what is article research

• Search Menu
• Advance articles
• Editor's Choice
• Supplements
• French Abstracts
• Portuguese Abstracts
• Spanish Abstracts
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• About International Journal for Quality in Health Care
• About the International Society for Quality in Health Care
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Contact ISQua
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Primacy of the research question, structure of the paper, writing a research article: advice to beginners.

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Thomas V. Perneger, Patricia M. Hudelson, Writing a research article: advice to beginners, International Journal for Quality in Health Care , Volume 16, Issue 3, June 2004, Pages 191–192, https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzh053

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Writing research papers does not come naturally to most of us. The typical research paper is a highly codified rhetorical form [ 1 , 2 ]. Knowledge of the rules—some explicit, others implied—goes a long way toward writing a paper that will get accepted in a peer-reviewed journal.

A good research paper addresses a specific research question. The research question—or study objective or main research hypothesis—is the central organizing principle of the paper. Whatever relates to the research question belongs in the paper; the rest doesn’t. This is perhaps obvious when the paper reports on a well planned research project. However, in applied domains such as quality improvement, some papers are written based on projects that were undertaken for operational reasons, and not with the primary aim of producing new knowledge. In such cases, authors should define the main research question a posteriori and design the paper around it.

Generally, only one main research question should be addressed in a paper (secondary but related questions are allowed). If a project allows you to explore several distinct research questions, write several papers. For instance, if you measured the impact of obtaining written consent on patient satisfaction at a specialized clinic using a newly developed questionnaire, you may want to write one paper on the questionnaire development and validation, and another on the impact of the intervention. The idea is not to split results into ‘least publishable units’, a practice that is rightly decried, but rather into ‘optimally publishable units’.

What is a good research question? The key attributes are: (i) specificity; (ii) originality or novelty; and (iii) general relevance to a broad scientific community. The research question should be precise and not merely identify a general area of inquiry. It can often (but not always) be expressed in terms of a possible association between X and Y in a population Z, for example ‘we examined whether providing patients about to be discharged from the hospital with written information about their medications would improve their compliance with the treatment 1 month later’. A study does not necessarily have to break completely new ground, but it should extend previous knowledge in a useful way, or alternatively refute existing knowledge. Finally, the question should be of interest to others who work in the same scientific area. The latter requirement is more challenging for those who work in applied science than for basic scientists. While it may safely be assumed that the human genome is the same worldwide, whether the results of a local quality improvement project have wider relevance requires careful consideration and argument.

Once the research question is clearly defined, writing the paper becomes considerably easier. The paper will ask the question, then answer it. The key to successful scientific writing is getting the structure of the paper right. The basic structure of a typical research paper is the sequence of Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion (sometimes abbreviated as IMRAD). Each section addresses a different objective. The authors state: (i) the problem they intend to address—in other terms, the research question—in the Introduction; (ii) what they did to answer the question in the Methods section; (iii) what they observed in the Results section; and (iv) what they think the results mean in the Discussion.

In turn, each basic section addresses several topics, and may be divided into subsections (Table 1 ). In the Introduction, the authors should explain the rationale and background to the study. What is the research question, and why is it important to ask it? While it is neither necessary nor desirable to provide a full-blown review of the literature as a prelude to the study, it is helpful to situate the study within some larger field of enquiry. The research question should always be spelled out, and not merely left for the reader to guess.

Typical structure of a research paper

The Methods section should provide the readers with sufficient detail about the study methods to be able to reproduce the study if so desired. Thus, this section should be specific, concrete, technical, and fairly detailed. The study setting, the sampling strategy used, instruments, data collection methods, and analysis strategies should be described. In the case of qualitative research studies, it is also useful to tell the reader which research tradition the study utilizes and to link the choice of methodological strategies with the research goals [ 3 ].

The Results section is typically fairly straightforward and factual. All results that relate to the research question should be given in detail, including simple counts and percentages. Resist the temptation to demonstrate analytic ability and the richness of the dataset by providing numerous tables of non-essential results.

The Discussion section allows the most freedom. This is why the Discussion is the most difficult to write, and is often the weakest part of a paper. Structured Discussion sections have been proposed by some journal editors [ 4 ]. While strict adherence to such rules may not be necessary, following a plan such as that proposed in Table 1 may help the novice writer stay on track.

References should be used wisely. Key assertions should be referenced, as well as the methods and instruments used. However, unless the paper is a comprehensive review of a topic, there is no need to be exhaustive. Also, references to unpublished work, to documents in the grey literature (technical reports), or to any source that the reader will have difficulty finding or understanding should be avoided.

Having the structure of the paper in place is a good start. However, there are many details that have to be attended to while writing. An obvious recommendation is to read, and follow, the instructions to authors published by the journal (typically found on the journal’s website). Another concerns non-native writers of English: do have a native speaker edit the manuscript. A paper usually goes through several drafts before it is submitted. When revising a paper, it is useful to keep an eye out for the most common mistakes (Table 2 ). If you avoid all those, your paper should be in good shape.

Common mistakes seen in manuscripts submitted to this journal

Huth EJ . How to Write and Publish Papers in the Medical Sciences , 2nd edition. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins, 1990 .

Browner WS . Publishing and Presenting Clinical Research . Baltimore, MD: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, 1999 .

Devers KJ , Frankel RM. Getting qualitative research published. Educ Health 2001 ; 14 : 109 –117.

Docherty M , Smith R. The case for structuring the discussion of scientific papers. Br Med J 1999 ; 318 : 1224 –1225.

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1464-3677
• Print ISSN 1353-4505
• Copyright © 2024 International Society for Quality in Health Care and Oxford University Press
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

• SpringerLink shop

Types of journal articles

It is helpful to familiarise yourself with the different types of articles published by journals. Although it may appear there are a large number of types of articles published due to the wide variety of names they are published under, most articles published are one of the following types; Original Research, Review Articles, Short reports or Letters, Case Studies, Methodologies.

Original Research:

This is the most common type of journal manuscript used to publish full reports of data from research. It may be called an  Original Article, Research Article, Research, or just  Article, depending on the journal. The Original Research format is suitable for many different fields and different types of studies. It includes full Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion sections.

Short reports or Letters:

These papers communicate brief reports of data from original research that editors believe will be interesting to many researchers, and that will likely stimulate further research in the field. As they are relatively short the format is useful for scientists with results that are time sensitive (for example, those in highly competitive or quickly-changing disciplines). This format often has strict length limits, so some experimental details may not be published until the authors write a full Original Research manuscript. These papers are also sometimes called Brief communications .

Review Articles:

Review Articles provide a comprehensive summary of research on a certain topic, and a perspective on the state of the field and where it is heading. They are often written by leaders in a particular discipline after invitation from the editors of a journal. Reviews are often widely read (for example, by researchers looking for a full introduction to a field) and highly cited. Reviews commonly cite approximately 100 primary research articles.

TIP: If you would like to write a Review but have not been invited by a journal, be sure to check the journal website as some journals to not consider unsolicited Reviews. If the website does not mention whether Reviews are commissioned it is wise to send a pre-submission enquiry letter to the journal editor to propose your Review manuscript before you spend time writing it.  

Case Studies:

These articles report specific instances of interesting phenomena. A goal of Case Studies is to make other researchers aware of the possibility that a specific phenomenon might occur. This type of study is often used in medicine to report the occurrence of previously unknown or emerging pathologies.

Methodologies or Methods

These articles present a new experimental method, test or procedure. The method described may either be completely new, or may offer a better version of an existing method. The article should describe a demonstrable advance on what is currently available.

Back │ Next

• Hirsh Health Sciences
• Webster Veterinary

Guide to Scholarly Articles

Getting started, what makes an article scholarly, why does this matter.

• Scholarly vs. Popular vs. Trade Articles
• Types of Scholarly Articles
• Anatomy of Scholarly Articles
• Tips for Reading Scholarly Articles

Scholarship is a conversation.

That conversation is often found in the form of published materials such as books, essays, and articles. Here, we will focus on scholarly articles because scholarly articles often contain the most current scholarly conversation.

After reading through this guide on scholarly articles you will be able to identify and describe different types of scholarly articles. This will allow you to navigate the scholarly conversation more effectively which in turn will make your research more productive.

The distinguishing feature of a scholarly article is not that it is without errors; rather, a scholarly article is distinguished by a few characteristics which reduce the likelihood of errors. For our purposes, those characteristics are expert authors , peer-review , and citations .

• Expert Authors  - Authority is constructed and contextual. In other words it is built through academic credentialing and lived experience. Scholarly articles are written by experts in their respective fields rather than generalists. Expertise often comes in the form of academic credentials. For example, an article about the spread of various diseases should be written by someone with credentials and experience in immunology or public health.
• Peer-review  - Peer-review is the process whereby scholarly articles are vetted and improved. In this process an author submits an article to a journal for publication. However, before publication, an editor of the journal will send the article to other experts in the field to solicit their informed and professional opinions of it. These reviewers (sometimes called referees) will give the editor feedback regarding the quality of the article. Based on this process, articles may be published as is, published after specific changes are made, or not published at all.
• Citations  - One of the key differences between scholarly articles and other kinds of articles is that the former contain citations and bibliographies. These citations allow the reader to follow up on the author's sources to verify or dispute the author's claim.

There is a well-known axiom that says "Garbage in, garbage out." In the context of research this means that the quality of your research output is dependent on the information sources that go into you own research. Generally speaking, the information found in scholarly articles is more reliable than information found elsewhere. It is important to identify scholarly articles and prioritize them in your own research.

• Next: Scholarly vs. Popular vs. Trade Articles >>
• Last Updated: Aug 23, 2023 8:53 AM
• URL: https://researchguides.library.tufts.edu/scholarly-articles

• Research Guides

Reading for Research: Social Sciences

Structure of a research article.

• Structural Read

Guide Acknowledgements

How to Read a Scholarly Article from the Howard Tilton Memorial Library at Tulane University

Strategic Reading for Research   from the Howard Tilton Memorial Library at Tulane University

Bridging the Gap between Faculty Expectation and the Student Experience: Teaching Students toAnnotate and Synthesize Sources

Librarian for Sociology, Environmental Sociology, MHS and Public Policy Studies

Academic writing has features that vary only slightly across the different disciplines. Knowing these elements and the purpose of each serves help you to read and understand academic texts efficiently and effectively, and then apply what you read to your paper or project.

Social Science (and Science) original research articles generally follow IMRD: Introduction- Methods-Results-Discussion

Introduction

• Introduces topic of article
• Presents the "Research Gap"/Statement of Problem article will address
• How research presented in the article will solve the problem presented in research gap.
• Literature Review. presenting and evaluating previous scholarship on a topic.  Sometimes, this is separate section of the article. 

​Method & Results

• How research was done, including analysis and measurements.  
• Sometimes labeled as "Research Design"
• What answers were found
• Interpretation of Results (What Does It Mean? Why is it important?)
• Implications for the Field, how the study contributes to the existing field of knowledge
• Suggestions for further research
• Sometimes called Conclusion

You might also see IBC: Introduction - Body - Conclusion

• Identify the subject
• State the thesis 
• Describe why thesis is important to the field (this may be in the form of a literature review or general prose)

Body  

• Presents Evidence/Counter Evidence
• Integrate other writings (i.e. evidence) to support argument 
• Discuss why others may disagree (counter-evidence) and why argument is still valid
• Summary of argument
• Evaluation of argument by pointing out its implications and/or limitations 
• Anticipate and address possible counter-claims
• Suggest future directions of research
• Next: Structural Read >>
• Last Updated: Jan 19, 2024 10:44 AM
• URL: https://researchguides.library.vanderbilt.edu/readingforresearch

• Library databases
• Library website

Evaluating Resources: Research Articles

Research articles.

