Deliverables

If you used GenAI to complete any deliverable, you are required to submit a Metacognitive Report alongside your assignment. For the exercises, the report can be as concise as 250 words. For the Creative Challenge, the report should be more substantive because it should address how your use of GenAI tools across the module.

Introduction to the Module

In Module 1, you analyzed Professional and Technical Communication journals to see how editors and authors construct authority and credibility. In Module 2, you examined the genre of literature reviews, learning how scholars synthesize and evaluate prior work to justify research questions and methods—and how citation practices function rhetorically to establish territory, identify a niche, and occupy that niche (Swales, 1990). In Module 3, you mapped epistemologies and methods, visualizing how different research communities define knowledge and truth. In Module 4, you practiced methodological critique, evaluating rigor, validity, and the relationship between a study’s claims and its evidence.

As Kenneth Bruffee reminds us, joining “the conversation of humankind” requires learning to listen critically before speaking. Each of these projects helped you learn the “languages” of different research communities—their preferred ways of posing questions, gathering evidence, and justifying belief. Having learned to analyze and critique how others conduct research, you are now ready to propose your own.

Significance

Research is an act of agency. Whether you are contributing to a scholarly conversation or solving a workplace problem, you move from being a consumer of information to a participant in shaping knowledge and practice. Education is an initiation into “the conversation of humankind”—a collaborative exchange in which knowledge is generated and maintained through dialoguen (Bruffee 1984). This final project marks that shift from analysis to action: you are learning to propose questions that matter—to you, your field, and the people whose problems you hope to solve.

In workplace settings, a manager or client typically requires a concise proposal before allocating resources.

Genre: Research Proposal

In contexts where applicants are seeking funding to conduct basic research, they are typically asked to submit a brief pitch:

• The Fulbright Program limits proposals to approximately two single-spaced pages.
• Startups applying to Y Combinator must pitch their venture in a brief application that demonstrates problem-solution fit.
• A National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) proposal requires applicants to address purpose, significance, and methods.
• Foundations like the Spencer Foundation and the Gates Foundation require concise problem statements before inviting full proposals.
• The National Science Foundation (NSF) requires investigators to begin with a one-page project summary.

In work contexts, supervisors are likely to seek brief proposals as well, expecting applicants to clearly define the research problem, methods, schedule, and costs.

To learn more about the conventions and expectations of this genre, see Research Proposals.

Learning Outcomes

By completing this project, you will be able to:

1. Design and justify a research question or problem statement situated within an identifiable scholarly conversation or workplace context.
2. Select and defend appropriate methods by aligning your approach with the epistemological commitments of your chosen methodological community.
3. Compose a persuasive research proposal that demonstrates rhetorical awareness of your audience and context.

Rhetorical Stance: Identity and Context

This is your invitation to step into one of the methodological communities you’ve studied all semester—to think, question, and propose as a Creative, a Developer, an Empiricist, a Pragmatist, or a Scholar would.

Your research question might emerge from a gap in the scholarly conversation—something uncertain or contested in the literature that your study could address. Or it might emerge from a problem you’ve encountered in your work or public life—something that needs understanding before it can be solved.

Identity: Which Methodological Community Will You Join?

Your proposal should make clear which community’s epistemological assumptions and methods will guide your study. Ask yourself: How do I want to investigate this question? What counts as evidence for me? What kind of knowledge am I trying to create?

To illustrate, consider how different communities might approach the question that has guided this course: How is AI transforming human cognition, agency, and work—and how do we know?

• A Creative might propose an autoethnographic narrative exploring their own experience collaborating with GenAI on a writing project—using reflection, journaling, and artistic expression to generate insight.
• A Developer might propose customer discovery research to investigate how UX designers experience AI tools disrupting their workflows—mapping the problem space before proposing solutions.
• An Empiricist might design a controlled study measuring cognitive load when workers use GenAI tools, or conduct interviews with freelancers to interpret how they’re adapting their professional identities. An Interpreter might conduct in-depth interviews with technical writers to understand how they experience AI assistance—focusing on meaning, identity, and the lived texture of changing work practices.
• A Scientist might design a controlled experiment comparing revision quality and time-on-task between AI-assisted and unassisted conditions, using statistical analysis to test whether the differences are significant.
• A Pragmatist might combine surveys and interviews to build a fuller picture of how AI is reshaping a particular profession—integrating quantitative patterns with qualitative depth.
• A Scholar might use rhetorical analysis to examine how corporate AI communications construct narratives about labor and automation—contributing to ongoing debates in the literature.

