a research topic should be ambiguous

Selecting a Research Topic: Overview

Refine your topic
Background information & facts
Writing help

Here are some resources to refer to when selecting a topic and preparing to write a paper:

MIT Writing and Communication Center "Providing free professional advice about all types of writing and speaking to all members of the MIT community."
Search Our Collections Find books about writing. Search by subject for: english language grammar; report writing handbooks; technical writing handbooks
Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation Online version of the book that provides examples and tips on grammar, punctuation, capitalization, and other writing rules.
Select a topic

Choosing an interesting research topic is your first challenge. Here are some tips:

Choose a topic that you are interested in! The research process is more relevant if you care about your topic.
If your topic is too broad, you will find too much information and not be able to focus.
Background reading can help you choose and limit the scope of your topic.
Review the guidelines on topic selection outlined in your assignment. Ask your professor or TA for suggestions.
Refer to lecture notes and required texts to refresh your knowledge of the course and assignment.
Talk about research ideas with a friend. S/he may be able to help focus your topic by discussing issues that didn't occur to you at first.
WHY did you choose the topic? What interests you about it? Do you have an opinion about the issues involved?
WHO are the information providers on this topic? Who might publish information about it? Who is affected by the topic? Do you know of organizations or institutions affiliated with the topic?
WHAT are the major questions for this topic? Is there a debate about the topic? Are there a range of issues and viewpoints to consider?
WHERE is your topic important: at the local, national or international level? Are there specific places affected by the topic?
WHEN is/was your topic important? Is it a current event or an historical issue? Do you want to compare your topic by time periods?

Broaden your topic
Information Navigator home
Sources for facts - general
Sources for facts - specific subjects

Start here for help

Ask Us Ask a question, make an appointment, give feedback, or visit us.

Next: Refine your topic >>
Last Updated: Jul 30, 2021 2:50 PM
URL: https://libguides.mit.edu/select-topic

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

VII. Researched Writing

7.1 Developing a Research Question

Emilie Zickel and Terri Pantuso

I write out of ignorance. I write about the things I don’t have any resolutions for, and when I’m finished, I think I know a little bit more about it. I don’t write out of what I know. It’s what I don’t know that stimulates me . I merely know enough to get started. —Toni Morrison [1]

Think of a research paper as an opportunity to deepen (or create) knowledge about a topic that matters to you. Just as Toni Morrison states that she is stimulated by what she doesn’t yet know, a research paper assignment can be interesting and meaningful if it allows you to explore what you don’t know.

Research, at its best, is an act of knowledge creation, not just an extended book report. This knowledge creation is the essence of any great educational experience. Instead of just listening to lectures, you get to design the learning project that will ultimately result in you experiencing, and then expressing, your own intellectual growth. You get to read what you choose, thereby becoming an expert on your topic.

That sounds, perhaps, like a lofty goal. But by spending some quality time brainstorming, reading, thinking or otherwise tuning into what matters to you, you can end up with a workable research topic that will lead you on an enjoyable research journey.

The best research topics are meaningful to you; therefore, you should:

Choose a topic that you want to understand better;
Choose a topic that you want to read about and devote time to;
Choose a topic that is perhaps a bit out of your comfort zone;
Choose a topic that allows you to understand others’ opinions and how those opinions are shaped;
Choose something that is relevant to you, personally or professionally;
Do not choose a topic because you think it will be “easy” – those can end up being quite challenging.

Brainstorming Ideas for a Research Topic

There are many ways to come up with a good topic. The best thing to do is to give yourself time to think about what you really want to commit days and weeks to reading, thinking, researching, more reading, writing, more researching, reading and writing on.

It can be difficult to come up with a topic from scratch, so consider looking at some information sources that can give you some ideas. Check out your favorite news sources or take a look at a library databases like CQ Researcher or Point of Review Reference Center.

As you browse through databases or news sources , ask yourself some of the following questions: Which question(s) below interest you? Which question(s) below spark a desire to respond? A good topic is one that moves you to think, to do, to want to know more, to want to say more. Here are some questions you might use in your search for topics:

What news stories do you often see, but want to know more about?
What (socio-political) argument do you often have with others that you would love to work on strengthening?
What are the key controversies or current debates in the field of work that you want to go into?
What is a problem that you see at work that needs to be better publicized or understood?
What is the biggest issue facing [specific group of people: by age, by race, by gender, by ethnicity, by nationality, by geography, by economic standing? choose a group]
What area/landmark/piece of history in your home community are you interested in?
What local problem do you want to better understand?
Is there some element of the career that you would like to have one day that you want to better understand?
What would you love to become an expert on?
What are you passionate about?

From Topic to Research Question

Once you have decided on a research topic, an area for academic exploration that matters to you, it is time to start thinking about what you want to learn about that topic.

The goal of college-level research assignments is never going to be to simply “go find sources” on your topic. Instead, think of sources as helping you to answer a research question or a series of research questions about your topic. These should not be simple questions with simple answers, but rather complex questions about which there is no easy or obvious answer.

A compelling research question is one that may involve controversy, or may have a variety of answers, or may not have any single, clear answer. All of that is okay and even desirable. If the answer is an easy and obvious one, then there is little need for argument or research.

Make sure that your research question is clear, specific, researchable and limited (but not too limited). Most of all, make sure that you are curious about your own research question. If it does not matter to you, researching it will feel incredibly boring and tedious.

This section contains material from:

Zickel, Emilie. “Developing a Research Question.” In A Guide to Rhetoric, Genre, and Success in First-Year Writing , by Melanie Gagich and Emilie Zickel. Cleveland: MSL Academic Endeavors. Accessed July 2019. https://pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu/csu-fyw-rhetoric/chapter/developing-a-research-question/ . Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License .

Toni Morrison, “Toni Morrison,” in Black Women Writers at Work , ed. Claudia Tate (Continuum Publish Company, 1983), 130. ↵

A database is an organized collection of data in a digital format. Library research databases are often composed of academic publications like journal articles and book chapters, although there are also specialty databases that have data like engineering specifications or world news articles.

A news source is a story or article that runs in a journalism publication or outlet. News sources tend to be about current events, but there are also opinion pieces and investigative journalism pieces that may cover broader topics over a longer period of time.

7.1 Developing a Research Question Copyright © 2022 by Emilie Zickel and Terri Pantuso is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Chapter 9: The Research Process

9.1 Developing a Research Question

Emilie Zickel

“I write out of ignorance. I write about the things I don’t have any resolutions for, and when I’m finished, I think I know a little bit more about it. I don’t write out of what I know. It’s what I don’t know that stimulates me .” – Toni Morrison , author and Northeast Ohio native

Think of a research paper as an opportunity to deepen (or create!) knowledge about a topic that matters to you. Just as Toni Morrison states that she is stimulated by what she doesn’t yet know, a research paper assignment can be interesting and meaningful if it allows you to explore what you don’t know.

Research, at its best, is an act of knowledge creation, not just an extended book report. This knowledge creation is the essence of any great educational experience. Instead of being lectured at, you get to design the learning project that will ultimately result in you experiencing and then expressing your own intellectual growth. You get to read what you choose, and you get to become an expert on your topic.

The best research topics are meaningful to you

Choose a topic that you want to understand better.
Choose a topic that you want to read about and devote time to
Choose a topic that is perhaps a bit out of your comfort zone
Choose a topic that allows you to understand others’ opinions and how those opinions are shaped.
Choose something that is relevant to you, personally or professionally.
Do not choose a topic because you think it will be “easy” – those can end up being even quite challenging

The video below offers ideas on choosing not only a topic that you are drawn to, but a topic that is realistic and manageable for a college writing class.

“Choosing a Manageable Research Topic” by PfaulLibrary is licensed under CC BY

Brainstorming Ideas for a Research Topic

Which question(s) below interest you? Which question(s) below spark a desire to respond? A good topic is one that moves you to think, to do, to want to know more, to want to say more.

What news stories do you often see, but want to know more about?
What (socio-political) argument do you often have with others that you would love to work on strengthening?
What would you love to become an expert on?
What are you passionate about?
What are you scared of?
What problem in the world needs to be solved?
What are the key controversies or current debates in the field of work that you want to go into?
What is a problem that you see at work that needs to be better publicized or understood?
What is the biggest issue facing [specific group of people: by age, by race, by gender, by ethnicity, by nationality, by geography, by economic standing? choose a group]
If you could interview anyone in the world, who would it be? Can identifying that person lead you to a research topic that would be meaningful to you?
What area/landmark/piece of history in your home community are you interested in?
What in the world makes you angry?
What global problem do you want to better understand?
What local problem do you want to better understand?
Is there some element of the career that you would like to have one day that you want to better understand?
Consider researching the significance of a song, or an artist, or a musician, or a novel/film/short story/comic, or an art form on some aspect of the broader culture.
Think about something that has happened to (or is happening to) a friend or family member. Do you want to know more about this?
Go to a news source ( New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Christian Science Monitor, etc) and skim the titles of news stories. Does any story interest you?

From Topic to Research Question

Once you have decided on a research topic, an area for academic exploration that matters to you, it is time to start thinking about what you want to learn about that topic.

Make sure that your research question is clear, specific, researchable, and limited (but not too limited). Most of all, make sure that you are curious about your own research question. If it does not matter to you, researching it will feel incredibly boring and tedious.

The video below includes a deeper explanation of what a good research question is as well as examples of strong research questions:

“Creating a Good Research Question” by CII GSU

A Guide to Rhetoric, Genre, and Success in First-Year Writing by Emilie Zickel is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Feedback/Errata

Comments are closed.

9.1 Developing a Research Question

Emilie Zickel

That sounds, perhaps, like a lofty goal. But by spending some quality time brainstorming, reading, thinking, or otherwise tuning into what matters to you, you can end up with a workable research topic that will lead you on an enjoyable research journey.

The best research topics are meaningful to you:

Choose a topic that you want to understand better.
Choose a topic that you want to read about and devote time to
Choose a topic that is perhaps a bit out of your comfort zone
Choose a topic that allows you to understand others’ opinions and how those opinions are shaped.
Choose something that is relevant to you, personally or professionally.
Do not choose a topic because you think it will be “easy”—those can end up being even quite challenging

The video below offers ideas on choosing not only a topic that you are drawn to, but a topic that is realistic and manageable for a college writing class.

“Choosing a Manageable Research Topic” by Pfaul Library is licensed under CC BY

Brainstorming Ideas for a Research Topic

Which question(s) below interest you? Which question(s) below spark a desire to respond? A good topic is one that moves you to think, to do, to want to know more, to want to say more.

What news stories do you often see, but want to know more about?
What (socio-political) argument do you often have with others that you would love to work on strengthening?
What would you love to become an expert on?
What are you passionate about?
What are you scared of?
What problem in the world needs to be solved?
What are the key controversies or current debates in the field of work that you want to go into?
What is a problem that you see at work that needs to be better publicized or understood?
What is the biggest issue facing [specific group of people: by age, by race, by gender, by ethnicity, by nationality, by geography, by economic standing? choose a group]
If you could interview anyone in the world, who would it be? Can identifying that person lead you to a research topic that would be meaningful to you?
What area/landmark/piece of history in your home community are you interested in?
What in the world makes you angry?
What global problem do you want to better understand?
What local problem do you want to better understand?
Is there some element of the career that you would like to have one day that you want to better understand?
Consider researching the significance of a song, or an artist, or a musician, or a novel/film/short story/comic, or an art form on some aspect of the broader culture.
Think about something that has happened to (or is happening to) a friend or family member. Do you want to know more about this?
Go to a news source ( New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Christian Science Monitor, etc. ) and skim the titles of news stories. Does any story interest you?

From Topic to Research Question

Once you have decided on a research topic, an area for academic exploration that matters to you, it is time to start thinking about what you want to learn about that topic.

The video below includes a deeper explanation of what a good research question is as well as examples of strong research questions:

“Creating a Good Research Question” by CII GSU

Share This Book

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

Knowledge Base
Starting the research process
Writing Strong Research Questions | Criteria & Examples

Writing Strong Research Questions | Criteria & Examples

Published on October 26, 2022 by Shona McCombes . Revised on November 21, 2023.

A research question pinpoints exactly what you want to find out in your work. A good research question is essential to guide your research paper , dissertation , or thesis .

All research questions should be:

Focused on a single problem or issue
Researchable using primary and/or secondary sources
Feasible to answer within the timeframe and practical constraints
Specific enough to answer thoroughly
Complex enough to develop the answer over the space of a paper or thesis
Relevant to your field of study and/or society more broadly

How to write a research question, what makes a strong research question, using sub-questions to strengthen your main research question, research questions quiz, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about research questions.

You can follow these steps to develop a strong research question:

Choose your topic
Do some preliminary reading about the current state of the field
Narrow your focus to a specific niche
Identify the research problem that you will address

The way you frame your question depends on what your research aims to achieve. The table below shows some examples of how you might formulate questions for different purposes.

Using your research problem to develop your research question

Note that while most research questions can be answered with various types of research , the way you frame your question should help determine your choices.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Research questions anchor your whole project, so it’s important to spend some time refining them. The criteria below can help you evaluate the strength of your research question.

Focused and researchable

Feasible and specific, complex and arguable, relevant and original.

Chances are that your main research question likely can’t be answered all at once. That’s why sub-questions are important: they allow you to answer your main question in a step-by-step manner.

Good sub-questions should be:

Less complex than the main question
Focused only on 1 type of research
Presented in a logical order

Here are a few examples of descriptive and framing questions:

Descriptive: According to current government arguments, how should a European bank tax be implemented?
Descriptive: Which countries have a bank tax/levy on financial transactions?
Framing: How should a bank tax/levy on financial transactions look at a European level?

Keep in mind that sub-questions are by no means mandatory. They should only be asked if you need the findings to answer your main question. If your main question is simple enough to stand on its own, it’s okay to skip the sub-question part. As a rule of thumb, the more complex your subject, the more sub-questions you’ll need.

Try to limit yourself to 4 or 5 sub-questions, maximum. If you feel you need more than this, it may be indication that your main research question is not sufficiently specific. In this case, it’s is better to revisit your problem statement and try to tighten your main question up.

If you want to know more about the research process , methodology , research bias , or statistics , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

Methodology

Sampling methods
Simple random sampling
Stratified sampling
Cluster sampling
Likert scales
Reproducibility

Statistics

Null hypothesis
Statistical power
Probability distribution
Effect size
Poisson distribution

Research bias

Optimism bias
Cognitive bias
Implicit bias
Hawthorne effect
Anchoring bias
Explicit bias

The way you present your research problem in your introduction varies depending on the nature of your research paper . A research paper that presents a sustained argument will usually encapsulate this argument in a thesis statement .

A research paper designed to present the results of empirical research tends to present a research question that it seeks to answer. It may also include a hypothesis —a prediction that will be confirmed or disproved by your research.

As you cannot possibly read every source related to your topic, it’s important to evaluate sources to assess their relevance. Use preliminary evaluation to determine whether a source is worth examining in more depth.

This involves:

Reading abstracts , prefaces, introductions , and conclusions
Looking at the table of contents to determine the scope of the work
Consulting the index for key terms or the names of important scholars

A research hypothesis is your proposed answer to your research question. The research hypothesis usually includes an explanation (“ x affects y because …”).

A statistical hypothesis, on the other hand, is a mathematical statement about a population parameter. Statistical hypotheses always come in pairs: the null and alternative hypotheses . In a well-designed study , the statistical hypotheses correspond logically to the research hypothesis.

Formulating a main research question can be a difficult task. Overall, your question should contribute to solving the problem that you have defined in your problem statement .

However, it should also fulfill criteria in three main areas:

Researchability
Feasibility and specificity
Relevance and originality

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. (2023, November 21). Writing Strong Research Questions | Criteria & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved April 3, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/research-process/research-questions/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to define a research problem | ideas & examples, how to write a problem statement | guide & examples, 10 research question examples to guide your research project, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

Writing and Rhetoric II

Get Started
News & Magazine Articles
Scholarly Articles
Books & Films
Background Information

Choosing a Topic

Narrowing your topic, developing strong research questions, sample research questions.

Types of Sources
Evaluate Sources
Social Media & News Literacy
Copyright This link opens in a new window
MLA Citations

A useful way to think about your project is to describe it in a three-step sentence that states your TOPIC + QUESTION + SIGNIFICANCE (or TQS):

Don’t worry if at first you can’t think of something to put as the significance in the third step. As you develop your answer, you’ll find ways to explain why your question is worth asking!

TQS sentence example:

I am working on the topic of the Apollo mission to the moon , because I want to find out why it was deemed so important in the 1960s , so that I can help my classmates understand the role of symbolic events in shaping national identity .

Note: The TQS formula is meant to prime your thinking. Use it to plan and test your question, but don’t expect to put it in your paper in exactly this form.

Adapted from Kate L. Turabian, Student’s Guide to Writing College Papers , 5th ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2019), pp. 14–15.

Start researching your topic more broadly to help you narrow your topic.

Think about:

Which aspects am I most interested in?
Is there a particular group of people to focus on?
Is there a particular place to focus on?
Is there a particular time period to focus on?
What's the right scope for this particular research project? (For example, how much can I meaningfully address in this many pages?)

Background information can help with these questions before you dive in to more focused research.

Research Guides Curated guides for a variety of topics and subject areas. Use them to find subject-specific resources.

Now use your narrowed topic to develop a research question!

Your research question should be:

Focused on a single problem or issue
Researchable using primary and/or secondary sources
Feasible to answer within the timeframe and practical constraints
Specific enough to answer thoroughly
Complex enough to develop the answer over the space of a paper or thesis
Relevant to your subject area and/or society more broadly

Adapted from Shona McCombes, "Developing strong research questions." Scribbr , March 2021.

Adapted from: George Mason University Writing Center. (2008). How to write a research question. Retrieved from http://writingcenter.gmu.edu/?p=307.

<< Previous: Background Information
Next: Types of Sources >>
Last Updated: Jan 12, 2024 1:51 PM
URL: https://libguides.colum.edu/wrII

Explaining ambiguity in scientific language

Original Research
Published: 19 August 2022
Volume 200 , article number 354 , ( 2022 )

Cite this article

Beckett Sterner ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5219-7616 1

663 Accesses

8 Citations

3 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

The idea that ambiguity can be productive in data science remains controversial. Efforts to make scientific publications and data intelligible to computers generally assume that accommodating multiple meanings for words, known as polysemy, undermines reasoning and communication. This assumption has nonetheless been contested by historians, philosophers, and social scientists, who have applied qualitative research methods to demonstrate the generative and strategic value of polysemy. Recent quantitative results from linguistics have also shown how polysemy can actually improve the efficiency of human communication. I present a new conceptual typology based on a synthesis of prior research about the aims, norms, and circumstances under which polysemy arises and is evaluated. The typology supports a contextual pluralist view of polysemy’s value for scientific research practices: polysemy does both substantial positive and negative work in science, but its utility is context-sensitive in ways that are often overlooked by the norms people have formulated to regulate its use, including prior scholars researching polysemy. I also propose that historical patterns in the use of partial synonyms, i.e. terms with overlapping meanings, provide an especially promising phenomenon for integrative research addressing these issues.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Communicating Science: Heterogeneous, Multiform and Polysemic

On the Role of Language in Scientific Research: Language as Analytic, Expressive, and Explanatory Tool

Language, Thought, and the History of Science

Carmela Chateau-Smith

Data availability

Not applicable.

Alagić, D., & Šnajder, J. (2021). Representing word meaning in context via lexical substitutes. Automatika . https://doi.org/10.1080/00051144.2021.1928437 .

