example of research context

• Privacy Policy

Buy Me a Coffee

Home » Context of the Study – Writing Guide and Examples

Context of the Study – Writing Guide and Examples

Table of Contents

Context of the Study

The context of a study refers to the set of circumstances or background factors that provide a framework for understanding the research question , the methods used, and the findings . It includes the social, cultural, economic, political, and historical factors that shape the study’s purpose and significance, as well as the specific setting in which the research is conducted. The context of a study is important because it helps to clarify the meaning and relevance of the research, and can provide insight into the ways in which the findings might be applied in practice.

Structure of Context of the Study

The structure of the context of the study generally includes several key components that provide the necessary background and framework for the research being conducted. These components typically include:

• Introduction : This section provides an overview of the research problem , the purpose of the study, and the research questions or hypotheses being tested.
• Background and Significance : This section discusses the historical, theoretical, and practical background of the research problem, highlighting why the study is important and relevant to the field.
• Literature Review: This section provides a comprehensive review of the existing literature related to the research problem, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of previous studies and identifying gaps in the literature.
• Theoretical Framework : This section outlines the theoretical perspective or perspectives that will guide the research and explains how they relate to the research questions or hypotheses.
• Research Design and Methods: This section provides a detailed description of the research design and methods, including the research approach, sampling strategy, data collection methods, and data analysis procedures.
• Ethical Considerations : This section discusses the ethical considerations involved in conducting the research, including the protection of human subjects, informed consent, confidentiality, and potential conflicts of interest.
• Limitations and Delimitations: This section discusses the potential limitations of the study, including any constraints on the research design or methods, as well as the delimitations, or boundaries, of the study.
• Contribution to the Field: This section explains how the study will contribute to the field, highlighting the potential implications and applications of the research findings.

How to Write Context of the study

Here are some steps to write the context of the study:

• Identify the research problem: Start by clearly defining the research problem or question you are investigating. This should be a concise statement that highlights the gap in knowledge or understanding that your research seeks to address.
• Provide background information : Once you have identified the research problem, provide some background information that will help the reader understand the context of the study. This might include a brief history of the topic, relevant statistics or data, or previous research on the subject.
• Explain the significance: Next, explain why the research is significant. This could be because it addresses an important problem or because it contributes to a theoretical or practical understanding of the topic.
• Outline the research objectives : State the specific objectives of the study. This helps to focus the research and provides a clear direction for the study.
• Identify the research approach: Finally, identify the research approach or methodology you will be using. This might include a description of the data collection methods, sample size, or data analysis techniques.

Example of Context of the Study

Here is an example of a context of a study:

Title of the Study: “The Effectiveness of Online Learning in Higher Education”

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced many educational institutions to adopt online learning as an alternative to traditional in-person teaching. This study is conducted in the context of the ongoing shift towards online learning in higher education. The study aims to investigate the effectiveness of online learning in terms of student learning outcomes and satisfaction compared to traditional in-person teaching. The study also explores the challenges and opportunities of online learning in higher education, especially in the current pandemic situation. This research is conducted in the United States and involves a sample of undergraduate students enrolled in various universities offering online and in-person courses. The study findings are expected to contribute to the ongoing discussion on the future of higher education and the role of online learning in the post-pandemic era.

Context of the Study in Thesis

The context of the study in a thesis refers to the background, circumstances, and conditions that surround the research problem or topic being investigated. It provides an overview of the broader context within which the study is situated, including the historical, social, economic, and cultural factors that may have influenced the research question or topic.

Context of the Study Example in Thesis

Here is an example of the context of a study in a thesis:

Context of the Study:

The rapid growth of the internet and the increasing popularity of social media have revolutionized the way people communicate, connect, and share information. With the widespread use of social media, there has been a rise in cyberbullying, which is a form of aggression that occurs online. Cyberbullying can have severe consequences for victims, such as depression, anxiety, and even suicide. Thus, there is a need for research that explores the factors that contribute to cyberbullying and the strategies that can be used to prevent or reduce it.

This study aims to investigate the relationship between social media use and cyberbullying among adolescents in the United States. Specifically, the study will examine the following research questions:

• What is the prevalence of cyberbullying among adolescents who use social media?
• What are the factors that contribute to cyberbullying among adolescents who use social media?
• What are the strategies that can be used to prevent or reduce cyberbullying among adolescents who use social media?

