your potential to become a good researcher. It should demonstrate that your ideas are focused, interesting and realistic.

Although you should write your proposal yourself, it is best if you discuss its contents with your proposed supervisor before you submit it. If this is not possible, then try to get someone else (such as an academic at your current or previous institution) to read and comment on it to ensure that it is sufficiently clear.

Your proposal needs a clear working title that gives an indication of what you want to study. You are not committed to continuing with the same title once you begin your studies.

Research question

For many projects, you'll usually address one main question, which can sometimes be broken down into several sub-questions. However, it's OK to have two or three research questions where appropriate.

In your research proposal, you'll need to state your main research question(s), explain its significance, and locate it within the relevant literature, in order to set out the context into which your research will fit. You should only refer to research that is directly relevant to your proposal. 

Questions to address in your research proposal

You will need to address questions such as:

• What is the general area in which you will be working, and the specific aspect(s) of that area that will be your focus of inquiry?
• What is the problem, shortcoming, or gap in this area that you would like to address?
• What is the main research question or aim that you want to address?
• What are the specific objectives for the proposed research that follow from this?
• Why is the proposed research significant, why does it matter (either theoretically or practically), and why does it excite you?
• How does your work relate to other relevant research in the department?

Methodology

You will need to explain how you will go about answering your question (or achieving your aim), and why you will use your intended approach to address the question/aim. 

Questions you might need to address include:

• What steps will you take and what methods will you use to address your question? For instance, do you plan to use quantitative or qualitative methods?
• How will your proposed method provide a reliable answer to your question?
• What sources or data will you use?
• If your project involves an experimental approach, what specific hypothesis or hypotheses will you address?
• What specific techniques will you use to test the hypothesis? For example, laboratory procedures, interviews, questionnaires, modelling, simulation, text analysis, use of secondary data sources.
• What practical considerations are there? For example, what equipment, facilities, and other resources will be required?
• What relevant skills and experience do you have with the proposed methods?
• Will you need to collaborate with other researchers and organisations?
• Are there particular ethical issues that will need to be considered (for example, all projects using human participants require ethical approval)?
• Are there any potential problems or difficulties that you foresee (for example, delays in gaining access to special populations or materials) that might affect your rate of progress?

You will need to provide a rough timeline for the completion of your research to show that the project is achievable (given the facilities and resources required) in no more than three years of full-time study (or part-time equivalent) for a PhD, and two years for an MPhil.

Expected outcomes

You need to say something about what the expected outcomes of your project would be.

How, for example, does it make a contribution to knowledge? How does it advance theoretical understanding? How might it contribute to policy or practice?

If you are aiming to study for a PhD, then you need to say how your proposed research will make an original contribution to knowledge. This is not essential if you are aiming to study for an MPhil, although you will still need to show originality in the application of knowledge.

List of references

You will need to provide a list of any key articles or texts that you have referred to in your proposal.

References should be listed in the appropriate style for your subject area (e.g. Harvard). You should only reference texts that you think are central to your proposed work, rather than a bibliography listing everything written on the subject. 

Format and proofreading

Make sure that your proposal is well structured and clearly written. It is important that you carefully check your proposal for typographical and spelling errors, consistency of style, and accuracy of references, before submitting it.

The proposal should be aesthetically well presented, and look professional (e.g. no font inconsistencies, headings clearly identifiable). If you include figures, then they should be accompanied by captions underneath).

How to apply for a PhD

PhD opportunities

Our research

Take the next step

• How to apply
• Get a prospectus
• Ask us a question
• Learn about the Doctoral and Researcher College

• AI Content Shield
• AI KW Research
• AI Assistant
• SEO Optimizer
• AI KW Clustering
• Customer reviews
• The NLO Revolution
• Press Center
• Help Center
• Content Resources
• Facebook Group

Key Elements of Psychology Research Proposals + Sample Templates

Table of Contents

Need help writing a research proposal for your psychology study? Then you’ve come to the right place! In this article, we’ll guide you through the key elements you should include for a winning proposal. We’ll also share a  research proposal sample psychology that you can refer to! With a well-written research proposal, you’ll be able to showcase the significance of your study. Plus, it can impress potential reviewers and secure the necessary funding for your project.

What is a Psychology Research Proposal?

A psychology research proposal outlines a proposed study consisting of the objectives, hypotheses, methods, and expected outcomes . This document serves as the blueprint for conducting a successful experiment or data collection effort in the field of psychology. Research proposals are often required by granting agencies or academic institutions. Taking the time to create an effective proposal is essential for ensuring the success of any research project.

Key Elements of Psychology Research Proposals

The section you should include in a research proposal depend on the requirements set by your professor or grant agency. But in general, research proposals will need to have the following key elements:

Research Topic

This is the main focus of the research proposal. It should be explained clearly and concisely. This section aims to:

• Identify the specific area of psychology that will be explored.
• Provide a brief overview of existing knowledge on the subject.
• Outline the objectives and goals of the proposed study.

Research Questions

A list of research questions should be included in the proposal to help guide the study’s investigation. These can range from broad inquiries into a given topic to more specific queries regarding certain aspects or areas related to the topic.

Literature Review

An effective literature review serves two essential purposes:

• It provides an overview of the current understanding of the topic.
• Demonstrates that the researcher has conducted adequate background research to develop an informed hypothesis.

Hypothesis/Research Objectives

The hypothesis forms the basis of the research project and outlines what the researcher expects to find. It should also include any specific objectives associated with testing the hypothesis.

Methodology

This sections focuses on the methods used to conduct the study. It provides information on the study’s sample size, participant demographics, research environment, data collection techniques, and so on.

Data Analysis Plan

Once data has been collected, it must be analyzed to draw meaningful conclusions. Outlining a data analysis plan helps ensure that all relevant aspects are considered during analysis.

Expected Results

You won’t be able to predict precisely how an experiment will play out. But you can still give some insight into expected outcomes based on available evidence. This will allow readers to evaluate the validity and practicality of the proposed research project.

Significance and Implications

Explaining the project’s significance gives readers a better idea of why it was conducted in the first place. Detail the potential implications of the findings. This will help others consider the study’s broader application beyond simply answering the research question.

Research Proposal Sample Psychology Template

Introduction.

A. Background of the study : Provide an overview of the studied topic. This includes pertinent facts and figures demonstrating the need for further research. Be sure to include any relevant literature reviews and a concise explanation of the focus of your proposal. B. Rationale/Rationale for Study : Explain why this study should be conducted, including its value to the scientific community. Include evidence from previous studies or theories that may suggest your proposed project’s potential outcomes. C. Hypothesis/Objectives : State your hypothesis or research objectives clearly and succinctly. Describe how you plan to conduct the study and provide detailed information on collecting and analyzing data.

A. Participants : Detail the criteria used to identify and select participants for the study. Specify how many participants are needed and describe their demographic profiles (e.g., age range, gender, education level, etc.). B. Instruments : Identify the instruments (e.g., questionnaires, interviews, surveys) used to collect data and discuss how they were developed and validated. Cite any sources consulted when creating these instruments. C. Procedures : Outline all procedures to be followed during the study, including recruitment methods, data collection techniques, and analysis processes.

D. Data Analysis

Describe the statistical tests to analyze data and explain how results will be interpreted. Make sure to specify whether any ethical issues have been considered when conducting the study and discuss any implications for future research projects.

A. Summarize your study’s purpose, methodology, and findings and make recommendations for future action based on these results. B. Conclude by comprehensively reviewing what has been learned through your work. You can also thank anyone who assisted or supported you throughout the process.

A. Background : Describe the need for research in psychology and how it relates to your study. Give a brief overview of past studies or experiments conducted on the same topic and explain why further exploration is necessary. B. Purpose & Significance : Explain why you are undertaking this research project and what impact it could have on society. Elucidate what questions will be answered by carrying out the proposed study and which theories may be examined as part of the process. C. Objectives : Outline the specific objectives of the research, such as exploring certain phenomena or measuring particular variables. Specify any hypotheses that may be tested during the investigation. D. Study Design & Methodology : Summarize the methods chosen to achieve the project’s aims and justify their selection. Describe key components of the methodology used, including participant selection criteria, data collection techniques, and analysis plans.

A. Overview : Include relevant literature on your research question and discuss its implications. B. Strengths & Limitations : Analyze the strengths and limitations of existing work in the field. You can also identify gaps that need to be filled with further research. C. Synthesis & Recommendations : Present a literature review synthesis and make recommendations for future studies based on your findings.

Results & Analysis

A. Data Collection : Describe how data was collected from participants, such as surveys or interviews, along with details about sample size and demographics. B. Analysis Techniques : Clarify which statistical tools were used for analyzing results, such as linear regression or ANOVA tests. Explain how data was processed before being presented in charts or tables. C. Findings & Implications : Present the key findings from the analysis, commenting on both positive and negative outcomes where applicable. Discuss potential implications for psychological theory, practice, or policy in light of these results.

Discussion & Conclusions

Summarize the main points discussed throughout the paper and reiterate the purpose of the study and its results/implications.

Final Words

 So there you have it: the key elements of a psychology research proposal and some sample templates to get you started. Writing a winning proposal is not easy. But by taking a cue from this  research proposal sample psychology , you can present your project more effectively.

Abir Ghenaiet

Abir is a data analyst and researcher. Among her interests are artificial intelligence, machine learning, and natural language processing. As a humanitarian and educator, she actively supports women in tech and promotes diversity.

Explore All Proposal Generator Articles

Creative terms and conditions agreement in business proposal.

In business, proposals are essential for securing contracts and agreements with clients. However, a proposal is only complete with terms…

• Proposal Generator

Free guide to a statement of proposal sample

A statement of proposal is a document that outlines a proposed project or initiative in detail. It is typically used…

Free Proposal Letter for Training and Development for a Head Start

Training and development are essential to improve employees’ skills, knowledge, and productivity. A well-crafted training proposal can help an organization…

Detailed Guide to Free HR Consulting Proposal

HR consulting is an essential service for businesses of all sizes. HR consultants provide expert guidance to organizations on various…

Key Guide to Better Remote Work Proposal

The rise of remote work has been a significant trend in the business world over the last few years. With…

Guide to Free E-Commerce Proposal Template

E-commerce has become one of the most popular ways of doing business recently. With the increasing number of people using…

• How we work
• PhD Research
• Psychology PhD Research Proposal

Write a PhD Psychology Research Proposal That Will Be Quickly Approved

Come up with compelling research proposal ideas psychology.

Before embarking on a psychology proposal, it is important to understand its main components. Only this way you can properly lay the groundwork for future study. The first and arguably the most crucial step when you write research proposal psychology is selecting a topic that genuinely interests you.

• Follow your passion. Choose psychology research proposal topics that genuinely excite you. Passion for your field of study will keep you motivated throughout the project.
• Evaluate innovation. Ask yourself how your PhD research will contribute to the psychology field, solve current problems, or expand existing knowledge.
• Utilize credible resources. When reviewing existing literature, ensure you use only credible, recent, and relevant sources.

It’s also worth noting that winning PhD projects often involve an interdisciplinary approach. Therefore, you can try to develop sociology research topics or ones in related areas to make your psychology proposal more convincing and applicable.

Deciding on Your PhD Research Psychology Question

After selecting a topic, you should formulate a clear and compelling question to focus the PhD study efforts efficiently.

• Conduct extensive research on your chosen psychology area. This will allow you to find gaps in the existing literature and formulate your question(s) based on them.
• Determine which aspects of your topic have been poorly addressed and explore those areas to decide on study scope and limitations.
• Ensure that the question is clearly stated and conveys the importance of your study. Justify the value of the PhD study question.

Structural Components of a Psychology Research Proposal Example

Now that we understand how to choose a topic and formulate a question, let’s review the main components of a research proposal in psychology.

The abstract, typically 250 to 350 words in length, provides a concise summary of your entire PhD proposal psychology. It’s the brief with research keywords everyone can review to familiarize themselves with your main paper without reading it. Thus, the abstract only repeats the statements from a research proposal. You should prepare it after writing a whole paper.

• Table of contents. Following the abstract, include a table of contents to help readers navigate your proposal.
• Introduction

This states the main PhD psychology research problem you set, describes the context, and formulates the research questions. To make your work easier, consider questions such as:

Who would be interested in your topic? What about existing research in the field? Are there any missing aspects or knowledge gaps? How will your project contribute to the field? How is your study important & applicable? Why?

• Study question(s). Clearly state your questions and explain why they are worth investigating. Those should reveal the essence of the problems examined in the PhD study and their import.
• Hypotheses (if applicable). Hypotheses should be included if the study involves examining the relationship between variables. Hypotheses should be clear statements about the expected outcomes of your PhD research psychology.
• Purpose of the study. Outline the purpose of your psychology PhD research with rationales. Consider reasons such as the lack of previous research on the topic or the potential for considerable results.
• Topic background. Describe the issues related to the proposed PhD study, including ones identified from a literature review. Summarize the main advances and controversies in the psychology field to demonstrate your awareness of the current situation and its trends.
• Literature review

An in-depth literature review is the foundation of any PhD project. This is true whether you’re developing practical solutions as a part of a Ph.D. in clinical psychology project or working on theoretical concepts. You should demonstrate familiarity with the most prominent theories and publications on your topic. Include past studies that provide data related to your research proposal topics in psychology. Describe how these studies are related to your project.

Identify gaps in the current literature. Outline what previous researchers have suggested and how your PhD project will address neglected or under-researched areas. State how your work will contribute to the field knowledge or disprove existing psychology theories.

• Proposed methodology

Explain your approach and methodology comprehensively. Specify whether you are using qualitative or quantitative methods, your sampling method, sample size, data collection instruments, and why you believe this methodology is the most suitable.

• Analysis of the results. Describe which methods you will use to analyze and interpret your data once collected.
• Scope and limitations of the study. Acknowledge any limitations, scope, or delimitations of your study.
• Conclusion. Keep your summary of the research proposal psychology brief, but be sure to emphasize key details and the significance of your PhD work.
• Bibliography. Include a bibliography of your proposal’s reliable sources and references.
• Timeline. If required by your institution, provide a timeline outlining the phases and estimated timelines for completing your project.
• Appendices. If you have additional materials not used when writing research proposal psychology, add them here. You can use tables or diagrams, samples of questionnaires, interview briefs, etc.

We also invite you to explore this psychology research proposal example and seek other topic-relevant samples to visualize expert recommendations and tips on structure.

• FREE topic suggestion
• 100% original research
• Dedicated experts only

Valuable Notes and Tips for Writing Research Proposal Psychology

The proposed PhD research must be realistic and feasible to achieve the expected results within a typical degree program. A PhD in research psychology usually takes three years full-time (or two years for an MPhil).

Strong psychological research proposals can and should create a positive first impression and showcase your potential to be a good researcher. They should also confirm that your ideas are focused, innovative, and have academic value.

Although you should prepare your PhD proposal yourself, you can always ask for help. You can discuss its contents with your intended supervisor and seek their recommendations. Feel free to ask someone else to review and comment on the proposal to ensure it is sufficiently clear. These could be a PhD researcher from your current or previous institution, your peers, or even an expert from a writing service. Such professional PhD assistance is often more valuable. It’s because the experts from whom you buy research proposal always have enough time and resources to help you comprehensively.

Avoid using long sentences and technical jargon to make your proposal clear and understandable to all the readers. Even if the committee is made up entirely of PhDs in psychology, it will be excellent practice for you to create papers that can be distributed to other specialists.

Your psychology research proposal should be well-structured, aesthetically designed, and professional-looking. It is vital to carefully check it for typos and spelling errors, consistent style, and accurate referencing. There should be no font inconsistencies or issues with headings or citations. If you include figures, they should be accompanied by captions underneath.

The Diversity of Psychology Research Proposal Topics

There are some thematic psychology research proposal ideas that you can consider. This list is not exhaustive, but we’ve prepared one to demonstrate the diversity of available study areas. Psychology is a reputable and popular science, comprising many directions, including ones related to other subjects.

1. Clinical Psychology:

• The effectiveness of virtual reality therapy in treating phobias.
• Analysis of the correlation between childhood trauma and the development of personality disorders in adulthood.

2. Social Psychology:

• Gender bias in leadership role and its impact on organizational dynamics.
• The features of prejudice and strategies for decreasing implicit bias.

3. Cognitive Psychology:

• The relationship between memory and aging: How does memory change as we get older?
• Cognitive processes involved in decision-making and risk-taking behavior.

4. Developmental Psychology:

• The impact of parental engagement on adolescents’ academic achievement.
• Gender identity development in transgender and non-binary individuals.

6. Forensic Psychology:

• Profiling serial killers: An analysis of common psychological traits.
• Eyewitness testimony reliability: Factors influencing accuracy and false memories.

There are many ways to find a topic for writing a psychology research paper . Start with something that interests you, and then narrow this area down. If the subject of your interest is already researched enough, you can try to approach it from another angle. For example, you may consider some cognitive psychology aspects within physical psychology models. Another great option is to apply some effective psycho practices in other fields like business, sociology, education, etc.

Let Us Help You With a Psychology Research Proposal

Writing an original proposal is not easy. It must reveal your research proposal ideas psychology and demonstrate your professional readiness to work on the project. The paper involves detailed planning, a solid understanding of the study area, and a systematic approach to developing each component. Moreover, it should engage and lead to approval of your future research. Sounds complicated, doesn’t it? Especially if you choose an in-demand PhD program with many competitors for one spot. In such a case, getting expert help is not cheating but an effective tool to get this opportunity.

We have the leading field experts who are well-versed in academic writing and the intricacies of PhD proposals that win. We’ll assign you a subject-relevant PhD specialist with the best knowledge of your research area. This way, you will get a high-quality and 100% original PhD paper that will impress your committee and be quickly approved.

UCL Doctorate In Clinical Psychology

Guidelines for the Research Proposal

The purpose of the research proposal is to help you organise your ideas about your major research project, and to enable you to get feedback on what you are planning to do. It is worth putting in careful thought at this stage: it will mean that the project is more likely to run smoothly in the long run, and much of what you write in it can eventually be recycled into the final thesis write-up. The proposal is also needed for NHS ethics applications.

The proposal is a course requirement, but is not an assessed piece of work. It is due early in Term 1 of Year 2 (the date will be announced). Please submit an electronic copy to the Research Administrator (following the procedure detailed on the Project Support Moodle site).