Article Google Scholar

Ali-Khan, S. E., Jean, A., MacDonald, E., et al. (2018). Defining Success in Open Science. Mni Open Research . https://doi.org/10.12688/mniopenres.12780.1 .

Altomonte, G. (2020). Exploiting ambiguity: A moral polysemy approach to variation in economic practices. American Sociological Review, 85 (1), 76–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122419895986 .

Arp, R., Smith, B., & Spear, A. D. (2015). Building ontologies with basic formal ontology . MIT Press.

Beltagy, I., Lo, K., & Cohan, A. (2019). SciBERT: A pretrained language model for scientific text. http://arxiv.org/abs/1903.10676 [cs]

Bertone, M. A., Miko, I., Yoder, M. J., et al. (2013). Matching arthropod anatomy ontologies to the Hymenoptera Anatomy Ontology: Results from a manual alignment. Database, 2013, bas057–bas057. https://doi.org/10.1093/database/bas057 .

Bowen, G. A. (2006). Grounded theory and sensitizing concepts. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5 (3), 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500304 .

Bowker, G. C. (2000). Biodiversity datadiversity. Social Studies of Science, 30 (5), 643–683. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631200030005001 .

Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences . MIT Press.

Brandom, R. B. (2008). Between saying and doing: Towards an analytic pragmatism . Oxford University Press.

Carr, J. W., Smith, K., Culbertson, J., et al. (2020). Simplicity and informativeness in semantic category systems. Cognition, 202 (104), 289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104289 .

Català, N., Baixeries, J., Ferrer-Cancho, R., et al. (2021). Zipf’s laws of meaning in Catalan. http://arxiv.org/abs/2107.00042

Ceccarelli, L. (2001). Shaping science with rhetoric: The cases of Dobzhansky, Schrödinger, and Wilson . University of Chicago Press.

Ceusters, W., Smith, B., & Goldberg, L. (2005). A terminological and ontological analysis of the NCI thesaurus. Methods of Information in Medicine, 44 (04), 498–507. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1634000 .

Currie, A. (2015). Marsupial lions and methodological omnivory: Function, success and reconstruction in paleobiology. Biology & Philosophy, 30 (2), 187–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-014-9470-y .

Cusimano, S., & Sterner, B. (2019). Integrative pluralism for biological function. Biology & Philosophy, 34 (6), 55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-019-9717-8 .

Davenport, S., & Leitch, S. (2005). Circuits of power in practice: Strategic ambiguity as delegation of authority. Organization Studies, 26 (11), 1603–1623. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840605054627 .

DeFries, R., & Nagendra, H. (2017). Ecosystem management as a wicked problem. Science, 356 (6335), 265–270. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aal1950 .

Del Tredici, M., Nissim, M., & Zaninello, A. (2016). Tracing metaphors in time through self-distance in vector spaces. http://arxiv.org/abs/1611.03279 [cs]

Denis, J. L., Dompierre, G., Langley, A., et al. (2011). Escalating indecision: Between reification and strategic ambiguity. Organization Science, 22 (1), 225–244. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0501 .

Devlin, J., Chang, M.W., Lee, K., et al. (2019). BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. http://arxiv.org/abs/1810.04805

Dietz, B. (2012). Contribution and co-production: The collaborative culture of Linnaean botany. Annals of Science, 69 (4), 551–569. https://doi.org/10.1080/00033790.2012.680982 .

Dourish, P. (2001). Process descriptions as organisational accounting devices: the dual use of workflow technologies. In: Proceedings of the 2001 International ACM SIGGROUP conference on supporting group work. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, GROUP ’01 (pp 52–60), https://doi.org/10.1145/500286.500297

Dragisic, Z., Ivanova, V., Li, H., et al. (2017). Experiences from the anatomy track in the ontology alignment evaluation initiative. Journal of Biomedical Semantics, 8 (1), 56. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13326-017-0166-5 .

Duncan, M. (2020). Terminology version control discussion paper. http://mrtablet.co.uk/chocolate_teapot_lite.htm

Eisenberg, E. M. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication. Communication Monographs, 51 (3), 227–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758409390197 .

Ferraro, F., Etzion, D., & Gehman, J. (2015). Tackling grand challenges pragmatically: Robust action revisited. Organization Studies, 36 (3), 363–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840614563742 .

Ferrer-i Cancho, R., Bentz, C., & Seguin, C. (2020). Optimal coding and the origins of Zipfian laws. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics . https://doi.org/10.1080/09296174.2020.1778387 .

Fokkens, A., Ter Braake, S., Maks, I., et al. (2016). On the semantics of concept drift: Towards formal definitions of semantic change. Proceedings of Drift-a-LOD (2016): 247–265.

Franz, N. M., & Sterner, B. W. (2018). To increase trust, change the social design behind aggregated biodiversity data. Database . https://doi.org/10.1093/database/bax100 .

Galison, P. (1996). Computer simulations and the trading zone. In P. Galison & D. J. Stump (Eds.), The disunity of science: Boundaries, contexts, and power (pp. 118–57). Stanford University Press.

Garnett, S. T., Christidis, L., Conix, S., et al. (2020). Principles for creating a single authoritative list of the world’s species. PLoS Biology, 18 (7), e3000736. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000736 .

Garson, J. (2016). A critical overview of biological functions . Springer.

Geeraerts, D. (1997). Diachronic prototype semantics: A contribution to historical lexicology . Clarendon Press.

Gentner, D., & Grudin, J. (1985). The evolution of mental metaphors in psychology: A 90-year retrospective. American Psychologist, 40 (2), 181–192. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.40.2.181 .

Germain, P. L., Ratti, E., & Boem, F. (2014). Junk or functional DNA? ENCODE and the function controversy. Biology & Philosophy, 29 (6), 807–831. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-014-9441-3 .

Gerson, E. M. (2008). Reach, bracket, and the limits of rationalized coordination: Some challenges for CSCW. Resources, co-evolution and artifacts (pp. 193–220). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84628-901-9_8 .

Gibson, E., Futrell, R., Piantadosi, S. P., et al. (2019). How efficiency shapes human language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23 (5), 389–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.02.003 .

Giroux, H. (2006). ‘It was such a handy term’: Management fashions and pragmatic ambiguity. Journal of Management Studies, 43 (6), 1227–1260. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00623.x .

Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78 (6), 1360–1380. https://doi.org/10.1086/225469 .

Grantham, T. A. (2004). Conceptualizing the (dis)unity of science. Philosophy of Science, 71 (2), 133–155. https://doi.org/10.1086/383008 .

Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Macfarlane, F., et al. (2005). Storylines of research in diffusion of innovation: A meta-narrative approach to systematic review. Social Science & Medicine, 61 (2), 417–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.12.001 .

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation, syntax and semantics. Speech Acts, 3, 41–58.

Google Scholar

Grosholz, E. (2007). Representation and productive ambiguity in mathematics and the sciences . Oxford University Press.

Gross, A. G. (2006). Starring the text: The place of rhetoric in science studies . Southern Illinois University Press.

Hamilton, W.L., Leskovec, J., & Jurafsky, D. (2016). Diachronic word embeddings reveal statistical laws of semantic change. In: Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). Association for Computational Linguistics, Berlin, Germany (pp 1489–1501). https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P16-1141

Hauer, B., & Kondrak, G. (2020). Synonymy = Translational Equivalence. http://arxiv.org/abs/2004.13886 [cs]

Hesse, M. (1988). The cognitive claims of metaphor. The Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 2 (1), 1–16.

Higuera, C. R. (2018). Productive perils: On metaphor as a theory-building device. Linguistic Frontiers, 1 (2), 102–111.

Hirsch, P. M., & Levin, D. Z. (1999). Umbrella advocates versus validity police: A life-cycle model. Organization Science, 10 (2), 199–212. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.10.2.199 .

Jarzabkowski, P., Sillince, J. A., & Shaw, D. (2010). Strategic ambiguity as a rhetorical resource for enabling multiple interests. Human Relations, 63 (2), 219–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726709337040 .

Johansen, Winni. (2018). Strategic Ambiguity. In: The International Encyclopedia of Strategic Communication, edited by Robert L Heath, Winni Johansen, et al., 1st ed. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119010722.iesc0170.

Karjus, A., Blythe, R.A., Kirby, S., et al. (2020). Communicative need modulates competition in language change. http://arxiv.org/abs/2006.09277 [cs]

Kemp, C., Xu, Y., & Regier, T. (2018). Semantic typology and efficient communication. Annual Review of Linguistics, 4 (1), 109–128. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011817-045406 .

Keuchenius, A., Törnberg, P., & Uitermark, J. (2021). Adoption and adaptation: A computational case study of the spread of Granovetter’s weak ties hypothesis. Social Networks, 66, 10–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2021.01.001 .

Kilgarriff, A. (1997). I don’t believe in word senses. Computers and the Humanities, 31 (2), 91–113. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1000583911091 .

L’ Homme, M.C., Robichaud, B., & Subirats, C. (2020). Building multilingual specialized resources based on FrameNet: Application to the field of the environment. In: Proceedings of the International FrameNet Workshop 2020: Towards a Global, Multilingual FrameNet. European Language Resources Association, Marseille, France (pp 85–92) https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/2020.framenet-1.12

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2008). Metaphors we live by . University of Chicago press.

Laubichler, M. D., Prohaska, S. J., & Stadler, P. F. (2018). Toward a mechanistic explanation of phenotypic evolution: The need for a theory of theory integration. Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B: Molecular and Developmental Evolution, 330 (1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/jez.b.22785 .

Lean, O. M. (2021). Are bio-ontologies metaphysical theories? Synthese . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-021-03303-4 .

Leon-Arauz, P., Martin, A. S., & Reimerink, A. (2018). The EcoLexicon English corpus as an open corpus in sketch engine. http://arxiv.org/abs/1807.05797 [cs]

Leonelli, S. (2012). Classificatory theory in data-intensive science: The case of open biomedical ontologies. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 26 (1), 47–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/02698595.2012.653119 .

Leonelli, S. (2016). Data-centric biology: A philosophical study . University of Chicago Press.

Leonelli, S., & Tempini, N. (2020). Data journeys in the sciences. Springer . https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37177-7 .

Lidgard, S., & Love, A. C. (2018). Rethinking living fossils. BioScience, 68 (10), 760–770. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biy084 .

Li, J., & Joanisse, M. F. (2021). Word senses as clusters of meaning modulations: A computational model of polysemy. Cognitive Science, 45 (4), e12955. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12955 .

Linquist, S., Doolittle, W. F., & Palazzo, A. F. (2020). Getting clear about the F-word in genomics. PLoS Genetics, 16 (4), e1008702. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1008702 .

Loureiro, D., Rezaee, K., Pilehvar, M. T., et al. (2021). Analysis and evaluation of language models for word sense disambiguation. Computational Linguistics (pp 1–57). https://doi.org/10.1162/coli_a_00405

McMahan, P., & Evans, J. (2018). Ambiguity and engagement. American Journal of Sociology, 124 (3), 860–912. https://doi.org/10.1086/701298 .

Meyer, F., & Lewis, M. (2020). Modelling lexical ambiguity with density matrices. http://arxiv.org/abs/2010.05670 [cs]

Miller, G. A. (1995). WordNet: A lexical database for English. Communications of the ACM, 38 (11), 39–41. https://doi.org/10.1145/219717.219748 .

Monckton, S., Johal, S., Packer, L., et al. (2020). Inadequate treatment of taxonomic information prevents replicability of most zoological research. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 98 (9), 633–642. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjz-2020-0027 .

Mons, B., Schultes, E., Liu, F., et al. (2019). The FAIR principles: First generation implementation choices and challenges. Data Intelligence, 2 (1–2), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1162/dint_e_00023 .

Nakazawa, T. (2020). Species interaction: Revisiting its terminology and concept. Ecological Research, 35 (6), 1106–1113. https://doi.org/10.1111/1440-1703.12164 .

Nerlich, B., & Clarke, D. D. (2001). Ambiguities we live by: Towards a pragmatics of polysemy. Journal of Pragmatics, 33 (1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00132-0 .

Neto, C. (2020). When imprecision is a good thing, or how imprecise concepts facilitate integration in biology. Biology & Philosophy, 35 (6), 58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-020-09774-y .

Oliveira, D., & Pesquita, C. (2018). Improving the interoperability of biomedical ontologies with compound alignments. Journal of Biomedical Semantics, 9 (1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13326-017-0171-8 .

Olson, M. E., Arroyo-Santos, A., & Vergara-Silva, F. (2019). A user’s guide to metaphors in ecology and evolution. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 34 (7), 605–615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2019.03.001 .

Ortony, A. (1993). Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Panchenko, A., Ruppert, E., Faralli, S., et al. (2017). Unsupervised does not mean uninterpretable : the case for word sense induction and disambiguation. In: 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics : proceedings of conference, volume 1: Long Papers. Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, PA, pp 86–98.Stroudsburg, PA, pp 86–98. https://ub-madoc.bib.uni-mannheim.de/42007

Perrault, S. T., & O’Keefe, M. (2019). New metaphors for new understandings of genomes. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 62 (1), 1–19.

Piantadosi, S. T., Tily, H., & Gibson, E. (2012). The communicative function of ambiguity in language. Cognition, 122 (3), 280–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.10.004 .

Pimentel, T., Maudslay, R.H., Blasi, D., et al. (2020). Speakers fill lexical semantic gaps with context. http://arxiv.org/abs/2010.02172

Poesio,M. (2020).”Ambiguity".In: The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Semantics, edited by Daniel Gutzmann, Lisa Matthewson, et al., 1st ed., 1–38. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118788516.sem098

Poirier, L. (2019). Classification as catachresis: Double binds of representing difference with semiotic infrastructure. Canadian Journal of Communication . https://doi.org/10.22230/cjc.2019v44n3a3455 .

Ribes, D., & Bowker, G. C. (2009). Between meaning and machine: Learning to represent the knowledge of communities. Information and Organization, 19 (4), 199–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2009.04.001 .

Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.

Schlechtweg, D., Eckmann, S., Santus, E., et al. (2017). German in flux: Detecting metaphoric change via word entropy. http://arxiv.org/abs/1706.04971

Sennet, A. (2021). Ambiguity. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (fall 2021). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.

Shavit, A., & Griesemer, J. (2011). Transforming objects into data: How minute technicalities of recording “species location” entrench a basic challenge for biodiversity. In: M. Carrier & A. Nordmann, Science in the context of application (Vol. 274, pp. 169–193). Springer. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9051-5_12 .

Shipman, F. M., & Marshall, C. C. (1999). Formality considered harmful: Experiences, emerging themes, and directions on the use of formal representations in interactive systems. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 8 (4), 333–352. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008716330212 .

Stankowski, S., & Ravinet, M. (2021). Quantifying the use of species concepts. Current Biology, 31 (9), R428–R429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.03.060 .

Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, “translations’’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebate zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 19, 387–420.

Sterner, B. W., & Franz, N. M. (2017). Taxonomy for Humans or Computers? Cognitive Pragmatics for Big Data. Biological Theory 12 (2), 99–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13752-017-0259-5

Sterner, B. W., Gilbert, E. E., & Franz, N. M. (2020). Decentralized but globally coordinated biodiversity data. Frontiers in Big Data, 3 (519), 133. https://doi.org/10.3389/fdata.2020.519133 .

Sterner, B. W., Witteveen, J., & Franz, N. M. (2020). Coordinating dissent as an alternative to consensus classification: Insights from systematics for bio-ontologies. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 42 (1), 8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-020-0300-z .

Swedberg, R. (2020). Using metaphors in sociology: Pitfalls and potentials. The American Sociologist, 51, 240–257.

Tahmasebi, N., Borin, L., Jatowt, A., et al. (2021). Computational approaches to semantic change. Language Science Press. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5040241.

Takacs, D. (1996). The idea of biodiversity: Philosophies of paradise . Johns Hopkins University Press.

Ustalov, D., Chernoskutov, M., Biemann, C., et al. (2018). Fighting with the sparsity of synonymy dictionaries for automatic synset induction. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. In W. M. van der Aalst, D. I. Ignatov, M. Khachay, et al. (Eds.), Analysis of images, social networks and texts (pp. 94–105). Springer International Publishing.

Volanschi, A., & Kübler, N. (2011). The impact of metaphorical framing on term creation in biology. Terminology International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Issues in Specialized Communication, 17 (2), 198–223. https://doi.org/10.1075/term.17.2.02vol .

Wilkinson, M. D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I. J., et al. (2016). The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific Data, 3 (1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18 .

Wilson, M. (2006). Wandering significance: An essay on conceptual behavior . Oxford University Press.

Winkler, S. (2015). Exploring ambiguity and the ambiguity model from a transdisciplinary perspective. In: Winkler, S. Ambiguity. De Gruyter . https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110403589-002/html .

Download references

Acknowledgements

This project was funded by NSF Science and Technology Studies Grant STS-1827993. My thanks to Joeri Witteveen, Elizabeth Lerman, Nico Franz, and Manfred Laubichler for their conversations and feedback about the ideas presented here. My special thanks also to the reviewers whose constructive comments helped improve the manuscript significantly. All mistakes are entirely my own.

Funding was provided by NSF STS-1827993.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, PO Box 873301, Tempe, AZ, 85287, USA

Beckett Sterner

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Corresponding author.

Correspondence to Beckett Sterner .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Consent to participate, consent for publication, code availability, additional information, publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Sterner, B. Explaining ambiguity in scientific language. Synthese 200 , 354 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-022-03792-x

Download citation

Received : 22 October 2021

Accepted : 23 June 2022

Published : 19 August 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-022-03792-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Lexical semantics
Computer ontologies
Philosophy of science
Strategic ambiguity

Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

USC Libraries
Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

Narrowing a Topic Idea
Purpose of Guide
Design Flaws to Avoid
Independent and Dependent Variables
Glossary of Research Terms
Reading Research Effectively
Broadening a Topic Idea
Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
Academic Writing Style
Choosing a Title
Making an Outline
Paragraph Development
Research Process Video Series
Executive Summary
The C.A.R.S. Model
Background Information
The Research Problem/Question
Theoretical Framework
Citation Tracking
Content Alert Services
Evaluating Sources
Primary Sources
Secondary Sources
Tiertiary Sources
Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
Qualitative Methods
Quantitative Methods
Insiderness
Using Non-Textual Elements
Limitations of the Study
Common Grammar Mistakes
Writing Concisely
Avoiding Plagiarism
Footnotes or Endnotes?
Further Readings
Generative AI and Writing
USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
Bibliography

Importance of Narrowing the Research Topic

Whether you are assigned a general issue to investigate, must choose a problem to study from a list given to you by your professor, or you have to identify your own topic to investigate, it is important that the scope of the research problem is not too broad, otherwise, it will be difficult to adequately address the topic in the space and time allowed. You could experience a number of problems if your topic is too broad, including:

You find too many information sources and, as a consequence, it is difficult to decide what to include or exclude or what are the most relevant sources.
You find information that is too general and, as a consequence, it is difficult to develop a clear framework for examining the research problem.
A lack of sufficient parameters that clearly define the research problem makes it difficult to identify and apply the proper methods needed to analyze it.
You find information that covers a wide variety of concepts or ideas that can't be integrated into one paper and, as a consequence, you trail off into unnecessary tangents.

Lloyd-Walker, Beverly and Derek Walker. "Moving from Hunches to a Research Topic: Salient Literature and Research Methods." In Designs, Methods and Practices for Research of Project Management . Beverly Pasian, editor. ( Burlington, VT: Gower Publishing, 2015 ), pp. 119-129.

