types of research articles with examples

• Hirsh Health Sciences
• Webster Veterinary

Guide to Scholarly Articles

• What is a Scholarly Article?
• Scholarly vs. Popular vs. Trade Articles

Types of Scholarly Articles

Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods articles, why does this matter.

• Anatomy of Scholarly Articles
• Tips for Reading Scholarly Articles

Scholarly articles come in many different formats each with their own function in the scholarly conversation. The following are a few of the major types of scholarly articles you are likely to encounter as you become a part of the conversation. Identifying the different types of scholarly articles and knowing their function will help you become a better researcher.

Original/Empirical Studies

• Note: Empirical studies can be subdivided into qualitative studies, quantitative studies, or mixed methods studies. See below for more information  
• Usefulness for research:  Empirical studies are useful because they provide current original research on a topic which may contain a hypothesis or interpretation to advance or to disprove. 

Literature Reviews

• Distinguishing characteristic:  Literature reviews survey and analyze a clearly delaminated body of scholarly literature.  
• Usefulness for research: Literature reviews are useful as a way to quickly get up to date on a particular topic of research.

Theoretical Articles

• Distinguishing characteristic:  Theoretical articles draw on existing scholarship to improve upon or offer a new theoretical perspective on a given topic.
• Usefulness for research:  Theoretical articles are useful because they provide a theoretical framework you can apply to your own research.

Methodological Articles

• Distinguishing characteristic:  Methodological articles draw on existing scholarship to improve or offer new methodologies for exploring a given topic.
• Usefulness for research:  Methodological articles are useful because they provide a methodologies you can apply to your own research.

Case Studies

• Distinguishing characteristic:  Case studies focus on individual examples or instances of a phenomenon to illustrate a research problem or a a solution to a research problem.
• Usefulness for research:  Case studies are useful because they provide information about a research problem or data for analysis.

Book Reviews

• Distinguishing characteristic:  Book reviews provide summaries and evaluations of individual books.
• Usefulness for research:  Book reviews are useful because they provide summaries and evaluations of individual books relevant to your research.

Adapted from the Publication manual of the American Psychological Association : the official guide to APA style. (Sixth edition.). (2013). American Psychological Association.

Qualitative articles  ask "why" questions where as  quantitative  articles  ask "how many/how much?" questions. These approaches are are not mutually exclusive. In fact, many articles combine the two in a  mixed-methods  approach. 

We can think of these different kinds of scholarly articles as different tools designed for different tasks. What research task do you need to accomplish? Do you need to get up to date on a give topic? Find a literature review. Do you need to find a hypothesis to test or to extend? Find an empirical study. Do you need to explore methodologies? Find a methodological article.

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

Community Blog

Keep up-to-date on postgraduate related issues with our quick reads written by students, postdocs, professors and industry leaders.

Types of Research – Explained with Examples

• By DiscoverPhDs
• October 2, 2020

Types of Research

Research is about using established methods to investigate a problem or question in detail with the aim of generating new knowledge about it.

It is a vital tool for scientific advancement because it allows researchers to prove or refute hypotheses based on clearly defined parameters, environments and assumptions. Due to this, it enables us to confidently contribute to knowledge as it allows research to be verified and replicated.

Knowing the types of research and what each of them focuses on will allow you to better plan your project, utilises the most appropriate methodologies and techniques and better communicate your findings to other researchers and supervisors.

Classification of Types of Research

There are various types of research that are classified according to their objective, depth of study, analysed data, time required to study the phenomenon and other factors. It’s important to note that a research project will not be limited to one type of research, but will likely use several.

According to its Purpose

Theoretical research.

Theoretical research, also referred to as pure or basic research, focuses on generating knowledge , regardless of its practical application. Here, data collection is used to generate new general concepts for a better understanding of a particular field or to answer a theoretical research question.

Results of this kind are usually oriented towards the formulation of theories and are usually based on documentary analysis, the development of mathematical formulas and the reflection of high-level researchers.

Applied Research

Here, the goal is to find strategies that can be used to address a specific research problem. Applied research draws on theory to generate practical scientific knowledge, and its use is very common in STEM fields such as engineering, computer science and medicine.

This type of research is subdivided into two types:

• Technological applied research : looks towards improving efficiency in a particular productive sector through the improvement of processes or machinery related to said productive processes.
• Scientific applied research : has predictive purposes. Through this type of research design, we can measure certain variables to predict behaviours useful to the goods and services sector, such as consumption patterns and viability of commercial projects.

According to your Depth of Scope

Exploratory research.

Exploratory research is used for the preliminary investigation of a subject that is not yet well understood or sufficiently researched. It serves to establish a frame of reference and a hypothesis from which an in-depth study can be developed that will enable conclusive results to be generated.

Because exploratory research is based on the study of little-studied phenomena, it relies less on theory and more on the collection of data to identify patterns that explain these phenomena.

Descriptive Research

The primary objective of descriptive research is to define the characteristics of a particular phenomenon without necessarily investigating the causes that produce it.

In this type of research, the researcher must take particular care not to intervene in the observed object or phenomenon, as its behaviour may change if an external factor is involved.

Explanatory Research

Explanatory research is the most common type of research method and is responsible for establishing cause-and-effect relationships that allow generalisations to be extended to similar realities. It is closely related to descriptive research, although it provides additional information about the observed object and its interactions with the environment.

Correlational Research

The purpose of this type of scientific research is to identify the relationship between two or more variables. A correlational study aims to determine whether a variable changes, how much the other elements of the observed system change.

According to the Type of Data Used

Qualitative research.

Qualitative methods are often used in the social sciences to collect, compare and interpret information, has a linguistic-semiotic basis and is used in techniques such as discourse analysis, interviews, surveys, records and participant observations.

In order to use statistical methods to validate their results, the observations collected must be evaluated numerically. Qualitative research, however, tends to be subjective, since not all data can be fully controlled. Therefore, this type of research design is better suited to extracting meaning from an event or phenomenon (the ‘why’) than its cause (the ‘how’).

Quantitative Research

Quantitative research study delves into a phenomena through quantitative data collection and using mathematical, statistical and computer-aided tools to measure them . This allows generalised conclusions to be projected over time.

According to the Degree of Manipulation of Variables

Experimental research.

It is about designing or replicating a phenomenon whose variables are manipulated under strictly controlled conditions in order to identify or discover its effect on another independent variable or object. The phenomenon to be studied is measured through study and control groups, and according to the guidelines of the scientific method.

Non-Experimental Research

Also known as an observational study, it focuses on the analysis of a phenomenon in its natural context. As such, the researcher does not intervene directly, but limits their involvement to measuring the variables required for the study. Due to its observational nature, it is often used in descriptive research.

Quasi-Experimental Research

It controls only some variables of the phenomenon under investigation and is therefore not entirely experimental. In this case, the study and the focus group cannot be randomly selected, but are chosen from existing groups or populations . This is to ensure the collected data is relevant and that the knowledge, perspectives and opinions of the population can be incorporated into the study.

According to the Type of Inference

Deductive investigation.

In this type of research, reality is explained by general laws that point to certain conclusions; conclusions are expected to be part of the premise of the research problem and considered correct if the premise is valid and the inductive method is applied correctly.

Inductive Research

In this type of research, knowledge is generated from an observation to achieve a generalisation. It is based on the collection of specific data to develop new theories.

Hypothetical-Deductive Investigation

It is based on observing reality to make a hypothesis, then use deduction to obtain a conclusion and finally verify or reject it through experience.

According to the Time in Which it is Carried Out

Longitudinal study (also referred to as diachronic research).

It is the monitoring of the same event, individual or group over a defined period of time. It aims to track changes in a number of variables and see how they evolve over time. It is often used in medical, psychological and social areas .

Cross-Sectional Study (also referred to as Synchronous Research)

Cross-sectional research design is used to observe phenomena, an individual or a group of research subjects at a given time.

According to The Sources of Information

Primary research.

This fundamental research type is defined by the fact that the data is collected directly from the source, that is, it consists of primary, first-hand information.

Secondary research

Unlike primary research, secondary research is developed with information from secondary sources, which are generally based on scientific literature and other documents compiled by another researcher.

According to How the Data is Obtained

Documentary (cabinet).

Documentary research, or secondary sources, is based on a systematic review of existing sources of information on a particular subject. This type of scientific research is commonly used when undertaking literature reviews or producing a case study.

Field research study involves the direct collection of information at the location where the observed phenomenon occurs.

From Laboratory

Laboratory research is carried out in a controlled environment in order to isolate a dependent variable and establish its relationship with other variables through scientific methods.

Mixed-Method: Documentary, Field and/or Laboratory

Mixed research methodologies combine results from both secondary (documentary) sources and primary sources through field or laboratory research.

The scope of the study is defined at the start of the study. It is used by researchers to set the boundaries and limitations within which the research study will be performed.

Choosing a good PhD supervisor will be paramount to your success as a PhD student, but what qualities should you be looking for? Read our post to find out.

Fieldwork can be essential for your PhD project. Use these tips to help maximise site productivity and reduce your research time by a few weeks.

Join thousands of other students and stay up to date with the latest PhD programmes, funding opportunities and advice.

Browse PhDs Now

Do you need to have published papers to do a PhD? The simple answer is no but it could benefit your application if you can.

Kyle’s in the first year of his PhD at the University of Texas in Austin. His research interests are in the development of algorithms for advanced mobility for legged robotics and computer vision for exploration of extreme environments.

Rakhi is a PhD student at the Institute of Chemical Technology, Mumbai, India. Her research is on the production of Borneol and Menthol and development of separation process from the reaction mixture.

Join Thousands of Students

• 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

• - Google Chrome

Intended for healthcare professionals

• Access provided by Google Indexer
• My email alerts
• BMA member login
• Username * Password * Forgot your log in details? Need to activate BMA Member Log In Log in via OpenAthens Log in via your institution

Search form

• Advanced search
• Search responses
• Search blogs

About The BMJ

• Resources for authors

Article types and preparation

At The BMJ , we offer authors the opportunity to submit a range of article types. You can find out more about preparing and submitting a particular style of article by clicking on the links below. Please take the time to explore these instructions before proceeding with a submission. Further details about each of these individual sections and article types are discussed further down this page.

Article Types at The BMJ

Requirements for all manuscripts.

Please ensure that anything you submit to The BMJ conforms to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors’ Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly work in Medical Journals  uniform recommendations for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals.

Before submitting an article, please ensure that you have followed all guidelines below. We recommend learning about our house style and ways to incorporate images into your submission .

Title page and authorship

The title should be informative and, for research papers, a subtitle with the study design (for example, "a phase III clinical trial" or "a systematic review and meta-analysis").

In this page, please provide for each author his or her name, affiliation (job title) at the time the paper was written, email and, for the corresponding author, the best contact address. All authors must fulfill the ICMJE criteria for authorship . If the number of authors is very large we may ask for confirmation that everyone listed met the ICMJE criteria for authorship . We also offer the option of joint first authorship when two authors meet criteria for such a designation. We reserve the right to require that authors form a group whose name will appear in the article byline. MEDLINE guidance explains that group authorship is acceptable, stating "When a group name for a specific consortium, committee, study group, or the like appears in an article byline, the personal names of the members of that group may be published in the article text. Such names are entered as collaborator names for the MEDLINE citation."

Further details about The BMJ 's stance on authorship, contributorship, and group authorship can be found on our Authorship and contributorship page.

Please note that from 30 November 2018 The BMJ is mandating ORCiD iDs for corresponding authors for all research articles if accepted, and this information will be required alongside submitted manuscripts. Co-authors and reviewers are strongly encouraged to also connect their ScholarOne accounts to ORCiD. We firmly believe that the increased use and integration of ORCiD iDs will be beneficial for the whole research community. For those who do not currently have an iD they will be required to register but this is free and takes a matter of seconds - we strongly encourage all authors to register for an ORCiD profile .

To learn more about ORCiD, please visit http://orcid.org/content/initiative

Contributor and guarantor information

Each contributorship statement should make clear who has contributed what to the planning, conduct, and reporting of the work described in the article, and should identify one, or occasionally more, contributor(s) as being responsible for the overall content as guarantor(s). The guarantor accepts full responsibility for the work and/or the conduct of the study, had access to the data, and controlled the decision to publish. The following line should also be included - "The corresponding author attests that all listed authors meet authorship criteria and that no others meeting the criteria have been omitted."

For articles in The BMJ that do not report original research - such as editorials, clinical reviews, and education and debate - please state who had the idea for the article, who performed the literature search, who wrote the article, and who is the guarantor (the contributor who accepts full responsibility for the finished article, had access to any data, and controlled the decision to publish). For non-research articles that include case reports such as lessons of the week, drug points, and interactive case reports, please also state who identified and/or managed the case(s). We encourage authors to fully acknowledge the contribution of patients and the public to their research where appropriate.

Copyright/license for publication

Since January 2000, The BMJ has not asked authors of journal articles to assign us their copyright and authors (or their employers) retain their copyright in the article. All we require from authors is an exclusive licence (or, from government employees who cannot grant this, a non-exclusive licence) that allows us to publish the article in The BMJ (including any derivative products) and any other BMJ products (such as the Student BMJ or overseas editions), and allows us to sublicense such rights and exploit all subsidiary rights.

We ask the corresponding author to grant this exclusive licence (or non-exclusive for government employees) on behalf of all authors by reading our licence and inserting in the manuscript on submission the following statement:

“The Corresponding Author has the right to grant on behalf of all authors and does grant on behalf of all authors, a worldwide licence to the Publishers and its licensees in perpetuity, in all forms, formats and media (whether known now or created in the future), to i) publish, reproduce, distribute, display and store the Contribution, ii) translate the Contribution into other languages, create adaptations, reprints, include within collections and create summaries, extracts and/or, abstracts of the Contribution, iii) create any other derivative work(s) based on the Contribution, iv) to exploit all subsidiary rights in the Contribution, v) the inclusion of electronic links from the Contribution to third party material where-ever it may be located; and, vi) licence any third party to do any or all of the above."

This licence allows authors to use their own articles for their own non-commercial purposes without seeking permission from us. Only if the use is commercial do we need to know about it. In addition, we will pay authors a royalty on certain commercial uses that we negotiate.

Information on permissions for authors and third parties for reuse can be found here .

Manuscripts authored or co-authored by one or more NIH employees must be submitted with a completed and signed NIH Publishing Agreement and Manuscript Cover Sheet according to NIH’s Employee Procedures .

Patient consent (if applicable)

Publication of any personal information about a patient in The BMJ - for example, in a case report or clinical photograph - will normally require the signed consent of the patient. If this is the case, please include a statement that any identifiable patients have provided their signed consent to publication and submit, as a supplemental file, The BMJ 's patient consent form that is available in several languages .

Competing interests declaration

A competing interest - often called a conflict of interest - exists when professional judgment concerning a primary interest (such as patients' welfare or the validity of research) may be influenced by a secondary interest (such as financial gain, academic promotion, or personal rivalry). It may arise for the authors of an article in The BMJ when they have a financial interest that may influence, probably without their knowing, their interpretation of their results or those of others.

We believe that, to make the best decision on how to deal with an article, we should know about any competing interests that authors may have, and that if we publish the article readers should know about them too. We are not aiming to eradicate such interests across all article types in The BMJ . However, certain articles (see below) fall under a stricter policy announced in 2014 . This means that authors whose financial conflicts of interest are judged to be relevant by the BMJ team are not permitted to write these articles. We also ask our staff and reviewers to declare any competing interests.

A declaration of interests for all authors must be received before an article can be reviewed and accepted for publication. It should take one of two forms, depending on what type of article you are submitting. The links to the relevant forms are provided at the end of this section.

For editorials and education articles (excluding State Of The Art reviews and Therapeutics articles)

Since 2014, The BMJ requires that such articles must be written by authors without relevant financial ties to industry . By "industry" we mean companies producing drugs, medical foods, nutraceuticals, devices, apps or tests; medical education companies; or other companies with a financial or reputational interest in the topic of the article. We consider the following relationships with industry to be relevant, making it unlikely that we would be able to publish your work: employment; ownership of stocks and shares (this excludes mutual funds or other situations in which the person is not in a position to control investment decisions) ; travel and accommodation expenses; paid consultancy or directorship; patent ownership; aid membership of speakers' panels or bureaus and advisory board; acting as an expert witness ; being in receipt of a fellowship, equipment, writing, or administrative support; writing or consulting for a medical education promotional or communications company. If you are in doubt about the relevance of any potential conflict of interest please discuss with the editor of the appropriate section before submission.

All authors must review the updated COI policy and complete The BMJ 's Education Declaration of Interests form . If the article is accepted for publication these completed forms will be stored and made available on request. The corresponding author should insert within their manuscript a summary statement derived from the information provided in the COI forms (link below): " I/We have read and understood BMJ policy on declaration of interests and declare the following interests: [list them or state that you have none]."

Examples of different sorts of summary statements:

No competing interests : "We have read and understood BMJ policy on declaration of interests and declare that we have no competing interests."

Competing interests disclosed: " We have read and understood BMJ policy on declaration of interests and declare the following interests: AA is an unpaid member of XX group developing guidelines for ZZ."

For Research and RMR papers

We ask authors of research papers to use a revised version of the ICMJE’s unified disclosure form . The unified form can be used for several journals. Each journal, will, however, integrate the form into its processes in different ways.

Authors must disclose three types of information:

Associations with commercial entities that provided support for the work reported in the submitted manuscript (the timeframe for disclosure in this section of the form is the lifespan of the work being reported).

Associations with commercial entities that could be viewed as having an interest in the general area of the submitted manuscript (in the three years before submission of the manuscript).

Non-financial associations that may be relevant or seen as relevant to the submitted manuscript.

All authors must complete the disclosure form and send it to the corresponding author who will use the information in the forms to craft the COI statement for the paper (examples provided below). The statement but not the forms must be included with the submission. and that must be included with the initial submission. If the paper is accepted, these forms will be required and will be published alongside the article.

The statement in the manuscript should take the following format:

"Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at http://www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work [or describe if any]; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years [or describe if any]; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work [or describe if any].”

Examples of statements:

No competing interests: "All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at http://www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work."

Grant funding for research but no other competing interest: "All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at http://www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: all authors had financial support from ABC Company for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work."

Mixed competing interests: "All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at http://www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; AB has received research grants and honorariums from XYZ company, BF has been paid for developing and delivering educational presentations for BBB foundation, DF does consultancy for HHH and VVV companies; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work."

For all other papers

Complete The BMJ 's Disclosure form . We do not need to receive signed copies of the statements regarding competing interests or the licence to publication: these are for information only. When submitting your article (or a revised version of it) you will be prompted at our online editorial office to tick two boxes , confirming that you have read and complied with our policies on competing interests and licence to publication. Please also ensure that your manuscript, whether in original or revised form, also includes your written statements of competing interests and licence to publication.

Additional requirements by Article Type

In addition to the above, all of our articles have additional requirements which should be fulfilled before submitting. For more information on any of the requirements below, please contact [email protected] .

We have produced a checklist to help authors decide whether The BMJ is the right journal for their research. If the work does not seem to fit in The BMJ , it may be better sent straight to another journal with a more specialist or local readership or a higher acceptance rate.

To learn more about the kind of research articles we give priority to, and what services we offer to authors of research, please read the editorial "Publishing your research study in the BMJ ?" . Please note that we welcome studies - even with "negative" results - as long as their research questions are important, new, and relevant to general readers and their designs are appropriate and robust.

