PREPARING FOR PROPOSAL DEFENCE

Proposed Defence refers to a legitimate process organized by the researcher's institution to assess whether the researchers plan of finding valid solutions to the proposed research question(s) holds academic merit.

The Proposal Defense Panel refers to a committee or group of people (usually staff of an institution of higher learning) appointed to vet or examine in their own capacity but on behalf of the institution, whether a given proposal(s) meet the fundamental proposal requirements of the institution, whether the research problem is researchable, whether the proposal is complete and whether it holds academic merit.

The proposal defense is usually composed of academic staff of an institution with expertise in the researcher's area of the research, the panel usually includes;

• Professors, Associate Professors, Doctors and other research doyens,
• A team of the panel secretariat and
• In some institutions the researcher's supervisor(s) are invited as ex-officials to the panel.

The quantitative size of the panel depends on the institutions policy and resources.

This depends entirely on the policy of the researchers' institution. However, institutions are guided by two main policies which include; the Fixed Dates System and the Flexible Dates System.

Some institutions fix specific dates within every academic year for proposal defense. The proposal defense panel will handle students that are ready for defense on a given pre-determined date and in case a student misses out on a given proposal defence sitting then he waits for a future data which is already known.

In this case, the researchers' institution does not have predetermined dates when proposals will be defended but they react to demand, the proposal defence panel will always be invited whenever there are proposal(s) submitted for defence. In this case the researcher will be informed the date of proposal defence on submission of his/her complete proposal to the school/college/department.

The mode of presenting the research proposal to the proposal defence panel significantly depends on the researcher's institutions policy. However, there are 2 main methods of presentations commonly used by institutions of higher learning. These include;

• Verbal presentation without PowerPoint slides. This is where the researcher is supposed to make his/her proposal defense only through a speech without a PowerPoint presentation to guide his/her deliberations.
• Verbal presentation with a PowerPoint slide. This where the researcher is allowed to make his/her proposal defence through a speech guided by a PowerPoint presentation. In this case, the researcher will be informed on time to prepare the PowerPoint slides and usually a laptop, project and any other supportive device will be provided on the day of the proposal defence.

The time allocated to an individual researcher to defend his or her proposal varies from Institution to Institution. However, the standard time allocated is usually;

• Five (5) to Ten (10) minutes for the researcher to make his/her presentation.
• Twenty (20) to Thirty (30) minutes for cross-examination and response. However, in some cases the panel may use less than that time or even far more than the 30 minutes during cross-examination, but those are outlier cases.
• Two (2) to Three (5) minutes for the panel to make its decision and communicate its decision with a brief justification and guidance to the researcher. The full report is usually delivered by the secretariat of the panel at a future date usually communicated to the student.

In case the researchers' Institution calls for option (ii) of the forms of presentation during proposal defense. Then the researcher should inquire from his/her institution whether they have a standard format of the PowerPoint presentation and the number of the slides. But, if no standard is provided, then students should be informed that since they are usually allocated limited time for presentation, they should organize a maximum of 15 slides.

This slide should include your topic of study, the researchers name, registration number and the supervisor(s) name.

This should provide a brief background to the study and introduce the panel.

This should be a brief statement of the researcher's problem

This slide should provide both the general objective, specific objectives of the study, research questions and the tentative answers to the questions (Hypothesis).

The researcher should provide a diagrammatic representation of the relationship between his/her study variables. Please include the Title, Labels (Independent and Dependent Variables), arrows (showing the direction of influence) and the source of the conceptual framework.

Briefly provide the importance of your study

Provide a synopsis or summary of your literature review and briefly introduce the theory (ies) underpinning the researchers study.

This may cover slide 8 and 9. Briefly provide the Research Design, the sample size and Sampling design, the data collection methods, pre-test of instruments, Data analysis and as well as the ethical considerations of the study.

Use this slide to thank the panel for this noble opportunity, "write this section in your own words". You may choose to use a photo that communicates your message or write a brief message thanking the panel but as well instilling hope in the panel that you're ready for the next step which is data collection, endeavor to be politely persuasive.

