Is Your Research Proposal Feasible? A Planning Worksheet

Updated October 2026. Follow the current instructions for the programme and institution involved.

A research proposal can describe an important problem and still be too broad to carry out within a degree. Feasibility means explaining how a question could be investigated with the time, access and resources available. It is a practical test of the plan, not a claim that the findings are already known.

State a question you can investigate

Write the main question in one or two sentences. Identify the setting, population, material or process you intend to study. If the question contains several unrelated projects, decide which one is central. Explain what a useful answer would clarify.

Avoid announcing a result as part of the question. ‘Proving that a policy works’ assumes the outcome. A question about how a policy operates in a defined setting leaves room for evidence to support a more careful conclusion.

Connect the question to an approach

For each question, identify the kind of evidence needed and a plausible method for examining it. Explain why that approach suits the question. Naming software or a fashionable technique does not establish that the method will produce useful evidence.

For programme-specific guidance, consult Cambridge’s official research-proposal resource and the requirements of the course where you are applying. The worksheet below is an original planning aid, not a substitute for a department’s requested format.

Complete the feasibility worksheet

An unanswered row is useful: it reveals what you must investigate before presenting the plan as settled. Do not fill gaps with an invented assurance that an organisation will supply data or that a supervisor has approved the work.

Check access before promising a method

A project depending on interviews, restricted records, specialist equipment or a particular field location needs a realistic access plan. Explain which arrangements are confirmed and which require approval. Do not imply that a public website gives permission to reuse every item of information it contains.

Where ethical approval or institutional permission may be relevant, discuss the requirement with the responsible university team. Do not begin sensitive collection simply to demonstrate enthusiasm in an application.

Make the timeline reflect dependencies

Divide the work into preparation, permissions, collection or source review, analysis and writing. Identify tasks that cannot begin until another is complete. A timeline that assumes permissions arrive immediately and analysis never needs revision is fragile.

For an illustrative project, collecting a small set of interviews may depend on participant recruitment. If recruitment is slower than expected, the plan needs a response to discuss with the supervisor. That is more credible than guaranteeing access to a large sample without evidence.

Match ambition to resources

List the practical resources the proposed method needs, such as training, software, equipment, travel or access to archives. Establish what the institution can provide and what remains uncertain. A method outside the programme’s available support may need redesign.

Include your own preparation honestly. If you need to learn a technique, explain the training required rather than claiming expertise you do not have. The aim is a feasible development plan, not a portrayal of an applicant who already knows everything.

Show contribution without exaggeration

Explain the gap or uncertainty your project addresses and how the evidence could improve understanding. A small, well-defined contribution can be valuable. Avoid promising to solve an entire national or global problem within a single student project.

Before submitting, ask whether another person can identify the question, evidence, method and main risk from your proposal. Revise anything that remains vague. A feasibility check cannot guarantee admission or research success, but it helps turn an appealing idea into a plan a department can assess.