Strategies for Narrowing the Research Topic

A common challenge when beginning to write a research paper is determining how and in what ways to narrow down your topic . Even if your professor gives you a specific topic to study, it will almost never be so specific that you won’t have to narrow it down at least to some degree [besides, it is very boring to grade fifty papers that are all about the exact same thing!].

A topic is too broad to be manageable when a review of the literature reveals too many different, and oftentimes conflicting or only remotely related, ideas about how to investigate the research problem. Although you will want to start the writing process by considering a variety of different approaches to studying the research problem, you will need to narrow the focus of your investigation at some point early in the writing process. This way, you don't attempt to do too much in one paper.

Here are some strategies to help narrow the thematic focus of your paper :

Aspect -- choose one lens through which to view the research problem, or look at just one facet of it [e.g., rather than studying the role of food in South Asian religious rituals, study the role of food in Hindu marriage ceremonies, or, the role of one particular type of food among several religions].
Components -- determine if your initial variable or unit of analysis can be broken into smaller parts, which can then be analyzed more precisely [e.g., a study of tobacco use among adolescents can focus on just chewing tobacco rather than all forms of usage or, rather than adolescents in general, focus on female adolescents in a certain age range who choose to use tobacco].
Methodology -- the way in which you gather information can reduce the domain of interpretive analysis needed to address the research problem [e.g., a single case study can be designed to generate data that does not require as extensive an explanation as using multiple cases].
Place -- generally, the smaller the geographic unit of analysis, the more narrow the focus [e.g., rather than study trade relations issues in West Africa, study trade relations between Niger and Cameroon as a case study that helps to explain economic problems in the region].
Relationship -- ask yourself how do two or more different perspectives or variables relate to one another. Designing a study around the relationships between specific variables can help constrict the scope of analysis [e.g., cause/effect, compare/contrast, contemporary/historical, group/individual, child/adult, opinion/reason, problem/solution].
Time -- the shorter the time period of the study, the more narrow the focus [e.g., restricting the study of trade relations between Niger and Cameroon to only the period of 2010 - 2020].
Type -- focus your topic in terms of a specific type or class of people, places, or phenomena [e.g., a study of developing safer traffic patterns near schools can focus on SUVs, or just student drivers, or just the timing of traffic signals in the area].
Combination -- use two or more of the above strategies to focus your topic more narrowly.

NOTE : Apply one of the above strategies first in designing your study to determine if that gives you a manageable research problem to investigate. You will know if the problem is manageable by reviewing the literature on your more narrowed problem and assessing whether prior research is sufficient to move forward in your study [i.e., not too much, not too little]. Be careful, however, because combining multiple strategies risks creating the opposite problem--your problem becomes too narrowly defined and you can't locate enough research or data to support your study.

Booth, Wayne C. The Craft of Research . Fourth edition. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 2016; Coming Up With Your Topic. Institute for Writing Rhetoric. Dartmouth College; Narrowing a Topic. Writing Center. University of Kansas; Narrowing Topics. Writing@CSU. Colorado State University; Strategies for Narrowing a Topic. University Libraries. Information Skills Modules. Virginia Tech University; The Process of Writing a Research Paper. Department of History. Trent University; Ways to Narrow Down a Topic. Contributing Authors. Utah State OpenCourseWare.

<< Previous: Reading Research Effectively
Next: Broadening a Topic Idea >>
Last Updated: Apr 5, 2024 1:38 PM
URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
Ind Psychiatry J
v.32(1); Jan-Jun 2023
PMC10236658

Selecting a thesis topic: A postgraduate’s dilemma

Rajiv k. saini.

Department of Psychiatry, Command Hospital (EC) Kolkata, West Bengal, India

Mohan Issac

1 Department of Psychiatry, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia

K. J. D. Kumar

2 Department of Psychiatry, Military Hospital, Pathankot, Punjab, India

Suprakash Chaudhury

3 Department of Psychiatry, D. Y. Patil Medical College, Dr. D. Y. Patil Vidyapeeth, Pimpri, Pune, Maharashtra, India

Rachit Sharma

4 Department of Psychiatry, Armed Forces Medical College, Pune, Maharashtra, India

Ankit Dangi

5 Department of Psychiatry, Command Hospital, Panchkula, Haryana, India

It is said that well begun is half done. Choosing a thesis topic and submitting a research protocol is an essential step in the life cycle of a postgraduate resident. National Medical Commission of India mandates that all postgraduate trainees must submit at least one original research work (dissertation), one oral paper, one poster, and one publication to be eligible for final year examination. It is the duty of the faculty to ensure that trainees take active interest and submit their theses on time. However, their journey is often marred by multiple challenges and hurdles. The literature was searched from year 2000 onwards till 2011 using Pubmed, ResearchGate, MEDLINE, and the Education Resources Information Centre databases with terms related to residency training, selecting thesis topic, challenges or hurdles, and conversion of thesis into journal article. Existing literature on the subject matter is sparse. Current article advocates promotion of ethical and original research during postgraduation and proposes a checklist for residents before submission of their proposals.

INTRODUCTION

Residency is an extremely important period in the life cycle of a modern medical graduate. During this period, a resident learns to practice and acquire proficiency in a subject under guidance of a teacher. Along with acquiring new skills, it is also expected that they learn to critically analyze clinical scenarios and reach a rational conclusion. They are also expected to formulate and conduct original research which is submitted in form of a dissertation or thesis. Research work by a postgraduate should eventually translate into a scientific publication in a peer-reviewed medical journal, which helps in dissemination of thesis findings to the community and scientists. It is essential toward furthering medical knowledge, clinical practice, and the progression of science.[ 1 ] The National Medical Commission has stated the aims of completing this task as “Writing the thesis is aimed at contributing to the development of a spirit of inquiry, besides exposing the candidate to the techniques of research, critical analysis, acquaintance with the latest advances in medical science and the manner of identifying and consulting available literature.”[ 2 ]

CHOOSING THE TOPIC

The most intriguing question while conducting research is “How do I choose the right topic and will I be able to find the right answer?” Starting off with fire in the belly gives the best chance of seeing one’s work through. So, it is important to choose something that entices one’s mind and promises a gratifying result. Existing literature on the topic suggests that the journey of choosing the right topic is often marred by multiple challenges and dilemmas at various stages of this tumultuous journey. There are constraints of time, availability of resources, and support network.[ 3 ]

Therefore, students must remain open to suggestions from within and outside their minds. It is also important to allow the research area to simmer inside their mind for some time so that they can analyze various facets of the chosen area. It is at deeper layer of learning where higher order thinking skills such as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation reside. This then justifies the longer period it takes to arrive at a meaningful thesis title as it represents the highest order of cognitive reasoning referred to as “create” stage.[ 2 ] Short of this, novice researchers operate at lower order and remain “copy-paste” type of researchers.[ 4 ]

Lord “Dhanwantri” also known Physician of Gods brought “ Amrit ” elixir of life after “Samudra Manthan,” which was the result of intensive deliberations.[ 5 ] A systematic stepwise approach for answering any research question offers the best chance of finding the right answer. Succeeding paragraphs in this article shall delve into an enriching scientific journey toward zeroing onto a suitable thesis title.

Area of interest

A journey into an area of one’s interest is bound to be fulfilling. It is a good idea to review one’s past works and experiences, which may be intriguing. A frank and one-to-one discussion with the guide further helps in unravelling novel ideas. Starting with an open and fertile mind promises novel ideas and helps to sustain long-term interest and enthusiasm.[ 6 ] Tendency to merely replicate similar studies should be avoided as they fail to ignite the zest for newer information.[ 7 ] Think about why you got into your field of study. Consider what you like to read about in your free time, especially things related to your field.

From general to specific

A dissertation topic in medicine needs to be captivating and must intrigue the reader to look closer into the research work.[ 8 ] At the outset, it is a good strategy to just define a broad area and a dissertation topic need not be very specific or restrictive. The defined general area must be studied thoroughly and all its facets analyzed in detail. Look for gaps in knowledge which offer an avenue for research. For example, while studying factors responsible for relapse in alcohol dependence, doing a research on employment status of the spouse may be a good idea as it may not have been studied as extensively as other factors. It is needless to say that the student must first be familiar with the disease and all the variables which define its long-term trajectory. Medical science is an evolving field . There are factors of significance that can crop up during course of the study. Therefore, some scope for minor modifications must be kept for unexpected spinoffs. Most of the institutional review board permit minor revision of the protocols though they adhere to their own standards to safeguard interests of the patients. Authors conducted a survey and found that out of 184 submitted, 96 (52%) received requests for minor revision of research protocols. The acceptance resulted in further refinements in research methodology and outcomes.[ 9 ] Therefore, while submitting any protocol, some scope for minor change with probable reasons must be endorsed so that there are no complications while submitting final draft. After discussion with the guide, a suitable title can be given to the research proposal. Selection of the title should be such that it reflects the gist of the whole research and must attract attention of the reader. The title has a long shelf life and may be the first (and many a times, also the only) part of an article that readers see or read. Based on their understanding of the title, readers decide if the article is relevant to them or not.[ 8 ]

Do not bite more than you can chew

The average time allotted for completion of the MD/MS/DNB thesis is 2 years. It may be further reduced due to administrative delays like allotment of thesis guides and selection of topic. It is safe to assume that it takes around 1 month to finalize and submit the protocol and 2 months to write, print, and submit the complete thesis. That leaves just around year and nine months for actual and adequate data collection. All these facts must be kept in mind to ensure genuineness of data.[ 10 ]

A bird in hand is worth two in the bush

Modern medical science thrives on multispecialty approach, and it is not uncommon that students may end up with a research topic involving more than one department or more than one facility of the institution. Studies conducted during Covid pandemic are perfect examples owing to multiple facets of the illness in terms of prevention, pathophysiology, and long-term sequele.[ 11 ] A realistic check for the available resources in terms of infrastructure, availability of study materials, and support from affiliated departments must be done before finalizing the research topic. It is highly unlikely that your thesis is the first or the last research work in a particular area. Negotiating with other department/institution to regularly avail their facilities is often challenging. It is because of the difference in timing, priorities, work culture, and administrative barriers. One way to deal with it is to have a co-guide from that facility/institution. Dissertation reviewers have noticed that students often select topics that become unmanageable during course of their study. It can lead to development of stress and uncertainty about findings at the time of analysis. It was found that institutional support in terms of guidance, access to other departments, and statistical guidance improved overall performance of students and led to timely submission of thesis for publication in journals.[ 12 ]

Avoid controversy

Getting into controversy during initial years of residency is bound to raise stress levels and may dissuade the worker from continuing the research work. Field of medicine is fast evolving on the wheels of technology. Moral and ethical boundaries are slowly getting blurred. Many a times, laws are not revised and many laws are land specific. Therefore, it is a sound practice to familiarize oneself with existing laws and to take care that they are not violated. Central Drug Standard and Control Organization is the regulatory authority responsible for clinical trial oversight, approval, and inspections in India. It functions under Director General of Health Servicesand part of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. The information is available online on their website and it is updated regularly. It is a good idea to visit the website and familiarize oneself about the existing laws before undertaking any research work. The website also gives information about National Ethical Guidelines for biomedical and health research involving human participants. Similarly, informed consent needs to be spelt out quite clearly and should be devoid of incomplete information or concealment of vital health related information. It is now mandatory that all research proposals be vetted by institutional ethical committee prior to submission to the university.[ 13 - 15 ]

Conformation with national health policy

Young medical professionals can contribute immensely by their research designs and valuable inputs in ratifying existing health-related measures or to suggest further refinements. This concept must always be kept in mind while formulating any research designs. Researchers of today are planners for tomorrow and their work is reflection of their goal toward health of the nation. In a comprehensive report, it was found that merely 0.5% of the 4230 thesis citations were quoted in policy decision.[ 16 ] The figures may be even lower for this country. The figures are abysmal compared to the magnitude of the research undertaken in centers of higher learning. The success of National Iodine Deficiency Disorder Control Program in India owes credit to sound scientific inquiries beginning in 1956. Despite stiff opposition and cultural bias, the program gained strength and helped in significantly reducing burden of iodine deficiency disorders.[ 17 ] The findings led to significant policy change and legislation supporting sale of only iodized salt in the country.

Scope for publication

Any research work is considered futile if it does not reach the stage of publication in a reputed journal. A genuine research must eventually translate into a research article. It has become increasingly difficult to translate thesis into a scientific publication in an indexed journal due to stringent standards and peer review. In a retrospective analysis of 85 theses, it was found that the conversion rate to peer-reviewed publication was 32.5%. The most common reasons for not publishing were a lack of originality and poor design. The authors further encouraged publication of full length articles as it helped residents in long term.[ 18 ] Originality of research, sound methodology, and analysis of data besides cogency in manuscript writing have been defining factors that promote acceptance of an article in a reputed journal.[ 19 ] Lure of quick publishing in a predatory journal can be damaging in the long run. Young and inexperienced authors publishing in a predatory journal must be aware of the damage of their reputation, of inadequate peer-review processes and that these journals might get closed any time for variety of reasons. Such publishing harms the scientific community in the long run, and hence such an approach is best avoided.[ 20 ] It is prudent practice to check whether an intended journal is predatory or not from the https://predatoryjournals.com/journals/or Beall’s list (https://beallslist.net/). Similarly, increasing the score by “salami” publication is unethical and should be avoided.

Familiarization with research methodology

Imagine you are gifted a do-it-yourself kit to build a plane which can fly. It is meant for an age group of 18 years or more and should take 1 h to assemble. It has all the wheels, gears, levers, motors, wires, motherboard, etc., required to assemble it into a functioning plane. The kit also has a manual. How long should it take to assemble? 60 min? Now imagine trying to assemble without the manual. It may be extremely difficult if not impossible to assemble the plane and is surely bound to take much longer. Research methodology is exactly like a manual for research. A major confounding factor in medical research is student’s conceptual understanding and comfort level with research methodology.[ 21 ] Findings indicate that there were noticeable differences in perspectives regarding what constitutes research methodology and its utility at least during the first year of residency.[ 21 ] Familiarizing with basic research methods is now mandated for all the medical postgraduates before they submit their research proposals, and free certificate online courses are available on their website. Writing a thesis during MD/MS and DNB courses, without having a correct research methodology planning, is practically impossible. Some of the prominent causes of rejection of submitted manuscripts are poor methodology, small sample size, and poor statistical analysis.[ 22 ] Furthermore, postgraduate students choose research methodology based on a number of factors such as familiarity with a method, methodological orientation of the primary supervisor, the domain of study, and the nature of research problems pursued. Participants reported key challenges that they faced in understanding research methodology include framing research questions, understanding the theory or literature and its role in shaping research outcomes, and difficulties in performing data analysis.[ 23 ]

Motivation level of the researcher

Dr APJ Abdul Kalam, former president of India, quoted that “Dream is not that you see in sleep but it is something that doesn’t let you sleep.” No research work will reach its logical conclusion till the time a researcher has strong motivation to pursue it. Another factor that defines sustained interest in thesis topic is motivation. As described by David Langford, there exists a continuum from extrinsic to intrinsic motivation.[ 24 ] Extrinsic motivation basically refers to a situation wherein the students are ordered (to study). As we move along this continuum, the quality of learning improves consistently with the maturing of the relationship between teacher and student. The culmination of the relationship occurs when the teacher becomes an enabler while the student becomes an active self-learner (intrinsic motivation). The process involves a definitive element of mentorship. In traditional Indian context, Gurukul envisages a firm and enduring relationship between “Guru” (teacher) and “Shishya” (student). Vedas in ancient times were combined with prepared commentaries in the form of “Upanisads.” The term upanisad refers to “Sitting down near a teacher in order to learn.” Though many students have inherent intrinsic motivation, a dynamic “Guru” can really shape the “Shishya.” Though the concept is old, it still remains relevant in modern times because learning medical practice is both art and science and best habits are still passed on to the next generation by trained and experienced teachers.[ 25 ]

WHAT CAN HELP POSTGRADUATE THESIS SELECTION?

The authors of this article put their minds together to devise a questionnaire that can act as a checklist for the residents before they actually submit their draft proposal for submission [ Table 1 ]. The checklist contains 10 questions and the responses can be marked from strongly disagree to strongly agree on a five-point likert scale. The checklist can be self-administered and the responses will give an insight into the lacunae. The residents can gradually work on these lacunae so that they feel at ease during the fantastic journey of scientific research and publication.

Postgraduate thesis topic selection questionnaire

Note: Rate your responses after regular intervals while preparing your research proposal and work on areas that feel difficult

Choosing thesis topic and submitting the protocols is an important milestone in the career of a postgraduate resident. However, its importance cannot be undermined from the fact that it is usually the first scientific pursuit of a medical graduate. Challenges and hurdles are expected but can be overcome with sustained and systematic effort. The authors of this article reviewed the literature concerning this topic and found some key areas which a resident must familiarize with before finalizing their research topic. The postgraduate thesis selection questionnaire can further act as a checklist to facilitate the process.

Financial support and sponsorship

Minds United for Health Sciences & Humanity Trust, IToP STEPS program grant.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgment

Minds United for Health Sciences & Humanity Trust, IToP STEPS program grant for financial support and motivation.

Collaboration, information literacy, writing process, research question.

What is a Research Question?

The Research Question is the question the author is exploring.

Related Concepts: Organizational Schema

A research question is a guiding question that an author uses to guide his or her research while gathering information for a project. Research questions typically appear in an annotated bibliography or other summary of a writer’s research. Generally, a research question does not have an easy Yes/No or other simple answer. Here is an example of a research question: How has video game usage changed how we communicate/socialize with one another?

While a research question may or may not always appear in a finished text, it is important to keep the research question in mind so that your writing specifically addresses the scope of the research question. This will not only help to locate sources related to a topic but also discuss them in a way that shows their connection to the research question.

How to Create a Research Question

In the research process, a writer usually starts with a topic of interest. Investigation of an initial topic will result in a well-developed research question.

When creating a research question, use the topic + concept = research question equation. A topic is a specific, concrete focus (Facebook, video games, school uniforms, etc). A concept is a broad, more abstract area (education, health/fitness, communication, etc).

Now, let’s practice creating research questions. Take the topic of videogames and combine it with different concepts to create a research question.

Videogames (topic) + communication (concept) = How has videogame usage changed how we communicate/socialize with one another? (research question)

Videogames (topic) + health/fitness (concept) = How are videogames contributing/not contributing to adolescent obesity rates, and what are the future health implications from this

Common Issues with Research Questions

If a research question is too broad, a writer will not be able to adequately respond to it within the scope of the project. The writer will also be overwhelmed by the amount of sources that you find.

Example: How does smoking affect teenagers?

This topic is entirely too broad. However, there are ways to narrow it, such as specific aspects of teenage life, geographical area, time period, etc. Based on these changes, here are some possible research questions:

How does teenage smoking affect participation in athletics? How does teenage smoking the Northeast region of the United States affect academic achievement?

A research question that is too narrow is also difficult to work with because it limits the amount of research sources. Also, it restricts the writer’s ability to discuss and explore the topic.

Example: How did the filming of the 1994 film “The Punisher” impact the economy of Tampa?

Because this research question focuses on the effects of one film on just one aspect of life in a single city, the writer may not be able to find sufficient information on this topic or adequately explore the topic. With a topic that is too narrow, follow the same process as broadening topics, just in reverse: additional aspects of life in Tampa, geographical area, time period, etc.

Based on these changes, here are some possible research questions:

How did the film industry affect the economy of central Florida in the 1990s? How did the making of the 1994 movie “The Punisher” impact the economy and daily life of Tampa before, during, and after its actual filming?

Yes/No Question or a Question with a Definite Answer

A research question should not have a simple answer, especially a Yes/No answer.