The study is significant because it will provide valuable insights into the relationship between social media use and cyberbullying, which can be used to inform policies and programs aimed at preventing or reducing cyberbullying among adolescents. The study will use a mixed-methods approach, including both quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis, to provide a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon of cyberbullying among adolescents who use social media.

Context of the Study in Research Paper

The context of the study in a research paper refers to the background information that provides a framework for understanding the research problem and its significance. It includes a description of the setting, the research question, the objectives of the study, and the scope of the research.

Context of the Study Example in Research Paper

An example of the context of the study in a research paper might be:

The global pandemic caused by COVID-19 has had a significant impact on the mental health of individuals worldwide. As a result, there has been a growing interest in identifying effective interventions to mitigate the negative effects of the pandemic on mental health. In this study, we aim to explore the impact of a mindfulness-based intervention on the mental health of individuals who have experienced increased stress and anxiety due to the pandemic.

Context of the Study In Research Proposal

The context of a study in a research proposal provides the background and rationale for the proposed research, highlighting the gap or problem that the study aims to address. It also explains why the research is important and relevant to the field of study.

Context of the Study Example In Research Proposal

Here is an example of a context section in a research proposal:

The rise of social media has revolutionized the way people communicate and share information online. As a result, businesses have increasingly turned to social media platforms to promote their products and services, build brand awareness, and engage with customers. However, there is limited research on the effectiveness of social media marketing strategies and the factors that contribute to their success. This research aims to fill this gap by exploring the impact of social media marketing on consumer behavior and identifying the key factors that influence its effectiveness.

Purpose of Context of the Study

The purpose of providing context for a study is to help readers understand the background, scope, and significance of the research being conducted. By contextualizing the study, researchers can provide a clear and concise explanation of the research problem, the research question or hypothesis, and the research design and methodology.

The context of the study includes information about the historical, social, cultural, economic, and political factors that may have influenced the research topic or problem. This information can help readers understand why the research is important, what gaps in knowledge the study seeks to address, and what impact the research may have in the field or in society.

Advantages of Context of the Study

Some advantages of considering the context of a study include:

• Increased validity: Considering the context can help ensure that the study is relevant to the population being studied and that the findings are more representative of the real world. This can increase the validity of the study and help ensure that its conclusions are accurate.
• Enhanced understanding: By examining the context of the study, researchers can gain a deeper understanding of the factors that influence the phenomenon under investigation. This can lead to more nuanced findings and a richer understanding of the topic.
• Improved generalizability: Contextualizing the study can help ensure that the findings are applicable to other settings and populations beyond the specific sample studied. This can improve the generalizability of the study and increase its impact.
• Better interpretation of results: Understanding the context of the study can help researchers interpret their results more accurately and avoid drawing incorrect conclusions. This can help ensure that the study contributes to the body of knowledge in the field and has practical applications.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

How to Cite Research Paper – All Formats and...

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Paper Format – Types, Examples and...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

• Advanced search
• Peer review

Why ‘context’ is important for research

Context is something we’ve been thinking a lot about at ScienceOpen recently. It comes from the Latin ‘ con ’ and ‘ texere ’ (to form ‘ contextus ’), which means ‘weave together’. The implications for science are fairly obvious: modern research is about weaving together different strands of information, thought, and data to place your results into the context of existing research. This is the reason why we have introductory and discussion sections at the intra-article level.

But what about context at a higher level?

Context can defined as: “ The circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood .” Simple follow on questions might be then, what is the context of a research article? How do we define that context? How do we build on that to do science more efficiently? The whole point for the existence of research articles is that they can be understood by as broad an audience as possible so that their re-use is maximised.

There are many things that impinge upon the context of research. Paywalls, secretive and exclusive peer review, lack of discovery, lack of inter-operability, lack of accessibility. The list is practically endless, and a general by-product of a failure for traditional scholarly publishing models to embrace a Web-based era.

While a lot of excellent new research platforms now feature slick discovery tools and features, we feel that this falls short of what is really needed for optimal research re-use in the digital age.

Discovery is the pathway to context. Context of an article is all about how research fits into increasingly complex domains, and using structured networks to decipher its value. With the power of the internet at our disposal, putting research in context should be of key importance in a world where there is ever more research being published that is impossible to manually filter.

Tracking the genealogy of research

Citations are perhaps what we might consider to be academic context. These form the structured networks or genealogies of an idea in their rawest sense. Through citations we gain a small amount of understanding into how research is being re-used by other researchers, and also the gateway to understanding what it is those citations are telling us.

