# Domain-Specific Templates Guidance for adapting research proposals to different academic domains. --- ## Overview: Domain Differences | Dimension | STEM | Humanities | Social Sciences | |-----------|------|------------|-----------------| | **Length** | Shorter (2,000-3,000) | Longer (3,000-10,000) | Medium (2,500-4,000) | | **Focus** | Methodology, experiments | Theory, interpretation | Methods + theory | | **Hypothesis** | Explicit, testable | Research questions | Both used | | **Literature** | Recent (5 years) | Broader historical | Mix | | **Citations** | APA | MLA/Chicago | APA/Chicago | | **Voice** | Passive preferred | Active acceptable | Mixed | --- ## STEM Domain (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) ### Structural Emphasis ``` STEM Proposal Structure (~2,500 words) Abstract 150-200 words (6%) Introduction 400-500 words (18%) - Background/Motivation 150 words - Problem Statement 150 words - Objectives/Hypotheses 100 words Literature Review 400-500 words (18%) - State of the Art 300 words - Research Gap 200 words Methodology 600-800 words (28%) ← HEAVY EMPHASIS - Research Design 150 words - Materials/Equipment 150 words - Experimental Protocol 200 words - Data Analysis 200 words - Validation 100 words Timeline 200 words (8%) Expected Outcomes 300 words (12%) - Scientific Contribution 150 words - Publications Plan 100 words - Potential Applications 50 words References 30-50 citations ``` ### Key Characteristics **Hypothesis-Driven** - State clear, testable hypotheses - Define variables (independent, dependent, controlled) - Specify expected outcomes ```markdown **Hypothesis 1:** [Independent variable] will [effect] [dependent variable] when [conditions]. **Hypothesis 2:** The proposed [method] will achieve [metric] performance compared to [baseline]. ``` **Technical Precision** - Exact specifications for equipment/software - Detailed protocols with parameters - Quantifiable success metrics **Preliminary Results** - If available, include pilot study data - Demonstrate feasibility - Show you have necessary skills ### Methodology Section Template (STEM) ```markdown ## 3. Methodology ### 3.1 Research Design This research employs a [quantitative/experimental/computational] approach to investigate [research questions]. The study comprises [N] phases: [Phase 1], [Phase 2], and [Phase 3]. ### 3.2 Materials and Equipment The following resources are required: - **Hardware**: [specific equipment, models, specifications] - **Software**: [programs, versions, licenses] - **Materials**: [reagents, samples, datasets] - **Facilities**: [lab access, computing resources] ### 3.3 Experimental Protocol **Phase 1: [Name]** 1. [Step 1 with parameters] 2. [Step 2 with parameters] 3. [Expected output] **Phase 2: [Name]** [Similar detailed steps] ### 3.4 Data Analysis Data will be analyzed using [software/method]. Specifically: - [Analysis 1]: [technique] to measure [metric] - [Analysis 2]: [statistical test] to evaluate [hypothesis] Statistical significance will be set at p < 0.05. ### 3.5 Validation To ensure validity: - [Validation method 1] - [Validation method 2] - Comparison with [benchmark/baseline] ``` ### STEM-Specific Language **Technical verbs:** - analyze, characterize, synthesize, optimize - validate, calibrate, quantify, measure - implement, develop, deploy, integrate **Precision phrases:** - "with a precision of ±X%" - "under controlled conditions of [parameters]" - "achieving [metric] > [threshold]" - "statistically significant at p < 0.05" --- ## Humanities Domain (History, Philosophy, Literature, Languages, Arts) ### Structural Emphasis ``` Humanities Proposal Structure (~4,000 words) Abstract 250-300 words (7%) Introduction 600-800 words (18%) - Context/Significance 300 words - Central Argument 200 words - Research Questions 200 words Literature Review 1000-1500 words (30%) ← HEAVY EMPHASIS - Theoretical Framework 400 words - Historiography/Field 600 words - Positioning 300 words Methodology 400-600 words (12%) - Sources/Archives 200 words - Analytical Approach 200 words - Interpretive Framework 200 words Chapter Outline 400-500 words (12%) ← UNIQUE TO HUMANITIES Timeline 200-300 words (6%) Significance 400-500 words (12%) References 50-100 citations ``` ### Key Characteristics **Argument-Driven** - Central thesis or argument - Research questions, not hypotheses - Interpretive rather than predictive ```markdown **Central Argument:** This dissertation argues that [thesis statement]. By examining [sources/texts], this research demonstrates how [phenomenon] reveals [insight] about [broader significance]. **Research Questions:** 1. How did [historical actors/texts] [action/represent] [phenomenon]? 2. What [factors/discourses] shaped [development/interpretation]? 