




































  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

PROPOSAL WRITING: A LIVED EXPERIENCE OF A DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

CANDIDATE

Claretah Makuvire, makuvirec@gmail.com

Mufunani Tungu Khosa, tungukhosa@gmail.com

Claretah Makuvire, Faculty of Education, Zimbawbe Open University, Harare, Zimbabwe 

Mufunani Tungu Khosa, Faculty of Education, Zimbabwe Open University, Harare, Zimbabwe

ABSTRACT

The Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) journey is a transition from a candidate to a full blown researcher. This 

journey begins with proposal writing. The process involves considerable learning and development. The

purpose of this  paper is to expose, through reflective self- study  my process of learning during the first 

eight months of my long PhD journey, this  period was dedicated to proposal writing. In this qualitative

self-study I used my diary in which I kept entries of all the meetings I had with my supervisor; the emails 

through  which  we  communicated;  the  feedback  which  I  received  from  him and  the  personal,  academic

and professional experiences which emanated from the communications. The findings reveal an academic 

transformation in my life; changing from an academic novice to a critical thinker and researcher. Proposal

writing hardened  me for  the  subsequent  phases  of  the  journey. The  encounters  also  show  how  my 

previous experiences influenced the learning that occurred during that period.

Keywords: Doctor of philosophy (PhD), learning experience, PhD candidate, reflective thinking, research 

proposal, self-study 

IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH

Volume 3| Issue 12| December  | 2020                     http://www.ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh 33

mailto:makuvirec@gmail.com
mailto:tungukhosa@gmail.com


  

 

 

About the Authors 

In a reflective paper it is important for the reader to have an appreciation of the players I the 

reflection process. The first author is Claretah, who holds a Master’s degree with twenty one 

years’ experience in high school teaching. She is a a part time lecturer with Zimbabwe Open 

University and Zimbabwe Ezekiel Guti University. Besides teaching she also writes and edits 

High School textbooks.The second author is Mufunani Tungu Khosa is the principal supervisor 

of the candidate. In this research his role was that of a technical adviser to the first author whose 

main role was reflecting on the writing of a PhD research proposal. Another role he played was 

dialoguing with Claretah about the outputs of her reflection – taking care of course not to stifle 

her feelings and perceptions. 

Introduction  

The doctoral journey which can last up to eight years is a period when candidates learn about 

research, critical thinking, submit a thesis with a comprehensive methodology, publish articles 

and contribute to the literature available in their field, (Callary, Werthner&Trudel 2012). During 

my first year as a PhD candidate, I began to identify with a new role of being a researcher in the 

making. I faced unexpected difficulties due to major changes inmy educational understanding - 

what a PhD and what is expected of a PhD candidate? I experienced differences in academic 

demands, peer support and social interaction. Some of the problematic areas and challenges 

IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH

Volume 3| Issue 12| December  | 2020                     http://www.ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh 34



  

 

were(a) self- isolation, (b) time constraints, (c) the need to take individual responsibility for 

work,(d) the desire to feel intellectual and self-worth including necessity of building a firm 

professional relationship with my supervisor in terms of mutual sharing of expectations, (e)my 

rights and obligations as well as those of my supervisor. As someone who had embarked on part- 

time studies for the first time my adjustment was slow and painful. For instance, I kept on asking 

the question, “After this PhD what will I be doing in my professional life?” 

Swetzer (2009) cited in Everett (2015) putsPhD candidates into two categories: the first group is 

for those who enter the program intending to become a professor and a publisher in high-ranking 

journals. These, just like me, they find academic relationships as the only way to success. The 

other group is of those who are more interested in individual development and learning. Hence, 

candidates enter into PhD journeys with varied expectations and they experience personal 

development through their social experiences whilst in the program. In this paper, I analyse and 

reflect on the first segment of my doctoral journey which stretches from the time I applied for a 

PhD candidature up to the time my research proposal was approved by the Faculty Board.This 

segment lasted for 10 months. 

Nature of reflection 

This reflective self-study covers my experiences as I journeyed in my first ten months of the PhD 

journey. As I reflected, I could not leave out my advisor who is the second author. He 

encouraged me to reflect on the first part of my journey. From the day we first met he 

encouraged me to keep a detailed journal of our experiences and reflect on them as we 

IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH

Volume 3| Issue 12| December  | 2020                     http://www.ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh 35



  

 

progressed. My advisor also provided guidance on how a reflective paper is written. He was at it 

again sending me lots and lots of reading material. I wondered if he had forgotten that I still had 

a lot of my core work to do. I had to rewrite the research proposal; master the American 

Psychological Association referencing style; read the volumes of documents he was sending me 

and to add on to that I was a part time student. I still had to do my full-time teaching job as well 

as part time lecturing. Publications were the least of my concerns at that time. 

Regardless of all my tasks, as advised in sacssw.edu.au (2019) I actually kept two types of 

reflective recordings; (1) A journal in which I wrote monthly progress entries throughout the ten 

months. These were based on my reflections on the proposal notes which I received from my 

advisor as well as my personal research; and (2) A learning diary which was similar to the 

journal, but it was the place where I kept notes on the discussions which we had with my advisor 

whenever we held review meetings. 

This article in the product of revisiting the journal entries of our meetings, email 

communications, reading comments my supervisor wrote in various versions of the draft 

proposal. The revisits helped me refresh my memory of what took place during the first year of 

my studies. 