The researcher should prepare for six (6) different series or six (6) different but continuous hearings of the same defence within the allocated time frame. These sessions include;

This is the first session of any proposal defence sitting. In this session the panel briefly introduces itself to the candidate and the candidate is expected to briefly introduce him/herself to the panel as well.

I encourage candidates to take this session very serious since it helps the candidates to know the team s/he is going to present to and their level of authority in the area. The candidate should note the names and titles of the panel members, in case you cannot recall their names at least recall their titles as this may be helpful while referring to them individually during the cross-examination session. On the other hand recalling the panelists names or titles may depict a high level of conceptualization skills by the candidate and as well eliminates bias but in a situation where you are not sure of their names and titles (you do not recall) please concentrate on responding to the questions since miss quoting someone's name or a title (referring to a Professor as a Doctor) may annoy some and develop bias.

Immediately after the introduction, the chairperson of the panel gives the researcher an opportunity to briefly present an abstract of his/her research proposal, usually in a period less than Ten (10) minutes to. Ensure that you start off immediately and avoid wasting time in unnecessary details. Be precise, audible enough and organized throughout your presentation. The chairperson or appointed Chief Whip will continuously warn you about the remaining time, let that not switch you off or make you panic. In case you need an extra 1 (one) minute or 2 (two) to conclude, boldly request for it through the chairperson. Remember, you're dealing with fellow humans not computers or robots which are just mere programmed to perform.

This is the session that researchers fear most. However, wish to encourage you that this is the most interesting session. Simply because all questions that will be asked are from within your work, therefore the researcher should regard this as a session to show the panel that s/he is ready, vividly and vehemently informed about the research.

When it's time for questions from the panel; get a pen and paper, ensure that you note down all questions, comments and complements being raised. Avoid showing off before the panel, where they ask questions and make suggestions for improvement but you just continue looking at them pretending or posturing to be bright with a very sharp memory that can save all that is being said.

In this session the candidate responds to questions but with some interruptions inform of counter Questions from panel members (where applicable)

The researcher is usually given close to Five (5) minutes to respond to questions that have been raised by the panel members, however the time allocated for the response usually depends on the number of questions asked and magnitude of questions or weight of the questions.

The researcher's response can easily be refused or nullified by any of the panel members and guided where necessary or requested to go and do further research in a bid to improve his/her research proposal. A good researcher therefore keeps recording all emerging ideas and pledges to improve where it's due. But this being your research, where you do not agree with a member of panel, you can choose to politely differ by presenting a counter argument though this should be done tactfully without offending or biasing the panel member(s) or the whole committee.

Immediately after session 4, the candidate is requested to move out of the committee room so that the panel can have some privacy to discuss the presentation and harmonize their position with regards to the general presentation of the candidate.

The panel therefore confidentially discusses and agrees on a given position.

This period of going into privacy for both the panel and the candidate is one of the most worrying sessions of the entire process. One can easily compare it to a person waiting for his/her HIV/AIDS results, even when you are sure of negative (-ve) or positive (+ve) results, you will be worried of the HIV/AIDS results after a given test. Therefore even if you gave the panel your best, you will still be worried about the results.

• The student passes without any correction. Implying that there are no typographical error and technical errors in the document.
• The student passes with minor corrections to rectify. In this case the panel will list all the minor corrections cited by members of the panel and provide them to the secretariat to be included in the final report.
• The student passes but with major corrections to rectify. The panel will still provide a detailed collection of these issues.
• The student has failed. Because there is need for reviewing additional literature or improving the whole methodology of the research or alternatively improving the entire proposal (here the student starts a fresh)
• The student has failed. Because s/he did not totally comply with the fundamental proposal requirements of the awarding institution.
• The student has failed. Because his/her research is not addressing a researchable problem. Therefore the panel may outrightly reject the proposal and recommend that;
  • The student changes his or her topic
  • The student changes his/her topic and as well as be assigned a new supervisor(s)

This is another worrying session of the entire proposal defense sessions. However good a candidate may have presented, they will always be worried of the outcomes of this session.

After session 5 above, the panel invites back the candidate and briefs him/her about the results and its decision with a brief justification but informs the candidate that s/he will find the details in the final report compiled by the secretariat. After declaration of the panel's decision some candidates celebrate, others cry and some are not moved among other reactions.

