Overview
Choosing a topic is the decision that shapes every chapter that follows. Students often arrive with an interest that is too broad ("leadership in healthcare"), a gap that is really just an untested location ("no one has studied this in my country"), or a design that needs data they cannot access. Examiners notice all three, usually in the introduction and methodology.
Our support works from your interests, your program's rules and your practical constraints. We map the recent literature with you, look for the kind of gap you can credibly claim, and pressure-test candidate topics for feasibility before you invest months in them. The output is a short list of options with honest trade-offs, a working title that signals scope, and a concept note in your words that you can take to your supervisor.
You make the choice and write the concept note; we give structured feedback, suggest reading, and ask the questions a supervisor or proposal panel will ask.
Who it’s for and the problems it solves
This is for you if you are…
- Undergraduate and master's students who must submit a topic or title form by a fixed date
- PhD applicants and new doctoral researchers turning an idea into a researchable project
- Students whose supervisor has said a topic is "too broad", "not original enough" or "not feasible"
- Part-time and professional-doctorate students who want a topic rooted in their workplace that is still academically defensible
- Researchers writing in English as an additional language who want help expressing a gap precisely
Common problems we help with
- You have several interests and cannot tell which one could become a dissertation
- Your gap statement relies on "little research exists" without showing why that absence matters
- The topic depends on data, participants or organizational access you may not get
- Your working title is either a whole field or so narrow it hides the contribution
- You need a concept note or topic approval form and do not know what supervisors look for
What’s included — and what isn’t
Included
- An initial conversation about your interests, program requirements, deadline, and access to data or participants
- Guided literature scoping: recent review articles, meta-analyses and theses to map what is known
- Gap analysis using recognized gap types (empirical, contextual, methodological, theoretical, and contradictory findings)
- Discussion of problematization as an alternative to gap-spotting when your field rewards challenging assumptions
- Feasibility assessment of each candidate topic: time, word count, data access, ethics, skills and software
- Title development: testing working titles for scope, key variables or phenomena, population and design
- Feedback on your supervisor-ready concept note (usually one to three pages) across up to two drafts
- A list of likely supervisor or panel questions about the topic, so you can prepare answers
Not included
- Choosing the topic for you or supplying a finished, ready-to-submit proposal — you decide and write it
- Inventing or overstating a gap by ignoring studies that already answer your question
- Promising that a supervisor, panel or admissions committee will approve the topic
- Arranging organizational access, gatekeeper permission or ethics approval on your behalf
What you receive
- Literature map
- A structured summary of the key recent reviews and studies in your area, grouped by theme and method, showing where the evidence is thin, conflicting or dated.
- Topic options memo
- Two to four candidate topics, each with the gap it addresses, a likely design, data needs and a feasibility rating with reasons.
- Title workshop notes
- Your working titles with comments on scope, clarity and keyword choice, plus alternative phrasings to consider.
- Concept note feedback
- Tracked comments and a summary on your concept note draft, focused on the problem, gap, questions, design and contribution.
- Supervisor question list
- Anticipated questions about originality, feasibility and contribution, with prompts to help you prepare your answers.
How it works
Intake
You tell us your program, deadline, interests, any topic list your department provides, and practical constraints such as workplace access or language of data.
Scoping the field
We identify recent syntheses and landmark studies with you, and agree which databases and keywords to use so you can continue searching independently.
Gap and feasibility review
Candidate topics are compared on the strength of the gap and on feasibility. We are candid when a favored idea is unlikely to work at your level or within your timeline.
Concept note drafting
You draft the concept note or topic form; we return comments on logic, scope and wording, then review a second draft.
Supervisor preparation
A short session to rehearse how you will present the topic and respond to likely questions.
Frameworks we use to find and test a topic
- Gap typology
- Distinguishing empirical gaps (a question not yet answered), contextual gaps (a setting where results may genuinely differ), methodological gaps (a design weakness in prior work), theoretical gaps (an explanation not yet tested or extended) and disagreement gaps (conflicting findings).
- Problematization
- Following Sandberg and Alvesson's critique of gap-spotting, identifying an assumption the literature takes for granted and asking what happens if it does not hold. Useful for PhD work and theory-driven fields.
- Limitations and future-research mining
- Reading the limitations and further-research sections of recent studies and reviews systematically, then checking whether those suggestions have since been addressed.
- Feasibility screen
- Checking data access, sample availability, ethics risk, time per stage, required methods skills and software, and fit with the word limit.