The first author is the PhD candidate and the findings (reflections) are written in first person to 

enable me to analyse and talk about my experiences, and more importantly, to assist the readers 

to better understand what I went through and what I learnt. The second author, who is the first 

IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH

Volume 3| Issue 12| December  | 2020                     http://www.ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh 36



  

 

author’s supervisor, played the role of guiding the candidate in her journey, providing literature 

on reflective writing, and developing the reflective paper. 

Schion (1988) as cited in William, Woolliam& Spiro (2012) suggests a three dimension model of 

reflection. The model concurs with Jarvis (2009) that the past determines how we react to the 

present which in turn shapes the future. The model suggests that for reflection to be effective it 

must look at the past, present and the future. As one engages in the three dimensions of 

reflection, they should ask themselves the questions indicated in the Table1. 

 

 

Table 1: Three-dimensional reflective model (based on Schion1988) 

BEFORE DURING AFTER 

What do you think might 
happen? 

What do you think might be the 
challenges? 

What should you do to be best 

prepared 

What is happening now as you 
write the journal? 

Is it working out as expected? 

Are you dealing with the 
challenges well? 

Is there something you should 
do, say or think to make your 
experiences a success? 

What are you learning from this? 

What happened during the 
experience? 

How did you contribute to its 
success or failure? 

What lessons did you derive 
from the experience? 

 

 

IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH

Volume 3| Issue 12| December  | 2020                     http://www.ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh 37



  

 

The questions provided in the model helped me shape my reflections and organise the findings. 

The theory also enabled me to realise the growth that I was undergoing during proposal writing. 

This paper combines experiential and reading reflection. These will be discussed briefly. 

Experiential reflection 

Farrah (2011) views experiential reflection as experiences, ideas and observations you have had, 

and how they relate to the course or topic or some programme. This type of reflection is popular 

in professional programmes, like business, nursing, and education. Experiential reflection is an 

important part of making connections between theory and practice. My advisor encouraged me to 

engage in experiential reflection to explore the incidents I came across as a PhD candidate. It 

enabled me to evaluate my experience rather than just describe it based on ideas from my 

encounters with him (O’connell&Dyment 2006).  It enabled me to assess what research is 

through my observations and practice. I found myself in a position where I would evaluate my 

own knowledge and skills within the research field. This gave me an opportunity to take time to 

think on my choices, my actions, my successes, and my failures within the specifications and 

demands of proposal writing.  Abstract concepts became concrete and real to me when I 

considered them within my own experiences, and reflecting on my experiences allowed me to 

make plans for improvement. 

Reading Reflection 

IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH

Volume 3| Issue 12| December  | 2020                     http://www.ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh 38



  

 

The PhD journey entails a lot of research and focused deep reading. To encourage thoughtful and 

balanced assessment of readings, the PhD candidate needs the ability to assess the available 

literature and reflect upon it (Farrah 2011).My supervisor indicated to me that he expected me to 

reflect on each paper he sent, the general purpose was to elicit my informed opinions about ideas 

presented in the text and to consider how they affected my approach to research.  Reading 

reflections offered me an opportunity to recognize – and break down my assumptions which 

were sometimes challenged by the texts which I studied. [Mufu always encouraged me not to just 

read the literature but to EXAMINE IT.] Reading reflection enabled me to be a critical thinker 

as it is generally believed that the thinking process involves two aspects: reflective thinking and 

critical thinking. As summarised in Figure 1,  the two are not separate processes; rather, they are 

closely connected (Brookfield 1987). 

IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH

Volume 3| Issue 12| December  | 2020                     http://www.ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh 39



  

 

 

Figure 1: The Thinking Process (adapted from Mezirow 1990, Schon 1987, Brookfield 1987; 
Adopted from https://artdesign.unsw.edu.au/current-students/student-services/learning-career-
hub) 

Let me now turn to the outputs of my reflection about the proposal writing which is divided into 

two broad parts. In Part I reflect on the different phases of proposal crafting, and in the second 

part I summarise key lessons emerging from the cumulative reflections. 

 

PART 1: THE PHASES OF THE PHD PROPOSAL WRITING [OR RATHER 

CRAFTING] 

IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH

Volume 3| Issue 12| December  | 2020                     http://www.ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh 40



  

 

From the first time I had a meeting with my supervisor he advised me to keep a record of what 

we discussed and keep it safe. I religiously followed his advice. Now that I am at the data 

analysis stage of my PhD research journey, I feel that l can share my reflections which are 

anchored on the journals I kept. I am convinced that those planning to embark on doctoral 

studies and those who are already on the journey, will find my reflections interesting and 

hopefully educative as well.  

Reflections as I started my PhD 

After some basic coaching from a colleague, I had come up with an eight paged proposal which I 

attached to my PhD application. After four months of waiting, I got the favourable response - the 

Zimbabwe Open University (ZOU) had accepted me as a PhD candidate. I visited the Higher 

Degrees Directorate, and I was told how to register.  I was given a DPhil Handbook which I was 

to study and follow. After three weeks I was allocated a supervisor. 

