The CIS Level 2 exam at UAB --------------------------- The Level 2 exam involves a research proposal. A written version of this research proposal is presented to the student's thesis committee and an oral presentation based on this research proposal is given on the day of the Level 2 exam. The written document should be provided to the committee two weeks before the exam. The student's oral presentation should be about 45 minutes and discuss the highlights of the research proposal. This is followed by questions and discussion by the committee, which will typically last about an hour. (Therefore, the entire exam will be about 2 hours.) Questions are also allowed during the presentation. Since the fundamental document is the written research proposal, and the oral presentation is gleaned from this document, the following discussion will address the written proposal only. A good template for the Level 2 proposal is a research grant proposal, such as an NSF proposal. They both have the goal of identifying a novel piece of research that has not been completed but that the proposer has sufficient background to address. They both involve convincing a panel or committee that the proposer has enough initial progress towards this problem, enough understanding of the related literature, and enough understanding of the issues that will arise during the research that the research has a good chance of success. They also evaluate whether the proposed subject has the scope and depth necessary for a research project (in the case of Level 2, one leading to the Ph.D. degree). The Level 2 research proposal should be written for the expert in computer science, but someone that is probably not an expert in the exact domain of the research. Therefore, a research proposal would involve more background than, for example, a conference or journal paper in the student's specialty. One of its purposes should be to educate the reader on the relevant major issues in the proposed research. One of the key components of a Level 2 exam is the opportunity for the committee members to shape the path of the proposed research, with insights into the literature and suggestions on approach or issues to consider. Therefore, the student should have sufficient progress on the research project that the committee can have confidence in the proposed approach (e.g., a refereed conference paper in the specialty area) but the proposed research should not be near completion. The key output of a Level 2 exam is an agreement on the proposed project and its deliverables, with helpful suggestions from the committee. Of course, these issues may change subtly, and in rare instances significantly, during the natural progress of the research, but the overall planned structure should be clear. Therefore, the proposal must contain a hypothesis and milestones towards completion. In more applied areas, a section on experimental validation is usually expected. The student and the committee should have a clear idea of how the student and the committee can determine when the research is complete. The suggested length of a Level 2 written proposal is the same as an NSF proposal: 15 single-spaced pages in 10-point font. We recommend that you submit a double-spaced document (so the length would become about 30 pages). This does not include the bibliography, which should typically contain at least 50 references (with 100 not unusual, since it is so important to establish an understanding of the research domain). The document must be self-contained: supplementary materials such as journal papers may be included as appendices, but the proposal should be understandable without referring to these documents. Some minor deviation in length of the document is allowed. However, one can say that any document that is less than 20 double-spaced pages long (not counting references) is too short. Proposals should not be overly long either. It may be useful to view the proposal as a miniature version of the final thesis. It will have the same sort of structure, and the main difference in the thesis will be the extension of the section on finished research. Therefore, the Level 2 document is not to be thrown away after the proposal, but can serve as the foundation for your thesis. The following guideline for Level 2 research proposals, developed by the former office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs several years ago, is a useful guide to the structure of the research proposal. (Title of Proposed Project) (Proposer) (Department Name) (Name of University) (City, State, Zip Code) TABLE OF CONTENTS Project Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Project Description 1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Proposed Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a. (Purpose) b. (Problem Statement) c. (Time-Line) d. (Expected Results) e. (Novel Concepts/Highlights) f. (How Expected Results will Impact Research Area) 3. Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PROJECT SUMMARY (One paragraph - approximately 200 words) 1. INTRODUCTION (Will fill in material such as known research results and background.) What is the purpose of the proposed research? Why are you interested in doing it? Do you have the tools? What will you have accomplished in two-three years? 