Word count and style

To encourage full and transparent reporting of research we do not set fixed word count limits for research articles. Nonetheless, we ask you to make your article concise and make every word count. You will be prompted to provide the word count for the main text (excluding the abstract, references, tables, boxes, or figures) when you submit your manuscript.

Original research articles should follow the IMRaD style (introduction, methods, results, and discussion) and should include a structured abstract (see below), a structured discussion, and a succinct introduction that focuses - in no more than three paragraphs - on the background to the research question.

For an intervention study, the manuscript should include enough information about the intervention(s) and comparator(s) (even if this was usual care) for reviewers and readers to understand fully what happened in the study. To enable readers to replicate your work or implement the interventions in their own practice, please also provide any relevant detailed descriptions and materials (uploaded as one or more supplemental files, including video and audio files where appropriate). Alternatively, please provide in the manuscript URLs to openly accessible websites where these materials can be found.

Please ensure that the discussion section of your article comprises no more than a page and a half and follows this overall structure, although you do not need to signpost these elements with subheadings:

• Statement of principal findings • Strengths and weaknesses of the study • Strengths and weaknesses in relation to other studies, discussing important differences in results • Meaning of the study: possible explanations and implications for clinicians and policymakers • Unanswered questions and future research

This video gives more detailed advice on writing each section of a research paper for The BMJ .

Structured abstract

Please ensure that the structured abstract is as complete, accurate, and clear as possible and has been approved by all authors. We may screen original research articles by reading only the abstract.

Abstracts should be 250- 300 words long: you may need up to 400 words, however, for a CONSORT or PRISMA style abstract. MEDLINE can now handle up to 600 words. Abstracts should include the following headings, but they may be modified for abstracts of clinical trials or systematic reviews and meta-analyses according to the requirements on the the CONSORT extension for abstracts and the PRISMA extension for abstracts , respectively.

• Objectives - a clear statement of the main aim of the study and the major hypothesis tested or research question posed • Design - including factors such as prospective, randomisation, blinding, placebo control, case control, crossover, criterion standards for diagnostic tests, etc. • Setting - include the level of care, eg primary, secondary; number of participating centres. Be general rather than give the name of the specific centre, but give the geographical location if this is important • Participants (instead of patients or subjects) - numbers entering and completing the study, sex, and ethnic group if appropriate. Give clear definitions of how selected, entry and exclusion criteria. • Interventions - what, how, when and for how long. This heading can be deleted if there were no interventions but should normally be included for randomised controlled trials, crossover trials, and before and after studies. • Main outcome measures - those planned in the protocol, those finally measured (if different, explain why). • Results - main results with (for quantitative studies) 95% confidence intervals and, where appropriate, the exact level of statistical significance and the number need to treat/harm. Whenever possible, state absolute rather than relative risks. • Conclusions - primary conclusions and their implications, suggesting areas for further research if appropriate. Do not go beyond the data in the article. Conclusions are important because this is often the only part that readers look at. • Trial registration - registry and number (for clinical trials and, if available, for observational studies and systematic reviews).

When writing your abstract, use the active voice but avoid "we did" or "we found". Numbers over 10 do not need spelling out at the start of sentences. p-values should always be accompanied by supporting data, and denominators should be given for percentages. Confidence intervals should be written in the format (15 to 27) within parentheses, using the word "to" rather than a hyphen. Abstracts do not need references.

Statistical issues

We want your piece to be easy to read but also as scientifically accurate as possible. We encourage authors to review the "Statistical Analyses and Methods in the Published Literature or The SAMPL Guidelines" while preparing their manuscript.

Whenever possible, state absolute rather than relative risks. Please include in the results section of your structured abstract (and in the article's results section) the following terms, as appropriate:

For a clinical trial:

• Absolute event rates among experimental and control groups. • RRR (relative risk reduction). • NNT or NNH (number needed to treat or harm) and its 95% confidence interval (or, if the trial is of a public health intervention, number helped per 1000 or 100,000).

For a cohort study:

• Absolute event rates over time (eg 10 years) among exposed and non-exposed groups • RRR (relative risk reduction)

For a case control study:

• OR (odds ratio) for strength of association between exposure and outcome

For a study of a diagnostic test:

• Sensitivity and specificity • PPV and NPV (positive and negative predictive values)

The box stating 'what is known' and 'what this study adds' should also reflect accurately the above information. Under what this study adds, please give the one most useful summary statistic eg NNT.

Please do not use the term 'negative' to describe studies that have not found statistically significant differences, perhaps because they were too small. There will always be some uncertainty, and we hope you will be as explicit as possible in reporting what you have found in your study. Using wording such as "our results are compatible with a decrease of this much or an increase of this much" or 'this study found no effect' is more accurate and helpful to readers than "there was no effect/no difference." Please use such wording throughout the article, including the structured abstract and the box stating what the paper adds.

Provide one or more references for the statistical package(s) used to analyse the data - for example, RevMan for a systematic review. There is no need to provide a formal reference for a very widely used package that will be familiar to general readers - for example, Stata - but please say in the text which version you used.

Reporting guidelines

Reporting guidelines promote clear reporting of methods and results to allow critical appraisal of the manuscript. We ask that all manuscripts be written in accordance with the appropriate reporting guideline. Please submit as supplemental material the appropriate reporting guideline checklist showing on which page of your manuscript each checklist item appears. A complete list of guidelines can be found in the website of the Equator Network . Below is the list of most often used checklists but others may apply.

For a clinical trials , use the CONSORT checklist and also include a structured abstract that follows the CONSORT extension for abstract checklist, the CONSORT flowchart and, where applicable, the appropriate CONSORT extension statements (for example, for cluster RCTs, pragmatic trials, etc.). A completed TIDieR checklist is also helpful as this helps to ensure that trial interventions are fully described in ways that are reproducible, usable by other clinicians, and clear enough for systematic reviewers and guideline writers.

For systematic reviews or meta-analysis of randomised trials and other evaluation studies, use the PRISMA checklist and flowchart and use the PRISMA structured abstract checklist when writing the structured abstract.

For studies of diagnostic accuracy , use the STARD checklist and flowchart.

For observational studies , use the STROBE checklist and any appropriate extension STROBE extensions.

For genetic risk prediction studies, use GRIPS .

For economic evaluation studies , use CHEERS .

For studies developing, validating or updating a prediction model , use TRIPOD .

For articles that include explicit statements of the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations, we prefer reporting using the GRADE system.

For studies using data from electronic health records, please use CODE-EHR .

Cover letter

A cover letter is your opportunity to introduce your study to the editor, highlighting the most important findings and novelty. Please also include in the letter the following information:

Mandatory patient and public involvement reporting

The BMJ is encouraging active patient and public involvement in clinical research as part of its patient partnership strategy . This is research which is "co produced" with patients, carers, or members of the public. Patient involvement in this context is not about being a research participant, answering surveys, or being an interviewee. It encompasses setting research priorities, defining research questions and outcome measures, providing input into study design and conduct, dissemination of results, and evaluation.

To support co production of research we request that authors provide a short paragraph as a subsection within the methods section of their papers entitled Patient and Public Involvement detailing how they involved the patients and the public in their research. We request this to both encourage the movement and ensure that BMJ readers can easily see whether, and if so how, patients and the public were involved in the research. If they were not involved in any way this information should be formally documented in the Patient and Public Involvement section.

As co production of research with patients and the public is relatively new we appreciate that not all authors will have involved them in their studies. We also appreciate that patient / public involvement may not be feasible or appropriate for all papers. We therefore continue to consider papers where they were not involved.

The Patient and Public Involvement section should provide a brief response to the following questions, tailored as appropriate for the study design reported:

• At what stage in the research process were patients/public first involved in the research and how? • How were the research question(s) and outcome measures developed and informed by their priorities, experience, and preferences? • How were patients/public involved in the design of this study? • How were they involved in the recruitment to and conduct of the study? • Were they asked to assess the burden of the intervention and time required to participate in the research? • How were (or will) patients and the public be involved in choosing the methods and agreeing plans for dissemination of the study results to participants and wider relevant communities? You may find this link helpful.

In addition to considering the points above we advise authors to look at guidance for best reporting of patient and public involvement as set out in the GRIPP2 reporting checklist.  

If information detailing whether there was patient and public involvement, or not, is missing in the submitted manuscript we will request authors to provide it.

Where they have been involved we consider it good practice for authors to name and thank them in the contributorship statement after seeking their permission to do so; and to clearly identify them as patient/public contributors. When they have contributed substantially and meet authorship criteria they should be invited to coauthor the manuscript.

Links to selected examples of Patient and Public Involvement statements in published BMJ research papers showing patient and carer involvement at various stages of the research process.

Comparison of the two most commonly used treatments for pyoderma gangrenosum: results of the STOP GAP randomised controlled trial

Evidence based community mobilization for dengue prevention in Nicaragua and Mexico

Computerised cognitive behaviour therapy (cCBT) as treatment for depression in primary care (REEACT trial): large scale pragmatic randomised controlled trial .

Real world effectiveness of warfarin among ischemic stroke patients with atrial fibrillation: observational analysis from Patient-Centered Research into Outcomes Stroke Patients Prefer and Effectiveness Research (PROSPER) study.

Example PPI statements to adapt for use in a paper

Examples to guide the wording for PPI statements

Data sharing

We require a data sharing statement for all research papers. For papers that do not report a trial, we do not require that the authors agree to share the data, just that they say whether they will.

For reports of clinical trials, we ask that the authors commit to making the relevant anonymised patient level data available on reasonable request (see editorial ). This policy applies to any research article that reports the main endpoints of a randomised controlled trial of one or more drugs or medical devices in current use, whether or not the trial was funded by industry.

"Relevant data" encompasses all anonymised data on individual patients on which the analysis, results, and conclusions reported in the paper are based. As for "reasonable request," The BMJ is not in a position to adjudicate, but we will expect requesters to submit a protocol for their re-analysis to the authors and to commit to making their results public. We will encourage those requesting data to send a rapid response to thebmj.com, describing what they are looking for. If the request is refused we will ask the authors of the paper to explain why.

In addition, we will follow the new ICMJE data sharing policy that goes into place on July 1, 2018 (see editorial ): manuscripts submitted to ICMJE journals that report the results of clinical trials must contain a data sharing statement that indicates whether individual de-identified participant data (including data dictionaries) will be shared; what data in particular will be shared; whether additional, related documents will be available (study protocol, statistical analysis plan, etc); when the data will become available and for how long; by what access criteria data will be shared (including with whom, for what types of analyses, and by what mechanism). Clinical trials that begin enrolling participants on or after January 1, 2019 must also include a data sharing plan in the trial’s registration. If the data sharing plan changes after registration this should be reflected in the statement submitted and published with the manuscript, and updated in the registry record.

We encourage authors of all research articles in The BMJ to link their articles to the raw data from their studies. For clinical trials, we require data sharing on request as a minimum and- if authors of such trials are willing to go further and share the data openly, so much the better. The BMJ has partnered with the Dryad digital repository datadryad.org to make open deposition easy and to allow direct linkage by doi from the dataset to The BMJ 's article and back (for The BMJ 's articles' datasets see here ).

Data requesters should do the following: • Submit a rapid response to the paper and email the corresponding author for the paper to request the relevant data. • Be prepared to provide the authors of the paper a detailed protocol for your proposed study, and to supply information about the funding and resources you have to carry out the study. • If appropriate, invite the original author[s] to participate in the re-analysis. • If a month elapses without a response from the authors, please email the head of research for The BMJ (presently [email protected] ) and cc [email protected] . • The BMJ will assess the request and if appropriate we will encourage the authors or their institution to share the data, although we are not in a position to compel data release or broker agreements. Our role is limited to making the request process public, and all correspondence related to the request may be made public through rapid responses to the paper.

Mandatory disaggregation of research data by sex and gender

The BMJ requires that research data be disaggregated by sex and gender. If that is not possible, please include a detailed explanation of the reasons for this, and mention it as a limitation in the discussion section.

Statements that must be included in Research submissions (Ethics approval, funding, and transparency)

Ethics approval

All research studies published in The BMJ should be morally acceptable, and must follow the World Medical Association's Declaration of Helsinki . To ensure this, we aim to appraise the ethical aspects of any submitted work that involves human participants, whatever descriptive label is given to that work including research, audit, and sometimes debate. This policy also applies on the very rare occasions that we publish work done with animal participants. The manuscript must include a statement that the study obtained ethics approval (or a statement that it was not required), including the name of the ethics committee(s) or institutional review board(s), the number/ID of the approval(s), and a statement that participants gave informed consent before taking part.

Transparency statement

Please include in your manuscript a transparency declaration : a statement that the lead author (the manuscript's guarantor) affirms that the manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study being reported; that no important aspects of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as originally planned (and, if relevant, registered) have been explained.

The BMJ is committed to making the editorial process transparent and ethical. The BMJ ’s transparency policies are accessible from this link .

Role of the funding source

Please include in the manuscript a statement giving the details of all sources of funding for the study. As appropriate, the statement must include a description of the role of the study sponsor(s) or funder(s), if any, in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication. In addition, the statement must confirm the independence of researchers from funders and that all authors, external and internal, had full access to all of the data (including statistical reports and tables) in the study and can take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis is also required.

If you are submitting an original article reporting an industry sponsored clinical trial, postmarketing study, or other observational study please follow the guidelines on good publication practice (GPP2) and on properly reporting the role of professional medical writers. Another resource, the Authors' Submission Toolkit: A practical guide to getting your research published summarises general tips and best practices to increase awareness of journals' editorial requirements, how to choose the right journal, submission processes, publication ethics, peer review, and effective communication with editors - much of which has traditionally been seen as mysterious to authors.

The BMJ will not consider for publication any study that is partly or wholly funded by the tobacco industry, as explained in this editorial .

Patient and Public Involvement statement

Within the Methods section of your paper, please state if and how patients and the public were involved in the research you are describing. For more information, please see the specific guidance on mandatory reporting of patient and public involvement above. If patients and the public were not involved this information should be formally documented in the Patient and Public Involvement statement.

Dissemination to participants and related patient and public communities

For accepted papers we will ask you to confirm when and how the results of your study were (or will be) sent to research participants and whether they are also being sent to relevant patient and public communities, as applicable. If you have not disseminated and have no plans to do so, please state why.

Summary boxes

Please produce a box offering a thumbnail sketch of what your article adds to the literature. The box should be divided into two short sections, each with 1-3 short sentences.

Section 1: What is already known on this topic

In two or three single sentence bullet points, please summarise the state of scientific knowledge on this topicbefore you did your study, and why this study needed to be done. Be clear and specific, not vague.

Section 2: What this study adds

In one or two single sentence bullet points, give a simple answer to the question “What do we now know as a result of this study that we did not know before?” Be brief, succinct, specific, and accurate. For example: "Our study suggests that tea drinking has no overall benefit in depression." You might use the last sentence to summarise any implications for practice, research, policy, or public health. For example, your study might have asked and answered a new question (one whose relevance has only recently become clear); contradicted a belief, dogma, or previous evidence provided a new perspective on something that is already known in general; or provided evidence of higher methodological quality for a message that is already known. DO not make statements that are not directly supported by your data.

Additional information that must be included with reports of Clinical Trials

Trial registration

In accordance with the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals , The BMJ will not consider reports of clinical trials unless they were registered prospectively before recruitment of any participants. This policy on prospective registration applies to trials that started after 1 July 2005; for older trials retrospective registration will be acceptable, but only if completed before submission of the manuscript to the journal. The trial registration number and name of register should be included as the last line of the structured abstract. The BMJ accepts registration in any registry that is a primary register of the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) or in ClinicalTrials.gov , which is a data provider to the WHO ICTRP.

In your submission, please include details about registration: registry, date registered, affirmation that registration was prospective before enrolling the first patient (if applicable) and registry number. The BMJ relies on information contained in trial registries. If authors believe that information in the registry is incorrect they should make their case to registry officials.

Eligible trials have been defined by ICMJE since 1 July 2008 as trials "where human participants are prospectively assigned to one or more health-related interventions (including health services and behavioural interventions) to evaluate the effects on health outcomes," and before that were defined more narrowly as trials "where human participants are prospectively assigned to investigate the cause and effect relationship between a medical intervention and health outcome." The ICMJE further states that, "Some trials assign healthcare providers, rather than patients, to intervention and comparison/control groups. If the purpose of the trial is to examine the effect of the provider intervention on the health outcomes of the providers' patients, then investigators should register the trial. If the purpose is to examine the effect only on the providers (for example, provider knowledge or attitudes), then registration is not necessary." We will take these definitions into account when evaluating if trials were adequately registered.

The BMJ does not consider posting of protocols and results in clinical trial registries to be prior publication. We also will consider research articles that have been posted on preprint servers, provided this is clearly disclosed on submission of the paper.

The BMJ encourages but does not require registration of protocols and posting of results in publicly accessible registries for studies that are not clinical trials if they involve human participants, particularly observational studies . If the study was registered, please provide the registration details, explaining whether the study was registered before data acquisition or analysis began.

The BMJ expects authors of clinical trials to report their findings in accordance with the outcomes listed in the trial registry. Outcomes that were not pre-specified in the registration should be identified as such in the text of the paper and in any tables. All registered outcomes should be described in the BMJ paper. If results for any outcomes will be or have been reported in another publication this should be made clear to readers. The timing and reasons for any changes in registered outcomes should also be disclosed.

The BMJ requires authors of clinical trials to upload a protocol for their study. This protocol will be published alongside other materials if the article is accepted. Any discrepancies between the protocol-specified outcomes and those listed in the trial registry or reported in the paper should be explained in the paper. In cases where pre-specified outcomes differ between the trial registration and the protocol, our policy is to consider the outcomes listed in the registry as pre-specified. Outcomes listed in the protocol but not the trial registry can be reported in the paper, but should be identified as post-hoc outcomes. Protocols vary in completeness and content. There are often multiple versions of a protocol and the timing of decisions about outcomes in relation to the onset of a trial cannot easily be determined. This is in contrast to trial registries, where date stamps are reliable and can be easily verified by readers.Trial registry entries should be updated if new outcomes are added or existing ones deleted, promoted, or demoted.

The BMJ requires authors of clinical trials to upload a statistical analysis plan (SAP) for their study. The SAP will be published alongside other materials if the article is accepted. A SAP provides more detailed information about statistical analysis than a protocol, including detailed descriptions of procedures used to execute the analyses. Please follow the guidance on producing a SAP contained in the table of this document: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2666509

Open access

Research papers in The BMJ are published with open access. Moreover, The BMJ immediately fulfils the requirements of the US National Institutes of Health, the UK Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust, and other funding bodies by making the full text of publicly funded research freely available to all on bmj.com and sending it directly to PubMed Central, the National Library of Medicine's full text archive. The BMJ occasionally publishes as open access other types of (non-research) articles arising from work funded by a funder who mandates open access publication.

Open access articles may be reused according to the relevant Creative Commons licence. The BMJ 's default licence for open access publication of research is the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial licence (CC BY-NC 4.0) . But where the funder requires it the author can select the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence during the submission process (funders who mandate CC BY include the Wellcome Trust, RCUK, and MRC).