At ScienceOpen, we show all articles and article records that cite a particular research article, and also provide links to similar articles on our platform. These are drawn at the moment from almost 12 million article records, so can potentially form huge networks of information.

In addition we show which articles are most similar based on keywords, and also which open access articles are citing a particular work. You can explore each of these in more depth, and begin to track research networks! So it’s like enhanced discovery, but with a smattering of cherries on top.

Generating context through engagement

One of the great things about context is that it is flexible and can be defined by user engagement. Take peer review for example. This is a way of adding context to a paper, by drawing on external expertise and perspective to enhance the content of a research article. Peer evaluation of this sort is crucial for defining the context of a paper, and should not be hidden away out of sight and use. As we use public post-publication peer review at ScienceOpen, the full discussion and process of research is transparent.

Other ways of generating simple context are through sharing and recommendations of articles. The more this is done, the more you can understand which articles are of wider interest.

Social context

The rise of altmetrics can be seen as the broadening how we think about context. Altmetrics are a pathway to understanding how articles have been discussed, mentioned or shared in online sources including mainstream news outlets, blogs, and a variety of social networks.

On every single article record (almost 12 million at the moment), we show Altmetric scores. You can also sort searches by Altmetric, which provides additional context for which articles are generating the most societal discussion online. This is great if you want to track social media trends in a particular field, and again is all about placing research objects into a broader context.

So these are just some of the ways in which we put research in context, and we do it on a massive scale. Let us know in the comments what you think ‘research in context’ is all about, and why you think it’s important!

2 thoughts on “Why ‘context’ is important for research”

• Pingback: Welcome to the Italian Society of Victimology – ScienceOpen Blog
• Pingback: ScienceOpen smashes through the 20 million article record mark – ScienceOpen Blog

Comments are closed.

Request info

Report reader checklist : context.

Information about the context of a study is usually included at the beginning and end of a report. At the beginning of a report, this context should be provided to describe past research and theory and then explain the focus of the study. At the end of a report, a contextual discussion can relate the findings of the study back to past research and suggest next steps to further understand the topic. When context is missing from a report, you may not understand how the study relates to or informs a general understanding of the topic. For example, you might not have a clear understanding of the background on the topic, how the study advances knowledge on the topic and how the results of the study can be applied. The following are important things to identify as you look for context in research reports:

The report provides a background on the topic, including relevant definitions, the context within which the study is conducted and a rationale for why the study was conducted.

It is important for you to understand why the study was conducted, what the study attempted to accomplish, why the research is important to the field and how the results could be used.

It is also important for you to know how this study fits into the larger body of research that has been conducted on this topic. If the study is the first study of its kind, that should be mentioned. Otherwise, look to see if the authors include references to studies previously published on the topic. This helps you understand how the study adds to or clarifies understanding of the topic. [ see examples ] b. The report explains the history of the study and/or theoretical frameworks, if appropriate.

Some studies in the field of online teaching and learning are repeated periodically. When this is the case, a report should include information, such as past participant rates, revisions to survey instruments or research protocols, or other changes to the study methodology since the previous findings were released.

Study reports may also include theoretical frameworks . Theories (or theoretical frameworks) associate a study with other studies done on a topic. These studies combined together (often called a body of research) can increase overall understanding of a topic and help you see where a study falls within a line of research. You should be able to understand the basic theoretical framework of a report without prior knowledge. If the study is based in theory, the theory can be described and it should be clear how the theory relates to the main focus of the study. [ see examples ] c. The report includes the research aims or goals addressed by the study.

Research aims or goals are often included toward the beginning of the report after past research and theoretical frameworks have been explained. Research aims or goals (sometimes framed as questions) should be clearly identified in a report and can be written in a way that helps you understand what the study is investigating.

[ see examples ] d. The report offers suggestions for further research.

a. The report describes the larger purpose or need for the study.

• See pages 11-14 for an example of a summary of previous research and clear definitions.
• See page 3 for a description of this study’s purpose with citations.

b. The report explains the history of the study and/or theoretical frameworks, if appropriate.

• Pages 5-7 highlight key findings as compared to previous year’s reports. Page 6 features major themes over 12 years of conducting this report.

c. The report includes the research aims or goals addressed by the study.

• Page 3 features a preface that provides key details about the history of the report and the need for the twelfth edition.

d. The report offers suggestions for further research.