My supervisor Mufunani Tungu Khosa (Prof Mufu as he prefers to be called), is an Associate 

Professor of Education. I now know that he is a seasoned educator with experience in teaching at 

secondary school level, teachers' colleges, as well as universities. He has 30 years consulting 

experience acquired in Botswana, Ghana, Mozambique, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Mufu 

holds PhD in Education from MonashUniversity, Australia. The day I entered Mufu’s modest 

office my journey began although I did not fully know who this man was.  

Meeting my Supervisor for the First time 

IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH

Volume 3| Issue 12| December  | 2020                     http://www.ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh 41



  

 

Soon after being directed to my supervisor’s office on the 30th of November 2018, I went there 

and introduced myself. He was expecting me. He asked me to give a brief biography which I did 

orally. He later requested for the proposal that had won me the study towards a D.Phil. I had a 

hardcopy and he asked me to send a soft copy. My supervisor advised me that he would not 

entertain hard copies on his desk, he gesticulated at his neat desk which confirmed words; it had 

two computers; desktop and a laptop. He also emphasised that since I was a part time student, 

much of the work had to be done online. My mind was flooded with worries and concerns: 

My teaching has been based on piles of books; schemes of work, record of marks, 
registers. I am a paper person,I feel so confident when I do my work and students pass. 
Never have I been conversant with computer use, let alone constant use of email. . . This 
means I need Wi-Fi connections and a computer tutor. I did my Masters’ Degree using 
hard copies; this PhD is different.  

Using email was not the only challenge emanating from the first meeting; there were the issues 

research skills. My advisor promised to send me material to read on what a PhD is all about. It 

did not make sense at that time. I knew that this was the degree that I wanted to acquire at the 

end of the journey, and his emphasis on whether I knew what I really wanted to do somehow 

scared me. I was also caught off guard by the question on which referencing style I preferred to 

use. I just responded American Psychological Association (APA) referencing style, I knew very 

little about it. This marked the beginning of a series of battles with APA, up to now I have not 

yet won that war.   

He emphasised that PhD is an in-depth study it is deep in content and methodology; he smiled at 

me and asked again, rather sarcastically, if I was ready for the journey. My daring character 

came to play here; I responded that I was ready for the journey. 

IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH

Volume 3| Issue 12| December  | 2020                     http://www.ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh 42



  

 

This two-hour meeting was both intimidating and scary, my supervisor took a lot of things 

forgranted. Looking back I strongly feel that the first meeting could have been much better if we 

had started by discussing the roles of the supervisor and the supervisee and how we were going 

to operate. He could also have given me a chance to expose my knowledge so that he would 

judge my level of competence in research and academic writing. I left the office with a lot of 

questions, among them were: How was I going to cope with this technologically advanced man? 

Had I made the right decision applying for a PhD? Was I intelligent enough for a PhD study? 

My conclusion after the meeting was; if this man is one of the best (as had been said by the 

Higher Degrees Directorate staff) then the journey was an uphill. But the daring Cleretah will 

make it all the same. 

The second meeting was set a month away from the first. Four days after I sent the soft copy of 

my research proposal it was returned with more comments than the original script. Corrections 

where made on the working title, choice of words, sentence construction, punctuation, 

paragraphing among other writing skills. I was demoralised because remember I am a high 

school teacher, teaching English Language and Literature. More than that – I am a Part-time 

Lecturer and Supervisor of masters and bachelors research projects. Again, I felt belittled and 

inadequate. As a seasoned educator my supervisor should not have taken me like any other 

student forgetting that I was now 44years. However, the feedback was a glaring reminder of my 

shortcomings. The document was accompanied by nine other documents on proposal writing, 

methodology and the APA referencing style. I was expected to have read all these documents in 

preparation for our second meeting. The documents were distressing for a starting, part time 

IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH

Volume 3| Issue 12| December  | 2020                     http://www.ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh 43



  

 

candidate with four part time jobs. The initiation was scary. I felt that it could have been much 

better to focus on one aspect of research at a time.  

 

My first draft proposal 

Our second meeting was based on my initial proposal. I had lost confidence in it after it had been 

reviewed by my supervisor. The first statement from my supervisor was. ‘Claretah,  the goal of a 

research proposal is to present and justify the need to study a research problem and to present the 

practical ways in which the proposed study should be conducted. Whenyou convince me, 

together we will convince the Faculty Board.’  I remember these words vividly. 

Silently I asked myself if ever I had the capacity to convince him. I have heard of candidates 

changing supervisors but since the Higher Degrees DirectorateSecretariat had hinted to me that 

my Professor was one of the best, it would mean that I would get someone more demanding and 

probably less helpful. I decided to continue with the belief that my understanding will improve 

with time. [I wished Prof Mufu could read my mind. I was worried.] 

Besides emphasis on a convincing research proposal, we discussed a lot on methodology. I had 

not seriously thought about it since I believed that it would matter muchlater onthe research 

journey. I was advised that to settle for a methodology it was imperative to have an in-depth 

understanding of my research matter (the research issue) through wide and deep review of 

related literature. Though long and bringing in a lot of new knowledge and concepts, the second 

IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH

Volume 3| Issue 12| December  | 2020                     http://www.ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh 44



  

 

meeting was much better (friendlier) than the first one. It made me discard my prior 

understanding of research proposal as a ‘rough sketch’ of what I intended to do during my study. 