There is no formal word limit (but conciseness is essential): we suggest that you aim for around 2500 words, plus references and any necessary appendices. Format it double-spaced, and include page numbers so that reviewers can easily refer back to specific points. Since it is not assessed work, it does not need your code number; please put your name on it.

Some sample proposals from previous years are available on the 'Proposal' (Topic 4) section of the Research Project Support Moodle. 

The structure and content of the proposal is similar to that of the introduction and method sections of a journal article:

A title page with (1) the provisional title of the project (this can be modified later on), (2) your name, (3) your internal and external supervisors, (4) the setting where the study is likely to take place and (5) the date. If you are doing a joint project with other trainees, this should be stated here and the other trainees should be named. (Including all of this information on the title page is very helpful for the course's administrative purposes.)

The introduction (3 or 4 pages) states what the research topic is and why it is important. It succinctly reviews previous research in the area and relevant psychological theory, and summarises the rationale for the intended study. The introduction should end with one or more clearly stated research questions or hypotheses.

The method section (3 or 4 pages) describes in detail the proposed research methods: the setting, participants, sample size, research design, measures, ethical considerations, and data analysis procedures. For quantitative research, the sample size needs to be determined by a power calculation, which should be reported here (a separate document on power calculations is on the Project Support Moodle site). Measures that are not well known should be included as an appendix. For qualitative research, describe your interview schedule (append a draft) and your proposed method of analysis, including the types of "credibility checks" that you propose to use.

The service user involvement section (one or two or paragraphs) describes how the needs and views of service users or other relevant members of the public have shaped or will shape your project. This could include examples of service users influencing: (1) the choice of topic to be researched; (2) decisions about methodology; (3) the design of materials such as invitation letters and participant information sheets; (4) the design of a qualitative interview schedule, and (5) the ethics of the research. Please outline any plans for service user involvement later in the project.  Remember, whilst there are formal ways of eliciting service user views, such as the use of focus groups and services such as FAST-R ( Feasibility And Support to Timely recruitment for Research ), informal sources of information are also valuable, and can be described here. This might include conversations with individual service users, experiences from clinical work, or interactions that take place on-line.

Whilst we strongly encourage trainees to use service user input when developing their research, this is not obligatory. Sometimes consultation with service users and other members of the public is not necessary, for example in some studies of healthy volunteers. If there has been no input from service users or members of the public, please use this section to state this, and briefly (a couple of sentences) explain why. 

The feasibility section has a brief appraisal of how realistic your project is in practical terms, particularly with regard to recruiting participants. Many trainees (and their supervisors!) tend to be over-optimistic at this stage of the project, and it is a good idea to address potential recruitment problems at the outset. You should also include a fallback plan in case things go pear-shaped (which, sadly, in clinical research they often do). It would be helpful if you provided an estimate of what the smallest viable sample size would be, so that we (and you) have an idea of what a worst-case scenario might look like. A general timetable for the project is given in the guidelines for the major research project . If you anticipate any major departures from this, give details and a rationale.

The joint working section is, of course, only required if you are proposing a joint project. In this section provide a brief outline of what your anticipated contribution to the overall study will be, and what will be done by others. There should be a statement of how your research question(s) and analyses will be distinct from those of other students involved in the project. It will be helpful to consult the course guidelines on joint projects when planning any joint study. 

The institutional arrangements , e.g., the setting, and who has agreed to be your internal and external supervisors.

The costings section sets out any substantial expenses that the project may entail. Note that the Department has limited funds and does not normally fund projects costing more than £250 over two years (see the course document on research funding ). If your project is likely to cost more than this,  the course may possibly  be able to provide some additional funding up to £400, although this cannot be guaranteed. It is your responsibility to secure additional funding for expenses beyond that allocated by the course.

The reference list gives all cited works. (It is important to check that this is complete, because reviewers may consult some of your references to understand the background to your study.)

Appendices include measures not in common use, draft qualitative interview schedules, etc.

Supervisors' input

Research proposals usually need to go through several drafts. Show your internal and external supervisors a draft early enough so that you can incorporate their comments into a revised draft before submission.

Review of the proposal

The proposal will be read by one of the academic staff, and will be discussed at a proposals review meeting in October. The resultant written feedback that you receive (towards the end of October) will give you a clear indication of the general feasibility of your project, and suggest any changes that will need to be made before it goes ahead. 

This process counts as the "peer review" that is required for all NHS ethics applications. Therefore, once your proposal has passed the review stage, those of you applying for NHS ethics should contact Will Mandy to ask for a letter confirming that your project has been successfully peer reviewed.  

Printable version of this page

Study at Cambridge

About the university, research at cambridge.

• Undergraduate courses
• Events and open days
• Fees and finance
• Postgraduate courses
• How to apply
• Postgraduate events
• Fees and funding
• International students
• Continuing education
• Executive and professional education
• Courses in education
• How the University and Colleges work
• Term dates and calendars
• Visiting the University
• Annual reports
• Equality and diversity
• A global university
• Public engagement
• Give to Cambridge
• For Cambridge students
• For our researchers
• Business and enterprise
• Colleges & departments
• Email & phone search
• Museums & collections

Prospective Postgraduates

Department of Psychology

• About Us overview
• Wellbeing, Equality and Diversity overview
• Athena SWAN overview
• Career Development
• Celebrating Women in the Department overview
• Professor of Comparative Cognition, Nicola Clayton FRS FSB FAPS C Psychol
• Professor of Cognitive Developmental Neuroscience, Usha Goswami FBA
• Professor of Psychology, Melissa Hines
• Professor of Cognitive Neuroscience, Lorraine K. Tyler
• Professor of Experimental Psychology, Zoe Kourtzi
• Professor of Developmental Psychology, Claire Hughes
• Professor of Family Research and Director of the Centre for Family Research, Susan Golombok
• Work-Life Balance
• Dignity At Work
• Race Equality
• Neurodivergent Socialities Discussion Group
• Visitors to the Department overview
• Guidance for Visitors and their Supervisors
• Visitor Application Form
• People overview
• Head of Department
• Professional Services Team
• Academic Staff
• Emeritus and Research Professors
• Researchers and Visitors
• Artist in Residence
• Postgraduate Students
• Psychology Analytical Laboratory Staff
• Study overview
• Psychology A-Z
• Prospective Undergraduates overview
• Letter from an undergraduate
• Applying to Cambridge
• PBS Tripos FAQ
• PBS alumni profiles
• Current Undergraduates overview
• Natural Sciences Tripos Part IB Experimental Psychology
• Natural Sciences Tripos Part II Courses overview
• Data Retention Policy - University Examinations
• Psychological and Behavioural Sciences Tripos
• Letter from an Undergraduate
• Department of Psychology lecture recording policy
• Prospective Postgraduates overview
• Introduction to Graduate Courses
• PhD in Psychology (Course Code BLPC22) overview
• Available projects
• Potential PhD Psychology supervisor
• MPhil in Psychology (Course Code BLPCM1)
• Application procedure
• Postgraduate Funding
• Frequently asked questions
• Current Postgraduates overview
• Research overview
• Research Centres & Groups overview
• Adaptive Brain Lab
• ADPRG overview
• Psychology, Public Policy, and Law
• The New Parents Study overview
• New Parents Study Recruitment Partners
• Hayden Henderson
• Auditory Perception Group - Hearing overview
• Auditory demonstrations and useful software
• Publications of Brian C. J. Moore: Books
• BCJM papers in refereed journals
• BCJM Book chapters
• CAM2 (CAMEQ2-HF) Hearing AID fitting software
• THE PATIENT-CENTRED TINNITUS MANAGEMENT TOOL
• CDs for Diagnosis of Dead Regions in the Cochlea – TEN(HL) and TEN(ER3)
• CD of audio demonstrations
• Measuring psychophysical tuning curves
• Two methods for determining TFS sensitivity
• Determining binaural TFS sensitivity: The TFS-AF test
• Software for running psychoacoustic experiments
• Behavioural and Clinical Neuroscience Institute - BCNI overview
• About us - BCNI
• About us BCNI
• Research BCNI overview
• BCNI Publications 2003 onwards.doc
• Past events - BCNI
• BCNI Find us
• Contact BCNI
• Online Resources BCNI overview
• Get involved BCNI
• Believing Brain Project overview
• Brain, Language and Bilingualism overview
• Opportunities and Contact - Brain, Language and Bilingualism
• People - Brain, Language and Bilingualism
• Publications - Brain, Language and Bilingualism
• Research at Brain, Language and Bilingualism
• Cambridge Babylab overview
• Meet the Members - BabyLab
• Research Methods - Babylab
• Get Involved!
• Where to Find Us - Babylab
• FAQ's - Babylab
• BabyLab News overview
• BabyPaL Principal Investigator, Dr Rebecca Lawson is a selected performer for the Wellcome Leap, $45M 1kD program!
• Check out the new paper on bilingualism in infants by our own Dr Hana D'Souza!
• Dianna publishes a new paper in Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews: Infant social interactions and brain development: A systematic review!
• Dr Ellie Smith publishes new paper in Infant Behavior and Development!
• Dr Hana D'Souza & the Embodied Lab are moving to Cardiff University!
• Dr Sarah Lloyd-Fox writes about "Generation COVID: pregnancy, birth and postnatal life in the pandemic".
• Dr Sinead Rocha-Thomas presented some BabyRhythm data at a Conference!
• Dr. Borja Blanco publishes paper on bilingual adaptations in resting state functional connectivity!
• Ellie & Addie finish data collection for the BabyPaL-GiggleDOT Collaboration!
• Ellie & Addie present at the Society of fNIRS Virtual Conference 2021!
• The BabyPaL monkey-LEAP Project has begun!
• The CNE Babylab's paper was chosen as Editor's Choice in Brain & Language!
• The PIPKIN Project: at home!!
• COVID-19 Changes: How are we making the Babylab safe for our Researchers & your Family to visit?
• Meet Labs - BabyLab
• ANIMATE - Babylab
• Brain Imaging for Global HealTh (BRIGHT)
• Baby Prediction and Learning Lab
• CNE Babylab
• Embodied Attention & Learning - BabyLab overview
• Selected publications
• Summaries of our research
• Current Projects overview
• How does infant social behaviour develop neurologically over the first year of life: using a wearable, baby-friendly brain imaging system? - BabyLab
• Baby Prediction and Learning Lab - Babylab
• How do infants' learn about their environment?
• How has COVID-19 effected the experience of pregnancy for young families?
• Does your Little Scientist like to move? - BabyLab
• Cambridge Body, Mind and Behaviour Laboratory
• Cambridge Centre for the Integration of Science, Technology and Culture
• Cambridge Laboratory for Research into Autism
• Cambridge Personality and Social Dynamics Research Group
• Cambridge Political Psychology Lab overview
• Join the Lab
• Lab Resources
• Publications
• Cambridge Social Decision-Making Lab
• Cambridge University Behavioural Insights Team - CUBIT
• Centre for Family Research
• Centre for Neuroscience in Education
• Centre for Speech, Language and the Brain
• Cognition and Motivated Behaviour Lab
• Comparative Cognition Lab. overview
• Research Output
• Consciousness and Cognition Lab
• Higher Values: Aesthetic Experiences, Transcendence, and Prosociality overview
• Project Publications - Higher Values
• Project Team - Higher Values
• IC Thinking Research Group
• Memory Laboratory
• Study Participation
• Applying for Research Fellowships
• COVID-19 Research
• Work with us overview
• Current vacancies
• Guidance for Applications
• New Starters
• Current Staff
• Professional Development
• Retirement & Pensions
• Visas & Immigration
• Services overview
• The Archive
• Psychology Analytical Laboratory
• Staff Intranet (Raven Login)
• Biotronix Electronics Workshop
• TRCNLabs overview
• TRCNLabs_Workflow
• Testing Suite 01
• Testing Suite 02
• Intranet overview
• DA Monday updates overview
• Committee meetings
• Ethics Committee
• Undergraduate Teaching
• Postgraduate Supervisors

Research proposal

Your research proposal is your opportunity to show your prospective supervisor that you have interesting ideas, and that you have some idea of how to test them.

It should consist of about two sides of A4, including references and it should include:

• clear empirical objective
• some idea of the research methods you would use
• some theoretical background

Firstly you need to lay out the theoretical background to your research question, and then provide a rationale for testing a hypothesis or two. You should briefly outline your methods, your sample, and the various techniques you hope to use. Finally give a brief statement of how the data will be analysed, and outline what various findings might lead to.

Current Postgraduates​ ​​​​​ ​

Introduction, open day 2024, application procedure​, mphil in psychology, phd in psychology, application deadline - to start october 2025.

Applications for October 2025 will open in September 2024.

The Department will continue to accept applications up until Thursday 27 March 2025  for October 2025 start date. 

Any application submitted after 3 December 2024 will not be considered for the funding round.

Research Councils​

Downing Street, Cambridge

webmaster[at]psychol.cam.ac.uk

• Downing Site
• New Museums Site

Data Protection

Privacy policy.

Information on personal information we gather when you visit the website and how that information is used.

© 2024 University of Cambridge

• Contact the University
• Accessibility
• Freedom of information
• Privacy policy and cookies
• Statement on Modern Slavery
• Terms and conditions
• University A-Z
• Undergraduate
• Postgraduate
• Research news
• About research at Cambridge
• Spotlight on...

Project Types We Cover

• Admissions Essay
• PowerPoint Presentation
• Research Paper
• Book Reviews
• Personal Statement
• Ph.D Dissertation
• Proofreading

Academic Fields & Subjects

• Programming
• Computer Science
• Other projects we help with
• Our Experts
• Plagiarism Checker
• Writing Tips

Psychology Research Proposal: How To Go About It?

By: Tasha Kolesnikova

When writing a proposal, first, you need to select a topic that interests you the most. Once you are done selecting it, ask yourself why this research is innovative? How is it going to contribute or provide a solution to the problem being studied? For that, make sure there is a fair amount of literature and theories in that particular area. The literature that has already been written will help you explain your topic. When doing so, make sure you use reliable resources. But, how to make sure your research proposal is good enough to make an impression? To find that out, continue reading.

Tips For Performing a Literature Search

Coming up with an impressive research question, abstract and table of contents, introduction, purpose of the study, background of the study, literature review, empirical justification, literature gap, proposed methodology, analysis of results, scope, limitations, and delimitation of the study, bibliography, what is the purpose of the proposal, social psychology prompts, physiological psychology prompts, neuropsychology prompts, mental health prompts, developmental psychology prompts, health psychology prompts, educational psychology prompts, clinical psychology prompts, criminal psychology prompts, writing an exceptional psychology research proposal.

Do you want your paper to stand out from the rest and score excellent marks? If yes, make sure you do a great literature search. This will help you write a strong literature review with reliable sources. Also, it will help you write a meaningful rationale. A strong rationale leads to strong study results.

As a student, you probably have access to various academic databases. Make sure you make the most out of it. These databases, such as Medline and PsychInfo, etc., help you find reliable and up-to-date sources. Apart from them, you may also use Google Scholar for searching relevant journal articles.

When searching, type all terms that you think are appropriate and relevant. For instance, are you searching about the impact of the internet on the levels of depression among college students? You could use the following terms:

• Youth, internet, and depression.
• Depression in young adults.
• Depression in college students.
• Impact of internet on depression among youth.
• Can the internet cause depression in young adults?

Using different terms will help you perform a comprehensive search for your study area.

The best way to come up with a great research question is to do extensive reading. Once you have read and comprehend your area of study well, it will be easier to identify gaps.

Identifying the gaps means you will get a clear picture of which areas you haven't done much work on. This will allow you to perform another research on the literature to find out material in those areas. Consequently, you will come up with a clearer and precise research question. Having a clear idea about your study question will help you craft a robust research methodology.

Psychology Research Proposal Sample

If you're confused about how to go about your proposal, here is a sample that is sure to help you get started:

A proposal should start with a title page. This page should include your topic and give a clear idea of your proposed study approach. So, make sure you include the following:

• The proposed title.
• Name of your research supervisor.
• Your department and university name.

Check with your university's website or department if there is any specific requirement for this page's formatting.

After the title page comes the abstract, the abstract is generally around 250 to 350 words. It includes key snippets of the entire document. When crafting it, ensure you mention the title, research question, the methodology proposed, and the methods used to analyze the results. You may also include the implications of your project and how it will contribute to the existing literature.

After the abstract, you need to add a table of contents. This will help the reader navigate your proposal.

This section should introduce your research problem and give a brief context of it. This explanation should indicate your research questions. And make sure the ideas and information should flow logically. Moreso, keep the following questions in mind while writing this section:

• Who would be interested in this topic?
• How much research is already done in this area?
• What aspects of the problem are missing from the existing knowledge?
• Is your study going to contribute some new insights to the existing research?
• Why is this study critical?

It's a good idea to use separate sections to explain and provide information that will give a clear understanding of the problem's background and context, including aims and objectives and significance of the study.

Since it is the first part of the document, it serves as an initial pitch. Hence, ascertain that it clearly defines what your project is all about.

Research Questions

Once you have done writing the introduction and background, it's time to formulate your research questions. Ensure they are clear and well stated and give a clear indication of what issues your study will be exploring. Additionally, they should also indicate why they are worth investigating.

Not all research studies have a hypothesis. But, if you are trying to find a relationship between two variables, this section is necessary.

This section includes your intention behind the proposed study. Why do you think this study is worth conducting? What is the purpose of carrying out this project? What are the advantages of doing it?

The purpose may include the following justifications:

• Little to no research on the topic.
• To gain meaningful insights that may help transform the lives of respondents.

This section includes the issues of your proposed study and determines your discipline. This may also include a brief review of the literature you studied. Besides, add a summary of intrinsic developments and debates in the area.

A full literature review makes sure the reader is convinced that the proposed study has a solid base in the current knowledge. This is why it is vital to demonstrate that you are well-aware of the essential theories and publications in your study area.

Besides, it also demonstrates that your project is going to contribute something new in the research area. Your project is not repeating what other researchers have already done. Thus, try to depict how exactly your study is going to contribute.

Furthermore, it is also essential to compare and contrast. What are the intrinsic debates, theories as well as controversies on this topic?

While writing this section, try to be critical. Try to discuss the weaknesses and strengths of various approaches. Demonstrate how your project will build on or challenge the already published studies.

In this section, include the past research studies that reveal data on your proposed topic.

In this section, you will identify the gaps in the current literature. What past studies have offered and what your study is going to offer. Sometimes the area of research might be widely studied. But, there must be a different aspect to it that you may select to study.

This section should include an overview of the theoretical resources you are using for your study approach. And most importantly, you should explain your methodology comprehensively. What kind of research are you conducting - qualitative or quantitative? What is going to be the sampling method and the sample size? And how will it be done? What instruments will be used to collect the data?

Also, why do you think this is the best methodology to use? Are there any limits to other methods and approaches?

Since a literature review follows the section, restate your key objectives. This will help the reader stay on track. So, make sure you elaborate on what actions you will take to answer the questions. However, ensure you don't just write down the name of methods and instruments. Target convinces the reader why this is the most appropriate method to find answers to the questions.

Once the data is collected, it will be analyzed and interpreted to yield the study results. Here you will explain what methods you will be used to analyze your data.

Describe any limitations, scope, or delimitation here.

Now summarize the entire proposal. Highlight the key details and wrap up the entire document in a few sentences.

Once you've completed your proposal, add a bibliography of the sources/references used. Also, don't forget to add an abstract and table of contents after the title page.

The timeline is an essential part of your thesis proposal. It includes an outline of phases with an indication of their timeline. This demonstrates how your project will be developed and implemented, including crafting your dissertation.

Usually, you are required to complete your project within 3 years if you're a full-time student. For part-time students, it is usually six years.

So, whatever the duration is, make sure you create a feasible work plan and timeline.

At the end of the document, you must include a bibliography of the sources/citations used within the document. Make sure you have used a good range of appropriate and reliable sources.

Often, students are required to submit a proposal for their thesis. This document aims to help understand what they are doing and what resources are available to them. It will also help them have a clear picture of how they will carry out their study.

How To Craft a Strong One?

Just like the above example, the document should contain a snippet into each section. Make sure you state the problem clearly, and why is it important? Also, formulate your questions and hypothesis carefully. Moreso, choose the right methodology to test your hypotheses or answer your questions.

Once you are done writing all the sections, ensure the document is formatted according to your university's requirements.

Your document will indicate that you are well aware of all the research requirements with all these elements, also included that you are fully prepared for the project.

Topic Suggestion For Your Psychology Research

Selecting a topic can be a daunting business. To help you get started, here are some prompts:

Looking for some ideas for your social psychology study? Check out the prompts mentioned below:

• Social identity theory by Tajfel Turner’s.
• Discuss the outcomes of social influence.
• Behavior in Mob riots.
• Perceiving the self.
• Violent and aggressive behavior.
• Discuss reasons that lead to dehumanization in the Stanford prison experiment.
• Societal behavior patterns.
• Street demonstrations and aggression control.
• Obedience, conformity, and compliance as a function of social status.

If you are looking for ideas in the area of physiology, here are some suggestions:

• Debate on the causes of lucid dreaming physiology and neurobiology.
• Discuss brain mechanism in Bonding, attachment, and intimacy.
• Functioning of a brain in love.
• Gender wise physiological differences in the brain.
• REM sleep physiology.
• Chemicals in the brain like serotonin and dopamine in happiness and pleasure.

Are you looking for topic ideas for your neuropsychology research? Check these out:

• Cognitive neuroscience in mental processing.
• The relation between thoughts and behavior.
• Psychobiological trends concerning genetic behavior changes in animals.
• Neuropsychology and Decision making.
• Discuss the innovations in MRI technology.
• Brain structure in attention, emotions.

If you're looking for mental health topics, the following are some great suggestions:

• Anxiety disorders leading to mental illness.
• Eating disorders and mental health.
• Post-traumatic stress disorders in men and women.
• Personality complexes and their adverse effects in teen-agers.
• Bipolar disorders in youngsters.
• Infertility in women may lead to adverse mental health issues.
• Discuss Mental illness in the light of Anorexia.
• Dementia patients and their mental health issues with the coefficient of variation in the degree of illness.

Can't think of an exciting topic for your developmental psychology thesis? Here are some suggestions:

• Antisocial behavior patterns in children.
• Discipline meter analysis and kids' personality nurturing over the years.
• Corona and its impact on the world population.
• Lockdown and school student's personality behavior.
• Midlife crisis in both genders - causes and comparison.
• Child abuse and mental health issues.
• Old age problems and mental illnesses.
• Bullying and its adverse effects on children.

If you are looking for an idea in this area, check out the following suggestions:

• Review on chronic pain literature and its mediation treatment practice.
• Group therapy for patients fighting eating disorders.
• Depression issues in Cancer patients and methods used to deal with it.
• Alcoholism and lessons learned in the rehabilitation process.
• Physical exercise and fitness regime has positive effects on mood and stress-related issues.
• Cognitive ability enhancement is directly proportional to physical training and fitness.

Are you looking for an educational psychology topic? Here are some suggestions:

• Academic pressures and student's mental health.
• Development of cognitive skills in school going children through complex learning games.
• Peer pressure on adult university students towards drugs and alcohol.
• Enhancing learning capabilities in kids is difficult in the existing grading system.
• Violent Video games fueling aggression in teenage school students.
• Role of parenting and academic success.

Following are some excellent clinical psychology prompts that will help you create a vital research question:

• Innovation in the field of phobia treatment.
• Clinical limitation in the cure of trauma and depression.
• Discuss advancement in research methodology for behavioral changes in youth.
• Aging in women has more adverse effects than in men.
• Childhood neurosis and adult mental illness.
• Innovative solutions and traditional limitations in behavior analysis study.

This is a subject with a vast research area. And selecting a topic in this area can be a little confusing. To choose an exciting topic, here are some suggestions:

• Difference between criminal activities in men and women - attitudes and behaviors.
• Mental disorders and crime.
• Criminal psychology is a study field.
• Sex offenders and their mental attributes.
• Comparative study of criminal psychology in democratic and socialist societies.
• Genetics and criminal psychology - discuss new researches.
• Role of parenting and criminal behavior.

The topics mentioned above are sure to help get started with your research proposal. Once you have selected the topic that interests you the most, follow the sample provided above. And, make sure you have done the correct formatting.

The final word would be to go through this article, operationally and start your proper research. Pick a topic after rigorous research and get going. Now you know how to write a research proposal; you see the project prospects and proposal writing skills; you know the art to execute it to perfection. Be very careful with the research work. Your ideas have to be extremely clear and research-backed with facts.

No desire or time to work on the project yourself? Buy a research proposal paper at Studybay!

User ratings:

User ratings is 4.8 stars.

4.8 /5 ( 215 Votes)

Content Writer

I studied sociology and marketing at Europa-Universität Viadrina (Germany) and Universidade da Beira Interior (Portugal). When I was a sophomore, back in 2018, I decided to put what I've learned into practice, so I got my first job in digital marketing. I currently work in the content marketing department at Studybay, building strong, effective, and respectful communication between the platform and our clients.

Add Your Comment

We are very interested to know your opinion

Upgrade your writing skills!

Try our AI essay writer from Studybay today!

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

APA Sample Paper: Experimental Psychology

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

Pardon Our Interruption

As you were browsing something about your browser made us think you were a bot. There are a few reasons this might happen:

• You've disabled JavaScript in your web browser.
• You're a power user moving through this website with super-human speed.
• You've disabled cookies in your web browser.
• A third-party browser plugin, such as Ghostery or NoScript, is preventing JavaScript from running. Additional information is available in this support article .

To regain access, please make sure that cookies and JavaScript are enabled before reloading the page.

How to Write a Psychology Research Proposal

Writing a brief research proposal cultivates all kinds of intellectual skills..

Posted May 3, 2018 | Reviewed by Matt Huston

• What Is Anxiety?
• Take our Generalized Anxiety Disorder Test
• Find counselling to overcome anxiety

NOTE: This post was co-authored with the SUNY New Paltz students in PSY 307 (1) of Spring 2018 (in particular, Zachary Ertrachter, Mariah Griffin, and Gianna Petrera).

A solid psychology education should lead to all kinds of outcomes related to analytical skills, statistical reasoning, and research design. One of the core skills that I try to cultivate in my students is the ability to write a clear and concise research proposal. Being able to write a solid research proposal demonstrates the following qualities:

* An understanding of some theoretical concepts in the behavioral sciences

* The ability to organize one's ideas in a coherent and efficient way

* The ability to get to the foundation of a set of research ideas

* The ability to write clearly and concisely in a scientific manner

* The ability to describe a hypothesis, proposed methodology, and proposed set of statistical analyses

* The ability to efficiently contextualize one's ideas in the existing scientific literature in some area

* The ability to think about how statistics can be used to examine some research-based predictions

* and probably more

Toward this end, I tend to give the following assignment to students in my undergraduate class in evolutionary psychology :

"Evolutionary psychology is a research-based enterprise. And learning about evolutionary psychology tends to lead people to develop hypotheses about human nature. For this assignment, you are to write a brief paper that does the following:

• Articulates a hypothesis based on evolutionary reasoning
• Describes methods that would test this hypothesis
• Includes predicted outcomes and implications

Importantly, this paper is to be no more than two pages—printed on two sides of a single page. And it should be double-spaced.

This kind of assignment, forcing you to get your ideas reduced in a small space matches the kinds of assignments that professionals have all the time—this assignment will help prepare you for this kind of assignment in your future."

As an end-of-the-semester activity, to demonstrate the process of writing a research proposal, we actually worked together today (5/3/2018) as a class to develop and to fully create a research proposal. The document below is the result of this work. Nice job, evolutionary psychology students!

Research Proposal: A Proposed Study on the Mental Health Effects of Outdoor Experiences

Written by the SUNY New Paltz Spring 2018 Evolutionary Psychology Class

The evolutionary psychological perspective on human behavior suggests that instances of evolutionary mismatch may lead to adverse psychological functioning (e.g., Geher, 2014). Mismatch can exist in multiple domains, including nutritional offerings, exercise, community size, technology, transportation, and the nature of one’s physical environment—among many others.

One important way that modern environments are mismatched to ancestral environments pertains to the proportion of time that people spend in the out of doors. In fact, many evolutionists have made the case that humans have a natural love of the living world (see Wilson, 1984). Based on this reasoning, it may be the case that increased time spent in the outdoors leads to positive mental health outcomes. On the other hand, we might predict that increased time spent in human-made, non-natural environments might have adverse mental health outcomes.

Several mental health outcomes have been documented as important in all kinds of human psychological functioning. In particular, this research will focus on depressive tendencies, tendencies toward anxiety , and general psychological well-being. The basic prediction is that increased out-of-door experiences will correspond to less depression and anxiety and higher scores on a measure of well-being.

This study will utilize a randomized between-groups design using 200 relatively fit American adults ranging in age from 18-34 selected from Southern California. Using a random-assignment process, participants will be assigned to either (a) the outdoor condition or (b) the indoor condition.

Participants in the two experimental conditions will all be included in a climbing camp for two weeks. The outdoor participants will be at an all-outside version of the camp in the Sierra Nevada Mountains of Southern California in September. The indoor participants will be at an all-indoor version of the camp at an indoor climbing gym for the same two weeks. Importantly, these climbing experiences will be overseen by the same Climbing Camp with the same activities and personnel.

This methodology would allow for the isolation of the “out of doors” variable and will have participants across groups have the same experiences otherwise. Given the random assignment to experimental conditions, this methodology would allow for an examination of the specific effects of the outdoor experience.

To measure anxiety, Liebowitz’s (1987) measure of social anxiety will be used. To measure depressive tendencies, Kessler et al.’s (2003) measure will be used. We will create a 5-item Likert scale of subjective well-being that participants will also complete.

Anticipated Results

Across the three outcome measures, including social anxiety, depressive tendencies, and subjective well-being, it is predicted that the outdoor group will score as less anxious, less depressed, and as higher in subjective well-being. These results will be examined using three between-groups t-tests.

Potential Implications

Evolutionists are interested in the mismatches between modern conditions and ancestral conditions. Simply being in the out-of-doors or not is a classic mismatch that surrounds us all the time, often unbeknownst to ourselves. The experimental design here would allow us to zero in on the effects of the outdoor experience as it relates to mental health outcomes, controlling for individual differences between groups.

If the predicted pattern of results is obtained, then we would have strong evidence suggesting that people function best when they are provided with outdoor experiences. Such a pattern would support an evolutionary-mismatch approach to understanding the interface of people with their physical environments.

Here is a PDF link to the two-page paper. Enjoy!

Geher, G. (2014). Evolutionary Psychology 101. New York: Springer.

Kessler, R .C., Andrews, G., Colpe, L.J., Hiripi, E., Mroczek, D.K., Normand, S.L....Zaslavsky,A.M. (2002) Short screening scales to monitor population prevalences and trends in non-specific psychological distress. Psychological Medicine, 32, 959-956.

Liebowitz, M. R . (1987). Social phobia. Modern Problems of Pharmacopsychiatry, 22, 141-173.

Wilson, Edward O. (1984). Biophilia. Cambridge: Harvard University Press

Glenn Geher, Ph.D. , is professor of psychology at the State University of New York at New Paltz. He is founding director of the campus’ Evolutionary Studies (EvoS) program.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Centre
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• Calgary, AB
• Edmonton, AB
• Hamilton, ON
• Montréal, QC
• Toronto, ON
• Vancouver, BC
• Winnipeg, MB
• Mississauga, ON
• Oakville, ON
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

It’s increasingly common for someone to be diagnosed with a condition such as ADHD or autism as an adult. A diagnosis often brings relief, but it can also come with as many questions as answers.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS. A lock ( Lock Locked padlock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Active funding opportunity

Nsf 24-576: gen-4 engineering research centers, program solicitation, document information, document history.

• Posted: May 20, 2024
• Replaces: NSF 22-580

Program Solicitation NSF 24-576

Letter of Intent Due Date(s) (required) (due by 5 p.m. submitting organization’s local time):

     September 03, 2024

Preliminary Proposal Due Date(s) (required) (due by 5 p.m. submitting organization’s local time):

     September 30, 2024

Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. submitting organization’s local time):

By Invitation Only

Important Information And Revision Notes

This solicitation encourages proposals addressing a broad spectrum of engineering topics, including but not limited to advanced manufacturing, advanced wireless, artificial intelligence, biotechnology, microelectronics and semiconductors, net-zero technologies, quantum engineering, and systems engineering for healthcare.

This solicitation is updated to clarify the definition of underrepresented students in STEM and to welcome proposal submissions that broaden geographic and demographic participation. More details are provided in Section IV. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION .

Cost Sharing: Cost sharing is required. The formula for required cost sharing is described in the full text of this solicitation.

Any proposal submitted in response to this solicitation should be submitted in accordance with the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) that is in effect for the relevant due date to which the proposal is being submitted. The NSF PAPPG is regularly revised and it is the responsibility of the proposer to ensure that the proposal meets the requirements specified in this solicitation and the applicable version of the PAPPG. Submitting a proposal prior to a specified deadline does not negate this requirement.

Summary Of Program Requirements

General information.

Program Title:

Gen-4 Engineering Research Centers (ERC) Convergent Research and Innovation through Inclusive Partnerships and Workforce Development

Founded in 1984, the Engineering Research Centers (ERC) program brings technology-based industry and universities together in an effort to strengthen the competitive position of American industry in the global marketplace. These partnerships are expected to establish cross-disciplinary centers focused on advancing fundamental engineering knowledge and engineered systems technology while exposing students to the integrative aspects of engineered systems and industrial practice. The goal of the ERC program has traditionally been to integrate engineering research and education with technological innovation to transform and improve national prosperity, health, and security. Building upon this tradition, NSF is interested in supporting ERCs to develop and advance engineered systems, which if successful, will have a high Societal Impact. The ERC program supports convergent research (CR) that will lead to strong societal impact. Each ERC has interacting foundational components that go beyond the research project, including engineering workforce development (EWD) at all participant stages, where all participants gain mutual benefit, and value creation within an innovation ecosystem (IE) that will outlast the lifetime of the ERC. These foundational elements are integrated throughout ERC activities and in alignment with the Center's vision and targeted societal impact. The overall impact of the ERC program is expected within the Engineering Community, the Scientific Enterprise, and Society.

Cognizant Program Officer(s):

Please note that the following information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of contact.

Sandra Cruz-Pol, telephone: (703) 292-2928, email: [email protected]

Dana L. Denick, telephone: (703) 292-8866, email: [email protected]

Randy Duran, telephone: (703) 292-5326, email: [email protected]

Nadia A. El-Masry, telephone: (703) 292-4975, email: [email protected]

Paul Torrens, telephone: (703) 292-2473, email: [email protected]

Lan Wang, telephone: (703) 292-5098, email: [email protected]

• 47.041 --- Engineering

Award Information

Anticipated Type of Award: Cooperative Agreement

Up to 4 depending on the quality of the proposals and the availability of funds. ERCs are generally funded for ten years, with an initial award for the first five years and second award based on performance and review of a renewal proposal. This solicitation seeks to make awards for the first five years for new ERCs.

See Section III of this solicitation for additional information about the allowable maximum annual budget for years one through five.

NSF expects to make the ERC awards in the summer of 2026. The budget distribution among the lead and core partners should be appropriate for the scope of work and activities planned for each foundational component.

Note that ERCs will not be granted no-cost extensions (NCE).

Co-funding:

NSF is currently in negotiations with other government agencies to form partnerships in support of ERC awards. These partnerships have the potential to expand the total number of awards. This is contingent upon realization of these partnerships, and budgets provided to these organizations by Congress for FY 2026 and 2027.

Eligibility Information

Who May Submit Proposals:

Proposals may only be submitted by the following:

Only U.S. Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs), also referred to in this solicitation as universities and academic institutions, accredited in, and having a campus located in the US, that grant engineering degrees at the undergraduate, masters, and doctoral engineering level may submit proposals as the lead university. The Lead university submits the proposal, and the award is made to the lead university. Support is provided to core partner universities and any affiliated faculty from other partner institutions through subawards. NSF welcomes proposal submissions that broaden geographic and demographic participation. Proposals from STEM-minority-serving institutions (STEM-MSI*), non-R1 schools, emerging research institutions, and IHEs in EPSCoR-eligible jurisdictions, as lead or core partners, as well as IHEs that primarily serve populations of students with disabilities or women in engineering interested in STEM, are encouraged.

Invited full proposals must meet all the following organizational requirements or they will be returned without review:

• The Lead must be an Institution of Higher Education per the Carnegie Foundational Attribute: https://carnegieclassifications.acenet.edu/
• A proposed ERC must be multi-institutional, with a lead university and additional domestic university core partners. There is no maximum number of partner institutions.
• To qualify as a core partner institution, there must be financial support for a minimum of three faculty participating in the ERC along with financial support for a minimum of three students (Postdoctoral scholars may not be included as students).
• The lead or at least one of the core partner universities must be a STEM-MSI* university.
• Commitments from lead and core partner universities for cost sharing must be in place.