• See pages 9-10 for several recommendations for future research. These recommendations are provided in a way that is digestible for diverse readers.

Checklist areas

Download a one-page version of the checklist .

What are theoretical frameworks?

What are qualitative research methodologies, what are quantitative research methodologies, what are mixed methodologies, what is validity, what is the difference between a population and a sample, what is generalizability in research, what is data visualization, what is conflict of interest, contact info.

Providing access to quality education with 100+ online degree programs

Oregon State Ecampus 4943 The Valley Library 201 SW Waldo Place Corvallis, OR 97331 800-667-1465 | 541-737-9204

Land Acknowledgment

Quick Navigation

Contact Us Ask Ecampus Join Our Team Online Giving Authorization and Compliance Site Map

Our Division

Division of educational ventures.

About the Division About Ecampus Degrees and Programs Online Ecampus Research Unit Open Educational Resources Unit Corporate and Workforce Education Unit Center for the Outdoor Recreation Economy Staff Directory

Social Media and Canvas

Copyright 2024 Oregon State University Privacy Information and Disclaimer

For Faculty

W3C Validation: HTML5 + CSS3 + WAVE

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings
• Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Kyratsis Y, Ahmad R, Hatzaras K, et al. Making sense of evidence in management decisions: the role of research-based knowledge on innovation adoption and implementation in health care. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2014 Mar. (Health Services and Delivery Research, No. 2.6.)

Making sense of evidence in management decisions: the role of research-based knowledge on innovation adoption and implementation in health care.

Chapter 2 relevant literature and the research context.

• Evidence-based medicine and the spread of innovations

The spread and adoption of innovations re-emerged as an important theme in health care with the rise of the EBM movement in the 1990s. 1 , 15 A central argument in this literature is that clinical practice should be based on rigorous and systematic evidence rather than individual opinion. The EBM movement is evident in a number of health systems, especially in Canada, in the USA and in the UK NHS, with explicit interest in understanding the diffusion of evidence-based innovations. 16 – 18 One of the central questions in organisational innovation diffusion literature that aligns with the aims of this study is as follows: ‘Why do innovations not readily spread, even if backed by strong (scientifically generated) evidence?’

There has now emerged considerable empirical evidence that argues that the adoption of health technologies and innovations, even if supported by sound research evidence on effectiveness, is a far more dynamic and complex process than previously suggested. 19 – 22 The classic innovation diffusion model of change, which has been particularly influential in UK health policy, suggests that the adoption of innovative ideas, practices or products is conditioned by the interaction among the attributes of the innovation, the characteristics of the adopter and the environment. 23 However, this early innovation diffusion work was criticised for adopting a simplistic rational view of change that ignores the complexities of the change process: also focusing on individuals rather than organisations. Later work by Rogers 24 partly addressed the criticism by explicitly considering the adoption process within organisations.

Recent studies have departed from the linear model of innovation diffusion 23 to offer more dynamic and interactive conceptualisations 25 , 26 and respond to a need for context-sensitive, contingent approaches. 19 , 27 Building on this latter literature stream, it is suggested that innovation adoption is a process which is highly dependent on the interactions among the innovation, local actors and contextual factors. 11 , 27 – 31 These factors include the interaction among the attributes of the innovation, the organisational context and leadership; 32 an organisational culture encouraging involvement, experimentation and learning; micropolitical factors; support by peer and expert opinion leadership; 23 , 30 , 33 social networks; 23 , 34 structural organisational characteristics; 35 organisational capacity for absorbing new knowledge; 36 and the existence of a ‘receptive context for change’. 37

• Organisational innovation process and the use of evidence

The innovation process in organisations is complex and involves several stages. Damanpour and Schneider 38 suggest that the process can be divided into three broad phases of ‘pre adoption’, ‘adoption decision’ and ‘post adoption’, also referred to in the literature as ‘initiation’, ‘adoption (decision)’ and ‘implementation’. 24 In this report, we use the latter terminology, which is also more commonly applied in the literature. Different concerns are central at the different phases, from an initial focus on innovation awareness and information seeking, through innovation use and application to manage a task or solve a problem, to consequences, and issues of sustainability. Adoption is often viewed as a process in which organisational members examine the potential benefits and costs or potential negative consequences of an innovation on the basis of relevant knowledge. 24 Potential adopters move from ‘ignorance’, through awareness, attitude formation, evaluation, and on to adoption: ‘the decision to make full use of the innovation as the best course of action available’. However, organisations should not be thought of as merely rational decision-making entities and innovation as an ordered sequential process. Rather, the adoption process should be recognised as complex, iterative and organic. 19 , 26