Again, the meeting was two hours long. I was given the task to rewrite my proposal showing my 

expertise in curriculum development in which I wanted to conduct a research. I had to show my 

knowledge of the existing literature and how my research would add value to the current body of 

knowledge. I was also supposed to be clear on the methodology which I was going to use. When 

I arrived home, I had this monologue: 

This journey is going to be a tough one. I have to reorganise my life; time management as 
a priority. This study cannot be a secret at my workplace because it is so demanding. I 
must inform the Head of school, ask him for access to Wi-Fi which was only meant for 
the administration. The School Head must know because there will come times when I 
have to schedule midweek meetings with my supervisor. I must put my house in order.  

 

Soon after the reflection I photocopied the letter of acceptance to study with the Zimbabwe Open 

University (ZOU) and took to my School Head and asked for WI-FI connection. All went well 

and this was the beginning of my learning and transformation. We need not forget that Prof 

Mufu had promised to send yet another set of reading materials. Later I realised that I had made 

a mistake of not identifying all the stakeholders in my life who would directly or indirectly 

influence my studies. These included friends, colleagues at work, family members, and church 

leadership. I had to notify them of my commitments much later when I failed to attend some 

social and church gatherings and activities.  

 

IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH

Volume 3| Issue 12| December  | 2020                     http://www.ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh 45



  

 

Beginning to find my way 

 I will take you back a little. On my second appointment I arrived twenty minutes earlier than the 

scheduled time and went straight to my supervisor’s office. He was busy attending to someone. 

He raised his head and reminded me of our agreed time with a smile – at least he smiled. This 

reminded me of my inadequacy, I was not courteous. This time I was late by twenty minutes for 

our third meeting and he called to ask if I was still coming. Fortunately, when he called, I was in 

the stairs going to his office. I did not like this constant reminder of what I was not and probably 

will never be – respecting time for my good and for the good of others. I vowed to be on time 

every time we had an appointment.  I would rather come early and wait in the lobby. If I could 

not be on time, then I learnt that I must call and apologise for either being behind time or unable 

to come. This is one of the social skills that I learnt. 

The month between my second and third meeting had been a busy one. I had written my second 

and third versions of the research proposal and received sixteen more documents to study [or 

examine as he would say]. My second version of the proposal was submitted with confidence. 

Alas, my supervisor just read the first three sections (background to the study, statement of the 

problem, aims and objectives) and returned in two days with four documents of how to formulate 

a research problem. The general comment was that we could not go anywhere before we were 

clear on the research focus. He emphasised that once I was clear on what I really wanted to do 

then I would decide on how to do it. I had to rewrite the problem statement four times before it 

was approved. By the time it was approved, to tell the truth I was now clear on what I really 

wanted to do. I was also becoming computer literate as my supervisor emphasised advised me 

IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH

Volume 3| Issue 12| December  | 2020                     http://www.ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh 46



  

 

that I could learn a lot through on asking appropriate questions on Google scholar.  Appropriate 

questions = Appropriate answers! Google scholar was most helpful on the research methods and 

curriculum studies. As time went on, I also used Google and even YouTube to expand my 

knowledge of the computer and research methods. Since we were now clear on the statement of 

the problem, research aims and objectives, the focus of the third meeting was on review of 

related literature. My supervisor emphasised on the need to sample the literature according to 

years of publication. I was also supposed to move from the wider world then narrow to 

Zimbabwe revealing gaps in knowledge then focus on one which l had identified in the statement 

of the research problem or research issue. He advised me never to write with emotion; l was 

supposed to be an objective and composed academic. The task which l was given was to go and 

craft the preliminary review of related literature. 

The third meeting different from the first two. Professor gave me a lot of time to express myself. 

He repeated that l was the expert in my area of choice and he was guiding me in research 

methods and the best ways of presenting myself. He promised to send more material for 

study.Iexpressed shock and he confidentially told me that some of the students called him 

Professor READ as he always told candidates to read, since I was directly under his supervision I 

was supposed to read as much as I could. Some of the material he sent was not directly related to 

curriculum studies and I wondered why I was reading all this, instead of focusing on my topic. 

As I am reflecting I now understand the reason - disciplines in education are interrelated and in 

order to fully understand one discipline one needs to understand the other/s. As Ileft  his office I 

saw all my free time being consumed, varnishing in my face. Time with my friends and family 

IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH

Volume 3| Issue 12| December  | 2020                     http://www.ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh 47



  

 

was being gradually taken away by this research proposal. I wondered what would happen when 

I got into the actual research. I did not know then that a thorough research proposal is a good 

start which makes the PhD journey easier to travel. A solid research proposal constitutes a solid 

foundation for a planned study. 

Is it worth it? 

I attended the fourth meeting with a heavy heart. I was at the verge of quitting. This is what had 

happened -I had worked swiftly with my first supervisor, I was now used to moving backwards 

and forwards in my proposal until we agreed on each section of the proposal. The faculty then 

allocated me a second supervisor and my principal supervisor forwarded the sixth version of my 

research proposal to him. After two long weeks of waiting the response came in whichmy effort 

was torn apart -  the background to the study was too long; my research problem not clear; he 

suggested I change my objectives (this being the core of the research it almost meant starting 

afresh). His most disheartening comment was: 

Much of what you have here would constitute your review of related literature later. 

