How To Write The HBC201 ECA Research Proposal

To write the HBC201 ECA research proposal, build five labelled parts in the order the brief sets: a 150-word abstract, a literature review of at least five Singapore vaping articles ending in one research question, a justified design, two or more ethical issues with actions, and two or more unfixable limitations. Keep to 3,000 words and APA 7th.

You have a 3,000-word essay on vaping in Singapore, a deadline of 12:00 pm on 21 October 2026, and a brief that mentions “Kpods” without telling you which journal articles to use. That gap, between the news story and the academic literature, is where most proposals for this End-of-Course Assessment go wrong.

Need the exact task wording? Read the HBC201 ECA question page first, then come back.

What the HBC201 ECA asks you to do

The assessment is worth 50% of the course, is individual, and is submitted on Canvas. It runs to 3,000 words including in-text citations but excluding references and appendices. State your word count at the end; going over the limit costs 5%. Up to 5 marks can go for citation errors and up to 5 for language, so a strong proposal can still lose ten marks to polish.

Marking is holistic, which means the five parts must agree with each other. A research question in Q2 that your design in Q3 cannot answer will cost you more than a weak sentence anywhere.

Step-by-step approach to the HBC201 ECA research proposal

1. Read the case and underline the real issue: vaping is illegal, yet use continues, and the 2025 Kpod measures changed the context.
2. Pick one narrow vaping issue (perceptions, social media, legal risk, quitting, clinicians) before you search.
3. Find at least five Singapore-based peer-reviewed articles on that issue and record method, sample, strengths and weaknesses for each.
4. State the gap in one sentence, then write one research question that closes it.
5. Choose quantitative, qualitative or mixed methods because of that question, not because of habit.
6. Draft the appendix instrument early, so Q3 describes something real.
7. Write ethics and limitations from your own design, then the abstract last.

Section-by-section guidance

Q1 Title and abstract

Write the abstract last, because it summarises decisions you have not made until Q3 is finished. Use one sentence each for problem, gap, method and purpose, and count the words. A title that names the population, the variables and the design (for instance, “a cross-sectional survey”) earns the marks faster than a clever one.

Q2 Background and literature review

This is the largest component, so do not spend 600 words on vaping statistics. Give the legal context briefly. Singapore has prohibited purchase, possession and use of e-vaporisers since 2018, and the Minister for Health announced etomidate-laced vapes would be listed as a Class C drug from 1 September 2025 (Ministry of Health [MOH], 2025). Then move to the studies.

Critical review means comparing, not summarising. Ng et al. (2024) surveyed 550 adults by convenience sampling, Tan et al. (2024) ran focus groups with 63 people, and Ahmad and Lim (2026) interviewed 15 young adults. Set them side by side: what does a survey show that interviews cannot, and what does each leave out? A table of method, strength and weakness keeps the comparison honest and quick to read.

Check dates too. Several Singapore studies were collected before the Kpod measures, which is itself a usable gap. For help formatting citations, see our guide on how to write references.

Q3 Research design

Give at least two reasons for your approach and make them specific to your question. “Surveys are quick” is weak. “The question compares several beliefs across many people, which needs measurement” is better. Then cover every item the brief lists: target population, sample size, recruitment, instrument and procedure.

Sample size needs a reason, even a simple one. A standard single-proportion calculation gives about 385 respondents for a 5% margin of error at 95% confidence; if you use a figure like that, label the final number illustrative. Say where each instrument came from: new, existing or adapted. Never imply a scale is validated if you wrote it yourself.

Q4 and Q5 Ethics and limitations

Because vaping is illegal, self-incrimination is the obvious ethical issue, and clinicians have reported that patients hide vaping out of fear of being reported (van der Eijk et al., 2026). Anonymity, consent, age eligibility, distress and personal data handling are all natural companions.

For limitations, name flaws your design cannot fix. A cross-sectional survey cannot show causation, and a convenience sample cannot be generalised. “The sample was small” is only acceptable if you say why you could not enlarge it.

If your draft already exists and you want a second pair of eyes, our SUSS assignment help team can review structure against the brief.