*For this solicitation STEM-MSI is defined by the Department of Education as institutions of higher education enrolling populations with significant percentages of undergraduate minority students, or that serve certain populations of minority students under various programs created by Congress.

Eligibility may be determined by reference to the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) of the US Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics ( https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/ ).

Who May Serve as PI:

The Lead PI must be a faculty member at the Lead university. Non-Lead PIs are the co-PIs listed on the Cover Sheet after the Lead PI and may be from institutions other than the lead university. In order to provide more flexibility for the Center's management, the Lead PI and the ERC Director are not required to be the same person, however, both must be affiliated with the lead institution.

Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization:

If an institution has two active ERC awards, it does not qualify to submit an ERC preliminary proposal as a lead institution. There are no other restrictions or limits on the number of preliminary proposals submitted by a Lead institution. Full Proposals may be submitted only by invitation and only by the lead institution designated in the preliminary proposal.

Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or co-PI:

There are no restrictions or limits.

Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions

A. proposal preparation instructions.

Letters of Intent: Submission of Letters of Intent is required. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

Preliminary Proposals: Submission of Preliminary Proposals is required. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

Full Proposals:

• Full Proposals submitted via Research.gov: NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG) guidelines apply. The complete text of the PAPPG is available electronically on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg .
• Full Proposals submitted via Grants.gov: NSF Grants.gov Application Guide: A Guide for the Preparation and Submission of NSF Applications via Grants.gov guidelines apply (Note: The NSF Grants.gov Application Guide is available on the Grants.gov website and on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide ).

B. Budgetary Information

Cost Sharing Requirements:

Cost Sharing is required. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

Indirect Cost (F&A) Limitations:

Not Applicable

Other Budgetary Limitations:

Other budgetary limitations apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

C. Due Dates

Letter of Intent Due Date(s) (required) (due by 5 p.m. submitting organization's local time):

Preliminary Proposal Due Date(s) (required) (due by 5 p.m. submitting organization's local time):

Proposal Review Information Criteria

Merit Review Criteria:

National Science Board approved criteria. Additional merit review criteria apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

Award Administration Information

Award Conditions:

Additional award conditions apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

Reporting Requirements:

Additional reporting requirements apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

I. Introduction

The National Science Foundation (NSF) created the Engineering Research Centers (ERC) program in 1984 to bring technology-based industry and universities together in an effort to strengthen the competitive position of American industry in the global marketplace. These partnerships established cross-disciplinary centers focused on advancing fundamental engineering knowledge and engineered systems technology while exposing students to the integrative aspects of engineered systems and industrial practice. As a result, ERCs have produced a wide range of new fundamental knowledge, engineered systems and other technologies aimed at spawning whole new fields or industries or radically transforming the product lines, processes, and practices of current industries. At the same time, they have produced a new generation of engineering graduates who are highly innovative, diverse, globally engaged, and effective as technology leaders in academia and industry.

NSF has continually refined the goals and purposes of the ERC program to meet shifting needs. The NSF-requested 2017 study from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) "A New Vision for Center-Based Engineering Research" ( https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24767/a-new-vision-for-center-based-engineering-research ) recommends that NSF places a greater emphasis on forming research centers focused on convergent research and education approaches that address challenges with significant societal impact. Complex societal problems require a convergent approach for the deep integration of knowledge, tools, and ways of thinking across disciplinary boundaries. A detailed explanation of the convergence concept can be found in a 2014 National Academies report, "Convergence: Facilitating Transdisciplinary Integration of Life Sciences, Physical Sciences, Engineering and Beyond" ( https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18722/convergence-facilitating-transdisciplinary-integration-of-life-sciences-physical-sciences-engineering ).

This current iteration of the ERC program reflects the recommendations from the NASEM study as well as other sources. The program continues to focus on advancing an engineered system through inclusive cross-disciplinary and cross-sector partnerships, while placing greater emphasis on research with high- risk/high-payoff ideas that lead to societal impact through convergent approaches, engaging broader stakeholder communities, and using team science concepts for their team formation.

II. Program Description

A. ERC Program Model

The ERC program is grounded by the four foundational components of the ERC: Convergent Research (CR), Engineering Workforce Development (EWD), Diversity and Culture of Inclusion (DCI), and the Innovation Ecosystem (IE) (Figure 1). These foundational components are connected by an integrated, holistic ERC vision and strategic plan. The whole of the ERC has added value and synergies that require a center or institute-like approach as opposed to individual projects.

Convergent Research (CR): High-risk/high-payoff research ideas and discoveries that push the frontiers of engineering knowledge; ERC convergent research is a highly collaborative and interdisciplinary approach that leads to positive impacts on society. Convergence involves the integration of various fields in engineering and science, including all branches of science, in a coordinated and interdependent manner. This approach fosters strong collaborations that are essential for successful inquiry.

Engineering Workforce Development (EWD): In addition to training opportunities for ERC participants, the Center engages in human resource capacity development aligned with the targeted engineered system. ERC EWD strengthens a robust spectrum of engineering education pathways and technical workforce opportunities. EWD occurs at all levels of the Center and provides opportunities for engagement by all ERC members including students, faculty, and external partners as appropriate. The ERC EWD program is driven by the future education, workforce development, and labor market needs relevant to the proposed Center.

Diversity and Culture of Inclusion (DCI): In addition to fomenting a diverse team, the culture of the ERC and teams within the ERC demonstrate an environment of inclusion in which all members feel valued and welcomed, creatively contribute, and gain mutual benefit from participating. Because of the ERC's attention to diversity and culture of inclusion, participation from members of groups traditionally underrepresented in engineering as well as diverse scientific and other perspectives is required. The ERC DCI program ensures diversity at all levels of the Center and employs an intentional and evidence-based approach to developing a culture of inclusion.

Innovation Ecosystem (IE): Trusted partners that work together to create and enhance the capacity for innovation and new ways for delivering value with positive societal impact. ERC innovation ecosystems (IE) include effective translational efforts from ideation to implementation, workforce development that creates the workforce needed for the enterprise, and deliberate efforts to attract funding and resources. ERCs articulate plans for strategic engagement of stakeholder communities while including the legal, ethical, civic, and societal acceptance frameworks needed to protect the participants.

The ERC foundational elements are carried out in concert through ERC activities and in alignment with the Center's vision and targeted societal impact. The overall impact of the ERC program is expected within the Engineering Community , the Scientific Enterprise , and Society , shown in Figure 1 (above). These may be thought of as nested regions of increasing influence, where the largest scale of impact is on society itself. Potential outcomes of ERCs are organized within each of the four ERC foundational components.

Engineering Community: ERCs not only create fundamental knowledge and technology, but also impact the engineering community, preparing students and researchers by highlighting new engineering approaches and best practices for engineering workforce development, diversity and inclusion, and academic-industrial partnerships.

Scientific Enterprise: ERCs should be exemplars of how cohesive, high-performing teams engage in convergent research and innovative approaches to create major impact that informs and inspires the scientific community, engineering and beyond.

Society: ERCs enable society to have a better quality of life, and be more resilient, productive, and safe. Each ERC is expected to have a transformational positive impact on significant societal challenges and opportunities. This is the level where the introduction of value creation and technology innovation requires an understanding of socio-technical interactions and how they might impact society at large. In response, new strategies, concepts, ideas and/or re- organizations may be needed to shore-up, extend, or strengthen society. The desired outcome is the ERC's ability to assist society in its drive to advance the national health, prosperity, welfare, and to secure the national defense.

The goal of the ERC program has traditionally been to integrate engineering research and education with technological innovation to transform and improve national prosperity, health, and security. Building upon this tradition, NSF is interested in supporting ERCs to develop and advance engineered systems, which if successful, will have a high Societal Impact .

ERCs create inclusive cultures not only to integrate scientific discovery with technological innovation through convergent engineered systems research and education, but also to include the participation of the full spectrum of diverse talent in engineering. ERCs build partnerships with industry, practitioners, and other key stakeholders to strengthen the innovative capacity of the United States in a global context. In addition to building capacity for research, innovation, and a diverse workforce, ERCs are expected to produce significant outcomes within the 10-year timeframe of NSF support and beyond.

ERCs should realize a vision of advancing an engineered system driven by clearly articulated societal impact and should have strong synergies or value-added rationale that justifies a center or institute-like approach. As part of creating sustainable positive impacts on society and communities, ERCs should focus on positive outcomes that can be seen within engineering communities and build and empower human resource capacity for their targeted engineering challenges. Beyond this, ERCs should contribute to the scientific enterprise by advancing research, science, engineering fundamentals, and research communities. This should be demonstrated with benchmarks against the state-of-the-art. ERCs should build knowledge, prepare students and researchers that respect and flourish in an environment with diverse perspectives, impact how engineering research is conducted and provide value for society. The ERC program encourages proposals addressing a broad spectrum of engineering topics, including but not limited to advanced manufacturing, advanced wireless, artificial intelligence, biotechnology, microelectronics and semiconductors, net zero technologies, quantum engineering, and systems engineering for healthcare.

C. Key Elements of an ERC

Vision: The ERC vision guides discovery and technology to uniquely transform US prosperity, health, and/or security in 10 years. The vision describes the compelling new idea, explains how it relates to national needs, and makes the connection to engineering.

Strategic Plan: The ERC strategic plan connects and leverages research, engineering workforce development, diversity and culture of inclusion, and innovation ecosystem to address the chosen societal challenge. The overall plan should employ three strategic approaches:

Convergence : "Convergence is an approach to problem solving that cuts across disciplinary boundaries. It integrates knowledge, tools, and ways of thinking across disciplinary boundaries in STEM fields to form a comprehensive synthetic framework for tackling scientific and societal challenges that exist at the interfaces of multiple fields." ( https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18722/convergence-facilitating-transdisciplinary-integration-of-life-sciences-physical-sciences-engineering ). This is also stated in another report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) from the Committee on a Vision for the Future of Center-based Multidisciplinary Engineering Research, which defined convergent engineering as a deeply collaborative, team-based engineering approach for defining and solving important and complex societal problems ( https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24767/a-new-vision-for-center-based-engineering-research ). Hence, convergent research blends scientific disciplines in a coordinated, reciprocal way and fosters the robust collaboration needed for successful inquiry and has the strong potential to lead to transformative solutions and new fields of study. The research thrusts, testbeds, team formation, and other major aspects of the research plan should support a convergent approach.

Stakeholder Engagement : The intentional and early-stage engagement of all parties who may contribute to the ERC or may be impacted by the ERC along its capacity-building and value creation responsibilities. Stakeholders can include, but are not limited to, relevant researchers across partner institutions with complementary research and education expertise; undergraduate and graduate students, postdoctoral researchers; industry leaders who can guide the innovation effort; partners for innovation, education, workforce development, and diversity and culture of inclusion of all participants; and beneficiaries of the ERC outcomes (e.g., community members, users, customers, patients, and watchdog organizations).

Team Formation : The process by which all necessary disciplines, skills, perspectives, and capabilities are brought together. Successful teams are interdependent, multidisciplinary, and diverse and can work and communicate effectively even when geographically dispersed. Team formation includes evidence-based strategies and team science training to overcome barriers to effective, collaborative teaming, including the integration of members with different areas of expertise, different vocabularies and core values and ways of approaching problems, different understanding of the problems to be addressed, different values, and different working styles. This is especially needed during the early stages of the Center.

Organization and Management Structure:

Effective Leadership: ERC leaders have intellectual vision, demonstrable leadership, successful entrepreneurial experience, a track record of delivering results, and the ability to communicate clearly and effectively with diverse audiences such as team members, sponsors, partners, host institutions, stakeholders, press and media, and the public. Below are some example practices desired for effective ERC leadership and management teams:

• Empowers all team members to contribute;
• Builds consensus around goals and problem definition;
• Facilitates communication to ensure a common understanding among all stakeholders; and resolves conflicts and builds trust.

It is rare that a single individual will have all of these attributes; thus, a strong leader will need to assemble an executive team that covers this broad spectrum of skills. The Center Director should understand their strengths and limitations, should be effective in assembling an executive leadership team that fills in the gaps of their limitations, and should be supported by an effective Council of Deans (See Section II.C. for details of the formation of the Council of Deans).The Director does not need to be a faculty member.

Organization and Management: An effective management structure begins with a clear understanding of the goals of the ERC and how the structure (including the ERC four foundational components) will support those goals. The structure should have the flexibility to adapt as the needs of the ERC change, as key people transition into or out of the ERC, or change roles, and to handle other changes as the ERC matures.

It is critical to have one person or team that has clear responsibility for each foundational component of the ERC. However, each ERC participant and each of the core participants should also understand the importance of each foundational component and be engaged in their role in carrying it out. Core partner institutions must meet the eligibility requirements of at least 3 faculty and 3 students participating in the ERC; postdoctoral scholars may not be included as students. Proposing teams will determine the funding source(s) of student support and nature of participation, whether graduate or undergraduate. Typically, ERC’s have many more fully/partly funded graduate and undergraduate students engaged in the ERC, in addition to faculty or postdocs.

ERC program experience has shown that an important role in the ERC structure is that of an administrative director, as described below. This remains a mandatory piece of the management structure.

Administrative Director: An experienced staff member at the lead university who is responsible for operational management, financial management, data collection, publicity, and reporting, etc. for the ERC. Post-award NSF training is available for this position given the ERC reporting complexities.

Lead Institution: The lead institution effectively guides the multiple elements of the ERC. The ERC headquarters are located at the lead institution, and the lead institution is the NSF recipient and is ultimately responsible for the financial and reporting obligations of the ERC award.

Core Partners: To qualify as a core partner university, there must be a minimum of three faculty participating in the ERC along with a minimum of three students; postdoctoral scholars may not be included as students. Core partners are included in the Cost Sharing requirements and in the Council of Deans (See Section II.C. for details of the formation of the Council of Deans.)

Other potential partners may include universities contributing affiliated faculty, federal laboratories, private-sector or non-profit organizations, educational partners, and/or foreign collaborators' universities or institutions. While not considered core partners, the involvement of such partners can be valuable.

Industrial/Practitioner Member: An organization that satisfies all requirements for membership according to the Center's membership agreement which may include financial support (cash or in-kind).

ERCs should engage industrial/practitioner members from sectors such as the Federal Government, State government, local government, quasi-government research, industry, industry association, policy organization, regulatory agency, medical facility, private foundation, nonprofit, venture capitalists, community organizations, professional/trade union, and other stakeholders as appropriate for the center's mission.

Affiliated Faculty Member: The ERC may include affiliated faculty members, which are faculty members who are contributing to the ERC from institutions other than the lead or core partner universities and are included in the budget.

Institutional Commitment: The lead and all core partner institutions must augment support for the ERC through cost-sharing and other allowed means and sustain the ERC once NSF's support ceases. Lead, core, and other partner academic institutions must commit to:

• Joining in partnership to support the ERC's vision, strategic plans, and activities in CR, EWD, DCI, IE and their integration across the institutions.
• Assuring cross-university industrial membership and intellectual property (IP) policies that recognize shared rights for joint work.
• Adopting institutional policies to reward faculty, particularly those in the promotion and tenure process, for participating in convergent research and innovation, technological advance, mentoring, university and pre-college education activity, and delivering on the ERC's plans for workforce development and creating an inclusive and diverse culture. NSF strongly encourages the full spectrum of diverse talent that society has to offer.
• Official recognition for university students engaged in mentoring of other university students and in pre-college outreach. This recognition is crucial to acknowledge their efforts and motivate them to continue their valuable work

Community Feedback: Broad-based stakeholder feedback to the ERCs is one of the important mechanisms used by the ERC to provide continual monitoring of the Center's health.

Advisory Boards: Advisory boards are formed to reinforce and support the proper functioning of the ERC's foundational components which are CR, EWD, DCI, and IE, as described above. Careful consideration must be given to defining each advisory board's functional role and selecting quality board members capable of overseeing that role. An example of a generic ERC feedback loop structure is illustrated in Figure 2. As part of the NSF Management/Oversight, the NSF Program Director and the NSF Site Visit Team (SVT) typically interact with the ERC and give feedback to the ERC once a year at a minimum. The advisory boards provide feedback at least twice a year; usually more often on an as needed basis. It may occasionally be necessary to form additional special committees to support special needs of the Center's vision. The staffing of these committees may be either internal or external. The Council of Deans and Student Leadership Council, as defined below, are mandatory advisory groups; however, the ERC is expected to propose appropriate advisory groups beyond these two.

Student Leadership Council (SLC): Undergraduate and graduate students from all partner universities responsible for coordinating their various activities in support of the ERC. A student president and a student co-president lead the SLC. The SLC will prepare a written Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis and present the SWOT findings during the annual visit of the NSF Site Visit Team (SVT).

Council of Deans: Led by the Dean of Engineering from the Lead university, this Council includes the Deans from the lead and each core partner institution. They meet collectively to provide administrative support of the ERC and to help facilitate multiple ERC elements across the lead and core partner universities. The Dean may not designate an alternate unless a PI, Co-PI, Director, or any senior personnel is also a Dean at the Institution. The two roles cannot be performed by the same person.

III. Award Information

Estimated program budget, number of awards, and average award size/duration are subject to the availability of funds. The maximum annual budget allowed is shown in the table below.

Year 1 budget will be committed upon award, and subsequent year budgets are subject to satisfactory annual review of accomplishments and availability of funds. After a gradual ramp up, years three through five are projected to level off at $6,000,000 in each of those years. Pending performance and outcome of a renewal review in the fourth year, support for years six to eight will continue at $6,000,000 per year until the eighth year. Support for years nine and ten will be phased down, with $4,000,000 in year 9 and $2,600,000 in year 10. No-cost extensions (NCEs) will not be granted.