YOU COULD THEREFORE BE BRIEF. There was need to differentiate terms such as 

curriculum design, development and planning read Ndawi in Peresuh and 

Nhundu(1999). The term participation could also have been cleared. Why is it that I 

have a feeling you are copying someone else’s completed [submitted]thesis.If you are 

doing that stop it!HatidiChitunha [I do not entertain the idea of resuscitating a thesis 

submitted by someone else]. 

This was the sixthversion of my research proposal.  I had changed and refined my document six 

times and here I was being suspected [accused] of plagiarism. I wondered whether it was 

necessary to have two supervisors. If I was supposed to have two supervisors, why did the 

IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH

Volume 3| Issue 12| December  | 2020                     http://www.ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh 48



  

 

administration bring them into my journey at different stages? It was difficult to dance smoothly 

with the two Professors with different perceptions of what I had done and what I was planning to 

do. I had not met the second supervisor and did know who he was, all I knew was his name. I 

was bound to miss a step and fall. After discussing with my principal supervisor, he advised me 

that whenever I did not agree with any of the supervisorsI was supposed to say it out 

professionally. The role of the two supervisors was later clarified when my chief supervisor 

invited me for a workshop on, ‘PhD candidate dancing with two supervisors.’ The workshop 

enabled me to understand the role of the supervisors as well as speak out whenever there was a 

misunderstanding. This issue was solved amicably. 

Then came the real bombshell. My chief supervisor has a friend at University of Melbourne in 

Australia and he sent my proposal to him for review. The proposal was back within a week. 

What I remember most was the general comment that the proposal was below standard and 

would never win as a PhD proposal. I was hurt when I received this email and I told my 

supervisor that l was losing hope. He advised me that what I needed was time. For a week I did 

not do anything concerning my research proposal.I was tired and regretting ever starting this 

journey. After that week, my supervisor then called me for the fifth meeting. We discussed the 

best ways of improving the methodology section. Emphasis was on sampling methods, research 

instruments and data analysis procedures. My supervisor had a way of convincing me to continue 

with my studies. At this stage he had ceased to be just a supervisor but my partner and advisor in 

this difficult journey. After the discussion and advice,I left the office revitalised and ready to 

continue. I was able to objectively look at the feedback by my co- supervisor as well as the 

IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH

Volume 3| Issue 12| December  | 2020                     http://www.ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh 49



  

 

Australian reviewer. I managed to pick some helpful lessons especially on review of related 

literature. This is the time I started calling Mufu my advisor not supervisor. 

Version after Version of Proposals 

After my seventh version of the proposal my advisor called me, he just said we needed to discuss 

some issues. When I arrived for the sixth meeting our discussion was focused on perfecting the 

proposal and preparing a power point presentation in case the workshop would be held soon. He 

promised me that if time permitted, he would get me a panel of curriculum specialists to review 

my presentation as part of the preparations. I received this offer with reservations because by 

now I had realised that there is nothing like a ‘perfect proposal’ to all academics. I was afraid of 

being demoralised again. This was an abnormally short meeting; he had another meeting. We 

made an appointment for the 24thof the same month – June. I was relieved and happy that at least 

I was going to focus on something new. I worked on the slides and sent them to my advisor for 

review. Necessary adjustments were made. I continuously wondered to myself if the presentation 

day was fast approaching. If so, was my proposal good enough to convince the audience 

consisting of academics from varied academic disciplines? I was prepared to present but I was 

not sure of the reaction of the board, by then I had no idea who would sit in that board meeting to 

decide my fate. 

Energised to continue 

IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH

Volume 3| Issue 12| December  | 2020                     http://www.ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh 50



  

 

As was now the norm, l was punctual for this meeting – the seventh meeting. The news which l 

received upon arrival were both stimulating and terrifying. My advisor calmly notified me that 

there was going to be a defence workshop on proposals and chapters, on the 28th June, he had 

just received the communication from the Higher Degrees Directorate. We had four days to 

prepare; he asked me to go to the higher degrees directorate offices and register and inquire on 

the requirements. With excitement mixed with anxiety l went to the Higher Degrees Directorate 

and submitted the required documents. The workshop was set to run over two days and I was 

slotted on the Day One.When l went back to my advisor’s officeI was taught three things about 

the workshop: 

1) I was going to the workshop to share my proposal with the faculty board and NOT to 

defend it. The significance of the terminology became clearer on the day of the 

workshop; I was able to embrace constructive criticism from the participants.  

2) Be confident of what you are doing. I had done a lot of reading and this was the time to 

expose my knowledge and interest in my area of study. I was supposed to be composed 

and convincing.  

3) Time management -I was going to present my proposal in 15 minutes. I had to utilise 

every second wisely and focus on the most important points only. 

The four preparation days were the busiest days of my proposal writing journey. I had to master 

every aspect of my proposal. I also practised time management with a stopwatch. On the 27th l 

could not sleep I wanted to do the presentation once and get the proposal approved by the faculty 

board. 

IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH

Volume 3| Issue 12| December  | 2020                     http://www.ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh 51



  

 

Time to make public my research intent 

The day was 28 June 2019, and the workshop was scheduled for 0900hrs. I was supposed to 

present at 1100hrs; the third presenter of the day. I arrived at the venue thirty minutes before 

time. The venue was deserted. However,  in a few minutes preparations started; I was both 

anxious and expectant. We started an hour late. This was a blessing in disguise: I managed to 

meet other students and share our experiences.  I also managed to meet my advisor for a word of 

assurance, something I needed most.  More importantly, I had a chance to have a final glance at 

my work. Looking around I noted that in my university PhD seemed to be a male dominated 

area. Amongst the board members  there was only one female professor, and on our side of the 

five candidates who were going to present, I was the only female. At first l was uncomfortable 

but later l reassured myself that these men were professionals, and they would do justice to my 

work. 

At 1210hrs I started my presentation; it was smooth though I was nervous at first. My advisor 

was quietly listening; his presence alone was assuring enough. After the 15 minutes presentation 

I was relieved, a huge load had been lifted off my shoulders. I received constructive feedback – 

suggestions for improvement and praises with an open mind. Dealing with the feedback was not 

an issue because I had been exposed to candid but constructive comments during the eight 

months I had prepared for this day.  

The first comment I received was, ‘What a relief we have had the first female voice today and 

the voice was vibrant and confident.’ The next positive comment was that I presented and not 

IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH

Volume 3| Issue 12| December  | 2020                     http://www.ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh 52



  

 

read my proposal. Areas that needed improvement were my statement of the problem which 

needed further trimming to narrow down my focus. I was also advised to perfect in-text 

referencing. I managed to meet my supervisor an hour later when we had a lunch break; I 

thanked him for the thorough preparation. He was also impressed by my confidence. He 

reminded me of the importance of a precise power point presentation; that aspect had won me the 

board’s favour, I was not reading but presenting my proposal guided by the power point 

presentation. I learnt that what the professors who sit in the board want from a ‘defending 

candidate’ is confidence, knowledge of what one wants to do and the passion to do it. As I 

travelled back home, I felt on top off the world. I was confident that I had made it! Two weeks 

after the presentation I received my results - my proposal had passed with minor alterations to be 

monitored by the advisor. I cried out of joy. My hard work had been rewarded. I owed 

everything to my advisor. He had managed to prepare me fully for the day and the journey as a 

whole. 

As indicated earlier on the proposal writing period was a period of transition. I learnt a lot of 

lessons which changed my attitude towards research, critical thinking and academic writing. Let 

me now share with you the major lessons from the proposal writing phase of my PhD journey. 

PART 2: LESSONS FROM THE PROPOSAL PHASE OF THE PHD JOURNEY 

From the journal entries, it is apparent that the experiences that I went through during proposal 

writing were greatly influenced by my experience and exposure before entering the PhD 

program. The challenges which I faced were also a result of the vast academic differences 

IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH

Volume 3| Issue 12| December  | 2020                     http://www.ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh 53



  

 

between me and my supervisor. The experiences changed me from an ordinary high school 

teacher into a researcher and academic – Yes I am now a researcher who qualifies to be called an 

academic. I believe if I were to start afresh these lessons would assist me immensely in coming 

up with an acceptable proposal without having to rewrite it seven times. These lessons are 

directed at aspiring PhD candidates. However, PhD supervisors can also gain from both the 

lessons and my story – the source of the lessons.  

 

LESSON 1: Ensure the working topic is narrow and focused 

Looking at the different versions of my research topic, I learnt that a research topic must not be 

something very broad. At PhD level one is required to treat every aspect of their research with 

depth so if it is too wide then they will not be able to answer all the questions. Of all the aspects 

of curriculum development I chose to focus on one aspect: teacher participation.  

After the fifth version of my topic which was approved by my advisor I realised that the topic I 

had submitted during application was just a hazy idea of what I really wanted to do. Writing the 

research proposal enabled me to be focused and clearly express my intentions in a short and eye-

catching research topic. I was also guided by Jacobs (2011) who emphasises that it might sound 

a bit obvious, but the working title of any D.Phil. proposal has a subtle effect on its success. 

What one calls their project will reflect its D.Phil. statement. Ideally, every aspect of your 

D.Phil. proposal will speak directly – and with authority – to your peers working inside your 

IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH

Volume 3| Issue 12| December  | 2020                     http://www.ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh 54



  

 

respective field. It is therefore necessary to choose a title that will grab their attention and shape 

the research to fit – and to hold your board’s interest. 

 

LESSON 2: Make your research fit into existing knowledge 

It is important to provide a clear background to your intended research. This section can be 

included in one’s introduction or one can create a separate section to help with the organization 

and narrative flow of the proposal (Faryadi, 2012). This is where one explains the context of 

their proposal and describe in detail why it is important. I was advised to approach this section 

without assuming that my readers will know as much about the research problem as I did.My 

initial background to the study was confined to Zimbabwe; my idea being that the research 

problem was Zimbabwean. My professor reminded me that this was the section where I was 

supposed to explain the context of my proposal and describe in detail why it was important. 

 

LESSON 3: Don’t give them a chance to ask, “What is the problem?” 

 It is important in a proposal that the research problem stand outs —that the reader can easily 

recognizes it. Sometimes, obscure and poorly formulated research problems are masked in an 

extended discussion. In such cases, the reader will have difficulty recognizing the problem. The 

research problem should shout! It must hit the eyeballs of the reader. This was one frustrating 

stage; I wrote this section more than ten times, until I no longer knew what I was really doing or 

IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH

Volume 3| Issue 12| December  | 2020                     http://www.ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh 55



  

 

what was going on. Let me admit, I was totally confused and frustrated. Later, I realised my 

weakness. My statement of the problem was generally too long. Crafting my research proposal 

gave me a chance to formulate a unique statement of the problem and objective which will not 

replicate an already exhausted area but fill the gap which I had clearly identified during review 

of related literature. 