3. In what ways does [case study] illuminate [broader theoretical issue]? ``` **Theoretical Sophistication** - Engage with major theorists - Position within intellectual traditions - Critical analysis of theory itself **Source-Based** - Primary sources (archives, texts, artifacts) - Language requirements - Access and travel considerations ### Literature Review Template (Humanities) ```markdown ## 2. Literature Review ### 2.1 Theoretical Framework This research draws on [theoretical tradition] as articulated by [key theorists]. [Theorist A]'s concept of [concept] provides a framework for understanding [aspect of research]. However, [Theorist B] offers a complementary perspective, arguing that [alternative view]. Building on these foundations, this study employs [specific theoretical lens] to analyze [research focus]. This approach is particularly suited to [justification] because [reasons]. ### 2.2 Historiography / State of the Field Scholarly attention to [topic] has evolved considerably over the past [timeframe]. Early studies, such as [Author (Year)], focused primarily on [aspect], establishing [finding/interpretation]. The field underwent significant transformation with [Author (Year)]'s influential work, which challenged [previous assumption] by demonstrating [new insight]. Subsequent scholars have built on this foundation, exploring [development 1], [development 2], and [development 3]. More recently, scholars have turned to [new approach/topic]. [Author (Year)] examines [specific focus], while [Author (Year)] investigates [related area]. These studies reveal [emerging themes/debates]. ### 2.3 Research Gap and Positioning Despite this rich body of scholarship, significant questions remain unexplored. First, [gap 1]. Second, [gap 2]. Third, [gap 3]. This dissertation addresses these gaps by [approach]. Unlike previous studies that [limitation], this research [differentiation]. By [method], this study offers new insights into [contribution]. ``` ### Chapter Outline (Unique to Humanities) ```markdown ## Provisional Chapter Outline **Chapter 1: Introduction** Introduces the central argument, contextualizes the study, and outlines the dissertation structure. **Chapter 2: [Thematic Title]** Examines [topic/period/text] to establish [foundational argument]. Primary sources: [list key sources] **Chapter 3: [Thematic Title]** Analyzes [topic/period/text] to demonstrate [developing argument]. Primary sources: [list key sources] **Chapter 4: [Thematic Title]** Investigates [topic/period/text] to explore [complicating factors]. Primary sources: [list key sources] **Chapter 5: Conclusion** Synthesizes findings, articulates contributions, and suggests directions for future research. ``` ### Humanities-Specific Language **Interpretive verbs:** - argue, contend, posit, suggest - examine, analyze, interrogate, explore - illuminate, reveal, demonstrate, trace **Analytical phrases:** - "close reading of [text] reveals..." - "situating [phenomenon] within [context] allows us to see..." - "this analysis complicates the prevailing narrative by..." - "reading [source] against [context] demonstrates..." --- ## Social Sciences Domain (Sociology, Psychology, Economics, Political Science) ### Structural Emphasis ``` Social Sciences Proposal Structure (~3,000 words) Abstract 200-250 words (7%) Introduction 500-600 words (18%) - Background 200 words - Problem Statement 200 words - Research Questions 150 words Literature Review 600-800 words (22%) - Theoretical Framework 250 words - Empirical Review 350 words - Research Gap 200 words Methodology 600-800 words (25%) ← BALANCED EMPHASIS - Research Design 150 words - Sampling/Participants 150 words - Data Collection 200 words - Data Analysis 200 words - Ethics 100 words Timeline 200-250 words (7%) Significance 300-400 words (12%) References 40-60 citations ``` ### Key Characteristics **Question-Driven with Theoretical Grounding** - Clear research questions - Hypotheses when appropriate (quantitative) - Theory guides but doesn't dominate ```markdown **Research Questions:** 1. What is the relationship between [variable A] and [variable B] among [population]? 2. How do [participants] experience/perceive [phenomenon]? 