IV. Eligibility Information

Proposals may only be submitted by the following: Only U.S. Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs), also referred to in this solicitation as universities and academic institutions, accredited in, and having a campus located in the US, that grant engineering degrees at the undergraduate, masters, and doctoral engineering level may submit proposals as the lead university. The Lead university submits the proposal, and the award is made to the lead university. Support is provided to core partner universities and any affiliated faculty from other partner institutions through subawards. NSF welcomes proposal submissions that broaden geographic and demographic participation. Proposals from STEM-minority-serving institutions (STEM-MSI*), non-R1 schools, emerging research institutions, and IHEs in EPSCoR-eligible jurisdictions, as lead or core partners, as well as IHEs that primarily serve populations of students with disabilities or women in engineering interested in STEM, are encouraged. Invited full proposals must meet all the following organizational requirements or they will be returned without review: The Lead must be an Institution of Higher Education per the Carnegie Foundational Attribute: https://carnegieclassifications.acenet.edu/ A proposed ERC must be multi-institutional, with a lead university and additional domestic university core partners. There is no maximum number of partner institutions. To qualify as a core partner institution, there must be financial support for a minimum of three faculty participating in the ERC along with financial support for a minimum of three students (Postdoctoral scholars may not be included as students). The lead or at least one of the core partner universities must be a STEM-MSI* university. Commitments from lead and core partner universities for cost sharing must be in place. *For this solicitation STEM-MSI is defined by the Department of Education as institutions of higher education enrolling populations with significant percentages of undergraduate minority students, or that serve certain populations of minority students under various programs created by Congress. Eligibility may be determined by reference to the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) of the US Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics (https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/).

V. Proposal Preparation And Submission Instructions

Letters of Intent (required) :

1. LETTER OF INTENT

A Letter of Intent (LOI) is required to facilitate the NSF review process. The LOI must be submitted via Research.gov no later than the LOI deadline date. Please note the following conditions:

• LOIs must be submitted through Research.gov (not Grants.gov). A Minimum of one PI and up to four co-PIs are allowed.
• A list of all anticipated Core Partner Universities is required.
• The lead university cannot change after submission of the Letter of Intent.

Title: The title should begin with "NSF Engineering Research Center for ( insert the rest of the title and the Center's acronym )". The title should reflect the engineered system of the proposed ERC.

Lead PI and/or Center Director: The Lead PI's information is automatically included when the LOI is created. If the Lead PI and the Center Director are different individuals, please include the Center Director's name, university, department, phone number, and e-mail address at the beginning of the Synopsis section.

Anticipated ERC Non-Lead PIs (co-PIs): Identify up to four co-PIs. For the LOI, the participating team (Senior/Key Personnel) will be limited to the lead PI and up to four co-PIs who may come from any or all the domestic core partner universities.

Anticipated Core Partner Universities: The Lead university (not PI) is binding throughout the process. Other partners may change. The anticipated core partner universities should be included in the Manage Participating Organizations section of the LOI.

Synopsis (not to exceed one page): Upload brief statements of the vision and goals of the ERC, its potential for societal impact, and an integrated plan for the Center. Include an overview of the research program, such as research thrust titles, goals, and fundamental gaps or barriers in knowledge/technology that it meets. Although the EWD, DCI, and the IE are also critical foundational components of an ERC, they do not need to be described in detail in the LOI.

Other Comments (an additional max 2,500 characters including any blank spaces): Continue Synopsis as needed in this section.

Keywords: In order of decreasing emphasis, list up to ten keywords that represent the scientific interdisciplinary content in the proposal.

Letter of Intent Preparation Instructions :

When submitting a Letter of Intent through Research.gov in response to this Program Solicitation please note the conditions outlined below:

Submission by an Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) is not required when submitting Letters of Intent.

A Minimum of 0 and Maximum of 4 Other Senior Project Personnel are permitted

A Minimum of 0 and Maximum of 6 Other Participating Organizations are permitted

• Keywords is required when submitting Letters of Intent
• Submission of multiple Letters of Intent is permitted

Preliminary Proposals (required) : Preliminary proposals are required and must be submitted via Research.gov, even if full proposals will be submitted via Grants.gov.

2. PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL

Submission of a Preliminary Proposal is required to be eligible for an invitation to submit a Full Proposal.

Preliminary Proposal Preparation Instructions:

Preliminary proposals must explicitly address the following questions in the project description:

• What are the compelling new ideas and what is the potential for high societal impact?
• What is the ERC engineered system? Is it high-risk but high payoff? Is the 3-plane chart well-conceived and justified?
• Why is an ERC necessary to tackle the idea?
• What is the proposed management structure for the ERC? How will the ERC's organization and management structure integrate and implement the four foundational components (CR, EWD, DCI, and IE) and foster the desired team formation?
• What are the proposed strategies for engaging and developing the appropriate stakeholder community?
• Does the proposed ERC create an inclusive environment where all the ERC participants learn to work in a team towards a common goal?

Preliminary Proposal Set-Up: Select "Prepare New Preliminary Proposal" in Research.gov. Search for and select this solicitation title in Step One of the Preliminary Proposal wizard. The information in Step 2 is pre-populated by the system. In Step 3 select "Single proposal (with or without subawards). Separately submitted collaborative preliminary proposals will be returned without review.

Title: The title should begin with "NSF Engineering Research Center for ( insert the rest of the title and the Center's acronym )". The rest of the title and acronym can change from the LOI to the submitted preliminary proposal as long as it is in the same topic area. The title should reflect the system focus of the proposed ERC.

The required components of the preliminary proposal are given below. Page limitations given here will be strictly enforced. Proposers should review the most current PAPPG for specific information and format for the required sections. No other sections are required or may be included in the preliminary proposal.

Cover Sheet: Select the proposed start date and proposed duration.

Project Summary (1 page): The Project Summary must have three separate section headers entitled "Overview", "Intellectual Merit", and "Broader Impacts"; each heading must be on its own line with no other text on that line. Within the Overview section, include a separate sub-section entitled "Proposed Vision". The summary should be informative to those working in the same or related fields and understandable to a scientifically or technically literate reader.

Project Description: Maximum 10 pages, total, containing the following sections, not necessarily in this order. All figures and tables must be included within the 10-page limit.

The proposing team (Participant Table) should be submitted as a supplementary document.

The Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts of the ERC must be addressed and described throughout the narrative as an integral part of the Project Description. Between Sections IV and V, include a separate header for Broader Impacts, as specified below. In addition, Results from Prior Support is not a required section for the preliminary proposal.

Outline for the Preliminary Proposal Project Description (up to 10 pages)

II. Strategic Plan

III. Organization and Management Structure

IV. Convergent Research

BROADER IMPACTS ( Please note: The Project Description must include a separate section header labeled Broader Impacts and the heading must be on its own line with no other text on that line. )

V. Engineering Workforce Development

VI. Diversity and Culture of Inclusion

VII. Innovation Ecosystem

I. Vision: The proposed vision for the ERC must be explained, with a discussion of the convergent engineering research theme and the anticipated societal impact. Explain the proposed transformative engineered system and the potential for impact on society, the engineering community and the greater scientific community.

II. Strategic Plan: The plan must define the engineered system and describe how the features of the ERC will be integrated to achieve the vision, in particular the cohesive plan for involving participants at all levels in the four foundational components:

• Convergent Research (CR)
• Engineering Workforce Development (EWD)
• Diversity and Culture of Inclusion (DCI)
• Innovation Ecosystem (IE)

III. Organization and Management Structure: Describe the proposed management, including the functions of key personnel and the role of any advisory committee (including the required Student Leadership Council and the Council of Deans), executive committee, program committee, or their equivalent. Note that there is no recommendation for how ERCs should be managed. This solicitation provides for flexibility on organization structure and management and is part of the review criteria – as such the proposal should clearly justify the proposed structure.

IV. Convergent Research (CR): The role of convergence and team formation in the proposed research must be described. Research activities must address any gaps and barriers to achieve the proposed vision. Research must advance fundamental knowledge and support the development of technology that is proven through proof-of-concept testbeds as part of a well-defined engineered system. Integration of research activities must be graphically depicted on a clearly legible version of the ERC Program's 3-Plane Strategic Planning Chart ( http://erc-assoc.org/content/three-plane-diagram ) that is tailored to the proposed ERC. The chart should be at least half a page, but a full page is recommended for legibility, as this chart is used at several stages of the NSF review process. This section should clearly state what new knowledge is expected that would advance the state of the art in key research areas.

V. Engineering Workforce Development (EWD): A proposed evidence-based program for human capacity development for the future engineering and technical workforce must be described. The program goals and expected outcomes must be described. Proposed activities should logically lead to targeted outcomes and support diverse pathways and experiences for participants. Existing programs and partnerships may be leveraged to support the ERC EWD program and provide opportunities to engage with potential participants.

VI. Diversity and Culture of Inclusion (DCI): Preliminary ideas to create and nurture a culture of inclusion to foster the engagement of all ERC participants. This section should include evidence-based and intentional programming approach.

VII. Innovation Ecosystem (IE): An innovation ecosystem development effort must be proposed. However, DO NOT list potential or committed industrial or other supporters.

In addition, the preliminary proposal must also include these documents and information.

References Cited (required): See PAPPG for format guidelines.

Senior/Key Personnel Documents: The Lead PI, Center Director (if different from the Lead PI) and up to four co-PIs) must be designated as Senior/Key Personnel and must provide the following documents in accordance with the guidance contained in PAPPG Chapter II.D.2.h.

• Biographical Sketches
• Collaborators & Other Affiliations (COA)Information

Supplementary Documents:

A letter of commitment from the Dean of Engineering of the lead institution must be submitted which describes the support for and commitment to the ERC (including space for the ERC headquarters) should it be funded. While the Lead PI does not need to be from the School of Engineering, this letter must be from the Dean of Engineering to demonstrate the Engineering Dean's support for the proposed impact of the ERC on the engineering community.

The Dean should NOT include any financial commitments. Instead, the Dean should make a statement as to how the proposed ERC will align with the strategic directions of the college or the university. Proposals submitted without a letter of commitment from the Dean of Engineering will be returned without review. No letters of collaboration are allowed.

Participant Table (one page maximum): Provide a participant table that includes all committed ERC personnel: (1) Name of the Lead PI (and ERC Director, if different from the Lead PI) and Non-Lead PIs, (2) Institution(s), (3) Department(s), and (4) Most Relevant Field(s) of Expertise. In addition, please list all committed senior/key personnel. Do not identify members of advisory boards. The team table should include only those personnel who would receive NSF funds. This table is used by NSF in the merit review process to manage reviewer selection.

Single Copy Documents:

Collaborators & Other Affiliations Information: Information regarding collaborators and other affiliations (COA) must be separately provided for all members of the ERC Leadership Team and key faculty who are not designated as Senior/Key Personnel. Proposers must follow the guidance contained in PAPPG Chapter II.D.2.h. and include the COA information in the Additional Single Copy Documents section of the preliminary proposal. The accuracy of this section is very important to the integrity of the ERC review process. Please be accurate, up to date, and complete with the entries, including professional email addresses.

Institutional Affiliations: Beyond the affiliations captured on the COA form for individual ERC participants, the ERC Lead University must report any institutional affiliations arising from partnerships including any government agencies, international partners, industry partners or other non-academic institutional partners. The institutional affiliation information must be entered into the ERC Preliminary Proposal Institutional Conflict template (See bullet #2 on http://erc-assoc.org/content/templates-proposal-preparation-0 ) and uploaded into the Additional Single Copy Documents section.

DO NOT SUBMIT other documents, including letters of commitment or collaboration from the domestic partner universities, prospective industrial members, or other future partners. The only allowed item is the required letter of commitment from the Dean of Engineering at the Lead Institution.

RELIMINARY PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

(Note: This is NOT a total list of the ERC preliminary proposal requirements. Refer to the ERC Solicitation and the PAPPG for complete requirements).

Full Proposal Preparation Instructions : Proposers may opt to submit proposals in response to this Program Solicitation via Research.gov or Grants.gov.

• Full Proposals submitted via Research.gov: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the general guidelines contained in the NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG). The complete text of the PAPPG is available electronically on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg . Paper copies of the PAPPG may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-8134 or by e-mail from [email protected] . The Prepare New Proposal setup will prompt you for the program solicitation number.
• Full proposals submitted via Grants.gov: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation via Grants.gov should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide: A Guide for the Preparation and Submission of NSF Applications via Grants.gov . The complete text of the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide is available on the Grants.gov website and on the NSF website at: ( https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide ). To obtain copies of the Application Guide and Application Forms Package, click on the Apply tab on the Grants.gov site, then click on the Apply Step 1: Download a Grant Application Package and Application Instructions link and enter the funding opportunity number, (the program solicitation number without the NSF prefix) and press the Download Package button. Paper copies of the Grants.gov Application Guide also may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-8134 or by e-mail from [email protected] .

See PAPPG Chapter II.D.2 for guidance on the required sections of a full research proposal submitted to NSF. Please note that the proposal preparation instructions provided in this program solicitation may deviate from the PAPPG instructions.

3. FULL PROPOSAL

Full Proposal Preparation Instructions :

As a multi-university ERC, the proposal must be submitted as a single integrated proposal by the Lead university, with proposed subawards to the other partner institutions. Separately submitted collaborative proposals from each partner will not be accepted.

Select "Prepare New Full Proposal" in Research.gov. Search for and select this solicitation title in Step One of the Full Proposal wizard. Select "Center" as the proposal type. In the proposal details section, select "Single proposal (with or without subawards)." Separately submitted collaborative proposals will be returned without review.

Title: Research.gov will pre-pend the title with "Center." The remainder of the title should begin with "NSF Engineering Research Center for ( insert the rest of the title and the Center's acronym )". The title should reflect the engineering system of the proposed ERC.

Cover Sheet: For planning purposes, September 1, 2026 should be shown as the requested start date. The award duration should be 60 months.

Project Summary (1 page): The Project Summary must have three separate section headers entitled "Overview", "Intellectual Merit", and "Broader Impacts"; each heading must be on its own line with no other text on that line. Within the Overview section, include a separate sub-section entitled "Proposed Vision".

The summary should be informative to those working in the same or related fields and understandable to a scientifically or technically literate reader. Full proposals that do not contain the Project Summary as described above will be returned without review.

Project Description: Maximum 26 pages, total, containing the following sections, not necessarily in this order. Figures and tables must be included within the 26-page limit.

Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts: The intellectual merit and broader impacts of the ERC must be addressed and described throughout the narrative as an integral part of the Project Description. Between Sections IV and V, include a separate header for Broader Impacts, as specified below.

Outline for the Full Proposal Project Description (up to 26 pages)

BROADER IMPACTS ( Please note: The Project Description must include a separate section header labeled Broader Impacts and the heading must be on its own line with no other text on that line .)

VIII. Evaluation Plan

IX. Financial Support and Functional Allocation of Resources

X. Results from Prior NSF Support

The proposed vision for the ERC must be explained, with a discussion of the convergent engineering research theme and the anticipated societal impact. Explain the proposed transformative engineered system and the potential for impact on society, the engineering community and the greater scientific community.

Rationale: Make the case for why the proposed ERC is appropriate and why a convergent approach is needed for the targeted societal impact. Articulate why this vision cannot be realized with a series of individual investigators awards, the additional value of the proposed ERC compared with the sum of its parts.

The plan must clearly define the engineered system and describe how the features of the ERC will be integrated to achieve the vision, in particular the cohesive plan for involving participants at all levels in the four foundational components:

The Strategic Plan should include the high-level goals within each of these foundational components that will be described in more detail in later sections and the interrelationships among those goals, as well as the strategic role of partner institutions in integrating the foundation components and achieving these goals. The plan should also include the high-level expected progress of the ERC efforts across the 10-years of support in these four fundamental components, including ERC growth. The plan should further include discussions on the overarching convergent approach, the engagement of the stakeholder community, and the plans for convergent team formation. The ERC Strategic Plan should provide a roadmap with major milestones and describe how the ERC will know when it has been successful in meeting its goals. Finally, the ERC Strategic Plan should also articulate the logical reasoning that connects the proposed activities to the identified goals as well as the connections between the goals and the desired impacts expressed in the ERC Vision. The overall strategy must have the flexibility and the agility to evolve over time. An ERC needs to continually refine its vision based on a reliable feedback mechanism to focus on core advances, prune less compelling ERC elements, and refine as necessary the level of detail of its strategic plan over time.

Leadership Team: To properly address the four foundational components of the ERC, among the ERC Leadership Team, there must be identified individuals with: (a) deep expertise in the fundamental science/engineering areas envisioned by the ERC; (b) strategic leadership in innovation including intellectual property; (c) expertise in engineering workforce development and (d) experience in diversity and inclusion. Provide a chart summarizing the composition and expertise of the leadership team. Justify how each of the disciplines in this spectrum is needed for the convergent approach.

Management Plan: Proposals must include a management plan that describes the administration of the Center, including the functions of the leadership team, key personnel, and the role of any advisory committees, including the required Student Leadership Council and the Council of Deans, executive committee(s), and/or program committees or their equivalent. While the details of the structure are left to the proposers, the management structure should be designed to facilitate and integrate the ERC's critical and foundational components (CR, EWD, DCI, and IE). In addition, the proposed management plan should address the roles, authorities, and accountability for the leadership team that will ensure no bottlenecks in decision making.

Specifically, the successful proposal will delineate:

• The overall management and reporting structure of the ERC.
• Which personnel or groups will be responsible for CR, EWD, DCI, and IE. Please explain the relevant experience and expertise of these individuals and how they fit their assigned roles.
• These individuals should be included in the leadership team.
• An organizational chart, including advisory boards and the reporting/feedback loops involved.

The accompanying narrative for the organization chart should define the functional roles and responsibilities of each leadership position, and how these positions support the integrated strategic plan described earlier. It should also define the functional purpose of any additional advisory bodies that are deemed necessary to support the four foundational components, accomplish the proposed ERC vision, and achieve the desired long-term societal impact. Note that the functional roles of the two mandated ERC Advisory Bodies, the Council of Deans and the Student Leadership Council, are defined earlier in the section on Community Feedback. Since the quality of team member interaction is critical to team effectiveness, describe the managerial processes overlaying the organization chart that will be used to integrate the team. Please provide sufficient detail to allow critical evaluation.

Institutional Configuration: Describe the institutional configuration given the proposed vision for the ERC. Discuss the value added by each core partner university in meeting the goals of the four foundational components. Discuss the value added by any partnerships as described in the Key Elements of an ERC – Partners section.

IV. Convergent Research (CR)

ERCs are expected to have center-scale convergent engineering research that will support the ERC's overall potential for societal impact. The research program is the core of the ERC from which all ERC activities evolve.