Most students tend to give in little efforts as they tend towards proposal defense assuming that it will be a walk-over since they have a good proposal and besides that their supervisors have already given them a go ahead. That's a very wrong mentality that must be change. "Proposal defense is a Project of its", you need to invest time, resources and quality (the triple constraints) otherwise you may face allot of challenges during the process of defence. I always advise students to prepare for a proposal defense the same way they prepare for an exam, job interview, a consultancy opportunity, a GMAT test, a TOEFL or ILETS among others. Please do not take a proposal defense for granted.

Things you must do as you prepare for proposal defense include;

• Structure your presentation very well. Before you go for the proposal defense, ensure that your presentation is well arranged and organized with all the relevant information and slides and you just receive them in the morning as you are going for the defense.
• Comprehensively read your document /do thorough research. Before you go for the proposal defense, ensure that you robustly read your research proposal from chapter one to chapter three, know all corners of your document to avoid embarrassments. Being conversant with your research proposal gives you more confidence to face the panel.
• Prepare your PowerPoint slides (where applicable) on time. To avoid last minute pressure and being disorganized ensure that you prepare your PowerPoint slides at least 5 days before the Proposal Defence day in case you need slides and in case you were informed on time. Avoid wanting for the last minute to start panicking. Failing is directly proportional to poor planning.
• Be smart. As you prepare for proposal defence, concentrate on preparing two aspects of you; first is the mental smartness and the second is the Physical smartness. Mental smartness is your ability to freely and objectively respond to any question raised by the panel unlike as Physical smartness which deals with your appearance. I always encourage researchers to prepare a good suit for the day, be dressed to defend not dressed to fail. Let the panel become positively biased from the very start, if one of their area of assessment is smartness at least score that before you even make your presentation. Being physically and mentally smart will always give the researcher extra positive confidence which is fuel for success in this case.
• Take enough rest the day before. The day before proposal defense, ensure that you sleep a little bit early and have enough sleep, this enables you to have a very productive day and you will remain sober and effective. Researchers must be informed that the panel may meet to listen to more 5 candidates on a given day, therefore if you did not have enough sleep the day before, your turn may reach when your dozing which in turn affects the quality of your presentation.
• Put yourself in the listeners (Panelists) shoes. If you don't appreciate yourself, then do not expect anyone else to appreciate you. It's important that before you meet the proposal defense panel you ensure that you are beyond reasonable doubt convinced by yourself.
  Note that: "If you cannot convince yourself, then you cannot convince anyone else".
• Test it out / Rehearse while timing yourself. You should endeavor to find a colleague that has interest in you and make a timed presentation before him/her. In case you fail to find one do it before your spouse and children or before yourself in the mirror or even in an open space. Succeeding at this level becomes your first step to success during the actual proposal defense and failing at this level becomes your first step to fail and falling at this level becomes your first step to improve before the actual proposal defense. Therefore, either way you will still win by testing it out or rehearsing.
• Arrive at the proposal defense venue as early as possible. The proposal defense panel should never by any chance wait for you to start, this becomes the first step to failure. Always endeavor to arrive at the proposal defense venue at least 30 minutes before the agreed time. Arrive and relax, interact with people around, this will enable you to calm down and gain confidence.
• Take a back-up of your presentation. Very many students have been disappointed by computer viruses, thieves, lost flash disks, computers that have crushed and unsaved PowerPoint presentations. The devil attacks and disrupts always ensure that you have a back-up of your presentation either on an extra flash disk, have your presentation on your email account, watsup or even save it twice on the same laptop. Adopting any of the back-up approaches may save you during a tragic moment.
• Build rapport with your presentation. The more familiar you are with your material, the more the confidence, the better the connection and the more thorough you will be during the presentation. But above all, building a connection with your presentation reduces on the unethical behavior of most presenters where they read each and everything directly from the PowerPoint presentation.

This section provides the main reasons why Institutions prepare proposal defenses rather than just letting the researcher to proceed for data collection, analysis, presentation and interpretation. Knowing the fundamental reasons why your institution organizes for proposal defence will enable you as a researcher to attach more value to the whole process and as well appreciate its relevance.