A research article is a journal article in which the authors report on the research they did. Research articles are always primary sources. Whether or not a research article is peer reviewed depends on the journal that publishes it.

Published research articles follow a predictable pattern and will contain most, if not all, of the sections listed below. However, the names for these sections may vary.

• Title & Author(s)
• Introduction
• Methodology

To learn about the different parts of a research article, please view this tutorial:

Short video: How to Read Scholarly Articles

Learn some tips on how to efficiently read scholarly articles.

Video: How to Read a Scholarly Article

(4 min 16 sec) Recorded August 2019 Transcript 

More information

The Academic Skills Center and the Writing Center both have helpful resources on critical and academic reading that can further help you understand and evaluate research articles.

• Academic Skills Center Guide: Developing Your Reading Skills
• Academic Skills Center Webinar Archive: Savvy Strategies for Academic Reading
• Writing Center Podcast: WriteCast Episode 5: Five Strategies for Critical Reading

If you'd like to learn how to find research articles in the Library, you can view this Quick Answer.

• Quick Answer: How do I find research articles?
• Previous Page: Primary & Secondary Sources
• Office of Student Disability Services

Walden Resources

Departments.

• Academic Residencies
• Academic Skills
• Career Planning and Development
• Customer Care Team
• Field Experience
• Military Services
• Student Success Advising
• Writing Skills

Centers and Offices

• Center for Social Change
• Office of Academic Support and Instructional Services
• Office of Degree Acceleration
• Office of Research and Doctoral Services
• Office of Student Affairs

Student Resources

• Doctoral Writing Assessment
• Form & Style Review
• Quick Answers
• ScholarWorks
• SKIL Courses and Workshops
• Walden Bookstore
• Walden Catalog & Student Handbook
• Student Safety/Title IX
• Legal & Consumer Information
• Website Terms and Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Accessibility
• Accreditation
• State Authorization
• Net Price Calculator
• Contact Walden

Walden University is a member of Adtalem Global Education, Inc. www.adtalem.com Walden University is certified to operate by SCHEV © 2024 Walden University LLC. All rights reserved.

Finding Scholarly Articles: Home

What's a Scholarly Article?

Your professor has specified that you are to use scholarly (or primary research or peer-reviewed or refereed or academic) articles only in your paper. What does that mean?

Scholarly or primary research articles are peer-reviewed , which means that they have gone through the process of being read by reviewers or referees  before being accepted for publication. When a scholar submits an article to a scholarly journal, the manuscript is sent to experts in that field to read and decide if the research is valid and the article should be published. Typically the reviewers indicate to the journal editors whether they think the article should be accepted, sent back for revisions, or rejected.

To decide whether an article is a primary research article, look for the following:

• The author’s (or authors') credentials and academic affiliation(s) should be given;
• There should be an abstract summarizing the research;
• The methods and materials used should be given, often in a separate section;
• There are citations within the text or footnotes referencing sources used;
• Results of the research are given;
• There should be discussion   and  conclusion ;
• With a bibliography or list of references at the end.

Caution: even though a journal may be peer-reviewed, not all the items in it will be. For instance, there might be editorials, book reviews, news reports, etc. Check for the parts of the article to be sure.   

You can limit your search results to primary research, peer-reviewed or refereed articles in many databases. To search for scholarly articles in  HOLLIS , type your keywords in the box at the top, and select  Catalog&Articles  from the choices that appear next.   On the search results screen, look for the  Show Only section on the right and click on  Peer-reviewed articles . (Make sure to  login in with your HarvardKey to get full-text of the articles that Harvard has purchased.)

Many of the databases that Harvard offers have similar features to limit to peer-reviewed or scholarly articles.  For example in Academic Search Premier , click on the box for Scholarly (Peer Reviewed) Journals  on the search screen.

Review articles are another great way to find scholarly primary research articles.   Review articles are not considered "primary research", but they pull together primary research articles on a topic, summarize and analyze them.  In Google Scholar , click on Review Articles  at the left of the search results screen. Ask your professor whether review articles can be cited for an assignment.

A note about Google searching.  A regular Google search turns up a broad variety of results, which can include scholarly articles but Google results also contain commercial and popular sources which may be misleading, outdated, etc.  Use Google Scholar  through the Harvard Library instead.

About Wikipedia .  W ikipedia is not considered scholarly, and should not be cited, but it frequently includes references to scholarly articles. Before using those references for an assignment, double check by finding them in Hollis or a more specific subject  database .

Still not sure about a source? Consult the course syllabus for guidance, contact your professor or teaching fellow, or use the Ask A Librarian service.

• Last Updated: Oct 3, 2023 3:37 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.harvard.edu/FindingScholarlyArticles

Harvard University Digital Accessibility Policy

• Locations and Hours
• UCLA Library
• Research Guides
• Research Tips and Tools

Articles, Books, and . . . ? Understanding the Many Types of Information Found in Libraries

• Reference Sources

Academic Journals

Magazines and trade journals, conference papers, technical reports, anthologies.

• Documents and Reports
• Non-Text Content
• Archival Materials

Because of their short length, articles often exclude background info and explanations, so they're usually the last stop in your research process, after you've narrowed down your topic and need to find very specific information.

The main thing to remember about articles is that they're almost always published in some larger work , like a journal, a newspaper, or an anthology. It's those "article containers" that define the types of articles, how you use them, and how you find them.

Articles are also the main reason we have so many databases . The Library Catalog lists everything we own, but only at the level of whole books and journals. It will tell you we have the New York Times, and for what dates, but it doesn't know what articles are in it. Search in UC Library Search using the "Articles, books, and more" scope will search all the databases we subscribe to and some we don't. If you find something we do not own, you can request it on Interlibrary Loan.

Physical Media

While newer journals and magazines are usually online, many older issues are still only available in paper. In addition, many of our online subscriptions explicitly don't include the latest material, specifically to encourage sales of print subscriptions. Older newspapers are usually transferred to microfilm.

Scholarly Sources

The terms academic or scholarly journal are usually synonymous with peer-reviewed , but check the journal's publishing policies to be sure. Trade journals, magazines, and newspapers are rarely peer-reviewed.

Primary or Secondary Sources

In the social sciences and humanities, articles are usually secondary sources; the exceptions are articles reporting original research findings from field studies. Primary source articles are more common in the physical and life sciences, where many articles are reporting primary research results from experiments, case studies, and clinical trials.

Clues that you're reading an academic article

• Abstract at beginning
• Footnotes or endnotes
• Bilbliography or list of references

Articles in academic (peer-reviewed) journals are the primary forum for scholarly communication, where scholars introduce and debate new ideas and research. They're usually not written for laymen, and assume familiarity with other recent work in the field. Journal articles also tend to be narrowly focused, concentrating on analysis of one or two creative works or studies, though they may also contain review articles or literature reviews which summarize recent published work in a field.

In addition to regular articles, academic journals often include book reviews (of scholarly books ) and letters from readers commenting on recent articles.

Clues that you're reading a non -academic article

• No abstract, footnotes or endnotes
• Decorative photos
• Advertisements

Unlike scholarly journals, magazines are written for a mainstream audience and are not peer-reviewed. A handful of academic journals (like Science and Nature ) blur the line between these two categories; they publish peer-reviewed articles, but combine them with news, opinions, and full-color photos in a magazine-style presentation.

Trade journals are targeted toward a specific profession or industry. Despite the name, they are usually not peer-reviewed. However, they sometimes represent a gray area between popular magazines and scholarly journals. When in doubt, ask your professor or TA whether a specific source is acceptable.

Newspapers as Primary Sources

Though usually written by journalists who were not direct witnesses to events, newspapers and news broadcasts may include quotes or interviews from people who were. In the absence of first-person accounts, contemporary news reports may be the closest thing to a primary source available.

Of all the content types listed here, newspapers are the fastest to publish. Use newspaper articles to find information about recent events and contemporary reports of/reactions to historic events.

• News by UCLA Library Last Updated May 7, 2024 5705 views this year

Reviews are a type of article that can appear in any of the categories above. The type of publication will usually determine the type of review. Newspapers and magazines review movies, plays, general interest books, and consumer products. Academic journals review scholarly books.

Note that a review is not the same as scholarly analysis and criticism! Book reviews, even in scholarly journals, are usually not peer-reviewed.

Conference papers aren't always published and can be tricky to find . Recent conference papers are often online, along with the PowerPoint files or other materials used in the actual presentation. However, access may be limited to conference participants and/or members of the academic organization which sponsored the conference.

In paper formats, all of the papers from a certain conference may be re-printed in the conference proceedings . Search for Proceedings of the [name of conference] to find what's available, or ask for help from a librarian. But be aware that published proceedings may only include abstracts or even just the name of the presenter and the title of the presentation. This is especially true of poster presentations , which really are large graphic posters (which don't translate well to either printed books or computer monitors).

As the name implies, most technical reports are about research in the physical sciences or engineering. However, there are also technical reports produced in the life and social sciences,

Like conference papers , some technical reports are eventually transformed into academic journal articles , but they may also be released after a journal article to provide supplementary data that didn't fit within the article. Also like conference papers, technical reports can be hard to find , especially older reports which may only be available in microfiche . Ask for help from a librarian!

Anthologies are a cross-over example. They're books that contain articles (chapters). Anthologies may be collections of articles by a single author, or collections of articles on a theme from different authors chosen by an editor. Many anthologies reprint articles already published elsewhere, but some contain original works.

Anthologies are rarely peer-reviewed, but they still may be considered scholarly works, depending on the reputation of the authors and editors. Use the same criteria listed for scholarly books .

Of course, reprints of articles originally published in peer-reviewed journals retain their "scholarly" status. (Note that most style manuals have special rules for citing reprinted works.)

• << Previous: Books
• Next: Documents and Reports >>
• Last Updated: Mar 1, 2024 10:55 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.ucla.edu/content-types

Evaluating Information Sources

• Evaluate Your Sources
• Publication Types and Bias

Structure of Scientific Papers

Reading a scholarly article, additional reading tips, for more information.

• Reading Scholarly Articles
• Impact Factors and Citation Counts
• Predatory Publishing

Research papers generally follow a specific format. Here are the different parts of the scholarly article.

Abstract (Summary)

The abstract, generally written by the author(s) of the article, provides a concise summary of the whole article. Usually it highlights the focus, study results and conclusion(s) of the article. 

Introduction (Why)

In this section, the authors introduce their topic, explain the purpose of the study, and present why it is important, unique or how it adds to existing knowledge in their field. Look for the author's hypothesis or thesis here. 

Introduction - Literature Review (Who else)

Many scholarly articles include a summary of previous research or discussions published on this topic, called a "Literature Review".  This section outlines what others have found and what questions still remain.

Methodology  / Materials and Methods (How) 

Find the details of how the study was performed in this section. There should be enough specifics so that you could repeat the study if you wanted. 

Results   (What happened)

This section includes the findings from the study. Look for the data and statistical results in the form of tables, charts, and graphs. Some papers include an analysis here.

Discussion  / Analysis  (What it means)

This section should tell you what the authors felt was significant about their results. The authors analyze their data and describe what they believe it means.

Conclusion (What was learned)

Here the authors offer their final thoughts and conclusions and may include: how the study addressed their hypothesis, how it contributes to the field, the strengths and weaknesses of the study, and recommendations for future research. Some papers combine the discussion and conclusion.

A scholarly paper can be difficult to read. Instead of reading straight through, try focusing on the different sections and asking specific questions at each point.

What is your research question? 

When you select an article to read for a project or class, focus on your topic. Look for information in the article that is relevant to your research question. 

Read the abstract first  as it covers basics of the article. Questions to consider: 

• What is this article about? What is the working hypothesis or thesis?
• Is this related to my question or area of research?