To support this, we ask authors to pay an open access article processing charge - you can find our author charges for open access here . We can offer discounts and waivers for authors who cannot pay. Consideration of the paper is not related to whether authors can or cannot pay the fee. We will ask for the fee only once we have accepted a paper, and we will send an invoice only once authors tell us (via [email protected] ) they can claim the fee. Seeking and processing fees will not delay editing or publication. Please do not contact editors about open access fees: neither editors nor reviewers will know whether a fee is payable, and administrative staff will handle payments and all associated correspondence. For non-research articles published with open access we will ask authors to pay the open access fee. We do not offer refunds for Open Access once articles have been published. For further information, contact [email protected] .

A number of institutions have open access institutional memberships with BMJ (the publishing group), which either cover the whole cost of open access publishing for authors at participating institutions or allow authors to receive a discount on the article processing charge. For a list of member institutions and their policies on how to receive a discount or to publish free of charge, please visit http://journals.bmj.com/site/authors/openaccess.xhtml

For articles not published with open access, The BMJ 's publication licence allows each author to post their article's URL (provided above) on either their own or their employer's website, thereby giving users free access to the full text of the article on bmj.com. Authors will need to use the toll free link to ensure visitors have free access to the article. Alternatively, authors can post the full text of their published article on their own website or their employer's website.

For additional information, please see the section of instructions to authors on copyright, open access, and permission to reuse .

Living systematic reviews

The BMJ will pilot a small number of living systematic reviews

Duration : We will typically host a living systematic review which is live for up to 2 years after initial publication. The triggers for updates, and their frequency, will be decided with authors on a case by case basis. Communication : The title will reflect the living nature of the review and the most recent update will become the default publication on bmj.com. Reviews will have a single digital object identifier (DOI) to keep the information in one place. However, previous versions will remain available as data supplements. An updates table will be included in the review to make tracking the history of the review easier and to signal planned changes. Updates will be flagged on bmj.com, including in rapid responses. They will also be communicated to third parties including PubMed and PubMedCentral. Updates : Updates should be submitted as a “track changes” version of the final MIcrosoft Word version of the previous iteration of the review. A clean version should also be submitted via the ScholarOne manuscript system. Subsequent internal or external peer review reports will be added to the pre-publication history tab on bmj.com with each version of the paper. The approach to any authorship changes should be negotiated before the first version of the paper is published. Resources : The usual BMJ article open access processing fee will be charged for the initial version of the review and an additional fee will be added to cover the cost of up to three updates per year (£2000 per update). After the first year the price may be revised based on the scope of the revisions and the work done on each one.

Preliminary reporting guidance for living reviews

COVER LETTER: This should explain and defend the need for the review to be “living.” Briefly describe other extant reviews, in particular any other living systematic reviews that have recently been published. The cover letter should acknowledge the authors’ acceptance of the following special conditions that apply to living reviews: 1) the need to provide current conflict of interest declarations or updates for all authors at each revision; 2) the single DOI for the paper and updates; agreement that open access fees cannot be waived for living reviews and that additional fees apply to cover the extra work of producing and maintaining living reviews.

TITLE: The phrase “living systematic review” should appear in the title. If additional terms apply, those may be included as appropriate (e.g. “network meta-analysis,” “meta-analysis,” “critical appraisal,” etc.).

ABSTRACT: The abstract should include: 1) A statement of the research question or objective, including a statement that one objective is to provide regular updates and keep the review live. 2) The rationale for a living systematic review should be described, e.g. rapidly evolving evidence base, anticipated impact on policy or practice, etc. 3) A “Readers’ note” at the end of the abstract that provides information about the version of the paper, the date it went live, and gives notice of planned updates. For example: “Readers’ note: This article is a living systematic review that will be updated periodically over the next 2 years to reflect emerging evidence. This version is update XXX of the original article published XXXXXX (give BMJ DOI), and previous updates can be found as data supplements (give link). When citing this paper please consider adding the version number and date of access for clarity.”

MAIN PAPER: Please address the following matters in the appropriate section of the paper: Introduction: -- Include the information required in the abstract (see above paragraph) at the end of the introduction section. -- In updates, consider including a short paragraph that describes how the living review has evolved. For example, what are the key developments since the previous version of the review, and what developments might be expected? Methods -- Mention and include a reference to any published or publicly available protocol for this review. If not registered, consider registering the review. -- Describe the methods that will be used to keep the review living, including the processes that will be used to search for new evidence, anticipated triggers for updates, and the circumstances under which the review might end before the 2 year time limit for BMJ Living Reviews. -- In updated versions of the review, make clear when and why any methods have evolved over time. If these descriptions are lengthy or complex, consider doing this in a table that can be included in an appendix or supplemental file. Such a table will ideally describe important changes to the review protocol, statistical analyses, or other aspects of the review, along with the dates of these changes. -- A table at the end of the discussion section might be used to highlight new evidence that was not included in the review. Results -- Clearly state the updated dates of the search. Discussion -- Consider additional subheadings to separate, e.g. What remain the important findings so far? Versus what are the main new findings to highlight? -- Consider additional table updates to this article. This will make clear historical and anticipated change. Columns trigger, date and action. Declaration of competing interests -- All authors must complete the ICMJE Competing Interests form with the initial submission. At each revision, we will ask the corresponding author to state whether there have been any changes to competing interests among any of the existing authors. If there are changes or if new authors have been added, the corresponding author is responsible for ensuring the this information is up to date. Otherwise there will be no change to the declaration of interests. Supplementary files -- Previous versions of the paper

Please contact Dr. Elizabeth Loder ( [email protected] ) with any questions.

Supplemental material, video

You may submit the following materials as supplemental files if you think they will help the authors and reviewers make a decision or readers better understand your study:

Original raw data if you think they will help our reviewers (and maybe readers), or if we specifically request them. Please note our policy on data sharing, explained above.

Video and audio files that will add educational value to your article, for example by explaining the intervention in a trial.

A video abstract that summarizes your findings and that will be posted on bmj.com with your paper. You can find additional information about video abstracts here and here .

Public and patient involvement materials used in your research.

Copies of any non-standard questionnaires and assessment schedules used in the research.

Copies of patient information sheets used to obtain informed consent for the study or to comprise or deliver the intervention in a clinical trial.

Copies of closely related articles you have published (this is particularly important when details of the study methods are published elsewhere).

Copies of any previous reviewers' reports on this article . We appreciate that authors may have tried other journals before sending their work to The BMJ , and find it helpful if you let us know how you have responded to previous reviewers' comments.

Research Methods and Reporting (RMR)

We are willing to consider papers that present new or updated research reporting guidelines, but only if the guideline pertains to a study type that we publish in The BMJ. The checklist itself must be included as part of the paper. We prefer to be the only journal publishing the guideline, but under some circumstances we will consider co-publication with up to two other journals. For an example of how to format a reporting guideline to appear in our research methods and reporting section, see http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f1049.full.pdf+html .

Preparing a RMR article

Word count We do not set fixed word count limits for RMR articles. Nonetheless, we ask you to make your article concise and make every word count. For some submissions this might be published in full on bmj.com with a shorter version in the print BMJ 

Overall structure Research Methods and Reporting should have the following elements:

Title and standfirst A short title is followed by an 100-150 word italicised single sentence (the standfirst) which encapsulates the article’s central message.

Introduction Articles should begin with a brief paragraph that captures readers’ attention and explains the aim of the piece.

Text The body of the text should be broken up under subheadings that provide a logical narrative structure. Avoid acronyms and abbreviations unless they are universally recognised e.g. DNA. The evidence on which key statements are based should be explicit and referenced, and the strength of the evidence (published trials, systematic reviews, observational studies, expert opinion etc.) addressed.

Boxes, tables and figures Include tables, boxes, or illustrations (clinical photographs, imaging, line drawings, and figures) to enhance the text and add to or substantiate key points made in the body of the article. Figures may be in color. Worked out examples that use specific methods under discussion can be included as additional boxes. If appropriate, include a box of linked information such as website urls for those who want to pursue the subject in more depth.

Web extras We may be able to publish on bmj.com some additional boxes, figures, and references (in a separate reference list numbered w1, w2,w3, etc. and marked as such in the main text of the article). Also may include suggestions for linked podcasts or video clips, as appropriate.

Contributors and sources We ask for a 100-150 word supplementary paragraph (excluded from word count) to explain the article’s provenance. It should include the relevant experience and expertise of each author, his or her contribution to the paper, and the sources of information used to prepare it. One author must be nominated as the guarantor of the article. Include a statement of sources and selection criteria.

Key messages box Include up to four sentences, in the form of bullet points, highlighting the article's main points.

References Must be in Vancouver style and should be kept to a minimum; ideally no more than 20.

“Analysis” is a distinct article type at The BMJ , and differs from other sections such as Research, Education, Editorials, and Personal Views. A great Analysis article makes an argument and supports it with reference to a robust (not cherry picked) evidence base. It has academic heft yet is a journalistic read. 'Academic heft' means the argument is evidence-based and supported by data. 'Journalistic read' means the article is really engaging (not dry nor dull; written in clear language and avoiding technical jargon; and pitched to our international audience of doctors of all specialties, academics, and policy makers). Keep in mind that Analysis articles are “long reads” at around 1800-2000 words, so they need to be absolutely great reading to keep readers’ attention, particularly readers that may not be familiar with the topic.

We receive many manuscripts that are not a good fit for the Analysis section. We generally do not consider:

• Case studies (e.g. where the article mostly concerns the author’s writing about their own work) • Manuscripts containing primary research data (such papers should be submitted as Research) • Narrative review articles (as a general practice, The BMJ does not accept unsolicited submissions of review articles) • Articles presenting a new hypothesis

If you are unsure if your work is suitable for The BMJ 's Analysis section we are willing to consider succinct pre-submission inquiries, please complete the form in this link and await a response from one of the analysis editors.

Preparing an Analysis article

We recommend looking at this Analysis article template and using it as a basis for your work before considering submission.

Word count and style The BMJ has an international readership that includes policy makers, health professionals, and doctors of all disciplines. Authors are advised to keep this readership in mind and to write their article for the non-expert. It’s important to avoid jargon. Specialised terminology and references to organisations or practices that are specific to one country need to be explained. Clear writing and an attractive presentation are essential. Analysis papers should be 1,800-2,000 words long.

Overall structure The manuscript should have the following elements:

Title and standfirst A short title is followed by an italicised single sentence (the standfirst) which encapsulates the article’s central message.

Text The body of the text should be broken up under sub-headings that provide a logical narrative structure. Avoid acronyms and abbreviations unless they are universally recognised e.g. DNA. The evidence on which key statements are based should be explicit and referenced, and the strength of the evidence (published trials, systematic reviews, observational studies, expert opinion, etc.) made clear. Articles should present a balanced, even-handed look at the evidence rather than selectively citing evidence that supports a particular view.

Boxes, tables and figures These should extend and substantiate points made in the body of the paper. Words in boxes and tables are excluded from the word count of the body of the text, but the additional material should be concise.

Key messages box This should be at the end of the article and include 2 to 4 points summing up the main conclusions. When submitting your article at submit.bmj.com, please enter your key messages when prompted to enter the abstract.

Contributors and sources We ask for a 100-150 word supplementary paragraph (excluded from word count) to explain the article’s provenance. It should include the relevant experience and expertise of each author, his or her contribution to the paper, and the sources of information used to prepare it. One author must be nominated as the guarantor of the article.You are welcome to invite co-authors to work with you on the article. We suggest including 2-3 co-authors with different locations and perspectives to help ensure articles are international in scope and accessible to our broad readership online and in print.

Report of patient involvement As The BMJ is seeking to advance partnership with patients, we also ask authors to seek their input into articles wherever relevant, and document their involvement as patient contributors or coauthors.

Conflicts of Interest All authors should read our competing interests policy and include the appropriate declaration in their manuscript. Where a competing interest exists that might disqualify an author from contributing, it is wise to discuss it with a BMJ editor before writing the article.

Peer review The BMJ has fully open peer review for analysis articles. This means that every accepted analysis article submitted from February 2016 onwards will have its prepublication history posted alongside it on thebmj.com. This prepublication history comprises all previous versions of the manuscript, the report from the manuscript committee meeting, the reviewers’ signed comments, and the authors’ responses to all the comments from reviewers and editors. Authors are welcome to suggest names of suitable reviewers, including patient reviewers.

What happens after submission

What happens after publication.

In most cases we will publish the prepublication history alongside an accepted analysis article. This prepublication history comprises all previous versions of the manuscript, the report from the manuscript committee meeting, the reviewers’ comments, and the authors’ responses to all the comments from reviewers and editors. In rare instances we may determine after careful consideration that we should not make certain portions of the prepublication record publicly available. For example, in cases of stigmatised illnesses we seek to protect the confidentiality of reviewers who have these illnesses. In other instances there may be legal or regulatory considerations that make it inadvisable or impermissible to make available certain parts of the prepublication record. In all instances in which we have determined that elements of the prepublication record should not be made publicly available, we expect that authors will respect these decisions and also will not share this information.

Education (inc. Minerva Pictures and Endgames)

The BMJ publishes different types of educational articles to engage and challenge a range of postgraduate doctors and clinical researchers internationally. We strive to publish articles that are original in their content and/or presentation, and cannot be found elsewhere or in textbooks. We prioritise topics and situations that are common or have serious consequences, have international appeal, and that interest a variety of doctors, including GPs and specialists.

We encourage authors to write in teams, including those from other specialties, professions, and countries. We ask that one author is routed in the clinical environment of the intended reader. We encourage authors to write in plain English, to be clear about where there is uncertainty, and to include numbers and phrases where possible that will help doctors in conversation with their patients.

Our educational articles are shaped by two initiatives:

• We believe that financial interests can distort education articles and we minimise or exclude authors who we judge have such a conflict.

• We believe that patient involvement strengthens content. We encourage authors to seek input from patients either to inform the scope, develop the content, contribute to, or co-author articles. For help with this, please read our guidance on what we mean by patient involvement and co-production .

Submission process and presubmission enquiries

We receive more articles and suggestions than we can publish. We require all authors to contact us before submitting a manuscript to us. Send us your proposal using our Education Article Proposal Form , together with your completed Declaration of Financial Interests .

The proposal form will guide you through the following questions:

• What is your idea? • Can you sum up the aim of your article in a sentence? • Why is the topic important to The BMJ 's readers? • What is the prevalence of the symptom/condition/situation you wish to write about? • Why cover it now? Has something new happened? • What has The BMJ 's Education section covered on this topic in the last five years? What will your contribution add? • Can you provide the key evidence/references you might use? • Why are your writing team well placed to cover the topic? • Have you thought about what a patient would say about your idea?

Policies for Education articles

Authorship Education articles can have can have up to four authors. One author should be from the relevant specialty or setting, unless agreed otherwise. For example, if the article discusses presentation to the emergency department one author should be an emergency care doctor. All authors should meet authorship criteria . We welcome authors or contributions from allied health professions and patient authors, and actively encourage authors from a primary care background.

Competing interests The BMJ will not consider authors with financial interests when writing Education articles. It is important that we understand the financial interests of every author, and can judge to what extent we believe that they may be relevant to the article that you propose. We do not publish content from authors who we judge have relevant financial ties to the industry (excluding State of the Art reviews, Therapeutics articles, and Summaries of NICE Guidelines). The relevance of declared interests are judged by the BMJ team. This applies to every author. Any additional authors and their financial interests must be discussed and agreed with the commissioning editor before the article is submitted.

Patient involvement As part of our drive to co-produce our content with patients we ask that you seek patient input into articles at the planning stage. We believe that their experience and perspectives will make articles more useful for doctors in their quest to help improve patients well being and outcomes.

We ask all authors to what extent patients have been involved in their article and how their involvement changed the article. We ask that all writing encourages honesty and partnership with patients. Where uncertainty exists, share it. Where data exists present the numbers in a way that can be shared with the patient (use absolute numbers, natural frequencies, and graphics where you can). Use language that empowers patients to make the right choices for them in their situation (write that a doctor should/could offer a test, rather than should do a test).

When patients are involved in the manuscript, we ask for their consent. We have two types of consent forms for BMJ education articles:

• A patient consent form is required if any anonymised patient information is included in the review. Consent is needed for images even if the patients are not identifiable for example, in X-rays and histology slides, and for patients’ stories/vignettes even if details are anonymised.

• A patient contributor form is required for any patients who are named within the review, for example, patient co-authors, patient contributors or named authors of patient stories.

Preparing your manuscript

We want our readers to have the ability to share decisions with their patients and make clear for them the degree of certainty ( or lack of it) about a potential course of action. We therefore ask that, in addition to the format and instructions detailed below for the specific Education article that you are writing, you follow these recommendations:

• Consider including in your manuscript a box explaining your strategy to search for evidence. It should include a search date, the sources searched, and brief inclusion criteria. • Clearly distinguish suggestions made based on your experience, standard practice, guidelines, and evidence. • Provide specifics about the evidence you discuss. For example, for key statements, please say: "A large, well conducted, randomised controlled trial showed INSERT number [CI] and or p value". "The findings of a small case series suggest...". “A subgroup analysis found…”. etc. • Use absolute numbers or explain why you have not used them. • Consider how these numbers can be communicated by the clinician read to their patient in a clear way. • Where evidence is lacking or of poor quality make this clear. • Write about known and unknown benefits and harms.

"What you need to know" box . No more than three bullet points for practice articles and five for clinical updates encapsulating the specific take home messages from this article.

"How patients were involved in the creation of this article" box. Please include: Which patients were asked (e.g. patient advocates, networked patient communities and organisations, patients in your clinic etc). What they said (e.g. include more practical advice on how to inject insulin.) How you changed your article as a result (e.g. we included a box to address this.)

"Education into practice" box . Include two to three bullet points about how a reader might at an individual or organisational level improve their practice (e.g. do you offer lifestyle advice to all patients with newly diagnosed hypertension?)

At least one other box or table and at least one figure or image that complement the text of the article.

Article types

We accept pitches for the following article types. Once our editors have made a decision to encourage a pitch, we will provde authors will a full, detailed set of instructions on how best to format your content.

Additional requirements for all other article types

Back to top

Submitting your article

Follow this link to find out more about The BMJ submission system, how to submit your article, and how to navigate and manage your submitted papers.

• Publishing model
• Editorial staff
• Advisory panels
• Explore The BMJ
• BMJ Student
• How green is The BMJ?
• Sources of revenue
• House style
• Image usage
• Article submission
• Forms, policies, and ethics
• Guidance for new authors
• BMJ Christmas issue
• Resources for advertisers and sponsors
• Resources for BMA members
• Resources for media
• Resources for subscribers
• Resources for readers
• Resources for reviewers
• About The BMJ app
• Poll archive
• International jobs

This week's poll

Read related article

See previous polls

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Korean Med Sci
• v.37(16); 2022 Apr 25

A Practical Guide to Writing Quantitative and Qualitative Research Questions and Hypotheses in Scholarly Articles

Edward barroga.

1 Department of General Education, Graduate School of Nursing Science, St. Luke’s International University, Tokyo, Japan.

