A title should describe accurately the main variables of the phenomena investigated, free of jargon and unnecessary technical terms. In other words, a title should send a clear message to the reader about the research focus. Therefore, the elements best considered for inclusion in the title are the dependent and independent variables, performance component by criterion task, the experimental treatment, the model underlying the study or the purpose of the study.

Any aspect of the study that is unique, particularly unusual, or representing a unique contribution to the literature may also be considered for inclusion in the title (Reif-Lehrer 2005).

Research design and instrumentation are not appropriate for inclusion in the title unless they represent an unusual approach to measurement or analysis (New & Quick 2003).

An abstract includes a brief summary of a much larger document. All indexed journals in electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL) have to provide an abstract of the published articles; that abstract will be retrieved by the search engine and outlined with titles and authors. Those abstracts are written in simple past tense since they describe a study already accomplished; an abstract for a grant proposal is written in the future tense and summarises work that will be done.

An abstract may serve several purposes: (a) to focus the thinking by establishing an explicit goal to which all investigators involved subscribe; (b) to develop a concise prospectus for internal purposes to negotiate administrative approval and needed resources; (c) serve as a summary in order to obtain preliminary consensus by potential recruiters. Finally, funding agencies usually require a ‘Letter of Intent’, the content of which may be mostly derived from the abstract. An abstract prepared prior to the development of the full proposal must be frequently revised. That will be necessary to maintain the perfect consistency between abstract and the other sections of the proposal. The abstract is what is often read first and, frequently, the reading of those few paragraphs provides the reviewers with a clear image of the objectives, method and justification.

The anticipated results and conclusions can also be included to underline their importance for the granting agency, the institution and the discipline.

Starting from the abstract, the proposal must communicate the impression that the study contains something of special interest and fully deserves to be considered. Thus, a well-written abstract must convey a concise but clear picture of the study while also highlighting its unique characteristics. Language should be as plain as possible, avoiding constructs that require definition, keeping to a minimum the use of adjectives, and the use of slogans. Overall, economy and clarity are the essential features of a good abstract (Gitlin & Lyons 2004).

Concise information is required about the principal investigator, co-investigators, research assistants, research coordinator, administrative personnel and scientific consultants. Usually, a CV in the form of a biographical sketch of each investigator must be included. The reviewers will look for key information about researchers’ credentials and specific experience as well as the number of grants obtained for conducting research in the field. Reviewers want to assess the capability of the investigators to conduct the proposed study, not only in a scientific manner, but also within the dedicated resources and administrative support.

The fundamental question is ‘What is this study about?’ and the best approach, without too much detailed discussion, is to present the key concept and explain how it will be represented in the investigation. Some indications of the importance of the study to increase or validate the available theory or to improve the quality of practice may be used to underline the benefit of the study. Unnecessary technical language should be avoided since it requires more ability and focused attention to grasp the main idea (Gitlin & Lyons 2004). Similarly, an unnecessary use of quotations and extensive references are often perceived as intrusions into what should be a clean and simple preliminary outline.

The specific phenomenon of interest or the related question should be explicitly stated early in the proposal. The importance of the question lies in the fact that it sets the direction of the investigation (Henson 2004). Therefore, the statement should not include subtopics nor should it be confused with a formal research question. Instead, the opening question addresses the primary target and should ensure an easy understanding of the subsequent exposition and topic development. It should be noted that funding agencies assess to determine if the topic is germane to the mission of the agency.

The significance of stating the specific question is to indicate why the study deserves to be done and what benefit derives, for the development of the scientific knowledge and the quality of practice, from the study’s results (New & Quick 2003). The form of the question should be stated after accurate reflection. In fact, the structure of the research question will help in understanding why those relationships and variables have been identified for the study.

Research questions should be simple, direct and should invite an answer. The specificity of the question should provide an indication of the depth of the analysis contained in the study.

A research problem has to be well supported by a comprehensive critical review of the existing knowledge. The review is the backbone of all the conceptual and methodological decisions that have to be taken in the research process. A good review should address the following three questions:

In discussing the background to the study, the investigator’s task is to provide a comprehensive overview, reviewing the main theoretical and methodological issues that have arisen.

An applicant must be able to insert the proposed study into a line of inquiry and a developing body of knowledge. Therefore, the study’s framework must be devised from the structure of the existing knowledge and the research questions and hypothesis where appropriate should emerge from the matrix of answered and unanswered questions; the choice of contingent method should arise from previous results (Kenner & Walden 2001). Discussing a volume of interesting but irrelevant information acquired in the process of a literature search should be avoided. Limiting the discussion to what is essential to the main topic has to be adopted throughout the proposal. When possible, the quoted studies should be grouped for analyses according to their framework, specific methodological features, or their results.

It is useful to create a schema that helps to grasp the meaning in similarities and dissimilarities in the past work of others in relation to the present proposal (Ogden & Goldberg 2002). An approach of conceptual ordering often leads to an assumption about causal relationships and thus can serve as a precursor of the explanatory theory to be tested with an experimental design. In fact, a well-written research proposal may be perceived as an elegant bridge between existing knowledge, a proposed theory, and the theory-based hypotheses to be empirically tested.

The conclusion of the critical review should be kept short and concise since it serves as an introduction to the other stages of the proposal (Ogden & Goldberg 2002). The conclusion always draws together the various elements and it should end with the research question, written either in the form of a question or as a statement. The conclusion may rephrase the introduction, expanding and explaining, and thus underlining the same statement with authority. A systematic and well-focused critical review demonstrates the investigator’s mastery of the current knowledge in a field.

In this section, the ‘aim and key objectives of the research’ may be delineated simply and clearly. Specific and achievable objectives provide the reader with clear criteria against which the proposed research method can be assessed. In quantitative studies a hypothesis (often referred to as an educated guess) is adopted when the interest is about predicting a relationship between variables and there is theory available for making predictions. Furthermore, other elements of a good proposal will help the reader to understand the connections between variables and how scientific theory underpins the study’s testable hypotheses. Generally, in qualitative studies, the investigator does not directly state a hypothesis most often because little is known about the topic to justify it. In developing an hypothesis there are a number of essential features to be considered. Specificity is the key to making a research question or hypothesis clear (Locke et al 2000). The best way to introduce the hypotheses is simply to say: ‘The purpose of this study is to test the following hypotheses…’ Questions and hypotheses in quantitative studies should meet three criteria: clarity, brevity and inclusiveness; they are exemplified as follows: