CSC申请系列 | 研究计划模板(全英文)

研究计划（RP）是申请CSC中最核心的一环，也是决定你是否能获得外导认可，拿到Invitation的关键。因此，RP需要认真对待。我建议至少提前3个月开始规划RP的写作。RP字数不贪多，5号字体控制在4页左右即可。下面给出RP（以哲学专业为例）的基本结构和每个部分应包含的要点。

Research Proposal

(NAME)

Ⅰ. Introduction

Ⅱ.Objectives

Ⅲ. Methodology and approach

Ⅳ. Work plan and timetable

Ⅴ. References

每个部分应该写什么？下面一一展开说：

Ⅰ. Introduction (what the project is and why it matters)

·Research topic in 1–2 sentences: a precise philosophical question/problem (not just a broad area).

·Literature review (Background + context): what debate/tradition you’re entering (e.g., virtue ethics, philosophy of mind, social epistemology).

·Research gap: what’s missing/unclear in existing discussions; what you’ll add (a new argument, framework, comparison, critique).

·Significance: why it matters philosophically (conceptual clarity, resolving a dilemma) and, if relevant, practically (ethics/politics/tech).

·Key concepts: define 2–4 central terms the way you’ll use them.

·Scope + limits: what you will and won’t cover (authors, period, language, case focus).

·Optional fit sentence: why this topic fits the host supervisor/department (1–2 lines).

·Main research question (one clear question).

·2–4 sub-questions that break the main question into manageable parts.

·Expected contribution/claim: the thesis you aim to defend (even if tentative).

·Outputs: e.g., “one dissertation chapter on X,” “a comparative analysis,” “a normative framework,” “a publishable article draft.”

·Evaluation criteria: what counts as success (a defended argument, a clarified concept, a resolved objection).

Pick what genuinely matches your project; briefly justify.

·Textual analysis / close reading: which primary texts; how you’ll interpret them; how you handle translation/commentaries.

·Argument reconstruction: extract arguments, formalize where helpful, test validity/soundness, map objections/replies.

·Conceptual analysis: clarify concepts, necessary/sufficient conditions, counterexamples, thought experiments.

·Comparative approach: compare two philosophers/traditions; specify comparison axis (method, concept, normativity).

·Normative theory-building: state your ethical/political framework; how you weigh reasons; how you address counterarguments.

·Interdisciplinary angle (if any): how you’ll use empirical work (cogsci, law, AI) as input without replacing philosophical argument.

·Originality plan: where your new move is (new distinction, synthesis, critique, application to a novel case).

·Risks + mitigation: e.g., “too broad → restrict to X texts,” “concept disputed → adopt working definition + defend it.”

Lay it out by months/semesters with concrete deliverables.

·Stage 1: Literature mapping (e.g., Months 1–3): annotated bibliography; refine questions; draft outline.

·Stage 2: Core argument development (Months 4–8): write Chapter/Section 1–2; present to seminar; revise.

·Stage 3: Objections + extensions (Months 9–12): write response chapter; add case study/comparison.

·Stage 4: Full draft + polishing (final months): complete full draft; supervisor feedback cycles; final revisions. Include:

·Milestones: proposal refinement, chapter drafts, conference presentation, submission.

·Weekly rhythm (optional): reading/writing split to show feasibility.

·Primary sources (the philosophers/texts you’ll analyze).

·Key secondary literature (recent and “classic” must-cite works).

·Balance: not too long; aim for relevance and coverage of major positions.

·Style consistency: use one format (Chicago author-date, APA, MLA) and be consistent.

·Recency signal: include some last 5–10 years scholarship where appropriate.