LESSON 4: How to tell them the importance of your research? 

When I started this program, I was motivated by the experience that I was going through as a 

teacher in a country where curriculum change was taking place and teachers not consulted. My 

aim was to send a message to Head office and my professor told me that was not enough to 

convince the board when presenting my proposal. I had to be clear on the overall significance of 

my study. I had to ask myself the following questions:Why bother to undertake this research? 

What contribution- to scholarly understanding, to public policy- will it make? In answering these 

questions, I managed to come up with my project’s significance which was clearer and worth the 

effort. This is supported by Locke, Spirduso, & Silverman, 1987 cited in Faryadi (2012) who 

state that the purpose statement should provide a specific and accurate synopsis of the overall 

purpose of the study. If the purpose is not clear to the writer, it cannot be clear to the reader. 

LESSON 5: If you do not read widely, you are doomed.  

Review of literature needs to be wide and deep enough to pinpoint the gap which has to filled by 

the findings of the planned research. This section had to be written in connection to the 

background and significance of my study. It was devoted to a more deliberate review and 

IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH

Volume 3| Issue 12| December  | 2020                     http://www.ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh 56



  

 

synthesis of prior studies related to the research problem under investigation. My advisor 

emphasised that my proposal should locate my dissertation in the broader scholarly literature; my 

discussion of available literature had to show how my research would extend what is already 

known. I had to think of key theories and concepts related to curriculum development. Another 

emphasis was on recent literature; literature which was generally within five years of my 

research then only take milestone literature from as far twenty years.  

 

LESSON 6: Spell out the methodology clearly 

I had to be so meticulous in spelling out the research philosophy; paradigm and design. My 

professor wanted to see a clearly spelt out methodology. He sent plenty of reading material. 

Thus, the objective here was to convince the board that my overall research design and methods 

of analysis would correctly address the problem and that the methods would provide the means 

to effectively interpret the potential results. The design and methods had to be unmistakably tied 

to the objectives of the study. 

LESSON 7: Learn and master the preferred referencing style 

 Proposal writing gave me a chance to learn the demands of the American Psychological 

Association referencing style. This is one aspect which almost saw me quit my studies. My 

advisor was so particular about referencing. Here I also learnt much on the relevance of 

acknowledging every text used. The emphasis was on avoiding plagiarism, the worst academic 

IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH

Volume 3| Issue 12| December  | 2020                     http://www.ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh 57



  

 

crime.Trial and Error is Dangerous in Doctoral Studies. It is very important to learn and master 

the referencing style stipulated by your faculty. 

LESSON 8: Set realistic schedules and deadlines 

My first schedule was very ambitious. As someone who desperately needed the qualification to 

improve my prospects in life, I wanted to graduate in the shortest possible time and with my 

university the shortest time was two and a half years. This stressed me every time I was asked to 

redo or expand on a certain aspect of my proposal. As someone who was undergoing some 

transformation, I realised the need to be realistic in projecting my timelines. This reduced 

pressure on the way I carried out my work and enabled me to do everything slowly and as many 

times as it took to achieve the required accuracy.  

 

LESSON 9: Managing myself 

As mentioned earlier in my biography, when I started my PhD studies, I was a full time teacher, 

a curriculum developer, a part time lecturer and lastly a wife and mother. This means I had too 

many roles to play. My PhD demanded a lot of reading. I had to create time. My professor once 

shared that his day started at four in the morning. I had to work as late asmidnight.This became 

my routine whenever I had work to do. Every minute counted for all my duties to be done. This 

meant reducing my social life activities. Every D.Phil. candidate must find a routine that works 

for them. Nobody ever told me to sleep late. Having a routine of certain activities throughout the 

IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH

Volume 3| Issue 12| December  | 2020                     http://www.ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh 58



  

 

week: designated cleaning/laundry days and batch-cooking can greatly help you at getting into a 

routine that makes sure you get every that must be achieved done. 

LESSON 10: Learn how to dance with two supervisors 

As mentioned earlier, I had two supervisors. This is normal practice in most universities to 

ensure continuity just in case one of the supervisors not available or unable to continue working 

with the candidate. Do not expect them to give you identical feedback. Focus more on how the 

comments complement each other rather than on the differences. Examine literature on the roles, 

obligations, and rights of supervisors. Remember that as PhD candidate you also have your 

rights, roles, and obligations in the supervisor-supervisee relationship. Note that in the 

supervisor-candidate partnership you are the Senior Partner. WHY? As the candidate you are 

responsible for doing the research and the supervisors are there to provide guidance and support. 

Learn to dance with your supervisors. If in doubt of what should be done take the initiative and 

ASK. This is important especially if you feel that the supervisors are not providing adequate 

information to enable you to smoothly. 

LESSON 11: Be willing to learn from your supervisors 

The academic board will expect you to show that your research is worthwhile and will have 

beneficial effects that outweigh or extend the existing knowledge. Working closely with your 

supervisors will enable you to draw from their vast knowledge, and in the process you will also 

grow as an academic and researcher. 

IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH

Volume 3| Issue 12| December  | 2020                     http://www.ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh 59



  

 

 

LESSON 12: Behaving with integrity 

Build a firm professional relationship with your supervisor in terms of mutual sharing of roles, 

expectations, rights, and obligations. I have heard of students who ended up entangled with their 

supervisors and most of the time these entanglements affect their work negatively. I also respect 

my supervisor for creating and maintaining such a professional relationship- he became my 

academic supervisor as well as counsellor when my studies were negatively affecting  my social 

relationships. 

 

LESSON 13: Don’t Give up it is the nature of the game called PhD 

Many times I thought of quitting. The pressure was too much on me. The difference between 

Masters and PhD became increasingly apparent. I felt as if I was moving in ever widening 

circles, writing and rewriting every section of the PhD proposal. I thank my supervisor, husband 

and sons for encouraging me. After ten months I was proud of a clear roadmap to my research. 

Even now as I  am analysing data, I still go back to my proposal for ‘consultation’. 

LESSON 14: Understand the purpose of a PhD proposal 

The purpose of the PhD proposal is created to guide you research, complete and deliver your 

dissertation with great ease. The proposal helps you market our planned research to your primary 

IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH

Volume 3| Issue 12| December  | 2020                     http://www.ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh 60



  

 

stakeholder – your supervisor. Examine literature on a PhD research proposal. Go beyond the 

guidelines provided in the PhD Candidates Handbook. Guidelines are guidelines; they do not 

provide a full picture that you need. 

LESSON 15: Proofreading for awesome results 

As indicated in my reflections, one of the demotivators came every time I received feedback 

from my supervisor. The document was smeared with red ink of corrections.  The BIG 

LESSONis: A PhD proposal calls for grammatical correctness. The best practices for 

proofreading a PhD proposal are as follows: 

1. Read- examine- and- read the proposal over and over to yourself to identify unnatural 

wording. 

2. Proof, proof, and proof again- taking a break between writing and proofing sessions to 

allow the mind to look at the document with fresh eyes. 

3. Ask a few friends to read your proposal. 

4. Make sure proof reading is part of your plan.  

 

MY FINAL WORDS 

It is my hope that the reflections given above help aspiring researchers to conceptualize their 

work and transform into full blown researchers. Proposal writing is a must for student research 

work. There is need to adhere to its basic elements. There is also need to work closely with one’s 

IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH

Volume 3| Issue 12| December  | 2020                     http://www.ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh 61



  

 

supervisor and reflect on the life lessons. The wider our experiences of academic life the more 

we learn, and the more we learn the more we become whole people and achieve what we aspire 

for as PhD candidates. 

 

References 

Amoah, A. & Mensah, A. (2010).Basic elements of research proposal at the tertiary 
education institution in Ghana. Journal Academia, 1(10), 1-5. 
 
Attard, N. (2018). Writing an academic research proposal. Early Human Development, 
123(4), 39-41. 
 
Callary, B., et al (2012). A lived experience of a doctoral student: The process of learning 
and becoming. The qualitative report, 17(86), 1-20. 
 
Everett, M.C. (2013). Reflective journal writing and the first year experience. 
International Journal of Teaching and Learning in higher education, 25(2), 213-222. 
 
Farrah, M.(2012).Reflective journal writing as an effective technique in the writing 
process.A Najah University journal of Humanities, 26(4), 37-48. 
 
Faryadi, Q. (2012). How to write a PhD proposal: A step-by-step Guide. American 
International Journal of Contemporary Research,2(4), 111-116. 

Jacobs, R.L. (2014). Developing a dissertation research problem: A guide for doctoral 
students in human resources and adult education. New Horizons in Adult Education and 
Human Resources Development.25(3), 3-17. 

Jarvis, P. (2006). Towards a comprehensive theory of human learning. Live long learning 
and the learning theory. Routledge. 
 
Jarvis, P. (2009).Learning to be a person in society. Routledge. 
 
Moon, J. (2006).Learning journals: A hand book for reflective practice and professional 
development. Routledge. 
 

IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH

Volume 3| Issue 12| December  | 2020                     http://www.ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh 62



  

 

Orange, A. (2016). Encouraging reflective practices in Doctoral students through 
research journals.The Qualitative Research, 21(12) Retrieved at 
https://nuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol21/iss12/2/ 
 
Pajares, F. (2007).The Retrieved atproposal.aelements of
http//des.emory.edu/mfp/proposal.htm/ 
 
Plymouth University Learning Development (2010) Reflection online. Available at: 
www.learningdvpt.plymouth.ac,uk/studyguides/pdf/11reflectionspdf/ 
 
Sweitzer, V. (2009).Towards doctoral student professional identity. A developmental 
networks approach, the journal of higher education, 80(1),1-33. 
 
Viscko, M. & Wright, L.L. (2010).Negotiating identities in the transition from graduate 
student to teacher educator. Australian Journal of teacher Education, 9(35), 14-26. 

Williams, K, et al.  (2012).Reflective Writing. Macmillan. 

IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH

Volume 3| Issue 12| December  | 2020                     http://www.ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh 63

https://nuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol21/iss12/2/
http://www.learningdvpt.plymouth.ac,uk/studyguides/pdf/11reflectionspdf/



