ScienceDaily

Top Science News

  • Social Psychology
  • Consumer Behavior
  • Organic Chemistry
  • Biochemistry
  • Personalized Medicine
  • Today's Healthcare
  • Wounds and Healing
  • Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • K-12 Education
  • Black Holes
  • Extrasolar Planets
  • Inorganic Chemistry
  • Space Exploration
  • Global Warming
  • Snow and Avalanches
  • Origin of Life
  • Energy and the Environment
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Frogs and Reptiles
  • How Competition Can Help Promote Cooperation
  • Chemists Synthesize Unique Anticancer Molecules
  • Dramatic Improvements in Crohn's Patients
  • Wearable Human Emotion Recognition Tech
  • Top Physical/Tech
  • Neutron Star at Heart of Supernova Remnant
  • The Search for More Temperate Tatooines
  • Steering Light With Supercritical Coupling
  • Search for Life On Mars Continues
  • Top Environment
  • Anchors Holding Antarctic Land-Ice Shrinking
  • Compound Vital for All Life and Life's Origin
  • Physicists Develop More Efficient Solar Cell
  • Incredibly Rare Giant Turtle Found Nesting
  • Huntington's Disease
  • Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis
  • Chronic Illness
  • Disorders and Syndromes
  • Pharmacology
  • Pharmaceuticals
  • Controlled Substances
  • Skin Cancer
  • Breast Cancer
  • Neuroscience
  • Brain Injury
  • Intelligence
  • Child Development
  • Child Psychology
  • Educational Technology
  • Mental Health
  • Environmental Awareness
  • Sleep Disorders
  • Obstructive Sleep Apnea
  • Cholesterol
  • Men's Health
  • Health & Medicine
  • Mapping Potential Pathways to MND Treatment
  • Treating Anxiety, Depression and More
  • Drugs That Shouldn't Be Taken Together
  • Terahertz Biosensor Detects Skin Cancer Early
  • Mind & Brain
  • Where Neural Stem Cells Feel at Home
  • Post-Concussion Anxiety and Exercise Intensity
  • Young Children and Digital Media
  • Climate Change: Mental Distress Among Teens
  • Living Well
  • If a TV Spoke to You, Would You Buy It?
  • Gargling Away the Bad Bacteria in Type 2 ...
  • Sleep Improves Ability to Recall Complex Events
  • Hair Loss Drug May Also Cut Heart Disease Risk
  • Computers and Internet
  • Spintronics
  • Materials Science
  • Computer Modeling
  • Engineering and Construction
  • Solar System
  • Ecology Research
  • Hazardous Waste
  • Astrophysics
  • Nuclear Energy
  • Information Technology
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Spintronics Research
  • Engineering
  • Virtual Reality
  • Matter & Energy
  • Monitoring Dynamic Biological Processes
  • Testing for Toxins; Leaving Rats Out of It
  • Discovering Single-Molecule Magnets Quickly
  • Plastic Recycling With a Protein Anchor
  • Space & Time
  • Little Groundwater Recharge in Old Mars Aquifer
  • Historical Spy-Satellite Images and Ecology
  • Measuring Neutrons to Reduce Nuclear Waste
  • Fundamental Science On Earth and in the Cosmos
  • Computers & Math
  • AI Wrangles Fusion Power for the Grid
  • Scientists Double Computer Processing Speeds
  • Exotic Electronic State and Quantum Computing
  • Angle-Dependent Holograms
  • Sustainability
  • Scientific Conduct
  • Evolutionary Biology
  • Environmental Issues
  • Cell Biology
  • Molecular Biology
  • Microbes and More
  • Natural Disasters
  • Wild Animals
  • New Species
  • Marine Biology
  • Ancient DNA
  • Ancient Civilizations
  • Plants & Animals
  • Cultural Evolution of Collective Property Rights
  • Parks, Botanical Gardens, Keep Cities Cool
  • Damage to Cell Membranes Causes Cell Aging
  • Spread and Evolution of Antibiotic Resistance
  • Earth & Climate
  • Air Pollution Hides Increases in Rainfall
  • More Fires Likely in Cooler Northwest US
  • Killer Instinct and Mammals' Ancestors
  • Snakes Do It Faster, Better
  • Fossils & Ruins
  • Butterfly, Moth Genomes Stood the Test of Time
  • Sea Monsters Are Our Cousins
  • World's Most Ecologically Diverse Bats
  • Down Syndrome: Record in Ancient DNA
  • Political Science
  • Public Health Education
  • Funding Policy
  • Air Quality
  • Air Pollution
  • Earthquakes
  • Privacy Issues
  • Education and Employment
  • Legal Issues
  • Learning Disorders
  • Educational Policy
  • Children's Health
  • Educational Psychology
  • Workplace Health
  • Environmental Policy
  • Environmental Policies
  • Racial Disparity
  • Racial Issues
  • Science & Society
  • Nudged Towards Healthier Diets?
  • How US Air Pollution Has Changed Over Time
  • Earthquake Fatality Measure to Assess Impact
  • Background Checks Don't Always Check out
  • Education & Learning
  • Boost Kids' Language Skills by Reminiscing
  • School Uniform Policies May Limit Student ...
  • Brain 'Programmed' to Learn from Those We Like
  • Education: Early Drawing and Building Skills
  • Business & Industry
  • Burnout: Identifying People at Risk
  • Businesses Need Clarity for Mitigating Pollution
  • Hiring the Most Qualified: Unfair?
  • Online Reviews: Should They Be Filtered?
  • Giant New Snake Species Identified in the Amazon
  • Record-Breaking Quasar Discovered

ScienceDaily features breaking news about the latest discoveries in science, health, the environment, technology, and more -- from leading universities, scientific journals, and research organizations.