Example: Should smoking be illegal for teenagers?

This question, although it is very broad, can actually be answered in a “yes” or “no” form: “Yes, smoking should be illegal” or “No, smoking should not be illegal.” The question needs to be more open ended. Here are some possibilities:

How would new, more restrictive legislation affect rates of teen smoking? How does legislation against teenage smoking affect teens’ use of other drugs?

Brevity - Say More with Less

Clarity (in Speech and Writing)

Coherence - How to Achieve Coherence in Writing

Flow - How to Create Flow in Writing

Inclusivity - Inclusive Language

The Elements of Style - The DNA of Powerful Writing

Suggested Edits

Please select the purpose of your message. * - Corrections, Typos, or Edits Technical Support/Problems using the site Advertising with Writing Commons Copyright Issues I am contacting you about something else
Your full name
Your email address *
Page URL needing edits *
Email This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Citation - Definition - Introduction to Citation in Academic & Professional Writing

Joseph M. Moxley

Explore the different ways to cite sources in academic and professional writing, including in-text (Parenthetical), numerical, and note citations.

Collaboration - What is the Role of Collaboration in Academic & Professional Writing?

Collaboration refers to the act of working with others or AI to solve problems, coauthor texts, and develop products and services. Collaboration is a highly prized workplace competency in academic...

Genre may reference a type of writing, art, or musical composition; socially-agreed upon expectations about how writers and speakers should respond to particular rhetorical situations; the cultural values; the epistemological assumptions...

Grammar refers to the rules that inform how people and discourse communities use language (e.g., written or spoken English, body language, or visual language) to communicate. Learn about the rhetorical...

Information Literacy - Discerning Quality Information from Noise

Information Literacy refers to the competencies associated with locating, evaluating, using, and archiving information. In order to thrive, much less survive in a global information economy — an economy where information functions as a...

Mindset refers to a person or community’s way of feeling, thinking, and acting about a topic. The mindsets you hold, consciously or subconsciously, shape how you feel, think, and act–and...

Rhetoric: Exploring Its Definition and Impact on Modern Communication

Learn about rhetoric and rhetorical practices (e.g., rhetorical analysis, rhetorical reasoning, rhetorical situation, and rhetorical stance) so that you can strategically manage how you compose and subsequently produce a text...

Style, most simply, refers to how you say something as opposed to what you say. The style of your writing matters because audiences are unlikely to read your work or...

The Writing Process - Research on Composing

The writing process refers to everything you do in order to complete a writing project. Over the last six decades, researchers have studied and theorized about how writers go about...

Writing Studies

Writing studies refers to an interdisciplinary community of scholars and researchers who study writing. Writing studies also refers to an academic, interdisciplinary discipline – a subject of study. Students in...

Featured Articles

Student engrossed in reading on her laptop, surrounded by a stack of books

Academic Writing – How to Write for the Academic Community

Professional Writing – How to Write for the Professional World

Authority – How to Establish Credibility in Speech & Writing

Crafting Clear Pathways: Writing Objectives in Research Papers

Struggling to write research objectives? Follow our easy steps to learn how to craft effective and compelling objectives in research papers.

Are you struggling to define the goals and direction of your research? Are you losing yourself while doing research and tend to go astray from the intended research topic? Fear not, as many face the same problem and it is quite understandable to overcome this, a concept called research objective comes into play here.

In this article, we’ll delve into the world of the objectives in research papers and why they are essential for a successful study. We will be studying what they are and how they are used in research.

What is a Research Objective?

A research objective is a clear and specific goal that a researcher aims to achieve through a research study. It serves as a roadmap for the research, providing direction and focus. Research objectives are formulated based on the research questions or hypotheses, and they help in defining the scope of the study and guiding the research design and methodology. They also assist in evaluating the success and outcomes of the research.

Types of Research Objectives

There are typically three main types of objectives in a research paper:

Exploratory Objectives: These objectives are focused on gaining a deeper understanding of a particular phenomenon, topic, or issue. Exploratory research objectives aim to explore and identify new ideas, insights, or patterns that were previously unknown or poorly understood. This type of objective is commonly used in preliminary or qualitative studies.
Descriptive Objectives: Descriptive objectives seek to describe and document the characteristics, behaviors, or attributes of a specific population, event, or phenomenon. The purpose is to provide a comprehensive and accurate account of the subject of study. Descriptive research objectives often involve collecting and analyzing data through surveys, observations, or archival research.
Explanatory or Causal Objectives: Explanatory objectives aim to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between variables or factors. These objectives focus on understanding why certain events or phenomena occur and how they are related to each other.

Also Read: What are the types of research?

Steps for Writing Objectives in Research Paper

1. identify the research topic:.

Clearly define the subject or topic of your research. This will provide a broad context for developing specific research objectives.

2. Conduct a Literature Review

Review existing literature and research related to your topic. This will help you understand the current state of knowledge, identify any research gaps, and refine your research objectives accordingly.

3. Identify the Research Questions or Hypotheses

Formulate specific research questions or hypotheses that you want to address in your study. These questions should be directly related to your research topic and guide the development of your research objectives.

4. Focus on Specific Goals

Break down the broader research questions or hypothesis into specific goals or objectives. Each objective should focus on a particular aspect of your research topic and be achievable within the scope of your study.

5. Use Clear and Measurable Language

Write your research objectives using clear and precise language. Avoid vague terms and use specific and measurable terms that can be observed, analyzed, or measured.

6. Consider Feasibility

Ensure that your research objectives are feasible within the available resources, time constraints, and ethical considerations. They should be realistic and attainable given the limitations of your study.

7. Prioritize Objectives

If you have multiple research objectives, prioritize them based on their importance and relevance to your overall research goals. This will help you allocate resources and focus your efforts accordingly.

8. Review and Refine

Review your research objectives to ensure they align with your research questions or hypotheses, and revise them if necessary. Seek feedback from peers or advisors to ensure clarity and coherence.

Tips for Writing Objectives in Research Paper

1. be clear and specific.

Clearly state what you intend to achieve with your research. Use specific language that leaves no room for ambiguity or confusion. This ensures that your objectives are well-defined and focused.

2. Use Action Verbs

Begin each research objective with an action verb that describes a measurable action or outcome. This helps make your objectives more actionable and measurable.

3. Align with Research Questions or Hypotheses

Your research objectives should directly address the research questions or hypotheses you have formulated. Ensure there is a clear connection between them to maintain coherence in your study.

4. Be Realistic and Feasible

Set research objectives that are attainable within the constraints of your study, including available resources, time, and ethical considerations. Unrealistic objectives may undermine the validity and reliability of your research.

5. Consider Relevance and Significance

Your research objectives should be relevant to your research topic and contribute to the broader field of study. Consider the potential impact and significance of achieving the objectives.

SMART Goals for Writing Research Objectives

To ensure that your research objectives are well-defined and effectively guide your study, you can apply the SMART framework. SMART stands for Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound. Here’s how you can make your research objectives SMART:

Specific : Clearly state what you want to achieve in a precise and specific manner. Avoid vague or generalized language. Specify the population, variables, or phenomena of interest.
Measurable : Ensure that your research objectives can be quantified or observed in a measurable way. This allows for objective evaluation and assessment of progress.
Achievable : Set research objectives that are realistic and attainable within the available resources, time, and scope of your study. Consider the feasibility of conducting the research and collecting the necessary data.
Relevant : Ensure that your research objectives are directly relevant to your research topic and contribute to the broader knowledge or understanding of the field. They should align with the purpose and significance of your study.
Time-bound : Set a specific timeframe or deadline for achieving your research objectives. This helps create a sense of urgency and provides a clear timeline for your study.

Examples of Research Objectives

Here are some examples of research objectives from various fields of study:

To examine the relationship between social media usage and self-esteem among young adults aged 18-25 in order to understand the potential impact on mental well-being.
To assess the effectiveness of a mindfulness-based intervention in reducing stress levels and improving coping mechanisms among individuals diagnosed with anxiety disorders.
To investigate the factors influencing consumer purchasing decisions in the e-commerce industry, with a focus on the role of online reviews and social media influencers.
To analyze the effects of climate change on the biodiversity of coral reefs in a specific region, using remote sensing techniques and field surveys.

Importance of Research Objectives

Research objectives play a crucial role in the research process and hold significant importance for several reasons:

Guiding the Research Process: Research objectives provide a clear roadmap for the entire research process. They help researchers stay focused and on track, ensuring that the study remains purposeful and relevant.
Defining the Scope of the Study: Research objectives help in determining the boundaries and scope of the study. They clarify what aspects of the research topic will be explored and what will be excluded.
Providing Direction for Data Collection and Analysis: Research objectives assist in identifying the type of data to be collected and the methods of data collection. They also guide the selection of appropriate data analysis techniques.
Evaluating the Success of the Study: Research objectives serve as benchmarks for evaluating the success and outcomes of the research. They provide measurable criteria against which the researcher can assess whether the objectives have been met or not.
Enhancing Communication and Collaboration: Clearly defined research objectives facilitate effective communication and collaboration among researchers, advisors, and stakeholders.

Common Mistakes to Avoid While Writing Research Objectives

When writing research objectives, it’s important to be aware of common mistakes and pitfalls that can undermine the effectiveness and clarity of your objectives. Here are some common mistakes to avoid:

Vague or Ambiguous Language: One of the key mistakes is using vague or ambiguous language that lacks specificity. Ensure that your research objectives are clearly and precisely stated, leaving no room for misinterpretation or confusion.
Lack of Measurability: Research objectives should be measurable, meaning that they should allow for the collection of data or evidence that can be quantified or observed. Avoid setting objectives that cannot be measured or assessed objectively.
Lack of Alignment with Research Questions or Hypotheses: Your research objectives should directly align with the research questions or hypotheses you have formulated. Make sure there is a clear connection between them to maintain coherence in your study.
Overgeneralization : Avoid writing research objectives that are too broad or encompass too many variables or phenomena. Overgeneralized objectives may lead to a lack of focus or feasibility in conducting the research.
Unrealistic or Unattainable Objectives: Ensure that your research objectives are realistic and attainable within the available resources, time, and scope of your study. Setting unrealistic objectives may compromise the validity and reliability of your research.

In conclusion, research objectives are integral to the success and effectiveness of any research study. They provide a clear direction, focus, and purpose, guiding the entire research process from start to finish. By formulating specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound objectives, researchers can define the scope of their study, guide data collection and analysis, and evaluate the outcomes of their research.

Turn your data into easy-to-understand and dynamic stories

When you wish to explain any complex data, it’s always advised to break it down into simpler visuals or stories. This is where Mind the Graph comes in. It is a platform that helps researchers and scientists to turn their data into easy-to-understand and dynamic stories, helping the audience understand the concepts better. Sign Up now to explore the library of scientific infographics.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Exclusive high quality content about effective visual communication in science.

About Sowjanya Pedada

Sowjanya is a passionate writer and an avid reader. She holds MBA in Agribusiness Management and now is working as a content writer. She loves to play with words and hopes to make a difference in the world through her writings. Apart from writing, she is interested in reading fiction novels and doing craftwork. She also loves to travel and explore different cuisines and spend time with her family and friends.

Content tags

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

View all journals
My Account Login
Explore content
About the journal
Publish with us
Sign up for alerts
Open access
Published: 12 August 2021

Strengthening research integrity: which topic areas should organisations focus on?

Mads P. Sørensen ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2455-2515 1 ,
Tine Ravn 1 ,
Ana Marušić ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6272-0917 2 ,
Andrea Reyes Elizondo ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5676-2122 3 ,
Panagiotis Kavouras ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8004-6196 4 ,
Joeri K. Tijdink 5 &
Anna-Kathrine Bendtsen 1

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume 8 , Article number: 198 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

9127 Accesses

14 Citations

40 Altmetric

Metrics details

Science, technology and society

The widespread problems with scientific fraud, questionable research practices, and the reliability of scientific results have led to an increased focus on research integrity (RI). International organisations and networks have been established, declarations have been issued, and codes of conducts have been formed. The abstract principles of these documents are now also being translated into concrete topic areas that Research Performing organisations (RPOs) and Research Funding organisations (RFOs) should focus on. However, so far, we know very little about disciplinary differences in the need for RI support from RPOs and RFOs. The paper attempts to fill this knowledge gap. It reports on a comprehensive focus group study with 30 focus group interviews carried out in eight different countries across Europe focusing on the following research question: “Which RI topics would researchers and stakeholders from the four main areas of research (humanities, social science, natural science incl. technical science, and medical science incl. biomedicine) prioritise for RPOs and RFOs?” The paper reports on the results of these focus group interviews and gives an overview of the priorities of the four main areas of research. The paper ends with six policy recommendations and a reflection on how the results of the study can be used in RPOs and RFOs.

Genomic data in the All of Us Research Program

The All of Us Research Program Genomics Investigators

Artificial intelligence and illusions of understanding in scientific research

Lisa Messeri & M. J. Crockett

A cross-verified database of notable people, 3500BC-2018AD

Morgane Laouenan, Palaash Bhargava, … Etienne Wasmer

Introduction and literature background

Scientific research is vital for extending the frontiers of knowledge. Universities and other research performing organisations (RPOs) are the cradle of competence, knowledge, and curiosity, playing a pivotal role in society by informing social, political, and economic decision-making. Research funding organisations (RFOs) contribute to this crucial role of science by setting directions and priorities for research and by allocating the necessary funding. The authority and societal relevance of research depend on the trustworthiness of research results. However, science is fallible, contextually situated, and “never pure” (Shapin, 2010 ), progressing by learning from mistakes and refutations of own hypotheses, being itself a source of uncertainties and dilemmas (Beck, 1992 ). Therefore, it is crucial that the scientific community and the public can have trust in researchers and their organisations, knowing that they have research integrity (RI), defined as “the attitude and habit of the researchers to conduct their research according to appropriate ethical, legal and professional frameworks, obligations and standards” (ENERI, 2019 ).

However, over the last 20 years, an alarmingly high number of RI-related problems have been identified and reported. These include cases of scientific fraud and widespread problems with questionable research practices (Steneck, 2006 ; Fanelli, 2009 ; Bouter et al., 2016 ; Ravn and Sørensen, 2021 ) as well as problems with reliability of scientific results (Ioannidis, 2005 ; Resnik and Shamoo, 2017 ; Baker, 2016 ). Ultimately, such violations of good research practice risk diminishing the public and the research community’s trust in science, its institutions, and its practitioners (Roberts et al., 2020 ; Edwards and Roy, 2017 ). Therefore, for validity as well as trust concerns (Bouter et al., 2016 ), research integrity should be strengthened among researchers and research institutions.

To strengthen RI, international networks have been established, such as the European Network of Research Integrity Offices (ENRIO) and the World Conferences on Research Integrity Foundation (WCRI). These organisations have issued different guidance documents on, for instance, RI principles (the Singapore Statement) (WCRI, 2010 ), RI in international collaborations (the Montreal statement) (WCRI, 2013 ), criteria for advancement of researchers (the Hong Kong principles) (Moher et al., 2020 ), and RI investigations (ENERI and ENRIO 2019 ). There are good examples of RPOs and RFOs successfully implementing RI policies into practice (Mejlgaard et al., 2020 ; Lerouge and Hol, 2020 ). There is also recognition that RPOs need support to put RI principles into practice, as outlined in, for instance, the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ALLEA, 2017 ) or in the recommendations from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine ( 2017 ) in the USA. RPOs and RFOs are expected to develop concrete organisational policies that are, or will be, implemented across disciplines in the research ecosystem. However, there is little evidence on how to best address this important task and make abstract RI principles and codes of conduct concrete and relevant for researchers across different disciplines, organisations, and national contexts. A recent scoping review of available evidence showed that most RI practice guidance was developed for research in general, applicable to all research fields (Ščepanović et al., 2021 ). The majority of RI documents were guidelines developed by RPOs, which focused on researchers. Only a few RI practices originating from RFOs were identified. While medical science had many guidance documents and support structures in place (patient-centred data management plans, ethical review boards, etc.), the main research areas of natural science, social science, and the humanities did not have much discipline-specific RI guidance.

If we look at factors influencing the implementation of practices for RI in RPOs and RFOs, there is a great deal of evidence on factors negatively influencing RI but only a few studies on how to make a positive change in research environments at the institutional level (Gaskell et al., 2019 ). A Cochrane systematic review of interventions to promote RI (Marušić et al., 2016 ) showed that only a few have been shown to be effective. There was only low-quality evidence on training students about plagiarism, and no studies at that time showed successful interventions at the organisational level (Marušić et al., 2016 ). More recently, Haven et al. ( 2020 ) showed that a transparent research climate is important for enhancing RI.

A study of RI-related changes in a research organisation showed that the responses of researchers were influenced not only by academic and professional training and experience, but also by the micro-organisational context in which the change was implemented (Owen et al., 2021 ). Furthermore, developing skills for RI and advocating and supporting RI implementation with specific interventions may not be sufficient and should be complemented by periodic formal research assessment exercises to ensure that the RI practices have been fully implemented (Owen et al., 2021 ). Economic modelling of institutional rewards for research further suggests that research institutions should balance both an “effort incentive policy” (to increase research productivity) and an “anti-fraud policy” (to deal with misconduct) (Le Maux et al., 2019 ).

The point of departure for our focus group study is the idea that research organisations need to have a clear plan for how to promote RI (Mejlgaard et al., 2020 ). This plan must describe which policies and actions an organisation will apply to promote RI and point to relevant guidelines that can support researchers across main areas of research. The first step in such a plan is to identify the most relevant topics. Some topics have already been identified by the research community, such as training and mentoring for RI, improving research culture, protecting both whistleblowers and researchers under allegation for misconduct (Forsberg et al., 2018 ), as well as research methodology and reporting/publishing (EViR Funders’ Forum, 2020 ).

Our focus group study is part of the EC-funded project “Standard Operating Procedures for Research Integrity” (SOPs4RI), which aims to support transformational RI processes across European Research. Footnote 1 Ahead of the focus group study, a wide, three-round Delphi consultation of research policy experts and institutional leaders was conducted to identify priority topics for RI promotion plans (Labib et al., 2021 ). This resulted in two lists of RI topics, with nine topics for RPOs and 11 topics for RFOs identified as important. Footnote 2

However, neither the Delphi study (Labib et al., 2021 ) nor any other studies tell us anything about disciplinary differences in the relevance of these RI topics. We know from the literature on, for example, epistemic cultures that there are notable differences in how research processes are carried out and what constitutes scientific knowledge (e.g., Knorr Cetina, 1999 ; Knorr Cetina & Reichmann, 2015 ). These differences also lead to variation in the perception of questionable research practices (QRPs) across research areas (e.g., Ravn and Sørensen, 2021 ). Therefore, we might expect disciplinary differences in requirements for research integrity guidelines and organisational support. However, so far, we know very little about what such differences entail. In the present paper, we attempt to fill this knowledge gap by examining how to best promote RI across the main areas of research. Footnote 3 We conducted 30 focus group interviews across Europe in an attempt to answer the question, “Which RI topics would researchers and stakeholders from the four main areas of research (humanities, social science, natural science incl. technical science, and medical science incl. biomedicine) prioritise for RPOs and RFOs?” The paper reports on the results of these focus group interviews and gives an overview of the priorities of the four main areas of research. The paper ends with policy recommendations and a reflection on how the results of our study can be used in RPOs and RFOs.

