Content uploaded by Daniel Ndhlovu
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Daniel Ndhlovu on Apr 01, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Internaonal Journal of Humanies Social Sciences and Educaon (IJHSSE)
Common Mistakes Commied and Challenges Faced in Research
Proposal Wring by University of Zambia Postgraduate Students
Peter Chomba Manchishi, Daniel Ndhlovu and David Sani Mwanza
School of Educaon, University of Zambia
Keywords: Proposal, Mistakes, Challenges, Post Graduate Students, School of Education,
University of Zambia, Directorate of Research and Graduate Studies.
1. INTRODUCTION
Background
e University of Zambia (UNZA) has been oering graduate programmes since the 1980’s. At
the beginning, the programmes were mainly in the schools of Education and Humanities and
Social Sciences. However, during the 1990’s all the schools in the University of Zambia started
oering graduate programmes. Currently, the largest number of students in concentrated in the
schools of Humanities and Social Sciences, Education and Medicine. e enrolment in 2013 for
all the programmes stood at 1,178 students for masters programmes, 89 for PhD programmes
and 11 postgraduate diploma.
Before students proceed to collect data, they are required to have their research proposals approved.
Krathwohl, (2005:1) stated that
“e goal of a research proposal is to present and justify a research idea you have and to present
the practical ways in which you think this research should be conducted. Research proposals
contain extensive literature reviews and must provide persuasive evidence that there is a need
for the research study being proposed. In addition to providing rationale for the proposed
research, a proposal describes detailed methodology for conducting the research consistent
with requirements of the professional or academic eld and a statement on anticipated outcomes
and/or benets derived from the study”.
Krathwohl (2005) added that a proposal should contain all the key elements involved in designing
a complete research study, with sucient information that allows readers to assess the validity
and usefulness of the proposed study. e only elements missing from a research proposal are the
results of the study and the analysis of those results. Finally, an eective proposal is judged on the
Abstract
Proposal wring is an important part of postgraduate studies at the University of Zambia. The aim of this study
was to establish the common mistakes commied and challenges faced by postgraduate students in the school
of educaon at the University of Zambia. The study was purely qualitave. A total of 100 respondents were
randomly sampled 80 of which were masters students while 20 were lecturers. Data was collected through
face to face interviews with lecturers and focus group discussions with masters’ students. To do so, interview
guides and focus group discussion guides were used. Data was analysed qualitavely through categorisaon of
data into idened themes according to research objecves. The ndings of the study showed that students’
mistakes in wring the proposal included: broad and unclear topics, failure to state the problem, failure to
idenfy the gap in the literature, using wrong methodology, misunderstanding research terminology, wrong
referencing style and plagiarism. The challenges which students faced included: unavailability of lecturers for
consultaons, negave comments from supervisors, and limited me in which to write the proposal, lack of
materials and lack of co-ordinaon between DRGS, Assistant Dean- School of Educaon and the Lecturers/
supervisors. The paper concludes that there is need to review the way the methodology course (EDR) is
taught in the school of educaon. Further, there is need for students, lecturers, and the oce of the Assistant
Dean responsible for postgraduate studies and the Directorate of Research and Graduate Studies to work
cohesively for the good of postgraduate studies.
Volume 2, Issue 3, March 2015, PP 126-138
ISSN 2349-0373 (Print) & ISSN 2349-0381 (Online)
www.arcjournals.org
©ARC Page | 126
Internaonal Journal of Humanies Social Sciences and Educaon (IJHSSE) Page | 127
Peter Chomba Manchishi et al.
quality of one’s writing. It is, therefore, important that the writing is coherent, clear, and compelling.
Paul and Psych (2012) noted that one’s research is as good as one’s proposal and that an ill-
prepared proposal dooms the research project while one that has well been designed promises
success and good impression to the makers. For this reason, Paul and Psych (2012) argued
that a research proposal should convince others that your topic is worthy researching and that
you are a competent researcher. Masters students at the University of Zambia are supposed to
write a proposal before they embark on data collection and eventual writing of a dissertation.
e recommended University of Zambia proposal format includes the following:
1.Introducon
• Background
• Statement of the Problem
• Purpose of the Study
• Research Objectives
• Research Questions/Hypothesis
• Signicance of the Study
• Delimitation of the study
• Limitation/s of the Study
• Operational Denitions
2. Literature Review
3. Methodology
• Research Design
• Target Population
• Sample Size and Sampling Techniques
• Research Instruments
• Data Collection Procedure
• Data Analysis
4. References
5. Timelines
6. Budget
A masters student writes a proposal under the guidance of a supervisor who is normally a
senior member in the eld of study. Aer the submission of the proposal, it is marked by three
examiners who do not include the supervisor. While some students score high marks, others
obtain low marks, yet others are asked to resubmit when the proposal is deemed unsatisfactory.
