Proposal Development

"Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing." _ Wernher von Braun

Now that my study is safely tucked away within the constructivism paradigm, I continue developing my proposal to participate in the mandatory colloquium. The purpose is to present my ideas to a neutral panel that will improve my document. So, on the material day, I confidently step up to the podium and offer my presentation. After corrections, I realize the new suggestions just took me back to square one. I must take down most aspects of this proposal and begin the laborious process of reading to build on the new additional elements. Now I understand why my academic writing lecturer did not mince his words when he said that we cannot possibly hope to graduate without reading a minimum of 1,000 journal articles.

I get to work. The advantage is that the methodology section remains untouched. The headache is in chapters one and two. Chapter one contains the study's background, problem statement, purpose statement, research questions, significance, scope, study limitations, and conceptual and operational definition of terms. I must point out that each institution has its own unique way of presenting the same information. Among the many things I learn is that the significance section is not stated in one or two lazy lines. A whole new reading needs to go into it where I am expected to offer a detailed account of the practical, methodological, and theoretical significance, complete with citations.

Chapter two is an even bigger headache. Chapter two. Oh my! I have been advised to align my study to my degree, which is media management. The previous proposal had no mention of my field of study, which was mind-boggling to the panelists. As I begin to gather evidence from extensive reading, the picture becomes more apparent. I trace the evolution of media management research and realize this is truly an effective way of establishing a gap. I also learn that I need to synthesize my sources, and the more the sources corroborate the same point, the better. I am also required to beef up the health section with plenty of the latest sources and include some tables. There is also an aspect of policy that must be captured in my study. Since the word ‘implementation’ has found its way into my title, I must also review as many studies as possible to match my new content.

Friends, this is the season I completely submerge myself in an ocean of academic resources. Google, Google Scholar, Scopus, Web of Science, and Jstor should have awarded me for being the world’s most frequent visitor to their sites in that period. I am aware that I should be able to convince my supervisors and defense panel that my topic and methodology are sound. What must come out clearly is the rationale for my choice of topic, where I demonstrate why my study is so important as to warrant attention. I am well aware this proposal should indicate my plan of action, exhibit my theoretical positioning, and establish a connection to past research in my area. I must thoroughly review existing published works related to my now almost new topic and show how my proposed work will build on existing studies as well as explore new ground. In fact, it has been made clear to me that I must add new knowledge to the existing body of literature. How can I tell that I am adding new knowledge if I do not pursue the past?

I should also not forget to mention that all my proposed supporting theories were shredded to pieces at the colloquium. I quietly disappear into my favorite reading spots and begin reading every media theory I can lay my hands on to see which one closely fits my study. Critical reading is required, including discerning theory limitations where I can build upon it. The methodology used to arrive at these theories is also vital to help me build a sound base for my choice of method. After toiling for weeks, I finally arrive at my three theories and cross my fingers that the defense panel will not demolish them and probably send me into an academic ICU.

Further lessons include not overpromising what I cannot clearly deliver. This means I should indicate where my study may be limited. You can imagine a researcher who undertakes a mixed-methods approach and chooses a substantial sample that may take them several years to collect and analyze the data. I also learn that my research questions should have a presence throughout my proposal instead of looking forlorn and miserable by the roadside like an abandoned chick (of a hen).

Some of the tips I pick up during my proposal development days include being brief and to the point. Oftentimes I am tempted to overwrite to drive home the point that my research is essential and showcase my contribution to the field. While it is crucial to establish feasibility, I should not get carried away to have a painfully long proposal that bores my supervisors. Using active verbs is a sure plus to proposal writing.

By this time, I know about Mendeley that helps in quickly organizing my references, but I am not using it. So, in the evenings, as I listen to my favorite radio stations via the Internet or gospel music, I undertake the arduous task of updating my reference list manually. I must not forget the appendices section where I need to draw up my schedule, budget, and interview and focus group discussion protocols.

What a time! Now I proceed to firm up my proposal to prepare for my defense proposal. Let me fast forward to the actual defense proposal. I pass, yes, but I might just as well have failed. The upcoming Mount Everest corrections on the way send me into escapism for eight straight weeks without as much as glancing at my document.