Second: Read the introduction and discussion/conclusion.  These sections offer the main argument and hypothesis of the article. Questions to consider for the introduction: 

• What do we already know about this topic and what is left to discover?
• What have other people done in regards to this topic?
• How is this research unique?
• Will this tell me anything new related to my research question?

Questions for the discussion and conclusion: 

• What does the study mean and why is it important?
• What are the weaknesses in their argument?
• Is the conclusion valid?

Next: Read about the Methods/Methodology.  If what you've read addresses your research question, this should be your next section. Questions to consider:

• How did the author do the research? Is it a qualitative or quantitative project?
• What data are the study based on?
• Could I repeat their work? Is all the information present in order to repeat it?

Finally: Read the Results and Analysis.  Now read the details of this research. What did the researchers learn? If graphs and statistics are confusing, focus on the explanations around them. Questions to consider: 

• What did the author find and how did they find it?
• Are the results presented in a factual and unbiased way?
• Does their analysis agree with the data presented?
• Is all the data present?
• What conclusions do you formulate from this data? (And does it match with the Author's conclusions?)

Review the References (anytime): These give credit to other scientists and researchers and show you the basis the authors used to develop their research.  The list of references, or works cited, should include all of the materials the authors used in the article. The references list can be a good way to identify additional sources of information on the topic. Questions to ask:

• What other articles should I read?
• What other authors are respected in this field?
• What other research should I explore?

When you read these scholarly articles, remember that you will be writing based on what you read.

While you are Reading:

• Keep in mind your research question
• Focus on the information in the article relevant to your question (feel free to skim over other parts)
• Question everything you read - not everything is 100% true or performed effectively
• Think critically about what you read and seek to build your own arguments
• Read out of order! This isn't a mystery novel or movie, you want to start with the spoiler
• Use any keywords printed by the journals as further clues about the article
• Look up words you don't know

How to Take Notes on the Article

Try different ways, but use the one that fits you best. Below are some suggestions:

• Print the article and highlight, circle and otherwise mark while you read (for a PDF, you can use the highlight text  feature in Adobe Reader)
• Take notes on the sections, for example in the margins (Adobe Reader offers pop-up  sticky notes )
• Highlight only very important quotes or terms - or highlight potential quotes in a different color
• Summarize the main or key points

Reflect on what you have read - draw your own conclusions . As you read jot down questions that come to mind. These may be answered later on in the article or you may have found something that the authors did not consider. Here are a few questions that might be helpful:

• Have I taken time to understand all the terminology?
• Am I spending too much time on the less important parts of this article?
• Do I have any reason to question the credibility of this research?
• What specific problem does the research address and why is it important?
• How do these results relate to my research interests or to other works which I have read?
• Anatomy of a Scholarly Article (Interactive tutorial) Andreas Orphanides, North Carolina State University Libraries, 2009
• How to Read an Article in a Scholarly Journal (Research Guide) Cayuga Community College Library, 2016
• How To Read a Scholarly Journal Article (YouTube Video) Tim Lockman, Kishwaukee College Library, 2012.
• How To Read a Scientific Paper (Interactive tutorial) Michael Fosmire, Purdue University Libraries, 2013. PDF
• How to Read a Scientific Paper (Online article) Science Buddies, 2012
• How to Read a Scientific Research Paper (Article) Durbin Jr., C. G. Respiratory Care, 2009
• The Illusion of Certainty and the Certainty of Illusion: A Caution when Reading Scientific Articles (Article) T. A. Lang, International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 2011,
• Infographic: How to Read Scientific Papers Natalia Rodriguez, Elsevier, 2015
• Library Research Methods: Read & Evaluate Culinary Institute of America Library, 2016
• << Previous: Publication Types and Bias
• Next: Impact Factors and Citation Counts >>
• Last Updated: Mar 8, 2024 1:17 PM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/evaluate

What is a Scholarly Article: What is a scholarly article

Determineif a source is scholarly, determine if a source is scholarly, what is a scholarly source.

Scholarly sources (also referred to as academic, peer-reviewed, or refereed sources) are written by experts in a particular field and serve to keep others interested in that field up to date on the most recent research, findings, and news. These resources will provide the most substantial information for your research and papers.

What is peer-review?

When a source has been peer-reviewed, it has undergone the review and scrutiny of a review board of colleagues in the author’s field. They evaluate this source as part of the body of research for a particular discipline and make recommendations regarding its publication in a journal, revisions prior to publication, or, in some cases, reject its publication.

Why use scholarly sources?

Scholarly sources’ authority and credibility improve the quality of your own paper or research project.

How can I tell if a source is scholarly?

The following characteristics can help you differentiate scholarly sources from those that are not. Be sure to look at the criteria in each category when making your determination, rather than basing your decision on only one piece of information.

• Are author names provided?
• Are the authors’ credentials provided?
• Are the credentials relevant to the information provided?
• Who is the publisher of the information?
• Is the publisher an academic institution, scholarly, or professional organization?
• Is their purpose for publishing this information evident?
• Who is the intended audience of this source?
• Is the language geared toward those with knowledge of a specific discipline rather than the general public?
• Why is the information being provided?
• Are sources cited?
• Are there charts, graphs, tables, and bibliographies included?
• Are research claims documented?
• Are conclusions based on evidence provided?
• How long is the source?

Currency/Timeliness

• Is the date of publication evident?

Additional Tips for Specific Scholarly Source Types

Each resource type below will also have unique criteria that can be applied to it to determine if it is scholarly.

• Books published by a University Press are likely to be scholarly.
• Professional organizations and the U.S. Government Printing Office can also be indicators that a book is scholarly.
• Book reviews can provide clues as to if a source is scholarly and highlight the intended audience. See our  Find Reviews  guide to locate reviews on titles of interest.
• Are the author’s professional affiliations provided?
• Who is the publisher?
• How frequently is the periodical published?
• How many and what kinds of advertisements are present? For example, is the advertising clearly geared towards readers in a specific discipline or occupation?
• For more information about different periodical types, see our  Selecting Sources  guide.
• What is the domain of the page (for example: .gov, .edu, etc.)?
• Who is publishing or sponsoring the page?
• Is contact information for the author/publisher provided?
• How recently was the page updated?
• Is the information biased? Scholarly materials published online should not have any evidence of bias.

Is My Source Scholarly? (Accessible View)

Step 1: Source

The article is most likely scholarly if:

• You found the article in a library database or Google Scholar
• The journal the article appears in is peer-reviewed

Move to Step 2: Authors

Step 2: Authors

The source is most likely scholarly if:

• The authors’ credentials are provided
• The authors are affiliated with a university or other research institute

Move to Step 3: Content

Step 3: Content

• The source is longer than 10 pages
• Has a works cited or bibliography
• It does not attempt to persuade or bias the reader
• It attempts to persuade or bias the reader, but treats the topic objectively, the information is well-supported, and it includes a works cited or bibliography

If the article meets the criteria in Steps 1-3 it is most likely scholarly.

Common Characteristics of a Scholarly Article

Common characteristics of scholarly (research) articles.

Articles in scholarly journals may also be called research journals, peer reviewed journals, or refereed journals. These types of articles share many common features, including:

• articles always provide the name of the author or multiple authors
• author(s) always have academic credentials (e.g. biologist, chemist, anthropologist, lawyer)
• articles often have a sober, serious look
• articles may contain many graphs and charts; few glossy pages or color pictures
• author(s) write in the language of the discipline (e.g. biology, chemistry, anthropology, law, etc.)
• authors write for other scholars, and emerging scholars
• authors always cite their sources in footnotes, bibliographies, notes, etc.
• often (but not always) associated with universities or professional organizations

Types of Scholarly Articles

Peer Review in 3 Minutes

North Carolina State University (NCSU) Libraries (3:15)

• What do peer reviewers do?  How are they similar to or different from editors?
• Who are the primary customers of scholarly journals?
• Do databases only include peer-reviewed articles?  How do you know?

Is my source scholarly

Is My Source Scholarly?: INFOGRAPHIC

This infographic is part of the Illinois Library's Determine if a source is scholarly.

"Is my source scholarly" by Illinois Library  https://www.library.illinois.edu/ugl/howdoi/scholarly/

Anatomy of a Scholarly Article: Interactive Tutorial

Typical Sections of a Peer-Reviewed Research Article

Typical sections of peer-reviewed research articles.

Research articles in many disciplines are organized into standard sections. Although these sections may vary by discipline, common sections include:

• Introduction
• Materials and Methods

It's not hard to spot these sections; just look for bold headings in the article, as shown in these illustrations:

• Last Updated: Oct 22, 2020 11:31 AM
• URL: https://libguides.mccd.edu/WhatisaScholarlyArticle

• How to Cite
• Language & Lit
• Rhyme & Rhythm
• The Rewrite
• Search Glass

Definition of a Research Article

A research article reports the results of original research, assesses its contribution to the body of knowledge in a given area, and is published in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal. A given academic field will likely have dozens of peer-reviewed journals. For university professors, publishing their research plays a key role in determining whether they are granted tenure. Once, research articles had only a limited audience consisting mainly of other scholars and graduate students. Today, websites such as Google Scholar and the proliferation of electronic academic journals have broadened the potential audience for research articles.

Research articles generally consist of the following components: a title and abstract, an introduction, a methodology, results, discussion, and references. Before they are published, the editor of the journal to which the manuscript was submitted sends it to experts in the same field for review. These scholars will review the article for, among other things, the appropriateness of its methodology and its relevance to the field. They may suggest revisions. The peer review process is lengthy. It may be a year or longer between the time an article is submitted and its publication.

Title and Abstract

The title and abstract are key factors in determining whether the entire article will be read. A title should be descriptive, giving the reader an idea of the focus of the study. Because the Internet has made it possible to access so many research articles online, a title should contain enough keywords for an interested reader to find the article.

The abstract, meanwhile, serves as a mini-summary of the study. Many readers will review the abstract and, based on the findings, will decide whether to read the entire article.

Introduction

The introduction of a research article should state the problem being studied and the reason for the study. To place the research in proper context, the introduction should contain a brief summary of the previous research in the area covered by the study. This literature review should include references, which should be listed in the references section at the end of the article. By presenting an overview of the previous research, the article's author(s) can explain how the study presented in the article will contribute to and advance the body of knowledge.

This section of the research article should outline the methodology the author(s) used in conducting the study. Including information on methods used allows readers to determine whether the study used appropriate research methods for the question being investigated. It also makes it possible for other researchers to replicate the study and see if they obtain the same results.

The results section will present the data, the meat of the study. It is easy to confuse the results section with the discussion section that follows, in which the article's author interprets the results of the study. The results section should only report the results from the data analysis, regardless of whether the study is qualitative or quantitative.

The discussion section presents an interpretation of the results of the study. The authors will summarize the findings and assess them in the larger context of the existing knowledge, pointing out the ways in which their findings relate to those from prior studies. Any unusual or unexpected results will be discussed in this section as well. Finally, the authors will consider the larger theoretical implications of the study's results.

The citations (references) come at the end of the article and should list all books, articles, and other resources used and cited in the article. The references -- and the entire article -- should be written in the appropriate style (Modern Languages Association, American Psychological Association, Chicago, etc.).

• Google Scholar-Source for Research Articles

Shane Hall is a writer and research analyst with more than 20 years of experience. His work has appeared in "Brookings Papers on Education Policy," "Population and Development" and various Texas newspapers. Hall has a Doctor of Philosophy in political economy and is a former college instructor of economics and political science.

What is Research?: Parts of a Research Article

• The Truth about Research
• Research Steps
• Evaluating Sources
• Parts of a Research Article

While each article is different, here are some common pieces you'll see in many of them...