Research Strategy: Clearly describe the proposed engineered system (a combination of components and elements that work together to perform a useful function) for the ERC. This section must include detailed research strategies, such as the 3-plane diagram (described below), research thrusts, and testbeds. A 10-year roadmap must illustrate the critical path, milestones, contributions from research projects, interdependence of research activities, short- and long-term deliverables, and overarching objectives in knowledge, technology, and proof of principle testbeds included in the ERC's vision. Impacts of the proposed research and technology outcomes on society, stakeholders, and the scientific and engineering communities must be included. Discuss how the research strategy will support the proposed societal impact of the ERC, including any potential negative consequences that would arise from the development of new technologies. Include risk mitigation strategies if appropriate. This section should also include strategies for building and maintaining teams appropriate for the proposed convergent approach and the process for starting, managing, and potentially ending research projects throughout the lifetime of the ERC. This section should clearly state what fundamental knowledge is expected within each thrust to advance the state of the art, including engineering as a whole discipline.

ERC 3-Plane Strategic Planning Chart: Identify and characterize interdependent research thrusts and activities at fundamental knowledge, enabling technology, and systems-level testbed(s) scales. Integration of research activities must be graphically depicted on a clearly legible version of the ERC Program's 3-Plane Strategic Planning Chart ( https://erc-assoc.org/content/strategic-planning-research-3-plane-chart ) that is tailored to the proposed ERC. The chart should be at least half a page, but a full page is recommended for legibility, as this chart is used at several stages of the NSF review process.

Research Thrusts: Each thrust description should start with a table that lists the thrust leader and other faculty/research participants by name, department, and institution. International partners, if any, who may be involved in the early stages of the thrust efforts must also be listed. Discuss the goals and objectives of the thrust vis-à-vis the goals of the ERC and the convergent research strategic plan and how these thrusts will support each other. Provide information on fundamental knowledge and technology deliverables. Identify the gaps and barriers the thrust will address in the context of the ERC's strategic plan. Discuss the convergent cross-disciplinary mix of expertise needed to achieve the goals of the thrust, as well as how the proposed team fulfills that need. Describe how future team building will support the convergent approach. Benchmark the research proposed for the thrust with respect to the state-of-the-art. Discuss the role of the thrust's research relative to the ERC's 3- Plane Strategic Planning Chart.

Project-level descriptions of specific research activities for each thrust must describe the proposed research and link it to the thrust goals. Describe a few exemplar projects in depth to allow judgment of the quality of the effort proposed, rather than superficially describing all projects. For these projects, provide examples of fundamental barriers the research will address, the need for a convergent approach, and project-level methods to address the barriers.

Demonstrate that the desired results constitute breakthroughs and are attainable in ten years. Discuss how projects support and integrate with other thrusts, enabling technologies, and systems-level testbeds in an overall convergent research approach.

Testbeds: Enabling- and systems-level testbeds must include a description of proposed proof-of-concept demonstration(s) in each testbed and personnel needed to construct and implement each proposed testbed. The research program budget should support technical staff to work with students and faculty to build these testbeds.

Note: NSF funds may not be used to support clinical trials. If the research involves vertebrate animals or includes human subjects, PAPPG requirements must be followed for the full proposal.

V. Engineering Workforce Development (EWD)

The ERC EWD program is driven by the future education, workforce development, and labor market needs relevant to the proposed Center. A proposed evidence-based program for building human capacity for the future engineering and technical workforce must be described. The proposed program should provide strategic goals for the ERC as well as targeted and specific outcomes related to workforce development and education.

Workforce Development occurs at all levels of the Center and provides opportunities for all ERC members including students, faculty, and external partners as appropriate. Proposed activities should logically lead to targeted outcomes and support diverse pathways and experiences for participants. Engineering workforce activities should contribute to a diverse, globally competitive, and team-oriented engineering workforce that has experience in convergent research, technology advancement, industrial practice, and innovation. Rather than a comprehensive set of training opportunities (general public, faculty, professional, vocational, graduate students, undergraduate students, and K-12), EWD programs should include a strategic selection of targeted activities that logically connect to each other and that will enable the long-term vision of the Center ERCs should leverage team and institutional expertise and resources to maximize impact with targeted activities.

At least 6 non-ERC students must enroll in a Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) program budgeted at a minimum of $80K per year from the ERC base budget, as well as at least 6 participants must be engaged in a Research Experiences for Teachers (RET) program budgeted at a minimum of $60K per year from the ERC base budget. Awarded ERCs are encouraged to submit proposals to the annual Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) Site and Research Experiences for Teachers (RET) Site competitions to expand the Center's workforce development impact. Partnerships with inner city, rural, or other high needs schools are especially encouraged, as is participation of the full spectrum of diverse talent in STEM. Suitable metrics to assess progress towards meeting the ERC's goals should be described, and feedback loops should be in place for continuous program improvement.

Describe how the leadership team will effectively support workforce development and educational programming and their growth. This section should also clearly describe how the proposed workforce development program will interact with existing educational or training systems at all partner institutions. Include a description of plans for engaging with partners, recruiting participants, and anticipated participant experiences. Educational partnerships may be leveraged to support the program and provide opportunities to engage with potential participants. All Engineering Workforce Development program participants, whether internal or external to the ERC, should have opportunities that are unique and would otherwise not be possible without the ERC.

VI. Diversity and Culture of Inclusion (DCI)

Describe the vision and plans for nurturing a culture that ensures participation of the full spectrum of diverse talent in STEM. A culture of inclusion has many important aspects that are essential for deep collaboration, including the participation of members from diverse scientific backgrounds and training which is necessary for true convergent research and innovation. A culture of inclusion must also foster participation of a diversity of partner institutions, including industry and practitioners, that will bring different perspectives to bear on the goals of the ERC. At least one core partner institution that enrolls and graduates a high percentage of underrepresented students in engineering and STEM fields must be included.

Describe preliminary ideas to create and nurture a culture that fosters the engagement of all ERC participants, including those from a diverse range of scientific backgrounds. This section should include evidence-based and intentional programming to support the inclusion of all talent that integrates and strengthen convergent research efforts across all institutions. Suitable metrics to assess the ERC's goals should be described, and feedback loops should be in place for independent assessment and continuous improvement in all dimensions of ERC operation.

In this section, describe how the leadership team will effectively create an inclusive culture for the ERC in which all members feel valued and welcomed, creatively contribute, and gain mutual benefit from participating. Include a description of plans for recruiting, mentoring, and retaining undergraduates, graduate students, and members of the research and leadership team from full spectrum of diverse talent in engineering. Describe the role of all partners, including plans to connect with ERC’s research and innovation goals in meaningful way, benefiting the students and faculty in the Center.

The ERC program is committed to including the participation of the full spectrum of diverse talent in STEM.

VII. Innovation Ecosystem (IE)

At its core, the innovation ecosystem is a network formed among trusted partners working together towards the common goal of creating and enhancing the capacity for innovation within the ecosystem.

In this section, discuss how the ERC will foster the creation of societal value from innovations (e.g., inventions, goods, services, businesses) that benefit society in a sustainable fashion (i.e., value creation). Identify the innovation ecosystem stakeholders relevant to realizing the proposed vision and societal impact.

Describe the strategy to form relationships with stakeholders to garner support for the Center's vision. Specifically, include the ERC's plans for developing and fostering industrial/practitioner memberships and involvement; technology transfer to member and non-member firms; if included, the role of university and state and local government as facilitators of entrepreneurship, civics, economic/workforce development and innovation; or regulatory agencies as influencers of the ERC innovation , end users or customers as beneficiaries of the ERC innovation, and plans for supporting translational research when appropriate.

To maximize positive social impact, any anticipated potential negative consequences caused by the introduction of the ERC technology should be addressed. In these cases, make sure to include stakeholder(s) that will work to mitigate the negative impacts, such as through consideration of regulation and ethics.

Provide a description of how the proposed member firms (e.g., innovation partners, facilitators, influencers, and beneficiaries) align to the proposed ERC's technology area. That is, as the ERC's research program evolves, note at which points in time in the ERC development over its 10-year lifespan different types of stakeholders engage with the ERC to enable success and create societal value. Some stakeholders may be engaged for the entire 10 years, and others may be involved with focused research activities at critical points in time (e.g., testbed development).

Discuss the integration of all stakeholders into the governance and operations of the ERC. Include a letter of collaboration ( please make sure to use the template provided in the PAPPG ) from each stakeholder that identifies their commitment to work with the ERC as described in the project description. The letters should be uploaded in the Supplementary Documents section.

Legal Frameworks: The different stakeholder groups/organizations/partners operate under very different legal frameworks that can make seamless collaboration difficult. Consequently, the ERC must work within the university structure to create an environment where the frameworks can be modified so that the different entities can come together for productive interaction. In advance of anyone joining the ERC, it is important to put in place legal agreements that protect the interests of the stakeholder entities and the university partners. Therefore, at a minimum, all ERCs require two legal frameworks to handle (1) intellectual property and (2) industry/practitioner membership agreements. The specifics of the ERC vision and the nature of the stakeholder community will determine whether additional legal frameworks are necessary.

• Intellectual Property: Describe the overall Intellectual Property (IP) strategy consistent with planned value creation in the ERC, and the corresponding management of the ERC IP across the lead and partner institutions and the approaches that will enable licensing of ERC's IP and/or adopting of other ERC outcomes. This plan must discuss management of possible conflicts-of-interest of any ERC researchers and the ERC's technology transfer endeavors. If an award is made, the IP policy must be prepared and submitted within 90 days of the award.
• Industry/Practitioner Membership Agreement: Discuss the terms of the draft membership agreement including the proposed fee structure and benefits. Describe the type(s) of support to be received. A letter of commitment (one page maximum for each) from each firm/practitioner organization committed to joining the ERC as a member and providing (cash and/or in-kind) support in the event that an award is made must be uploaded in Supplementary Documents.

Based on the goals and desired outcomes of the ERC strategic plan, a proposed evaluation plan is required that includes all four foundational components as well as a risk analysis . The purpose of ERC evaluation is to provide feedback on progress towards meeting Center goals. The evaluation plan should include formative aspects that allow the Center to make evidence-based decisions about changes in its activities and summative aspects to provide evidence of impact across all elements of the ERC. This section should include the evaluation questions, as well as, a description of the type of evaluation design and methods that will be used to address each question. This section should specify the mechanisms and timeline for how the results and recommendations from evaluation and assessment will be fed back into ERC goals, objectives, and milestones to ensure continual progress and attainment of goals, targets, and impacts during the project period. It should also identify the person(s) who will lead the ERC evaluation and briefly describe their academic training and professional experience that qualifies them to serve as an evaluator. Evaluator(s) may be internal or external to ERC institutions but should be positioned to carry out the evaluation plan as objectively as possible.

Awardees may be required to participate in program-level evaluation activities by which NSF can assess implementation processes and progress toward program level outcomes. NSF, an NSF contractor, or a grantee on behalf of NSF, may periodically conduct program evaluations or special projects that necessitate access to project level staff and data. This activity may occur at any time during the award period and could occur after NSF support has ended. ERC participation includes responding to inquiries, interview and other methods of common data collection and/or aggregation across ERCs. In addition, PIs and ERC evaluators may be asked to assist in developing program evaluation activities that will mutually benefit the agency and ERC participants.

Discuss the plans for financial and in-kind support from all sources, except cost sharing. Include plans for allocation of those resources to fulfill the goals of the ERC. Include a functional budget table, showing only the estimated proportional distribution of effort across the ERC in its first 5 years without showing the support levels from any sources. The table must not show the sources of support, since the reviewers cannot have access to the level of academic support. A template of the table can be found on bullet #3: http://erc-assoc.org/content/templates-proposal-preparation-0 .

This section of the proposal must also include a pie chart showing the allocation of resources and committed levels of support for the first five years from industrial or practitioner member firms and any additional non-member commitments from state and/or local governments for cash and/or in-kind support. A template of the table for Pie Chart Showing Allocation of Resources and Committed Levels of Support can be found on bullet #4: http://erc-assoc.org/content/templates-proposal-preparation-0 .

Provide a pie chart showing the planned distribution of the requested NSF funds for year one between the lead, each domestic partner university, and each university contributing affiliated faculty.

If the Director and Lead PI (if different) identified on the proposal have received prior NSF support, including any award with an end date in the past five years or current funding including any no-cost extensions, the intellectual merit and broader impacts accomplished under that award should be discussed. In cases where the Director and Lead PI have received more than one award (excluding amendments to existing awards), they should only report on the award that is most closely related to the proposal (for each, if the Director and Lead PI are different people) . See PAPPG II.D.2.iii for the required format of this section. Recommended length – no more than one page.

In addition, the proposal must also include these documents and information.

References Cited: See PAPPG for format guidelines.

Budgetary Information: Travel Funds for ERC Leadership Team's Participation in Biennial Meetings: Members of the ERC Leadership Team are required to participate in the ERC Biennial Meeting (typically held in odd years) and the cross- ERC Leadership Team retreats (which are typically held annually). The purpose of biennial meeting is to share successes and failures across the ERCs, receive updates on the ERC Program, and provide input for future ERC Program improvements. The purpose of the retreats is to focus on issues and best practices specific to the different leadership team groups. The biennial meetings are held in the Washington DC area for 2.5 days. Retreats are held in various locations for 1-2 days. Travel funds must be included in each annual budget to support participation in alternating biennial and leadership retreats for each person identified.

Note: The budget justification section should only identify items that are not cost shared. A justification and explanation of cost shared items needs to be appended to the cost sharing tables that are submitted in the single-copy documents section of the proposal.

Cost sharing is mandatory and is specific to the ERC solicitation . The percentage of cost share is determined using the Cost Sharing Formula in the Budgetary Information section of this solicitation. Lead and core partner institutions are responsible for cost share on their entire portion of NSF funds, including sub-awards from their institutions to affiliate partners or other payees. Please see the Budgetary Information section of this solicitation for additional information.

Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources . In this section, please include ONLY facilities, equipment, and personnel that are directly relevant and unique to the proposed ERC. Briefly discuss such laboratories, facilities, cyberinfrastructure, personnel, and equipment, particularly those shared by the ERC team members. Distinguish existing facilities and equipment from any that will be acquired by the ERC (see PAPPG Chapter II.C.2.i). Space must be identified on the campus of the lead academic institution for the ERC headquarters. Describe the headquarters, including the size, functionality, and features. Discuss how the cyberinfrastructure, facilities, and equipment of the ERC will be used to form and sustain a collaborative ERC team with shared resources and information.

Letters of commitment should be included in the supplementary documents for facilities, equipment, etc. that are being provided by institutions or collaborators which are not from the lead institution or the core partners.

Senior/Key Personnel Documents

In accordance with the guidance in the PAPPG, the following information must be provided for all individuals designated as Senior/Key Personnel. This includes the Lead PI, Center Director if different from the Lead PI, co-PIs, all members of the ERC Leadership Team and key faculty.

• Biographical Sketch
• Current and Pending (Other) Support
• Collaborators & Other Affiliations Information
• Synergistic Activities

Supplementary Documents . In addition to the requirements contained in the PAPPG, the following items must be provided as supplementary documents.

Table of Academic/Other Participants and Industrial/Practitioner Members: The table should be created using the table format available on the ERC Association website on bullet #5 at: http://erc-assoc.org/content/templates-proposal-preparation-0 . Download and use the Word file named " ERC Participants Table Template for Inclusion in Full Proposal. " Provide all the required information in each section of the table.

Letters of Commitment : These letters should express commitment, but should not praise or advocate for the project, and must follow the format for letters of collaboration given in the PAPPG. Submit the following required letters as indicated:

• Lead university: Senior university administrators (Dean of Engineering plus one other higher-level university official) for the lead university attesting to the institutional commitment to the goals of the ERC and a commitment to headquarters space in both letters. The letters should not mention cost sharing, as that information cannot be revealed to reviewers. The letters should indicate the institutional commitment to all major aspects of the ERC, including each of the four foundational components, and assure the development of a cross-ERC IP policy within 90 days, if an award is made.
• Each Core Partner University: A senior administrator (Dean or equivalent) attests to the partner's institutional commitment to the goals of the ERC.
• If applicable, officials from any participating federal laboratories indicating their involvement in the ERC and their commitment to provide support for their staff participating in the ERC.
• Member Organizations: A letter of commitment (one page maximum for each) from each firm/practitioner organization committed to joining the ERC as a member and providing (cash and/or in-kind) support.

Letters of Collaboration

The following Letters of Collaboration are required if applicable to the proposed ERC. These letters should state generic willingness to collaborate, but should not provide specific details on types or amounts of contributions and must follow the format for letters of collaboration given in the PAPPG:

• Officials of firms and agencies able to commit to membership.
• An administrator of each proposed pre-college or community college partners committing to their roles in the ERC as described in the Project Description.
• State or local government agencies and other organizations committed to partnership with the ERC.
• Domestic affiliated facult y if their projects are planned to be in place during years one through five. Note that no letters are required from the administrators of the universities providing affiliated faculty.
• Foreign collaborators , if any.

All letters should be addressed to:

ERC Program

Division of Engineering Education and Centers

U.S. National Science Foundation

All signed letters must be scanned and uploaded in the Other Supplementary Documents section of the proposal. Please instruct the letter writers not to mail, email, or fax copies to the NSF, as they will not be considered.

Draft Membership Agreement . Submit draft industry/practitioner membership agreement.

Data Management and Sharing Plan . Provide a Data Management and Sharing Plan according to guidance in the PAPPG. Go to ENG Data Management Plans | NSF - National Science Foundation ( https://www.nsf.gov/eng/general/dmp.jsp ) for Engineering-specific guidance.

Mentoring Plan . If applicable, provide a mentoring plan for postdoctoral scholars or graduate students who will be supported by ERC funds.

Single Copy Documents . Viewable only by NSF (also refer to the PAPPG Chapter II.C.1 on "Single-Copy Documents" for additional information):

Optional List of Suggested Reviewers or Reviewers Not to Include: Proposers may include in the single copy documents section a list of suggested reviewers who they believe are especially well qualified to review the proposal. Proposers also may designate persons they would prefer not to review the ERC proposal, indicating why. These suggestions are optional. PAPPG Exhibit II-2 contains information on conflicts of interest that may be useful in the preparation of this list. The cognizant Program Officer handling the proposal considers the suggestions and may contact the proposer for further information. However, the decision whether to use the suggestions remains with the Program Officer.