Context: Where Does Your Question Come From?

Choose the path that matches your situation: a scholarly question rooted in Basic Research, or a workplace problem rooted in Applied Research.

The Scholarly Context – Basic Research

Your research question emerges from a gap in the existing literature. Using Swales’ CARS model, you establish what is known (the territory), identify what remains uncertain or contested (the niche), and propose a study that will occupy that niche. As you learned in Module 1, peer-reviewed journals are written by experts for experts in the field. Your proposal demonstrates command of prior research and articulates how your study will contribute new knowledge to that specialized community.

The Workplace Context – Applied Research

Your question emerges from a problem that needs solving—in your job, your community, or your own life. Rather than beginning with a gap in the literature, you begin with a problem definition—describing the problem, its historical roots, causes and effects, and stakeholders. Your audience consists of clients, managers, or others who need to be convinced that you understand the problem deeply enough to investigate it rigorously.

Requirements

1. For the Scholarly Context: Your proposal should establish the territory, identify the niche, and justify your proposed study using the CARS framework you practiced in Module 2. Your literature review demonstrates your command of the scholarly conversation and positions your contribution within it.
2. For the Workplace Context: Your proposal should focus on the problem space—the problem and everything associated with it, including its history, its causes and effects, and its stakeholders (those who benefit from the problem, those who contribute to it, and those who feel it most acutely as pain). Note that this assignment asks you to define and investigate the problem space; it does not ask you to propose a fully developed solution. The solution space—the world of products, services, and policies designed to address the problem—is the work that follows from a well-defined problem.

Guidelines and Evaluation

Guidelines for The Project Planner

This is an invention exercise designed to map your research strategy. Rather than an essay, provide a concise response for each of the following prompts. Your total response should be approximately 600–700 words.

1. Context: Where is this happening? Define the “Territory” (Scholarly) or the “Problem Space” (Workplace). Be specific. Name the industry, institution, platform, population, or text type your research focuses on. “Workplaces are adopting new technologies” is a topic. “Large-scale residential property management companies managing maintenance workflows” is a context. A reader who knows nothing about your problem should finish this section with a clear picture of the terrain.

2. Significance: Why does this matter? Explain the value of this research to your specific community or stakeholders. Who benefits from this research? Who is affected if it doesn’t get done? Avoid generic claims — name specific communities, institutions, or populations and explain precisely what is at stake for them.

3. Exigence: What motivates this now? Identify the “Niche” or “Pain Point” in the present tense. Substantiate the urgency with at least one citation — a research study, industry report, policy document, or credible news source. Asserted urgency is not the same as documented urgency.

4. The Research Question: State your research question in one clear, concise sentence. Your question should open an investigation, not prescribe a solution. A question like “How can platforms be redesigned to protect children?” has already assumed the answer — it skips the diagnosis and jumps to the cure. Reframe it: “What design features of existing child-facing platforms fail to protect young users?” That’s a question research can actually answer. If your question contains “how can” or “what should,” ask yourself: what do I need to discover before I can answer that? That discovery is your research question.

5. Methodological Identity: Identify the community most interested in your research question: Creatives, Designers, Empiricists, Interpreters, Pragmatists, Scientists, and Scholars.

Choose one primary community — the one whose epistemological assumptions most directly guide your study. Naming multiple communities simultaneously means none of them is actually guiding your design. Note: Pragmatists are defined by their integration of multiple epistemological perspectives, not simply by the fact that their research addresses real-world problems. If you chose Pragmatists because your topic is practical, reconsider.

6. The Research Strategy: Select specific methods from the Methodological Toolkit below.

Don’t define your methods — design your study. Instead of explaining what interviews are, tell us who you would interview, what you would ask, and why. Instead of describing what corpus analysis does, tell us what corpus you would build and what patterns you would look for. The Protocol will ask you to operationalize these decisions — start making them here.

