3 Common Research Proposal Mistakes To Avoid

Writing a research proposal can feel like a huge challenge. As a student, you know that your thesis is the final hurdle before graduation, and the proposal is the first step in clearing it. The pressure to present something groundbreaking can be intense. Often, discussions about research proposals center on one word: originality. But what does that really mean in an academic context?

Many students misunderstand what universities expect from their research. Most academic work builds upon previous studies, adding small, incremental pieces to a larger puzzle. It’s not always about inventing something entirely new from scratch. This misunderstanding leads to common mistakes that can get a proposal rejected.

This guide will walk you through three of the most frequent errors students make when crafting their research proposals. We will look at real-world examples for each mistake, explore why they are problematic, and provide clear, actionable steps to fix them. By the end, you’ll have a better understanding of how to frame your research in a way that is both impressive and realistic.

Mistake #1: Confusing Originality with Reinvention

Let’s address the biggest misconception first. The pressure to be “original” often leads students to believe they must reinvent the wheel. You might feel like you need to be the next Marie Curie or Albert Einstein, completely changing how your field is understood.

This mindset sets an impossibly high bar. The truth is, very few students, or even seasoned academics, produce work that completely overhauls a discipline. Expecting a third-year university student to develop a revolutionary theory with limited time and resources is unrealistic.

Here are a few goals you should probably avoid setting for your undergraduate or master’s thesis:

• Inventing a brand-new theory from the ground up.
• Attempting to disprove an entire, established field of study.
• Finding a topic that absolutely no one has ever written about before.

If you can achieve one of these, that’s fantastic. However, the probability is low. Aiming for this kind of “originality” often leads to proposals that are either too ambitious or completely disconnected from the existing academic conversation. A proposal that tries to do too much can be a red flag for supervisors, suggesting the student doesn’t understand the scope of academic research.

What to Do Instead: Reframe Originality

The key is to shift your perspective. Originality in academic research is more nuanced. It doesn’t always mean being the very first person to think of an idea. Instead, you can demonstrate originality in several practical ways:

• Find a new context for an existing theory: Apply a well-known theory to a new situation, location, or time period. For example, how does a psychological theory developed in the West apply to an Eastern culture?
• Involve different demographics in your study: Much of the existing research may have focused on a specific group of people. You could replicate a study but with a different age group, gender, socioeconomic background, or profession.
• Reframe the main question: Look at a familiar topic from a new angle. Instead of asking if social media affects teen mental health, you could ask how specific platform features influence self-esteem in a particular way.
• Make a methodological adjustment: Use a different research method to explore an old problem. If previous studies were all quantitative, you could conduct a qualitative study to gain deeper insights, or vice versa.

By taking one of these approaches, you are not just repeating old work, you are building on it and learn more by contributing a valuable new piece to the puzzle. This shows that you understand the field and know how to make a meaningful, manageable contribution.

Example in Practice

Let’s imagine your research is about student motivation. You’re interested in how using creative software, like video editing tools, impacts students’ daily study habits.

• A Problematic Proposal Statement: This research aims to create a completely new framework for understanding student motivation, as existing theories like Self-Determination Theory and Expectancy Theory do not adequately explain the learning environments of modern students.”

What’s Wrong with This?

1. It dismisses existing research: The statement casually throws aside decades of established theory without providing a strong argument for why these theories are insufficient. This can come across as arrogant or uninformed.
2. The goal is too vague: What does a “completely new framework” actually mean? What would it look like? This goal is so broad that it’s impossible to achieve in a single student project.
3. It misjudges the scope: Developing and validating a new theoretical framework is the work of a lifetime, often involving multiple large-scale studies conducted over many years. It is far beyond the scope of a student thesis.

How to Fix It:
Instead of trying to replace existing theories, position your study as an extension of them. Show that you have done your homework and understand the current academic conversation.

A Better Proposal Statement: While Self-Determination Theory provides a robust framework for understanding motivation, little research has applied it to the context of digital creativity tools in higher education. This study will examine how the use of video editing software among marketing students relates to their feelings of autonomy, competence, and relatedness, potentially extending the theory’s application to a new learning domain.”

This revised statement is much stronger. It acknowledges existing research, defines a clear and achievable goal, and carves out a specific, original niche without overstating its potential impact.

Mistake #2: Overstating Your Contribution

This mistake is closely related to the first one but focuses on the language you use to describe your research’s potential impact. Students often feel the need to use impressive-sounding words to sell their project. They claim their study will have “significant implications” or will “revolutionise” practices in their field.

Words like “significant,” “groundbreaking,” or “transformative” are a bit like empty calories. They sound good, but they lack substance. What does “significant” actually mean? How can you measure it? When a proposal is filled with these grand claims, it can signal to your supervisor that you are more focused on hype than on delivering a solid, well-executed study.

Supervisors would rather see a proposal that promises a modest, clearly defined contribution than one that makes huge promises it can’t possibly keep. Honesty about your project’s limitations is a sign of academic maturity.

What to Do Instead: Be Specific and Realistic

The solution is to trade vague, powerful words for precise, measurable descriptions. Let your methodology and clear objectives speak for themselves.