Glafera Janet Matanguihan

2 Department of Biological Sciences, Messiah University, Mechanicsburg, PA, USA.

The development of research questions and the subsequent hypotheses are prerequisites to defining the main research purpose and specific objectives of a study. Consequently, these objectives determine the study design and research outcome. The development of research questions is a process based on knowledge of current trends, cutting-edge studies, and technological advances in the research field. Excellent research questions are focused and require a comprehensive literature search and in-depth understanding of the problem being investigated. Initially, research questions may be written as descriptive questions which could be developed into inferential questions. These questions must be specific and concise to provide a clear foundation for developing hypotheses. Hypotheses are more formal predictions about the research outcomes. These specify the possible results that may or may not be expected regarding the relationship between groups. Thus, research questions and hypotheses clarify the main purpose and specific objectives of the study, which in turn dictate the design of the study, its direction, and outcome. Studies developed from good research questions and hypotheses will have trustworthy outcomes with wide-ranging social and health implications.

INTRODUCTION

Scientific research is usually initiated by posing evidenced-based research questions which are then explicitly restated as hypotheses. 1 , 2 The hypotheses provide directions to guide the study, solutions, explanations, and expected results. 3 , 4 Both research questions and hypotheses are essentially formulated based on conventional theories and real-world processes, which allow the inception of novel studies and the ethical testing of ideas. 5 , 6

It is crucial to have knowledge of both quantitative and qualitative research 2 as both types of research involve writing research questions and hypotheses. 7 However, these crucial elements of research are sometimes overlooked; if not overlooked, then framed without the forethought and meticulous attention it needs. Planning and careful consideration are needed when developing quantitative or qualitative research, particularly when conceptualizing research questions and hypotheses. 4

There is a continuing need to support researchers in the creation of innovative research questions and hypotheses, as well as for journal articles that carefully review these elements. 1 When research questions and hypotheses are not carefully thought of, unethical studies and poor outcomes usually ensue. Carefully formulated research questions and hypotheses define well-founded objectives, which in turn determine the appropriate design, course, and outcome of the study. This article then aims to discuss in detail the various aspects of crafting research questions and hypotheses, with the goal of guiding researchers as they develop their own. Examples from the authors and peer-reviewed scientific articles in the healthcare field are provided to illustrate key points.

DEFINITIONS AND RELATIONSHIP OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES

A research question is what a study aims to answer after data analysis and interpretation. The answer is written in length in the discussion section of the paper. Thus, the research question gives a preview of the different parts and variables of the study meant to address the problem posed in the research question. 1 An excellent research question clarifies the research writing while facilitating understanding of the research topic, objective, scope, and limitations of the study. 5

On the other hand, a research hypothesis is an educated statement of an expected outcome. This statement is based on background research and current knowledge. 8 , 9 The research hypothesis makes a specific prediction about a new phenomenon 10 or a formal statement on the expected relationship between an independent variable and a dependent variable. 3 , 11 It provides a tentative answer to the research question to be tested or explored. 4

Hypotheses employ reasoning to predict a theory-based outcome. 10 These can also be developed from theories by focusing on components of theories that have not yet been observed. 10 The validity of hypotheses is often based on the testability of the prediction made in a reproducible experiment. 8

Conversely, hypotheses can also be rephrased as research questions. Several hypotheses based on existing theories and knowledge may be needed to answer a research question. Developing ethical research questions and hypotheses creates a research design that has logical relationships among variables. These relationships serve as a solid foundation for the conduct of the study. 4 , 11 Haphazardly constructed research questions can result in poorly formulated hypotheses and improper study designs, leading to unreliable results. Thus, the formulations of relevant research questions and verifiable hypotheses are crucial when beginning research. 12

CHARACTERISTICS OF GOOD RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES

Excellent research questions are specific and focused. These integrate collective data and observations to confirm or refute the subsequent hypotheses. Well-constructed hypotheses are based on previous reports and verify the research context. These are realistic, in-depth, sufficiently complex, and reproducible. More importantly, these hypotheses can be addressed and tested. 13

There are several characteristics of well-developed hypotheses. Good hypotheses are 1) empirically testable 7 , 10 , 11 , 13 ; 2) backed by preliminary evidence 9 ; 3) testable by ethical research 7 , 9 ; 4) based on original ideas 9 ; 5) have evidenced-based logical reasoning 10 ; and 6) can be predicted. 11 Good hypotheses can infer ethical and positive implications, indicating the presence of a relationship or effect relevant to the research theme. 7 , 11 These are initially developed from a general theory and branch into specific hypotheses by deductive reasoning. In the absence of a theory to base the hypotheses, inductive reasoning based on specific observations or findings form more general hypotheses. 10

TYPES OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES

Research questions and hypotheses are developed according to the type of research, which can be broadly classified into quantitative and qualitative research. We provide a summary of the types of research questions and hypotheses under quantitative and qualitative research categories in Table 1 .

Research questions in quantitative research

In quantitative research, research questions inquire about the relationships among variables being investigated and are usually framed at the start of the study. These are precise and typically linked to the subject population, dependent and independent variables, and research design. 1 Research questions may also attempt to describe the behavior of a population in relation to one or more variables, or describe the characteristics of variables to be measured ( descriptive research questions ). 1 , 5 , 14 These questions may also aim to discover differences between groups within the context of an outcome variable ( comparative research questions ), 1 , 5 , 14 or elucidate trends and interactions among variables ( relationship research questions ). 1 , 5 We provide examples of descriptive, comparative, and relationship research questions in quantitative research in Table 2 .

Hypotheses in quantitative research

In quantitative research, hypotheses predict the expected relationships among variables. 15 Relationships among variables that can be predicted include 1) between a single dependent variable and a single independent variable ( simple hypothesis ) or 2) between two or more independent and dependent variables ( complex hypothesis ). 4 , 11 Hypotheses may also specify the expected direction to be followed and imply an intellectual commitment to a particular outcome ( directional hypothesis ) 4 . On the other hand, hypotheses may not predict the exact direction and are used in the absence of a theory, or when findings contradict previous studies ( non-directional hypothesis ). 4 In addition, hypotheses can 1) define interdependency between variables ( associative hypothesis ), 4 2) propose an effect on the dependent variable from manipulation of the independent variable ( causal hypothesis ), 4 3) state a negative relationship between two variables ( null hypothesis ), 4 , 11 , 15 4) replace the working hypothesis if rejected ( alternative hypothesis ), 15 explain the relationship of phenomena to possibly generate a theory ( working hypothesis ), 11 5) involve quantifiable variables that can be tested statistically ( statistical hypothesis ), 11 6) or express a relationship whose interlinks can be verified logically ( logical hypothesis ). 11 We provide examples of simple, complex, directional, non-directional, associative, causal, null, alternative, working, statistical, and logical hypotheses in quantitative research, as well as the definition of quantitative hypothesis-testing research in Table 3 .

Research questions in qualitative research

Unlike research questions in quantitative research, research questions in qualitative research are usually continuously reviewed and reformulated. The central question and associated subquestions are stated more than the hypotheses. 15 The central question broadly explores a complex set of factors surrounding the central phenomenon, aiming to present the varied perspectives of participants. 15

There are varied goals for which qualitative research questions are developed. These questions can function in several ways, such as to 1) identify and describe existing conditions ( contextual research question s); 2) describe a phenomenon ( descriptive research questions ); 3) assess the effectiveness of existing methods, protocols, theories, or procedures ( evaluation research questions ); 4) examine a phenomenon or analyze the reasons or relationships between subjects or phenomena ( explanatory research questions ); or 5) focus on unknown aspects of a particular topic ( exploratory research questions ). 5 In addition, some qualitative research questions provide new ideas for the development of theories and actions ( generative research questions ) or advance specific ideologies of a position ( ideological research questions ). 1 Other qualitative research questions may build on a body of existing literature and become working guidelines ( ethnographic research questions ). Research questions may also be broadly stated without specific reference to the existing literature or a typology of questions ( phenomenological research questions ), may be directed towards generating a theory of some process ( grounded theory questions ), or may address a description of the case and the emerging themes ( qualitative case study questions ). 15 We provide examples of contextual, descriptive, evaluation, explanatory, exploratory, generative, ideological, ethnographic, phenomenological, grounded theory, and qualitative case study research questions in qualitative research in Table 4 , and the definition of qualitative hypothesis-generating research in Table 5 .

Qualitative studies usually pose at least one central research question and several subquestions starting with How or What . These research questions use exploratory verbs such as explore or describe . These also focus on one central phenomenon of interest, and may mention the participants and research site. 15

Hypotheses in qualitative research

Hypotheses in qualitative research are stated in the form of a clear statement concerning the problem to be investigated. Unlike in quantitative research where hypotheses are usually developed to be tested, qualitative research can lead to both hypothesis-testing and hypothesis-generating outcomes. 2 When studies require both quantitative and qualitative research questions, this suggests an integrative process between both research methods wherein a single mixed-methods research question can be developed. 1

FRAMEWORKS FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES

Research questions followed by hypotheses should be developed before the start of the study. 1 , 12 , 14 It is crucial to develop feasible research questions on a topic that is interesting to both the researcher and the scientific community. This can be achieved by a meticulous review of previous and current studies to establish a novel topic. Specific areas are subsequently focused on to generate ethical research questions. The relevance of the research questions is evaluated in terms of clarity of the resulting data, specificity of the methodology, objectivity of the outcome, depth of the research, and impact of the study. 1 , 5 These aspects constitute the FINER criteria (i.e., Feasible, Interesting, Novel, Ethical, and Relevant). 1 Clarity and effectiveness are achieved if research questions meet the FINER criteria. In addition to the FINER criteria, Ratan et al. described focus, complexity, novelty, feasibility, and measurability for evaluating the effectiveness of research questions. 14

The PICOT and PEO frameworks are also used when developing research questions. 1 The following elements are addressed in these frameworks, PICOT: P-population/patients/problem, I-intervention or indicator being studied, C-comparison group, O-outcome of interest, and T-timeframe of the study; PEO: P-population being studied, E-exposure to preexisting conditions, and O-outcome of interest. 1 Research questions are also considered good if these meet the “FINERMAPS” framework: Feasible, Interesting, Novel, Ethical, Relevant, Manageable, Appropriate, Potential value/publishable, and Systematic. 14

As we indicated earlier, research questions and hypotheses that are not carefully formulated result in unethical studies or poor outcomes. To illustrate this, we provide some examples of ambiguous research question and hypotheses that result in unclear and weak research objectives in quantitative research ( Table 6 ) 16 and qualitative research ( Table 7 ) 17 , and how to transform these ambiguous research question(s) and hypothesis(es) into clear and good statements.

a These statements were composed for comparison and illustrative purposes only.

b These statements are direct quotes from Higashihara and Horiuchi. 16

a This statement is a direct quote from Shimoda et al. 17

The other statements were composed for comparison and illustrative purposes only.

CONSTRUCTING RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES

To construct effective research questions and hypotheses, it is very important to 1) clarify the background and 2) identify the research problem at the outset of the research, within a specific timeframe. 9 Then, 3) review or conduct preliminary research to collect all available knowledge about the possible research questions by studying theories and previous studies. 18 Afterwards, 4) construct research questions to investigate the research problem. Identify variables to be accessed from the research questions 4 and make operational definitions of constructs from the research problem and questions. Thereafter, 5) construct specific deductive or inductive predictions in the form of hypotheses. 4 Finally, 6) state the study aims . This general flow for constructing effective research questions and hypotheses prior to conducting research is shown in Fig. 1 .

Research questions are used more frequently in qualitative research than objectives or hypotheses. 3 These questions seek to discover, understand, explore or describe experiences by asking “What” or “How.” The questions are open-ended to elicit a description rather than to relate variables or compare groups. The questions are continually reviewed, reformulated, and changed during the qualitative study. 3 Research questions are also used more frequently in survey projects than hypotheses in experiments in quantitative research to compare variables and their relationships.

Hypotheses are constructed based on the variables identified and as an if-then statement, following the template, ‘If a specific action is taken, then a certain outcome is expected.’ At this stage, some ideas regarding expectations from the research to be conducted must be drawn. 18 Then, the variables to be manipulated (independent) and influenced (dependent) are defined. 4 Thereafter, the hypothesis is stated and refined, and reproducible data tailored to the hypothesis are identified, collected, and analyzed. 4 The hypotheses must be testable and specific, 18 and should describe the variables and their relationships, the specific group being studied, and the predicted research outcome. 18 Hypotheses construction involves a testable proposition to be deduced from theory, and independent and dependent variables to be separated and measured separately. 3 Therefore, good hypotheses must be based on good research questions constructed at the start of a study or trial. 12

In summary, research questions are constructed after establishing the background of the study. Hypotheses are then developed based on the research questions. Thus, it is crucial to have excellent research questions to generate superior hypotheses. In turn, these would determine the research objectives and the design of the study, and ultimately, the outcome of the research. 12 Algorithms for building research questions and hypotheses are shown in Fig. 2 for quantitative research and in Fig. 3 for qualitative research.

EXAMPLES OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS FROM PUBLISHED ARTICLES

• EXAMPLE 1. Descriptive research question (quantitative research)
• - Presents research variables to be assessed (distinct phenotypes and subphenotypes)
• “BACKGROUND: Since COVID-19 was identified, its clinical and biological heterogeneity has been recognized. Identifying COVID-19 phenotypes might help guide basic, clinical, and translational research efforts.
• RESEARCH QUESTION: Does the clinical spectrum of patients with COVID-19 contain distinct phenotypes and subphenotypes? ” 19
• EXAMPLE 2. Relationship research question (quantitative research)
• - Shows interactions between dependent variable (static postural control) and independent variable (peripheral visual field loss)
• “Background: Integration of visual, vestibular, and proprioceptive sensations contributes to postural control. People with peripheral visual field loss have serious postural instability. However, the directional specificity of postural stability and sensory reweighting caused by gradual peripheral visual field loss remain unclear.
• Research question: What are the effects of peripheral visual field loss on static postural control ?” 20
• EXAMPLE 3. Comparative research question (quantitative research)
• - Clarifies the difference among groups with an outcome variable (patients enrolled in COMPERA with moderate PH or severe PH in COPD) and another group without the outcome variable (patients with idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (IPAH))
• “BACKGROUND: Pulmonary hypertension (PH) in COPD is a poorly investigated clinical condition.
• RESEARCH QUESTION: Which factors determine the outcome of PH in COPD?
• STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We analyzed the characteristics and outcome of patients enrolled in the Comparative, Prospective Registry of Newly Initiated Therapies for Pulmonary Hypertension (COMPERA) with moderate or severe PH in COPD as defined during the 6th PH World Symposium who received medical therapy for PH and compared them with patients with idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (IPAH) .” 21
• EXAMPLE 4. Exploratory research question (qualitative research)
• - Explores areas that have not been fully investigated (perspectives of families and children who receive care in clinic-based child obesity treatment) to have a deeper understanding of the research problem
• “Problem: Interventions for children with obesity lead to only modest improvements in BMI and long-term outcomes, and data are limited on the perspectives of families of children with obesity in clinic-based treatment. This scoping review seeks to answer the question: What is known about the perspectives of families and children who receive care in clinic-based child obesity treatment? This review aims to explore the scope of perspectives reported by families of children with obesity who have received individualized outpatient clinic-based obesity treatment.” 22
• EXAMPLE 5. Relationship research question (quantitative research)
• - Defines interactions between dependent variable (use of ankle strategies) and independent variable (changes in muscle tone)
• “Background: To maintain an upright standing posture against external disturbances, the human body mainly employs two types of postural control strategies: “ankle strategy” and “hip strategy.” While it has been reported that the magnitude of the disturbance alters the use of postural control strategies, it has not been elucidated how the level of muscle tone, one of the crucial parameters of bodily function, determines the use of each strategy. We have previously confirmed using forward dynamics simulations of human musculoskeletal models that an increased muscle tone promotes the use of ankle strategies. The objective of the present study was to experimentally evaluate a hypothesis: an increased muscle tone promotes the use of ankle strategies. Research question: Do changes in the muscle tone affect the use of ankle strategies ?” 23

EXAMPLES OF HYPOTHESES IN PUBLISHED ARTICLES

• EXAMPLE 1. Working hypothesis (quantitative research)
• - A hypothesis that is initially accepted for further research to produce a feasible theory
• “As fever may have benefit in shortening the duration of viral illness, it is plausible to hypothesize that the antipyretic efficacy of ibuprofen may be hindering the benefits of a fever response when taken during the early stages of COVID-19 illness .” 24
• “In conclusion, it is plausible to hypothesize that the antipyretic efficacy of ibuprofen may be hindering the benefits of a fever response . The difference in perceived safety of these agents in COVID-19 illness could be related to the more potent efficacy to reduce fever with ibuprofen compared to acetaminophen. Compelling data on the benefit of fever warrant further research and review to determine when to treat or withhold ibuprofen for early stage fever for COVID-19 and other related viral illnesses .” 24
• EXAMPLE 2. Exploratory hypothesis (qualitative research)
• - Explores particular areas deeper to clarify subjective experience and develop a formal hypothesis potentially testable in a future quantitative approach
• “We hypothesized that when thinking about a past experience of help-seeking, a self distancing prompt would cause increased help-seeking intentions and more favorable help-seeking outcome expectations .” 25
• “Conclusion
• Although a priori hypotheses were not supported, further research is warranted as results indicate the potential for using self-distancing approaches to increasing help-seeking among some people with depressive symptomatology.” 25
• EXAMPLE 3. Hypothesis-generating research to establish a framework for hypothesis testing (qualitative research)
• “We hypothesize that compassionate care is beneficial for patients (better outcomes), healthcare systems and payers (lower costs), and healthcare providers (lower burnout). ” 26
• Compassionomics is the branch of knowledge and scientific study of the effects of compassionate healthcare. Our main hypotheses are that compassionate healthcare is beneficial for (1) patients, by improving clinical outcomes, (2) healthcare systems and payers, by supporting financial sustainability, and (3) HCPs, by lowering burnout and promoting resilience and well-being. The purpose of this paper is to establish a scientific framework for testing the hypotheses above . If these hypotheses are confirmed through rigorous research, compassionomics will belong in the science of evidence-based medicine, with major implications for all healthcare domains.” 26
• EXAMPLE 4. Statistical hypothesis (quantitative research)
• - An assumption is made about the relationship among several population characteristics ( gender differences in sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of adults with ADHD ). Validity is tested by statistical experiment or analysis ( chi-square test, Students t-test, and logistic regression analysis)
• “Our research investigated gender differences in sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of adults with ADHD in a Japanese clinical sample. Due to unique Japanese cultural ideals and expectations of women's behavior that are in opposition to ADHD symptoms, we hypothesized that women with ADHD experience more difficulties and present more dysfunctions than men . We tested the following hypotheses: first, women with ADHD have more comorbidities than men with ADHD; second, women with ADHD experience more social hardships than men, such as having less full-time employment and being more likely to be divorced.” 27
• “Statistical Analysis
• ( text omitted ) Between-gender comparisons were made using the chi-squared test for categorical variables and Students t-test for continuous variables…( text omitted ). A logistic regression analysis was performed for employment status, marital status, and comorbidity to evaluate the independent effects of gender on these dependent variables.” 27