- Contribution statement test
- Completing the sentence "By the end of this study we will know … which matters because …" to see whether the topic has a clear payoff.
Why "not studied in my country" is rarely enough
A contextual gap is legitimate, but examiners will ask why the new setting should change the answer. Strong contextual gaps name the feature of the setting that matters: a different regulatory regime, a different cultural norm, a different stage of market development or a population that prior samples excluded.
We help you articulate that mechanism, or recognize when a replication in a new setting is the honest framing. Replication can be valuable, especially at undergraduate and master's level, as long as it is presented as such.
Gap-spotting versus problematization
Most dissertations justify themselves by pointing to something missing in the literature. That is gap-spotting, and it works well for many projects. Problematization takes a different route: it questions an assumption underpinning existing research, for example that engagement is always individual, or that a policy is implemented as written.
Problematization tends to produce more interesting doctoral contributions but requires deeper engagement with theory. We help you decide which route suits your level, field and supervisor's expectations.
Feasibility checks before commitment
Many projects fail quietly at the access stage. Before you finalize a topic, we check the questions that derail dissertations months later: can you get the dataset or participants, how long will ethics review take, do you need a method you have not learned yet, and does the scope fit the word count?
- Secondary data: is it licensed, current and at the right level of detail?
- Primary data: realistic response rates, gatekeepers, language of interviews
- Ethics: vulnerable groups, workplace power relations, sensitive topics
- Skills: whether the analysis requires training you should schedule now
What a supervisor-ready concept note contains
A concept note is not a mini-proposal. It is a short document, often a page or two, that lets a supervisor judge quickly whether the idea is worth developing. It usually states the problem, the gap or problematized assumption, one to three draft research questions, a sketch of the design and data, and why the answer would matter. We review yours for clarity and logic, then help you prepare to discuss it.
What the work can look like
Illustrative example — fictional data
Illustrative example: narrowing a broad interest
A fictional MSc public health student wanted to study "mental health apps". The supervisor had said the topic was too broad. The details below are invented to show how the work typically unfolds.
Mapping
Recent reviews showed extensive evidence on app efficacy in trials but little on sustained engagement outside trial conditions, and almost none on older adults using apps after hospital discharge.
Feasibility
Recruiting discharged patients required NHS-style ethics review the timeline could not absorb. A secondary analysis of anonymized app-usage data available through a university partnership was feasible within twelve weeks.
Resulting working title
"Patterns of sustained engagement with a mood-tracking app among adults aged 60 and over: a secondary analysis of usage data" — naming population, phenomenon and design.
Illustrative scenario with invented details. It does not describe a real client, and your options will depend on your field, program and access.
What you’ll need to provide
- Your program handbook or topic-approval requirements, including word limits and deadlines
- A few sentences on what interests you and why, plus any ideas already rejected and the reasons given
- Details of data or participant access you have or could realistically get
- Any reading you have already done, ideally exported from Zotero, Mendeley or EndNote
- Supervisor comments, if you have them
You don’t need everything ready to ask for a quote — tell us what you have and we’ll say what’s missing.
What affects price and turnaround
Price depends on
- How far along you are: blank page, several ideas, or one idea needing refinement
- Degree level and the depth of literature mapping required
- Number of candidate topics to evaluate
- Whether concept note feedback and a rehearsal session are included
- Specialist fields that require niche databases or technical knowledge
Turnaround depends on
- Your department's topic submission deadline
- How quickly you can confirm data or participant access
- Time you need between rounds to read and redraft
Every project is quoted individually. How we price our work.
Questions people ask before starting
Will you just give me a topic?
No. We help you generate and evaluate options, but the choice and wording are yours. Supervisors and panels expect you to explain why you chose the topic, and you will do that far better if you worked through the reasoning yourself.
My department gave me a list of topics. Can you still help?
Yes. We can help you compare the listed topics against your interests and skills, read around the ones you shortlist, and shape a distinct angle within an assigned topic.
What if my supervisor disagrees with the topic we worked on?
Your supervisor's view takes priority. Bring us their comments and we will help you understand the concern and revise, whether that means narrowing, changing the design or choosing a different option from your shortlist.
How do I know my gap is real?
We check it against recent reviews and database searches, and look for studies that may already answer your question under different terminology. If we find one, we tell you early and discuss how to reposition.
Can you help with a PhD application research proposal topic?
Yes, the early stages are the same. Once the topic is settled, the research proposal support page covers developing the full proposal.
Is this confidential?
Yes. Your ideas and drafts are used only to support you and are not shared or reused.