What I thought the key strengths and weakness were on our proposal, compared to the feedback given to improve it

So when looking back at our completed proposal, I felt that we did the following things to advantage our proposal- LITERATURE…I THOUGHT we had a vast range of literature, including articles with a broader outlook on the topic of sustainability in Amsterdam, literature based on research in the field of transport and sustainability accompanied with statistics that demonstrated the findings (allowing ourselves to estimate and hold expectations to what we might discover in our own research) , then we incorporated literature which observed the impacts the matter has on society. The FEEDBACK given about the literature section, was to think about how the issues recognised will be intertwined in our research questions and that our blogs should be referenced within and not in appendix, but overall it was noticed that we had a good mix of articles. METHODS… I THOUGHT that we had referred to relevant literature on methodology and explained what our plans and intentions are when conducting our chosen methods. The FEEDBACK was that we needed the methods to be more detailed and more about Who, how and where will the method be used. In the section of WHO WE WANT TO INTERVIEW AND WHY, the FEEDBACK was that we needed to be more specific about who we hope to interview such as providing contact details and in depth description, plus it was recommended that we are not to just interview a tourist but to instead consider who might be more successful in answering our research questions, offering the thought that we might be better off “asking cafe owners and businesses the pros and cons of the transport systems that are in place and how this impacts on them” which made a lot of sense as surely this participant type will be easier to find and contact beforehand to organise an interview, compared to arriving at Amsterdam to search for someone we can’t exactly easily distinguish from the rest of the people in Amsterdam. The FEEDBACK told us that we need our EXAMPLE RESEARCH QUESTIONS to be to ask the appropriate questions to the right people, with the public being to ask them what transport they use, why and how sustainability is important to them, plus it was mentioned that the order of our questions could be improved, since some of our questions near the end of the interview are “general warm up questions” and should be asked at the beginning. The ETHICS part of the proposal had FEEDBACK explaining that it lacked literature and needed to be more in depth and cross referencing to the ethics form and PI form in appendices to show evidence that we have done what we say we have done. Overall the proposal was marked as 60%. I will no doubt take this feedback seriously in order to ensure that our research plan is altered and improved, so that it is carried out successfully and to its full potential.