1. Core: Research Methods | Informal Research Methods | Mixed Research Methods
2. Creative & Design: Creative Methods | Design Research Methods | Design Thinking | Problem Scenarios | Venture Design
3. Workplace & Venture: Business Model Canvas | Customer Discovery | Customer Personas | Problem Space, Solution Space | Problem Definition | Usability & User Experience Research
4. Empirical: Empirical Research Methods | Qualitative Research Methods | Case Study | Interviews | Ethnography | Quantitative Research Methods | Survey Research
5. Scholarly & Analytical: Scholarly Research Methods | Citation Analysis | Genre Analysis | Textual Analysis | Corpus Linguistic Analysis | Rhetorical Analysis | Rhetorical Analysis of Film | Rhetorical Analysis of Images | Rhetorical Analysis in the Real World
   • Critical Lenses: Literary Criticism | Critical Disability Studies | Critical Race Theory | Feminist Criticism | LGBTQ + Criticism | Marxist Criticism | New Historicist Criticism | Post-Colonial Criticism | Post-Structuralist Criticism | Psychological Criticism | Reader-Response Criticism | Russian Formalism/New Criticism | Structuralist Criticism
6. Other

7. Research Ethics

If your study involves human participants, familiarize yourself with the ethical responsibilities researchers have to the people they study. Review the following before writing your Protocol:

• Research Ethics
• Human Subjects Research
• Informed Consent
• IRB (Institutional Review Board)

Note: if your research is workplace problem-solving within your own organization and not intended for publication, IRB review is typically not required. If you are designing a study intended to contribute to scholarly knowledge, consult your institution’s IRB process before collecting data.

---

Guidelines for the Selection Board Review

Post your Project Planner to the Discussion Forum. Act as a funding board: review your classmates’ planners and rank the best project planners 1 through 3.

For Scholarly Path projects, evaluate:

• Territory and Niche. Has the student identified a clear gap or tension in the existing literature?
• Research Question. Is the question specific, researchable, and positioned to contribute new knowledge?
• Methodological Fit. Do the proposed methods align with the epistemological commitments of the chosen community?
• Timeline and Feasibility. What timeframe has the student proposed? Does the scope of the study match that timeline?

For Workplace Path projects, evaluate:

• Problem Definition. Is the problem clearly articulated with identifiable causes, effects, and stakeholders?
• Pain Point. Is there evidence of a real, urgent need—not just an assumed one?
• Problem Space Focus. Is the student investigating the problem rather than jumping to solutions?
• Methodological Fit. Do the proposed methods (e.g., customer discovery, interviews, usability testing) match the goal of understanding stakeholders and context?
• Timeline and Feasibility. What timeframe has the student proposed? Does the scope of the study match that timeline?

For each of your top three, write a brief paragraph (~100 words) explaining your ranking using the criteria above. This practice mirrors grant review panels and editorial boards.

Submission: Post your rankings and justifications as a reply in the Discussion Forum.

---

Guidelines for the Research Protocol

Your Research Protocol operationalizes your Project Planner into a detailed research plan. Each section below should be addressed concisely; your total protocol should be approximately 500 words, not including the Gantt chart or research artifacts.

Your Research Protocol operationalizes your Project Planner into a detailed research plan. Each section below should be addressed concisely; your total protocol should be approximately 800–1,000 words. References, the timeline visualization, and research artifacts (e.g., survey questions, interview scripts, database search parameters) do not count toward the word total.