• Avoid vague quantifiers: Instead of saying your work will have “significant implications,” explain exactly what those implications might be. For example, “The findings may inform the design of orientation programs for first-year students.”
• Show you understand the scope: Acknowledge that your study is one small step. A single project is unlikely to change national policy overnight. Frame its contribution in a more realistic way.
• Connect your claims to your methodology: Ensure that the impact you claim is directly supported by your research design. A study with a small, non-random sample cannot be used to make broad generalisations about an entire population.

Example in Practice

Let’s return to our study on student motivation and video editing software.

A Problematic Impact Statement:The results of this study will have significant implications for educational policy and will dramatically improve teaching outcomes across all higher education institutions.”

What’s Wrong with This?

1. It makes an unsupported leap: How does a single study on a small group of students directly impact national educational policy? There are many steps between a research paper and policy change.
2. The claims are not measurable: What does it mean to “improve teaching outcomes”? Is that measured by grades, student satisfaction, or retention rates? The statement doesn’t say.
3. It overgeneralises: The study might be conducted at one university with one group of students. The results cannot be applied to “all higher education institutions.”

How to Fix It:
Focus on the direct, tangible outcomes of your specific project.

A Better Impact Statement: The findings from this study could offer preliminary insights for instructors at this university who are considering integrating creative software into their curriculum. For example, if a correlation is found between software use and student engagement, it could provide a basis for a pilot program in the marketing department. Furthermore, this research could lay the groundwork for a larger, longitudinal study to track student performance over time.”

This version is much more credible. It specifies the target audience (instructors at the university), suggests a concrete application (a pilot program), and realistically frames the study as a starting point for future research.

Mistake #3: Choosing a Problem That Lacks Relevance

This mistake is subtle but common. A student finds a topic that no one has researched before and assumes this “gap in the literature” automatically makes their project original and valuable. For example, perhaps no one has ever studied the connection between a student’s favorite color and their choice of academic major.

The question you must ask is: is there a good reason why no one has studied this?

Sometimes, a gap exists because the topic simply isn’t relevant. There is no real-world problem that the research would help solve. Research for the sake of research, without a clear purpose, is a poor foundation for a proposal. While some gaps exist for political or commercial reasons, this is rarely the case for student projects. More often, the gap is there because the question isn’t worth asking, especially when students focus on practical learning methods like using online video tools to support their academic goals.

What to Do Instead: Anchor Your Research to a Real Problem

Your research should be grounded in relevance. Instead of just pointing out a gap, you need to explain why that gap is problematic.

• Connect the gap to consequences: How does the lack of research on your topic negatively affect a specific group of people or a particular process? Link the absence of information to a real, observable problem.
• Use data to justify the problem: Don’t just say a problem exists. Prove it. Use statistics, institutional reports, or findings from previous studies to demonstrate that the issue you want to address is real and deserves attention.
• Focus on “need” over “novelty”: Your proposal should be driven by the need for a solution or a better understanding, not just by the novelty of the topic.

Example in Practice

Let’s look at another potential research topic.

A Problematic Problem Statement: There is limited research on the use of mobile learning applications among first-year engineering students at this university, which creates a gap in the literature.

What’s Wrong with This?

1. It only identifies a gap: So what? The statement doesn’t explain why this lack of research is a problem. It doesn’t give the reader any reason to care.
2. There is no observable problem: Is there any evidence that first-year engineering students are struggling? Is their engagement low? Are their grades suffering? Without a link to a real issue, the research has no purpose.
3. It focuses on description, not need: The proposal seems to want to describe a situation (the use of mobile apps) rather than solve a problem.

How to Fix It:
Start with the problem, then present your research as a way to address it.

A Better Problem Statement: According to the university’s 2025 annual report, the retention rate for first-year engineering students has dropped by 15% over the past three years. Anecdotal feedback from faculty suggests that student engagement in foundational subjects is a primary concern. While the university has promoted the use of mobile learning applications, there is no data on whether these tools are effective. This study aims to investigate the relationship between the use of these apps and student engagement to determine if they offer a viable solution to the declining retention rates.”

This statement is far more compelling. It starts with a clear, data-backed problem (declining retention), identifies a potential cause (low engagement), and positions the research as a practical step toward finding a solution. It gives the research a clear and urgent purpose.

Final Thoughts

Crafting a strong research proposal is about striking a balance. You need to be ambitious enough to be interesting but realistic enough to be credible. By avoiding these three common mistakes, you can frame your project in a way that demonstrates academic maturity and a clear understanding of your field.

Remember these key takeaways:

• Redefine originality: Focus on adding to the existing conversation, not starting a new one from scratch.
• Be specific about your contribution: Swap grand claims for clear, modest, and measurable objectives.
• Ground your research in relevance: Start with a real, observable problem, and position your study as a step toward solving it.

Don’t be afraid to propose a project with a narrow scope. A small-scale study that is well-designed and expertly executed is far more valuable than a grand project that is vague and unachievable. Be honest about your project’s limitations and confident in the value it can provide. Your journey as a researcher starts here, with a clear, focused, and realistic plan.

Frequently Asked Questions