Required Cost Sharing Tables and Justification: Complete and submit the following tables: " Committed Cash and In-Kind Academic Support, Years 1-5 " and, if applicable, a table showing the " Nature of In-Kind Support " identifying any in-kind commitments and the sources of the commitments. A template of those tables can be found at (bullet #6): http://erc-assoc.org/content/templates-proposal-preparation-0 . The tables should be uploaded into the single copy documents section of the full proposal. Appended to the cost sharing tables will be a justification/explanation of the source, nature, amount, and availability of any proposed cost sharing. The Proposers are directed not to include these tables and the cost sharing justification in any other part of the proposal, as cost sharing commitments are not provided to the reviewers. Refer to the section on Budgetary Information and Cost Sharing in this solicitation for information on cost sharing requirements and policies.

Proposal Update: If the proposed ERC is evaluated by a Site Visit Team (SVT), a 10-page reply that integrates changes in the proposed ERC based on comments from the SVT members and the Site Visit Report will be requested to facilitate the final stages of the review process.

INVITED FULL PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

(Note: This is NOT a total list of the ERC proposal requirements. Refer to the ERC Solicitation and the PAPPG for complete requirements).

Post Proposal Submission to NSF: Other Required Documents

Cost Sharing:

Cost Sharing is required.

Invited full proposals will include a budget for each of the five years. Research.gov or Grants.gov will automatically provide a cumulative budget. Provide separate budgets for subawards to the domestic core partner institutions and any affiliated institutions whose faculty and students would be supported by the ERC's budget. Allowable budgets for the first five years are as follows: The budget for year one may be no more than $3,500,000, no more than $4,500,000 for year two, no more than $6,000,000 for year three, no more than $6,000,000 for year four, and for year five.

Cost Sharing: Mandatory Cost Sharing is required but inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited.

Mandatory Cost Sharing Requirements and Policies: Cost sharing is required of the lead university and core partner university(ies) to support and sustain the ERC. Cost sharing is not a review criterion for the ERCs; it is an eligibility criterion. Because cost sharing is not a review criterion, details on cost sharing will not be shared with the reviewers.

Upon issuance of the award, the lead university is responsible to secure, retain, manage, and certify to NSF the ERC cost sharing (cash and in-kind), at the level stated in the cooperative agreement. The total level of cost sharing proposed must be calculated using the "Cost Sharing Formula" below.

Cost sharing must not exceed the mandatory level stated in the ERC cost sharing formula. This would be considered "voluntary committed cost sharing" which is specifically prohibited according to NSF's cost sharing policies. ERC proposals that include cost sharing amounts in excess of the specified formula will be returned without review or declined.

Instructions for Disclosure and Non-Disclosure of Cost Sharing within the Proposal:

Cost Sharing and Letters of Commitment: Since cost sharing is not to be seen or considered by reviewers, any letters of commitment should not mention any cost sharing (cash or in-kind), since the reviewers will see these letters. See Section V.A for details concerning the letters of commitment.

Cost Sharing in the Budget Submission: The proposed cost sharing (including the estimated value of any in-kind cost sharing), according to the formula below, must be shown on Line M of the NSF proposal budget form. (Line M is masked from reviewers.)

Cumulative cost sharing should be entered for all 5 years on Line M of the first-year budget. Do not include the cost sharing figures on Line M of the budget for years 2-5. Do not include the justification / explanation for any cost-shared items in the budget justification section of the proposal. Only the non-cost shared items should be explained in the budget justification section, identifying the source, nature, amount and availability of non-cost shared items.

Cost Sharing Tables and Justification: The cost sharing commitment of the ERC must be documented in the proposal and the details presented in the tables of committed support. The lead institution is instructed to provide a table of "Committed Cash and In-Kind Academic Support, Years 1-5" (including any partner university providing cash for years 1-5). Proposers must also complete the table "Nature of In-Kind Support" identifying in-kind commitments and the sources of the commitments. A template of those tables can be found at (bullet #6) http://erc-assoc.org/content/templates-proposal-preparation-0 . The tables should be uploaded into the "Single Copy Documents" section of the proposal. Append to the cost sharing tables a justification / explanation of the source, nature, amount and availability of any proposed cost sharing. Do not include these tables and the cost sharing justification in any other part of the proposal, as cost sharing commitments are not to be provided to reviewers.

Cost Sharing Formula:

ERC cost sharing requirements are determined based on classification at the time of the LOI submission deadline as defined in the "Carnegie Foundation's Classification of Institutions of Higher Education." Limited financial resources at smaller colleges and universities that lack high research activity may present significant challenges to cost sharing. Therefore:

• RU/VH: Research Universities - required cost sharing level is 20% of the allocation of the NSF budget to the lead or core partner university;
• RU/H: Research Universities - required cost sharing level is 15% of the allocation of the NSF budget to the lead or core partner university;
• DRU: Doctoral/Research Universities - cost sharing level is 10% of the allocation of the NSF budget to that core partner university.
• Master's L: Master's Colleges and Universities - cost sharing level is 10% of the allocation of the NSF budget to that core partner university/college;
• Bac/Diverse: Baccalaureate Colleges--Diverse Fields - cost sharing level is 5% of the allocation of the NSF budget to that core partner college.

If the university is classified in more than one Carnegie category, it must cost share at the highest cost sharing category as described above. The Carnegie classification shall remain throughout the duration of the competition and any subsequent award. The total ERC cost share shall be 20% or less, depending upon the Carnegie classifications for each of the partners.

ERC Support Cost-Sharing Sources:

The proposed cost sharing must be shown on Line M on the proposal budget. For purposes of budget preparation, the cumulative cost sharing amount must be entered on Line M of the first year’s budget. Should an award be made, the organization’s cost sharing commitment, as specified on the first year’s approved budget, must be met prior to award expiration.

Such cost sharing will be an eligibility, rather than a review criterion. Proposers are advised not to exceed the mandatory cost sharing level or amount specified in the solicitation.

When mandatory cost sharing is included on Line M, and accepted by the Foundation, the commitment of funds becomes legally binding and is subject to audit. When applicable, the estimated value of any in-kind contributions also should be included on Line M. An explanation of the source, nature, amount and availability of any proposed cost sharing must be provided in the budget justification. Contributions may be made from any non-Federal source, including non-Federal grants or contracts, and may be cash or in-kind. 2 CFR § 200.306 describes criteria and procedures for the allowability of cash and in-kind contributions in satisfying cost sharing and matching requirements. It should be noted that contributions derived from other Federal funds or counted as cost sharing toward projects of another Federal agency must not be counted towards meeting the specific cost sharing requirements of the NSF award.

Failure to provide the level of cost sharing required by the NSF solicitation and reflected in the NSF award budget may result in termination of the NSF award, disallowance of award costs and/or refund of award funds to NSF by the awardee.

The overall ERC-level budget should be prepared to assure sufficient funding from all sources to achieve the goals of the ERC. Hence, this budget would include faculty and staff to support the research, education, diversity and culture of inclusion, industrial collaboration/innovation, and management of the ERC. Budgets should include resources for reporting, site visit costs, and travel for cross-ERC collaboration and NSF meetings. The budget submitted to NSF will include an allocation plan for the NSF funding only.

     May 09, 2025

D. Research.gov/Grants.gov Requirements

For Proposals Submitted Via Research.gov:

To prepare and submit a proposal via Research.gov, see detailed technical instructions available at: https://www.research.gov/research-portal/appmanager/base/desktop?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=research_node_display&_nodePath=/researchGov/Service/Desktop/ProposalPreparationandSubmission.html . For Research.gov user support, call the Research.gov Help Desk at 1-800-381-1532 or e-mail [email protected] . The Research.gov Help Desk answers general technical questions related to the use of the Research.gov system. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this funding opportunity.

For Proposals Submitted Via Grants.gov:

Before using Grants.gov for the first time, each organization must register to create an institutional profile. Once registered, the applicant's organization can then apply for any federal grant on the Grants.gov website. Comprehensive information about using Grants.gov is available on the Grants.gov Applicant Resources webpage: https://www.grants.gov/applicants . In addition, the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide (see link in Section V.A) provides instructions regarding the technical preparation of proposals via Grants.gov. For Grants.gov user support, contact the Grants.gov Contact Center at 1-800-518-4726 or by email: [email protected] . The Grants.gov Contact Center answers general technical questions related to the use of Grants.gov. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this solicitation.

Submitting the Proposal: Once all documents have been completed, the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) must submit the application to Grants.gov and verify the desired funding opportunity and agency to which the application is submitted. The AOR must then sign and submit the application to Grants.gov. The completed application will be transferred to Research.gov for further processing.

The NSF Grants.gov Proposal Processing in Research.gov informational page provides submission guidance to applicants and links to helpful resources including the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide , Grants.gov Proposal Processing in Research.gov how-to guide , and Grants.gov Submitted Proposals Frequently Asked Questions . Grants.gov proposals must pass all NSF pre-check and post-check validations in order to be accepted by Research.gov at NSF.

When submitting via Grants.gov, NSF strongly recommends applicants initiate proposal submission at least five business days in advance of a deadline to allow adequate time to address NSF compliance errors and resubmissions by 5:00 p.m. submitting organization's local time on the deadline. Please note that some errors cannot be corrected in Grants.gov. Once a proposal passes pre-checks but fails any post-check, an applicant can only correct and submit the in-progress proposal in Research.gov.

Proposers that submitted via Research.gov may use Research.gov to verify the status of their submission to NSF. For proposers that submitted via Grants.gov, until an application has been received and validated by NSF, the Authorized Organizational Representative may check the status of an application on Grants.gov. After proposers have received an e-mail notification from NSF, Research.gov should be used to check the status of an application.

VI. NSF Proposal Processing And Review Procedures

Proposals received by NSF are assigned to the appropriate NSF program for acknowledgement and, if they meet NSF requirements, for review. All proposals are carefully reviewed by a scientist, engineer, or educator serving as an NSF Program Officer, and usually by three to ten other persons outside NSF either as ad hoc reviewers, panelists, or both, who are experts in the particular fields represented by the proposal. These reviewers are selected by Program Officers charged with oversight of the review process. Proposers are invited to suggest names of persons they believe are especially well qualified to review the proposal and/or persons they would prefer not review the proposal. These suggestions may serve as one source in the reviewer selection process at the Program Officer's discretion. Submission of such names, however, is optional. Care is taken to ensure that reviewers have no conflicts of interest with the proposal. In addition, Program Officers may obtain comments from site visits before recommending final action on proposals. Senior NSF staff further review recommendations for awards. A flowchart that depicts the entire NSF proposal and award process (and associated timeline) is included in PAPPG Exhibit III-1.

A comprehensive description of the Foundation's merit review process is available on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/ .

Proposers should also be aware of core strategies that are essential to the fulfillment of NSF's mission, as articulated in Leading the World in Discovery and Innovation, STEM Talent Development and the Delivery of Benefits from Research - NSF Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years (FY) 2022 - 2026 . These strategies are integrated in the program planning and implementation process, of which proposal review is one part. NSF's mission is particularly well-implemented through the integration of research and education and broadening participation in NSF programs, projects, and activities.

One of the strategic objectives in support of NSF's mission is to foster integration of research and education through the programs, projects, and activities it supports at academic and research institutions. These institutions must recruit, train, and prepare a diverse STEM workforce to advance the frontiers of science and participate in the U.S. technology-based economy. NSF's contribution to the national innovation ecosystem is to provide cutting-edge research under the guidance of the Nation's most creative scientists and engineers. NSF also supports development of a strong science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce by investing in building the knowledge that informs improvements in STEM teaching and learning.

NSF's mission calls for the broadening of opportunities and expanding participation of groups, institutions, and geographic regions that are underrepresented in STEM disciplines, which is essential to the health and vitality of science and engineering. NSF is committed to this principle of diversity and deems it central to the programs, projects, and activities it considers and supports.

A. Merit Review Principles and Criteria

The National Science Foundation strives to invest in a robust and diverse portfolio of projects that creates new knowledge and enables breakthroughs in understanding across all areas of science and engineering research and education. To identify which projects to support, NSF relies on a merit review process that incorporates consideration of both the technical aspects of a proposed project and its potential to contribute more broadly to advancing NSF's mission "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other purposes." NSF makes every effort to conduct a fair, competitive, transparent merit review process for the selection of projects.

1. Merit Review Principles

These principles are to be given due diligence by PIs and organizations when preparing proposals and managing projects, by reviewers when reading and evaluating proposals, and by NSF program staff when determining whether or not to recommend proposals for funding and while overseeing awards. Given that NSF is the primary federal agency charged with nurturing and supporting excellence in basic research and education, the following three principles apply:

• All NSF projects should be of the highest quality and have the potential to advance, if not transform, the frontiers of knowledge.
• NSF projects, in the aggregate, should contribute more broadly to achieving societal goals. These "Broader Impacts" may be accomplished through the research itself, through activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project. The project activities may be based on previously established and/or innovative methods and approaches, but in either case must be well justified.
• Meaningful assessment and evaluation of NSF funded projects should be based on appropriate metrics, keeping in mind the likely correlation between the effect of broader impacts and the resources provided to implement projects. If the size of the activity is limited, evaluation of that activity in isolation is not likely to be meaningful. Thus, assessing the effectiveness of these activities may best be done at a higher, more aggregated, level than the individual project.

With respect to the third principle, even if assessment of Broader Impacts outcomes for particular projects is done at an aggregated level, PIs are expected to be accountable for carrying out the activities described in the funded project. Thus, individual projects should include clearly stated goals, specific descriptions of the activities that the PI intends to do, and a plan in place to document the outputs of those activities.

These three merit review principles provide the basis for the merit review criteria, as well as a context within which the users of the criteria can better understand their intent.

2. Merit Review Criteria

All NSF proposals are evaluated through use of the two National Science Board approved merit review criteria. In some instances, however, NSF will employ additional criteria as required to highlight the specific objectives of certain programs and activities.

The two merit review criteria are listed below. Both criteria are to be given full consideration during the review and decision-making processes; each criterion is necessary but neither, by itself, is sufficient. Therefore, proposers must fully address both criteria. (PAPPG Chapter II.C.2.d(i). contains additional information for use by proposers in development of the Project Description section of the proposal). Reviewers are strongly encouraged to review the criteria, including PAPPG Chapter II.C.2.d(i), prior to the review of a proposal.

When evaluating NSF proposals, reviewers will be asked to consider what the proposers want to do, why they want to do it, how they plan to do it, how they will know if they succeed, and what benefits could accrue if the project is successful. These issues apply both to the technical aspects of the proposal and the way in which the project may make broader contributions. To that end, reviewers will be asked to evaluate all proposals against two criteria:

• Intellectual Merit: The Intellectual Merit criterion encompasses the potential to advance knowledge; and
• Broader Impacts: The Broader Impacts criterion encompasses the potential to benefit society and contribute to the achievement of specific, desired societal outcomes.

The following elements should be considered in the review for both criteria:

• Advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields (Intellectual Merit); and
• Benefit society or advance desired societal outcomes (Broader Impacts)?
• To what extent do the proposed activities suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts?
• Is the plan for carrying out the proposed activities well-reasoned, well-organized, and based on a sound rationale? Does the plan incorporate a mechanism to assess success?
• How well qualified is the individual, team, or organization to conduct the proposed activities?
• Are there adequate resources available to the PI (either at the home organization or through collaborations) to carry out the proposed activities?

Broader impacts may be accomplished through the research itself, through the activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project. NSF values the advancement of scientific knowledge and activities that contribute to achievement of societally relevant outcomes. Such outcomes include, but are not limited to: full participation of women, persons with disabilities, and other underrepresented groups in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM); improved STEM education and educator development at any level; increased public scientific literacy and public engagement with science and technology; improved well-being of individuals in society; development of a diverse, globally competitive STEM workforce; increased partnerships between academia, industry, and others; improved national security; increased economic competitiveness of the United States; and enhanced infrastructure for research and education.

Proposers are reminded that reviewers will also be asked to review the Data Management Plan and the Postdoctoral Researcher Mentoring Plan, as appropriate.

Additional Solicitation Specific Review Criteria

PRELIMINARY Proposal Additional Review Criteria:

Reviewers should consider these high-level questions:

How well does the preliminary proposal narrative address the following in the project description?

• What is the compelling new idea and what is the potential high societal impact?
• What is the engineered system? Is it high-risk but high payoff?
• Is the 3-plane chart well-conceived and justified?
• How does the proposed Center's research benchmark against the state-of-the-art?
• What is the proposed management structure for the ERC? How will the proposed organization and management structure integrate and implement the four foundational components (CR, EWD, DCI, and IE) and foster team-formation?
• Does the proposed ERC create an inclusive environment where all the ERC participants learn to work on a team towards a common goal?

FULL Proposal Additional Review Criteria:

• What is the engineered system?
• Why is the proposed vision compelling?
• Why is the proposed research competitive when benchmarked against the state-of-the-art?
• How well does the proposed ERC justify the need for a center or institute-like approach?

High Societal Impact

• What is the potential for high societal impact?
• How realistic is the proposed plan for high societal impact?
• If the proposed strategy is high-risk does the potential payoff from anticipated impacts justify the investment?

Convergence Research

• Does the proposed research require a convergent approach and is its implementation well documented?
• How well justified is the argument that convergence is necessary for the desired impact?
• How well has the convergent approach been fully integrated into the proposal?
• What is the likelihood the research will lead to significant fundamental advances, new discoveries, and technological developments?
• How well does the proposed research use the testbeds to integrate and to advance proofs-of-concept to achieve the proposed vision?
• Are there well-defined implementation milestones for convergence research?

Stakeholder Engagement

• Are effective mechanisms to gather, engage, and implement feedback from appropriate stakeholders in place (i.e., collaborators, supporters, advisory boards, external committees)?

Team Formation

• How does the team formation and the implementation of team science support the proposed convergent research?
• How well has the ERC demonstrated strategies to overcome barriers for effective, dynamic teaming?

Strategic Plan

• How well does the Center present an integrated strategic plan for the ERC to address the key elements of each foundational component and their integration?
• How well does the proposal present an appropriate and compelling management structure and plan to carry out Center activities?

Management and Organization

• How appropriate are the qualifications of proposed leadership and management team?
• How well does the proposal present appropriate and compelling management structure and plan to carry out Center activities?
• Are effective mechanisms to gather and implement feedback from appropriate stakeholders in place, including advisory boards and external committees?

Engineering Workforce Development

• To what extent is the proposed program coherent and aligned with the overall goals and vision of the ERC?
• Do the proposed Engineering Workforce Development plans include appropriate strategies for recruiting participants and engaging with partners?
• Are the proposed Engineering Workforce Development plans evidence-based and likely to achieve the desired experiences, outcomes, and impact described?