• The title of the article should give you some clues as to the topic it addresses.
• The abstract allows readers to quickly review the overall content of the article. It should give you an idea of the topic of the article, while also providing any key details--such as the questions address in the article and the general results of the studies conducted.
• The introduction introduces the general topic and provides some background information, eventually narrowing it down to the specific issues addressed in the article.
• The literature review describes past research on the topic and relates it to the specific topic covered by the article.  Not all articles will have a literature review.
• The methods section addresses the research design and methodology used by the author to come to the conclusions they have in this article.  This gives others the ability to replicate the study.  Not all articles will have this, since there will be many articles that don't involve an actual study.
• The results section presents the results of any studies or analysis that has been conducted.  Not all articles will have this, either.
• The discussion/conclusion addresses the implications or future of the field.  It may also address where future research is needed.
• The list references or bibliography is the alphabetized list of resources used for the article.  The format of the citations is often determined by what that field's preferred format is.  Common citations formats include APA, Chicago, and MLA.  This is a necessity in an article--and it helps you identify more possible resources for your own paper.
• Components of a Research Paper Useful site that goes more in depth on these sections.
• Parts of a Citation A really wonderful site by the Nash Community College Library.
• << Previous: Evaluating Sources
• Last Updated: Jul 20, 2017 9:23 PM
• URL: https://libguides.uno.edu/whatisresearch

What is a Research Article?

A research article is a written paper that illustrates an outcome of scientific research with supporting clinical data. This differs from other types of informative articles, such as magazine features or research papers, which typically address the topic in a general scope as a means of introduction. A research article, on the other hand, is written by and for researchers for the purpose of making specific findings known to the scientific community at large. In fact, rather than appearing in a consumer or industry publication, a research article is found exclusively in a peer-reviewed scientific or medical journal, such as The Journal of the American Medical Association , for example.

Another key difference between other papers and a research article is that the latter strictly presents facts, rather than serve as a letter of opinion or a summary of the existing scientific literature. However, most scientific journals simultaneously publish such letters, as well as reviews of the body of existing research methods and findings.

As with any type of targeted writing, there is a protocol to follow when writing a research article in terms of layout. The title, for example, should provide a summary statement that either describes the research or presents the main conclusion drawn from the work. This not only helps the article to be noticed in table of contents in the print version of the scientific journal, but also assists in indexing the article in electronic forms. For instance, PubMed Medline is an online database of published journal material provided by the U.S. National Library of Medicine. A lookup of a key word or phrase scans articles published in thousands of scientific journals, and returns search results according to their relevance in the title.

The author or authors of a research article are listed according to their degree of contribution to the work, easily permitting one to identify the lead researcher. The last name followed by first and middle initials format is typically used. When there are many authors presenting the article, only the first three names are usually required to include when referencing or citing the article in another paper. In addition, one author is usually selected to serve as a contact for further information or comment about the article, as well as the party responsible for future amendments or updates. If appropriate, the affiliated university or research facility follows the authors’ names.

While most other forms of articles contain a summary at its end, the process is reversed in a research article. In fact, the summary, known as the abstract, precedes the full content of the paper. There is also a specific formula for its construction. It contains one or two introductory sentences explaining the necessity of the research performed, followed by the methodology used, the results found, and how the researchers applied the results. Finally, the abstract contains a single sentence representing a statement of conclusion of the authors based on these findings.

Contributing articles to AllTheScience is just one of Karyn’s many professional endeavors. She is also a magazine writer and columnist, mainly for health-related publications, as well as the author of four books. Karyn lives in New York’s Catskill Mountain region and specializes in topics about green living and botanical medicine.

AS FEATURED ON:

Related Articles

• What Is a Corresponding Author?
• How do I Write a Research Paper Summary?
• What does a Syndicated Columnist do?
• What does an Indexer do?
• What is Education Research?
• What is a Research Analyst?
• What is Collaborative Research?

Discussion Comments

Post your comments.

• By: japolia A research article often presents results of clinical research.
• By: Syda Productions New therapies and treatment often come out of clinical research.
• By: a4stockphotos Someone looking to write a research article may begin by doing an online search to make sure their ideas haven't already been covered.
• By: Creativa Research articles in college usually involve studying textbooks to find deeper meanings.
• By: Minerva Studio A research article is written by and for researchers for the purpose of making specific findings know to the scientific community at large.
• By: Monkey Business The most well-respected medical journals feature peer-reviewed research, which has been read and approved by other doctors.
• By: Vasiliy Koval Articles describe the methodology used by the author when conducting their research.

• Master Your Homework
• Do My Homework

Research Paper vs. Research Article: What’s the Difference?

Research papers and research articles are two different forms of academic writing, with distinct characteristics. Although they share some similarities in terms of format and purpose, there are important distinctions between the two types that should be understood by students who wish to write either form effectively. This article will explain the differences between a research paper and a research article, outlining their unique features and applications. Furthermore, it will offer guidance on how best to approach each type when crafting an effective piece for scholarly consumption.

I. Introduction to Research Paper vs. Research Article

Ii. defining a research paper and a research article, iii. comparative analysis of structure, content, and writing styles between the two types of scholarly documents, iv. pros & cons of conducting either a formal or an informal study, v. concluding remarks: how to choose between the different approaches when completing academic assignments, vi. limitations in comparing these texts as distinct forms of scholarly outputs, vii. future directions for understanding similarities & differences across all kinds of academic writings.

Research Paper vs. Research Article

The academic world is full of a variety of different writing styles, each with its own unique purpose and goals. Two particularly important forms are the research paper and the research article. Each has their own distinct features that make them uniquely suited to certain tasks within academia – let’s take a closer look at what sets them apart from one another!

A research paper , as you might expect, presents in-depth analysis on an issue or topic using evidence gathered through primary sources such as field work, laboratory experiments, surveys, interviews etc., whereas a research article , typically published in scholarly journals or online publications like websites & blogs addresses specific findings derived from secondary sources like books or other papers related to said subject matter. The former requires more effort & dedication from the author due to it being time consuming & involving careful structuring along with rigorous citation format adherence; while the latter focuses mainly on providing succinct yet comprehensive overviews regarding topics which have already been extensively discussed by experts in depth previously elsewhere – taking into account present day developments/breakthroughs if necessary before finally offering opinionated conclusions pertaining to said subjects.

Exploring the Characteristics of a Research Paper and Article

• Research paper:
• Research article:

A research paper is an extended form of writing that presents and supports an argument on a particular topic. It provides evidence for the opinion or idea in the form of facts, data, analysis, opinions from authorities in specific fields etc. The objective is to make original claims based on careful evaluation of information available on a given subject. It requires significant effort as one needs to be able to distill complex topics into concisely articulated points that are supported by solid evidence.

On the other hand, a research article is usually written for publication either online or printed through journals or magazines. These articles have been peer-reviewed which means they follow certain academic standards established within their discipline while presenting factual conclusions related to ongoing debates and arguments raised by preceding works. They generally provide new insight into existing knowledge rather than build upon it using more primary sources such as surveys and experiments conducted independently by authors themselves.

Comparison of Structure, Content and Writing Styles between Research Papers and Articles For the purpose of scholarly communication, both research papers and articles play a vital role. Though there is no hard-and-fast rule that distinguishes them from each other in terms of structure or content, they usually differ significantly in their style. In comparison to research papers, articles typically have a much smaller length requirement. They can range anywhere from 1 page to as many as 30 pages depending on the journal guidelines – making them more accessible for readers who are seeking concise summaries with quick insights into topics. On the contrary, research papers tend to be longer documents that delve deeper into an issue by providing extensive background information; detailed analysis; arguments bolstered by sources such as peer-reviewed journals or interviews; conclusion sections tying up any loose ends etc.

• Research Papers: Longer documents which provide extensive coverage about an issue.
• Articles: Short pieces covering high level overviews without going too deep.

When it comes down to writing styles used for these two types of documents – Authors generally follow formal academic language while creating research paper whereas article writers tend to use more casual tones in order to appeal wider audience groups. Additionally authors will often adopt conversational elements like anecdotes when crafting articles so that readers can get better understanding about specific points being discussed within context.

Formal vs. Informal Study: A Critical Analysis The choice between conducting a formal or informal study may be difficult for researchers due to the advantages and drawbacks of each approach. Depending on their research topic, scientists must carefully weigh up the pros and cons before deciding which course of action is most suitable for them.

A formal study , as conducted in many research papers and articles, often requires more time-consuming effort from researchers than an informal one because it involves using specific methodologies such as surveys, interviews, experiments etc., gathering quantitative data that needs to be statistically analyzed by employing reliable statistical methods. On the other hand, a formal investigation allows researchers to obtain objective information from well-defined populations about predetermined variables through systematic procedures that can yield precise results with larger external validity – making it possible to make generalizations beyond those studied in this particular case.

Conversely, an informal study , also known as participant observation or field work requires less structured approaches where collecting qualitative data is usually achieved via conversations with informants instead of strict instrumentations; thus allowing greater interaction between researcher and subjects resulting in increased understanding of contextually situated phenomena within its natural setting rather than artificially created ones used in laboratories’ studies – leading to deeper insights into complex social processes . Also noteworthy is its lower financial cost when compared against highly expensive equipment needed for undertaking large scale scientific investigations.. However despite yielding valuable first person accounts which might not have been obtained elsewhere , such observations are sometimes criticized due challenges related accuracy given reliance on subjective interpretations while generating evidence without significant use of control variables .

Selecting the Optimal Approach for Academic Assignments When it comes to completing academic assignments, there are various approaches one can take. In order to ensure success and optimal results, it is important that students consider all of their options carefully before making a choice.

Research papers often require extensive research and careful consideration when selecting an approach. Using primary sources such as books or peer-reviewed articles may be more reliable in comparison to secondary sources such as websites or blogs which are usually less credible due to lack of credibility checks by professionals within the field. Additionally, data analysis can help strengthen arguments while also adding clarity to any work produced during the course of completion; however, understanding how best utilize this analytical tool effectively requires additional practice and experience on behalf of the student undertaking it. For research articles, detailed knowledge about particular topics may lead towards better outcomes but general familiarity with content areas is sufficient enough for success here too. The key lies in being able identify appropriate methods quickly through use critical thinking skills coupled with clear objectives pertaining specifically each assignment itself at hand prior its execution – this way mistakes are avoided thus delivering quality results each time..

Comparative Analyses of Scholarly Outputs

• Scholarly output, such as research papers and articles, are subject to scrutiny when attempting to make comparisons.
• Due to the differences between these two types of outputs, it can be difficult or impossible to achieve a true comparison.

Comparing scholarly outputs is not always possible due to their distinct forms. Research papers typically have more depth than an article on the same topic which may mean that even though both documents might discuss similar topics in some aspects they will differ greatly in others. Furthermore, the format of each type of document contributes further complexities; for example, a research paper is often much longer and requires extensive background information before any conclusions can be drawn while articles tend towards presenting results with little room left for interpretation. The style used by authors also adds difficulty; many times research papers include complex jargon necessary for understanding specific points whereas an article strives for simplicity so its target audience can comprehend all material without excessive effort. These limitations prevent proper analysis from being done since one piece could provide certain details while another provides only bits related thereto leading readers into confusion if attempting to compare them directly despite intentions otherwise. It then becomes clear that academic pieces should instead remain separate entities rather than compared against each other since doing so would lead only too frustration given current constraints therein found.

Exploring the Similarities and Differences Between Academic Writings

As our understanding of academic writings continues to evolve, so too must our appreciation for both their similarities and differences. From research papers to research articles, it is important to consider how each one contributes unique insight into a given topic or issue.