2. PROPOSED RESEARCH a. (Purpose) b. (Problem Statement) Do not omit details. c. (Time-Line) d. (Expected Results) e. (Novel Concepts/Highlights) Evaluation procedures. f. (How Expected Results will Impact Research Area.) 3. BIBLIOGRAPHY HINTS FOR PREPARING A SUCCESSFUL RESEARCH PROPOSAL Idea The most critical aspect of the whole proposal preparation process is for you to have a unique idea that has the potential of being successfully developed within the limits of time, facilities, and assistance. Ideas most often come into existence when one has enough background information (literature, meetings, discussions) in order to make the next logical step toward identifying a problem. The development of a proposal is really the formulation of a convincing argument leading to the solution of a problem. Therefore, the selection of the problem to be solved is often the most critical step in the development of a successful proposal. It is important for you to decide if your idea is truly unique. Furthermore, you need to determine what the contribution will be if you succeed in solving the problem, and if the solution to the problem has some wide ranging appeal. Proposal Title The title of your proposal will be read by all who review the document unlike all other parts of the proposal. Therefore, make your title concise and make sure it conveys a message. The use of phrases such as "studies on" or "investigation of" should be avoided. Likewise, titles that are esoteric should not be used. A title that makes a statement about a general problem is excellent even though your proposal must necessarily be confined to the study of one system, one organism, or one case. The justification for your title is that the solution to a single problem area may permit generalizations to be made to the solution of a larger case. Project Summary (Abstract) The main purpose of the summary is to give the reviewer an overview of the contents of the proposal. If it is well written, it can arouse interest in the proposal. It should contain statements about the goals, how they will be achieved, and what the importance of the project is to the field being studied. Literature - Review of the Field 1) You may wish to start this section by mentioning your immediate contributions to the field. 2) You should cite key current literature and not delve in to the distant past unless it has particular importance to your proposal. A key word search by your library computer [Editor's note: Google would also be appropriate.] may be worth the investment at this point in order for you to be completely updated. Goals 1) State a reasonable number of goals, some that are safe and easy goals and some that are risky. It is important to have a good mix of both types. For instance, if all goals are safe and the results are predictable, no one will be interested in seeing the work accomplished. 2) State an overall rationale for the work to be done and the goals to be achieved and place this in perspective to the current level of understanding of this problem area. 3) It is absolutely vital that you state some alternative approaches if the initial experiments don't work out as you expected. Indicate what problems you anticipate and how you will circumvent them. 4) You should recognize some of the problems that may hinder progress. 5) Be completely reasonable about the work that is proposed in the time frame that is allotted. Methods Be precise in describing how the experiments will be done. Describe the methods to be used and use literature citations liberally. It also seems desirable to give some priorities and concentration of effort in describing which experiments will be done first and those to be given lesser attention. Bibliography 1) Give titles and complete references if possible. 2) List all your own publications. General Notes on Proposal Preparation 1) Sometimes illustrations are useful. They make the proposal clearer and easier to read. They should be included in the correct place and not gathered at the end of the document. They should not be used as a substitute for a poor quality proposal. 2) Follow closely the page limitation of 15 single spaced pages, 10 pt font. [Editor's note: Again a doublespaced document is preferred.] If you are substantially under the page limit, you are probably not providing enough detail. 3) Use care in preparing a proposal. It should require the same care as that for a paper being submitted for publication. Please avoid typos, misspellings, crossouts, etc. 4) Define acronyms and avoid jargon. COMMON MISTAKES IN PROPOSAL WRITING Scope too large/not focused/objectives not attainable/not appropriate for time frame. Recent literature not cited. Not enough clarification regarding procedures (important details lacking). Proposal poorly organized. Need for approach suggested not demonstrated. Not enough background given/what has been done in the field, what needs to be done. Technical problems not considered. No clear connection with any problem of technological significance. Organization of literature review diffuse. No original ideas. Proposer underestimates greatly the difficulties of the project and complexity of experimental system. Specific terms not defined precisely or quantitatively. Should improve current knowledge in field by interacting with peers/update ideas. Not productive research direction (similar work already done). More work on optimization of techniques is needed. Project rationale naive with less than credible hypothesis.