EXAMPLES OF HYPOTHESIS AS WRITTEN IN PUBLISHED ARTICLES IN RELATION TO OTHER PARTS

• EXAMPLE 1. Background, hypotheses, and aims are provided
• “Pregnant women need skilled care during pregnancy and childbirth, but that skilled care is often delayed in some countries …( text omitted ). The focused antenatal care (FANC) model of WHO recommends that nurses provide information or counseling to all pregnant women …( text omitted ). Job aids are visual support materials that provide the right kind of information using graphics and words in a simple and yet effective manner. When nurses are not highly trained or have many work details to attend to, these job aids can serve as a content reminder for the nurses and can be used for educating their patients (Jennings, Yebadokpo, Affo, & Agbogbe, 2010) ( text omitted ). Importantly, additional evidence is needed to confirm how job aids can further improve the quality of ANC counseling by health workers in maternal care …( text omitted )” 28
• “ This has led us to hypothesize that the quality of ANC counseling would be better if supported by job aids. Consequently, a better quality of ANC counseling is expected to produce higher levels of awareness concerning the danger signs of pregnancy and a more favorable impression of the caring behavior of nurses .” 28
• “This study aimed to examine the differences in the responses of pregnant women to a job aid-supported intervention during ANC visit in terms of 1) their understanding of the danger signs of pregnancy and 2) their impression of the caring behaviors of nurses to pregnant women in rural Tanzania.” 28
• EXAMPLE 2. Background, hypotheses, and aims are provided
• “We conducted a two-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate and compare changes in salivary cortisol and oxytocin levels of first-time pregnant women between experimental and control groups. The women in the experimental group touched and held an infant for 30 min (experimental intervention protocol), whereas those in the control group watched a DVD movie of an infant (control intervention protocol). The primary outcome was salivary cortisol level and the secondary outcome was salivary oxytocin level.” 29
• “ We hypothesize that at 30 min after touching and holding an infant, the salivary cortisol level will significantly decrease and the salivary oxytocin level will increase in the experimental group compared with the control group .” 29
• EXAMPLE 3. Background, aim, and hypothesis are provided
• “In countries where the maternal mortality ratio remains high, antenatal education to increase Birth Preparedness and Complication Readiness (BPCR) is considered one of the top priorities [1]. BPCR includes birth plans during the antenatal period, such as the birthplace, birth attendant, transportation, health facility for complications, expenses, and birth materials, as well as family coordination to achieve such birth plans. In Tanzania, although increasing, only about half of all pregnant women attend an antenatal clinic more than four times [4]. Moreover, the information provided during antenatal care (ANC) is insufficient. In the resource-poor settings, antenatal group education is a potential approach because of the limited time for individual counseling at antenatal clinics.” 30
• “This study aimed to evaluate an antenatal group education program among pregnant women and their families with respect to birth-preparedness and maternal and infant outcomes in rural villages of Tanzania.” 30
• “ The study hypothesis was if Tanzanian pregnant women and their families received a family-oriented antenatal group education, they would (1) have a higher level of BPCR, (2) attend antenatal clinic four or more times, (3) give birth in a health facility, (4) have less complications of women at birth, and (5) have less complications and deaths of infants than those who did not receive the education .” 30

Research questions and hypotheses are crucial components to any type of research, whether quantitative or qualitative. These questions should be developed at the very beginning of the study. Excellent research questions lead to superior hypotheses, which, like a compass, set the direction of research, and can often determine the successful conduct of the study. Many research studies have floundered because the development of research questions and subsequent hypotheses was not given the thought and meticulous attention needed. The development of research questions and hypotheses is an iterative process based on extensive knowledge of the literature and insightful grasp of the knowledge gap. Focused, concise, and specific research questions provide a strong foundation for constructing hypotheses which serve as formal predictions about the research outcomes. Research questions and hypotheses are crucial elements of research that should not be overlooked. They should be carefully thought of and constructed when planning research. This avoids unethical studies and poor outcomes by defining well-founded objectives that determine the design, course, and outcome of the study.

Disclosure: The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Author Contributions:

• Conceptualization: Barroga E, Matanguihan GJ.
• Methodology: Barroga E, Matanguihan GJ.
• Writing - original draft: Barroga E, Matanguihan GJ.
• Writing - review & editing: Barroga E, Matanguihan GJ.

Read a scholarly article

• Introduction
• Types of Scholarly Articles
• Interactive Article Diagram
• Reading for different purposes

Types of scholarly articles

There are a few different types of scholarly articles:

Original research

Brief communications, review articles, case studies, methods / methodologies, humanities articles.

Most of these article types are structured in the same way ; check out the structure of a scholarly article page for more information about this common structure.

• Most common type of scholarly article
• Often used in social sciences (education, psychology, etc.) & sciences (chemistry, meteorology, etc.)
• Typically includes introduction, literature review, methodology, results, and conclusion

Example: Sogunro, O.A. (2015). Motivating factors for adult learners in higher education. International Journal of Higher Education, 4 (1), 22-37. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1060548.pdf

A.K.A. literature reviews, systematic reviews, or meta-analyses

• Provide a summary of original research on a topic
• May point out limitations or gaps in existing research
• May suggest future directions for research on the topic
• May be organized thematically or chronologically

Example: Mercer-Mapstone, L., Dvorakova, S. L., Matthews, K., Abbot, S., Cheng, B., Felten, P.,...Swaim, K. (2017). A systematic literature review of students as partners in higher education. International Journal for Students As Partners, 1 (1). Retrieved from https://mulpress.mcmaster.ca/ijsap/article/view/3119

A.K.A. letters, reports

• They're like movie trailers for original academic research
• Provide a quick preview of original research
• Useful in competitive subject areas (ex. scientists competing for funding)
• Useful in quickly changing subject areas (ex. medicine)
• Usually formatted like original research articles (introduction, literature review, etc.)

Example: Yuan, C., Wei, G., Dey, L., Karrison, T., Nahlik, L., Maleckar, S., ...Moss, J. (2004). American ginseng reduces warfarin’s effect in healthy patients: A randomized, controlled trial. Annals of Internal Medicine, 141 (1), 23-27. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.696.5919&rep=rep1&type=pdf

• Report on a specific case or instance of something
• Can refer to a thing (ex. a rare medical condition), a place (ex. a specific river), or a group of people (ex. nurses)
• Purpose is not to generalize, but to let others know similar things (ex. medical condition, river pollution, job stress) may occur elsewhere
• Often formatted like original research articles (introduction, literature review, etc.)

Example: Bansal, P., & Kockelman, K. M. (2018). Are we ready to embrace connected and self-driving vehicles? A case study of Texans. Transportation, 45 (2), 641-675. Retrieved from http://www.caee.utexas.edu/prof/kockelman/public_html/TRB17TxOpinionsCAVs.pdf

• Scholarly article focused on new methods, tests, or other measure
• May be a new method or a revision of an existing one; should be an improvement over existing methods

Example: Hurtado, J.C., Mosquera, M.M., de Lazzari, E., Martínez, E., Torner, N., Isanta, R.,...Estape, J.V. (2015). Evaluation of a new, rapid, simple test for the detection of influenza virus. BMC Infectious Diseases, 15 (44), 1-4. Retrieved from https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12879-015-0775-5

• Includes subjects like English, philosophy, history, and the arts (fine art, theatre, music, etc.)
• Often begins with an introduction that contains the thesis and a brief overview of the arguments that will be presented
• Literature and history articles often examine primary sources (though they approach them in different ways)
• Philosophy articles focus on ideas and arguments  
• Articles in these areas tend to have a more narrative structure (they're telling a story)
• May have some features of other article types (esp. abstracts and references) 

Example: Fazel, V., & Geddes, L. (2016). "Give me your hands if we be friends": collaborative authority in Shakespeare fan fiction. Shakespeare, 12 (3), 274-286. Retrieved from https://hcommons.org/deposits/item/mla:673/

• << Previous: Introduction
• Next: The Structure of a Scholarly Article >>
• Last Updated: Dec 19, 2019 11:08 AM
• URL: https://libraryguides.oswego.edu/c.php?g=890416

• UVM Libraries
• UVM Libraries Research Guides
• Howe Library

Types of Articles: Short Overview

• Introduction to Common Publication Types

About Articles

When using article databases you will typcially locate articles that come from a wide range of types of periodicals. The type of information presented and how you use it will vary according to the type of publication.

Sometimes it can be challenging to decide exactly which category a title falls into and you may find it useful to think of the various types of publications as all having a place along a continuum.

The Information Continuum

Note : Each of these types of publications has their place. For example you might consult a popular publication to see for yourself how the popular media covers a certain topic (for example, “how is Japanese youth culture today different than 20 years ago”) You would then use a scholarly publication to see how scholars have conducted research on this same topic and what conclusions their research has led them to.

When reading articles ask yourself the following questions to help you to assess what type of publication you are reading:

• Who is the intended audience?

• What authority does the author have to write on the topic covered? Is the author a freelance writer? A practitioner? A scholar?

• What is the point of view of the author (or of the publication as a whole)?

• Who is the producer of the material (and why are they publishing this information?)

• Does the type of information provided meet my research needs?

• Last Updated: May 22, 2019 11:09 AM
• URL: https://researchguides.uvm.edu/pubtypes

Identifying and Locating Empirical Articles

Types of scholarly articles.

• Empirical Articles vs Review Articles
• Locating Empirical Articles

The two main types of scholarly articles are empirical (also called original research) articles, and review articles. Understanding how and why these two types of articles are created will help you decide which ones might be the most important for your research.

• << Previous: Welcome
• Next: Empirical Articles vs Review Articles >>
• Last Updated: Sep 29, 2023 2:51 PM
• URL: https://libguides.ucmerced.edu/identifying-locating-empirical-articles

• Privacy Policy

Buy Me a Coffee

Home » Research Methodology – Types, Examples and writing Guide

Research Methodology – Types, Examples and writing Guide

Table of Contents

Research Methodology

Definition:

Research Methodology refers to the systematic and scientific approach used to conduct research, investigate problems, and gather data and information for a specific purpose. It involves the techniques and procedures used to identify, collect , analyze , and interpret data to answer research questions or solve research problems . Moreover, They are philosophical and theoretical frameworks that guide the research process.

Structure of Research Methodology

Research methodology formats can vary depending on the specific requirements of the research project, but the following is a basic example of a structure for a research methodology section:

I. Introduction

• Provide an overview of the research problem and the need for a research methodology section
• Outline the main research questions and objectives

II. Research Design

• Explain the research design chosen and why it is appropriate for the research question(s) and objectives
• Discuss any alternative research designs considered and why they were not chosen
• Describe the research setting and participants (if applicable)

III. Data Collection Methods

• Describe the methods used to collect data (e.g., surveys, interviews, observations)
• Explain how the data collection methods were chosen and why they are appropriate for the research question(s) and objectives
• Detail any procedures or instruments used for data collection

IV. Data Analysis Methods

• Describe the methods used to analyze the data (e.g., statistical analysis, content analysis )
• Explain how the data analysis methods were chosen and why they are appropriate for the research question(s) and objectives
• Detail any procedures or software used for data analysis

V. Ethical Considerations

• Discuss any ethical issues that may arise from the research and how they were addressed
• Explain how informed consent was obtained (if applicable)
• Detail any measures taken to ensure confidentiality and anonymity

VI. Limitations

• Identify any potential limitations of the research methodology and how they may impact the results and conclusions

VII. Conclusion

• Summarize the key aspects of the research methodology section
• Explain how the research methodology addresses the research question(s) and objectives

Research Methodology Types

Types of Research Methodology are as follows:

Quantitative Research Methodology

This is a research methodology that involves the collection and analysis of numerical data using statistical methods. This type of research is often used to study cause-and-effect relationships and to make predictions.

Qualitative Research Methodology

This is a research methodology that involves the collection and analysis of non-numerical data such as words, images, and observations. This type of research is often used to explore complex phenomena, to gain an in-depth understanding of a particular topic, and to generate hypotheses.

Mixed-Methods Research Methodology

This is a research methodology that combines elements of both quantitative and qualitative research. This approach can be particularly useful for studies that aim to explore complex phenomena and to provide a more comprehensive understanding of a particular topic.

Case Study Research Methodology

This is a research methodology that involves in-depth examination of a single case or a small number of cases. Case studies are often used in psychology, sociology, and anthropology to gain a detailed understanding of a particular individual or group.

Action Research Methodology

This is a research methodology that involves a collaborative process between researchers and practitioners to identify and solve real-world problems. Action research is often used in education, healthcare, and social work.

Experimental Research Methodology

This is a research methodology that involves the manipulation of one or more independent variables to observe their effects on a dependent variable. Experimental research is often used to study cause-and-effect relationships and to make predictions.

Survey Research Methodology

This is a research methodology that involves the collection of data from a sample of individuals using questionnaires or interviews. Survey research is often used to study attitudes, opinions, and behaviors.

Grounded Theory Research Methodology

This is a research methodology that involves the development of theories based on the data collected during the research process. Grounded theory is often used in sociology and anthropology to generate theories about social phenomena.

Research Methodology Example

An Example of Research Methodology could be the following:

Research Methodology for Investigating the Effectiveness of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy in Reducing Symptoms of Depression in Adults

Introduction:

The aim of this research is to investigate the effectiveness of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) in reducing symptoms of depression in adults. To achieve this objective, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) will be conducted using a mixed-methods approach.

Research Design:

The study will follow a pre-test and post-test design with two groups: an experimental group receiving CBT and a control group receiving no intervention. The study will also include a qualitative component, in which semi-structured interviews will be conducted with a subset of participants to explore their experiences of receiving CBT.

Participants:

Participants will be recruited from community mental health clinics in the local area. The sample will consist of 100 adults aged 18-65 years old who meet the diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder. Participants will be randomly assigned to either the experimental group or the control group.

Intervention :

The experimental group will receive 12 weekly sessions of CBT, each lasting 60 minutes. The intervention will be delivered by licensed mental health professionals who have been trained in CBT. The control group will receive no intervention during the study period.

Data Collection:

Quantitative data will be collected through the use of standardized measures such as the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7). Data will be collected at baseline, immediately after the intervention, and at a 3-month follow-up. Qualitative data will be collected through semi-structured interviews with a subset of participants from the experimental group. The interviews will be conducted at the end of the intervention period, and will explore participants’ experiences of receiving CBT.

Data Analysis:

Quantitative data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics, t-tests, and mixed-model analyses of variance (ANOVA) to assess the effectiveness of the intervention. Qualitative data will be analyzed using thematic analysis to identify common themes and patterns in participants’ experiences of receiving CBT.

Ethical Considerations:

This study will comply with ethical guidelines for research involving human subjects. Participants will provide informed consent before participating in the study, and their privacy and confidentiality will be protected throughout the study. Any adverse events or reactions will be reported and managed appropriately.

Data Management:

All data collected will be kept confidential and stored securely using password-protected databases. Identifying information will be removed from qualitative data transcripts to ensure participants’ anonymity.

Limitations:

One potential limitation of this study is that it only focuses on one type of psychotherapy, CBT, and may not generalize to other types of therapy or interventions. Another limitation is that the study will only include participants from community mental health clinics, which may not be representative of the general population.

Conclusion:

This research aims to investigate the effectiveness of CBT in reducing symptoms of depression in adults. By using a randomized controlled trial and a mixed-methods approach, the study will provide valuable insights into the mechanisms underlying the relationship between CBT and depression. The results of this study will have important implications for the development of effective treatments for depression in clinical settings.

How to Write Research Methodology

Writing a research methodology involves explaining the methods and techniques you used to conduct research, collect data, and analyze results. It’s an essential section of any research paper or thesis, as it helps readers understand the validity and reliability of your findings. Here are the steps to write a research methodology:

• Start by explaining your research question: Begin the methodology section by restating your research question and explaining why it’s important. This helps readers understand the purpose of your research and the rationale behind your methods.
• Describe your research design: Explain the overall approach you used to conduct research. This could be a qualitative or quantitative research design, experimental or non-experimental, case study or survey, etc. Discuss the advantages and limitations of the chosen design.
• Discuss your sample: Describe the participants or subjects you included in your study. Include details such as their demographics, sampling method, sample size, and any exclusion criteria used.
• Describe your data collection methods : Explain how you collected data from your participants. This could include surveys, interviews, observations, questionnaires, or experiments. Include details on how you obtained informed consent, how you administered the tools, and how you minimized the risk of bias.
• Explain your data analysis techniques: Describe the methods you used to analyze the data you collected. This could include statistical analysis, content analysis, thematic analysis, or discourse analysis. Explain how you dealt with missing data, outliers, and any other issues that arose during the analysis.
• Discuss the validity and reliability of your research : Explain how you ensured the validity and reliability of your study. This could include measures such as triangulation, member checking, peer review, or inter-coder reliability.
• Acknowledge any limitations of your research: Discuss any limitations of your study, including any potential threats to validity or generalizability. This helps readers understand the scope of your findings and how they might apply to other contexts.
• Provide a summary: End the methodology section by summarizing the methods and techniques you used to conduct your research. This provides a clear overview of your research methodology and helps readers understand the process you followed to arrive at your findings.

When to Write Research Methodology

Research methodology is typically written after the research proposal has been approved and before the actual research is conducted. It should be written prior to data collection and analysis, as it provides a clear roadmap for the research project.

The research methodology is an important section of any research paper or thesis, as it describes the methods and procedures that will be used to conduct the research. It should include details about the research design, data collection methods, data analysis techniques, and any ethical considerations.

The methodology should be written in a clear and concise manner, and it should be based on established research practices and standards. It is important to provide enough detail so that the reader can understand how the research was conducted and evaluate the validity of the results.

Applications of Research Methodology

Here are some of the applications of research methodology:

• To identify the research problem: Research methodology is used to identify the research problem, which is the first step in conducting any research.
• To design the research: Research methodology helps in designing the research by selecting the appropriate research method, research design, and sampling technique.
• To collect data: Research methodology provides a systematic approach to collect data from primary and secondary sources.
• To analyze data: Research methodology helps in analyzing the collected data using various statistical and non-statistical techniques.
• To test hypotheses: Research methodology provides a framework for testing hypotheses and drawing conclusions based on the analysis of data.
• To generalize findings: Research methodology helps in generalizing the findings of the research to the target population.
• To develop theories : Research methodology is used to develop new theories and modify existing theories based on the findings of the research.
• To evaluate programs and policies : Research methodology is used to evaluate the effectiveness of programs and policies by collecting data and analyzing it.
• To improve decision-making: Research methodology helps in making informed decisions by providing reliable and valid data.

Purpose of Research Methodology

Research methodology serves several important purposes, including:

• To guide the research process: Research methodology provides a systematic framework for conducting research. It helps researchers to plan their research, define their research questions, and select appropriate methods and techniques for collecting and analyzing data.
• To ensure research quality: Research methodology helps researchers to ensure that their research is rigorous, reliable, and valid. It provides guidelines for minimizing bias and error in data collection and analysis, and for ensuring that research findings are accurate and trustworthy.
• To replicate research: Research methodology provides a clear and detailed account of the research process, making it possible for other researchers to replicate the study and verify its findings.
• To advance knowledge: Research methodology enables researchers to generate new knowledge and to contribute to the body of knowledge in their field. It provides a means for testing hypotheses, exploring new ideas, and discovering new insights.
• To inform decision-making: Research methodology provides evidence-based information that can inform policy and decision-making in a variety of fields, including medicine, public health, education, and business.