3. To what extent does [factor] mediate/moderate the relationship between [X] and [Y]? **Hypotheses (if quantitative):** H1: [Variable A] is positively/negatively associated with [Variable B]. H2: The relationship between [X] and [Y] is moderated by [Z]. ``` **Mixed Methods Common** - Often combines quantitative and qualitative - Sequential or concurrent designs - Triangulation valued **Ethical Emphasis** - Human subjects considerations - IRB/ethics approval process - Informed consent, confidentiality ### Methodology Template (Social Sciences) ```markdown ## 3. Methodology ### 3.1 Research Design This study employs a [quantitative/qualitative/mixed methods] design. [If mixed: The study follows a [sequential/concurrent] [explanatory/ exploratory] design, beginning with [phase 1] followed by [phase 2].] The [design type] approach is appropriate because [justification based on research questions]. ### 3.2 Participants and Sampling **Population:** [Define target population] **Sample:** [N] participants will be recruited using [sampling strategy]. Inclusion criteria: [list]. Exclusion criteria: [list]. **Sample size justification:** Based on [power analysis/saturation principle/similar studies], [N] participants are required to [detect effect/achieve saturation]. ### 3.3 Data Collection **Quantitative:** [Surveys/experiments/secondary data] - Instrument: [name/description] - Variables measured: [list with operationalization] - Procedure: [step-by-step process] **Qualitative:** [Interviews/focus groups/observation] - Protocol: [semi-structured/structured, duration] - Topics covered: [list] - Recording: [audio/video, transcription process] ### 3.4 Data Analysis **Quantitative analysis:** - Descriptive statistics for [variables] - [Statistical test] to examine [hypothesis 1] - [Statistical test] to examine [hypothesis 2] - Software: [SPSS/R/Stata] **Qualitative analysis:** - [Thematic/content/discourse] analysis - Coding approach: [inductive/deductive/hybrid] - Software: [NVivo/Atlas.ti/manual] ### 3.5 Ethical Considerations This research will be conducted in accordance with [ethical guidelines]. IRB/Ethics approval will be obtained from [institution]. Key considerations: - **Informed consent:** [process] - **Confidentiality:** [data storage, anonymization] - **Potential risks:** [identified risks and mitigation] - **Vulnerable populations:** [if applicable, special protections] ``` ### Social Sciences-Specific Language **Research verbs:** - investigate, examine, explore, assess - compare, evaluate, measure, test - understand, interpret, explain, predict **Methodological phrases:** - "using a [design] approach" - "drawing on a [sampling] sample of [N] participants" - "employing [analysis method] to identify..." - "controlling for [confounding variables]" --- ## Citation Style Quick Reference ### APA (7th Edition) - STEM, Social Sciences **Journal article:** ``` Author, A. A., & Author, B. B. (Year). Title of article. Journal Name, Volume(Issue), pages. https://doi.org/xxxxx ``` **Book:** ``` Author, A. A. (Year). Title of work: Subtitle. Publisher. ``` **In-text:** - (Author, Year) or Author (Year) - (Author et al., Year) for 3+ authors ### MLA (9th Edition) - Humanities (Literature, Languages) **Journal article:** ``` Author Last, First. "Article Title." Journal Name, vol. #, no. #, Year, pp. #-#. ``` **Book:** ``` Author Last, First. Title of Book. Publisher, Year. ``` **In-text:** - (Author page) or Author argues "quote" (page) ### Chicago (17th Edition) - History, some Humanities **Notes-Bibliography (Humanities):** ``` Footnote: Author First Last, Title of Book (Place: Publisher, Year), page. Bibliography: Author Last, First. Title of Book. Place: Publisher, Year. ``` **Author-Date (Sciences):** ``` (Author Year, page) Author, First. Year. Title. Place: Publisher. ``` --- ## Language Output Considerations ### English Proposals - Maintain consistent British or American English - Formal academic register - Active voice acceptable, passive common in methods - "We" for multi-author, "This study" for distance ### Chinese Proposals (中文) **学术语体特征:** - 使用书面语，避免口语化表达 - 适当使用四字成语和学术术语 - 保持客观语气，避免主观判断词 - 使用"本研究"而非"我" **常用学术表达:** | 功能 | 中文表达 | |------|----------| | 引出背景 | 随着...的发展，...日益受到关注 | | 指出问题 | 然而，...仍存在以下问题 | | 陈述目标 | 本研究旨在...；本文拟探讨... | | 方法说明 | 采用...方法，对...进行分析 | | 预期贡献 | 研究结果将有助于...；有望为...提供参考 | **参考文献格式 (GB/T 7714-2015):** ``` 期刊: 作者. 题名[J]. 刊名, 年, 卷(期): 起止页码. 专著: 作者. 书名[M]. 出版地: 出版者, 出版年. ``` --- ## Domain-Specific Checklist ### STEM Checklist - [ ] Hypotheses are specific and testable - [ ] Variables clearly defined and operationalized - [ ] Methods section includes specific parameters - [ ] Equipment/software versions specified - [ ] Validation approach described - [ ] Preliminary data included (if available) - [ ] Realistic within lab capabilities ### Humanities Checklist - [ ] Central argument clearly stated - [ ] Theoretical framework articulated - [ ] Engagement with key scholars demonstrated - [ ] Primary sources identified and accessible - [ ] Chapter outline provided - [ ] Language requirements addressed - [ ] Archive/field access confirmed ### Social Sciences Checklist - [ ] Research questions linked to theory - [ ] Sampling strategy justified - [ ] Instruments described or referenced - [ ] Analysis appropriate for question type - [ ] Ethics considerations addressed - [ ] Limitations acknowledged - [ ] Practical significance articulated