The research paper and research article may look similar on the surface, but upon closer inspection one can see significant differences in their format, purpose, and audience. The key distinctions between these two forms of written work are scope of content covered, type of analysis used to draw conclusions or develop knowledge from data or evidence presented, and intended readership. Ultimately, understanding the essential characteristics that distinguish a research paper from a research article is beneficial for anyone who produces such texts as it will help them craft an effective product that aligns with its desired purposes.

What Is Research, and Why Do People Do It?

• Open Access
• First Online: 03 December 2022

Cite this chapter

You have full access to this open access chapter

• James Hiebert 6 ,
• Jinfa Cai 7 ,
• Stephen Hwang 7 ,
• Anne K Morris 6 &
• Charles Hohensee 6  

Part of the book series: Research in Mathematics Education ((RME))

17k Accesses

Abstractspiepr Abs1

Every day people do research as they gather information to learn about something of interest. In the scientific world, however, research means something different than simply gathering information. Scientific research is characterized by its careful planning and observing, by its relentless efforts to understand and explain, and by its commitment to learn from everyone else seriously engaged in research. We call this kind of research scientific inquiry and define it as “formulating, testing, and revising hypotheses.” By “hypotheses” we do not mean the hypotheses you encounter in statistics courses. We mean predictions about what you expect to find and rationales for why you made these predictions. Throughout this and the remaining chapters we make clear that the process of scientific inquiry applies to all kinds of research studies and data, both qualitative and quantitative.

You have full access to this open access chapter,  Download chapter PDF

Part I. What Is Research?

Have you ever studied something carefully because you wanted to know more about it? Maybe you wanted to know more about your grandmother’s life when she was younger so you asked her to tell you stories from her childhood, or maybe you wanted to know more about a fertilizer you were about to use in your garden so you read the ingredients on the package and looked them up online. According to the dictionary definition, you were doing research.

Recall your high school assignments asking you to “research” a topic. The assignment likely included consulting a variety of sources that discussed the topic, perhaps including some “original” sources. Often, the teacher referred to your product as a “research paper.”

Were you conducting research when you interviewed your grandmother or wrote high school papers reviewing a particular topic? Our view is that you were engaged in part of the research process, but only a small part. In this book, we reserve the word “research” for what it means in the scientific world, that is, for scientific research or, more pointedly, for scientific inquiry .

Exercise 1.1

Before you read any further, write a definition of what you think scientific inquiry is. Keep it short—Two to three sentences. You will periodically update this definition as you read this chapter and the remainder of the book.

This book is about scientific inquiry—what it is and how to do it. For starters, scientific inquiry is a process, a particular way of finding out about something that involves a number of phases. Each phase of the process constitutes one aspect of scientific inquiry. You are doing scientific inquiry as you engage in each phase, but you have not done scientific inquiry until you complete the full process. Each phase is necessary but not sufficient.

In this chapter, we set the stage by defining scientific inquiry—describing what it is and what it is not—and by discussing what it is good for and why people do it. The remaining chapters build directly on the ideas presented in this chapter.

A first thing to know is that scientific inquiry is not all or nothing. “Scientificness” is a continuum. Inquiries can be more scientific or less scientific. What makes an inquiry more scientific? You might be surprised there is no universally agreed upon answer to this question. None of the descriptors we know of are sufficient by themselves to define scientific inquiry. But all of them give you a way of thinking about some aspects of the process of scientific inquiry. Each one gives you different insights.

Exercise 1.2

As you read about each descriptor below, think about what would make an inquiry more or less scientific. If you think a descriptor is important, use it to revise your definition of scientific inquiry.

Creating an Image of Scientific Inquiry

We will present three descriptors of scientific inquiry. Each provides a different perspective and emphasizes a different aspect of scientific inquiry. We will draw on all three descriptors to compose our definition of scientific inquiry.

Descriptor 1. Experience Carefully Planned in Advance

Sir Ronald Fisher, often called the father of modern statistical design, once referred to research as “experience carefully planned in advance” (1935, p. 8). He said that humans are always learning from experience, from interacting with the world around them. Usually, this learning is haphazard rather than the result of a deliberate process carried out over an extended period of time. Research, Fisher said, was learning from experience, but experience carefully planned in advance.

This phrase can be fully appreciated by looking at each word. The fact that scientific inquiry is based on experience means that it is based on interacting with the world. These interactions could be thought of as the stuff of scientific inquiry. In addition, it is not just any experience that counts. The experience must be carefully planned . The interactions with the world must be conducted with an explicit, describable purpose, and steps must be taken to make the intended learning as likely as possible. This planning is an integral part of scientific inquiry; it is not just a preparation phase. It is one of the things that distinguishes scientific inquiry from many everyday learning experiences. Finally, these steps must be taken beforehand and the purpose of the inquiry must be articulated in advance of the experience. Clearly, scientific inquiry does not happen by accident, by just stumbling into something. Stumbling into something unexpected and interesting can happen while engaged in scientific inquiry, but learning does not depend on it and serendipity does not make the inquiry scientific.

Descriptor 2. Observing Something and Trying to Explain Why It Is the Way It Is

When we were writing this chapter and googled “scientific inquiry,” the first entry was: “Scientific inquiry refers to the diverse ways in which scientists study the natural world and propose explanations based on the evidence derived from their work.” The emphasis is on studying, or observing, and then explaining . This descriptor takes the image of scientific inquiry beyond carefully planned experience and includes explaining what was experienced.

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, “explain” means “(a) to make known, (b) to make plain or understandable, (c) to give the reason or cause of, and (d) to show the logical development or relations of” (Merriam-Webster, n.d. ). We will use all these definitions. Taken together, they suggest that to explain an observation means to understand it by finding reasons (or causes) for why it is as it is. In this sense of scientific inquiry, the following are synonyms: explaining why, understanding why, and reasoning about causes and effects. Our image of scientific inquiry now includes planning, observing, and explaining why.

We need to add a final note about this descriptor. We have phrased it in a way that suggests “observing something” means you are observing something in real time—observing the way things are or the way things are changing. This is often true. But, observing could mean observing data that already have been collected, maybe by someone else making the original observations (e.g., secondary analysis of NAEP data or analysis of existing video recordings of classroom instruction). We will address secondary analyses more fully in Chap. 4 . For now, what is important is that the process requires explaining why the data look like they do.

We must note that for us, the term “data” is not limited to numerical or quantitative data such as test scores. Data can also take many nonquantitative forms, including written survey responses, interview transcripts, journal entries, video recordings of students, teachers, and classrooms, text messages, and so forth.

Exercise 1.3

What are the implications of the statement that just “observing” is not enough to count as scientific inquiry? Does this mean that a detailed description of a phenomenon is not scientific inquiry?

Find sources that define research in education that differ with our position, that say description alone, without explanation, counts as scientific research. Identify the precise points where the opinions differ. What are the best arguments for each of the positions? Which do you prefer? Why?

Descriptor 3. Updating Everyone’s Thinking in Response to More and Better Information

This descriptor focuses on a third aspect of scientific inquiry: updating and advancing the field’s understanding of phenomena that are investigated. This descriptor foregrounds a powerful characteristic of scientific inquiry: the reliability (or trustworthiness) of what is learned and the ultimate inevitability of this learning to advance human understanding of phenomena. Humans might choose not to learn from scientific inquiry, but history suggests that scientific inquiry always has the potential to advance understanding and that, eventually, humans take advantage of these new understandings.

Before exploring these bold claims a bit further, note that this descriptor uses “information” in the same way the previous two descriptors used “experience” and “observations.” These are the stuff of scientific inquiry and we will use them often, sometimes interchangeably. Frequently, we will use the term “data” to stand for all these terms.

An overriding goal of scientific inquiry is for everyone to learn from what one scientist does. Much of this book is about the methods you need to use so others have faith in what you report and can learn the same things you learned. This aspect of scientific inquiry has many implications.

One implication is that scientific inquiry is not a private practice. It is a public practice available for others to see and learn from. Notice how different this is from everyday learning. When you happen to learn something from your everyday experience, often only you gain from the experience. The fact that research is a public practice means it is also a social one. It is best conducted by interacting with others along the way: soliciting feedback at each phase, taking opportunities to present work-in-progress, and benefitting from the advice of others.

A second implication is that you, as the researcher, must be committed to sharing what you are doing and what you are learning in an open and transparent way. This allows all phases of your work to be scrutinized and critiqued. This is what gives your work credibility. The reliability or trustworthiness of your findings depends on your colleagues recognizing that you have used all appropriate methods to maximize the chances that your claims are justified by the data.

A third implication of viewing scientific inquiry as a collective enterprise is the reverse of the second—you must be committed to receiving comments from others. You must treat your colleagues as fair and honest critics even though it might sometimes feel otherwise. You must appreciate their job, which is to remain skeptical while scrutinizing what you have done in considerable detail. To provide the best help to you, they must remain skeptical about your conclusions (when, for example, the data are difficult for them to interpret) until you offer a convincing logical argument based on the information you share. A rather harsh but good-to-remember statement of the role of your friendly critics was voiced by Karl Popper, a well-known twentieth century philosopher of science: “. . . if you are interested in the problem which I tried to solve by my tentative assertion, you may help me by criticizing it as severely as you can” (Popper, 1968, p. 27).

A final implication of this third descriptor is that, as someone engaged in scientific inquiry, you have no choice but to update your thinking when the data support a different conclusion. This applies to your own data as well as to those of others. When data clearly point to a specific claim, even one that is quite different than you expected, you must reconsider your position. If the outcome is replicated multiple times, you need to adjust your thinking accordingly. Scientific inquiry does not let you pick and choose which data to believe; it mandates that everyone update their thinking when the data warrant an update.

Doing Scientific Inquiry

We define scientific inquiry in an operational sense—what does it mean to do scientific inquiry? What kind of process would satisfy all three descriptors: carefully planning an experience in advance; observing and trying to explain what you see; and, contributing to updating everyone’s thinking about an important phenomenon?

We define scientific inquiry as formulating , testing , and revising hypotheses about phenomena of interest.

Of course, we are not the only ones who define it in this way. The definition for the scientific method posted by the editors of Britannica is: “a researcher develops a hypothesis, tests it through various means, and then modifies the hypothesis on the basis of the outcome of the tests and experiments” (Britannica, n.d. ).

Notice how defining scientific inquiry this way satisfies each of the descriptors. “Carefully planning an experience in advance” is exactly what happens when formulating a hypothesis about a phenomenon of interest and thinking about how to test it. “ Observing a phenomenon” occurs when testing a hypothesis, and “ explaining ” what is found is required when revising a hypothesis based on the data. Finally, “updating everyone’s thinking” comes from comparing publicly the original with the revised hypothesis.

Doing scientific inquiry, as we have defined it, underscores the value of accumulating knowledge rather than generating random bits of knowledge. Formulating, testing, and revising hypotheses is an ongoing process, with each revised hypothesis begging for another test, whether by the same researcher or by new researchers. The editors of Britannica signaled this cyclic process by adding the following phrase to their definition of the scientific method: “The modified hypothesis is then retested, further modified, and tested again.” Scientific inquiry creates a process that encourages each study to build on the studies that have gone before. Through collective engagement in this process of building study on top of study, the scientific community works together to update its thinking.

Before exploring more fully the meaning of “formulating, testing, and revising hypotheses,” we need to acknowledge that this is not the only way researchers define research. Some researchers prefer a less formal definition, one that includes more serendipity, less planning, less explanation. You might have come across more open definitions such as “research is finding out about something.” We prefer the tighter hypothesis formulation, testing, and revision definition because we believe it provides a single, coherent map for conducting research that addresses many of the thorny problems educational researchers encounter. We believe it is the most useful orientation toward research and the most helpful to learn as a beginning researcher.