Marks-maximising checklist

• Five or more genuine journal articles, all on Singapore and all cited in APA 7th.
• A comparison of methods, not a list of findings.
• One research question that your design can answer.
• Two or more reasons for your approach, tied to the question.
• Population, sample size, recruitment, instrument and procedure, each in its own labelled paragraph.
• An appendix with questions and a clear statement of origin.
• Two or more validity threats, each with a remedy.
• Ethical issues paired with actions, and limitations that truly cannot be resolved.
• A word count statement at the end, and AI use cited as SUSS requires.

Common mistakes

Questions students keep asking

Three worries come up repeatedly. First, whether the Kpod story can be the whole literature review; it cannot, because it is a policy event and the marks go to scholarship. Second, whether a qualitative design is “safer”; it is only safer if you can justify it and if your question is exploratory. Third, how to cite when evidence is thin; say so, and cite what exists rather than stretching weak sources.

If you want to see these choices made in practice, the worked sample for reference only condenses all five parts. Use it to study structure, not to copy. For a wider discussion of reading journal papers, see peer-reviewed journal paper writing.

A note on scope

We supply model answers, structured guidance and academic support. You remain responsible for your own submission and for SUSS integrity rules. We do not promise grades, and nothing here replaces your tutor’s instructions. If you are weighing options, you can read what students say on our reviews page.

Start with the narrow question, not the introduction. Everything else in the proposal depends on it.

When your outline is ready, our ECA assignment help and dissertation writing services pages explain how we support proposals and research methods work.

Frequently asked questions

How many journal articles do I need for the HBC201 ECA?

The brief asks you to critically review at least five academic journal articles on a vaping issue in Singapore. Choose peer-reviewed studies, and make sure your review examines their methods, strengths and weaknesses rather than only their findings.

Can I use news reports about Kpods in the literature review?

Use them only for background. Official sources such as the Ministry of Health speech on the September 2025 measures are fine for context, but the five reviewed articles should be academic journal papers.

Does the 150-word abstract count towards the 3,000 words?

The brief states that the title and abstract count towards the word limit, and the essay limit includes in-text citations but not references or appendices. Keep the abstract within its own 150-word cap as well.

Should I choose a quantitative, qualitative or mixed design?

Choose the one that fits your research question and justify it with at least two reasons. A question about associations across many people suits a survey, while a question about experiences suits interviews.

Can I make up the sample size?

You must give a reasoned figure, for example from a margin-of-error calculation or a comparable study, and label it illustrative where it is hypothetical. Never present an invented number as a fact.

Do I have to cite AI use?

Yes. The brief says any AI use must be cited following SUSS guidelines, so record what you used, for what purpose, and cite it as the university instructs.

References

Ahmad, I. S., & Lim, R. B. T. (2026). Vaping among young adults in Singapore: A qualitative study of motivations, challenges and antivaping intervention perceptions. Tobacco Control, 35(2), 231–239. https://doi.org/10.1136/tc-2024-059030

Ministry of Health Singapore. (2025, August 28). Opening remarks by Mr Ong Ye Kung, Minister for Health, at the press conference on whole-of-government efforts to tackle vapes. https://www.moh.gov.sg/newsroom/opening-remarks-by-mr-ong-ye-kung–minister-for-health–at-the-press-conference-on-whole-of-government-efforts-to-tackle-vapes/

Ng, L., Ng, X. Y., & van der Eijk, Y. (2024). Vaping in a heavily regulated setting: Cross-sectional survey of e-cigarette use, perceptions and social media exposure. Tobacco Control, 33(e1), e11–e17. https://doi.org/10.1136/tc-2022-057805

Tan, G. P. P., Tan, X. Z., & van der Eijk, Y. (2024). “If I could try it, I’d try it”: Qualitative study of the illegal vaping culture in Singapore. Addictive Behaviors Reports, 20, Article 100556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.abrep.2024.100556

van der Eijk, Y., Kwok, W. Y., & Tan, G. P. P. (2026). How do clinicians address vaping in an illegal context? A qualitative Singapore study. Tobacco Control, 35(3), 351–357. https://doi.org/10.1136/tc-2024-058996