Research and interview design

Through a focus group study design, we aimed to explore how the main areas of research (humanities, social science, natural science incl. technical science, and medical science incl. biomedicine) perceived and prioritised a number of different RI topics relevant for RPOs and RFOs, respectively (based on Labib et al., 2021 and Mejlgaard et al., 2020 ). The focus group interviews consisted of three parts (cf. Document S3 : Moderator/interview guide). First, some open questions were introduced that related to the different main areas of research’s needs for RI support. Then, a discussion followed on selected RI topics. Finally, a sorting exercise was introduced where nine and 11 topics for RPOs and RFOs, respectively, were sorted and ranked. Here, based on discussion and consensus within the group, participants were asked to place the topics within one of three categories: “very important”, “somewhat important”, and “of none or minimal importance” for enhancing RI within their main area of research. The exercise was carried out via pre-printed, laminated cards (see examples in Document S5 ). On one side of the card was the name of the RI topic under discussion—on the other side the subtopics associated with this topic. In this way, the interviewees could use the subtopics to understand the meaning of the topic, discuss the importance of it for their research area and, finally, place it in one of the three categories. Table 1 shows the topics, including subtopics, that were sorted and ranked, and this paper reports on the results of this sorting exercise.

Sample and recruitment strategy

The comprehensive study consists of 30 focus group interviews across eight European countries. Footnote 4 The interviews were conducted between December 2019 and April 2020. 14 of the focus groups concentrated on RPOs and involved researchers exclusively, 16 groups focused on RFOs and included researchers as well as relevant stakeholders. A total of 147 researchers and stakeholders participated in the study. Footnote 5 Table 2 displays the distribution of participants in relation to research area, gender, and academic level. Table S1 and Table S2 give a more detailed overview of the composition of each focus group.

See Table S4 for further information on number of invitations send out, acceptance rates, and cancellations.

Study participants were recruited based on a number of sampling criteria to ensure overall variation in research areas and disciplines as well as in stakeholder representation in the mixed focus groups. For both the researcher-only groups (targeting RPOs) and the mixed groups (targeting RFOs), sample homogeneity was employed with regard to area of research. Furthermore, the RPO groups were composed of researchers with shared methodological and epistemic approaches in terms of “research orientation”. In the humanities-groups focusing on RPOs, one group was composed of language disciplines, one of historical disciplines, and the last one of communication disciplines. In the social sciences, the groups were divided between qualitative researchers (two groups) and quantitative researchers (one group). In the Natural science groups, three groups were composed of researchers doing laboratory/experimental/applied/field research and one group with researchers who work theoretical. Finally, in the medical science groups, two groups conducted basic research and two groups were clinical/translational/public health in character. The exact disciplines represented in these groups are shown in Table S1 .

In the 16 groups focusing on RFOs, four groups were conducted per main area of research (humanities, social science, natural science incl. technical science, and medical science incl. biomedicine). All groups consisted of both researchers and relevant stakeholders. In the composition of these groups, variation in stakeholder representation was key. Stakeholders included research integrity and research ethics committee members, public and private funders, representatives from RPO-management and industry, trade unions, publishers, etc (see Table S2 for a full account of participants).

The following sample criteria were also applied to enhance representation and diversity and to introduce heterogeneity into the groups to counterbalance group homogeneity:

One stakeholder employed in a high-level management position in a research-funding organisation (RFO) and one stakeholder from a research integrity office (RIO) should be included in each of the groups.

Both senior/permanent position holders and junior researchers/non-permanent position holders should be represented in the groups. Interdependent participants (e.g., a lab leader and an employee from the same lab) should not be recruited to the same group.

The gender composition of the focus groups should be balanced.

Two to three different disciplines should be represented in each focus group.

Minimum two types of stakeholders should be included in a mixed focus group. Stakeholders must have discipline-specific knowledge.

The selected disciplines should be broadly representative of research being conducted in the four main areas.

Not all focus groups meet all sampling criteria (see Table S1 and Table S2 ). However, across the complete sample, variation is accomplished as to the number of criteria stipulated. Overall, the focus group study applied a purposeful sampling strategy (Patton, 1990 ) based on the number of pre-selected criteria outlined above. Moreover, the study used snowball/chain sampling. Relevant volunteers from existing networks, together with new volunteers recruited at, for instance, conferences were asked to act as gatekeepers and assist with the recruitment of relevant researchers and stakeholders within their organisations and institutions. This strategy was supplemented by an approach where participants were chosen from institutional webpages and invited by e-mail.

Ethical considerations

Ethical approval.

Ethical approval was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee at Aarhus University (ref. no 2019-0015957). In addition, a national approval was obtained in Croatia.

Risk and inconveniences

The focus group study posed a small risk of discovering sensitive information, for instance concerning research misconduct cases. In the focus group introduction, the focus group facilitators emphasised the issue of confidentiality, and by signing the informed consent form, participants agreed to maintain the confidentiality of information discussed during the focus group interview.

Informed consent

The informed consent form followed the guidelines of Aarhus University. For the face-to-face interviews, consent forms were signed before the commencement of the interviews. For the online focus group interviews, consent was given verbally and subsequently provided in a written version.

Data management and privacy

The focus group invitation letter included a link to the privacy policy specifying the procedures for data management and privacy in compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

Coding and analytical strategy

Recording and transcription.

All interviews were performed in English, recorded, and transcribed to enhance accuracy and reliability. All transcribed interviews were coded in the software programme NVivo (ver. 12), which is designed to facilitate data management, analysis, and reporting. The coding process mainly followed a deductive coding strategy and was directed by a set of pre-defined categories that relate to the list of RI topics and subtopics explored through the moderator/interview guide (cf. Document S3 , Table 1 , and Sørensen et al., 2020 ). The coding process also made use of a more explorative approach, where new topics and cross-cutting themes emerged through an inductive coding procedure. The data was coded through the process of first- and second-cycle coding (Saldana, 2013 ) by one of the authors but discussed collectively.

Analytical strategy and construction of heat maps

The analytical strategy prioritised within-case analyses of each of the discussed RI topics in order to understand its uniqueness in relation to the different main areas of research, the specific dynamics and correlations at play as well as context-dependent implications that may reflect national and institutional variance of particular importance. The analytical strategy also included a thematic across-case comparison that added to and supported the explanatory force of the individual within-case analyses by ocusing on identifying differences and similarities across the main areas of research. To visualise the prioritisation of topics qua the sorting exercise and associated discussions, 10 heat maps were constructed through two rounds of coding. In the first round, two researchers analysed the outputs from the sorting exercises—pictures (cf. Document S5 ) and transcriptions—in order to place each topic in one of the five categories applied: “very important”, “important”, “somewhat important”, “of minimal importance”, and “not important”. Footnote 7 This was done for each of the 30 focus groups. In the second round, disparities in the coding were analysed and discussed. After this, both coders’ final codings were given a score (1–5; the lowest category “not important” got the score 1, the next-lowest category 2, etc.). Subsequently, the average score was calculated and used as the basis of the heat maps (Figs. 1 – 10 ).

The heat map displays the results of the sorting exercise of nine RI topics (horizontal rows) across the 14 RPO focus groups (vertical columns). The horizontal column on the left side with hexagons shows the combined results for all 14 RPO focus groups. The color chart at the top explains what the heat map colors mean. The construction of the heat maps is explained in the “Methods” section.

The heat map displays the results of the sorting exercise of nine RI topics (horizontal rows) across the three humanities RPO focus groups (vertical columns). The horizontal column on the left side with hexagons shows the combined results for all three RPO focus groups. The color chart at the top explains what the heat map colors mean. The construction of the heat maps is explained in the “Methods” section.

The heat map displays the results of the sorting exercise of nine RI topics (horizontal rows) across the three social science RPO focus groups (vertical columns). The horizontal column on the left side with hexagons shows the combined results for all three RPO focus groups. The color chart at the top explains what the heat map colors mean. The construction of the heat maps is explained in the “Methods” section.

The heat map displays the results of the sorting exercise of nine RI topics (horizontal rows) across the four natural science RPO focus groups (vertical columns). The horizontal column on the left side with hexagons shows the combined results for all four RPO focus groups. The color chart at the top explains what the heat map colors mean. The construction of the heat maps is explained in the “Methods” section.

The heat map displays the results of the sorting exercise of nine RI topics (horizontal rows) across the four medical science RPO focus groups (vertical columns). The horizontal column on the left side with hexagons shows the combined results for all four RPO focus groups. The color chart at the top explains what the heat map colors mean. The construction of the heat maps is explained in the "Methods" section.

The heat map displays the results of the sorting exercise of 11 RI topics (horizontal rows) across the 16 RFO focus groups (vertical columns). The horizontal column on the left side with hexagons shows the combined results for all 16 RFO focus groups. The color chart at the top explains what the heat map colors mean. The construction of the heat maps is explained in the “Methods” section.

The heat map displays the results of the sorting exercise of 11 RI topics (horizontal rows) across the four humanities RFO focus groups (vertical columns). The horizontal column on the left side with hexagons shows the combined results for all four RFO focus groups. The color chart at the top explains what the heat map colors mean. The construction of the heat maps is explained in the “Methods” section.

The heat map displays the results of the sorting exercise of 11 RI topics (horizontal rows) across the four social science RFO focus groups (vertical columns). The horizontal column on the left side with hexagons shows the combined results for all four RFO focus groups. The color chart at the top explains what the heat map colors mean. The construction of the heat maps is explained in the “Methods” section.

The heat map displays the results of the sorting exercise of 11 RI topics (horizontal rows) across the four natural science RFO focus groups (vertical columns). The horizontal column on the left side with hexagons shows the combined results for all four RFO focus groups. The color chart at the top explains what the heat map colors mean. The construction of the heat maps is explained in the “Methods” section.

The heat map displays the results of the sorting exercise of 11 RI topics (horizontal rows) across the four medical science RFO focus groups (vertical columns). The horizontal column on the left side with hexagons shows the combined results for all four RFO focus groups. The color chart at the top explains what the heat map colors mean. The construction of the heat maps is explained in the “Methods” section.

In this section, we present the results of the sorting exercise that was carried out as part of the 30 focus group interviews. We present the results in two subsections. First, we report on the results from the 14 focus groups focusing on topics for RPOs. Then, we present the results from the 16 focus groups that discussed RFO-related topics. In both subsections, we first show the combined results of all the focus groups within the subsection in a heat map. After this, we present the results per main area of research (humanities, social science, natural science, and medical science), reported in one heat map per main area. Finally, we end both subsections with a table that summarises the most important RI topics for the four main areas of research.

Research performing organisations

This subsection presents the results from the 14 focus groups that discussed a set of nine research integrity topics for RPOs. 67 researchers took part in the interviews, which were carried out in eight different countries. The interviewees represented key approaches and core disciplines within the four main areas of research. Table S1 describes the 14 focus groups in detail, including the number of interviewees in each group, approaches and disciplines represented, seniority level, gender balance, and the country where the focus group interview was conducted.

The combined results of the RPO focus groups

Figure 1 shows the results of the 14 focus groups that discussed the importance of the nine RPO topics. The heat map depicts the scores from each of the 14 groups as well as the combined score for all groups shown per topic. The combined scores show that two topics (“Supervision and mentoring” and “Research environment”) were considered to be very important, five topics were considered to be important, whereas the two last topics (“Collaborative research among RPOs” and “Declaration of competing interests”) got the combined score “somewhat important”. However, if we look at how the individual groups have scored these two topics, they were found to be “very important” in four and six groups, respectively. Our focus group interviews thus confirmed the importance of the RPO topics listed in Table 1 .

The results per main area of research for RPOs

If we look separately at the four different main areas of research, there are, however, also notable differences in the perception of the importance of individual topics. Figure 2 shows the results of the sorting exercise in the humanities focus groups. Apart from “Collaborative research among RPOs”, all topics were perceived to be important. The topic “Research Environment” was considered the most important topic.

Across the humanities groups, the topic “Responsible supervision and mentoring” was seen as a foundation for a solid research culture, as expressed by this interviewee, for example: “It holds up the quality. So I think that it’s very, very important that we have a good sense that responsibility is key in, when you supervise, when you mentor …” (Senior-level researcher in history of ideas, focus group 1). On the other hand, the topics “Research ethics structures” and “Data practices and management” were assessed rather differently among the three groups. For some, ethics does not play any role: “The actors I look at, they’re all dead so [all laugh]” (Assistant professor in archaeology, focus group 1). For others, it is seen as fundamental: “I mean it’s such a crucial, but basic thing, I think that its, yer, having a framework in place that is ethical” (Postdoc in theoretical linguistics, focus group 11).

These differences also reflect variances in experiences and needs of the different disciplinary subfields within the humanities. As a main research area, the humanities consist of many different disciplinary fields that vary in the methods they use and, in some cases, even belong to different epistemic cultures (Knorr-Cetina, 1999 ; Ravn and Sørensen, 2021 ). There are, in other words, differences in the way in which they “do research” and understand what good research is, and these differences show themselves in dissimilar needs for guidelines and SOPs. Accordingly, the interviewees in the humanities groups would like RPOs to consider disciplinary differences when formulating research integrity policies and guidelines in order to make sure that the policies are relevant: “… we are always held to standards that have nothing to do with our practice” (Senior-level researcher in history of ideas, focus group 1). According to the interviewees, this would also help RPOs ensuring legitimacy of its policies and procedures.

Differences in the way research is carried out can probably also explain why “Collaborative research among RPOs” got a low score in the humanities groups. Across the humanities, publications on average have fewer co-authors than publications within other main areas of research (Henriksen, 2016 ).

The need for thinking about disciplinary differences was also relevant among the focus group interviews with social scientists. In these interviews, eight of the nine topics were assessed as important or very important (Fig. 3 ). For example, expressed in this way concerning “Research environment”: “it’s very important because it creates a culture […]. If an institute or I’m new at some place and already their culture has integrity then I might learn by doing from them.” (Postdoc, focus group 16) “Research ethics structures” was the only topic that the social science groups considered to be of minimal importance for RPOs to develop guidelines and SOPs for. The discussions in the groups showed that this was not because the topic was not considered important per se, but because it was seen as a topic that was already well taken care of by RPOs. “Collaborative research among RPOs” also got a relatively low combined score. However, here, it is important to note the difference between the quantitative group that found this topic very important and the two qualitative groups that found the subject somewhat important.

In the natural science groups (including technical science), all issues except one were considered to be important or very important (Fig. 4 ). The only topic that got the combined score “somewhat important” was “Declaration of competing interests”. However, here, there were noteworthy differences between the four groups. Two groups found it very important, while one group thought this topic was already well covered: “… they [RPOs] all have clear guidelines on what you have to do in case of competing interest. You have different ones but they’re all pretty clear. It’s a very important topic, of course, but it’s being handled in a quite appropriate way as far as I know” (Associate professor in bioscience and engineering, focus group 17). The last group questioned the effect of declarations of competing interests: “I don’t think that declaration is the most important thing. The principle is important but not the declaration. What is declaration? [laughter] If you sign something that you don’t do, it’s not necessary that you’ll follow this […]” (Senior researcher in geoscience, focus group 23).

In contrast to the humanities and the qualitative methods groups within social science, the natural and technical science researchers could relate to most RI topics discussed in the focus groups. In these groups, “classic problems” within RI, such as conflicts on authorship, publication pressure, and problems related to supervision, were discussed across the groups. In addition, problems related to collaborative work, especially between universities and industry, were also pointed out as important, most likely because university-industry collaboration plays an important role within technical science and can sometimes generate conflicts, as this interviewee explains:

So, if you publish anything with [company name] or any of the companies, they will wanna read it, and they have to sign off on specifically what you write, and they will ask you to change some sentences that they don’t like. So, they never changed what they said, but they changed some of the wordings. […] So, I felt like they should just shush, like they shouldn’t have any say in what I write, because it’s my paper, it’s my data, but it’s also their data, and if I work with somebody in the university, they will also have permission to say that, right. We all have to agree on what it is, we say […] (Postdoc in chemistry, focus group 6).

The importance of thinking about disciplinary differences when formulating policies and guidelines for RI topics was also evident in the natural science groups. For example, all three experimental groups perceived “Research ethics structures” to be very important, whereas the theoretical group considered this topic “not important”. One of the interviewees explained the lack of importance of ethics structures for theoretical natural science with a lack of connection between theoretical work and living beings: “… I guess it doesn’t have any importance because it’s theoretical, it’s not on anything living” (Postdoc in chemistry, focus group 6).

Finally, if we look at the results from the medical science focus groups (Fig. 5 ), the interviewees found it particularly important to focus on “Education and training in RI”, “Responsible supervision and mentoring”, and “Research environment”. For example, expressed in this way:

On research environment:

[…] if we don’t support a research culture and a research environment there’s nothing for us to do. […] we have to be fertilised with good energy to make some good projects, and if there’s no culture where there’s fair procedures for appointments, where there’s adequate education and skills training, […] if none of these things are in place, there’s no need for us to do what we’re doing (Associate professor in clinical nursing, focus group 10).

On supervision and mentoring:

Ph.D students are expensive, because we have to send them to courses, conferences all these things, and we have to put so much energy trying to read the articles, to promote their science, and when something goes wrong, we are the main person taking the fall for it. So we need to have our names standing out if we don’t, therefore coaching and supervision is very, very important (Associate professor in oncology, focus group 10).

On education and training:

So, how do we perceive the term responsible science? Each one perceives it in a different way […] For me what we need is education […] (Professor in medical law and ethics, focus group 30).

“Dealing with breaches of RI”, “Research Ethics structures”, and “Data practices and management” were also assessed to be important issues for the RPOs to focus on, whereas the results for the last three topics are less clear. “Declaration of competing interest” got four different scores in the groups. The interviewees saw it as important, but also as a mere formality to declare competing interests: “It’s something that is always written, even though it’s just a little star at the end, ‘if there are any cases of conflict of interest, do not’. […] I think what we’re saying is that it’s important, but what I’m trying to say is, that it’s already written in many of the documents […]” (Associate professor in clinical nursing, focus group 10). “Publication and communication” and “Collaborative research among RPOs” also scored relatively low, but here, there seems to be a difference between the clinical and basic science groups. These topics were perceived as more important by the clinical groups than the basic research groups.

Finally, interviewees pointed out that procedures and standards are often quite different between RPOs and countries. One interviewee expressed it in this way:

Where should she apply for ethics? [There are] some other EU regulations that we have to follow on top of the local, regional, national requirements for ethics, so just to say that the mix of who we are and where we work influences, it makes a lot of, I don’t know, confusion somehow. And I think some rules and guidelines would be beneficial at times (Associate professor in clinical nursing, focus group 10).

This is often a challenge in collaborative projects. Therefore, the interviewees did not just request more guidelines and SOPs, but also a harmonisation across RPOs and countries, as expressed in this way: “If you are going to set up an office of research integrity at the European level (like USA) that would be very interesting. I think that would be a good idea” (Senior researcher in biophysics, focus group 30).

Top-prioritised topics per main area of research for RPOs

As this subsection has shown, there are notable differences between the main areas of research. Therefore, we end this subsection with a table that provides an overview of the top-prioritised topics per main area of research (Table 3 ). The table shows which topics are considered the most important for the different main areas. Only the topics that were found to be “very important” in at least three out of four groups (or two out of three for the main areas, where only three groups were carried out) are included.

Research funding organisations

In addition to the 14 focus group interviews focussing on the RPOs, 16 other focus groups interviews were carried out to discuss the perceived importance of the 11 topics that Labib et al. ( 2021 ) identified as important for RFOs. In this subsection, we report on the results from these focus groups. Also, in these RFO groups, we operated with the four main areas of research and conducted four focus group interviews within each of these main areas. The interviewees were both researchers from the particular main area of research and relevant stakeholders such as people working in management position at RPOs, representatives from funders, RIOs, and so on (see Table S2 for details). We did not divide the groups into different approaches within the four main areas of research but invited the interviewees as representatives of the main area. For example, this means that both qualitative and quantitative researchers took part in all four focus groups interviews within social science.