While this has been going on since postgraduate studies were introduced at the University, no
study has been conducted to establish the common mistakes committed and challenges faced
by masters students in proposal writing.
Statement of the Problem
Some students’ proposals have taken long to be approved because they have been found to be
problematic. e research problem in this study was what are the common mistakes committed
and challenges faced by postgraduate students at the University of Zambia when writing research
proposals?
Purpose of the Study
e purpose of the study was to establish the common mistakes committed and problems
Internaonal Journal of Humanies Social Sciences and Educaon (IJHSSE) Page | 128
Common Mistakes Commied and Challenges Faced in Research Proposal Wring by University of Zambia
Postgraduate Students
faced by postgraduate students at the University of Zambia when research proposal writing?
1.4 Study Objecves
e objectives of the study were to:
1. Establish the common mistakes committed by masters’ students when writing research proposals.
2. Determine challenges faced by masters’ students when writing research proposals.
3. Asses the grades of the research proposals by the examiners.
4. Establish masters students’ and supervisors’ views on mistakes committed and challenges
faced when writing research proposals.
Research Quesons
1. What are the common mistakes committed by masters students when writing a research proposal?
2. What challenges do masters students face when writing a research proposal?
3. How are the grades that masters students score in research proposal writting?
4. What are the masters students’ and supervisors’ views on mistakes committed and challenges
faced when writing research proposals?
Signicance of the Study
To our knowledge, there has not been any study undertaken to review postgraduate research
proposals at the University of Zambia. Hence, the ndings may be used by the school of Education
to improve upon the quality of the students’ proposals and consequently, good research. In
addition, the results may also be used to enhance the school course on educational research
titled “EDR 5010 Educational Research Methodology and Proposal Witting”.
Limitaon of the Study
e study was only conducted in the school of Education hence, the ndings may not be generalised to
the other eight schools in the University. Another research covering possibly all the schools is required.
LITERATURE REVIEW
is section presents reviewed literature related to common mistakes committed and problems
faced by postgraduate students in writing research proposals.
Kikula and Quorro (2007) conducted a similar study in Tanzania and found that out of 783
research proposals submitted, 71% of the titles either were too broad or lacked focus, 72% of
the introductions lacked clarity and focus, 84% of the statement of problems showed problems
ranging from no problem statement, lack of clarity and focus to covering irrelevant issues. In
addition, 71% of the study objectives reviewed did not have clearly stated objectives, 86% of
the literature review sections showed inadequate literature, lack of focus, no literature at all and
poor presentation of the review. As regards methodology, 73% of the proposals lacked clarity. It
was also found that 88% of the sampling procedures were not explained while 89% of the data
analysis sections were not clearly stated or were omitted.
Kombo and Tromp (2011) identied problems of titles being too wide, too wordy and lacked
consistency with the text. Another problem found was poorly written background to the study.
For instance, there was no dierence between background and literature review. In addition,
quoting studies but not explaining how they tted in the background section. Dening the
research problem also posed a challenge to many writers of research proposals. When it came
to literature review, many writers failed to relate the literature reviewed with the proposed study.
Scribendi.com (2013) identies common mistakes in writing literature review. ese included
not using key words to search for literature, not identifying relevant sources and not relating
the study ndings with literature review. Other mistakes were relying on secondary rather than
primary sources and not critically analysing the literature reviewed.
Peter Chomba Manchishi et al.
Internaonal Journal of Humanies Social Sciences and Educaon (IJHSSE) Page | 129
National University of Malaysia (2008) noted that dissertations had referencing mistakes. e
references cited in the text were not included in the reference section or vice versa. In addition,
there were mistakes of incorrect way of citing authors in instances where there were more than
two authors. For example, it was common to cite Manchishi, Ndhlovu and Nyambe (2013)
instead of Manchishi et al (2013).
Best and Kahn (2009) noted that researchers did not guard against limitations and sources or
error inherent in the process of analysis and interpretation of data. ese included confusing
statements with facts, failure to recognise limitations, careless or incomplete data entry, faulty
logic and researcher’s unconscious bias.
Cohen et al (2001) noted a problem of ethical dilemma surrounding overt and covert observation
methods of collecting data. Unlike in the overt research where participants knew that they were
being researched on and provided informed consent, the covert research participants did not
know that they were being researched on and in many cases, the principle of informed consent
was violated. To the contrary, Hamphreys (1975) and Mitchell (1993) argue that not soliciting
for informed consent in covert research was not unethical because there were some knowledge
that were legitimately in the public domain but access to which was only available to the covert
researcher.
Bell (1993) cited unclear instructions in the research instruments, vague question items or using
words that respondents found diculty to understand.