The core reasons why your Institution organizes for proposal defence include;

• To show that your work holds academic merit. Proposal defenses are organized to assess whether your proposal is coherent, well thought through, depicts evidence of higher-order thinking skills and has the ability to express the research problem clearly using the appropriate scholarly language.
• Whether the researcher has fulfilled the proposal requirements. Every institution has a standard format of its research proposals and therefore researchers must always comply with those basic requirements. In this spirit, institutions organize proposal defense sessions to assess whether a given proposal meets the basic requirements of the institutions research proposal guidelines. These requirements range from the structure of the proposal, the quantity of the proposal (usually 25 pages maximum), the preliminary pages, the pagination, the citations, the referencing style (whether APA, Harvard, Chicago, MLA among others) and appendicies,
• Policy of the Institution. Proposal defence is organized not because the institution does not trust their staff (Supervisors) but because it's a policy of the Institution or a legal requirement within the institution. Implying that the researcher must pay maximum attention since failure to adhere may result into failure to proceed with your research and you pass that level of proposal defence.
• To confirm readiness of the researcher. Proposal defence is organized to ascertain whether a given researcher is prepared and ready enough for the field or the next step of the research process which is usually data collection. Therefore in this case it's entirely the role of the researcher to convince the panel that he/she is ready for the next step.
• It's a form of examination. Proposal defence panels award marks, make decisions and it's the basis of failing or passing a researcher. Therefore proposal defence is usually organized to examine a scholar's / researcher's performance and make a valid decision whether to allow him/her pass or fail that level of his/her research. Basing on this reason, I encourage researchers to invest more efforts in preparing for proposal defence

The proposal defense panel is not interested in a single issue and there is no standard checklist of what a proposal defence panel may be interested in, therefore their interests may vary from Institution to Institution, Faculty to Faculty, School to School, College to College or Department to Department. This literature provides a general view of what maybe the interest of an ideal proposal defence panel.

Interests of a proposal defence panel include;

• Correctness of your document. The panel is interested in the extent to which your document is free of minor errors (typing errors) and major errors (methodological errors). Therefore ensure that you as much as possible minimize or totally do away with typing errors and methodological errors
• Your presentational skills. The proposal defense panel is interested in how you present publically; do you engage the panel, do you use both verbal and non-verbal communication, are your slides well organized and relevant, and are you presenting facts or lies. Please endeavor to work on your presentational skills.
• Ownership of your work and whether it's not plagiarized. The panel is interested in knowing whether you are the true author of this research proposal or whether you hired someone to compile it for you. Therefore, it's entirely your responsibility to prove beyond reasonable doubt that this is your work and you are the true author of this document. Therefore while presenting use (I not we - Singular not Plural)
• Your knowledge in the area. The panel is interested in the researcher's acquaintance with facts regarding the study area, research problem and the variables.
• Whether your literature review is current and original. The proposal defence panel is interested in the literature reviewed by the researcher most especially the relevance of the literature reviewed, the correctness and originality of the reviewed literature, the relevant citations made and the facts that the researcher did not dwell on outdated literature on the subject matter.
• Researchers understanding of the methodology. The panel is interested in knowing whether the researcher is well versed with the set of methods laid down in his or her proposal. These range from research design adopted, the sampling design, methods, sample size determination methods, the data collection methods and instruments, methods of pretesting the instruments and as well as suggested data analysis methods. The researcher must be well versed with these methods since they are basis of the next step
• Connection between the document (proposal and the candidate). The panel will always ask probing questions with an interest of assessing the correlation between the document and researcher, remember correlation coefficient ranges between +1 and -1, therefore in case the correlation between you and your document is found to be less than 0.4 meaning that there is a weak positive correlation between the document and the researcher, the panel may fail you, if the correlation is 0 (Zero) meaning that there is totally no relationship between the document and the researcher, the panel will fail you, if the correlation is in negatives meaning that the researcher and the document are taking totally different directions, there is an inverse relationship, the panel will still fail you. Therefore the candidate's responses will always inform the panel's decisions, whether there is a strong positive relationship between the document and the candidate or not.
• Assurance that you are ready for the next step. No single institution would wish to release a premature candidate to the field since "the quality of the candidate depicts the quality of his/her institution" they are directly proportional. Therefore the field is power to convince the panel that you're ready for the field is held completely by you as a candidate or is vested in the researcher.
• Whether your proposal complies with the institutions research proposal guidelines. The proposal defence panel will examine the researcher's proposal with regards to the institutions research proposal guidelines and score its performance based on the guidelines. Knowing the interests of the panel will enable the researcher to adjust his/her document with regards to the proposal checklist of the institution.
• The candidate's confidence. Just like a job interview panel, and any other panel assessing competence of an individual, one of the interests would be the candidate's confidence. The same applies to a proposal defence panel; one of its main interests is the researcher's confidence with regards to his or her study. However, candidates must note that too much confidence is bad "too much of anything is bad" and false confidence is equally abominable".