Protocol Section	Scholarly Path	Workplace Path	Length
Project Summary	Summarize your niche, research question, methods, and expected contribution to knowledge.	Summarize your pain point, investigation goals, methods, and expected impact on practice.	≤150 words
Background & Rationale	Synthesize at least 4 sources establishing your territory and its significance.	Document your stakeholder discovery: who you listened to, who/what you observed, what you learned, what remains unknown.	200–250 words
Study Design	Name your community (Scholars, Creatives, Interpreters, Scientists, etc.) and explain why your research proposal will be of interest to that community, or communities.	Name your community (Developers, Pragmatists, Empiricists, etc.) and explain why this approach fits your problem.	100–150 words
Methodology	What texts, artifacts, or data will you analyze? What research method(s) will you use to investigate your research question? Who will you interview or observe? What questions will you ask?	What texts, artifacts, or data will you analyze? What research method(s) will you use? Who will you interview or observe? What questions will you ask? What prototypes or processes will you test?	150–200 words
Data Management	How will you manage sources and citations? Will you use a tool such as Zotero?	How will you track and organize interview notes, survey responses, observation logs, or AI transcripts?	50–75 words
Timeline	Provide a visual schedule showing when you will complete each phase of the proposed work.	Provide a visual schedule showing when you will complete each phase of the proposed work.	Visual — no word count
Ethics & AI Disclosure	What steps will you take to engage with sources ethically, avoid misrepresentation, and disclose any AI usage in accordance with the Metacognitive Report guidelines?	How will you ensure ethical engagement with participants? How will you ensure accuracy in quotes and paraphrases? Have you disclosed AI usage per the Metacognitive Report guidelines?	75–100 words
Dissemination	Draft your 1-minute video pitch: the gap, the method, the contribution.	Draft your 1-minute video pitch: the problem, the process, the payoff.	75–100 words
References	List all sources cited in APA 7 format.	List all sources cited in APA 7 format.	Not counted toward word total

---

Guidelines for Critique: Merit Ranking & Feedback

In the Selection Board Review exercise, you ranked the Top 3 Project Planners — a quick assessment of which ideas seemed most promising. This critique goes deeper. Now that your peers have developed a substantive draft of their Research Protocol, your task is to provide constructive feedback using the criteria below. Each critique should be approximately 250 words, written in a professional style. Address the memo directly to the author — this is a collegial exchange, not an evaluation for the instructor.

For Basic Research/Scholarly Path protocols:

• Background & Rationale. Does the literature review establish a clear territory and niche? Are sources synthesized or merely summarized?
• Methodology. Is the analytical approach transparent? Do these methods seem like a worthwhile way to investigate the research question?
• Alignment. Do the methods fit the research question and the stated methodological community?
• Timeline. Is the schedule realistic given the scope of the project?
• One Recommendation. What single change would most strengthen this protocol?

For Practioner Research – Workplace Path protocols:

• Background & Rationale. Is there evidence of genuine stakeholder discovery? Does the problem definition identify causes, effects, and stakeholders?
• Methodology. Are the discovery methods clearly described? Do these methods seem like a worthwhile way to investigate the problem?
• Problem Space Focus. Is the student investigating the problem rather than jumping to solutions?
• Timeline. Is the schedule realistic given the scope of the project?
• One Recommendation. What single change would most strengthen this protocol?

Submission:

1. Upload a substantive draft of your Research Proposal to the Canvas Discussion Forum per due date (see above)
2. Using the Discussion Forum, write a rigorous critique to two of your peers’ proposals.
3. Upload to me copies of your two research critiques. Upload copies for me to review for grading by the due date.

---

Guidelines for the Final Research Proposal

You’ve sketched your vision in the Project Planner and operationalized it in the Research Protocol. Now you transform that work into a polished, persuasive narrative. A good proposal tells a story: here’s what we don’t yet know (or what isn’t working), here’s why it matters, here’s how I’ll investigate it, and here’s why I’m the right person to do it.

As Kenneth Bruffee reminds us, joining “the conversation of humankind” requires learning to listen critically before speaking. You have spent this semester learning to listen — analyzing how researchers construct authority, map scholarly conversations, design methods, and critique findings. This proposal is your moment to speak.

Write in first person. This is your proposal—own it.

Length: 1,000-1,200 words (not including References)

Format: Use APA 7 for citations and references. Include your name and word count in the upper left corner.

Finding Your Research Question

Look back at the work you and your peers produced in Modules 1–4. What questions emerged from your rhetorical analyses, literature reviews, methodological maps, or critiques? What gaps did you identify? What debates remain unresolved? Your research proposal is an opportunity to pursue one of those threads — to move from analyzing others’ research to proposing your own.

Your research question should open an investigation, not prescribe a solution. A question like “How can platforms be redesigned to protect children?” has already assumed the answer before the research begins. Reframe it: “What design features of existing child-facing platforms fail to protect young users?” That’s a question your methods can actually answer — and the recommendations follow from what you find. If your question still contains “how can” or “what should,” revise it before you write the proposal.