REPOA (2007) outlined common mistakes and challenges in proposal writing. is was aer
they had evaluated proposals which were submitted for funding in Tanzania. e report stated
that there were mistakes starting with the title. Most titles were too broad and lacked focus
because of being wordy ad general. Some of the titles did not reect what was going to be
done. e introductions were also unclear and lacked focus too. On statements of the problem,
only 16% of the proposals had a well written problem statement. e rest were unsatisfactory
ranging from no problem at all to lack of clarity and articulation, too broad and in some cases,
the problems were not relevant. e other problem was that writers failed to identify the correct
data analysis techniques.
Charema (2013) argued that choosing a topic is probably the most challenging part of carrying
out research. He advises that a topic should not be too wide and one should not choose a topic
in an area which has been over-researched.
Mhute (2013) observed that plagiarism is one of the common mistakes committed by students.
Plagiarism as the act of presenting another’s work or ideas as your own. Mhute (2013) therefore
advises that plagiarism should be avoided as it is unethical and it’s a standards issue.
Paul Wong and Psych (2012) summarised the common mistakes committed by students when
writing the proposal as follows:
• Failure to provide the proper context to frame the research question.
• Failure to delimit the boundary conditions for your research.
• Failure to cite landmark studies.
• Failure to accurately present the theoretical and empirical contributions by other researchers.
• Failure to stay focused on the research question.
• Failure to develop a coherent and persuasive argument for the proposed research.
• T oo much detail on minor issues, but not enough detail on major issues.
• Too much rambling — going “all over the map” without a clear sense of direction.
• Too many citation lapses and incorrect references.
• Too long or too short.
• Failing to follow the APA style.
Internaonal Journal of Humanies Social Sciences and Educaon (IJHSSE) Page | 130
• Slopping writing.
Duze (2010) conducted a study in Nigeria whose purpose was to analyse problems encountered
by postgraduate students. A siminar study was conducted at the University of Oxford by Triawell
and Goddet (2005) e ndings of both studies were similar to Paul, Wong and Psych (2012) as
cited above. As for the problem among the ndings of the study were; funding, library facilities,
accommodation and personal problems (family).
From the reviewed literature, it is clear that there are dierent types of mistakes committed and
challenges faced by students. Since all the studies reviewed were conducted outside Zambia, it
was important that a contextual study was conducted at the University of Zambia. e common
mistakes committed and challenges faced by postgraduate students at the University of Zambia
in writing research proposals were not known and it was therefore necessary that this study was
conducted.
METHODOLOGY
Research design
e study was a case study in that it was conducted in only one school out of nine. is design
was preferred because we wanted to have an in-depth understanding or information about
common mistakes committed and challenges faced by masters students when writing research.
e study employed a qualitative method.
Target populaon
e target population for this study was all the ninety two (92) 2013 rst year postgraduate
students who were doing taught masters and all the supervisors of masters research in the
School of Education at the University of Zambia.
Sample Size and Sampling Techniques
One hundred (100) respondents formed the sample. ese consisted of eighty (80) students
and twenty (20) supervisors. In order to provide each student an equal chance to be selected
in the sample, simple random sampling technique was used. As for the supervisors, they were
purposively selected. e criterion used in selecting them was experience or seniority in
supervising postgraduate research
Research Tools
e study used interview guides and focus group discussion guide to collect data. is made it
possible for the researchers to ask follow-up questions in order to have thorough and detailed
information on the subject matter.
Data Collecon Procedure
Face to face interviews were conducted with the supervisors. During the interviews the researcher
took down notes where responses were not clear, follow up questions were asked. Focus groups
discussions were conducted with the students. During the discussions, the researcher took
down notes. Apart from questions from the researcher, students were also given an opportunity
to seek for clarications on research proposal writing.
Data Analysis
Qualitative data from interviews and focus group discussions was analysed using the constant
comparative method. at is, data was categorised into themes, then interpreted.
Ethical Issues
In order to maintain condentiality, names of students who wrote the proposals which were
reviewed are not appearing in the report. Furthermore, both students and supervisors willingly
participated in the study that is, they were not forced. ose who were not interested to
participate were free to do so.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
e ndings below are presented according to the research objectives.
Common Mistakes Commied and Challenges Faced in Research Proposal Wring by University of Zambia
Postgraduate Students
Internaonal Journal of Humanies Social Sciences and Educaon (IJHSSE) Page | 131
Peter Chomba Manchishi et al.
e rst research objective was to establish common mistakes committed by masters’ students
when writing the research proposal
Lecturers who were also supervisors for masters’ students were interviewed and asked about the
mistakes which students committed. e following were their responses:
One of the mistakes was that students did not understand their own topic because they did not
read around the topic. Hence, students came up with topics which they did not fully understand.
Some topics were also misleading. What the title suggested was dierent from what the main
body of the proposal had. Some respondents also said that these problems were caused by two
things. One lecturer said “they do not read. ey just come up with topics which they don’t
understand. e reading culture is bad among students”. is agrees with what was found in the
proposal assessment report by REPOA (2007) in Tanzania in which the results showed that 71%
of the titles were unsatisfactorily written. Some were unclear while others were long and clumsy.