Advantages of Research Methodology

Research methodology has several advantages that make it a valuable tool for conducting research in various fields. Here are some of the key advantages of research methodology:

• Systematic and structured approach : Research methodology provides a systematic and structured approach to conducting research, which ensures that the research is conducted in a rigorous and comprehensive manner.
• Objectivity : Research methodology aims to ensure objectivity in the research process, which means that the research findings are based on evidence and not influenced by personal bias or subjective opinions.
• Replicability : Research methodology ensures that research can be replicated by other researchers, which is essential for validating research findings and ensuring their accuracy.
• Reliability : Research methodology aims to ensure that the research findings are reliable, which means that they are consistent and can be depended upon.
• Validity : Research methodology ensures that the research findings are valid, which means that they accurately reflect the research question or hypothesis being tested.
• Efficiency : Research methodology provides a structured and efficient way of conducting research, which helps to save time and resources.
• Flexibility : Research methodology allows researchers to choose the most appropriate research methods and techniques based on the research question, data availability, and other relevant factors.
• Scope for innovation: Research methodology provides scope for innovation and creativity in designing research studies and developing new research techniques.

Research Methodology Vs Research Methods

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

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• Current issue
• Write for Us
• BMJ Journals More You are viewing from: Google Indexer

You are here

• Volume 24, Issue 2
• Five tips for developing useful literature summary tables for writing review articles
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0157-5319 Ahtisham Younas 1 , 2 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7839-8130 Parveen Ali 3 , 4
• 1 Memorial University of Newfoundland , St John's , Newfoundland , Canada
• 2 Swat College of Nursing , Pakistan
• 3 School of Nursing and Midwifery , University of Sheffield , Sheffield , South Yorkshire , UK
• 4 Sheffield University Interpersonal Violence Research Group , Sheffield University , Sheffield , UK
• Correspondence to Ahtisham Younas, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St John's, NL A1C 5C4, Canada; ay6133{at}mun.ca

https://doi.org/10.1136/ebnurs-2021-103417

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Introduction

Literature reviews offer a critical synthesis of empirical and theoretical literature to assess the strength of evidence, develop guidelines for practice and policymaking, and identify areas for future research. 1 It is often essential and usually the first task in any research endeavour, particularly in masters or doctoral level education. For effective data extraction and rigorous synthesis in reviews, the use of literature summary tables is of utmost importance. A literature summary table provides a synopsis of an included article. It succinctly presents its purpose, methods, findings and other relevant information pertinent to the review. The aim of developing these literature summary tables is to provide the reader with the information at one glance. Since there are multiple types of reviews (eg, systematic, integrative, scoping, critical and mixed methods) with distinct purposes and techniques, 2 there could be various approaches for developing literature summary tables making it a complex task specialty for the novice researchers or reviewers. Here, we offer five tips for authors of the review articles, relevant to all types of reviews, for creating useful and relevant literature summary tables. We also provide examples from our published reviews to illustrate how useful literature summary tables can be developed and what sort of information should be provided.

Tip 1: provide detailed information about frameworks and methods

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Tabular literature summaries from a scoping review. Source: Rasheed et al . 3

The provision of information about conceptual and theoretical frameworks and methods is useful for several reasons. First, in quantitative (reviews synthesising the results of quantitative studies) and mixed reviews (reviews synthesising the results of both qualitative and quantitative studies to address a mixed review question), it allows the readers to assess the congruence of the core findings and methods with the adapted framework and tested assumptions. In qualitative reviews (reviews synthesising results of qualitative studies), this information is beneficial for readers to recognise the underlying philosophical and paradigmatic stance of the authors of the included articles. For example, imagine the authors of an article, included in a review, used phenomenological inquiry for their research. In that case, the review authors and the readers of the review need to know what kind of (transcendental or hermeneutic) philosophical stance guided the inquiry. Review authors should, therefore, include the philosophical stance in their literature summary for the particular article. Second, information about frameworks and methods enables review authors and readers to judge the quality of the research, which allows for discerning the strengths and limitations of the article. For example, if authors of an included article intended to develop a new scale and test its psychometric properties. To achieve this aim, they used a convenience sample of 150 participants and performed exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the same sample. Such an approach would indicate a flawed methodology because EFA and CFA should not be conducted on the same sample. The review authors must include this information in their summary table. Omitting this information from a summary could lead to the inclusion of a flawed article in the review, thereby jeopardising the review’s rigour.

Tip 2: include strengths and limitations for each article

Critical appraisal of individual articles included in a review is crucial for increasing the rigour of the review. Despite using various templates for critical appraisal, authors often do not provide detailed information about each reviewed article’s strengths and limitations. Merely noting the quality score based on standardised critical appraisal templates is not adequate because the readers should be able to identify the reasons for assigning a weak or moderate rating. Many recent critical appraisal checklists (eg, Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool) discourage review authors from assigning a quality score and recommend noting the main strengths and limitations of included studies. It is also vital that methodological and conceptual limitations and strengths of the articles included in the review are provided because not all review articles include empirical research papers. Rather some review synthesises the theoretical aspects of articles. Providing information about conceptual limitations is also important for readers to judge the quality of foundations of the research. For example, if you included a mixed-methods study in the review, reporting the methodological and conceptual limitations about ‘integration’ is critical for evaluating the study’s strength. Suppose the authors only collected qualitative and quantitative data and did not state the intent and timing of integration. In that case, the strength of the study is weak. Integration only occurred at the levels of data collection. However, integration may not have occurred at the analysis, interpretation and reporting levels.

Tip 3: write conceptual contribution of each reviewed article

While reading and evaluating review papers, we have observed that many review authors only provide core results of the article included in a review and do not explain the conceptual contribution offered by the included article. We refer to conceptual contribution as a description of how the article’s key results contribute towards the development of potential codes, themes or subthemes, or emerging patterns that are reported as the review findings. For example, the authors of a review article noted that one of the research articles included in their review demonstrated the usefulness of case studies and reflective logs as strategies for fostering compassion in nursing students. The conceptual contribution of this research article could be that experiential learning is one way to teach compassion to nursing students, as supported by case studies and reflective logs. This conceptual contribution of the article should be mentioned in the literature summary table. Delineating each reviewed article’s conceptual contribution is particularly beneficial in qualitative reviews, mixed-methods reviews, and critical reviews that often focus on developing models and describing or explaining various phenomena. Figure 2 offers an example of a literature summary table. 4

Tabular literature summaries from a critical review. Source: Younas and Maddigan. 4

Tip 4: compose potential themes from each article during summary writing

While developing literature summary tables, many authors use themes or subthemes reported in the given articles as the key results of their own review. Such an approach prevents the review authors from understanding the article’s conceptual contribution, developing rigorous synthesis and drawing reasonable interpretations of results from an individual article. Ultimately, it affects the generation of novel review findings. For example, one of the articles about women’s healthcare-seeking behaviours in developing countries reported a theme ‘social-cultural determinants of health as precursors of delays’. Instead of using this theme as one of the review findings, the reviewers should read and interpret beyond the given description in an article, compare and contrast themes, findings from one article with findings and themes from another article to find similarities and differences and to understand and explain bigger picture for their readers. Therefore, while developing literature summary tables, think twice before using the predeveloped themes. Including your themes in the summary tables (see figure 1 ) demonstrates to the readers that a robust method of data extraction and synthesis has been followed.

Tip 5: create your personalised template for literature summaries

Often templates are available for data extraction and development of literature summary tables. The available templates may be in the form of a table, chart or a structured framework that extracts some essential information about every article. The commonly used information may include authors, purpose, methods, key results and quality scores. While extracting all relevant information is important, such templates should be tailored to meet the needs of the individuals’ review. For example, for a review about the effectiveness of healthcare interventions, a literature summary table must include information about the intervention, its type, content timing, duration, setting, effectiveness, negative consequences, and receivers and implementers’ experiences of its usage. Similarly, literature summary tables for articles included in a meta-synthesis must include information about the participants’ characteristics, research context and conceptual contribution of each reviewed article so as to help the reader make an informed decision about the usefulness or lack of usefulness of the individual article in the review and the whole review.

In conclusion, narrative or systematic reviews are almost always conducted as a part of any educational project (thesis or dissertation) or academic or clinical research. Literature reviews are the foundation of research on a given topic. Robust and high-quality reviews play an instrumental role in guiding research, practice and policymaking. However, the quality of reviews is also contingent on rigorous data extraction and synthesis, which require developing literature summaries. We have outlined five tips that could enhance the quality of the data extraction and synthesis process by developing useful literature summaries.

• Aromataris E ,
• Rasheed SP ,

Twitter @Ahtisham04, @parveenazamali

Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing interests None declared.

Patient consent for publication Not required.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Read the full text or download the PDF:

• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Original research article, the impact of observers’ beliefs on the perceived contribution of a research lesson.

• 1 Experiential Learning Office–Engineering Faculty, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
• 2 CIAE, Institute of Education, University of Chile, Santiago, Chile

Recently, Lesson Study (LS) has gained popularity in countries worldwide because of its potentially positive effects on teachers’ practices (e.g., reflection, cooperation, and pre-service development) and students’ learning. However, despite global interest in LS’s implementation, an important gap exists between Japanese LS and its implementation in other countries, which may be due to several reasons, such as differences in culture and educational systems or teachers’ beliefs. In this study, we examined the effect of teachers’ beliefs on their evaluation of LS in Chile. We administered a questionnaire to 94 teachers who participated in the Research Lesson (RL) as observers. The questionnaire assessed teachers’ beliefs and RL’s contributions to knowledge of the subject matter, instructional strategies, monitoring skills, lesson planning, and student understanding. Using a stepwise logistic regression, after controlling for sex and occupation, we found that the observers’ beliefs influenced their perceptions of RL’s contributions to monitoring, assessment, and instruction. Participants with student-focused beliefs were more likely to find that RL contributed to their monitoring skills and ability to assess students’ understanding of content. The results regarding instructional strategies were mixed. Our findings can help devise strategies to increase the effectiveness of LS implementation. For example, by designing two types of LS, one adapted to teachers with student-focused teaching beliefs and the other to teacher-focused teaching beliefs. To the best of our knowledge, this dual strategy is not part of LS implementation, at least in Chile. LS teams could easily explore this dual strategy, which could improve teachers’ professional development.

1 Introduction

Lesson Study (LS) began in 1880 in Japan with the goal of reproducing the best practices in teaching ( Isoda, 2015 ) and is a collaborative teaching improvement process designed to build strong and productive communities of teachers who share and learn from each other. Many countries have introduced this methodology ( Fujii, 2014 ). Evidence indicates that LS accelerates the production of effective lessons and, in particular, helps develop open-ended approaches with lessons that aim to develop higher-order skills ( Inprasitha, 2015 ). Additionally, Vermunt et al. (2019) concluded that the LS approach to pedagogical development fosters meaning-oriented teacher learning, which can be explained by LS’s strong focus on analyzing and understanding pupils’ learning. In particular, teachers in schools implementing LS have reported more meaning- and application-oriented learning than teachers from schools without LS experience ( Vermunt et al., 2019 ).

Enhancing the dissemination and awareness of LS’s benefits is important, as Chokshi and Fernandez (2004) found that schools allocate time for LS initiatives once teachers recognize the potential of LS. The potential benefits of LS include various pedagogical aspects and students’ learning outcomes. Researchers have studied numerous different effects of LS, including teachers’ increased self-efficacy ( Mintzes et al., 2013 ; Schipper et al., 2018 ; Vermunt et al., 2019 ), teachers’ content knowledge ( Fernandez and Robinson, 2006 ; Lewis and Perry, 2014 ; Juhler, 2016 ), teaching practices and teachers’ skills ( Fernandez and Robinson, 2006 ; Fernandez, 2010 ; Vermunt et al., 2019 ), teachers’ beliefs ( Fernandez and Robinson, 2006 ; Lewis and Perry, 2015 ; Yakar and Turgut, 2017 ) and pre-service teachers’ preparation ( Marble, 2006 , 2007 ; Suh and Fulginiti, 2012 ). In Chile, there used to be funds to implement this methodology, but due to a significant funding reduction, only a few institutions continue to work with the methodology ( Estrella et al., 2018 ).

However, a notable gap in the implementation of LS exists between Japan and other countries owing to divergent cultures and educational systems. Countries implementing LS outside of Japan have been found to not fully capture its key components ( Fujii, 2014 ). For instance, in the US, most LS teams do not share their learning with their peers, losing the opportunity to share and discuss their experiences with their educational community ( Whitney, 2020 ). Similarly, in England, Seleznyov (2020) reported that LS practices were diluted over time and identified various impediments, such as a lack of time and excessive teacher workload, a focus on demonstrating short-term impact, and a lack of teacher research skills. Additionally, Godfrey et al. (2019) found that engagement and reported learning decreased when teachers in England had to commit their own time to the LS process.

1.1 Research lessons

Research lessons (RLs) are critical to LS, which involve teachers coming together to observe and discuss lessons. Some benefits of RLs include opportunities for teachers to observe experienced teachers as a form of modeling their own learning experiences. RLs provide valuable examples of meaningful curricula and standard discussions, encouraging teachers to align their teaching with policy- and research-based recommendations ( Lumpe et al., 2014 ). Furthermore, Dudley et al. (2019) studied the implementation of RLs in mathematics within a school system in England and concluded that by focusing on student learning and recursive cycles of LS, teachers could develop the curriculum and raise standards while supporting the creation of the necessary conditions for learning. This transition to a student-centered education was also part of a two-year project in which teachers focused on students’ mathematical reasoning and sense-making rather than on other teacher actions or teaching ( Wessels, 2018 ).

Another potential benefit of RLs is teacher dialogue, consisting of more meaningful reflections. During the implementation of RLs in Ireland, teachers engaged in meaningful dialogues about pedagogy and student learning, fostering deeper levels of reflection on their understanding and practice knowledge ( McSweeney and Gardner, 2018 ). Similarly, a study in Singapore concluded that after four RLs and discourse analyses, a balance was achieved in mathematical representation while escalating the construction of meaning-making ( Fang et al., 2019 ).

Nonetheless, the field’s understanding of RLs remains limited, especially regarding methods of sharing work with others. Whitney (2020) examined cases of LS teams in the US and found that most LS teams did not distribute their learning to the field. Individuals external to the team observed the RL and engaged in subsequent post-lesson discussions.

This study has two objectives. First, we gathered the evaluations of observers outside the LS team when they attended an RL in Chile. Second, we examined how observers’ beliefs affected their evaluation of RL. Thus, our research question (RQ) was, “To what extent do teachers’ beliefs affect the perceived contributions of an RL in the context of an LS process?”

1.2 The Chilean context and teachers’ predisposition to observation

Our first study aim was to gather the evaluations of observers attending an RL in Chile. Participation as an observer in an RL may share similarities with teachers’ own evaluation processes, particularly in the context of observing pedagogical practices and sharing best practices with peers. Potential apprehension could exists among educators because of the history of teacher performance evaluations in Chile. This subsection briefly describes the historical perspective of the Chilean teacher evaluation system.

Chile’s experience with teacher performance evaluation is distinctive, particularly considering its past political developments. During Chile’s dictatorship (1973–1989), the teaching profession experienced a significant weakening, resulting in a substantial unemployment rate among teachers. Following the return to democracy in the 1990s, concerted efforts were made by the national government, in collaboration with teachers’ unions, to rectify the adverse consequences of past politics ( Avalos and Assael, 2006 ; Assaél and Cornejo, 2018 ).

One contentious aspect of these remedial efforts was the introduction of an annual grading system exclusively within public schools (municipality-dependent), which has frequently been perceived as punitive and arbitrary by educators ( Avalos and Assael, 2006 ; Taut et al., 2011 ; Assaél and Cornejo, 2018 ). Despite some modifications over the years, the prevailing sentiment among teachers was that these evaluations remained unjust and were penalizing. Moreover, these evaluations impose additional work burdens on teachers, exacerbated by the prevailing practice of unpaid overtime among educators in Chile. This evaluation is referred to as the “Teaching Evaluation” and is mandated by law.

In 2016, a significant change occurred when a second method of evaluating teachers was introduced, referred to as the “Teaching Career Evaluation.” This evaluation encompassed all teachers associated with schools that received state funding. Consequently, educators from state-funded educational institutions were included in the evaluation process ( Martínez, 2022 ; Colegio de Profesores, 2023 ). Importantly, the evaluation was not designed to supplement the existing evaluation system but introduced an additional evaluation more closely associated with the years of a teacher’s career. Consequently, teachers within the public system were subject to evaluations from two distinct systems, increasing their workload and the demands placed on them.

Both evaluations were designed to reinforce the teaching profession and contribute to improving the quality of education. The “Teaching Evaluation” comprises four key components: (1) a self-assessment rubric; (2) an interview conducted by a peer evaluator; (3) a third-party reference report; and (4) a portfolio showcasing an in-video pedagogical performance. Each component includes a rating assigned to the teacher, classifying teachers into different performance levels: outstanding, competent, basic, or unsatisfactory. The “Teaching Career Evaluation” includes (1) an evaluation of specific and pedagogical knowledge and (2) the same portfolio used in the “Teaching Evaluation.” According to Alvarado (2012) , the teachers’ performance and their students’ academic performance on math- and language-standardized national tests have been positively correlated.

Teachers who received favorable evaluations progress to higher tiers within the Teaching Career framework. The upper tiers often entail augmented salary packages and improved working conditions ( Manzi et al., 2011 ). Engagement in these evaluative assessments may be a financial necessity for some teachers due to the comparatively modest salaries that educators in Chile receive ( Assaél and Cornejo, 2018 ; Avalos-Bevan, 2018 ), rather than an opportunity to foster reflection between peers regarding their pedagogical practice and work ( Assaél and Cornejo, 2018 ; Avalos-Bevan, 2018 ).

Consequently, public school teachers in Chile have experience with being observed and engaging in discussions with others regarding their teaching practices. However, these experiences may be biased toward an emphasis on assessment and evaluation, which, in turn, translates into an economic impact.

2.1 Participants

The participants in this study were observers of at least one RL hosted by different LS teams. The survey and methodology were approved by our ethics committee. An open invitation to complete the survey was sent to the participants of three different RLs sponsored by the Center for Advanced Research in Education (CIAE). Participants answered the survey between March and May 2020. All RLs were Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM)-related and planned for primary education, with an open invitation to elementary and secondary school teachers, academics, researchers, educators, future teachers, school administrators, and educational authorities. The teachers who taught the lesson were experienced teachers. Two were held in Santiago, Chile, in 2017 and 2018, and the third in Valparaíso, Chile, in 2019. The last RL was conducted within the context of the XI Regional Conference on Lesson Studies.

A total of 97 participants answered the survey, and 92 agreed to participate, resulting in a response rate of 94.84%. Of the 92 participants, 62 were women (67.39%), and 30 were men (32.61%). Regarding the participants’ occupations, 70 were in-service teachers (76.08%), five were student teachers (5.43%), and 17 (18.47%) had other roles related to education, such as academics, members of a school board, and principals.

Regarding the participants’ observation experience, the information available is limited. As explained in the previous section, teachers in Chile have experience being observed; however, we do not have evidence of the level of training that the participants received as observers before attending the RL.

2.2 Instruments

A questionnaire was developed to assess participants’ perceptions of the RL’s contributions to their skills and beliefs.

2.2.1 RL contribution to pedagogical practices, overall LS evaluation, and future participation

Participants answered five Likert-scale questions regarding the contribution level of RL to their (1) knowledge of the subject matter, (2) instructional strategies, (3) skills to monitor the level of understanding of the students, (4) lesson planning skills, and (5) abilities to assess the students’ understanding of the content. Participants evaluated the contribution of RL by choosing one of five options (from 1 =  not at all to 5 =  extremely relevant ). This type of question, which includes scale with neutral option, has been used in previous studies to evaluate the impact of LS on teachers’ professional development ( Alamri, 2020 ), participants’ perception of changes in intercultural competence for lesson study ( Sakai et al., 2022 ).