A final clarification of our definition is that it applies equally to qualitative and quantitative research. This is a familiar distinction in education that has generated much discussion. You might think our definition favors quantitative methods over qualitative methods because the language of hypothesis formulation and testing is often associated with quantitative methods. In fact, we do not favor one method over another. In Chap. 4 , we will illustrate how our definition fits research using a range of quantitative and qualitative methods.

Exercise 1.4

Look for ways to extend what the field knows in an area that has already received attention by other researchers. Specifically, you can search for a program of research carried out by more experienced researchers that has some revised hypotheses that remain untested. Identify a revised hypothesis that you might like to test.

Unpacking the Terms Formulating, Testing, and Revising Hypotheses

To get a full sense of the definition of scientific inquiry we will use throughout this book, it is helpful to spend a little time with each of the key terms.

We first want to make clear that we use the term “hypothesis” as it is defined in most dictionaries and as it used in many scientific fields rather than as it is usually defined in educational statistics courses. By “hypothesis,” we do not mean a null hypothesis that is accepted or rejected by statistical analysis. Rather, we use “hypothesis” in the sense conveyed by the following definitions: “An idea or explanation for something that is based on known facts but has not yet been proved” (Cambridge University Press, n.d. ), and “An unproved theory, proposition, or supposition, tentatively accepted to explain certain facts and to provide a basis for further investigation or argument” (Agnes & Guralnik, 2008 ).

We distinguish two parts to “hypotheses.” Hypotheses consist of predictions and rationales . Predictions are statements about what you expect to find when you inquire about something. Rationales are explanations for why you made the predictions you did, why you believe your predictions are correct. So, for us “formulating hypotheses” means making explicit predictions and developing rationales for the predictions.

“Testing hypotheses” means making observations that allow you to assess in what ways your predictions were correct and in what ways they were incorrect. In education research, it is rarely useful to think of your predictions as either right or wrong. Because of the complexity of most issues you will investigate, most predictions will be right in some ways and wrong in others.

By studying the observations you make (data you collect) to test your hypotheses, you can revise your hypotheses to better align with the observations. This means revising your predictions plus revising your rationales to justify your adjusted predictions. Even though you might not run another test, formulating revised hypotheses is an essential part of conducting a research study. Comparing your original and revised hypotheses informs everyone of what you learned by conducting your study. In addition, a revised hypothesis sets the stage for you or someone else to extend your study and accumulate more knowledge of the phenomenon.

We should note that not everyone makes a clear distinction between predictions and rationales as two aspects of hypotheses. In fact, common, non-scientific uses of the word “hypothesis” may limit it to only a prediction or only an explanation (or rationale). We choose to explicitly include both prediction and rationale in our definition of hypothesis, not because we assert this should be the universal definition, but because we want to foreground the importance of both parts acting in concert. Using “hypothesis” to represent both prediction and rationale could hide the two aspects, but we make them explicit because they provide different kinds of information. It is usually easier to make predictions than develop rationales because predictions can be guesses, hunches, or gut feelings about which you have little confidence. Developing a compelling rationale requires careful thought plus reading what other researchers have found plus talking with your colleagues. Often, while you are developing your rationale you will find good reasons to change your predictions. Developing good rationales is the engine that drives scientific inquiry. Rationales are essentially descriptions of how much you know about the phenomenon you are studying. Throughout this guide, we will elaborate on how developing good rationales drives scientific inquiry. For now, we simply note that it can sharpen your predictions and help you to interpret your data as you test your hypotheses.

Hypotheses in education research take a variety of forms or types. This is because there are a variety of phenomena that can be investigated. Investigating educational phenomena is sometimes best done using qualitative methods, sometimes using quantitative methods, and most often using mixed methods (e.g., Hay, 2016 ; Weis et al. 2019a ; Weisner, 2005 ). This means that, given our definition, hypotheses are equally applicable to qualitative and quantitative investigations.

Hypotheses take different forms when they are used to investigate different kinds of phenomena. Two very different activities in education could be labeled conducting experiments and descriptions. In an experiment, a hypothesis makes a prediction about anticipated changes, say the changes that occur when a treatment or intervention is applied. You might investigate how students’ thinking changes during a particular kind of instruction.

A second type of hypothesis, relevant for descriptive research, makes a prediction about what you will find when you investigate and describe the nature of a situation. The goal is to understand a situation as it exists rather than to understand a change from one situation to another. In this case, your prediction is what you expect to observe. Your rationale is the set of reasons for making this prediction; it is your current explanation for why the situation will look like it does.

You will probably read, if you have not already, that some researchers say you do not need a prediction to conduct a descriptive study. We will discuss this point of view in Chap. 2 . For now, we simply claim that scientific inquiry, as we have defined it, applies to all kinds of research studies. Descriptive studies, like others, not only benefit from formulating, testing, and revising hypotheses, but also need hypothesis formulating, testing, and revising.

One reason we define research as formulating, testing, and revising hypotheses is that if you think of research in this way you are less likely to go wrong. It is a useful guide for the entire process, as we will describe in detail in the chapters ahead. For example, as you build the rationale for your predictions, you are constructing the theoretical framework for your study (Chap. 3 ). As you work out the methods you will use to test your hypothesis, every decision you make will be based on asking, “Will this help me formulate or test or revise my hypothesis?” (Chap. 4 ). As you interpret the results of testing your predictions, you will compare them to what you predicted and examine the differences, focusing on how you must revise your hypotheses (Chap. 5 ). By anchoring the process to formulating, testing, and revising hypotheses, you will make smart decisions that yield a coherent and well-designed study.

Exercise 1.5

Compare the concept of formulating, testing, and revising hypotheses with the descriptions of scientific inquiry contained in Scientific Research in Education (NRC, 2002 ). How are they similar or different?

Exercise 1.6

Provide an example to illustrate and emphasize the differences between everyday learning/thinking and scientific inquiry.

Learning from Doing Scientific Inquiry

We noted earlier that a measure of what you have learned by conducting a research study is found in the differences between your original hypothesis and your revised hypothesis based on the data you collected to test your hypothesis. We will elaborate this statement in later chapters, but we preview our argument here.

Even before collecting data, scientific inquiry requires cycles of making a prediction, developing a rationale, refining your predictions, reading and studying more to strengthen your rationale, refining your predictions again, and so forth. And, even if you have run through several such cycles, you still will likely find that when you test your prediction you will be partly right and partly wrong. The results will support some parts of your predictions but not others, or the results will “kind of” support your predictions. A critical part of scientific inquiry is making sense of your results by interpreting them against your predictions. Carefully describing what aspects of your data supported your predictions, what aspects did not, and what data fell outside of any predictions is not an easy task, but you cannot learn from your study without doing this analysis.

Analyzing the matches and mismatches between your predictions and your data allows you to formulate different rationales that would have accounted for more of the data. The best revised rationale is the one that accounts for the most data. Once you have revised your rationales, you can think about the predictions they best justify or explain. It is by comparing your original rationales to your new rationales that you can sort out what you learned from your study.

Suppose your study was an experiment. Maybe you were investigating the effects of a new instructional intervention on students’ learning. Your original rationale was your explanation for why the intervention would change the learning outcomes in a particular way. Your revised rationale explained why the changes that you observed occurred like they did and why your revised predictions are better. Maybe your original rationale focused on the potential of the activities if they were implemented in ideal ways and your revised rationale included the factors that are likely to affect how teachers implement them. By comparing the before and after rationales, you are describing what you learned—what you can explain now that you could not before. Another way of saying this is that you are describing how much more you understand now than before you conducted your study.

Revised predictions based on carefully planned and collected data usually exhibit some of the following features compared with the originals: more precision, more completeness, and broader scope. Revised rationales have more explanatory power and become more complete, more aligned with the new predictions, sharper, and overall more convincing.

Part II. Why Do Educators Do Research?

Doing scientific inquiry is a lot of work. Each phase of the process takes time, and you will often cycle back to improve earlier phases as you engage in later phases. Because of the significant effort required, you should make sure your study is worth it. So, from the beginning, you should think about the purpose of your study. Why do you want to do it? And, because research is a social practice, you should also think about whether the results of your study are likely to be important and significant to the education community.

If you are doing research in the way we have described—as scientific inquiry—then one purpose of your study is to understand , not just to describe or evaluate or report. As we noted earlier, when you formulate hypotheses, you are developing rationales that explain why things might be like they are. In our view, trying to understand and explain is what separates research from other kinds of activities, like evaluating or describing.

One reason understanding is so important is that it allows researchers to see how or why something works like it does. When you see how something works, you are better able to predict how it might work in other contexts, under other conditions. And, because conditions, or contextual factors, matter a lot in education, gaining insights into applying your findings to other contexts increases the contributions of your work and its importance to the broader education community.

Consequently, the purposes of research studies in education often include the more specific aim of identifying and understanding the conditions under which the phenomena being studied work like the observations suggest. A classic example of this kind of study in mathematics education was reported by William Brownell and Harold Moser in 1949 . They were trying to establish which method of subtracting whole numbers could be taught most effectively—the regrouping method or the equal additions method. However, they realized that effectiveness might depend on the conditions under which the methods were taught—“meaningfully” versus “mechanically.” So, they designed a study that crossed the two instructional approaches with the two different methods (regrouping and equal additions). Among other results, they found that these conditions did matter. The regrouping method was more effective under the meaningful condition than the mechanical condition, but the same was not true for the equal additions algorithm.

What do education researchers want to understand? In our view, the ultimate goal of education is to offer all students the best possible learning opportunities. So, we believe the ultimate purpose of scientific inquiry in education is to develop understanding that supports the improvement of learning opportunities for all students. We say “ultimate” because there are lots of issues that must be understood to improve learning opportunities for all students. Hypotheses about many aspects of education are connected, ultimately, to students’ learning. For example, formulating and testing a hypothesis that preservice teachers need to engage in particular kinds of activities in their coursework in order to teach particular topics well is, ultimately, connected to improving students’ learning opportunities. So is hypothesizing that school districts often devote relatively few resources to instructional leadership training or hypothesizing that positioning mathematics as a tool students can use to combat social injustice can help students see the relevance of mathematics to their lives.

We do not exclude the importance of research on educational issues more removed from improving students’ learning opportunities, but we do think the argument for their importance will be more difficult to make. If there is no way to imagine a connection between your hypothesis and improving learning opportunities for students, even a distant connection, we recommend you reconsider whether it is an important hypothesis within the education community.

Notice that we said the ultimate goal of education is to offer all students the best possible learning opportunities. For too long, educators have been satisfied with a goal of offering rich learning opportunities for lots of students, sometimes even for just the majority of students, but not necessarily for all students. Evaluations of success often are based on outcomes that show high averages. In other words, if many students have learned something, or even a smaller number have learned a lot, educators may have been satisfied. The problem is that there is usually a pattern in the groups of students who receive lower quality opportunities—students of color and students who live in poor areas, urban and rural. This is not acceptable. Consequently, we emphasize the premise that the purpose of education research is to offer rich learning opportunities to all students.

One way to make sure you will be able to convince others of the importance of your study is to consider investigating some aspect of teachers’ shared instructional problems. Historically, researchers in education have set their own research agendas, regardless of the problems teachers are facing in schools. It is increasingly recognized that teachers have had trouble applying to their own classrooms what researchers find. To address this problem, a researcher could partner with a teacher—better yet, a small group of teachers—and talk with them about instructional problems they all share. These discussions can create a rich pool of problems researchers can consider. If researchers pursued one of these problems (preferably alongside teachers), the connection to improving learning opportunities for all students could be direct and immediate. “Grounding a research question in instructional problems that are experienced across multiple teachers’ classrooms helps to ensure that the answer to the question will be of sufficient scope to be relevant and significant beyond the local context” (Cai et al., 2019b , p. 115).

