A student can have a clear dissertation question, a willing supervisor and a list of possible interviewees while still lacking permission to begin the proposed research. Academic approval of an idea and completion of the institution's ethics process are different milestones. A feasible project schedule needs to account for both.

Edinburgh's School of Economics tells students to seek specific guidance for projects and to obtain formal ethics approval before collecting their own data. That is the school's guidance, not a universal determination about every project elsewhere. The method below asks students to establish their own institution's requirements before recruiting participants or gathering material.

Give the decision its own place in the schedule

Consider a fictional dissertation with a submission deadline eight weeks away. The student proposes four interviews, followed by transcription, coding and writing. Assume the department requires review of the recruitment message, information sheet, consent process, questions and data-handling plan before the proposed recruitment begins.

Project step Evidence needed before the next step Status to record
Design and supervisor discussion Agreed research question and review route Proposed or agreed
Ethics application Complete materials submitted correctly Submitted, not approved
Review decision Written approval and any conditions satisfied Approved scope and version
Recruitment and interviews Permission for these activities under that scope Authorized activities only
Analysis and write-up Data handled under the agreed arrangements Completed and checked

Eight weeks minus a hypothetical two-week review leaves six weeks. If amendments take another week, five remain. These durations are invented planning scenarios, not an institution's promised turnaround. Reserving all eight weeks for interviews and writing would overlook a real dependency even if the proposed study is small.

Do not book participants on the assumption that submission starts an automatic approval countdown. Confirm which preparatory activities are permitted while review is pending. Where the rules require approval before recruitment, a friendly invitation to a potential participant is not merely private preparation.

Match the activity to the approved version

Record the decision date, reference, approved materials and conditions in a project log. Check that the planned participant group, interview topics, recording method and storage arrangements match what was reviewed. Approval for one project does not automatically cover a different population or an expanded set of questions.

If the design changes, ask whether an amendment or further review is needed before implementing it. Do not infer that a less formal interview or a smaller sample removes the requirement. Conversely, do not assert that all secondary-data or classroom exercises follow the same route; obtain the actual classification from the responsible academic service.

Participant consent is another distinct requirement. A person's willingness to speak does not replace institutional permission, and institutional approval does not remove the need to follow the agreed consent process. The appropriate wording, withdrawal arrangements and data handling must come from the approved project materials and relevant guidance.

Keep a feasible alternative without bypassing review

Discuss an alternative project route with the supervisor if the planned timeline becomes unrealistic. It might involve an approved existing dataset, a different question or another permitted method. None should be assumed exempt simply because it avoids face-to-face interviews. Confirm suitability, access and the required review route before relying on it.

Maintain an honest boundary between intended and completed work. Do not invent interview quotes, participant experiences or findings when approval is delayed. A smaller properly authorized study or an agreed change of scope is more defensible than a schedule supported by data that were never collected.

Read the dissertation feasibility guide for supervision and resource questions. This approval map adds a governance dependency to that plan: who decides, what version they approve, which activities may follow and how changes are handled. The resulting schedule makes the research achievable on the institution's actual terms while respecting the people whose information would make the project possible.