Most research support services start once you already have a draft. Research Guidance is for earlier than that: when you’re still shaping a research question, deciding on an approach, or trying to understand what “strong” looks like in your specific field before you commit months to a direction.
What’s included
- Research question refinement: testing whether a question is specific, answerable, and worth the time it will take
- Orientation to the standards and conventions of your specific field, so early decisions don’t need unwinding later
- Early-stage methodology options, laid out with trade-offs rather than a single prescribed answer
- A realistic project timeline built around your actual deadline, not a generic template
Signs you need this stage, not the next one
A few signals tend to mean you’re at the Research Guidance stage rather than ready for proposal writing. You can describe your topic but not a specific, answerable question about it. You’re not sure whether your planned approach is standard in your field or unusual enough to need extra justification. You have two or three possible directions and no clear way to compare them. None of this means you’re behind, it means the decisions that come before drafting haven’t been made yet, and making them under time pressure later is exactly what this stage exists to prevent.
What “field conventions” actually means in practice
Every discipline has unwritten expectations that don’t show up in a methods textbook. A grounded-theory study in Sociology and a randomized controlled trial in Health Sciences are judged against completely different standards of rigor, and a research question phrased perfectly for one would read as vague or overreaching in the other. Getting oriented to these conventions early means your research question, methodology, and even your literature review’s shape are aimed at what your specific field and committee will actually expect, rather than a generic academic template that happens to be wrong for your discipline.
What a typical engagement looks like
We usually start with a conversation about your general area of interest, even if it’s not yet a question, and work through narrowing it against three tests: is it specific enough to be answerable, is there a genuine gap it addresses, and is it achievable in your actual timeline and resources. From there we lay out methodology options with honest trade-offs (what each approach costs in time, what data or access it requires, and what kind of claim it lets you make) rather than steering you toward the option that’s easiest for us. Most engagements end with a one-page direction you can bring into a proposal or your first supervisor meeting.
This is the natural starting point before Research Proposal Support or ongoing Research Coaching. If you already have a draft in progress, one of those two is probably a better fit than starting here. For subject-specific context, see the relevant page under Subjects.
Frequently Asked Questions
How is this different from Research Coaching?
Research Guidance is front-loaded: it’s about the decisions you make before drafting starts. Research Coaching is ongoing feedback once you’re actively working. Many clients use Research Guidance first, then move into Research Coaching.
Do I need a research question already, or can you help me find one?
Bring whatever you have, even if it’s just a general area of interest. We help narrow and test ideas, though the direction needs to come from you.
Is this only for thesis or dissertation research?
No. It applies equally to standalone research projects, grant proposals, and early-stage manuscript work.
How do I know if my research question is too broad or too narrow?
The tests we apply are whether it’s answerable within your actual timeline and resources, and whether it’s specific enough that two people wouldn’t interpret it differently. We walk through both with you rather than handing down a verdict.
Can this help if I’m choosing between two completely different topics?
Yes, this is a common starting point. We lay out what each direction would actually require in terms of access, timeline, and methodology, so the comparison is concrete rather than a gut decision.