Diversity and Culture of Inclusion

• How well does the discussion include a clear strategy to support Diversity and Culture of Inclusion?
• To what extent does the program propose evidence-based approaches for Diversity and Culture of Inclusion that are integrated with all dimensions of ERC operation?
• How well does the management plan include clear accountability for Diversity and Culture of Inclusion aspects of the ERC across all partners?

Innovation Ecosystem

• How well does the proposal describe a plan to build a network of trusted partners for innovation capacity?
• How appropriate is the proposed structure and processes for value creation to move from ideation to implementation?

Evaluation Plan

• How well has the Center developed a logic evaluation framework to guide the implementation of the strategic plan and evaluate Center performance?
• How well does the evaluation plan include formative aspects that allow the Center to make evidence-based decisions about changes in its activities and summative aspects to provide evidence of impact across all elements of the Center?

Financial Support and Resources

• Are the estimated budget allocations reasonable to achieve the proposed ERC vision?
• Does the Center have adequate capital (i.e., facilities, equipment, cyberinfrastructure) and procedural (i.e., safety, environmental) resources?
• Does the Center have a convincing plan for data sharing and management?

B. Review and Selection Process

Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation will be reviewed by

Ad hoc Review and/or Panel Review, Site Visit Review, or Reverse Site Review.

For Additional Review Criteria (see above listing)

Reviewers will be asked to evaluate proposals using two National Science Board approved merit review criteria and, if applicable, additional program specific criteria. A summary rating and accompanying narrative will generally be completed and submitted by each reviewer and/or panel. The Program Officer assigned to manage the proposal's review will consider the advice of reviewers and will formulate a recommendation.

After scientific, technical and programmatic review and consideration of appropriate factors, the NSF Program Officer recommends to the cognizant Division Director whether the proposal should be declined or recommended for award. NSF strives to be able to tell proposers whether their proposals have been declined or recommended for funding within six months. Large or particularly complex proposals or proposals from new recipients may require additional review and processing time. The time interval begins on the deadline or target date, or receipt date, whichever is later. The interval ends when the Division Director acts upon the Program Officer's recommendation.

After programmatic approval has been obtained, the proposals recommended for funding will be forwarded to the Division of Grants and Agreements or the Division of Acquisition and Cooperative Support for review of business, financial, and policy implications. After an administrative review has occurred, Grants and Agreements Officers perform the processing and issuance of a grant or other agreement. Proposers are cautioned that only a Grants and Agreements Officer may make commitments, obligations or awards on behalf of NSF or authorize the expenditure of funds. No commitment on the part of NSF should be inferred from technical or budgetary discussions with a NSF Program Officer. A Principal Investigator or organization that makes financial or personnel commitments in the absence of a grant or cooperative agreement signed by the NSF Grants and Agreements Officer does so at their own risk.

Once an award or declination decision has been made, Principal Investigators are provided feedback about their proposals. In all cases, reviews are treated as confidential documents. Verbatim copies of reviews, excluding the names of the reviewers or any reviewer-identifying information, are sent to the Principal Investigator/Project Director by the Program Officer. In addition, the proposer will receive an explanation of the decision to award or decline funding.

VII. Award Administration Information

A. notification of the award.

Notification of the award is made to the submitting organization by an NSF Grants and Agreements Officer. Organizations whose proposals are declined will be advised as promptly as possible by the cognizant NSF Program administering the program. Verbatim copies of reviews, not including the identity of the reviewer, will be provided automatically to the Principal Investigator. (See Section VI.B. for additional information on the review process.)

B. Award Conditions

An NSF award consists of: (1) the award notice, which includes any special provisions applicable to the award and any numbered amendments thereto; (2) the budget, which indicates the amounts, by categories of expense, on which NSF has based its support (or otherwise communicates any specific approvals or disapprovals of proposed expenditures); (3) the proposal referenced in the award notice; (4) the applicable award conditions, such as Grant General Conditions (GC-1)*; or Research Terms and Conditions* and (5) any announcement or other NSF issuance that may be incorporated by reference in the award notice. Cooperative agreements also are administered in accordance with NSF Cooperative Agreement Financial and Administrative Terms and Conditions (CA-FATC) and the applicable Programmatic Terms and Conditions. NSF awards are electronically signed by an NSF Grants and Agreements Officer and transmitted electronically to the organization via e-mail.

*These documents may be accessed electronically on NSF's Website at https://www.nsf.gov/awards/managing/award_conditions.jsp?org=NSF . Paper copies may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-8134 or by e-mail from [email protected] .

More comprehensive information on NSF Award Conditions and other important information on the administration of NSF awards is contained in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) Chapter VII, available electronically on the NSF Website at https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg .

Administrative and National Policy Requirements

Build America, Buy America

As expressed in Executive Order 14005, Ensuring the Future is Made in All of America by All of America’s Workers (86 FR 7475), it is the policy of the executive branch to use terms and conditions of Federal financial assistance awards to maximize, consistent with law, the use of goods, products, and materials produced in, and services offered in, the United States.

Consistent with the requirements of the Build America, Buy America Act (Pub. L. 117-58, Division G, Title IX, Subtitle A, November 15, 2021), no funding made available through this funding opportunity may be obligated for an award unless all iron, steel, manufactured products, and construction materials used in the project are produced in the United States. For additional information, visit NSF’s Build America, Buy America webpage.

Special Award Conditions:

TBD - Programmatic Terms and Conditions: TBD - Financial and Administrative Terms and Conditions:

C. Reporting Requirements

For all multi-year grants (including both standard and continuing grants), the Principal Investigator must submit an annual project report to the cognizant Program Officer no later than 90 days prior to the end of the current budget period. (Some programs or awards require submission of more frequent project reports). No later than 120 days following expiration of a grant, the PI also is required to submit a final annual project report, and a project outcomes report for the general public.

Failure to provide the required annual or final annual project reports, or the project outcomes report, will delay NSF review and processing of any future funding increments as well as any pending proposals for all identified PIs and co-PIs on a given award. PIs should examine the formats of the required reports in advance to assure availability of required data.

PIs are required to use NSF's electronic project-reporting system, available through Research.gov, for preparation and submission of annual and final annual project reports. Such reports provide information on accomplishments, project participants (individual and organizational), publications, and other specific products and impacts of the project. Submission of the report via Research.gov constitutes certification by the PI that the contents of the report are accurate and complete. The project outcomes report also must be prepared and submitted using Research.gov. This report serves as a brief summary, prepared specifically for the public, of the nature and outcomes of the project. This report will be posted on the NSF website exactly as it is submitted by the PI.

More comprehensive information on NSF Reporting Requirements and other important information on the administration of NSF awards is contained in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) Chapter VII, available electronically on the NSF Website at https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg .

NSF requires ERCs to submit annual reports that are more extensive in scope than those required of single investigator awards. NSF provides guidelines for these reports. NSF also requires ERCs to collect and submit to NSF data on indicators of progress, outcome, impact, and financial management. NSF provides data definition guidelines and templates for the recording and submission of these data through a secure web site.

VIII. Agency Contacts

Please note that the program contact information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of contact.

General inquiries regarding this program should be made to:

For questions related to the use of NSF systems contact:

• NSF Help Desk: 1-800-381-1532
• Research.gov Help Desk e-mail: [email protected]

For questions relating to Grants.gov contact:

Grants.gov Contact Center: If the Authorized Organizational Representatives (AOR) has not received a confirmation message from Grants.gov within 48 hours of submission of application, please contact via telephone: 1-800-518-4726; e-mail: [email protected] .

IX. Other Information

The NSF website provides the most comprehensive source of information on NSF Directorates (including contact information), programs and funding opportunities. Use of this website by potential proposers is strongly encouraged. In addition, "NSF Update" is an information-delivery system designed to keep potential proposers and other interested parties apprised of new NSF funding opportunities and publications, important changes in proposal and award policies and procedures, and upcoming NSF Grants Conferences . Subscribers are informed through e-mail or the user's Web browser each time new publications are issued that match their identified interests. "NSF Update" also is available on NSF's website .

Grants.gov provides an additional electronic capability to search for Federal government-wide grant opportunities. NSF funding opportunities may be accessed via this mechanism. Further information on Grants.gov may be obtained at https://www.grants.gov .

About The National Science Foundation

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent Federal agency created by the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42 USC 1861-75). The Act states the purpose of the NSF is "to promote the progress of science; [and] to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare by supporting research and education in all fields of science and engineering."

NSF funds research and education in most fields of science and engineering. It does this through grants and cooperative agreements to more than 2,000 colleges, universities, K-12 school systems, businesses, informal science organizations and other research organizations throughout the US. The Foundation accounts for about one-fourth of Federal support to academic institutions for basic research.

NSF receives approximately 55,000 proposals each year for research, education and training projects, of which approximately 11,000 are funded. In addition, the Foundation receives several thousand applications for graduate and postdoctoral fellowships. The agency operates no laboratories itself but does support National Research Centers, user facilities, certain oceanographic vessels and Arctic and Antarctic research stations. The Foundation also supports cooperative research between universities and industry, US participation in international scientific and engineering efforts, and educational activities at every academic level.

Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities (FASED) provide funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons with disabilities to work on NSF-supported projects. See the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide Chapter II.F.7 for instructions regarding preparation of these types of proposals.

The National Science Foundation has Telephonic Device for the Deaf (TDD) and Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) capabilities that enable individuals with hearing impairments to communicate with the Foundation about NSF programs, employment or general information. TDD may be accessed at (703) 292-5090 and (800) 281-8749, FIRS at (800) 877-8339.

The National Science Foundation Information Center may be reached at (703) 292-5111.

The National Science Foundation promotes and advances scientific progress in the United States by competitively awarding grants and cooperative agreements for research and education in the sciences, mathematics, and engineering. To get the latest information about program deadlines, to download copies of NSF publications, and to access abstracts of awards, visit the NSF Website at 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314 (NSF Information Center) (703) 292-5111 (703) 292-5090 Send an e-mail to: or telephone: (703) 292-8134 (703) 292-5111 Privacy Act And Public Burden Statements The information requested on proposal forms and project reports is solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended. The information on proposal forms will be used in connection with the selection of qualified proposals; and project reports submitted by proposers will be used for program evaluation and reporting within the Executive Branch and to Congress. The information requested may be disclosed to qualified reviewers and staff assistants as part of the proposal review process; to proposer institutions/grantees to provide or obtain data regarding the proposal review process, award decisions, or the administration of awards; to government contractors, experts, volunteers and researchers and educators as necessary to complete assigned work; to other government agencies or other entities needing information regarding proposers or nominees as part of a joint application review process, or in order to coordinate programs or policy; and to another Federal agency, court, or party in a court or Federal administrative proceeding if the government is a party. Information about Principal Investigators may be added to the Reviewer file and used to select potential candidates to serve as peer reviewers or advisory committee members. See System of Record Notices , NSF-50 , "Principal Investigator/Proposal File and Associated Records," and NSF-51 , "Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records.” Submission of the information is voluntary. Failure to provide full and complete information, however, may reduce the possibility of receiving an award. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OMB control number for this collection is 3145-0058. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 120 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions. Send comments regarding the burden estimate and any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Suzanne H. Plimpton Reports Clearance Officer Policy Office, Division of Institution and Award Support Office of Budget, Finance, and Award Management National Science Foundation Alexandria, VA 22314 386 IMAGES How to Make PhD Psychology Research Proposal That Impresses FREE 10+ Psychology Research Proposal Samples in PDF Choose from 40 Research Proposal Templates & Examples. 100% Free How to Make PhD Psychology Research Proposal That Impresses FREE 12+ Research Proposal Samples in PDF research proposal topics psychology VIDEO RESEARCH PROPOSAL FORMAT-HOW TO WRITE A RESEARCH PROPOSAL,HOW TO WRTE A SYNOPSIS FOR RESEARCH How to Write a Research Proposal Tata Institute of Social Sciences PhD Admissions Notification 2024-25 How to Write a Research Proposal Webinar DST WISE-PhD Fellowship 2023-24| Doctoral Research Fellowship (JRF)| Women in Science & Engineering COMMENTS PDF Research Proposal Format Example 1. Research Proposal Format Example. Following is a general outline of the material that should be included in your project proposal. I. Title Page II. Introduction and Literature Review (Chapters 2 and 3) A. Identification of specific problem area (e.g., what is it, why it is important). B. Prevalence, scope of problem. Psychology Research Proposal A psychology research proposal is an academic document that a person submits to propose a research project, specifically in the field of clinical psychology. The purpose of research proposals is to outline the research questions and summarize your selected research topic. Another necessary reason for creating this proposal is to present ways ... How to Write a Psychology Research Proposal Being able to write a solid research proposal demonstrates the following qualities: * An understanding of some theoretical concepts in the behavioral sciences. * The ability to organize one's ... How to Write a Winning Research Proposal Clear and Specific. Your research question should be clear and specific. Ambiguity or vagueness can hinder the strength of your proposal. Be concise and express your research question in a single sentence or a brief paragraph. Use plain language that can be easily understood by someone unfamiliar with your field. How To Write A Psychology Research Proposal Writing a solid research proposal is a crucial first step in conducting a successful psychology study. A well-crafted proposal not only demonstrates your understanding of the research topic but also convinces others that your study is methodologically sound, feasible, and likely to yield valuable insights. This comprehensive guide will walk you ... How to Write a Research Proposal Research proposal examples. Writing a research proposal can be quite challenging, but a good starting point could be to look at some examples. We've included a few for you below. Example research proposal #1: "A Conceptual Framework for Scheduling Constraint Management". PDF Guidelines for Using American Psychological Association Format for d. Avoid sexist language, including generic male nouns and pronouns. For example, "human evolution" is preferable to "the evolution of man." Style a. The research proposal must be typed on standard size paper in 12-pt Times Roman. Paragraphs should be indented by 0.5-inch. (Go to Format - Paragraph - choose "first PDF Your Psychology Project: The Essential Guide Choosing a Topic and the Research Proposal. Contributors: By: Jennifer Evans Book Title: Your Psychology Project: The Essential Guide Chapter Title: "Choosing a Topic and the Research Proposal" Pub. Date: 2007 Access Date: April 9, 2019 Publishing Company: SAGE Publications Ltd City: London Print ISBN: 9781412922326 Online ISBN: 9781446213667 ... PDF Designing and Proposing Your Research Project Professor and Head of Psychology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park. Book details. Format: ... writing integrated literature reviews, and an example research proposal format. We hope you find these extra features useful. Good luck! Anatomy of a Research Article and Comparison of Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches to ... Writing your research proposal When applying to study for a PhD or MPhil in the School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences, you will typically need to send us an initial 500-word research proposal. The content and structure of your research proposal will be influenced by the nature of the project you wish to pursue. The guidance and suggested headings provided here ... D. Produce a research proposal D. Produce a research proposal. After developing a comprehensive literature review, the next step is to conceptualise your research study more specifically. A research proposal is an overview of your project that includes the following: Key Elements of Psychology Research Proposals + Sample Templates A psychology research proposal outlines a proposed study consisting of the objectives, hypotheses, methods, and expected outcomes. This document serves as the blueprint for conducting a successful experiment or data collection effort in the field of psychology. Research proposals are often required by granting agencies or academic institutions. PDF PSY410-Example Research Proposal Microsoft Word - PSY410-Example Research Proposal.doc. PSY 410 - Cognitive Psychology. J. P. Toth. Example Research Proposal (note: the study describe here is not meant to be perfect, but rather to give you an idea of the level of detail that would be most useful for evaluating & commenting on your proposal). 1. How to Make PhD Psychology Research Proposal That Impresses Structural Components of a Psychology Research Proposal Example. Now that we understand how to choose a topic and formulate a question, let's review the main components of a research proposal in psychology. Title page; Abstract; The abstract, typically 250 to 350 words in length, provides a concise summary of your entire PhD proposal psychology. Guidelines for the Research Proposal Format it double-spaced, and include page numbers so that reviewers can easily refer back to specific points. Since it is not assessed work, it does not need your code number; please put your name on it. Some sample proposals from previous years are available on the 'Proposal' (Topic 4) section of the Research Project Support Moodle. Structure PDF Annotated Sample Research Proposal: Process and Product Research Proposals in a Nutshell: The basic purposes of all research proposals are to convince the reader that: the research project has clear objectives; the research project is worth doing (it is significant / important in some sense and will make an original contribution to knowledge / understanding in the field) Research proposal Research proposal. Your research proposal is your opportunity to show your prospective supervisor that you have interesting ideas, and that you have some idea of how to test them. It should consist of about two sides of A4, including references and it should include: clear empirical objective. some idea of the research methods you would use. PDF How to Write a Good Postgraduate RESEARCH PROPOSAL Style: If space allows, provide a clear project title. Structure your text - if allowed use section headings. Present the information in short paragraphs rather than a solid block of text. Write short sentences. If allowed, provide images/charts/diagrams to help break up the text. Experimental Research Proposals PSY 330: Experimental Psychology: Experimental Research Proposals. Home; Finding Articles; Experimental Research Proposals; Citing Sources; RefWorks All About Psychology Research Proposal Psychology Research Proposal Sample. If you're confused about how to go about your proposal, here is a sample that is sure to help you get started: Title. A proposal should start with a title page. This page should include your topic and give a clear idea of your proposed study approach. So, make sure you include the following: APA Sample Paper: Experimental Psychology This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use. Media File: APA Sample Paper: Experimental Psychology This resource is enhanced by an Acrobat PDF file. Download the free Acrobat Reader. Topic 1 Research Proposal (docx) Social psychological principle is the belief that human behavior is determined by both a person's characteristics and the social situation (Jhangiani et al. 2014). The topic I choose to do for my research proposal is forensic psychology and its direct correlation to the criminal justice field. Forensic psychology applies the principles of psychology to the criminal justice system and law. How to Write a Psychology Research Proposal Being able to write a solid research proposal demonstrates the following qualities: * An understanding of some theoretical concepts in the behavioral sciences. * The ability to organize one's ... NSF 24-576: Gen-4 Engineering Research Centers Full Proposal Preparation Instructions: Proposers may opt to submit proposals in response to this Program Solicitation via Research.gov or Grants.gov. Full Proposals submitted via Research.gov: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the general guidelines contained in the ... assignment essay homework paper phd report resume review speech thesis