A small number of titles did not reect what was intended to be done during the research
while some of the inadequate titles were too wordy and lacked focus. In the case of Zambia,
two explanations were given for the bad titles. Firstly, lack of reading by students. Secondly,
some supervisors had a habit of giving students topics for which a student had no motivation
or knowledge about. One lecturer stated “some students are given topics by their supervisors
for which they know nothing about. But they do not read as well”. It appears from this that
some supervisors did not understand the extent to which they should help students. It is the
duty of students to identify topics and supervisors can only help in perfecting the focus of the
topic. is is so because if a student fails to come up with a topic, he/she will nd it extremely
dicult to identify the gap in the literature, fail to come up with proper research objectives and
questions, and possibly fail to come up with suitable methodology. Hence, supervisors should
nd a constructive way of scaolding their students around the topic.
Another mistake is that of having topics whose answers the students already know. is implies
that some students come up with irrelevant topics. is is the reason why Charema (2013)
while acknowledging that coming up with a topic is challenging, advises that a student should
come up with a topic which is not too wide and it should be in an area which has not been
over-researched. is is particularly crucial because if one comes up with a topic in an over-
researched area, chances are very high that answers to the research questions would have been
already known. is also raises questions on the calibre of the students. In this study, Supervisors
stated that students came up with proposals with research questions whose answers were found
in the background and literature review sections of the proposals. is clearly shows that some
students lacked quality and abilities which are required for masters’ students. Another mistake
associated to students’ low quality is the fact that students did not know how to dene terms
in the proposals. Instead of giving the operational denition, students got denitions from the
internet and text books. e question therefore is the research methodology course adequately
preparing students to write good proposals? It may be helpful to reconsider how the research
methods course is taught because while some students seem to be generally weak, they may also
lack adequate preparation by their lecturer.
Students in their interviews also acknowledge their weakness in identifying the topic. Students
stated that identifying a topic was a huge challenge. ey reported that when they come up with
a topic, they are told that the topic is either unsearchable or that someone has already done a
study on the same topic. One respondent said “a topic is a challenge for us because for us to
come up with a topic which is relevant to the eld of study is hard”.
Another serious mistake is students’ inability to state the problem being investigated. Lecturers
said that masters students at UNZA normally can come up with a proposal where the research
problem was missing. e proposal would have a part of for statement of the problem but the
statement would not state the actual problem. Sometimes, students just described the situation
Internaonal Journal of Humanies Social Sciences and Educaon (IJHSSE) Page | 132
without problematizing it. Supervisors added that students did studies with no signicance to
academia; they did studies which did not solve any problem. A supervisor had this to say “they
don’t come up with problems. You nd a proposal without a problem at all, just a statement
without a problem”. Another supervisor stated “I think most of the students do studies where
the proposal does not state any problem at all”. is is in line with Kikula and Quorro (2007)
and Kombo and Tromp (2011) who in their respective studies found that proposal writers
had weaknesses ranging from no problem, lack of clarity in the problem statement as well as
problem statements without any clear focus. In addition, the REPOA report also noted that
some proposals had problems which were irrelevant to the eld of study and whose ndings
would not contribute any new knowledge. One supervisor said that some students conducted
research where there was no problem. e question which needs to be addressed is’ how do
those proposals pass? One can assume that lecturers or proposal markers are lenient which
academically speaking is not helpful both to the student and the eld of academics where
research is meant to unearth new information.
While all the mistakes can be summarised as students’ ignorance, it appears that there are
actually some mistakes which typies students’ ignorance. For example, Lecturers observed
that masters students did not know what limitations to the study meant compared to challenges.
ey said that what students present as limitations were actually challenges. Supervisors stated
that students need to be taught the dierence between limitations and challenges because
limitations had to do with design of the study. Another practical disability (ignorance) was how
to articulate the epistemological and ontological considerations in the study. One lecturer noted
that while lecturers taught about theoretical underpinnings, students wrote proposals without
epistemological and ontological basis.
Another mistake had to do with poor literature review. Supervisors stated that instead of writing
literature review in order to inform the study, students ended up answering their own research
questions with their literature. In addition, students failed to identify gaps. ey fail to discuss
the literature, instead, they agree with every book they read. Most of the literature lacks the
researcher’s voice. One supervisor had this to say “they fail to write a proper literature review.
You can’t hear the researcher’s voice and they just report other peoples’ ndings without saying
how it relates to their study. It’s a big problem”. Another issue related to literature is that students
have created a template which is in circulation. ey copy the literature review of a related
study and paste it in their own study without even relating it to the uniqueness of their study.