These are strategies that researchers preparing for proposal defence must adopt if they are emerge winners.

The tactics candidates must adopt include;

• Be practical throughout your presentation. Ensure that your presentation is continuously linked to your final products or results and continuously show the usefulness of each section of the proposal that you present
• Use scholarly language. In case your study is in the field of economics please do not write your research proposal in English, let it be in economists language. You should show knowledge and devotion to academic pursuits; this shows your level of academic maturity.
• Be politely persuasive. You should respectfully and indirectly through your presentation and responses to the questions raised by the panel, convince the panel to believe that you are ripe enough to go for next step
• Be confident. You need to be positive and show self-confidence from the start up to the end. Avoid panicking and showing the panel that you are not sure of what you are actually presenting
• Use both verbal and non-verbal communication. As long as you are not deaf, then prepare to speak to the panel, avoid unnecessary breaks as you transition from one slide to another. Therefore ensure that you maximize your time. Endeavor to use a lot of non-verbal communication since you are not "an electricity pole" or "a statue". Use sufficient body language, gestures, facial expressions, eye gaze and appearance to communicate effectively to the panel.
• Show willingness to learn. Much as you are facing the panel as a researcher, always have it behind your mind that you are a student. That will enable you to remain remorseful, subordinate where it's due, calm and willing to learn. Avoid being so rigid with what you think is true, be flexible and show willingness to learn from the panel. This does not render you a weak candidate but it rather qualifies you to a better researcher that is always willing to explore new avenues in life.
• Your presentation should be precise and to the point. Most people concentrate on quantity and ignore quality, yet these two concepts must move hand in hand. Researchers should organize slides of the required quantity but at the same time of a very high quality. Then from the saying "Great talkers are great liars", avoid too much unnecessary details but rather concentrate on the basics of the presentation in an abstract manner.

Researchers must be informed that the proposal defence panel has the authority to direct that;

• The researcher proceeds to the field for data collection.
• The researcher first improves the research proposal in specific areas before s/he proceeds to the field for data collection
• The researcher changes topic usually when the topic is found un-researchable.
• Change topic and the researcher be given a new supervisor if they deem it necessary.
• Overhaul the entire research proposal and re-submit for defence.

Being "forewarned is being forearmed", no single researcher should ever expect to face an interview panel and live without being asked at least a single question. However good the researcher's presentation maybe, the panel will always find questions to ask during an interview panel.

Researchers must note that other than the standard questions usually asked during the proposal defense, most questions arise directly from the researcher's presentation. These questions normally range from; Who, How, When, Where and What, all about your research.

Examples of questions that may be asked by the panel may include;

• What is your topic? Why don't you change it to......?
• Briefly explain your problem?
• What are your Independent Variables (IV's) and Dependent variables (DV)? Why did you choose those specific IV's? and How did you operationalize them?
• What's the theory underpinning your study? What's the linkage between the theory and your study? Why did you choose this specific theory? How does the theory state?
• What's the significance of your study?
• What are the controversial areas of your study?
• Have you read about related studies to your study? Like which one?
• Is your study qualitative or quantitative or triangulation of both? Why?
• Justify the choice of your research design?
• Explain the choice of your data collection methods?
• How will you pretest your instruments?
• How will you analyze qualitative data?
• How will you analyze quantitative data?
• Which challenges do you anticipate to face during the study and how will you overcome them?
• Explain the ethical issues you will put into consideration and how?