Required Sections

Section	Guidance
Title	10 words max. Clear, specific, and engaging.
Project Summary	≤250 words. A standalone overview: your niche or problem, your question or goal, your methods, and your expected contribution.
Background & Rationale	Scholarly Path: Synthesize your sources to establish territory, define your niche, and justify the question. Workplace Path: Describe your stakeholder discovery and problem definition—what you learned and what remains unknown.
Methods	Describe your approach step by step—clearly enough that readers understand your process and can assess its rigor. Explain why these methods fit your question and your methodological community. (See Methods options below.)
Timeline	Provide a Gantt chart or week-by-week schedule showing how you will complete the project.
Visualization	Include one visual that clarifies your project—a Gantt chart, a concept map of your research space, or a stakeholder map.
Researcher Biography	50–100 words. Describe the background, coursework, or experience that prepares you to conduct this study. Connect your competencies to your research question.
References	At least six credible sources in APA 7 format. The reference list does not count toward the word limit.

Publication and Audience

Before you write, ask yourself: where would I publish or present these findings, and who is my audience? The answer shapes everything — what counts as evidence, what methods carry authority, and how you frame your contribution. If your work speaks to PTC scholars, the relevant venues include the Journal of Business and Technical Communication (JBTC), Technical Communication Quarterly (TCQ), Journal of Technical Writing and Communication (JTWC), IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication (TPC), and Communication Design Quarterly (CDQ). If your work speaks to a workplace audience — managers, designers, policymakers — what would convince them that your research is rigorous and actionable? Name your audience and write for them.

Methods

You may draw from one or more of the following research traditions we have studied:

• Creative Methods – Imagine, invent. Generate new possibilities through narrative, visual, or artistic expression (for example, a short story, infographic, or video essay exploring human agency in AI).
• Design Research Methods – Prototype, test, refine. Develop and iterate user-informed solutions (for example, redesigning an interface, document, or process using usability feedback).
• Empirical Research Methods – Observe, analyze. Investigate real-world behaviors or systems through systematic observation (for example, survey, readability analysis, content audit).
• Qualitative Research Methods – Understand, empathize. Conduct interviews, focus groups, or discourse analyses to interpret lived experience and rhetorical practice.
• Quantitative Research Methods – Measure, generalize. Use experiments, statistics, or corpus analysis to identify trends and test relationships.
• Mixed Research Methods – Integrate, adapt. Combine qualitative and quantitative approaches to address complex problems (for example, pairing surveys with interviews or textual analysis).
• Scholarly Research Methods – Analyze, interpret, theorize. Use the analytical methods you practiced in Modules 1–4: rhetorical analysis, stylistic analysis, genre analysis, citation analysis, or textual analysis. Review the research questions you and your peers explored in earlier modules—What gaps did you identify? What debates remain unresolved? What questions emerged from your analyses of JBTC, TCQ, or JTWC? Your proposal can extend those inquiries, contributing to ongoing conversations in journals like Journal of Business and Technical Communication (JBTC), Technical Communication Quarterly (TCQ), Journal of Technical Writing and Communication (JTWC), IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication (TPC), and Communication Design Quarterly (CDQ).

Evaluation Criteria

Responsiveness, Significance, and Specificity. Addresses all required sections, including a visualization and a research ethics statement. Articulates a meaningful, well-defined, investigative question or problem — not a prescriptive one. Claims about significance are specific and grounded: named communities, documented stakes, cited evidence. Scholarly Path: uses Swales’ CARS model with appropriate synthesis of sources, not merely a summary list. Workplace Path: provides documented evidence of the problem’s scope — data, stakeholder testimony, industry reports — and identifies causes, effects, and stakeholders specifically.

Methodological Fit and Feasibility. Chooses one primary methodological community and justifies the choice epistemologically — not just practically. Methods are designed, not defined: the proposal explains what will be done, with whom, using what data, analyzed how. The timeline is realistic given the scope.

Clarity and Coherence. Presents a coherent, persuasive narrative with logical flow between sections. The research question, background, methods, and expected contribution form a unified argument. Sources are synthesized, not listed. See Clarity and Coherence.