Visitors can browse more than 500 individual topics, grouped into 12 main sections (listed under the top navigational menu), covering: the medical sciences and health; physical sciences and technology; biological sciences and the environment; and social sciences, business and education. Headlines and summaries of relevant news stories are provided on each topic page.

Stories are posted daily, selected from press materials provided by hundreds of sources from around the world. Links to sources and relevant journal citations (where available) are included at the end of each post.

For more information about ScienceDaily, please consult the links listed at the bottom of each page.

News alert: UC Berkeley has announced its next university librarian

Secondary menu

  • Log in to your Library account
  • Hours and Maps
  • Connect from Off Campus
  • UC Berkeley Home

Search form

Research methods--quantitative, qualitative, and more: overview.

  • Quantitative Research
  • Qualitative Research
  • Data Science Methods (Machine Learning, AI, Big Data)
  • Text Mining and Computational Text Analysis
  • Evidence Synthesis/Systematic Reviews
  • Get Data, Get Help!

About Research Methods

This guide provides an overview of research methods, how to choose and use them, and supports and resources at UC Berkeley. 

As Patten and Newhart note in the book Understanding Research Methods , "Research methods are the building blocks of the scientific enterprise. They are the "how" for building systematic knowledge. The accumulation of knowledge through research is by its nature a collective endeavor. Each well-designed study provides evidence that may support, amend, refute, or deepen the understanding of existing knowledge...Decisions are important throughout the practice of research and are designed to help researchers collect evidence that includes the full spectrum of the phenomenon under study, to maintain logical rules, and to mitigate or account for possible sources of bias. In many ways, learning research methods is learning how to see and make these decisions."

The choice of methods varies by discipline, by the kind of phenomenon being studied and the data being used to study it, by the technology available, and more.  This guide is an introduction, but if you don't see what you need here, always contact your subject librarian, and/or take a look to see if there's a library research guide that will answer your question. 

Suggestions for changes and additions to this guide are welcome! 

START HERE: SAGE Research Methods

Without question, the most comprehensive resource available from the library is SAGE Research Methods.  HERE IS THE ONLINE GUIDE  to this one-stop shopping collection, and some helpful links are below:

  • SAGE Research Methods
  • Little Green Books  (Quantitative Methods)
  • Little Blue Books  (Qualitative Methods)
  • Dictionaries and Encyclopedias  
  • Case studies of real research projects
  • Sample datasets for hands-on practice
  • Streaming video--see methods come to life
  • Methodspace- -a community for researchers
  • SAGE Research Methods Course Mapping

Library Data Services at UC Berkeley

Library Data Services Program and Digital Scholarship Services

The LDSP offers a variety of services and tools !  From this link, check out pages for each of the following topics:  discovering data, managing data, collecting data, GIS data, text data mining, publishing data, digital scholarship, open science, and the Research Data Management Program.

Be sure also to check out the visual guide to where to seek assistance on campus with any research question you may have!

Library GIS Services

Other Data Services at Berkeley

D-Lab Supports Berkeley faculty, staff, and graduate students with research in data intensive social science, including a wide range of training and workshop offerings Dryad Dryad is a simple self-service tool for researchers to use in publishing their datasets. It provides tools for the effective publication of and access to research data. Geospatial Innovation Facility (GIF) Provides leadership and training across a broad array of integrated mapping technologies on campu Research Data Management A UC Berkeley guide and consulting service for research data management issues

General Research Methods Resources

Here are some general resources for assistance:

  • Assistance from ICPSR (must create an account to access): Getting Help with Data , and Resources for Students
  • Wiley Stats Ref for background information on statistics topics
  • Survey Documentation and Analysis (SDA) .  Program for easy web-based analysis of survey data.

Consultants

  • D-Lab/Data Science Discovery Consultants Request help with your research project from peer consultants.
  • Research data (RDM) consulting Meet with RDM consultants before designing the data security, storage, and sharing aspects of your qualitative project.
  • Statistics Department Consulting Services A service in which advanced graduate students, under faculty supervision, are available to consult during specified hours in the Fall and Spring semesters.

Related Resourcex

  • IRB / CPHS Qualitative research projects with human subjects often require that you go through an ethics review.
  • OURS (Office of Undergraduate Research and Scholarships) OURS supports undergraduates who want to embark on research projects and assistantships. In particular, check out their "Getting Started in Research" workshops
  • Sponsored Projects Sponsored projects works with researchers applying for major external grants.
  • Next: Quantitative Research >>
  • Last Updated: Apr 3, 2023 3:14 PM
  • URL: https://guides.lib.berkeley.edu/researchmethods
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • QuestionPro

survey software icon

  • Solutions Industries Gaming Automotive Sports and events Education Government Travel & Hospitality Financial Services Healthcare Cannabis Technology Use Case NPS+ Communities Audience Contactless surveys Mobile LivePolls Member Experience GDPR Positive People Science 360 Feedback Surveys
  • Resources Blog eBooks Survey Templates Case Studies Training Help center

a research to study

Home Market Research

What is Research: Definition, Methods, Types & Examples

What is Research

The search for knowledge is closely linked to the object of study; that is, to the reconstruction of the facts that will provide an explanation to an observed event and that at first sight can be considered as a problem. It is very human to seek answers and satisfy our curiosity. Let’s talk about research.

Content Index

What is Research?

What are the characteristics of research.