As a beginning researcher, determining the relevance and importance of a research problem is especially challenging. We recommend talking with advisors, other experienced researchers, and peers to test the educational importance of possible research problems and topics of study. You will also learn much more about the issue of research importance when you read Chap. 5 .

Exercise 1.7

Identify a problem in education that is closely connected to improving learning opportunities and a problem that has a less close connection. For each problem, write a brief argument (like a logical sequence of if-then statements) that connects the problem to all students’ learning opportunities.

Part III. Conducting Research as a Practice of Failing Productively

Scientific inquiry involves formulating hypotheses about phenomena that are not fully understood—by you or anyone else. Even if you are able to inform your hypotheses with lots of knowledge that has already been accumulated, you are likely to find that your prediction is not entirely accurate. This is normal. Remember, scientific inquiry is a process of constantly updating your thinking. More and better information means revising your thinking, again, and again, and again. Because you never fully understand a complicated phenomenon and your hypotheses never produce completely accurate predictions, it is easy to believe you are somehow failing.

The trick is to fail upward, to fail to predict accurately in ways that inform your next hypothesis so you can make a better prediction. Some of the best-known researchers in education have been open and honest about the many times their predictions were wrong and, based on the results of their studies and those of others, they continuously updated their thinking and changed their hypotheses.

A striking example of publicly revising (actually reversing) hypotheses due to incorrect predictions is found in the work of Lee J. Cronbach, one of the most distinguished educational psychologists of the twentieth century. In 1955, Cronbach delivered his presidential address to the American Psychological Association. Titling it “Two Disciplines of Scientific Psychology,” Cronbach proposed a rapprochement between two research approaches—correlational studies that focused on individual differences and experimental studies that focused on instructional treatments controlling for individual differences. (We will examine different research approaches in Chap. 4 ). If these approaches could be brought together, reasoned Cronbach ( 1957 ), researchers could find interactions between individual characteristics and treatments (aptitude-treatment interactions or ATIs), fitting the best treatments to different individuals.

In 1975, after years of research by many researchers looking for ATIs, Cronbach acknowledged the evidence for simple, useful ATIs had not been found. Even when trying to find interactions between a few variables that could provide instructional guidance, the analysis, said Cronbach, creates “a hall of mirrors that extends to infinity, tormenting even the boldest investigators and defeating even ambitious designs” (Cronbach, 1975 , p. 119).

As he was reflecting back on his work, Cronbach ( 1986 ) recommended moving away from documenting instructional effects through statistical inference (an approach he had championed for much of his career) and toward approaches that probe the reasons for these effects, approaches that provide a “full account of events in a time, place, and context” (Cronbach, 1986 , p. 104). This is a remarkable change in hypotheses, a change based on data and made fully transparent. Cronbach understood the value of failing productively.

Closer to home, in a less dramatic example, one of us began a line of scientific inquiry into how to prepare elementary preservice teachers to teach early algebra. Teaching early algebra meant engaging elementary students in early forms of algebraic reasoning. Such reasoning should help them transition from arithmetic to algebra. To begin this line of inquiry, a set of activities for preservice teachers were developed. Even though the activities were based on well-supported hypotheses, they largely failed to engage preservice teachers as predicted because of unanticipated challenges the preservice teachers faced. To capitalize on this failure, follow-up studies were conducted, first to better understand elementary preservice teachers’ challenges with preparing to teach early algebra, and then to better support preservice teachers in navigating these challenges. In this example, the initial failure was a necessary step in the researchers’ scientific inquiry and furthered the researchers’ understanding of this issue.

We present another example of failing productively in Chap. 2 . That example emerges from recounting the history of a well-known research program in mathematics education.

Making mistakes is an inherent part of doing scientific research. Conducting a study is rarely a smooth path from beginning to end. We recommend that you keep the following things in mind as you begin a career of conducting research in education.

First, do not get discouraged when you make mistakes; do not fall into the trap of feeling like you are not capable of doing research because you make too many errors.

Second, learn from your mistakes. Do not ignore your mistakes or treat them as errors that you simply need to forget and move past. Mistakes are rich sites for learning—in research just as in other fields of study.

Third, by reflecting on your mistakes, you can learn to make better mistakes, mistakes that inform you about a productive next step. You will not be able to eliminate your mistakes, but you can set a goal of making better and better mistakes.

Exercise 1.8

How does scientific inquiry differ from everyday learning in giving you the tools to fail upward? You may find helpful perspectives on this question in other resources on science and scientific inquiry (e.g., Failure: Why Science is So Successful by Firestein, 2015).

Exercise 1.9

Use what you have learned in this chapter to write a new definition of scientific inquiry. Compare this definition with the one you wrote before reading this chapter. If you are reading this book as part of a course, compare your definition with your colleagues’ definitions. Develop a consensus definition with everyone in the course.

Part IV. Preview of Chap. 2

Now that you have a good idea of what research is, at least of what we believe research is, the next step is to think about how to actually begin doing research. This means how to begin formulating, testing, and revising hypotheses. As for all phases of scientific inquiry, there are lots of things to think about. Because it is critical to start well, we devote Chap. 2 to getting started with formulating hypotheses.

Agnes, M., & Guralnik, D. B. (Eds.). (2008). Hypothesis. In Webster’s new world college dictionary (4th ed.). Wiley.

Google Scholar  

Britannica. (n.d.). Scientific method. In Encyclopaedia Britannica . Retrieved July 15, 2022 from https://www.britannica.com/science/scientific-method

Brownell, W. A., & Moser, H. E. (1949). Meaningful vs. mechanical learning: A study in grade III subtraction . Duke University Press..

Cai, J., Morris, A., Hohensee, C., Hwang, S., Robison, V., Cirillo, M., Kramer, S. L., & Hiebert, J. (2019b). Posing significant research questions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 50 (2), 114–120. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.50.2.0114

Article   Google Scholar  

Cambridge University Press. (n.d.). Hypothesis. In Cambridge dictionary . Retrieved July 15, 2022 from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/hypothesis

Cronbach, J. L. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12 , 671–684.

Cronbach, L. J. (1975). Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 30 , 116–127.

Cronbach, L. J. (1986). Social inquiry by and for earthlings. In D. W. Fiske & R. A. Shweder (Eds.), Metatheory in social science: Pluralisms and subjectivities (pp. 83–107). University of Chicago Press.

Hay, C. M. (Ed.). (2016). Methods that matter: Integrating mixed methods for more effective social science research . University of Chicago Press.

Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Explain. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary . Retrieved July 15, 2022, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/explain

National Research Council. (2002). Scientific research in education . National Academy Press.

Weis, L., Eisenhart, M., Duncan, G. J., Albro, E., Bueschel, A. C., Cobb, P., Eccles, J., Mendenhall, R., Moss, P., Penuel, W., Ream, R. K., Rumbaut, R. G., Sloane, F., Weisner, T. S., & Wilson, J. (2019a). Mixed methods for studies that address broad and enduring issues in education research. Teachers College Record, 121 , 100307.

Weisner, T. S. (Ed.). (2005). Discovering successful pathways in children’s development: Mixed methods in the study of childhood and family life . University of Chicago Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Education, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA

James Hiebert, Anne K Morris & Charles Hohensee

Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA

Jinfa Cai & Stephen Hwang

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), 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 chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter'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.

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Hiebert, J., Cai, J., Hwang, S., Morris, A.K., Hohensee, C. (2023). What Is Research, and Why Do People Do It?. In: Doing Research: A New Researcher’s Guide. Research in Mathematics Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19078-0_1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19078-0_1

Published : 03 December 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-19077-3

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-19078-0

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

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

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

A Peek Inside the Brains of ‘Super-Agers’

New research explores why some octogenarians have exceptional memories.

By Dana G. Smith

When it comes to aging, we tend to assume that cognition gets worse as we get older. Our thoughts may slow down or become confused, or we may start to forget things, like the name of our high school English teacher or what we meant to buy at the grocery store.

But that’s not the case for everyone.

For a little over a decade, scientists have been studying a subset of people they call “super-agers.” These individuals are age 80 and up, but they have the memory ability of a person 20 to 30 years younger.

Most research on aging and memory focuses on the other side of the equation — people who develop dementia in their later years. But, “if we’re constantly talking about what’s going wrong in aging, it’s not capturing the full spectrum of what’s happening in the older adult population,” said Emily Rogalski, a professor of neurology at the University of Chicago, who published one of the first studies on super-agers in 2012.

A paper published Monday in the Journal of Neuroscience helps shed light on what’s so special about the brains of super-agers. The biggest takeaway, in combination with a companion study that came out last year on the same group of individuals, is that their brains have less atrophy than their peers’ do.

The research was conducted on 119 octogenarians from Spain: 64 super-agers and 55 older adults with normal memory abilities for their age. The participants completed multiple tests assessing their memory, motor and verbal skills; underwent brain scans and blood draws; and answered questions about their lifestyle and behaviors.

The scientists found that the super-agers had more volume in areas of the brain important for memory, most notably the hippocampus and entorhinal cortex. They also had better preserved connectivity between regions in the front of the brain that are involved in cognition. Both the super-agers and the control group showed minimal signs of Alzheimer’s disease in their brains.

“By having two groups that have low levels of Alzheimer’s markers, but striking cognitive differences and striking differences in their brain, then we’re really speaking to a resistance to age-related decline,” said Dr. Bryan Strange, a professor of clinical neuroscience at the Polytechnic University of Madrid, who led the studies.

These findings are backed up by Dr. Rogalski’s research , initially conducted when she was at Northwestern University, which showed that super-agers’ brains looked more like 50- or 60-year-olds’ brains than their 80-year-old peers. When followed over several years, the super-agers’ brains atrophied at a slower rate than average.

No precise numbers exist on how many super-agers there are among us, but Dr. Rogalski said they’re “relatively rare,” noting that “far less than 10 percent” of the people she sees end up meeting the criteria.

But when you meet a super-ager, you know it, Dr. Strange said. “They are really quite energetic people, you can see. Motivated, on the ball, elderly individuals.”

Experts don’t know how someone becomes a super-ager, though there were a few differences in health and lifestyle behaviors between the two groups in the Spanish study. Most notably, the super-agers had slightly better physical health, both in terms of blood pressure and glucose metabolism, and they performed better on a test of mobility . The super-agers didn’t report doing more exercise at their current age than the typical older adults, but they were more active in middle age. They also reported better mental health .

But overall, Dr. Strange said, there were a lot of similarities between the super-agers and the regular agers. “There are a lot of things that are not particularly striking about them,” he said. And, he added, “we see some surprising omissions, things that you would expect to be associated with super-agers that weren’t really there.” For example, there were no differences between the groups in terms of their diets, the amount of sleep they got, their professional backgrounds or their alcohol and tobacco use.

The behaviors of some of the Chicago super-agers were similarly a surprise. Some exercised regularly, but some never had; some stuck to a Mediterranean diet, others subsisted off TV dinners; and a few of them still smoked cigarettes. However, one consistency among the group was that they tended to have strong social relationships , Dr. Rogalski said.

“In an ideal world, you’d find out that, like, all the super-agers, you know, ate six tomatoes every day and that was the key,” said Tessa Harrison, an assistant project scientist at the University of California, Berkeley, who collaborated with Dr. Rogalski on the first Chicago super-ager study.

Instead, Dr. Harrison continued, super-agers probably have “some sort of lucky predisposition or some resistance mechanism in the brain that’s on the molecular level that we don’t understand yet,” possibly related to their genes.

While there isn’t a recipe for becoming a super-ager, scientists do know that, in general , eating healthily, staying physically active, getting enough sleep and maintaining social connections are important for healthy brain aging.