Ethos and Professional Style. Demonstrates credibility through the researcher biography and the command of relevant literature. Adopts a professional writing style — polished, first-person prose that sounds like you, not like a document generated by AI. Uses APA 7 accurately.

Submission: Upload your Final Research Proposal as a PDF to Canvas. Upload the Metacognitive Report if you used GenAI.

---

Guidelines for Recorded Pitch

This is your final deliverable—the capstone moment where you step into the role of researcher and make your case. Throughout this course, you learned to listen: analyzing how scholars construct authority, how they position their work within ongoing conversations, how epistemologies shape methods, and how to critique research rigor. Now you speak.

A 60-second pitch is harder than it sounds. You have no room for throat-clearing or hedging. Every sentence must earn its place. This constraint mirrors real-world contexts: grant panels where applicants get five minutes, investor pitches where founders get sixty seconds, conference lightning talks where scholars get three slides. The discipline of compression forces clarity.

Structure Your Pitch

Aim for three moves in sixty seconds:

Move	Time	What to Accomplish
The Hook	~15 seconds	Name the gap (Scholarly) or the pain point (Workplace). Why should your audience care? What’s at stake?
The Approach	~30 seconds	Identify your methodological community and explain how you’ll investigate the question. What will you analyze, observe, or build? Why is this the right approach?
The Payoff	~15 seconds	What will we know or be able to do once your research is complete? Who benefits?

Technical Requirements

• Length: 60 seconds maximum. Aim for 55–60 seconds.
• Format: Upload as MP4, MOV, or a shareable link (YouTube, Vimeo, Loom).
• Delivery: Speak directly to camera. You may use brief visuals or slides, but your face and voice should anchor the pitch.
• No reading: You may glance at notes, but do not read a script verbatim. This is a pitch, not a recitation.

Tips

• Practice aloud. What reads well often sounds stilted. Revise for the ear.
• Cut jargon. Imagine pitching to an intelligent colleague outside your field.
• Lead with urgency. Don’t start with “My name is…” or “For my project I’m going to…” Start with the problem.
• End with confidence. Your final sentence should land—don’t trail off.

Evaluation Criteria

• Clarity and Focus. Is the gap or pain point immediately clear? Can the viewer summarize your project after one viewing?
• Methodological Fit. Does the approach make sense for the question? Does the presenter convey why these methods are appropriate?
• Persuasiveness. Does the pitch make the viewer want to know more? Is there a clear payoff?
• Delivery. Is the presenter confident, clear, and engaging? Is the pacing appropriate for the time constraint?

Submission: Upload your video to the same Canvas Dropbox as your Final Research Proposal.

---

Guidelines for the Metacognitive Footnote

For detailed guidance, examples, and the complete list of legitimate AI roles, see Metacognitive Report – AI Writing Ethics: Balancing Agency, Voice & Disclosure.

Your report must include:

1. Header — Beneath your title, record left-justified:

• Word Count / Name / GenAI Tools Used / Chat Log Links

2. GenAI Usage Table(s) — One table per tool with these columns:

• Step in Writing Process (Prewriting, Drafting, Revising, etc.)
• Number of Chats
• Primary Purpose(s) (Thought Partner, Research Assistant, Teaching Assistant, etc.)
• Notes on Use (2–3 sentences: what you asked, what the AI gave you, and whether you accepted, revised, or rejected it — and why)

3. Critical Reflection (minimum 250 words) — Explain:

• Which roles AI played and why
• At least one moment where you rejected or corrected AI output
• How AI helped you learn something you then applied independently
• Where you made decisions AI could not make for you

Submission Guidelines

Upload your report along with your assignment to Canvas by the required due date.

Evaluation Rubric

Criterion	What Earns Full Points
Required components & specificity (header, table(s), chat logs, word count; concrete examples from every major assignment)	Everything present, accurate, and specific — no vague generalities
Critical analysis of agency, iteration, risks, & lessons learned — including explicit discussion of when and why you accepted chunks of AI-generated text, what you changed or kept, and what that choice reveals about your judgment as a writer	Clear references to required readings; honest discussion of how you stayed in control; accepted passages are identified and defended, not just mentioned
Clarity, organization, & authentic voice	Logical flow, concise sentences, error-free PDF; authentic voice evident — writing does not read as AI-generated