A proposal has one job: to convince your supervisor and department that the study is worth doing, that you know how to do it, and that it can be finished in the time you have. Proposals come back for predictable reasons, nearly all of them structural.
Enter your topic and this tool sets out every required section, from the problem statement to the work plan and budget, along with the specific failures that most often trigger a revision request.
This is the paragraph you are judged on. It must name a specific thing that is not known or not working, for a specific population, in a specific setting. "Little research exists on X in Nepal" is not a problem statement — the absence of research is not by itself a problem worth supervising.
Say what follows from not knowing: a policy made without evidence, a group whose needs are undocumented, a programme nobody has evaluated. Your significance section then has something concrete to build on, and your gap has a reason to matter.
Research questions, objectives, methodology and expected outcomes must correspond one-to-one. Objective 2 should be answerable by the method described for it, and a reader should pair each question to its objective without guessing.
Misalignment is the most frequent cause of revision and is usually visible at a glance: three questions against five objectives, or a causal question with a cross-sectional survey behind it. Lay them side by side and check before submitting.
Name the design and why it suits your questions. Specify population, sampling frame, sampling technique and sample size — with its justification, not merely its value. Describe your instruments and how validity and reliability will be established.
Then name the actual analysis: which tests, which comparisons, which analytic approach. "Data will be analysed using SPSS" says nothing, because SPSS is software rather than a plan. Your committee needs to see you know what you will do with the data once you have it.
A timeline by month or week for each phase makes feasibility visible, and it is where over-ambition shows. Two weeks allotted to data collection in a district that takes a day each way, during monsoon, will not survive contact with reality — and a supervisor will see that immediately.
Include real costs: travel, accommodation, printing, transcription, software, and any research assistance. Even with no funding, costing the project shows you have thought it through, and sometimes reveals a design is unaffordable before you commit.
Objectives that do not match the questions. A methodology that cannot answer what was asked. A sample size with no justification. A literature review that summarises without identifying a gap. A timeline that ignores travel, festivals or exam periods. Ethics and permission letters left unaddressed.
All of these are cheaper to fix before submission. Read your draft as a sceptical examiner would, asking at every section: how do you know, and how will this actually work in the field?
Commonly 3,000 to 5,000 words for a Master's proposal, but departments vary. Follow your own guidelines over any general figure.
The aim is the single overall purpose. Objectives are the specific measurable steps that achieve it, usually three to five.
A condensed one — enough to establish the themes and demonstrate the gap. It expands into the full chapter later.
Include drafts or note that they will be obtained. Most Nepali departments expect institutional permission letters in the appendix of the final thesis.
Most often because objectives do not match the questions, the methodology cannot answer them, or the sample size is unjustified — all structural and all fixable.