This second part of your project proposal is building on, and adding to, the first part. In the first part, you introduced your research question and some relevant empirical research. In the second part, you’ll be thinking more critically about the evidence and how it relates to your question, and ultimately developing a new hypothesis that can be tested (in Part 3–stay tuned!).
Here are some sample papers from previous students: Sample PP2 A.docx Download Sample PP2 A.docx Sample PP2 B.pdfDownload Sample PP2 B.pdf
Part 2 will be added to your original Part 1. Specifically, after your article reviews, you’ll be adding the following sections (Note: you should be using citations when discussing the studies throughout these sections):
Limitations (2-3 pages)
Here you’ll be discussing some of the potential weaknesses of the studies you reviewed in Part 1. You should make reference to specific validities (internal, external, construct, and statistical), and should address at least two validities for each article. What might be some of the weaknesses in terms of how the studies were conducted? Where is the uncertainty in terms of conclusions we can come to? Be as specific as possible. (I’ll note that you’ll be doing this same thing for your Group Research writeups, so you should be getting some practice in.)
Additionally, you should be considering how these weaknesses may have affected the findings in the study. Remember what each of the validities focuses on: construct validity is about how confident we can be regarding what was studied; external validity is about how confident we are these findings could be generalized; internal validity is about how confidently we can say anything about causation; and statistical validity is about how confidently we can rule out randomness. If you think there’s an issue in one of these areas, what would that mean for any conclusion–a claim based on the findings–that we’re trying to make? Be as specific as possible.
Lastly, considering what you just said, what steps might be taken to correct for these weaknesses? If you were to replicate this study, is there any way that you could improve its validity?
For this section, you can build on any critiques that the authors might have raised about their own studies, though you should still discuss them in the manner outlined above. (And make sure you understand their critique, if you’re going to use it–just copy/pasting won’t get you anywhere.)
Synthesis (1-2 pages)
In this section, you’ll be considering how/whether each of the findings from the studies you’ve reviewed fit together, and how they relate to your research question.
Clearly state the main findings of the studies. Considering that each of the studies had its own goals and questions, are there any areas in which the findings of the different articles reinforce each other? Do you find any contradictions among the findings? Make sure to explain how these studies are similar/different, as well as why these similarities/differences might matter. For instance, does it leave you with the conclusion that, despite some different circumstances there is a lot of consistency in this phenomenon? Or that there might be some critical differences that end up changing things completely?
Keeping your original research question in mind, what information does each study contribute? Does it answer your research question outright, or provide more of a step in the direction of an answer? If it’s not an outright answer, make sure to explain where the connection is, and how the research findings fill in some of the overall picture.
Hypothesis (~1 page)
Finally, you’ll be proposing a new, as-yet-untested hypothesis. Considering the question that you started with and the evidence that you’ve found, what is a potential answer to your research question? This should be a clear, specific, and testable prediction that you’re making, and in the form of a statement (not a new question).
Keep in mind this should be a new idea, and one which you don’t actually know whether it’s true or not. I’m looking for some creativity! If there’s already a clearly and consistently demonstrated answer to your original question in the literature, you’ll need to expand the boundaries a little–you may have the big picture, but what are some potentially important details that you’re still not sure of? (Importantly, coming up with a new idea does not mean completely abandoning your original research question; you should still be in the same territory, even if you’re venturing out a little.) You may need to consider ways to expand your hypothesis–take a look at these slides Download these slidesfor some ideas how to do this.
In addition to stating your hypothesis, you should be providing a clear argument for it. What evidence has led you to make this prediction? What is your theory to explain this phenomenon?