  • Comparative analysis chart

Qualitative methods

Quantitative methods, 8 tips for conducting accurate research.

Research is the careful consideration of study regarding a particular concern or research problem using scientific methods. According to the American sociologist Earl Robert Babbie, “research is a systematic inquiry to describe, explain, predict, and control the observed phenomenon. It involves inductive and deductive methods.”

Inductive methods analyze an observed event, while deductive methods verify the observed event. Inductive approaches are associated with qualitative research , and deductive methods are more commonly associated with quantitative analysis .

Research is conducted with a purpose to:

  • Identify potential and new customers
  • Understand existing customers
  • Set pragmatic goals
  • Develop productive market strategies
  • Address business challenges
  • Put together a business expansion plan
  • Identify new business opportunities
  • Good research follows a systematic approach to capture accurate data. Researchers need to practice ethics and a code of conduct while making observations or drawing conclusions.
  • The analysis is based on logical reasoning and involves both inductive and deductive methods.
  • Real-time data and knowledge is derived from actual observations in natural settings.
  • There is an in-depth analysis of all data collected so that there are no anomalies associated with it.
  • It creates a path for generating new questions. Existing data helps create more research opportunities.
  • It is analytical and uses all the available data so that there is no ambiguity in inference.
  • Accuracy is one of the most critical aspects of research. The information must be accurate and correct. For example, laboratories provide a controlled environment to collect data. Accuracy is measured in the instruments used, the calibrations of instruments or tools, and the experiment’s final result.

What is the purpose of research?

There are three main purposes:

  • Exploratory: As the name suggests, researchers conduct exploratory studies to explore a group of questions. The answers and analytics may not offer a conclusion to the perceived problem. It is undertaken to handle new problem areas that haven’t been explored before. This exploratory data analysis process lays the foundation for more conclusive data collection and analysis.

LEARN ABOUT: Descriptive Analysis

  • Descriptive: It focuses on expanding knowledge on current issues through a process of data collection. Descriptive research describe the behavior of a sample population. Only one variable is required to conduct the study. The three primary purposes of descriptive studies are describing, explaining, and validating the findings. For example, a study conducted to know if top-level management leaders in the 21st century possess the moral right to receive a considerable sum of money from the company profit.

LEARN ABOUT: Best Data Collection Tools

  • Explanatory: Causal research or explanatory research is conducted to understand the impact of specific changes in existing standard procedures. Running experiments is the most popular form. For example, a study that is conducted to understand the effect of rebranding on customer loyalty.

Here is a comparative analysis chart for a better understanding:

It begins by asking the right questions and choosing an appropriate method to investigate the problem. After collecting answers to your questions, you can analyze the findings or observations to draw reasonable conclusions.

When it comes to customers and market studies, the more thorough your questions, the better the analysis. You get essential insights into brand perception and product needs by thoroughly collecting customer data through surveys and questionnaires . You can use this data to make smart decisions about your marketing strategies to position your business effectively.

To make sense of your study and get insights faster, it helps to use a research repository as a single source of truth in your organization and manage your research data in one centralized data repository .

Types of research methods and Examples

what is research

Research methods are broadly classified as Qualitative and Quantitative .

Both methods have distinctive properties and data collection methods.

Qualitative research is a method that collects data using conversational methods, usually open-ended questions . The responses collected are essentially non-numerical. This method helps a researcher understand what participants think and why they think in a particular way.

Types of qualitative methods include:

  • One-to-one Interview
  • Focus Groups
  • Ethnographic studies
  • Text Analysis

Quantitative methods deal with numbers and measurable forms . It uses a systematic way of investigating events or data. It answers questions to justify relationships with measurable variables to either explain, predict, or control a phenomenon.

Types of quantitative methods include:

  • Survey research
  • Descriptive research
  • Correlational research

LEARN MORE: Descriptive Research vs Correlational Research

Remember, it is only valuable and useful when it is valid, accurate, and reliable. Incorrect results can lead to customer churn and a decrease in sales.

It is essential to ensure that your data is:

  • Valid – founded, logical, rigorous, and impartial.
  • Accurate – free of errors and including required details.
  • Reliable – other people who investigate in the same way can produce similar results.
  • Timely – current and collected within an appropriate time frame.
  • Complete – includes all the data you need to support your business decisions.

Gather insights

What is a research - tips

  • Identify the main trends and issues, opportunities, and problems you observe. Write a sentence describing each one.
  • Keep track of the frequency with which each of the main findings appears.
  • Make a list of your findings from the most common to the least common.
  • Evaluate a list of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats identified in a SWOT analysis .
  • Prepare conclusions and recommendations about your study.
  • Act on your strategies
  • Look for gaps in the information, and consider doing additional inquiry if necessary
  • Plan to review the results and consider efficient methods to analyze and interpret results.

Review your goals before making any conclusions about your study. Remember how the process you have completed and the data you have gathered help answer your questions. Ask yourself if what your analysis revealed facilitates the identification of your conclusions and recommendations.