A key element in the organisational decision-making process that underpins innovation and technology adoption is the availability of supporting evidence of effectiveness. Despite the challenges above, there has been impetus for the development of EBMgt in health care to improve managerial decision-making through the use of the ‘best available scientific evidence’. 2 , 39 The integration of EBMgt with EBM is advocated to enhance the performance of health-care organisations. 3

However, within a health-care setting the evaluation of a technology can take a number of forms and include technical, economic and social assessments. Adoption decisions involve a number of stakeholders and thus it is important that the evidence used to support adoption is not just sufficient but also relevant and addresses the concerns of all parties. The earlier innovation evaluation stages are concerned with technical assessments of efficiency 40 – as well as efficacy and safety in health-care interventions 41 – whereas the focus in the later stages includes considerations of ease of use and social acceptance. 42 It, thus, marks a move away from scientific assessment to consideration of the complete value system for technology factors relating to types of evidence supporting adoption and contextual factors that might help or hinder implementation.

Implementation includes local trials and evaluation. The approach taken to implementation needs to vary according to the type and scale of the technology being adopted and the level and type of consequential changes it brings about. 43 For example, some technologies can be procured and put into service, whereas others require strategies such as pilots and phased roll outs. Implementation is linked to trialling and experimentation. For more complex technologies, and for those that require or lead to wider changes, such as changes in practice of health-care staff and changes to a process involving several stakeholders or cutting across departments, or even organisations, or need to be rolled out across many locations, implementation may be more challenging. 27 The end point for successful implementation will normally be the point at which the technology has become integrated into everyday practice.

A different insight on innovation adoption is available in a recent scoping review by Ferlie et al. 44 and Crilly et al. , 45 which conceptually synthesised issues of knowledge mobilisation in the NHS and, in particular, the perceived gaps in the process of translating knowledge from ‘bench to bedside’. The change towards EBMgt raises key questions such as ‘what evidence is considered as credible (and by whom)?’. And what is regarded as a legitimate epistemological basis for validating evidence (what is viewed as legitimate knowledge)? For example, should the evidence base for implementing an innovation into a specific context be exclusively focused on scientific reproducibility? Or alternatively, should the basis of innovation evidence take into account broader forms of evidence and wider concepts of what constitutes relevant and acceptable forms of knowledge?

• Sensemaking in organisations

When making decisions, managers need to justify these to themselves and to organisational members. The sensemaking lens allows these two processes to be examined in context. 46 , 47 Sensemaking theory is a social psychological approach that emphasises cognitions. Sensemaking is about ‘reality’ as ‘an ongoing accomplishment that emerges from efforts to create order and make retrospective sense of what occurs’ (p. 635). 48 According to this perspective, values, beliefs, culture and language are important concepts. Central to this approach is enactment : the important role that people play in creating the environments that impose on them. The implications of a sensemaking lens in the evaluation of critical events is the difference between action as an ‘individual making bad choices’ and action as a result of an individual in a set of circumstances at a given time. 49 The event is therefore reframed ‘where context and individual action overlap’ (p. 410). 47 Thus, this perspective provides an analytical lens that helps understand actions in context.

The sensemaking perspective asks: how does a manager define his or her role? How is this shaped by the organisational culture, by peers, by professionals, by patients? Does his or her educational and professional background draw him or her to a particular paradigm of what constitutes evidence? This perspective is also interested in drawing out differences according to who the decision-maker is, and how individuals influence the sensemaking of others.

The sensemaking lens has been useful because of the nature of health care, with multiprofessional work in complex settings where organisational learning is important. 50 As Fitzgerald and Dopson 51 observe, a clinical team is one example of an enactment of negotiated order, in which team members learn to work with each other through repeated interpersonal encounters around joint tasks. Those members with a higher degree of power are able to influence ways in which work roles are enacted. 51 This interplay between professionals is described well through nurses’ accounts in the management of hospitalised babies. 47 The nurse makes her case to the attendant physician that a baby requires immediate attention: ‘the first nurse translates her concerns for the second more powerful nurse, who then rearticulates the case using terms relevant to the Attending [physician]’ (p. 413) . 47