Lecturers said it was not surprising that a lot of students had the same literature review word for
word. is amounts to plagiarism. Many studies conducted have also reported poor literature
review. Scribend.com (2013) reported inability to relate the study ndings with the study as
well as relying on secondary sources rather than primary sources and not critically examining
the literature reviewed. Kikula and Quorro (2007) also found similar results. ey reported that
proposal writers did not take literature review seriously where (86%) of authors did not review
the literature adequately. Problems identied included: inadequacy of literature reviewed (39%),
lack of focus (16%), no review of literature at all (7%) and poor presentation of reviews (9%).
Wrong methodology was said to have been a common mistake by masters’ students. Supervisors
stated that students used methods and techniques without properly thinking of how they apply
to the study. is means that students lack practical knowledge on how they can apply the
knowledge learnt in class to the writing of the proposals. ey sometimes give denitions in
the methodology which are suspended without explaining how it relates to the study. Students
have also created a template for the methodology where they just change the research area and
how many people they will interview. Lecturers noted that it was the reason why there were
many methodologies which mentioned methods and instruments which were not actually used
because the student copied without even understanding. For example, one supervisor said “there
Common Mistakes Commied and Challenges Faced in Research Proposal Wring by University of Zambia
Postgraduate Students
Peter Chomba Manchishi et al.
Internaonal Journal of Humanies Social Sciences and Educaon (IJHSSE) Page | 133
is a big problem with methodology. ere is a template which students have created. You will
see that almost all the proposals have the same background, literature review and methodology.
ey just edit it to suit their proposal”. Another supervisor observed “students do not know the
dierence between qualitative and quantitative designs. ey need help”. Lecturers also observed
that it is common that students claim that their study is a case study without an explanation of
what qualies the study to be a case study. is means that students lack knowledge of the parts
of the proposal and how they can practically address what has to be done in each section of
the proposal. Kikula and Quorro (2007) noted that the methodology section must clearly and
thoroughly state how the data will address the research problem to meet the stated objectives.
ey however observed that the common mistake among proposal writers was clarity on how
instruments and methods of data collection and analysis would be used to meet the objectives.
Hence, Paul and Psych (2005) adds that since the method section tells the reader how you
plan to tackle your research problem, it should contain sucient and clear information for the
reader to determine whether methodology is sound and the problem will be tackled adequately.
Plagiarim was mentioned as one of the common mistakes committed by students. Most
supervisors complained that there was too much plagiarism among masters’ students. It was
reported that students had a tendency of quoting a scholar in the proposal but the full reference is
not included in the reference section or the bibliography at the end of the proposal. is is exactly
what National University of Malaysia (2008) also established in their study where the references
cited in the text were not included in the reference section and vice versa. On plagiarism, lecturers
at the University of Zambia suggested that students needed help on how they can write and
avoid plagiarism since plagiarism is a serious academic oence. is agrees with Mhute (2013)
who acknowledged plagiarism as a common problem among researchers but advised that it
should be avoided as it is unethical and it is an issue which aects standards in academic writing.
e second objective was to establish challenges masters’ students encounter when writing
research proposals.
Masters students were asked to state the challenges which they encountered when writing a
research proposal. e data was collected through focus group discussions. e following were
their responses:
e rst challenge was that there was no standard format for the structure of the proposal.
Masters students stated that one of the biggest problems they encountered was that there is
no common format as each lecturer had his/her own preferred format. ey said that it was
confusing and they did not know how to sequence the parts of a proposal because what was
right to one supervisor was wrong to others who would in turn be examiners of the proposal.
Students suggested that supervisors or DRGS should come up with a standard format outlining
the structure of the proposal so that students are not victims of the dierent orientations which
exist between and among supervisors. One student said “there is no format. Lecturers argue
and each one has his own. Even them, if you ask them, they don’t know the format. Each one
has his own”. Krathwohl (2005) noted that a proposal should have all the key elements involved
in designing a complete research study and each component should be informative. However,
while this doesn’t seem to be the problem at UNZA, lecturers have diverse views and preferences
on what elements should be included and which ones should not and in which order. ere
is need for lecturers and supervisors to realise that a proposal is supposed to be systematic
and well-structured and that proposals in a particular eld of study should certainly have a
uniform format. Hence, there is urgent need to come up with a standard format to which every
supervisor should adhere.
Most students reported that they had challenges identifying a gap in the literature review. ey
attributed this challenge to lack of guidance from supervisors. One respondent stated “we
nd problems to identify a gap in the literature review and even in the background section.
Internaonal Journal of Humanies Social Sciences and Educaon (IJHSSE) Page | 134
No single lecturer has provided guidelines on how to write literature review and how to bring
out the gap”. Another problem on literature review was that students had problems identifying
relevant literature which should be included in the literature review section and which one was not.
Another challenge associated to lecturers is that most of them were not available for consultations.