LEARN MORE ABOUT OUR SOFTWARE         FREE TRIAL

MORE LIKE THIS

a research to study

A Tale of Evolution: Cristina Ortega’s Life@QuestionPro

Feb 23, 2024

subscription management software

Top 10 Subscription Management Software for Your Business

importance of customer experience management

Importance of Customer Experience Management | QuestionPro

engagement survey vendors

10 Engagement Survey Vendors for Workplace Success in 2024

Feb 22, 2024

Other categories

  • Academic Research
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Assessments
  • Brand Awareness
  • Case Studies
  • Communities
  • Consumer Insights
  • Customer effort score
  • Customer Engagement
  • Customer Experience
  • Customer Loyalty
  • Customer Research
  • Customer Satisfaction
  • Employee Benefits
  • Employee Engagement
  • Employee Retention
  • Friday Five
  • General Data Protection Regulation
  • Insights Hub
  • Life@QuestionPro
  • Market Research
  • Mobile diaries
  • Mobile Surveys
  • New Features
  • Online Communities
  • Question Types
  • Questionnaire
  • QuestionPro Products
  • Release Notes
  • Research Tools and Apps
  • Revenue at Risk
  • Survey Templates
  • Training Tips
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Learning Series
  • What’s Coming Up
  • Workforce Intelligence

Book cover

Doing Research: A New Researcher’s Guide pp 1–15 Cite as

What Is Research, and Why Do People Do It?

  • James Hiebert 6 ,
  • Jinfa Cai 7 ,
  • Stephen Hwang 7 ,
  • Anne K Morris 6 &
  • Charles Hohensee 6  
  • Open Access
  • First Online: 03 December 2022

13k Accesses

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

Abstractspiepr Abs1

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

Download chapter PDF

Part I. What Is Research?

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

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

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

Exercise 1.1

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

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

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

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

An image of the book's description with the words like research, science, and inquiry and what the word research meant in the scientific world.

Exercise 1.2

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

Creating an Image of Scientific Inquiry

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

Descriptor 1. Experience Carefully Planned in Advance

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

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

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

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

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

An image represents the observation required in the scientific inquiry including planning and explaining.

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

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

An image represents the data explanation as it is not limited and takes numerous non-quantitative forms including an interview, journal entries, etc.

Exercise 1.3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doing Scientific Inquiry

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

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

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

An image represents the scientific inquiry definition given by the editors of Britannica and also defines the hypothesis on the basis of the experiments.

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

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

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

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

Exercise 1.4

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

Unpacking the Terms Formulating, Testing, and Revising Hypotheses

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

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

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

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

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

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

An image represents the rationale and the prediction for the scientific inquiry and different types of information provided by the terms.

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

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

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

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

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

Exercise 1.5

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

Exercise 1.6

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

Learning from Doing Scientific Inquiry

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

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

An image represents the cycle of events that take place before making predictions, developing the rationale, and studying the prediction and rationale multiple times.

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

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

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

Part II. Why Do Educators Do Research?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exercise 1.7

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

Part III. Conducting Research as a Practice of Failing Productively

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exercise 1.8

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

Exercise 1.9

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

Part IV. Preview of Chap. 2

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

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

Google Scholar  

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

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

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

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

James Hiebert, Anne K Morris & Charles Hohensee

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

Jinfa Cai & Stephen Hwang

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

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

Download citation

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

Published : 03 December 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

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

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

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

  • Publish with us

Policies and ethics

  • Find a journal
  • Track your research

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

  • View all journals
  • Explore content
  • About the journal
  • Publish with us
  • Sign up for alerts

Research articles

a research to study

Comparing the current short-term cancer incidence prediction models in Brazil with state-of-the-art time-series models

  • Daniel Bouzon Nagem Assad
  • Patricia Gomes Ferreira da Costa
  • Alfredo Monteiro Scaff

a research to study

Quantitative trait loci and genomic prediction for grain sugar and mineral concentrations of cowpea [ Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.]

  • Bao-Lam Huynh
  • James C. R. Stangoulis
  • Philip A. Roberts

Association between the perceived value of adopting new behaviors and depressive symptoms among older adults

  • Chiharu Nishijima
  • Osamu Katayama
  • Hiroyuki Shimada

a research to study

Dual-layer detector spectral CT-based machine learning models in the differential diagnosis of solitary pulmonary nodules

  • Kaifang Liu

a research to study

A virtual reality experiment to study pedestrian perception of future street scenarios

  • Javier Argota Sánchez-Vaquerizo
  • Carina I. Hausladen
  • Dirk Helbing

a research to study

Longitudinal antibody dynamics after COVID-19 vaccine boosters based on prior infection status and booster doses

  • Naomi Matsumoto
  • Ayako Sasaki
  • Takashi Yorifuji

a research to study

Projected population exposure to heatwaves in Xinjiang Uygur autonomous region, China

  • Zengxin Zhang

a research to study

Perception of interpersonal distance and social distancing before and during COVID-19 pandemic

  • Nur Givon-Benjio
  • Hili Sokolover
  • Hadas Okon-Singer

a research to study

The effect of arterial spin labeling MR angiography (ASL-MRA) in visualizing the branches of external carotid artery

  • Akihiro Nishie

a research to study

High-dose exposure to butylparaben impairs thyroid ultrastructure and function in rats

  • Qi-Lan Jiang

a research to study

Building integrated diffusers’ area ratio optimization

  • Abdel Rahman Elbakheit

a research to study

The unnecessary workups and admissions of adolescents and young adults with spontaneous pneumomediastinum

  • Lindsay Wald
  • Celeste Yergin
  • Saleem Islam

a research to study

Using machine learning to predict five-year transplant-free survival among infants with hypoplastic left heart syndrome

  • Andrew H. Smith
  • Geoffrey M. Gray
  • Luis M. Ahumada

a research to study

The diagnostic performance evaluation of Panbio and STANDARD Q coronavirus disease 2019 antigen tests against real-time polymerase chain reaction in southern Ethiopia

  • Elias Tamene
  • Alemitu Beyene
  • Techalew Shimelis

a research to study

Apigenin supplementation substantially improves rooster sperm freezability and post-thaw function