Weick and Sutcliffe, 52 in their reanalysis of the inquiry into deaths at the Bristol Royal Infirmary in the UK, found an environment in which they could further demonstrate how small actions can enact a social structure that keeps the organisation ‘entrapped in cycles of behavior that preclude improvement’ (p. 74); 52 that is, easy explanations of an unusual situation should be challenged – this did not happen in Bristol. In the study of patient safety, sensemaking provides a powerful lens, as ‘the most fundamental level of data about patient safety is in the lived experience of staff as they struggle to function within an imperfect system’ (p. 1556). 53 Greenhalgh and coresearchers 54 suggest collective sensemaking (developing shared meaning) as one narrative approach to understanding issues of organisational innovation processes. For proposed changes to be accepted and assimilated by providers and service users, the change ‘must make sense in a way that relates to previous understanding and experience’ (p. 447). 55

Our research questions aimed to explore ‘sensemaking’ in the local and wider contexts; that is, the health-care organisation and the NHS environment. 56 In addition, we explicitly set out to explore how individual and collective sensemaking plays out – which is particularly pertinent when making decisions about innovation adoption and implementation. This lens allows one to focus on an individual’s sensemaking processes and how these iteratively ‘update’ ways of approaching decision-making and use of evidence. This also allows reflection on how this process differs in ‘everyday’, more passive situations compared with those of heightened activity owing to the need for decision-making, either because of funding deadlines or because of external influences relevant to the empirical setting (in this case, infection outbreaks or poor performance in the infection rates). In the latter, sensemaking is usefully applied along Weick’s seven dimensions (grounded in identity construction; retrospective; enactive of sensible environments; social; ongoing; focused on and extracted by cues; driven by plausibility rather than accuracy), and emergent from this framework an appreciation of how ‘sense for self’ and ‘sense for others’ plays out.

Here the concept of ‘making sense for others’ or ‘sensegiving’ is useful. Sensegiving ‘is concerned with the process of attempting to influence the sensemaking and meaning construction of others towards a preferred organisational reality’ (p. 442). 57 The concept first emerged as an explanatory concept in the study of strategic change at an American university. 57 In this ethnographic study, the researchers observed the chief executive officer (CEO) adopt a ‘sensegiving mode’ whereby his actions and cues were used to ‘make sense for others [organisational members]’. This concept relates to previous literature in the study of organisational member behaviour, namely ‘impression management’ 58 , 59 and ‘self-monitoring’. 60 (The theory of self-monitoring 60 proposes that individuals regulate their own behaviour in order to convey alignment with a preferred behaviour in any given context or situation. High self-monitors monitor and modify their behaviour to fit different situations; low self-monitors are more consistent in behaviour across situations.) Sensegiving describes the more purposeful and explicit action rather than implicit cues. The sense-giver will also make sense of organisational member behaviour and in turn modify sensegiving.

The social production of reality for oneself is a very tacit process which shapes decision-making and influences non-deliberate decisions. Sensemaking as justification to self and the resulting decision is influenced by other factors such as legitimacy and plausibility to others, that is, the publicly accountable decision. This lens pays particular attention to the social construction and coproduction of evidence through the interaction of a range of diverse professional and managerial groups. We engage with this body of literature summarised above, which has been useful in explaining organisational response to critical events in the health-care setting, 47 , 52 as well as to strategic change. 61 , 62

• Gaps in innovation, evidence-based health care and organisational sensemaking literatures

In summary, we note four key gaps in the relevant literature streams on innovation, evidence use and sensemaking in organisations which triggered our empirical exploration in this study.

First, with this study we address a significant gap in evidence-based health-care implementation literature. Namely, we respond to the call for more sustained interpretive work that explores the role and motives of actors and the influence of the organisational context and the social construction of evidence. 63

Second, despite the progress that has been achieved in our understanding of innovation diffusion and adoption processes, a consistent issue raised in high-quality reviews of general innovation diffusion literature 26 , 64 – 66 and a review of related literature in health care 19 is that empirical research has generally been limited to a single level of analysis – individual, organisational or interorganisational – thus failing to provide a holistic explanation of the influence of inter-related factors on innovation adoption and diffusion. Our study aimed to address the aforementioned criticism by exploring the innovation adoption process and by reflecting on influences at various embedded levels of analysis: namely, micro (individual), meso (organisational) and macro (interorganisational) levels.