Students complained that they did not receive adequate help from lecturers and supervisors.
ey said that they sometimes got stack but lecturers were not available to oer help. Connected
to the non-availability of lecturers was the complaint that some supervisors did not give feedback
on time to their students once a student submitted a dra for the supervisor to go through
and they claimed that some supervisors just packed the dra proposal without attending to
it. Commenting on this issue, Richard and Gabrielle (1999:26) stated “timely feedback from
supervisor is important in maintaining the momentum for the project and helping it stay in
course. Supervisors denitely need to change their attitude.
In addition, another respondent stated “there is no one to see to consult to know if I am in the
right direction or not…supervisors are also too busy for us”. Richard, J and Gabrielle, B (1999)
advised that supervisors should initiate regular contact with their students and provide high
quality feedback. ey added that regular contact was key to successful supervision. is means
that School of Education supervisors at the University of Zambia have a responsibility to help
their students throughout the process. In order to do this, there is need for supervisors to come
up with a schedule of supervisory meetings with students as opposed to just having random
and sudden contacts. In fact, when lecturers were interviewed on the same point, some of them
complained that students were in the habit of spending long periods of time without doing
their work, but wanted supervisors to work in a haste the moment they appeared. is simply
conrms that a formal agreement outlining consultation dates and expectations should be
agreed between supervisor and student which should be followed by both. Sharp and Howard
(1996:159) in Lyn, V (2013) wrote the following about planning:
‘Research supervision of postgraduate taught Masters Programmes should resist
the temptation to proceed with its execution until an acceptable plan has been
formulated’, and that ‘in large part, avoidable problems should be highlighted by the
systematic planning process’.
From the above quote, it can be reiterated that DRGS as well as Assistant Deans responsible for
postgraduate studies should design agreement forms between supervisors and students which
should be lled in and signed by a supervisor and a student as they embark on proposal writing
until the completion of the masters’ programme.
Another challenge which students encountered was negative comments from supervisors. ey
said that supervisors sometime wrote comments in the dra proposal which lack detail and students
were le confused about what they needed to do. For example, students stated that sometimes,
supervisors just underlined a sentence or the whole paragraph without writing what was wrong
with the underlined part. Other comments included ‘recast’ or ‘rephrase’ without properly
indicating where the mistake is or what has gone wrong with the current construction. Further,
masters students said that there were even negative comments where supervisors simply wrote,
‘this is nonsense’, ‘wrong’, ‘you are not serious’, ‘bad English’. Students stated that such comments
were very discouraging but also lacked guidance as they were reprimands in nature. It is clear that
supervisors seems to be at loss with their professional responsibility in supervision. at is the
reason why writing on eective supervisors, Richard and Gabrielle (1999) advised supervisors
to be encouraging and have the students’ interests at heart. Further, they also urged supervisors
to be giving sound and unambiguous instructions to their students in the course of supervision.
It was anonymously stated by the masters students that stating the problem of the study was a
big challenge. ey said that whenever they wrote their statement of the problem, supervisors
Common Mistakes Commied and Challenges Faced in Research Proposal Wring by University of Zambia
Postgraduate Students
Peter Chomba Manchishi et al.
Internaonal Journal of Humanies Social Sciences and Educaon (IJHSSE) Page | 135
told them that they lacked the problem or that the statement of the problem did not state the
problem which the study intended to solve. Students appealed to lecturers to teach them how to
identify and state the problem of the study clearly.
In addition, another challenge related to the previous one is that the Directorate of Research
and Graduate Studies did not make follow ups with what was happening in the schools. At the
school level, the assistant Dean- Postgraduate did not make follow up with lecturers no matter
how long a lecturer took to mark a proposal. Lecturers were le to work at their pace no matter
how this aected the progress of the student. One student had this to say “lecturers are their
own bosses. It’s like they don’t have a boss. ey do things whenever they want”. Since DRGS
works hand in hand with the oce of the Assistant Dean- Postgraduate, it is easy to assume that
the two oces should have a system of follow ups on the lecturers. If eective supervision is to
be achieved, there is need for time lines on how long one can take to mark a proposal. Based on
the data from the students, one can argue that DRGS and School of Education have ineective
structures in which supervisors set their own deadlines with the student as a victim.
e time to write proposal was said not to be adequate and this possess a challenge in coming
up with a quality proposal. Students put it to us that they spent time learning and they were
told time for proposal writing would come and that when they were asked to start writing the
proposal, there was little time remaining for them to write good proposals with good literature
review. ey were of the view that proposal writing should start immediately a student started
the programme and the supervisor should also be assigned immediately. Coupled with this
challenge is lack of reading materials. However, the university has a duty to acquire new books
and journals, students can do personal research and access reading materials. In an era where
most books and journal articles are online, students can easily search and download published
books and articles. Hence, this complaint conrms what lecturers said about lack of reading/
research among students.
e third objective was to assess the grades which students obtained in proposal writing
Selected proposals which had been marked were sampled and reviewed. e aim was to establish
the grades which examiners gave students for proposal writing and to see the quality of the
proposals written by masters’ students. In other words, we wanted to establish the performance
of the masers students in proposal writing. e following were the observations which came out
of the document analysis:
• Among the proposals which were reviewed and analysed, the lowest grade was 65% while the
highest grade was 78%.