Dana G. Smith is a Times reporter covering personal health, particularly aging and brain health. More about Dana G. Smith

A Guide to Aging Well

Looking to grow old gracefully we can help..

The “car key conversation,” when it’s time for an aging driver to hit the brakes, can be painful for families to navigate . Experts say there are ways to have it with empathy and care.

Calorie restriction and intermittent fasting both increase longevity in animals, aging experts say. Here’s what that means for you .

Researchers are investigating how our biology changes as we grow older — and whether there are ways to stop it .

You need more than strength to age well — you also need power. Here’s how to measure how much power you have  and here’s how to increase yours .

Ignore the hyperbaric chambers and infrared light: These are the evidence-backed secrets to aging well .

Your body’s need for fuel shifts as you get older. Your eating habits should shift , too.

People who think positively about getting older often live longer, healthier lives. These tips can help you reconsider your perspective .

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• Auto Racing
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

What marijuana reclassification means for the United States

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration will move to reclassify marijuana as a less dangerous drug, a historic shift to generations of American drug policy that could have wide ripple effects across the country.

FILE - Marijuana plants are seen at a secured growing facility in Washington County, N.Y., May 12, 2023. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration will move to reclassify marijuana as a less dangerous drug, a historic shift to generations of American drug policy that could have wide ripple effects across the country. (AP Photo/Hans Pennink, File)

• Copy Link copied

Budtender Rey Cruz weighs cannabis for a customer at the Marijuana Paradise on Friday, April 19, 2024, in Portland, Ore. (AP Photo/Jenny Kane)

Cloud 9 Cannabis employee Beau McQueen, right, helps a customer, Saturday, April 13, 2024, in Arlington, Wash. The shop is one of the first dispensaries to open under the Washington Liquor and Cannabis Board’s social equity program, established in efforts to remedy some of the disproportionate effects marijuana prohibition had on communities of color. (AP Photo/Lindsey Wasson)

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration is moving toward reclassifying marijuana as a less dangerous drug. The Justice Department proposal would recognize the medical uses of cannabis , but wouldn’t legalize it for recreational use.

The proposal would move marijuana from the “Schedule I” group to the less tightly regulated “Schedule III.”

So what does that mean, and what are the implications?

WHAT HAS ACTUALLY CHANGED? WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

Technically, nothing yet. The proposal must be reviewed by the White House Office of Management and Budget, and then undergo a public-comment period and review from an administrative judge, a potentially lengthy process.

Still, the switch is considered “paradigm-shifting, and it’s very exciting,” Vince Sliwoski, a Portland, Oregon-based cannabis and psychedelics attorney who runs well-known legal blogs on those topics, told The Associated Press when the federal Health and Human Services Department recommended the change.

“I can’t emphasize enough how big of news it is,” he said.

It came after President Joe Biden asked both HHS and the attorney general, who oversees the DEA, last year to review how marijuana was classified. Schedule I put it on par, legally, with heroin, LSD, quaaludes and ecstasy, among others.

Biden, a Democrat, supports legalizing medical marijuana for use “where appropriate, consistent with medical and scientific evidence,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Thursday. “That is why it is important for this independent review to go through.”

Cloud 9 Cannabis employee Beau McQueen, right, helps a customer, Saturday, April 13, 2024, in Arlington, Wash. (AP Photo/Lindsey Wasson)

IF MARIJUANA GETS RECLASSIFIED, WOULD IT LEGALIZE RECREATIONAL CANNABIS NATIONWIDE?

Ap audio: what marijuana reclassification means for the united states.

AP correspondent Haya Panjwani reports on a proposal for the federal government to reclassify marijuana in what would be a historic shift that could have wide ripple effects across the country.

No. Schedule III drugs — which include ketamine, anabolic steroids and some acetaminophen-codeine combinations — are still controlled substances.

They’re subject to various rules that allow for some medical uses, and for federal criminal prosecution of anyone who traffics in the drugs without permission.

No changes are expected to the medical marijuana programs now licensed in 38 states or the legal recreational cannabis markets in 23 states, but it’s unlikely they would meet the federal production, record-keeping, prescribing and other requirements for Schedule III drugs.

There haven’t been many federal prosecutions for simply possessing marijuana in recent years, even under marijuana’s current Schedule I status, but the reclassification wouldn’t have an immediate impact on people already in the criminal justice system.

“Put simple, this move from Schedule I to Schedule III is not getting people out of jail,” said David Culver, senior vice president of public affairs at the U.S. Cannabis Council.

But rescheduling in itself would have some impact, particularly on research and marijuana business taxes.

WHAT WOULD THIS MEAN FOR RESEARCH?

Because marijuana is on Schedule I, it’s been very difficult to conduct authorized clinical studies that involve administering the drug. That has created something of a Catch-22: calls for more research, but barriers to doing it. (Scientists sometimes rely instead on people’s own reports of their marijuana use.)

Marijuana plants are seen at a secured growing facility in Washington County, N.Y., May 12, 2023. (AP Photo/Hans Pennink, File)

Schedule III drugs are easier to study, though the reclassification wouldn’t immediately reverse all barriers to study.

“It’s going to be really confusing for a long time,” said Ziva Cooper, director of the University of California, Los Angeles Center for Cannabis and Cannabinoids. “When the dust has settled, I don’t know how many years from now, research will be easier.”

Among the unknowns: whether researchers will be able to study marijuana from state-licensed dispensaries and how the federal Food and Drug Administration might oversee that.

Some researchers are optimistic.

“Reducing the schedule to schedule 3 will open up the door for us to be able to conduct research with human subjects with cannabis,” said Susan Ferguson, director of University of Washington’s Addictions, Drug & Alcohol Institute in Seattle.

WHAT ABOUT TAXES (AND BANKING)?

Under the federal tax code, businesses involved in “trafficking” in marijuana or any other Schedule I or II drug can’t deduct rent, payroll or various other expenses that other businesses can write off. (Yes, at least some cannabis businesses, particularly state-licensed ones, do pay taxes to the federal government, despite its prohibition on marijuana.) Industry groups say the tax rate often ends up at 70% or more.

The deduction rule doesn’t apply to Schedule III drugs, so the proposed change would cut cannabis companies’ taxes substantially.

They say it would treat them like other industries and help them compete against illegal competitors that are frustrating licensees and officials in places such as New York .

“You’re going to make these state-legal programs stronger,” says Adam Goers, of The Cannabist Company, formerly Columbia Care. He co-chairs a coalition of corporate and other players that’s pushing for rescheduling.

It could also mean more cannabis promotion and advertising if those costs could be deducted, according to Beau Kilmer, co-director of the RAND Drug Policy Center.

Rescheduling wouldn’t directly affect another marijuana business problem: difficulty accessing banks, particularly for loans, because the federally regulated institutions are wary of the drug’s legal status. The industry has been looking instead to a measure called the SAFE Banking Act . It has repeatedly passed the House but stalled in the Senate.

ARE THERE CRITICS? WHAT DO THEY SAY?

Indeed, there are, including the national anti-legalization group Smart Approaches to Marijuana. President Kevin Sabet, a former Obama administration drug policy official, said the HHS recommendation “flies in the face of science, reeks of politics” and gives a regrettable nod to an industry “desperately looking for legitimacy.”

Some legalization advocates say rescheduling weed is too incremental. They want to keep the focus on removing it completely from the controlled substances list, which doesn’t include such items as alcohol or tobacco (they’re regulated, but that’s not the same).

Paul Armentano, the deputy director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, said that simply reclassifying marijuana would be “perpetuating the existing divide between state and federal marijuana policies.” Kaliko Castille, a past president of the Minority Cannabis Business Association, said rescheduling just “re-brands prohibition,” rather than giving an all-clear to state licensees and putting a definitive close to decades of arrests that disproportionately pulled in people of color.

“Schedule III is going to leave it in this kind of amorphous, mucky middle where people are not going to understand the danger of it still being federally illegal,” he said.

This story has been corrected to show that Kaliko Castille is a past president, not president, of the Minority Cannabis Business Association and that Columbia Care is now The Cannabist Company.

___ Peltz reported from New York. Associated Press writers Colleen Long in Washington and Carla K. Johnson in Seattle contributed to this report.

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

• Your Health
• Treatments & Tests
• Health Inc.
• Public Health

Shots - Health News

Hormones for menopause are safe, study finds. here's what changed.

Allison Aubrey

Low-dose estrogen can be taken orally, but it's also now available in patches, gels and creams. svetikd/Getty Images hide caption

Low-dose estrogen can be taken orally, but it's also now available in patches, gels and creams.

The benefits of hormone therapy for the treatment of menopause symptoms outweigh the risks. That's the conclusion of a new study published in the medical journal JAMA.

"Among women below the age of 60, we found hormone therapy has low risk of adverse events and [is] safe for treating bothersome hot flashes, night sweats and other menopausal symptoms, " says study author Dr. JoAnn Manson, chief of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women's Hospital. This is a departure from the advice many women have been given in the past.

The new analysis is based on two decades of follow-up data from the Women's Health Initiative study, which followed thousands of women taking hormone replacement therapy. The study was halted after it was found that women taking Prempro, which is a combination of estrogen and progestin, had higher risks of breast cancer and stroke.

A cheap drug may slow down aging. A study will determine if it works

"The findings were surprising," Manson says, pointing out that the reason the randomized trial was conducted was because scientists were trying to determine if hormone therapy decreased the risk of heart disease and other conditions.

After the initial findings came out, many women abruptly stopped the therapy. Prescriptions plummeted, and many healthcare providers still hesitate to recommend hormone therapy. But menopause experts say it's time to reconsider hormone therapy, because there's a lot known now that wasn't known two decades ago.

Most significantly, there are now different types of hormones — delivered at lower doses — that are shown to be safer.

"Women should know that hormone therapy is safe and beneficial," says Dr. Lauren Streicher , a clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine.

Looking back, Dr. Streicher says, it's clear the Women's Health Initiative study was flawed and that some of the risks that were identified were linked to the type of hormones that women were given.

"We learned what not to do," Streicher says. The type of progestin used, known as medroxyprogesterone acetate , was "highly problematic," she says. This may have been linked to the increase in breast cancer seen among women in the earlier study. "So we don't prescribe that anymore," Streicher says.

Increasingly, other types of hormones are used, such as micronized progesterone which does not increase the risk of breast cancer, Streicher says. Micronized progesterone is a bioidentical hormone that has a molecular structure identical to the progesterone produced by women's ovaries, and tends to have fewer side effects.

Another problem with the study was the age of the women enrolled. Most of the women were over the age of 60, Streicher says. "And we know that there is a window of opportunity when it is the safest to start hormone therapy and that you get the most benefit." That window is typically between ages 50 and 60, she says.

Women who do strength training live longer. How much is enough?

Another risk identified in the Women's Health Initiative study, was an increased incidence of pulmonary embolism among women taking hormones. A pulmonary embolism is a blood clot that blocks blood flow to the lungs.

Since women in the study were taking estrogen orally, by pill, this may have increased their risk, Streicher says. A better option for people at risk of clots is to take estrogen through the skin, via a patch, a cream or gel.

"The advantage of a transdermal estrogen is that it is not metabolized by the liver," Streicher says. "And because it's not metabolized by the liver, we don't see that increase in blood clots."

With a range of hormone therapies available now, Dr Streicher says there's not a one-size fits all approach. "Hormone therapy is beneficial way beyond the benefits to just helping with hot flashes," she says. Ongoing research points to protection against bone loss and heart disease , too.

Streicher says women should talk to their healthcare providers about what options may best suit their needs.

Millions of women are 'under-muscled.' These foods help build strength

This story was edited by Jane Greenhalgh

• hot flashes
• hormone therapy
• hormone replacement therapy