Participants also answered a Likert-scale question about their overall evaluation of RL that was rated from very poor (1) to very good (5), as well as a question regarding whether they would participate again in an RL session, which was rated as yes , maybe , or no .

2.2.2 Teachers’ beliefs about learning

The Teacher Beliefs Interview (TBI), a semi-structured interview protocol, was developed to describe and map various epistemological beliefs held by science teachers ( Luft and Roehrig, 2007 ). Based on the TBI, teachers’ beliefs range from teacher-focused to student-focused. The TBI includes seven items assessing their knowledge and learning beliefs. Depending on the teachers’ responses, their beliefs were coded into five categories: (1) t raditional , with a focus on information, transmission, structure, or sources; (2) instructive , with a focus on providing experiences, teacher focus, or teacher decisions; (3) transitional , with a focus on teacher/student relationships, subjective decisions, or affective responses; (4) responsive , with a focus on collaboration, feedback, or knowledge development; and (5) reform-based , focusing on mediating student knowledge or interactions. The traditional and instructive categories are teacher-focused, whereas the responsive and reform-based categories are student-focused. This instrument has been employed in prior studies about LS and teachers’ beliefs. In the study by Tupper (2022) , the TBI was utilized alongside other instruments to assess the relationship between teachers’ beliefs, self-efficacy, and professional noticing with multiple lesson study experiences. Similarly, Fortney (2009) incorporated the TBI, among other instruments, to investigate how teachers reconcile student-centered instruction with their preexisting traditional beliefs about teaching. Finally, Yakar and Turgut (2017) also used the TBI and found that through lesson study preservice teachers changed their beliefs toward more student-centered.

Of the seven questions on TBI, four were related to learning beliefs. The other three items were related to knowledge beliefs. Three questions regarding learning were included in the questionnaire (the fourth question was excluded because it asked about science learning). Rather than adhering to the open-ended format, we modified the approach by incorporating the three questions that asked the participants to choose between two real-life strategies using concrete examples. These three questions were related to the participants’ beliefs about learning. This adaptation led to a structured multiple-choice format, providing participants with clear examples while maintaining the integrity of the TBI’s underlying principles. Table 1 shows the questions, examples, and mapping suggested by Luft and Roehrig (2007) for assessing the participants’ beliefs.

Table 1 . Questions in the survey and the corresponding response mapping based on TBI.

The Cronbach’s alpha was calculated to measure the reliability of the instrument. The results showed that the instrument had an estimated α equal to 0.68.

2.3 Analysis

To answer the research question, a descriptive analysis and stepwise logistic regression model were performed for each dependent variable. Five independent models were tested, one for each dependent variable.

2.3.1 Dependent variable—RL contribution

The five dependent variables were the RL contributions to knowledge, instruction, monitoring, planning, and assessment. Each variable was binary, with value 1 being assigned when the participant evaluated the RL’s level of contribution as either very or extremely and a value of 0 being assigned for all other ratings.

2.3.2 Independent variables

Participants’ beliefs were considered independent variables. Thus, there were three independent variables, each corresponding to one of the three questions regarding how participants (1) maximized learning in their classrooms, coded as max_learning; (2) knew when their students understood, coded as understanding; and (3) knew when learning occurred in their classrooms, coded as learning.

As with the dependent variables, each independent variable was binary, with the variable being scored as Student Focused (SF) when participants chose strategies that were mapped as student-focused and/or transitional on the TBI ( Luft and Roehrig, 2007 ) and Not Student Focused (NSF) in any other case. In other words, if a participant chose a responsive (R) and/or reform-based (RB) strategy alongside a transitional strategy, the participant was coded as SF. In all other cases, the participant was coded as NSF. Table 2 shows the scenarios in which participants were classified as having SF. The participants were classified as having NSF for all other combinations of selected strategies.

Table 2 . Categorization of participants’ answers based on number of strategies selected.

2.3.3 Other explanatory variables

Two other independent variables are also considered. The first was sex (woman or man), while the second was the participant’s occupation ( in-service teacher , student teacher , or other ).

The stepwise logistic regression selection considered a full model with all the variables involved (max_learning, understanding, learning, sex, and occupation) and a base model with only sex as an independent variable ( Figure 1 ).

Figure 1 . Models explaining the level of contribution of the RL used in the stepwise logistic regression. (A) Full model with all the variables involved. (B) Base model with sex as the independent variable.

The notation for the full model is:

For the base model, it is:

Model selection used the R function stepAIC ( Zhang, 2016 ), which iteratively adds and removes predictors to the base model. Thus, the best model was selected based on its lower AIC value ( Akaike, 1974 ). This process was performed independently for each dependent variable: the level of contribution of RL to (1) knowledge, (2) instruction, (3) monitoring, (4) planning, and (5) assessment. Finally, when a variable was significant, the odds ratio (OR) was reported as a measure of the association between exposure and outcome ( Szumilas, 2010 ).

3.1 LS evaluation and future participation

Overall, the LS received a positive evaluation: 76.09% of teachers evaluated RL as either good or very good ( N  = 70). When asked if they would participate again in RL, 86.95% reported that they would. The distribution of the answers is shown in Figure 2 .

Figure 2 . Number of answers of the participants’ overall evaluation of RL and future participation.

3.2 Participants’ beliefs

Table 3 summarizes the distribution of teachers’ beliefs after categorizing them as either SF or NSF.

Table 3 . Distribution of the observers’ beliefs for each independent variable, based on the TBI categories.

3.3 Reported RL impact on pedagogical aspects

Table 4 shows the level of contribution of RL to pedagogical practices as reported by the participants. The aspects with the highest levels of impact were planning and assessment, while the aspects with the lowest impact on teachers’ pedagogical practices were monitoring and instruction.

Table 4 . Evaluation of the contribution of RL to different aspects.

3.4 Impact of participants’ beliefs on RL contribution

Table 5 summarizes the distribution of the level of contribution by belief for the three independent variables. Results in Table 5 suggest that participants’ beliefs might influence the perception of the RL contribution. The data imply a consistent trend where observers with SF beliefs tend to value the RL contribution more than those with NSF beliefs. Moreover, the differences are more or less pronounced depending on how those underlying beliefs are measured (i.e., max learning, learning, or understanding).

Table 5 . Distribution of evaluation of the contribution of the RL based on the category of observers’ beliefs.

Differences in the RL’s contribution based on the observers’ beliefs were observed. Regarding monitoring skills, 72.34% of those with SF beliefs (measured with the variable max_learning) valued the contribution of RL as very or extremely , while less than half of observers with NSF beliefs shared the same valuation.

In terms of assessing skills, 76.60% of participants with SF beliefs (measured with the variable max_learning) rated the contribution as very or extremely , compared to 55.56% of those who were NSF.

The results for the instructional skills varied. When considering the observers’ beliefs measured by the variable max_learning, 74.47% of the observers with SF beliefs valued the contribution of RL positively, in contrast to 48.89% of those with NSF. In contrast, when measuring beliefs by the variable learning, 71.05% of observers with NSF beliefs valued the contribution as positive, whereas 55.56% of observers with student-focused SF beliefs shared the same view.

3.4.1 Knowledge

The summary of the logistic regression model is shown in Table 6 .

Table 6 . Logistic regression summary for the selected model illustrating the contribution of RL to knowledge.

The selected model was the base model (AIC = 121.87), with sex as the only independent variable. However, sex was not a significant predictor of the probability of evaluating contribution to RL ( p  = 0.14; Table 6 ). Thus, the participants’ beliefs did not add information when explaining the contribution of RL to their knowledge skills.

3.4.2 Monitoring

The summary of the logistic regression model is shown in Table 7 .

Table 7 . Logistic regression summary for the selected model showing the contribution of RL to monitoring.

The model that best explained the contribution of RL to monitoring skills was the independent variable max_learning after controlling for sex and occupation (AIC = 121.44). The variable max_learning had a significant positive estimated value ( p  = 0.035), whereas the other variables (i.e., sex and occupation) were not significant. In other words, when holding the variables of sex and occupation constant, participants with SF beliefs (measured through the variable max_learning) were more likely to rate the contribution of RL on their monitoring skills as very or extremely (OR = 1.99, 95%CI [1.06, 3.85]).

3.4.3 Planning

The selected model considered max_learning and understanding as independent variables, controlling for sex (AIC = 108.29). Table 8 summarizes the corresponding logistic regression results.

Table 8 . Logistic regression summary for the selected model showing RL’s contribution to planning.

In the selected model, the three independent variables had nonsignificant estimated values. The variables max_learning and sex had positive values, while understanding had an estimated negative value.

3.4.4 Assessing

The model that best explains the contribution to assessment is the independent variable max_learning, after controlling for sex and occupation (AIC = 117.66). Table 9 summarizes the corresponding logistic regression results.

Table 9 . Logistic regression summary for the selected model showing RL’s contribution to assessing.

In the selected model, max_learning had a positive and significant estimated value ( p  = 0.039). Thus, when holding the variables of sex and occupation constant, observers with SF beliefs, measured through the variable max_learning, were more likely to value the contribution on assessing as very or extremely , in contrast to the observers with NSF beliefs (OR = 2.01, 95%CI [1.05, 3.98]).

3.4.5 Instruction

The model that best explains the contribution to instruction had the independent variables max_learning and learning controlled for by sex (AIC = 114.68). Table 10 summarizes the corresponding logistic regression results.

Table 10 . Logistic regression summary for the selected model showing RL’s contribution to instruction.

In this model, the variable max_learning had a significant, positive estimated value ( p  = 0.002), whereas the variable learning had a significant, negative estimated value ( p  = 0.007). Thus, when holding the variable of sex constant, observers with beliefs which were SF, measured through the variable max_learning, were more likely to value the contribution on assessing as very or extremely , in contrast to the observers with NSF beliefs. Further when controlling for the variable of sex, observers with beliefs that were NSF, measured through the variable learning, were more likely to value the contribution on instruction as very or extremely .

4 Discussion and conclusion

This study has two aims. First, we aimed to collect evaluations of observers outside the LS team when attending the LS Research Lesson stage. Second, we examined how the observers’ beliefs affected their evaluations of RL. Thus, the research question (RQ) was, “To what extent do teachers’ beliefs affect the perceived contribution of a Research Lesson in the context of a lesson-study process?”

Evidence indicates that LS teams do not share their learning with their peers, thereby losing opportunities to share and discuss their experiences with the educational community. An RL provides teachers new opportunities to observe experienced teachers to model their own learning experiences and discuss curricula and standards, helping persuade teachers to align their teaching with policy and evidence-based recommendations. However, little is known about the RS stage, particularly regarding how to share work with others. Whitney (2020) studied cases of LS study teams in the US and found that most LS teams did not distribute their learning to the field, and instances of people outside the team watching the research lesson and participating in post-lesson discussions existed.

Nonetheless, a relationship has been observed between beliefs and classroom practices ( Skott, 2001 ; Stipek et al., 2001 ; Schoenfeld, 2011 ). Moreover, these beliefs could affect teachers’ changes in the context of professional development programs ( Maass, 2011 ). de Vries et al. (2013) found a relationship between teachers’ participation in Continuous Professional Development programs and their beliefs.

This paper aims to reduce the existing gap between the implementation of LS in Japan and in other countries. When considering the implementation of LS in Chile, it is critical to look at teachers’ predisposition to observation. Historically, teachers of public schools have experience in being observed; however, class observation has been associated with assessment and evaluation. Although this research does not specifically inquire about teachers’ beliefs regarding observation, it is an important element to consider in the teaching culture of Chile. For example, by conducting RL observation, Chilean teachers could focus more on evaluating aspects that are important in their own teaching evaluation, such as class planning and student assessment.

The results show that, in the Chilean context, when explaining the perceived contribution of the RL, observers’ beliefs improved the models’ performance, contributing to instruction, monitoring, planning, and evaluation. The current findings are beneficial, as they provide insights into how different participants value their contributions to RL. Furthermore, LS teams should consider this when issuing open invitations to external individuals to observe RL. Understanding the influence of participants’ beliefs on their evaluation of a situation is valuable. In addition, these findings can help develop strategies for more effective LS implementation, such as designing two types of LS, one adapted to teachers with beliefs about teaching focused on students and the other adapted to teaching beliefs focused on teachers. To the best of our knowledge, this dual strategy is currently not a part of LS implementation, at least in Chile. LS teams could easily explore this dual strategy, which could improve teachers’ professional development. In terms of practical implications, we believe that by adapting different types of LS, the whole group collaboration within each RL could lead to a richer discussion on aspects of the lesson. It would bring to the forefront those aspects that might not initially appear to contribute significantly. As a result, it would promote reflection among observers based on their own beliefs. Moreover, this dual strategy could help emphasize the benefits of the methodology and strengthen the overarching goals of the LS by highlighting those aspects that are less appreciated within each group.

LS encompasses multiple stages and requires dedication from the LS team. This paper provides initial insights into a single stage of LS based on a limited sample. Nonetheless, future research should focus on the whole process, considering a more holistic perspective of the LS implementation. Similarly, future research could explore the beliefs of the LS team, rather than solely focusing on the observers of the RL. Additionally, considering other contextual factors such as school culture, previous observation experiences, and administrative resources to participate in Professional Development activities. For instance, it would greatly enrich the analysis of future research to know the level of expertise participants have in conducting observations. This would allow us to understand more deeply which aspects teachers highlight depending on their experience in observation. Finally, the students’ behavior, which was outside of the scope of this work, may be affected by changes in their routine, such as the physical space allowing for a large number of observers or different teachers than those they are used to. On the other hand, we used the TBI ( Luft and Roehrig, 2007 ) in a novel manner, which was developed to be used as an interview. We used the open-ended TBI questions and provided the participants with concrete examples based on the framework developed by Luft and Roehrig (2007) , thereby framing the questions in a multiple-choice format instead of an open-ended approach. While this method proved helpful in explaining the differences in the perceived contribution, future research should study alternative instruments for assessing participants’ beliefs. In particular, the questionnaire instrument has a Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.68, which is close to the threshold of reliability; the reliability of this instrument might impact the measurement properties for this study, and the results should be taken with caution. Furthermore, a qualitative approach could provide insights into how and why those beliefs influence the participants’ perception of RL’s contributions.

Finally, in the Chilean context, opportunities for collaboration and peer observation that extend beyond evaluation purposes are important. The current study is an example of how people outside the LS team can benefit from different pedagogical aspects of this methodology. Future research should assess changes in teachers’ beliefs to determine whether the reported value of RL affects their daily practices.

Data availability statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics statement

The studies involving humans were approved by Comité de Ética de la Investigación (CEI) de la Facultad de Ciencias Sociales de la Universidad de Chile https://facso.uchile.cl/facultad/comites/comite-de-etica-de-la-investigacion . The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author contributions

DC: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. EM-D: Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Investigation. RA: Funding acquisition, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.

The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This research was funded by ANID Postdoctoral Fellowship Nb. 3180590 and ANID/PIA/Basal Funds for Centers of Excellence FB0003.

Acknowledgments

Authors gratefully acknowledge the support from ANID Postdoctoral Fellowship Nb. 3180590 and ANID/PIA/Basal Funds for Centers of Excellence FB0003.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 19, 716–723. doi: 10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Alamri, N. M. (2020). The implementation of the lesson study strategy in teaching mathematics: teachers’ perspectives. Educ. Res. Int. 2020, 1–8. doi: 10.1155/2020/1683758

Alvarado, M. (2012). “La Evaluación Docente y Sus Instrumentos: Discriminación Del Desempeño Docente y Asociación Con Los Resultados de Los Estudiantes.”

Google Scholar

Assaél, J., and Cornejo, R. (2018). “Work regulations and teacher subjectivity in a context of standardization and accountability policies in Chile.” In R. Normand, M. Liu, L. Carvalho, D. Oliveira, and L. LeVasseur (eds.), Education policies and the restructuring of the educational profession: global and comparative perspectives , Singapore: Springer, 245–257.

Avalos, B., and Assael, J. (2006). Moving from resistance to agreement: the case of the Chilean teacher performance evaluation. Int. J. Educ. Res. 45, 254–266. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2007.02.004

Avalos-Bevan, B. (2018). Teacher evaluation in Chile: highlights and complexities in 13 years of experience. Teach. Teach. 24, 297–311. doi: 10.1080/13540602.2017.1388228

Chokshi, S., and Fernandez, C. (2004). Challenges to importing Japanese lesson study: concerns, misconceptions, and nuances. Phi Delta Kappan 85, 520–525. doi: 10.1177/003172170408500710

Colegio de Profesores. (2023). “Evaluación Docente.” Available at: https://www.colegiodeprofesores.cl/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/EVALUACION-DOCENTE-001.pdf .

de Vries, S., Jansen, E. P. W. A., and van de Grift, W. J. C. M. (2013). Profiling teachers’ continuing professional development and the relation with their beliefs about learning and teaching. Teach. Teach. Educ. 33, 78–89. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2013.02.006

Dudley, P., Haiyan, X., Vermunt, J. D., and Lang, J. (2019). Empirical evidence of the impact of lesson study on students’ achievement, teachers’ professional learning and on institutional and system evolution. Eur. J. Educ. 54, 202–217. doi: 10.1111/ejed.12337

Estrella, S., Mena-Lorca, A., and Olfos, R. (2018). “Lesson study in Chile: a very promising but still uncertain path” in Mathematics lesson study around the world: theoretical and methodological issues . eds. M. Quaresma, C. Winsløw, S. Clivaz, J. da Ponte, A. Ní Shúilleabháin, and A. Takahashi (Cham: Springer), 105–122.

Fang, Y., Wang, X., and Kim-Eng, C. L. (2019). “Representing instructional improvement in lesson study through principled analysis of research lessons in Singapore: a case of equivalent fractions” in Theory and practice of lesson study in mathematics: an international perspective . eds. R. Huang, A. Takahashi, and J. P. da Ponte (Switzerland: Springer), 393–418.

Fernandez, M. L. (2010). Investigating how and what prospective teachers learn through microteaching lesson study. Teach. Teach. Educ. 26, 351–362. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2009.09.012

Fernandez, M. L., and Robinson, M. (2006). Prospective teachers’ perspectives on microteaching lesson study. Education 127:203+.

Fortney, B. S. (2009). “The impact of Japanese lesson study on preservice teacher belief structures about teaching and learning science” (Order No. 3360299). Available from Pro Quest Dissertations & Theses Global. (305005930).

Fujii, T. (2014). Implementing Japanese lesson study in foreign countries: misconceptions revealed. Math. Teach. Educ. Dev. 16:n1

Godfrey, D., Seleznyov, S., Anders, J., Wollaston, N., and Barrera-Pedemonte, F. (2019). A developmental evaluation approach to lesson study: exploring the impact of lesson study in London schools. Prof. Dev. Educ. 45, 325–340. doi: 10.1080/19415257.2018.1474488

Inprasitha, M. (2015). “Prospective teacher education in mathematics through lesson study.” In Series on mathematics education, vol. 3 , by M. Inprasitha, M. Isoda, P. Wang-Iverson, and B.-H. Yeap, eds., 185–196. Singapore: World Scientific.