• Titles were unclear and lacked focus
• e backgrounds of the study were oen too general and lacked focus
• e statement of the problem was usually not properly stated. In some cases. ere was no
problem at all.
• Research objectives and questions were usually not properly phrased
• Clarity of writing was a problem and was compounded with numerous grammatical
mistakes
• All the proposals which were reviewed contained all the three general parts i.e Introduction,
Literature Review and Methodology.
From the above observations, it can be concluded that considering the quality of the proposals
which were reviewed, marking and awarding of marks was very generous and lenient. is is not
only unprofessional on the part of the markers but unhelpful to the students because they were
given high marks for bad work. ere is need for examiners to give marks which as much as possible
should reect the quality of the work in the proposal. Supervisors may also need to be reminded that
marking is one way of teaching. e mark which a student scores makes him or her work towards
Internaonal Journal of Humanies Social Sciences and Educaon (IJHSSE) Page |136
improvement or maintain the attitude. Marking should therefore, be as objective as possible.
e fourth Objective was to solicit for suggestions on what can be done to improve the way the
masters research course (Proposal Writing) should be handled.
Both supervisors and students were asked what they thought were some of the things which
should be done in order to eradicate or minimise the mistakes committed and challenges
encountered when writing a proposal. e following were the suggestions:
• e EDR course should be practical. ere should be a hands-on approach in the way research
methods and proposal writing should be taught to students. is will help clarify all the
weaknesses which students exhibited.
• ere should be a standard format for the structure of the proposal. is will eradicate the
confusion and tensions among lecturers on one hand and students on the other hand.
• ere should be a very strong research course at undergraduate in all the programmes so that the
EDR at master’s level should not be completely strange to students. In other words, since most
students enrolling for masters lack background in research, the school should design research
courses to provide a strong research background which would be a foundation for EDR.
• ere should be a postgraduate library and the school should buy relevant books and articles
o help students with materials. e library should also have internet and enough computers
so that students have a conducive environment for research.
• When teaching the EDR course, lecturers in charge should teach students on how they can
refer to someone’s work without plagiarism. For example, student can be given a practical
exercise where students are given an article to read and ask them to paraphrase it. Such
exercises will help students avoid plagiarism which they believed was not academic.
• Students should be given more time in which to write the proposal. Proposal writing should
start immediately students begin their course and supervisors should be allocated immediately
so that they can start working with students ahead of time.
• e relationship between supervisors and students should be formalised. At the moment, this
relationship is private and exists only between the supervisor and the students. is resulted into
either the supervisor not being or the students not showing commitment to the whole process.
• ere should be control over how many students one supervisor can take at a time. is will
ensure quality.
• e oce of the assistant Dean, Postgraduate should exercise powers over supervisors and
examiners. At the moment, supervisors are untouchable and when they take too long to supervise
or mark proposals, there is no follow up by the oce of the assistant Dean- Postgraduate.
• Departments should come up with research areas from which students should select topics.
• Supervisors should be writing clear, helpful and positive comments in dra proposals as well
as during examination of proposals.
CONCLUSION
From the ndings, there are a number of mistakes committed by students and challenges faced
by postgraduate students at the University of Zambia. As for the mistakes the following featured
prominently; unclear topics, unclear statement of the problem, ignorance about research
limitations, none inclusion of philosophical concepts (proposal not theorised), poor literature
review, inappropriate methodology and plagiarism.
As for the challenges, students encountered the following: absence of a standard proposal format,
identication of gaps in literature review, identication of appropriate literature to be reviewed,
supervisors not available for consultations, irregular feedback from supervisors, inadequate
Common Mistakes Commied and Challenges Faced in Research Proposal Wring by University of Zambia
Postgraduate Students
feedback from supervisors, inadequate reading materials, supervisors are not themselves
supervised to do a good job and time allocated for proposal writing was inadequate.
It is therefore, important that the School attends to the above so that research proposals of
good quality are produced which will culminate into a good research because a proposal is the
foundation of a research. A weak foundation will lead to a bad research.
REFERENCES
1. Bell, J (1993) Doing Your Research Project. Buckingham: Open University Press.
2. Best, J.W. and Khan J.V (2009). Research in Education. New Delhi: PHI Learning Pvt Limited.
3. Charema, J (2013) Getting Started in Research. In Tichapondwa, M (ed) Preparating Your Dissertation at a
Distance. A Research Guide. Virtual University for Small States of the Commonwealth. Vancouver.