The combined results of the RFO focus groups

The combined results of the 16 focus groups that discussed the importance of the 11 topics identified by Labib et al. ( 2021 ) are shown in Fig. 6 . This combined heat map shows that nine of the 11 topics are considered to be “important”, while two topics, “Intellectual property rights” and “Collaboration within funded projects” were only regarded as “somewhat important”. Still, these topics were considered “very important” or “important” in seven and eight, respectively, of the 16 groups. The combined heat map thus testifies to a general support of the 11 topics identified by Labib et al. ( 2021 ).

The results per main area of research for RFOs

Despite a general validation of the 11 topics, the focus group interviews also revealed some disciplinary differences in the perception of the importance of the topics. Therefore, we continue this subsection by looking into the four main areas of research’s perception of the importance of the topics. We begin with the humanities and the heat map depicted in Fig. 7 , which shows the importance assigned to the 11 RFO-related topics by the interviewees in the humanities groups. Across the four groups, eight of the topics were found to be either important or very important for funders to focus on to support RI of its beneficiaries. Two topics (“Intellectual property issues” and “Collaboration within funded projects”) were only considered to be “somewhat important”, while “Declaration of competing interests” was found to be of minimal importance.

Even though the interviewees from the humanities were relatively positive towards the idea that RFOs develop their own guidelines and SOPs for at least eight of the 11 topics, it should be mentioned that they also expressed a concern that this might lead to increased bureaucracy, articulated by an interviewee in this way: “Yeah, it’s hard to say because I think that there’s already like a lot of bureaucracy […] I wonder if maybe we need to readdress where the bureaucracy is focused, when it comes to these things” (Associate researcher in digital humanities, focus group 13).

Further, although there are clear patterns in the way in which the humanities prioritise different topics, it is also important to note the relatively large differences between the groups. These differences are larger than within the other main areas of research and show how difficult it is to talk about the humanities as such across disciplinary, institutional, and national differences. When interpreting the differences in the perceptions of the importance of the topics, one also has to take the different subtopics related to each topic into consideration (cf. Table 1 ). Some subtopics might be important for some interviewees, while others are of lesser importance.

Turning now to social science, the first important feature in the heat map (Fig. 8 ) is that it is much greener than the humanities heat map (Fig. 7 ). This points to a generally stronger support within social science to the idea that RFOs can help enhance RI through guidelines and SOPs. Except for the topic “Intellectual property rights”, which the interviewees found it hard to relate to and not especially relevant for their area of research, the combined results show that the interviewees found the rest of the issues “important” or “very important”. Two topics, “Research ethics structures” and “Publication & communication”, were even considered to be “very important” by all groups. Three other topics (“Dealing with breaches of RI”, “Selection & evaluation of proposals”, and “Collaboration within funded projects”) were similarly placed in the “very important” category in three of the four focus groups, showing strong support to the idea that RFOs should make guidelines and SOPs for these topics.

Despite a generally positive-attitude towards RFOs providing guidelines and SOPs to beneficiaries, the interviewees in the social science focus groups also warned against possible negative bureaucratic side-effects of more guidelines and SOPs alongside already existing ones:

P2: […] we are spending more and more human resources and, along with that financial resources to explain how did we spent our money (Management position at university, focus group 22).

P1: I fully agree. And I think we are creating way too much burden, administrating, which could be used for actual productive scientific work (Associate professor of psychology, focus group 22).

If we look at the results from the natural science groups (Fig. 9 ), which in our study also includes technical science, we again see a strong overall validation of the 11 topics identified in the Delphi study. As was the case within social science, all topics are placed in the “very important” category in at least two of the four groups. However, although the overall picture is that all 11 topics are important for the RFOs to address (except “Publication & communication”, which only got the combined score “somewhat important”), the discussions in the four focus groups revealed substantial differences in the perception of the importance of the single topics. In most cases, these differences can be explained with disciplinary, institutional, and especially national differences. For example, the topic “Dealing with breaches of RI” was considered a “very important” topic in three groups, but not in the group that was conducted in Denmark. Here, it was found to be “not important”—not because the topics was not seen as important per see, but because a legal system for handling scientific misconduct is already in place in Denmark. As one of the interviewees explained,

[…] in Denmark we have actually a legal framework for dealing with this. It’s not something we invented at [name of RPO], it’s a standard for all Danish universities. So we also need to respect our system, we might not completely agree with the system, but then we need to work on changing the system but not having this overruled by a funding agency (RIO, focus group 7).

However, not all countries have such systems in place:

[…] from a funder’s perspective if you for instance were funding research in Italy or Greece, then from a funder’s perspective there might be a need for you to deal with breaches of research integrity, because there might not be any system at the university (RIO, focus group 7).

For medical science, including biomedicine, the issue of division of work between RPOs and RFOs was at the centre of the discussions in these groups. For example, a representative from a funder said the following: “[…] [I]t’s important to state that you find this important as a funder, but I don’t think it’s important for the funding agency, whatever the source of money is, to control this, to monitor this. That would be at the university level” (private funding org. representative, focus group 8). Another interviewee said that “[…] research integrity is more handled at the […] university where they already have committees etc. in place to handle this” (Professor of molecular pharmacology, focus group 8).

Although most of the topics were seen as important in themselves, it was pointed out that there must be a balance of responsibilities between RPOs and RFOs. Interviewees emphasised that for topics such as “Research ethics structures”, “Independence”, “Updating and implementing the RI policy”, and “Publication and communication”, funders should be careful not to interfere with the internal affairs of RPOs. Instead of making their own guidelines and SOPs, they could demand that procedures were in place at the beneficiary institutions. One representative from a funder said that they “[…] use the structures that are set in place by the universities” (Public funding org. representative, focus group 19), and another representative from a different funder said that

[…] it would make little sense to make rules that are in addition to or maybe even in conflict with the rules that actually govern whether people do or do not get approval from ethics committees. So I would say no to having separate rules, but yes to stating as a funder that you expect people to adhere to the rules that are already in place (Private funding org. representative, focus group 8).

Across groups, interviewees said that “Declaration of competing interests” and “Selection and evaluation of proposals” were more obvious topics for the funders to develop their own standards for.

Finally, as Fig. 10 shows, three topics got the combined score “somewhat important”. These are “Funders’ expectations of RPOs”, “Collaboration within funded projects”, and “Monitoring of funded applications”. According to the interviewees, these topics are both difficult to implement and to follow up on effectively. The relatively low score of “Monitoring of funded applications” also had to do with a fear of unnecessary paperwork and bureaucracy: “[…] it’s really difficult to do this [monitoring of funded applications] without adding much more paperwork and kind of administrative, you know, also for the researchers […]” (Administrative employee in science communication, focus group 9).

Top-prioritised topics per main area of research for RFOs

We end this subsection by summarising the main results from the focus group interviews on the RFO topics. Table 4 shows the topics that the four main areas of research would particularly like RFOs to focus on. As in Table 3 , the threshold has been set quite high so that the topics included are the ones that at least three out of four groups found very important.

Discussion and recommendations

In the previous section, we presented the results of the sorting exercise conducted in the 30 focus group interviews. In the focus group discussions, the interviewees recognised the importance of the RI topics listed in Table 1 (based on Labib et al., 2021 and Mejlgaard et al., 2020 ). However, the results also revealed differences in the four main areas of research’s perceptions of the importance of the single topics. Some topics were more important for some areas than others were, as summarised in Tables 3 and 4 . These results can help us fill in the knowledge gap identified in the Introduction concerning disciplinary differences in the need for organisational RI support. We therefore in this section first discuss the meaning of these results, before ending with a reflection on the strengths and limitations of our study. The discussion is structured as six recommendations (I-VI).

Consider disciplinary differences

The study clearly shows that research and funding organisations must consider disciplinary differences when formulating research integrity policies. Variation across and within research areas influences RI perceptions and results in different challenges in, for instance, terms of data management, ethical considerations, and authorship distribution, which in turn call for discipline-specific RI support and guidelines. Evidently, RI policies are requested to be sensitive towards disciplinary differences. Attention to such prioritisations will not only assist organisations in maximising their resources and RI efforts; tailored policies and guidelines will also increase their quality and relevance and, as a result, increase their legitimacy among researchers. As shown in the results section, there are also important differences within the main areas of research that need to be considered when RI policy initiatives are designed and implemented. These differences seem to be particularly evident within the humanities but are also identified within social science between qualitative and quantitative research approaches. Differences in the need for RI support and guidance are, for instance, evident in the demand for research ethics structures and requirements as well as publication and communication issues. These needs relate to the nature of one’s research as well as the types of collaborations formed. For the ethical requirements, important variation exists within the humanities as to whether research entails the need to protect human subjects, animals, environment, and data. For example, different ethical issues and needs emerge when you work with children and other vulnerable groups as a linguist, compared to a researcher of medieval history working with 800-year-old texts. Standard ethical requests and ethical review procedures are not always experienced to be in alignment with the performed research and the risks and impacts associated with it, and it is relevant to adapt such requirements to disciplinary contexts and the research activities performed.

RPOs: build a sound research environment

Despite disciplinary variation, the study generally points to the research environment as a key RI topic area for RPOs to address. The research environment – the cultural norms and values of an institution (Valkenburg et al., 2021 , p. 5) and its handling of appointments, incentive structures, conflicts, competition, diversity issues, and so on – is also seen as an underlying construct for managing and cultivating other issues of RI. Issues such as hyper-competitiveness, performance pressures, and power imbalances were emphasised in the focus groups as main obstacles for a sound RI environment. These findings are in line with other recent studies drawing attention to the profound and ensuing effects of strong organisational cultures to the reinforcement of responsible research (Forsberg et al., 2018 ; Haven et al., 2020 ).

It is our opinion, that although individual researchers carry responsibilities and have to live up to professional standards (Steneck, 2006 ), “responsibilisation” of RI is unevenly targeted at the individual researcher rather than linked to institutions and the science system (cf. also Davies, 2019 , p. 1250; Bonn et al., 2019 ). Our study confirms the importance of paying more attention to the institutional level. Therefore, we urge research organisations to think about how they can build a sound research environment. Translated into actions, institutions could, for example, ensure fair and transparent assessment procedures for appointments, assessments, and promotions. They could also address hyper-competition, excessive publication pressure and diversity issues. Moreover, institutions could provide adequate education and skills training at both junior and senior levels and secure mentoring arrangements (Labib et al., 2021 , May 14). Mejlgaard et al. ( 2020 ) point out that such responsible research processes should be supported by transparency, quality assessments, and clear procedures for handling allegations of misconduct (see also www.sops4ri.eu and Lerouge and Hol, 2020 for inspiration for additional actions and tools).

RFOs: adapt RI topics into concrete actions

For RFOs, procedures for managing breaches of RI, securing research ethics structures, and addressing publication and communication issues were pointed out as especially important topics. Therefore, we recommend that RFOs review their evaluation and funding procedures and formulate policies on how funding proposals are selected, reviewed, and monitored. While there is consensus among study participants that RFOs have an important role to play in implementing sound and effective RI policies, the interviewees also emphasised that RFOs should refrain from establishing disparate and parallel RI procedures to those of research organisations. As to the latter, funding organisations could undertake an active role in making sure that RPOs properly address RI issues—that is, by ensuring that they have clear policies, governance structures, and guidelines in place. Increased collaboration and harmonisation on RI practices between RFOs and RPOs constitute an untapped potential for greater attention. The production of further insights into specific policies, good practices, and clearer demarcations of RFO responsibilities within greater scientific systems could accelerate incumbent policies and standards of RI and help sustain the current momentum of “responsibilisation” in scientific governance (Davies, 2019 ) and RI as a new discourse “in the making” (Owen et al., 2021 , p. 10).

Remember organisational and national differences

Besides disciplinary differences for both RPOs and RFOs, it is also important to consider national legislation and organisational differences as such contextual matters are found to have an impact on the importance attached to different RI topics and the level of attention given to established RI practices and procedures. For instance, variations in funding and legal and institutional structures for handling allegations and breaches of research integrity create different requests for change and efforts needed. Our study was designed to elicit understandings about differences between main areas of research and does not provide systematic evidence for differences between types of organisations. Nevertheless, RI institutionalisation has been shown to be highly dependent on micro-organisational structures and effects (Owen et al., 2021 ). In general, RI measures and policies should be created with a view to existing national and organisational RI landscapes and adapted to local contexts. In this regard, we recommend that organisational integrity plans and initiatives are developed in close dialogue with all stakeholders—–management, staff, and researchers from all disciplines—in order to make these policies as useful and effective as possible.

Avoid bureaucracy and unnecessary use of resources

When formulating policies for RI and implementing new procedures, unnecessary use of resources and excessive bureaucracy should be avoided. Across disciplines, institutions, and countries, researchers were concerned with striking a balance between implementing sound and relevant procedures that can stimulate RI practices and avoiding adding unnecessary bureaucracy. Researchers express a willingness to work thoroughly with research integrity issues, but they fear that new policies and standards will be placed on top of already existing requirements. For them, this would imply a loss of valuable research time. On this basis, we recommend that organisations carefully consider existing as well as future policies concerning RI. Duplication and parallel systems should be avoided, and existing policies should be evaluated in terms of cost-benefit analyses. Heightened awareness and dissemination about already established guidance and support structures could also advance the use of existing resources. An overall message was clearly conveyed: RI requirements and tools have to be meaningful, flexible, and practical to wield for researchers if they are to support and promote RI in practice.

Make a plan to improve RI

Finally, based on the study and the five previous recommendations, we recommend that RPOs and RFOs develop a coherent plan for how they want to implement, promote, and sustain RI (see also Mejlgaard et al., 2020 ; Bouter, 2020 ). We acknowledge that research institutions have limited resources and therefore have to prioritise, also when it comes to RI actions and policies. The topics and subtopics assessed and evaluated by researchers and stakeholders in this study could provide a first checklist for not only RPOs and RFOs, but also for smaller units such as research departments or faculties to ensure that relevant guidelines and policies are in place to assist researchers conducting their research according to appropriate ethical, legal, and professional standards (ENERI, 2019 ) and adapt them to organisational and disciplinary needs.

Strengths and limitations of the study

By virtue of the scale and scope of the present study, we have collected an unprecedented amount of data on the disciplinary importance and prioritisation of a large number of RI topics. Apart from its size, the strength of our study is the complexity of its design, comprising 30 focus groups conducted across 8 different countries with researchers as well as other relevant stakeholders. This rigorous approach allowed us to make in-depth explorations of similarities and differences in perceptions of RI topics across the four main areas of research. The voices of 147 researchers and stakeholders carry qualitative weight in exploring existing challenges to fostering RI and in providing nuanced understandings of the different main areas of research’s RI requirements. Although most core disciplines within the four main areas of research were represented in the focus groups, a potential weakness of the study is that not all disciplines were represented. Further, due to the study’s focus on main areas of research (e.g., Humanities), it is not able to give detailed accounts of the need for RI support within specific disciplines (History, Literature studies, etc.).

Data availability

All relevant documents and reports from this focus group study can be accessed via the study’s OSF page: https://osf.io/e9u8t/ Early 2022, all transcripts from the focus group interviews will also be made openly available on this page (in an anonymized form).

SOPs4RI includes a number of sub-studies in addition to the focus group study: two literature scoping reviews (Gaskell et al., 2019 ); an expert interview study with 23 research-integrity experts across RPOs (Ščepanović et al., 2019 ), a Delphi study with a panel of 68 RPO and 52 RFO research-integrity experts (Labib et al., 2021 ), a survey, and a pilot study ( www.sops4ri.eu ).

The Delphi study pointed to 12 topics for RPOs and 11 topics for RFOs to be included in the RI policies of these institutions (see Table 1 Ranked list of RI topics in Labib et al., 2021 ). However, the 12 RPO topics were later merged into 9 topics, presented in Mejlgaard et al. ( 2020 ). It is the list of nine topics that is used for RPOs in this study.

When we here and in the following refer to main areas of research, we mean the humanities, social sciences, natural sciences (including technical science), and medical sciences (including biomedicine). Each of these main areas of research, consists of a number of disciplines. Social science, for example, covers disciplines such as political science, law, economics etc.

The focus group interviews were carried out in Denmark, Spain, the Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, Croatia, Italy, and Greece. 22 of them were conducted as face-to-face interviews, while the last eight had to be carried out online because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The interviewees were not payed for participating. They participated because they were interested in the topic of research integrity and/or because they felt obliged to take part in what they felt was an important discussion. After the focus group interviews, they received a small gift (a box of chocolates or a book voucher).

In some cases, participants placed a topic in-between two of the three pre-specified categories. We therefore ended up with five categories in the heat maps.