Isoda, M. (2015). “The science of lesson study in the problem solving approach.” In Series on mathematics education, vol. 3 , by M. Inprasitha, M. Isoda, P. Wang-Iverson, and B.-H. Yeap, eds., 81–108. Singapore: World Scientific.

Juhler, M. V. (2016). The use of lesson study combined with content representation in the planning of physics lessons during field practice to develop pedagogical content knowledge. J. Sci. Teach. Educ. 27, 533–553. doi: 10.1007/s10972-016-9473-4

Lewis, C., and Perry, R. (2014). Lesson study with mathematical resources: a sustainable model for locally-led teacher professional learning. Math. Teach. Educ. Dev. 16, 22–42.

Lewis, C. C., and Perry, R. R. (2015). “A randomized trial of lesson study with mathematical resource kits: analysis of impact on teachers’ beliefs and learning community” in Large-scale studies in mathematics education . eds. J. Middleton, J. Cai, and S. Hwang (Cham: Springer), 133–158.

Luft, J. A., and Roehrig, G. H. (2007). Capturing science teachers’ epistemological beliefs: the development of the teacher beliefs interview. Electron. J. Res. Sci. Math. Educ. 11, 38–63.

Lumpe, A., Vaughn, A., Henrikson, R., and Bishop, D. (2014). “Teacher professional development and self-efficacy beliefs” in The role of science teachers’ beliefs in international classrooms (Brill), 49–63. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Maass, K. (2011). How can teachers’ beliefs affect their professional development? ZDM 43, 573–586. doi: 10.1007/s11858-011-0319-4

Manzi, J., González, R., and Sun, Y.. (2011). La Evaluación Docente En Chile.

Marble, S. T. (2006). Learning to teach through lesson study. Action Teach. Educ. 28, 86–96. doi: 10.1080/01626620.2006.10463422

Marble, S. (2007). Inquiring into teaching: lesson study in elementary science methods. J. Sci. Teach. Educ. 18, 935–953. doi: 10.1007/s10972-007-9071-6

Martínez, D. (2022). “Fin a La Doble Evaluación a Docentes. [Master’s Thesis, University of Chile].” Available at: https://repositorio.uchile.cl/handle/2250/194670 .

McSweeney, K., and Gardner, J.. (2018). “Lesson study matters in Ireland.” In Rural Environment. Education. Personality (REEP 2018) 2018 (Vol. 11, pp. 304–313). Latvia University of Life Sciences and Technologies. doi: 10.22616/REEP.2018.037

Mintzes, J. J., Marcum, B., Messerschmidt-Yates, C., and Mark, A. (2013). Enhancing self-efficacy in elementary science teaching with professional learning communities. J. Sci. Teach. Educ. 24, 1201–1218. doi: 10.1007/s10972-012-9320-1

Sakai, T., Akai, H., Ishizaka, H., Tamura, K., Lee, Y.-J., Choy, B. H., et al. (2022). Changes in qualities and abilities of Japanese teachers through participation in global lesson study on mathematics. Int. J. Lesson Learn. Stud. 11, 290–304. doi: 10.1108/IJLLS-04-2022-0058

Schipper, T., Goei, S. L., De Vries, S., and Van Veen, K. (2018). Developing teachers’ self-efficacy and adaptive teaching behaviour through lesson study. Int. J. Educ. Res. 88, 109–120. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2018.01.011

Schoenfeld, A. H. (2011). Toward professional development for teachers grounded in a theory of decision making. ZDM 43, 457–469. doi: 10.1007/s11858-011-0307-8

Seleznyov, S. (2020). Lesson study: exploring implementation challenges in England. Int. J. Lesson Learn. Stud. 9, 179–192. doi: 10.1108/IJLLS-08-2019-0059

Skott, J. (2001). The emerging practices of a novice teacher: the roles of his school mathematics images. J. Math. Teach. Educ. 4, 3–28. doi: 10.1023/A:1009978831627

Stipek, D. J., Givvin, K. B., Salmon, J. M., and MacGyvers, V. L. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs and practices related to mathematics instruction. Teach. Teach. Educ. 17, 213–226. doi: 10.1016/S0742-051X(00)00052-4

Suh, J. M., and Fulginiti, K. (2012). ‘Situating the learning’ of teaching: implementing lesson study at a professional development school. School Univ. Partnerships 5, 24–37.

Szumilas, M. (2010). Explaining odds ratios. J. Can. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 19, 227–229.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Taut, S., Santelices, M. V., Araya, C., and Manzi, J. (2011). Perceived effects and uses of the national teacher evaluation system in Chilean elementary schools. Stud. Educ. Eval. 37, 218–229. doi: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2011.08.002

Tupper, D. (2022). Elementary science lesson study: Relationships among efficacy, beliefs, and professional noticing (Order No. 29993352). Available from Pro Quest Dissertations & Theses Global. (2741309611).

Vermunt, J. D., Vrikki, M., Van Halem, N., Warwick, P., and Mercer, N. (2019). The impact of lesson study professional development on the quality of teacher learning. Teach. Teach. Educ. 81, 61–73. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2019.02.009

Wessels, H. (2018). Noticing in pre-service teacher education: research lessons as a context for reflection on learners’ mathematical reasoning and sense-making . In: Kaiser, G., Forgasz, H., Graven, M., Kuzniak, A., Simmt, E., Xu, B. (eds) Invited Lectures from the 13th International Congress on Mathematical Education. ICME-13 Monographs. Cham: Springer. 731–748.

Whitney, S. R. (2020). Are lesson study participants sharing their professional knowledge? Int. J. Lesson Learn. Stud. 9, 57–66. doi: 10.1108/IJLLS-11-2018-0090

Yakar, Z., and Turgut, D. (2017). Effectiveness of lesson study approach on preservice science teachers’ beliefs. Int. Educ. Stud. 10, 36–43. doi: 10.5539/ies.v10n6p36

Zhang, Z. (2016). Variable selection with stepwise and best subset approaches. Ann. Transl. Med. 4:136. doi: 10.21037/atm.2016.03.35

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Keywords: lesson study, research lesson, peer observation, teacher professional development, teachers’ beliefs

Citation: Caballero D, Mella-Defranchi E and Araya R (2024) The impact of observers’ beliefs on the perceived contribution of a Research Lesson. Front. Educ . 9:1331293. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2024.1331293

Received: 31 October 2023; Accepted: 21 March 2024; Published: 10 April 2024.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2024 Caballero, Mella-Defranchi and Araya. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Daniela Caballero, [email protected]

This article is part of the Research Topic

Global Lesson Study Policy, Practice, and Research for Advancing Teacher and Student Learning in STEM

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Transformations That Work

• Michael Mankins
• Patrick Litre

More than a third of large organizations have some type of transformation program underway at any given time, and many launch one major change initiative after another. Though they kick off with a lot of fanfare, most of these efforts fail to deliver. Only 12% produce lasting results, and that figure hasn’t budged in the past two decades, despite everything we’ve learned over the years about how to lead change.

Clearly, businesses need a new model for transformation. In this article the authors present one based on research with dozens of leading companies that have defied the odds, such as Ford, Dell, Amgen, T-Mobile, Adobe, and Virgin Australia. The successful programs, the authors found, employed six critical practices: treating transformation as a continuous process; building it into the company’s operating rhythm; explicitly managing organizational energy; using aspirations, not benchmarks, to set goals; driving change from the middle of the organization out; and tapping significant external capital to fund the effort from the start.

Lessons from companies that are defying the odds

Idea in Brief

The problem.

Although companies frequently engage in transformation initiatives, few are actually transformative. Research indicates that only 12% of major change programs produce lasting results.

Why It Happens

Leaders are increasingly content with incremental improvements. As a result, they experience fewer outright failures but equally fewer real transformations.

The Solution

To deliver, change programs must treat transformation as a continuous process, build it into the company’s operating rhythm, explicitly manage organizational energy, state aspirations rather than set targets, drive change from the middle out, and be funded by serious capital investments.

Nearly every major corporation has embarked on some sort of transformation in recent years. By our estimates, at any given time more than a third of large organizations have a transformation program underway. When asked, roughly 50% of CEOs we’ve interviewed report that their company has undertaken two or more major change efforts within the past five years, with nearly 20% reporting three or more.

• Michael Mankins is a leader in Bain’s Organization and Strategy practices and is a partner based in Austin, Texas. He is a coauthor of Time, Talent, Energy: Overcome Organizational Drag and Unleash Your Team’s Productive Power (Harvard Business Review Press, 2017).
• PL Patrick Litre leads Bain’s Global Transformation and Change practice and is a partner based in Atlanta.

Partner Center

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

Regions & Countries

7 facts about americans and taxes.

Spring reliably brings a whirlwind of number-crunching and form-filing as Americans finish their tax returns. Altogether, the IRS expects to process more than 160 million individual and business tax returns this season.

Ahead of Tax Day on April 15, here are seven facts about Americans and federal taxes, drawn from Pew Research Center surveys and analyses of federal data.

Ahead of Tax Day 2024, Pew Research Center sought to understand Americans’ views of the federal tax system and outline some of its features.

The public opinion data in this analysis comes from Pew Research Center surveys. Links to these surveys, including details about their methodologies, are available in the text.

The external data comes from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget and the IRS Data Book . Data is reported by fiscal year, which for the federal government begins Oct. 1 and ends Sept. 30. For example, fiscal 2024 began Oct. 1, 2023, and ends Sept. 30, 2024.

A majority of Americans feel that corporations and wealthy people don’t pay their fair share in taxes, according to a Center survey from spring 2023 . About six-in-ten U.S. adults say they’re bothered a lot by the feeling that some corporations (61%) and some wealthy people (60%) don’t pay their fair share.

Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to feel this way. Among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, about three-quarters say they’re bothered a lot by the feeling that some corporations (77%) and some wealthy people (77%) don’t pay their fair share. Much smaller shares of Republicans and GOP leaners share these views (46% say this about corporations and 43% about the wealthy).

Meanwhile, about two-thirds of Americans (65%) support raising tax rates on large businesses and corporations, and a similar share (61%) support raising tax rates on households with annual incomes over $400,000. Democrats are much more likely than Republicans to say these tax rates should increase.

Just over half of U.S. adults feel they personally pay more than what is fair, considering what they get in return from the federal government, according to the same survey.

This sentiment has grown more widespread in recent years: 56% of Americans now say they pay more than their fair share in taxes, up from 49% in 2021. Roughly a third (34%) say they pay about the right amount, and 8% say they pay less than their fair share.

Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say they pay more than their fair share (63% vs. 50%), though the share of Democrats who feel this way has risen since 2021. (The share among Republicans is statistically unchanged from 2021.)

Many Americans are frustrated by the complexity of the federal tax system, according to the same survey. About half (53%) say its complexity bothers them a lot. Of the aspects of the federal tax system that we asked about, this was the top frustration among Republicans – 59% say it bothers them a lot, compared with 49% of Democrats.

Undeniably, the federal tax code is a massive document, and it has only gotten longer over time. The printed 2022 edition of the Internal Revenue Code clocks in at 4,192 pages, excluding front matter. Income tax law alone accounts for over half of those pages (2,544).

The public is divided in its views of the IRS. In a separate spring 2023 Center survey , 51% of Americans said they have an unfavorable opinion of the government tax agency, while 42% had a favorable view of the IRS. Still, of the 16 federal agencies and departments we asked about, the IRS was among the least popular on the list.

Views of the IRS differ greatly by party:

• Among Republicans, 29% have a favorable view and 64% have an unfavorable view.
• Among Democrats, it’s 53% favorable and 40% unfavorable.

On balance, Democrats offer much more positive opinions than Republicans when it comes to most of the federal agencies we asked about. Even so, the IRS ranks near the bottom of their list.

Individual income taxes are by far the government’s largest single source of revenue, according to estimates from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

The federal government expects to collect about $2.5 trillion in individual income taxes in fiscal year 2024. That accounts for nearly half (49%) of its total estimated receipts for the year. The next largest chunk comes from Social Security taxes (including those for disability and retirement programs), which are projected to pull in $1.2 trillion this fiscal year (24%).

By comparison, corporate income taxes are estimated to bring in $612.8 billion, or 12% of this fiscal year’s federal receipts. And excise taxes – which include things like transportation trust fund revenue and taxes on alcohol, tobacco and crude oil – are expected to come to $99.7 billion, or 2% of receipts.

American tax dollars mostly go to social services. Human services – including education, health, Social Security, Medicare, income security and veterans benefits – together will account for 66% ($4.6 trillion) of federal government spending in fiscal 2024, according to OMB estimates.

An estimated 13% ($907.7 billion) will go toward defense spending. Another 13% ($888.6 billion) will repay net interest on government debt, and 10% ($726.9 billion) will fund all other functions, including energy, transportation, agriculture and more.

Related: 6 facts about Americans’ views of government spending and the deficit

The vast majority of Americans e-file their taxes, according to IRS data . In fiscal 2022, 150.6 million individual federal income tax returns were filed electronically, accounting for 94% of all individual filings that year.

Unsurprisingly, e-filing has become more popular since the turn of the century. Fiscal 2000, the earliest year for which comparable data is available, saw 35.4 million individual income tax returns filed electronically (including those filed over the phone). These accounted for just 28% of individual filings that year.

By fiscal 2005, more than half of individual income tax returns (52%) were filed electronically.

Note: This is an update combining information from two posts originally published in 2014 and 2015.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivered Saturday mornings

Top tax frustrations for Americans: The feeling that some corporations, wealthy people don’t pay fair share

Growing partisan divide over fairness of the nation’s tax system, public has mixed expectations for new tax law, most popular.

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

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• Primary Research | Definition, Types, & Examples

Primary Research | Definition, Types, & Examples

Published on January 14, 2023 by Tegan George . Revised on January 12, 2024.

Primary research is a research method that relies on direct data collection , rather than relying on data that’s already been collected by someone else. In other words, primary research is any type of research that you undertake yourself, firsthand, while using data that has already been collected is called secondary research .

Primary research is often used in qualitative research , particularly in survey methodology, questionnaires, focus groups, and various types of interviews . While quantitative primary research does exist, it’s not as common.

Table of contents

When to use primary research, types of primary research, examples of primary research, advantages and disadvantages of primary research, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions.

Primary research is any research that you conduct yourself. It can be as simple as a 2-question survey, or as in-depth as a years-long longitudinal study . The only key is that data must be collected firsthand by you.

Primary research is often used to supplement or strengthen existing secondary research. It is usually exploratory in nature, concerned with examining a research question where no preexisting knowledge exists. It is also sometimes called original research for this reason.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Primary research can take many forms, but the most common types are:

• Surveys and questionnaires
• Observational studies
• Interviews and focus groups

Surveys and questionnaires collect information about a group of people by asking them questions and analyzing the results. They are a solid choice if your research topic seeks to investigate something about the characteristics, preferences, opinions, or beliefs of a group of people.

Surveys and questionnaires can take place online, in person, or through the mail. It is best to have a combination of open-ended and closed-ended questions, and how the questions are phrased matters. Be sure to avoid leading questions, and ask any related questions in groups, starting with the most basic ones first.

Observational studies are an easy and popular way to answer a research question based purely on what you, the researcher, observes. If there are practical or ethical concerns that prevent you from conducting a traditional experiment , observational studies are often a good stopgap.

There are three types of observational studies: cross-sectional studies , cohort studies, and case-control studies. If you decide to conduct observational research, you can choose the one that’s best for you. All three are quite straightforward and easy to design—just beware of confounding variables and observer bias creeping into your analysis.

Similarly to surveys and questionnaires, interviews and focus groups also rely on asking questions to collect information about a group of people. However, how this is done is slightly different. Instead of sending your questions out into the world, interviews and focus groups involve two or more people—one of whom is you, the interviewer, who asks the questions.

There are 3 main types of interviews:

• Structured interviews ask predetermined questions in a predetermined order.
• Unstructured interviews are more flexible and free-flowing, proceeding based on the interviewee’s previous answers.
• Semi-structured interviews fall in between, asking a mix of predetermined questions and off-the-cuff questions.

While interviews are a rich source of information, they can also be deceptively challenging to do well. Be careful of interviewer bias creeping into your process. This is best mitigated by avoiding double-barreled questions and paying close attention to your tone and delivery while asking questions.

Alternatively, a focus group is a group interview, led by a moderator. Focus groups can provide more nuanced interactions than individual interviews, but their small sample size means that external validity is low.

Primary research can often be quite simple to pursue yourself. Here are a few examples of different research methods you can use to explore different topics.

Primary research is a great choice for many research projects, but it has distinct advantages and disadvantages.

Advantages of primary research

Advantages include:

• The ability to conduct really tailored, thorough research, down to the “nitty-gritty” of your topic . You decide what you want to study or observe and how to go about doing that.
• You maintain control over the quality of the data collected, and can ensure firsthand that it is objective, reliable , and valid .
• The ensuing results are yours, for you to disseminate as you see fit. You maintain proprietary control over what you find out, allowing you to share your findings with like-minded individuals or those conducting related research that interests you for replication or discussion purposes.

Disadvantages of primary research

Disadvantages include:

• In order to be done well, primary research can be very expensive and time consuming. If you are constrained in terms of time or funding, it can be very difficult to conduct your own high-quality primary research.
• Primary research is often insufficient as a standalone research method, requiring secondary research to bolster it.
• Primary research can be prone to various types of research bias . Bias can manifest on the part of the researcher as observer bias , Pygmalion effect , or demand characteristics . It can occur on the part of participants as a Hawthorne effect or social desirability bias .

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

• Chi square goodness of fit test
• Degrees of freedom
• Null hypothesis
• Discourse analysis
• Control groups
• Mixed methods research
• Non-probability sampling
• Quantitative research
• Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Research bias

• Rosenthal effect
• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Selection bias
• Negativity bias
• Status quo bias

The 3 main types of primary research are:

Exploratory research aims to explore the main aspects of an under-researched problem, while explanatory research aims to explain the causes and consequences of a well-defined problem.

There are several methods you can use to decrease the impact of confounding variables on your research: restriction, matching, statistical control and randomization.

In restriction , you restrict your sample by only including certain subjects that have the same values of potential confounding variables.

In matching , you match each of the subjects in your treatment group with a counterpart in the comparison group. The matched subjects have the same values on any potential confounding variables, and only differ in the independent variable .

In statistical control , you include potential confounders as variables in your regression .

In randomization , you randomly assign the treatment (or independent variable) in your study to a sufficiently large number of subjects, which allows you to control for all potential confounding variables.

A questionnaire is a data collection tool or instrument, while a survey is an overarching research method that involves collecting and analyzing data from people using questionnaires.

When conducting research, collecting original data has significant advantages:

• You can tailor data collection to your specific research aims (e.g. understanding the needs of your consumers or user testing your website)
• You can control and standardize the process for high reliability and validity (e.g. choosing appropriate measurements and sampling methods )

However, there are also some drawbacks: data collection can be time-consuming, labor-intensive and expensive. In some cases, it’s more efficient to use secondary data that has already been collected by someone else, but the data might be less reliable.

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.

George, T. (2024, January 12). Primary Research | Definition, Types, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved April 9, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/primary-research/

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Other students also liked, data collection | definition, methods & examples, observer bias | definition, examples, prevention, what is qualitative research | methods & examples, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

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