  • Abouzar Najafi
  • Hossein Mohammadi
  • Amin Rahimi

a research to study

Optimized reamer geometry for controlled reaming of the proximal femur

  • Markus Heinecke
  • Frank Layher
  • Georg Matziolis

a research to study

Normative body mass-adjusted reference ranges of magnetic resonance imaging signs commonly used in diagnosing idiopathic intracranial hypertension in a healthy standard population

  • Rike Kobrow
  • Stefan Gross
  • Sebastian Strauss

a research to study

Mosaic quadrivalent influenza vaccine single nanoparticle characterization

  • Rong Sylvie Yang
  • Maria Traver
  • Q. Paula Lei

a research to study

Alcohol consumption as a socially contagious phenomenon in the Framingham Heart Study social network

  • Maarten W. J. van den Ende
  • Han L. J. van der Maas
  • Mike H. Lees

a research to study

Transdiagnostic clustering and network analysis for questionnaire-based symptom profiling and drug recommendation in the UK Biobank and a Korean cohort

  • Dongbin Lee
  • Woong-yang Park

Quick links

  • Explore articles by subject
  • Guide to authors
  • Editorial policies

a research to study

Logo for Kwantlen Polytechnic University

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

Overview of the Scientific Method

11 Designing a Research Study

Learning objectives.

  • Define the concept of a variable, distinguish quantitative from categorical variables, and give examples of variables that might be of interest to psychologists.
  • Explain the difference between a population and a sample.
  • Distinguish between experimental and non-experimental research.
  • Distinguish between lab studies, field studies, and field experiments.

Identifying and Defining the Variables and Population

Variables and operational definitions.

Part of generating a hypothesis involves identifying the variables that you want to study and operationally defining those variables so that they can be measured. Research questions in psychology are about variables. A  variable  is a quantity or quality that varies across people or situations. For example, the height of the students enrolled in a university course is a variable because it varies from student to student. The chosen major of the students is also a variable as long as not everyone in the class has declared the same major. Almost everything in our world varies and as such thinking of examples of constants (things that don’t vary) is far more difficult. A rare example of a constant is the speed of light. Variables can be either quantitative or categorical. A  quantitative variable  is a quantity, such as height, that is typically measured by assigning a number to each individual. Other examples of quantitative variables include people’s level of talkativeness, how depressed they are, and the number of siblings they have. A categorical variable  is a quality, such as chosen major, and is typically measured by assigning a category label to each individual (e.g., Psychology, English, Nursing, etc.). Other examples include people’s nationality, their occupation, and whether they are receiving psychotherapy.

After the researcher generates their hypothesis and selects the variables they want to manipulate and measure, the researcher needs to find ways to actually measure the variables of interest. This requires an  operational definition —a definition of the variable in terms of precisely how it is to be measured. Most variables that researchers are interested in studying cannot be directly observed or measured and this poses a problem because empiricism (observation) is at the heart of the scientific method. Operationally defining a variable involves taking an abstract construct like depression that cannot be directly observed and transforming it into something that can be directly observed and measured. Most variables can be operationally defined in many different ways. For example, depression can be operationally defined as people’s scores on a paper-and-pencil depression scale such as the Beck Depression Inventory, the number of depressive symptoms they are experiencing, or whether they have been diagnosed with major depressive disorder. Researchers are wise to choose an operational definition that has been used extensively in the research literature.

Sampling and Measurement

In addition to identifying which variables to manipulate and measure, and operationally defining those variables, researchers need to identify the population of interest. Researchers in psychology are usually interested in drawing conclusions about some very large group of people. This is called the  population . It could be all American teenagers, children with autism, professional athletes, or even just human beings—depending on the interests and goals of the researcher. But they usually study only a small subset or  sample  of the population. For example, a researcher might measure the talkativeness of a few hundred university students with the intention of drawing conclusions about the talkativeness of men and women in general. It is important, therefore, for researchers to use a representative sample—one that is similar to the population in important respects.

One method of obtaining a sample is simple random sampling , in which every member of the population has an equal chance of being selected for the sample. For example, a pollster could start with a list of all the registered voters in a city (the population), randomly select 100 of them from the list (the sample), and ask those 100 whom they intend to vote for. Unfortunately, random sampling is difficult or impossible in most psychological research because the populations are less clearly defined than the registered voters in a city. How could a researcher give all American teenagers or all children with autism an equal chance of being selected for a sample? The most common alternative to random sampling is convenience sampling , in which the sample consists of individuals who happen to be nearby and willing to participate (such as introductory psychology students). Of course, the obvious problem with convenience sampling is that the sample might not be representative of the population and therefore it may be less appropriate to generalize the results from the sample to that population.

Experimental vs. Non-Experimental Research

The next step a researcher must take is to decide which type of approach they will use to collect the data. As you will learn in your research methods course there are many different approaches to research that can be divided in many different ways. One of the most fundamental distinctions is between experimental and non-experimental research.

Experimental Research

Researchers who want to test hypotheses about causal relationships between variables (i.e., their goal is to explain) need to use an experimental method. This is because the experimental method is the only method that allows us to determine causal relationships. Using the experimental approach, researchers first manipulate one or more variables while attempting to control extraneous variables, and then they measure how the manipulated variables affect participants’ responses.

The terms independent variable and dependent variable are used in the context of experimental research. The independent variable is the variable the experimenter manipulates (it is the presumed cause) and the dependent variable is the variable the experimenter measures (it is the presumed effect).