ALLEA–All European Academies (2017) The European code of conduct for research integrity. Revised edition. https://www.allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/ALLEA-European-Code-of-Conduct-for-Research-Integrity-2017.pdf . Accessed 21 July 2021

Baker M (2016) 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Survey sheds light on the “crisis” rocking research. Nature 533:452–454

Article ADS CAS Google Scholar

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) (2017) Fostering integrity in research. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, https://doi.org/10.17226/21896

Beck U (1992) Risk society: towards a new modernity. Sage, London

Google Scholar

Bonn NA, Pinxten W (2019) A decade of empirical research on research integrity: what have we (not) looked at? J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 14(4):338–352

Article Google Scholar

Bouter L (2020) What research institutions can do to foster research integrity. Sci Eng Ethics 26:2363–2369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00178-5

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Bouter LM, Tijdink J, Axelsen N et al (2016) Ranking major and minor research misbehaviors: Results from a survey among participants of four World Conferences on Research Integrity. Res Integr Peer Rev, 1(17). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-016-0024-5

Davies SR (2019) An ethics of the system: talking to scientists about research integrity. Sci Eng Ethics 25(4):1235–1253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-018-0064-y

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Edwards MA, Roy S (2017) Academic research in the 21st Century: maintaining scientific integrity in a climate of perverse incentives and hypercompetition. Environ Eng Sci 34:51–61

Article CAS Google Scholar

ENERI–European Network of Research Ethics and Research Integrity (2019) What is research integrity? https://eneri.eu/what-is-research-integrity/ . Accessed 21 July 2021

ENERI–European Network of Research Ethics and Research Integrity, ENRIO–European Network of Research Integrity Offices (2019) Recommendations for the Investigation of Research Misconduct: ENRIO Handbook. http://www.enrio.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/INV-Handbook_ENRIO_web_final.pdf . Accessed 21 July 2021

EViR Funders’ Forum (2020) Guiding Principles. https://evir.org/our-principles/ . Accessed 21 July 2021

Fanelli D (2009) How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE 4(5). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738

Forsberg EM, Anthun FO, Bailey S et al. (2018) Working with research integrity-guidance for research performing organisations: the Bonn PRINTEGER statement. Sci Eng Ethics 24(4):1023–1034. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-018-0034-4

Gaskell G, Ščepanović R, Buljan I et al (2019) D3.2: Scoping reviews including multi-level model of research cultures and research conduct. https://sops4ri.eu/wp-content/uploads/D3.2_Scoping-reviews-including-multi-level-model-of-research-cultures-and-research-conduct-1.pdf . Accessed 21 July 2021

Haven T, Pasman HR, Widdershoven G et al. (2020) Researchers’ perceptions of a responsible research climate: a multi focus group study. Science Eng Ethics 26:3017–3036. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00256-8

Henriksen D (2016) The rise in co-authorship in the social sciences (1980–2013). Scientometrics 107(2):455–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1849-x

Ioannidis JPA (2005) Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2(8):e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

Knorr-Cetina K (1999) Epistemic cultures: how the sciences make knowledge. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts

Knorr-Cetina K, Reichmann W (2015) Epistemic Cultures. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Elsevier

Labib K, Evans N, Scepanovic R et al (2021) Education and training policies for research integrity: Insights from a focus group study. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/p38nw

Labib K, Roje R, Bouter L et al (2021) Important topics for fostering research integrity by research performing and research funding organizations: a delphi consensus study. Sci Eng Ethics 27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00322-9

Le Maux B, Necker S, Rocaboy Y (2019) Cheat or perish? A theory of scientific customs. Res Policy, 48(9). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.05.001

Lerouge I, Hol A (2020) Towards a research integrity culture at universities: From recommendations to implementation. League of European Universities, 2020. https://www.leru.org/publications/towards-a-research-integrity-culture-at-universities-from-recommendations-to-implementation . Accessed 21 July 2021

Marušić A, Wager E, Utrobicic A et al. (2016) Interventions to prevent misconduct and promote integrity in research and publication. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4(4):MR000038. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000038.pub2

Mejlgaard N, Bouter LM, Gaskell G et al. (2020) Research integrity: nine ways to move from talk to walk. Nature 586(7829):358–360

Moher D, Bouter L, Kleinert S et al. (2020) The Hong Kong principles for assessing researchers: fostering research integrity. PLoS Biol 18(7):e3000737

Owen R, Pansera M, Macnaghten P, Randles S (2021) Organisational institutionalisation of responsible innovation. Res Policy 50(1):104132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.104132

Patton MQ (1990) Qualitative evaluation and research methods, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA, US

Ravn T, Sørensen M (2021) Exploring the Gray Area: Similarities and Differences in Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) Across Main Areas of Research. Sci Eng Ethics 27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00310-z

Resnik DB, Shamoo AE (2017) Reproducibility and research integrity. Account Res 24(2):116–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2016.1257387

Roberts LL, Sibum HO, Mody CCM (2020) Integrating the history of science into broader discussions of research integrity and fraud. Hist Sci 58(4):354–368

Saldaña J (2013) The coding manual for qualitative researchers, 2nd edn. SAGE Publications Ltd, London, UK

Ščepanović R, Labib K, Buljan I et al (2021) Practices for research integrity promotion in research performing organisations and research funding organisations: a scoping review. Sci Eng Ethics 27(4); https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00281-1

Ščepanović R, Tomić V, Buljan I, Marušić A (2019) D3.3: report on the results of explorative reviews. https://sops4ri.eu/wp-content/uploads/D3.3_Report-on-the-results-of-the-explorative-interviews-1.pdf . Accessed 21 July 2021

Shapin S (2010) Never pure: historical studies of science as if it was produced by people with bodies, situated in time, space, culture, and society, and struggling for credibility and authority. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore

Sørensen MP, Ravn T, Bendtsen A-K et al. (2020) D5.2: report on the results of the focus group interviews. https://www.sops4ri.eu/wp-content/uploads/D5.2_Report-on-the-Results-of-the-Focus-Group-Interviews.pdf . Accessed 21 July 2021

Steneck NH (2006) Fostering integrity in research: definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Sci Eng Ethics 12(1):53–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00022268

Valkenburg G, Dix G, Tijdink J et al. (2021) Expanding research integrity: a cultural-practice perspective. Sci Eng Ethics 27(10). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00291-z

WCRI–World Conference on Research Integrity (2010) Singapore statement on research integrity. https://wcrif.org/guidance/singapore-statement . Accessed 21 July 2021

WCRI-World Conference on Research Integrity (2013) Montreal statement on research integrity in cross-boundary research collaborations. https://wcrif.org/guidance/montreal-statement . Accessed 21 July 2021

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express our gratitude to the 147 participants in the 30 focus group interviews who took the time to share their knowledge and experiences with us. We would also like to thank the many people who have helped us set up the interviews at the different institutions around Europe. For reasons of anonymity, we cannot mention your names here, but without your help, it would not have been possible to conduct this study. We would further like to thank our SOPs4RI colleagues George Gaskell (London), Rea Roje and Ivan Buljan (Split), Krishma Labib, Natalie Evans and Guy Widdershoven (Amsterdam), Wolfgang Kaltenbrunnen and Josephine Bergmans (Leiden), Eleni Spyrakou (Athens), Giuseppe A. Veltri (Trento), and Anna Domaradzka (Warsaw) for their help and support. Thank you also to Amalie Due Svendsen and Anders Møller Jørgensen (Aarhus), Jonathan Bening (Leiden), Dan Gibson (Leiden), Vasileios Markakis (Athens), and Andrijana Perković Paloš (Split), who helped transcribe the interviews. The SOPs4RI project is funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 824481.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

The Danish Centre for studies in Research and Research Policy, Department of Political Science, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark

Mads P. Sørensen, Tine Ravn & Anna-Kathrine Bendtsen

Department of Research in Biomedicine and Health, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia

Ana Marušić

Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands

Andrea Reyes Elizondo

School of Chemical Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Athens, Greece

Panagiotis Kavouras

Amsterdam University Medical Center, location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Joeri K. Tijdink

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

MPS: Conceptualisation, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Validation, Writing—–original draft, Writing—review & editing, Supervision, Project administration. TR: Conceptualisation, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Validation, Writing—original draft, Writing—review & editing. AM: Conceptualisation, Investigation, Writing—original draft, Writing—review & editing, Supervision. ARE: Conceptualisation, Investigation, Formal analysis, Validation, Writing—review & editing, Visualisation. PK: Conceptualisation, Investigation, Writing—review & editing, Visualisation. JKT: Conceptualisation, Investigation, Writing—review & editing, Supervision. AKB: Investigation, Formal analysis, Validation, Writing—review & editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mads P. Sørensen .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Sørensen, M.P., Ravn, T., Marušić, A. et al. Strengthening research integrity: which topic areas should organisations focus on?. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 8 , 198 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00874-y

Download citation

Received : 20 April 2021

Accepted : 26 July 2021

Published : 12 August 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00874-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

How competition for funding impacts scientific practice: building pre-fab houses but no cathedrals.

Stephanie Meirmans

Science and Engineering Ethics (2024)

Navigating the Science System: Research Integrity and Academic Survival Strategies

Wolfgang Kaltenbrunner

What do Retraction Notices Reveal About Institutional Investigations into Allegations Underlying Retractions?

Shaoxiong Brian Xu
Natalie Evans

Science and Engineering Ethics (2023)

Co-creating Research Integrity Education Guidelines for Research Institutions

Krishma Labib
Joeri Tijdink

Improving the reproducibility and integrity of research: what can different stakeholders contribute?

Malcolm Macleod

BMC Research Notes (2022)

Quick links

Explore articles by subject
Guide to authors
Editorial policies

Let’s start a new project together

Why you should avoid ambiguous questions in research, written by: paul stallard.

When carrying out any form of market research it is key to avoid ambiguous questions as you may receive vague answers. You only get out what you put in, and if you include poorly planned, ambiguous or misleading questions within your survey, then your results will come out exactly the same way.

Whilst it is important not to include leading questions that push an audience towards feeling a certain way, you should always make sure that your questions are straight to the point and that the respondents can easily decipher what a question means, and they can provide a confident answer. If this is not the case, you will not only receive questionable results, but you may also not get the best representation of the sector you are exploring.

Whether your research is commercial , political or cultural, our full-service market research team can provide you with an accurate picture of what the world thinks, and bring your story to life with more than just opinions . By better understanding buyers, trends, and data, it is possible to build stronger brands and drive sales. But you need to ask the right questions.

The ability to drill into profiled target groups and gather insights will give you strong reliable research to help position you as a thought leader.

...you should always make sure that your questions are straight to the point and that the respondents can easily decipher what a question means

More in: Work

Vague school rules at the root of millions of student suspensions

Public schools nationwide suspend students for ambiguous reasons, prompting hundreds of thousands of missed days for behavior that rarely threatens school safety..

Yousef Munir was suspended as a high school junior for disobeying his principal. They remember thinking of the punishment: “The only thing you’re doing is literally keeping me out of class.”

Corrections & Clarifications: This story from The Hechinger Report has been updated to clarify Johanna Lacoe's title. She is the research director of the California Policy Lab's site at the University of California, Berkeley.

A Rhode Island student smashed a ketchup packet with his fist, splattering an administrator. Another ripped up his school work. The district called it “destruction of school property.” A Washington student turned cartwheels while a PE teacher attempted to give instructions.

A pair of Colorado students slid down a dirt path despite a warning. An Ohio 12th grader refused to work while assigned to the in-school suspension room. Then there was the Maryland sixth grader who swore when his computer shut off and responded “my bad” when his teacher addressed his language.

Their transgressions all ended the same way: The students were suspended.

Discipline records state the justification for their removals: These students were disorderly. Insubordinate. Disruptive. Disobedient. Defiant. Disrespectful.

At most U.S. public schools, students can be suspended, even expelled, for these ambiguous and highly subjective reasons. This type of punishment is pervasive nationwide, leading to hundreds of thousands of missed days of school every year, and is often doled out for misbehavior that doesn’t seriously hurt anyone or threaten school safety, a Hechinger Report investigation found.

Districts cited one of these vague violations as a reason for suspending or expelling students more than 2.8 million times from 2017-18 to 2021-22 across the 20 states that collect this data. That amounted to nearly a third of all punishments recorded by those states. Black students and students with disabilities were more likely than their peers to be disciplined for these reasons.

Because categories like defiance and disorderly conduct are often defined broadly at the state level, teachers and administrators have wide latitude in interpreting them, according to interviews with dozens of researchers, educators, lawyers and discipline reform advocates. That opens the door to suspensions for low-level infractions.

“Those are citations you can drive a truck through,” said Jennifer Wood, executive director for the Rhode Island Center for Justice.

The Hechinger Report also obtained more than 7,000 discipline records from a dozen school districts across eight states through public records requests. They show a wide range of behavior that led to suspensions for things like disruptive conduct and insubordination. Much of the conduct posed little threat to safety. For instance, students were regularly suspended for being tardy, using a phone during class or swearing.

Teachers need other tools to address behavior

Decades of research have found that students who are suspended from school tend to perform worse academically and drop out at higher rates. Researchers have linked suspensions to lower college enrollment rates and increased involvement with the criminal justice system.

These findings have spurred some policymakers to try to curtail suspensions by limiting their use to severe misbehavior that could harm others. Last year, California banned all suspensions for willful defiance. Other places, including Philadelphia and New York City, have similarly eliminated suspensions for low-level misconduct.

Elsewhere, though, as student behavior has worsened following the pandemic, legislators are calling for stricter discipline policies, concerned for educators who struggle to maintain order and students whose lessons are disrupted. These legislative proposals come despite warnings from experts and even classroom teachers who say more suspensions – particularly for minor, subjective offenses – are not the answer.

Roberto J. Rodríguez, assistant U.S. education secretary, said he was concerned by The Hechinger Report’s findings. “We need more tools in the toolkit for our educators and for our principals to be able to respond to some of the social and emotional needs,” he said. “Suspension and expulsion shouldn’t be the only tool that we pull out when we see behavioral issues.”

In Rhode Island, insubordination was the most common reason for a student to be suspended in the years analyzed. Disorderly conduct was third.

In the Cranston Public Schools, these two categories accounted for half of the Rhode Island district’s suspensions in 2021-22. Disorderly conduct alone made up about 38%.

Behavior that led to a such a suspension there in recent years included:

Getting a haircut in the bathroom;
Putting a finger through the middle of another student’s hamburger at lunch;
Writing swear words in an email exchange with another student;
Throwing cut up pieces of paper in the air;
Stabbing a juice bottle with a pencil and getting juice all over a table and peers; and
Leapfrogging over a peer and “almost” knocking down others.

Cranston school officials did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

Rhode Island Department of Education spokesperson Victor Morente said in an email that the agency could not comment on specific causes for suspension, but that the department “continues to underscore that all options need to be exhausted before schools move to suspension.”

The department defines disorderly conduct as “Any act which substantially disrupts the orderly conduct of a school function, (or) behavior which substantially disrupts the orderly learning environment or poses a threat to the health, safety, and/or welfare of students, staff, or others.”

States let school districts define punishment

Many states use similarly unspecific language in their discipline codes, if they provide any guidance at all, a review of state policies found.

For education departments that do provide definitions to districts, subjectivity is frequently built in. In Louisiana’s state guidance, for instance, “treats authority with disrespect” includes “any act which demonstrates a disregard or interference with authority.”

Ted Beasley, spokesperson for the Louisiana Department of Education, said in an email that discipline codes are not defined in state statutes and that “school discipline is a local school system issue.”

Officials in several other states said the same.

The result, as demonstrated by a review of discipline records from eight states, is a broad interpretation of the categories: Students were suspended for shoving, yelling at peers, throwing objects, and violating dress codes. Some students were suspended for a single infraction; others broke several rules.

In fewer than 15% of cases, students got in trouble for using profanity, according to a Hechinger analysis of the records. The rate was similar for when they yelled at or talked back to administrators. In at least 20% of cases, students refused a direct order and in 6%, they were punished for misusing technology, including being on the cell phones during class or using school computers inappropriately.

“What is defiance to one is not defiance to all, and that becomes confusing, not just for the students, but also the adults,” said Harry Lawson, human and civil rights director for the National Education Association, the country’s largest teachers union. “Those terms that are littered throughout a lot of codes of conduct, depending on the relationship between people, can mean very different things.”

But giving teachers discretion in how to assign discipline isn’t necessarily a problem, said Adam Tyner, national research director at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. “The whole point of trusting, in this case, teachers, or anyone, to do their job is to be able to let them have responsibility and make some judgment calls,” he said.

Tyner added that it’s important to think about all students when considering school discipline policies. “If a student is disrupting the class, it may not help them all that much to take them and put them in a different environment, but it sure might help the other students who are trying to learn,” he said.

Johanna Lacoe spent years trying to measure exactly that – the effect of discipline reforms on all students In Philadelphia, including those who hadn’t been previously suspended. The district banned out-of-school suspensions for many nonviolent offenses in 2012.

Critics of the policy shift warned that it would harm students who do behave in class; they’d learn less or even come to school less often. Lacoe’s research found that schools faithfully following the new rules saw no decrease in academic achievement or attendance for non-suspended students.

But, the policy wasn’t implemented consistently, the researchers found. The schools that complied already issued the fewest suspensions; it was easier for them to make the policy shift, Lacoe said. In schools that kept suspending students, despite the ban, test scores and student attendance fell slightly.

Overall, though, students who had been previously suspended showed improvements. Lacoe called eliminating out-of-school suspensions for minor infractions a “no brainer.”

“We know suspensions aren’t good for kids,” said Lacoe, the research director of the California Policy Lab's site at the University of California, Berkeley. The group partners with government agencies to research the impact of policies. “Kicking kids out of school and providing them no services and no support and then returning them to the environment where nothing has changed is not a good solution.”

Students say suspensions are ineffective

This fall, two high schoolers in Providence, Rhode Island, walked out of a classroom. They later learned they were being suspended for their action, because it was considered disrespectful to a teacher.

“It’s because they don’t like us,” said one of the students, Anaya, whose last name is being withheld to protect her privacy.

In 2021-22, disorderly conduct and insubordination made up a third of all Providence Public School suspensions.

District spokesperson Jay Wegimont said in an email that the district uses many alternatives to suspension, and out-of-school suspensions are only given to respond to “persistent conduct which substantially impedes the ability of other students to learn.”

But nearly all parents and students interviewed for this series who have dealt with suspension for violations such as disrespect and disorderly conduct also said that the punishment often did nothing but leave the student frustrated with the school and damage the student’s relationships with teachers.

From a suspended student to an advocate for others

At a Cincinnati high school in 2019, Yousuf Munir led a peaceful protest about the impact of climate change, with about 50 fellow students. Munir, then a junior, planned to leave school and join a larger protest at City Hall. The principal said Munir couldn’t go and threatened to assign detention.

Munir left anyway.

That detention morphed into suspension for disobeying the principal, said Munir, who remembers thinking: “The only thing you’re doing is literally keeping me out of class.”

The district told The Hechinger Report that Munir was suspended for leaving campus without written permission, a decision in line with the district’s code of conduct.

The whole incident left Munir feeling “so angry I didn’t know what to do with it.” They went on to start the Young Activists Coalition, which advocated for fair discipline and restorative practices at Cincinnati Public Schools.

Now in college, Munir is a mentor to high school kids. “I can’t imagine ever treating a kid that way,” they said.

Searching for consequences beyond suspension

Parents and students around the country described underlying reasons for behavior problems that a suspension would do little to address: Struggles with anxiety. Frustration with not understanding classwork. Distraction by events in their personal lives.

Discipline records are also dotted with examples that indicate a deeper cause for the misbehavior.

In one case, a student in Rhode Island was suspended for talking back to her teachers; the discipline record notes that her mother had recently died and the student might need counseling. A student in Minnesota “lost his cool” after having “his buttons pushed by a couple peers.” He cursed and argued back. A Maryland student who went to the main office to report being harassed cursed at administrators when asked to formally document it.

To be sure, discipline records disclose only part of a school’s response, and many places may simultaneously be working to address root causes. Even as they retain – and exercise – the right to suspend, many districts across the country have adopted alternative strategies aimed at building relationships and repairing harm caused by misconduct.

“There needs to be some kind of consequence for acting out, but 9 out of 10 times, it doesn’t need to be suspension,” said Judy Brown, a social worker in Minneapolis Public Schools.

Some educators who have embraced alternatives say in the long run they’re more effective. Suspension temporarily removes kids; it rarely changes behavior when they return.

“It’s really about having the compassion and the time and patience to be able to have these conversations with students to see what the antecedent of the behavior is,” Brown said. “It’s often not personal; they’re overwhelmed.”

In some cases, students act out because they don’t want to be at school at all and know the quickest escape is misbehavior.

On Valentine's day 2022, a Maryland seventh grader showed up to school late. She then refused to go to class or leave the hallway and, according to her Dorchester County discipline record, was disrespectful towards an educator. "These are the behaviors (the student) typically displays when she does not want to go to class," her record reads.

By 8:30 she was suspended and sent home for three days.

Dorchester County school officials declined to comment. In 2021-22, 38% of suspensions and expulsions in the district were assigned for disrespect and disruption.

This district took a hard look at its discipline practices

Last year, administrators in Minnesota’s Monticello School District spent the summer overhauling their discipline procedures and consequences, out of concern that students of color were being disproportionately disciplined. They developed clearer definitions for violation categories and instituted non-exclusionary tools to deal with isolated minor misbehaviors.

Previously, the district suspended students for telling an “inappropriate joke” in class or cursing, records show. Those types of behavior will now be dealt with in schools, Superintendent Eric Olsen said, but repeated refusals and noncompliance could still lead to a suspension.

“Would I ever want to see a school where we can’t suspend? I would not,” he said. “Life is always about balance.”

Olsen wants his students – all students – to feel valued and be successful. But they’re not his only consideration. “You also have to think of your employees,” he said. “There’s also that fine line of making sure your staff feels safe.”

Monticello, like most school districts across the country, has seen an increase in student misconduct since schools reopened after pandemic closures. A 2023 survey found that more than 40% of educators felt less safe in their schools compared with 2019 and, in some instances, teachers have been injured in violent incidents, including shootings .

And even before 2020, educators nationwide were warning that they lacked the appropriate mental health and social service supports to adequately deal with behavior challenges. Some nonviolent problems, like refusal to put phones away or stay in one’s seat, can make it difficult for teachers to effectively do their jobs.