Those among many other questions may be asked during a proposal defence session. Therefore the researchers must prepare well to avoid embarrassments

These are things that researchers must endeavor to do during any proposal defence.

They include;

• Make eye contact with members of the panel, this is a sign of confidence by the presenter and a sign of intellectual maturity. Avoid presenting while facing down or facing the projector screen.
• Engage the panel, while delivering your presentation endeavor to talk to your penal not the slides. You must have the capacity to realize that the panel is now bored or they are not convinced with what am saying among other such observations.
• Own your work, while presenting endeavors to refer to yourself in singular not plural. Whether you consulted a lot of people during the compilation of your work or whether the proposal was compiled by someone else, always refer to yourself and own all good thing and bad things about your work.
• Use both verbal and non-verbal communication, during proposal defence and endeavor to speak to your audience or the panel as much as possible. Use all forms of non-verbal communication such gestures where necessary, smile and body movements (do not stand in one place like a statue).
• Deliver your presentation within provided time, researchers must note that "time management is part of any exam", therefore failure to manage time may lead to lose of points, annoying some panel members and development of bias among some panel members, most especially when a candidate is just forced to stop after several warnings. Therefore, plan for your time as much as possible.
• Listen attentively and note down emerging issues, some researchers make a common mistake of not going with a note-book and pen during proposal defence. You should always not all emerging issues and this depicts a sign of willingness to learn and avoid pretending to be so bright that you don't need to record the proceedings.
• Respect the panel; you must at all times respect the panel, their decisions and directions. If you are told to listen do not over argue with the panel. You may raise your case but in case you are not sure about your input, then accept and go back resea or improve. Be respectful at all times.
• Keep your audience from checking out. Always ensure th your story is consistent, relevant and precise to avoid losing th audience during your very long and uncoordinated stories with lot of irreverent information. Too long stories are usually a sign gambling.
• Answer questions honestly and concisely, a proposal defen panel is not like a class where learners ask to learn and acquir new knowledge. In a proposal defence panel experts are asking to confirm, test your understanding and seek clarification wher necessary, therefore avoid using essay's to respond to simpl questions. Be precise and vivid enough, if you don't know, it's no a crime, since you're standing before the panel in the capacity a student and a researcher; therefore it's not an offense that you don't know something but show willingness to learn. Beside know single individual has a monopoly over knowledge.

These are things that researchers must always avoid during proposal defence. Doing any of these can easily cost the researcher

These include;

• Avoid having too wordy and congested slides. You shoul always desist from compiling a Powerpoint slide with a "fores of words". This not only disgusts the panel members but als affects the presenter since you're at times forced to rea directly from the slides.
• Avoid being too defensive. This is a challenge faced by mos researchers; you tend to always be defensive even when you are in the wrong, even when you are not sure of what yo earlier said. Always remember that no single individual perfect and no one is an angle knowing that will enable you smoothly proceed and concede where need arises. Uninforme arguments with the panel will always cost the candidate.
• Avoid reading word by word during presentation. Y should always keep it in mind that you have only 5 minute 10 minutes, therefore you are supposed to present a synops of your proposal not irrelevant details. Reading word by w will not only bore the panel but will as well portray you as a mediocre/armature researcher.
• Avoid being so emotional and personal. Some of the statements made during the session may not amuse you, please don't take them personal. Some questions that are usually asked may not be in your favor; please don't be governed by your emotions while responding. The panel is at times interested in assessing whether you're ready to interact with the public during data collection.
• Avoid using too much time. Too much of anything is bad, therefore delivering your presentation over and above the allocated time may tantamount to unpreparedness which may force the panel to send you back to prepare and come back again when you're more ready and prepared.
• Avoid unnecessary details. Usually before the proposal defense panel is organized, the panelist receive your proposal at least 1 (one) week earlier for examination. Therefore, you don't need to go into unnecessary details that may cost your time and may also lead to important points being absorbed by less relevant details.
• Avoid being Mr. / Mrs. "I know it all" or "Right all the Time". Thinking that you're a class above everyone is wrong and may cost your success. This is not typical of academicians since we assume that learning is a conditions process. Therefore, assuming that you know it all is a very wrong and ignorant perception that you must desist from.
• Avoid preparing MS Word Documents instead of PowerPoint slides. This is a mistake made by some researchers who ignorantly prepare a word document to be used for presentation. Please comply with the requirements of the institution, in case you cannot organize slides. Please seek for assistance but avoid taking a word document as your presentational tool. Your opportunity to present may easily be cancelled and sent back to prepare for the next arrangement.
• Don't leave anything to chance. You should endeavor to leave no stone unturned, make a summarized presentation but detailed in terms of coverage as compared to a detailed presentation but limited in terms of coverage
• Don't be ruled by fear of making mistakes; don't assume to be perfect, no single individual is perfect. Fear to make mistakes will lead you into lying and lead you into more complex questions from the panel, leading you into more tying and resultantly leading you into failing the defence.
• Avoid having too many slides. You should always first count how many slides you have and compare with the available time for the entire presentation. Divide the total amount of time by the number of slides to get the unit time per slide but remember some slides possess core information about the study and may require quite more time than others. Therefore, the lesser the unit time per slide the more risky it becomes. Thus, you should endeavor to have a manageable number of slides (8 to 12 slides).
• Avoid overuse of effects and transitions. Use of too many effects and transition makes the PowerPoint slides more bulky and time consuming since some effects and transitions require a few seconds as you cross from one slide to another but on the other hand, this may be boring to some people though some may enjoy it and consider it as being creative but generally its time consuming.