Extraneous variables  are any variable other than the dependent variable. Confounds are a specific type of extraneous variable that systematically varies along with the variables under investigation and therefore provides an alternative explanation for the results. When researchers design an experiment they need to ensure that they control for confounds; they need to ensure that extraneous variables don’t become confounding variables because in order to make a causal conclusion they need to make sure alternative explanations for the results have been ruled out.

As an example, if we manipulate the lighting in the room and examine the effects of that manipulation on workers’ productivity, then the lighting conditions (bright lights vs. dim lights) would be considered the independent variable and the workers’ productivity would be considered the dependent variable. If the bright lights are noisy then that noise would be a confound since the noise would be present whenever the lights are bright and the noise would be absent when the lights are dim. If noise is varying systematically with light then we wouldn’t know if a difference in worker productivity across the two lighting conditions is due to noise or light. So confounds are bad, they disrupt our ability to make causal conclusions about the nature of the relationship between variables. However, if there is noise in the room both when the lights are on and when the lights are off then noise is merely an extraneous variable (it is a variable other than the independent or dependent variable) and we don’t worry much about extraneous variables. This is because unless a variable varies systematically with the manipulated independent variable it cannot be a competing explanation for the results.

Non-Experimental Research

Researchers who are simply interested in describing characteristics of people, describing relationships between variables, and using those relationships to make predictions can use non-experimental research. Using the non-experimental approach, the researcher simply measures variables as they naturally occur, but they do not manipulate them. For instance, if I just measured the number of traffic fatalities in America last year that involved the use of a cell phone but I did not actually manipulate cell phone use then this would be categorized as non-experimental research. Alternatively, if I stood at a busy intersection and recorded drivers’ genders and whether or not they were using a cell phone when they passed through the intersection to see whether men or women are more likely to use a cell phone when driving, then this would be non-experimental research. It is important to point out that non-experimental does not mean nonscientific. Non-experimental research is scientific in nature. It can be used to fulfill two of the three goals of science (to describe and to predict). However, unlike with experimental research, we cannot make causal conclusions using this method; we cannot say that one variable causes another variable using this method.

Laboratory vs. Field Research

The next major distinction between research methods is between laboratory and field studies. A laboratory study is a study that is conducted in the laboratory environment. In contrast, a field study is a study that is conducted in the real-world, in a natural environment.

Laboratory experiments typically have high  internal validity . Internal validity refers to the degree to which we can confidently infer a causal relationship between variables. When we conduct an experimental study in a laboratory environment we have very high internal validity because we manipulate one variable while controlling all other outside extraneous variables. When we manipulate an independent variable and observe an effect on a dependent variable and we control for everything else so that the only difference between our experimental groups or conditions is the one manipulated variable then we can be quite confident that it is the independent variable that is causing the change in the dependent variable. In contrast, because field studies are conducted in the real-world, the experimenter typically has less control over the environment and potential extraneous variables, and this decreases internal validity, making it less appropriate to arrive at causal conclusions.

But there is typically a trade-off between internal and external validity. External validity simply refers to the degree to which we can generalize the findings to other circumstances or settings, like the real-world environment. When internal validity is high, external validity tends to be low; and when internal validity is low, external validity tends to be high. So laboratory studies are typically low in external validity, while field studies are typically high in external validity. Since field studies are conducted in the real-world environment it is far more appropriate to generalize the findings to that real-world environment than when the research is conducted in the more artificial sterile laboratory.

Finally, there are field studies which are non-experimental in nature because nothing is manipulated. But there are also field experiment s where an independent variable is manipulated in a natural setting and extraneous variables are controlled. Depending on their overall quality and the level of control of extraneous variables, such field experiments can have high external and high internal validity.

A quantity or quality that varies across people or situations.

A quantity, such as height, that is typically measured by assigning a number to each individual.

A variable that represents a characteristic of an individual, such as chosen major, and is typically measured by assigning each individual's response to one of several categories (e.g., Psychology, English, Nursing, Engineering, etc.).

A definition of the variable in terms of precisely how it is to be measured.

A large group of people about whom researchers in psychology are usually interested in drawing conclusions, and from whom the sample is drawn.

A smaller portion of the population the researcher would like to study.

A common method of non-probability sampling in which the sample consists of individuals who happen to be easily available and willing to participate (such as introductory psychology students).

The variable the experimenter manipulates.

The variable the experimenter measures (it is the presumed effect).

Any variable other than the dependent and independent variable.

A specific type of extraneous variable that systematically varies along with the variables under investigation and therefore provides an alternative explanation for the results.

A study that is conducted in the laboratory environment.

A study that is conducted in a "real world" environment outside the laboratory.

Refers to the degree to which we can confidently infer a causal relationship between variables.

Refers to the degree to which we can generalize the findings to other circumstances or settings, like the real-world environment.

A type of field study where an independent variable is manipulated in a natural setting and extraneous variables are controlled as much as possible.

Research Methods in Psychology Copyright © 2019 by Rajiv S. Jhangiani, I-Chant A. Chiang, Carrie Cuttler, & Dana C. Leighton is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Information for Research Subjects

Learn about becoming a research participant at the University of Rochester

True to the University of Rochester’s Mission Statement, ‘Learn, Discover, Heal, Create—and Make the World Ever Better’, research has been a long-standing tradition at the University of Rochester . Our researchers are among the nation’s leaders across a wide range of fields, including medicine, human behavior, education, politics, optics and economics.

Find an open research study

Faqs: participating in research.

Participating in research can be a fun and exciting way to give back to your community, but it doesn’t necessarily come without risk. Becoming a research participant is an important decision that should be taken seriously.

Background and overview

Research studies are done to discover new information or to answer a question about how we learn, behave, and function. Some studies might involve simple tasks like completing a survey, being observed among a group of people, or participating in a group discussion. Other studies, sometimes called clinical trials, involve more risky procedures like testing a new drug or medical device.

Each research study has its own set of criteria to determine who can participate. This depends on the research question being asked and may include restrictions based on age, behaviors, health status, or other traits.

Deciding to participate

Research is designed to benefit society. This might include learning how to live healthier lives, how to better treat conditions or diseases, why we do the things we do, or how we learn and develop. And while there are several reasons why people choose to participate in research, most people participate based on the possibility of helping themselves or others.

It’s important to understand that you may not directly benefit from participating in research. In fact, with a lot of research, you will not receive any benefit. For some types of research however, there may be a possibility that you could receive benefit, but there is no guarantee.

Most studies involve some risk, though the risks can range from very small to very serious. Some examples of risks include:

  • side effects or reactions to experimental drugs, treatments, or procedures
  • feeling anxious or uncomfortable
  • breach in confidentiality or invasion of privacy.

Side effects or other risks you might experience may be temporary or go away with treatment, but in rare cases they may be permanent, cause disability, or be life threatening. There may also be risks in participating that we don’t know about.

To start, you will be given information about the study so that you can make an informed decision about whether or not to participate. You will also be given an opportunity to ask questions about the study. This process is called informed consent . Before you can start the study, you need to agree to participate (i.e., consent). Participation is always voluntary.

Once you provide consent, the specific procedures or activities you’ll be asked to complete can vary widely and depend on what is being studied. Regardless, all the activities you will be asked to complete will be described during the consent process.

Before you agree to be in the study, make sure you have a solid understanding of the following:

  • the voluntary nature of the study
  • why the study is being done
  • who is doing the study
  • the procedures, activities, tests, or treatments involved (including how long they will take, how often they have to be completed, and whether there are any other treatment options available rather than being in the study)
  • potential risks, discomforts, or side effects
  • potential benefits to participating, if any
  • how your privacy will be protected
  • how long your participation will last
  • what will happen if you are injured while participating
  • the costs to you, if any
  • what to do if you change your mind about participating
  • whom to contact with questions, concerns, or problems

Each study is different, so time requirements will vary. Some may require very little of your time, perhaps only 5–10 minutes, while others may require multiple visits over an extended period of time, sometimes up to several years. Your time commitment for a particular study will be described during the consent process.

informed consent

Informed consent is the process of telling interested individuals what is involved in taking part in a specific research study. Typically, this includes:

  • reviewing written information
  • giving the potential volunteer time to review this information while considering participation (taking it home to review with friends or family, if desired)
  • discussing the information verbally
  • answering any questions

Once all of the information is provided to you and your questions are answered, you will then be asked to decide whether or not to take part in the study.

All decisions are voluntary, and you must provide your agreement (i.e., consent) before any study activities can begin. Usually, this involves signing a consent form. Although, for some studies, verbally agreeing to participate may be sufficient.

Once you provide consent to be in the study, you will continue to receive important information about your participation throughout the study.

It’s important to understand what is involved in taking part in a research study and to carefully consider what that means for you. Research can pose risks to your health, safety, and welfare, so it’s important to understand exactly what those risks are.

It’s also important to understand that taking part in research is voluntary. You make the decision about whether or not to participate, and if you agree to take part, you can always change your mind later.

State law determines who can provide consent. In New York State, only individuals 18 years of age and older can provide consent. Minors, based on their age and ability, are usually asked for their agreement to participate in research, but their parent or legal guardian must also provide their permission to participate. Other special considerations are also made when a minor is a ward of the state or adults are unable to make decisions for themselves.

If you have questions about who can or cannot provide consent, be sure to ask the study team.

The following key points are most important about informed consent:

  • Being in a study is voluntary—it is your choice.
  • If you join a study, you can change your mind and stop at any time.
  • If you have questions about anything that is not clear to you, you can ask them at any point of time before, during, or after the study.
  • If you feel you need more time or information to make an informed decision about whether or not to take part in the study, do not hesitate to ask for it.

Subject Protections

Research studies involving humans must be approved and monitored by an Institutional Review Board (IRB). An IRB is a committee of individuals responsible for reviewing research to ensure adequate protections are in place to protect the people who take part.

For each study reviewed, the IRB checks to see that:

  • there is a good reason to conduct the study
  • the risks related to participating are the least possible
  • the risks related to participating are reasonable given the knowledge that will be gained from conducting the study
  • the plan for selecting subjects to participate is fair
  • subjects will be provided enough information about the study

Protecting the information you provide to researchers is a high priority, particularly if you provide health-related or sensitive information.

As part of the IRB approval process described above, all researchers must provide a plan to adequately protect the information they plan to collect in order for the study to be approved. This might include assigning a code to the information collected instead of using your name or other identifiable information and storing the information in a secure manner.

You are free to withdraw from a research study at any time, for any reason. Your relationship with the hospital, clinic, academic institution, or employer will not be affected and you will not lose any benefits to which you are entitled.

Note that in some cases, a researcher may decide to end your participation in the study early. This may happen if the study is no longer in your best interest, if you can no longer complete study activities, or if the study ends early for some other reason.

Additional participant resources

Downloadable information.