Third, there are few empirical cases exploring issues of health management decision-making that focus on non-clinical decisions and particularly innovation, which is characterised by inherently high uncertainty and ambiguity. Moreover, little primary research exists that links the use of evidence to adoption decision-making and implementation within service organisations. We currently have a limited understanding of how pluralist evidence bases (and the associated diverse epistemological bases) might be reconciled or not in practice. The construction of shared meanings, or collective sensemaking, 46 is key for understanding how new types of evidence may be successfully embedded in certain contexts, or even be rejected under conditions of innovation uncertainty and ambiguity.

Fourth, in sensemaking theory there is less emphasis on empirical studies that deal with the day-to-day processes of sensemaking, rather than crises and critical events, and on the sensemaking that occurs among many and diverse organisational stakeholders as they address a range of issues. 46 , 62 By applying this theoretical lens to the investigation of managerial decision-making on the adoption and implementation of innovative technologies, we aim to empirically contribute to the field.

Included under terms of UK Non-commercial Government License .

• Cite this Page Kyratsis Y, Ahmad R, Hatzaras K, et al. Making sense of evidence in management decisions: the role of research-based knowledge on innovation adoption and implementation in health care. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2014 Mar. (Health Services and Delivery Research, No. 2.6.) Chapter 2, Relevant literature and the research context.
• PDF version of this title (12M)

In this Page

Other titles in this collection.

• Health Services and Delivery Research

Recent Activity

• Relevant literature and the research context - Making sense of evidence in manag... Relevant literature and the research context - Making sense of evidence in management decisions: the role of research-based knowledge on innovation adoption and implementation in health care

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base
• Starting the research process
• 10 Research Question Examples to Guide Your Research Project

10 Research Question Examples to Guide your Research Project

Published on October 30, 2022 by Shona McCombes . Revised on October 19, 2023.

The research question is one of the most important parts of your research paper , thesis or dissertation . It’s important to spend some time assessing and refining your question before you get started.

The exact form of your question will depend on a few things, such as the length of your project, the type of research you’re conducting, the topic , and the research problem . However, all research questions should be focused, specific, and relevant to a timely social or scholarly issue.

Once you’ve read our guide on how to write a research question , you can use these examples to craft your own.

Note that the design of your research question can depend on what method you are pursuing. Here are a few options for qualitative, quantitative, and statistical research questions.

Other interesting articles

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

Methodology

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

 Statistics

• Null hypothesis
• Statistical power
• Probability distribution
• Effect size
• Poisson distribution

Research bias

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, October 19). 10 Research Question Examples to Guide your Research Project. Scribbr. Retrieved April 17, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/research-process/research-question-examples/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, writing strong research questions | criteria & examples, how to choose a dissertation topic | 8 steps to follow, evaluating sources | methods & examples, unlimited academic ai-proofreading.

✔ Document error-free in 5minutes ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

Women, Research and Careers pp 11–31 Cite as

The Research Context

• Julie Kent &
• Anna Palmer  

26 Accesses

Our purpose here is to describe and discuss the research context, to set the scene for understanding both our own experiences as women researchers in higher education and to provide a background for you to think about your aims, aspirations and skills. Although the experiences of women going into a research career are varied, they can be understood as structured by common features of the context within which they carry out research. What is evident from our experience and other literature on the subject is that women develop strategies to cope with, and overcome, the difficulties they may face. Some of these will be discussed later in the book. Our intention is not to suggest that the obstacles we face are insurmountable or indeed that the culture of higher education and research prohibits creative and flexible ways of working. It is our view that these structures are both constraining and enabling, that women are often able to find a path through the obstacles and develop research that is both creative and innovative.

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

Buying options

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Unable to display preview.  Download preview PDF.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

University of the West of England, UK

Sue Hatt ( Senior Lecturer in Economics ), Julie Kent ( Senior Lecturer in Sociology ) & Carolyn Britton ( Senior Lecturer in Sociology ) ( Senior Lecturer in Economics ),  ( Senior Lecturer in Sociology ) &  ( Senior Lecturer in Sociology )

Copyright information

© 1999 University of the West of England (UWE)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Kent, J., Palmer, A. (1999). The Research Context. In: Hatt, S., Kent, J., Britton, C., Campling, J. (eds) Women, Research and Careers. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230389090_2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230389090_2

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, London

Print ISBN : 978-0-333-77323-9

Online ISBN : 978-0-230-38909-0

eBook Packages : Palgrave Social & Cultural Studies Collection Social Sciences (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