Researches must be informed that not all presenters will pass/ excel through the proposal defence panel. Several scholars have been force by circumstances to face the same panel more than once while as others have dropped out of the research process due to failure to pass proposal defence.

Some of the reasons for failing a proposal defence include;

• Inadequate Preparation, with no doubt most of the students that have failed to defend their proposals have been affected by gambling during the proposal defence and failure to present your work, failure to respond to even the simples and question asked by the panel. Therefore researchers must always prepare well for proposal defense.
• Lack of knowledge about the necessary details, much as you're supposed to present an abstract of your research proposal, you should know all the details about your proposal. In case the document was prepared by a third party which I always discourage researchers to do, than you should at least be oriented about details of the document. However, the panel will always know whether it's your original document or not.
• Failure to comply with institutions policies. However good your proposal may be, as long as it doesn't meet the basic requirements of the researcher's institution, then you're likely to fail proposal defence. I therefore encourage researcher(s) to follow their institution's proposal writing policies.
• Lack of knowledge about the basics, if the researcher is asked basic questions and he/she cannot freely respond to them, there are chances that he/she will fail the proposal defence. For example if asked random;
  • What is your research topic? And you don't remember it
  • What are your study variables? You don't remember them
  • What are your objectives of the study? You only remember one out of three (1/3)
  • What's your sample size? And you don't know.
  Among other such basic questions then you are highly likely to fail the proposal defence
• Panic, researchers usually tend to develop a sudden overwhelming fear which may cause them to wrongly answer questions or suddenly became scared which may affect their performance, hence failure.
• Reading everything directly from the projector screen. Researchers must desist from this habit, with no doubt the panel may be convinced that the researchers work holds academic merit but the panel may consider you as not being ready and therefore may decide to send you back to prepare and come back when you're ready enough.
• Substandard work, some supervisors tend to be too busy for their supervisee's and as a result, the supervisor signs the student to proceed for proposal defence but when in actual sense the proposal is of a very poor quality. In this case the proposal defence panel may observe this and decide to fail the student.
• Failing to make it on time for the proposal defence, this will automatically be considered as a failure and the candidate will be advised to consider applying for the next or subsequent proposal defence.
• Lack of focus, the researcher is supposed to demonstrate how his or her proposal will enable him/her to conduct the study but in a situation where the researcher fails to objectively illustrate this, the panel may easily fail him/her.
• Failure to demonstrate that the topic is researchable, sometimes the researchers may totally fail to justify the need for the study and the fact that their topic is researchable. In this case the researcher may be sent back to review more literature or go and identify a researchable problem.