4. Cohen, L ., Manion L. and Morrison K. (2001) Research Methods in Education. London: Routledge Falmer.
5. Humphreys, L. (2007). Tearoom Trade, Research Ethics and Political Intervention. Retrieved on 07/05/13 from
http://albert-tzeng.blogspot.com/2007/01/tearoom-trade-research-ethics-nd.html.
6. Marja, J.V and Robert, J.H (2001). Writing an Eective Research Proposal. University of Calgary. Canada.
7. Mitchell, R.G (1993). Secrecy and Field work. London: Sage Publications.
8. Mhute, I (2013) Academic Standards, Plagiarism and Research Ethics. In Tichapondwa, M (ed) Preparating Your
Dissertation at a Distance. A Research Guide. Virtual University for Small States of the Commonwealth. Vancouver.
9. Kikula, I.S. and Quorro, M.A.S (2007). Common Mistakes and Problems in Research Proposal Writing. Dar es
Salaam: Research on Poverty Alleviation (REPOA).
10. Kombo, D.K. and Tromp D.L.A (2011) Proposal and esis Writing. Nairobi: Paulines Publications Africa.
11. Krathwohl, D. R. (2005) How to Prepare a Dissertation Proposal: Suggestions for Students in Education and the
Social and Behavioural Sciences. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
12. National University of Malaysia (2008) Common Mistakes in Writing esis based on the UKM Format.
Retrieved on 08/05/13 from http://www.ukm.my/jurutera/english/pgthesis1.html.
13. Paul, T.P. Wong and Psych. C (2012) How to Write a Research Proposal. Trinity Western College Lengley, BC.
Canada.
14. Scribend.com (2013) esis/Dissertation Writing Series: How To Write a Literature Review. Retrieved on
08/08/13 from http://www.scribend.com/advice/how to write a literature review.en.html.
15. Research on Poverty Alleviation REPOA (2007). ‘Common Mistakes and Problems in Research Proposal
Writing: An Assessment of Proposals for Research Grants Submitted to Research on Poverty Alleviation
REPOA in Tanzania.’ Special Paper 07.24, Dar-es-Salaam, REPOA.
16. Tichapondwa, M. ed (2013) Preparing Your Dissertation at a Distance: A Research Guide. Virtual University
for Small States of the Commonwelth. Vancouver.
17. Duze, C.O (2010) Analysis of problem encountered by postgraduate studies in Nigeria University in Journal of
Social Sciences 22 (2) 129-137.
18. Tria Well K, Dunbar – Goddet H (2005). e Research Expense of Postgraduate Research students at the
University of Oxford: Institute for the Advancement of University Learning, University of Oxford, PP 3- 6.
AUTHORS’ BIOGRAPHY
Peter Chomba Manchishi is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Language and Social Sciences
Education, in the School of Education at the University of Zambia. He holds a PhD, MA and BA
in Applied Linguistics from the University of Franche-Comté at Besancon in France. He also has a
Diploma in Education from Nkrumah Teachers’ College. His research interests are in Language and
teacher education.
Dr. Daniel Ndhlovu is a lecturer in the Department of Educational Psychology, Sociology and Special
Education at the University of Zambia. He is also the current Assistant Dean Postgraduate in the
School of Education at the University of Zambia. He holds a PhD, Masters and Bachelor’s Degrees in
Special Education from the University of Zambia. He also has a Secondary School Teachers’ Diploma
and a Guidance, Counselling and Placement Diploma.He has 30 years experience in teaching
and lecturing at secondary school, college and university levels of education. As a supervisor of
postgraduate students and lecturer, he has a distinguished record of mentorship. In addition, he is a
researcher and consultant in education, special education, guidance and counselling, early childhood
education and HIV and AIDS related issues.
Peter Chomba Manchishi et al.
Internaonal Journal of Humanies Social Sciences and Educaon (IJHSSE) Page |137
Mr. David Sani Mwanza is a Lecturer of English Teaching Methods at the University of Zambia.
He obtained a Bachelor’s Degree with a major in Linguistics and African Languages. His Master’s
Degree is in Literacy and Learning. He is now a PhD researcher at the University of Western Cape,
South Africa. His research interests include Teacher education, language teaching, language policy,
Education policy and Sociolinguistics.
Citaon: Peter Chomba Manchishi, Daniel Ndhlovu and David Sani Mwanza (2015) Common Mistakes
Commied and Challenges Faced in Research Proposal Wring by University of Zambia Postgraduate
Students IJHSSE 2(3), PP: 126-138.
Internaonal Journal of Humanies Social Sciences and Educaon (IJHSSE) Page | 138
Common Mistakes Commied and Challenges Faced in Research Proposal Wring by University of Zambia
Postgraduate Students