And the discipline records reviewed by The Hechinger Report do capture a sampling of more severe misbehavior. In some cases, students were labeled defiant or disorderly for fighting, throwing chairs or even hitting a teacher.

Shatara Clark taught for 10 years in Alabama before feeling too disrespected and overextended to keep going. She recalled regular disobedience from students.

“Sometimes I look back like, ‘How did I make it?’” Clark said. “My blood pressure got high and everything.”

She became so familiar with the protocol for discipline referrals that she can still remember every step two years after leaving the classroom. In her schools, students were suspended for major incidents like fighting or threatening a teacher but also for repeated nonviolent behavior like interrupting or speaking out in class.

Clark said discipline records often don’t show the full context. “Say for instance, a boy got suspended for talking out of turn. Well, you're not going to know that he's done that five times, and I've called his parents,” she said. “Then you see someone that's been suspended for fighting, and it looks like the same punishment for a lesser thing.”

In many states, reform advocates and student activists pushing to ban harsh discipline policies have found a receptive audience in lawmakers. Many teachers are also sympathetic to their arguments; the National Education Association and American Federation of Teachers support discipline reform and alternatives to suspension.

In some instances, though, teachers have resisted efforts to curtail suspensions, saying they need to have the option to remove kids from school.

Many experts say the largest hurdle to getting teachers to embrace discipline reforms is that new policies are often rolled out without training or adequate staffing and support.

Without those things, “the policy change is somewhat of a paper tiger,” said Richard Welsh, an associate professor of education and public policy at Vanderbilt University. “If we don’t think about the accompanying support, it’s almost as if some of these are unfunded mandates.”

In Monticello, Olsen has focused on professional development for teachers to promote alternatives to suspension. The district has created space for students to talk about their actions and how they can rebuild relationships.

It’s still a work in progress. Teacher training, Olsen says, is key.

“You can’t just do a policy change and expect everyone to magically do it.”

CONTRIBUTING: Hadley Hitson of the Montgomery Advertiser and Madeline Mitchell of the Cincinnati Enquirer, members of the USA TODAY Network; and Amanda Chen, Tazbia Fatima, Sara Hutchinson, Tara García Mathewson, and Nirvi Shah, The Hechinger Report.

Note: The Hechinger Report's Fazil Khan had nearly completed the data analysis and reporting for this project when he died in a fire in his apartment building. USA TODAY Senior Data Editor Doug Caruso completed data visualizations for this project based on Khan’s work.

This story about classroom discipline was produced by USA TODAY publishing partner The Hechinger Report , a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education.

Read our research on: Gun Policy | International Conflict | Election 2024

Regions & Countries

Most americans favor legalizing marijuana for medical, recreational use, legalizing recreational marijuana viewed as good for local economies; mixed views of impact on drug use, community safety.

Pew Research Center conducted this study to understand the public’s views about the legalization of marijuana in the United States. For this analysis, we surveyed 5,140 adults from Jan. 16 to Jan. 21, 2024. Everyone who took part in this survey is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATP’s methodology .

Here are the questions used for the report and its methodology .

As more states pass laws legalizing marijuana for recreational use , Americans continue to favor legalization of both medical and recreational use of the drug.

Pie chart shows Only about 1 in 10 U.S. adults say marijuana should not be legal at all

An overwhelming share of U.S. adults (88%) say marijuana should be legal for medical or recreational use.

Nearly six-in-ten Americans (57%) say that marijuana should be legal for medical and recreational purposes, while roughly a third (32%) say that marijuana should be legal for medical use only.

Just 11% of Americans say that the drug should not be legal at all.

Opinions about marijuana legalization have changed little over the past five years, according to the Pew Research Center survey, conducted Jan. 16-21, 2024, among 5,14o adults.

The impact of legalizing marijuana for recreational use

While a majority of Americans continue to say marijuana should be legal , there are varying views about the impacts of recreational legalization.

Chart shows How Americans view the effects of legalizing recreational marijuana

About half of Americans (52%) say that legalizing the recreational use of marijuana is good for local economies; just 17% think it is bad and 29% say it has no impact.

More adults also say legalizing marijuana for recreational use makes the criminal justice system more fair (42%) than less fair (18%); 38% say it has no impact.

However, Americans have mixed views on the impact of legalizing marijuana for recreational use on:

Use of other drugs: About as many say it increases (29%) as say it decreases (27%) the use of other drugs, like heroin, fentanyl and cocaine (42% say it has no impact).
Community safety: More Americans say legalizing recreational marijuana makes communities less safe (34%) than say it makes them safer (21%); 44% say it has no impact.

Partisan differences on impact of recreational use of marijuana

There are deep partisan divisions regarding the impact of marijuana legalization for recreational use.

Chart shows Democrats more positive than Republicans on impact of legalizing marijuana

Majorities of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say legalizing recreational marijuana is good for local economies (64% say this) and makes the criminal justice system fairer (58%).

Fewer Republicans and Republican leaners say legalization for recreational use has a positive effect on local economies (41%) and the criminal justice system (27%).

Republicans are more likely than Democrats to cite downsides from legalizing recreational marijuana:

42% of Republicans say it increases the use of other drugs, like heroin, fentanyl and cocaine, compared with just 17% of Democrats.
48% of Republicans say it makes communities less safe, more than double the share of Democrats (21%) who say this.

Demographic, partisan differences in views of marijuana legalization

Sizable age and partisan differences persist on the issue of marijuana legalization though small shares of adults across demographic groups are completely opposed to it.

Chart shows Views about legalizing marijuana differ by race and ethnicity, age, partisanship

Older adults are far less likely than younger adults to favor marijuana legalization.

This is particularly the case among adults ages 75 and older: 31% say marijuana should be legal for both medical and recreational use.

By comparison, half of adults between the ages of 65 and 74 say marijuana should be legal for medical and recreational use, and larger shares in younger age groups say the same.

Republicans continue to be less supportive than Democrats of legalizing marijuana for both legal and recreational use: 42% of Republicans favor legalizing marijuana for both purposes, compared with 72% of Democrats.

There continue to be ideological differences within each party:

34% of conservative Republicans say marijuana should be legal for medical and recreational use, compared with a 57% majority of moderate and liberal Republicans.
62% of conservative and moderate Democrats say marijuana should be legal for medical and recreational use, while an overwhelming majority of liberal Democrats (84%) say this.

Views of marijuana legalization vary by age within both parties

Along with differences by party and age, there are also age differences within each party on the issue.

Chart shows Large age differences in both parties in views of legalizing marijuana for medical and recreational use

A 57% majority of Republicans ages 18 to 29 favor making marijuana legal for medical and recreational use, compared with 52% among those ages 30 to 49 and much smaller shares of older Republicans.

Still, wide majorities of Republicans in all age groups favor legalizing marijuana at least for medical use. Among those ages 65 and older, just 20% say marijuana should not be legal even for medical purposes.

While majorities of Democrats across all age groups support legalizing marijuana for medical and recreational use, older Democrats are less likely to say this.

About half of Democrats ages 75 and older (53%) say marijuana should be legal for both purposes, but much larger shares of younger Democrats say the same (including 81% of Democrats ages 18 to 29). Still, only 7% of Democrats ages 65 and older think marijuana should not be legalized even for medical use, similar to the share of all other Democrats who say this.

Views of the effects of legalizing recreational marijuana among racial and ethnic groups

Chart shows Hispanic and Asian adults more likely than Black and White adults to say legalizing recreational marijuana negatively impacts safety, use of other drugs

Substantial shares of Americans across racial and ethnic groups say when marijuana is legal for recreational use, it has a more positive than negative impact on the economy and criminal justice system.

About half of White (52%), Black (53%) and Hispanic (51%) adults say legalizing recreational marijuana is good for local economies. A slightly smaller share of Asian adults (46%) say the same.

Criminal justice

Across racial and ethnic groups, about four-in-ten say that recreational marijuana being legal makes the criminal justice system fairer, with smaller shares saying it would make it less fair.

However, there are wider racial differences on questions regarding the impact of recreational marijuana on the use of other drugs and the safety of communities.

Use of other drugs

Nearly half of Black adults (48%) say recreational marijuana legalization doesn’t have an effect on the use of drugs like heroin, fentanyl and cocaine. Another 32% in this group say it decreases the use of these drugs and 18% say it increases their use.

In contrast, Hispanic adults are slightly more likely to say legal marijuana increases the use of these other drugs (39%) than to say it decreases this use (30%); 29% say it has no impact.

Among White adults, the balance of opinion is mixed: 28% say marijuana legalization increases the use of other drugs and 25% say it decreases their use (45% say it has no impact). Views among Asian adults are also mixed, though a smaller share (31%) say legalization has no impact on the use of other drugs.

Community safety

Hispanic and Asian adults also are more likely to say marijuana’s legalization makes communities less safe: 41% of Hispanic adults and 46% of Asian adults say this, compared with 34% of White adults and 24% of Black adults.

Wide age gap on views of impact of legalizing recreational marijuana

Chart shows Young adults far more likely than older people to say legalizing recreational marijuana has positive impacts

Young Americans view the legalization of marijuana for recreational use in more positive terms compared with their older counterparts.

Clear majorities of adults under 30 say it is good for local economies (71%) and that it makes the criminal justice system fairer (59%).

By comparison, a third of Americans ages 65 and older say legalizing the recreational use of marijuana is good for local economies; about as many (32%) say it makes the criminal justice system more fair.

There also are sizable differences in opinion by age about how legalizing recreational marijuana affects the use of other drugs and the safety of communities.

Facts are more important than ever

In times of uncertainty, good decisions demand good data. Please support our research with a financial contribution.

Report Materials

Table of contents, most americans now live in a legal marijuana state – and most have at least one dispensary in their county, 7 facts about americans and marijuana, americans overwhelmingly say marijuana should be legal for medical or recreational use, clear majorities of black americans favor marijuana legalization, easing of criminal penalties, religious americans are less likely to endorse legal marijuana for recreational use, most popular.

About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

IMAGES

🌱 Research on the topic. Research Title Generator: Make a Topic or
Undergraduate Research Topics: History, Art, & More. 300+ Good Research
PPT
How to Choose Good Research Topics for Your Research Paper
Topic Selection For Research
How to Choose a Research Topic

VIDEO

Research that Matters
Topic : Ambiguous Grammer
According to recent research, a key to experiencing happiness lies in the simplest act of smiling
Janets Theme
Exploring Ambiguous Cases
Re-used Assets

COMMENTS

Inquiries, Investigation and Immersion Quarter 3 Module1
A research topic should... be original. be ambiguous. fill in a research gap. be costly and ambitious. be general and not specific. arouse intellectual curiosity. be within the researcher's interest. make use of ineffective research instrument. be completed beyond the given period. be insignificant to the field of study or discipline.
A Practical Guide to Writing Quantitative and Qualitative Research
INTRODUCTION. Scientific research is usually initiated by posing evidenced-based research questions which are then explicitly restated as hypotheses.1,2 The hypotheses provide directions to guide the study, solutions, explanations, and expected results.3,4 Both research questions and hypotheses are essentially formulated based on conventional theories and real-world processes, which allow the ...
Overview
Select a topic. Choosing an interesting research topic is your first challenge. Here are some tips: Choose a topic that you are interested in! The research process is more relevant if you care about your topic. Narrow your topic to something manageable. If your topic is too broad, you will find too much information and not be able to focus.
7.1 Developing a Research Question
The goal of college-level research assignments is never going to be to simply "go find sources" on your topic. Instead, think of sources as helping you to answer a research question or a series of research questions about your topic. These should not be simple questions with simple answers, but rather complex questions about which there is ...
9.1 Developing a Research Question
Choose a topic that you want to understand better. Choose a topic that you want to read about and devote time to. Choose a topic that is perhaps a bit out of your comfort zone. Choose a topic that allows you to understand others' opinions and how those opinions are shaped. Choose something that is relevant to you, personally or professionally.
9.1 Developing a Research Question
From Topic to Research Question. Once you have decided on a research topic, an area for academic exploration that matters to you, it is time to start thinking about what you want to learn about that topic. The goal of college-level research assignments is never going to be to simply "go find sources" on your topic.
Writing Strong Research Questions
A good research question is essential to guide your research paper, dissertation, or thesis. All research questions should be: Focused on a single problem or issue. Researchable using primary and/or secondary sources. Feasible to answer within the timeframe and practical constraints. Specific enough to answer thoroughly.
Avoiding Ambiguity and Vagueness
A sentence or phrase is ambiguous or vague when it has more than one interpretation or its interpretation is not obvious. ... However there are some typical grammar mistakes made in research papers that often give rise to confusion in the mind of the reader and thus lower the level of readability. Such mistakes are the topic of this chapter ...
Developing Research Questions
Your research question should be: Focused on a single problem or issue; Researchable using primary and/or secondary sources; Feasible to answer within the timeframe and practical constraints; Specific enough to answer thoroughly; Complex enough to develop the answer over the space of a paper or thesis; Relevant to your subject area and/or ...
Explaining ambiguity in scientific language
The legitimacy and value of ambiguity in scientific language is a central issue for data sharing and reuse (Ribes & Bowker, 2009; Leonelli, 2016; Garnett et al., 2020 ). Advocates for open data, for example, aim to improve the efficiency, transparency, and equitability of science by making data publicly available for reuse by potentially anyone ...
Narrowing a Topic Idea
Whether you are assigned a general issue to investigate, must choose a problem to study from a list given to you by your professor, or you have to identify your own topic to investigate, it is important that the scope of the research problem is not too broad, otherwise, it will be difficult to adequately address the topic in the space and time allowed.
A well-formulated research question: The foundation stone of good
The research question also directs the researcher to recognise possible hazards and benefits to participants while also ensuring that the study is carried out in an ethical and accountable manner. Formulating a research question is an art. It should be framed in simple, clear language and should be comprehensible to anyone reading the article.
Double-Barreled Questions: Examples & How To Avoid Them In Research
A double-barreled question is sometimes referred to as a double-direct question. It is a question that makes inquiries about two related or unrelated issues with room for only one answer. In most cases, the answer provided does not depict which question is being referred to in the response. These questions are often found in research surveys ...
Selecting a thesis topic: A postgraduate's dilemma
It is said that well begun is half done. Choosing a thesis topic and submitting a research protocol is an essential step in the life cycle of a postgraduate resident. National Medical Commission of India mandates that all postgraduate trainees must submit at least one original research work (dissertation), one oral paper, one poster, and one ...
The Ethics of Ambiguity: Rethinking the Role and Importance of
Medicine is an uncertain practice but as physicians we are taught that we can (and must) control and manage disease, patient behavior, and that we are expected to always provide the right answers. 3-6 When confronted with ambiguities and uncertain situations, physicians often feel powerless, lack of control, and heightened frustration. Even when we feel we are in comfortable situations and can ...
Research Question
In the research process, a writer usually starts with a topic of interest. Investigation of an initial topic will result in a well-developed research question. When creating a research question, use the topic + concept = research question equation. A topic is a specific, concrete focus (Facebook, video games, school uniforms, etc).
Crafting Clear Pathways: Writing Objectives in Research Papers
Steps for Writing Objectives in Research Paper. 1. Identify the Research Topic: Clearly define the subject or topic of your research. This will provide a broad context for developing specific research objectives. 2. Conduct a Literature Review. Review existing literature and research related to your topic.
Strengthening research integrity: which topic areas should
Research and interview design. Through a focus group study design, we aimed to explore how the main areas of research (humanities, social science, natural science incl. technical science, and ...
Examples of ambiguous research question and hypothesis that result in
A research question demonstrating high quality should clarify the research writing as well as provide an understanding of the research topic, objective, scope, and limitations of the research ...
Why you should avoid ambiguous questions in research?
Written by: Paul Stallard. When carrying out any form of market research it is key to avoid ambiguous questions as you may receive vague answers. You only get out what you put in, and if you include poorly planned, ambiguous or misleading questions within your survey, then your results will come out exactly the same way. Whilst it is important ...
A research topic should yes 1 be original no 2 be
YES 1. be original. NO 2. be ambiguous. YES 3. fill in a research gap. NO 4. be costly and ambitious. NO 5. be general and not specific. YES 6. arouse intellectual curiosity. YES 7. be within the researcher's interest. NO 8. make use of ineffective research instrument. NO 9. be completed beyond the given period of time.
How to protect your eyes during the 2024 solar eclipse
This is why preventing the damage in the first place is so important. A NASA map shows the path and time of the solar eclipse on April 8. No sunglasses, and beware of fake eclipse glasses. The first thing to know is sunglasses will NOT protect your eyes from looking at the eclipse. "Some people mistakenly think putting on very dark sunglasses ...
Schools tap vague rules to suspend students
Districts cited one of these vague violations as a reason for suspending or expelling students more than 2.8 million times from 2017-18 to 2021-22 across the 20 states that collect this data.
Americans increasingly using ChatGPT, but few ...
It's been more than a year since ChatGPT's public debut set the tech world abuzz.And Americans' use of the chatbot is ticking up: 23% of U.S. adults say they have ever used it, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted in February, up from 18% in July 2023.
Legalizing Marijuana for Medical, Recreational ...
An overwhelming share of U.S. adults (88%) say marijuana should be legal for medical or recreational use. Nearly six-in-ten Americans (57%) say that marijuana should be legal for medical and recreational purposes, while roughly a third (32%) say that marijuana should be legal for medical use only. Just 11% of Americans say that the drug should ...

Selecting a Research Topic: Overview

Table of contents

Start here for help

7.1 Developing a Research Question

Brainstorming Ideas for a Research Topic

From Topic to Research Question

9.1 Developing a Research Question

The best research topics are meaningful to you

Brainstorming Ideas for a Research Topic

From Topic to Research Question

Feedback/Errata

9.1 Developing a Research Question

The best research topics are meaningful to you:

Brainstorming Ideas for a Research Topic

From Topic to Research Question

Share This Book

Have a language expert improve your writing

Writing Strong Research Questions | Criteria & Examples

Table of contents

Using your research problem to develop your research question

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Focused and researchable

Cite this Scribbr article

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Writing and Rhetoric II

Choosing a Topic

Explaining ambiguity in scientific language

Cite this article

Access this article

Similar content being viewed by others

Communicating Science: Heterogeneous, Multiform and Polysemic

On the Role of Language in Scientific Research: Language as Analytic, Expressive, and Explanatory Tool

Language, Thought, and the History of Science

Data availability

Acknowledgements

Author information

Contributions

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

Rights and permissions

About this article

Share this article

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

Importance of Narrowing the Research Topic

Selecting a thesis topic: A postgraduate’s dilemma

Mohan Issac

K. J. D. Kumar

Suprakash Chaudhury

Rachit Sharma

Ankit Dangi

INTRODUCTION

CHOOSING THE TOPIC

Area of interest

From general to specific

Do not bite more than you can chew

A bird in hand is worth two in the bush

Avoid controversy

Conformation with national health policy

Scope for publication

Familiarization with research methodology

Motivation level of the researcher

WHAT CAN HELP POSTGRADUATE THESIS SELECTION?

Financial support and sponsorship

Conflicts of interest

Acknowledgment

Table of Contents

What is a Research Question?

How to Create a Research Question

Common Issues with Research Questions

Yes/No Question or a Question with a Definite Answer

Example: Should smoking be illegal for teenagers?

Brevity - Say More with Less

Clarity (in Speech and Writing)

Coherence - How to Achieve Coherence in Writing

Flow - How to Create Flow in Writing

Inclusivity - Inclusive Language

The Elements of Style - The DNA of Powerful Writing

Suggested Edits

Other Topics: