Your thesis proposal outlines your research question, planned methodology, and timeline. Committee approval is required before you begin data collection. If your proposal was rejected or received vague feedback ("strengthen your methodology," "lit review is too narrow"), you need to revise strategically. This guide explains the five most common rejection reasons and how to fix them.
Five common proposal rejection reasons
1. Research question is too broad
Committee feedback: "Your research question is too ambitious for a master's thesis." / "You're trying to do too much."
How to fix: Narrow the scope. Instead of "How do online learning platforms affect student achievement?", narrow it: "How does discussion-board interaction in introductory biology online courses affect exam performance?" Add boundaries (course level, subject, platform type, specific outcome).
2. Methodology is underdeveloped
Committee feedback: "Explain how you'll analyze the data." / "Sample size is unclear."
How to fix: Add specifics. Name the statistical test you'll use (t-test, ANOVA, regression); specify sample size and why; define data collection steps precisely (survey platform, interview length, sampling strategy). Be concrete, not vague.
3. Literature review is insufficient
Committee feedback: "You're missing key studies." / "Your review doesn't establish a clear gap in knowledge."
How to fix: Expand the literature review section. Search more databases, find 5–10 additional recent studies, and reorganize to show the gap you're addressing. End the lit review with: "Therefore, this study will investigate [your specific question]."
4. Lack of feasibility
Committee feedback: "How will you access participants?" / "This timeline is unrealistic for a thesis."
How to fix: Prove feasibility. If you need participants, show letters of permission from schools/organizations. If data collection takes months, extend your timeline. If it's not feasible, modify your scope.
5. Unclear contribution
Committee feedback: "What's the significance of this research?" / "Why should anyone care?"
How to fix: Add a significance section. Explain the practical impact (better teaching methods, organizational improvements) or theoretical contribution (extends existing theory, fills a knowledge gap). Connect your research to real-world problems or gaps in knowledge.
Decoding vague feedback
| What committee said | What they mean | How to respond |
|---|---|---|
| "More detail needed" | Something is unclear or underdeveloped | Add specific methods, add paragraph in lit review, expand timeline |
| "Not feasible" | It's unclear how you'll actually do it | Show letters of permission, adjust timeline, reduce scope |
| "Unclear significance" | Why does this matter? | Add section explaining practical/theoretical implications |
Revision timeline
- Minor revisions (feedback on clarity): 1–2 weeks
- Moderate revisions (expand sections, add studies, methods detail): 2–4 weeks
- Major revisions (change research question, reduce scope): 4–8 weeks
Strengthen your proposal
We help you decode committee feedback and revise your proposal for approval.
Get proposal feedbackFAQ
Yes. Many students consult before submitting to avoid rejection. An expert review of your proposal (before committee sees it) can prevent rejection altogether.
1–2 rounds for most proposals. If major changes are needed, it may take 3 rounds. Your chair should let you know if revision is even viable, or if the research direction is fundamentally unfeasible.