  • Participating in Research Overview
  • Informed Consent

External resources

  • About Research Participation (Department of Health & Human Service)
  • Children & Clinical Studies (National Heart, Lung & Blood Institute)
  • Clinical Research Trials and You (National Institutes of Health)

University research studies

  • Search UR Health Research
  • Join the UR Health Research Volunteer Registry to be contacted for future studies
  • Follow UR Health Research on Facebook
  • CenterWatch Clinical Trials Search
  • ClinicalTrials.gov
  • National Institutes of Health List of Registries
  • ResearchMatch

share your thoughts

Report an issue, concern, or complaint

If you have participated in University of Rochester research and would like to report an issue, concern or complaint about the research you, or a family member, has participated in, please do so via our feedback form.

Share your feedback

Department of Health & Human Services

Module 1: Introduction: What is Research?

Module 1

Learning Objectives

By the end of this module, you will be able to:

  • Explain how the scientific method is used to develop new knowledge
  • Describe why it is important to follow a research plan

Text Box: The Scientific Method

The Scientific Method consists of observing the world around you and creating a  hypothesis  about relationships in the world. A hypothesis is an informed and educated prediction or explanation about something. Part of the research process involves testing the  hypothesis , and then examining the results of these tests as they relate to both the hypothesis and the world around you. When a researcher forms a hypothesis, this acts like a map through the research study. It tells the researcher which factors are important to study and how they might be related to each other or caused by a  manipulation  that the researcher introduces (e.g. a program, treatment or change in the environment). With this map, the researcher can interpret the information he/she collects and can make sound conclusions about the results.

Research can be done with human beings, animals, plants, other organisms and inorganic matter. When research is done with human beings and animals, it must follow specific rules about the treatment of humans and animals that have been created by the U.S. Federal Government. This ensures that humans and animals are treated with dignity and respect, and that the research causes minimal harm.

No matter what topic is being studied, the value of the research depends on how well it is designed and done. Therefore, one of the most important considerations in doing good research is to follow the design or plan that is developed by an experienced researcher who is called the  Principal Investigator  (PI). The PI is in charge of all aspects of the research and creates what is called a  protocol  (the research plan) that all people doing the research must follow. By doing so, the PI and the public can be sure that the results of the research are real and useful to other scientists.

Module 1: Discussion Questions

  • How is a hypothesis like a road map?
  • Who is ultimately responsible for the design and conduct of a research study?
  • How does following the research protocol contribute to informing public health practices?

PDF

Email Updates

  • See us on facebook
  • See us on twitter
  • See us on youtube
  • See us on linkedin
  • See us on instagram

Stanford Medicine study identifies distinct brain organization patterns in women and men

Stanford Medicine researchers have developed a powerful new artificial intelligence model that can distinguish between male and female brains.

February 20, 2024

sex differences in brain

'A key motivation for this study is that sex plays a crucial role in human brain development, in aging, and in the manifestation of psychiatric and neurological disorders,' said Vinod Menon. clelia-clelia

A new study by Stanford Medicine investigators unveils a new artificial intelligence model that was more than 90% successful at determining whether scans of brain activity came from a woman or a man.

The findings, published Feb. 20 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, help resolve a long-term controversy about whether reliable sex differences exist in the human brain and suggest that understanding these differences may be critical to addressing neuropsychiatric conditions that affect women and men differently.

“A key motivation for this study is that sex plays a crucial role in human brain development, in aging, and in the manifestation of psychiatric and neurological disorders,” said Vinod Menon , PhD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and director of the Stanford Cognitive and Systems Neuroscience Laboratory . “Identifying consistent and replicable sex differences in the healthy adult brain is a critical step toward a deeper understanding of sex-specific vulnerabilities in psychiatric and neurological disorders.”

Menon is the study’s senior author. The lead authors are senior research scientist Srikanth Ryali , PhD, and academic staff researcher Yuan Zhang , PhD.

“Hotspots” that most helped the model distinguish male brains from female ones include the default mode network, a brain system that helps us process self-referential information, and the striatum and limbic network, which are involved in learning and how we respond to rewards.

The investigators noted that this work does not weigh in on whether sex-related differences arise early in life or may be driven by hormonal differences or the different societal circumstances that men and women may be more likely to encounter.

Uncovering brain differences

The extent to which a person’s sex affects how their brain is organized and operates has long been a point of dispute among scientists. While we know the sex chromosomes we are born with help determine the cocktail of hormones our brains are exposed to — particularly during early development, puberty and aging — researchers have long struggled to connect sex to concrete differences in the human brain. Brain structures tend to look much the same in men and women, and previous research examining how brain regions work together has also largely failed to turn up consistent brain indicators of sex.

test

Vinod Menon

In their current study, Menon and his team took advantage of recent advances in artificial intelligence, as well as access to multiple large datasets, to pursue a more powerful analysis than has previously been employed. First, they created a deep neural network model, which learns to classify brain imaging data: As the researchers showed brain scans to the model and told it that it was looking at a male or female brain, the model started to “notice” what subtle patterns could help it tell the difference.

This model demonstrated superior performance compared with those in previous studies, in part because it used a deep neural network that analyzes dynamic MRI scans. This approach captures the intricate interplay among different brain regions. When the researchers tested the model on around 1,500 brain scans, it could almost always tell if the scan came from a woman or a man.

The model’s success suggests that detectable sex differences do exist in the brain but just haven’t been picked up reliably before. The fact that it worked so well in different datasets, including brain scans from multiple sites in the U.S. and Europe, make the findings especially convincing as it controls for many confounds that can plague studies of this kind.

“This is a very strong piece of evidence that sex is a robust determinant of human brain organization,” Menon said.

Making predictions

Until recently, a model like the one Menon’s team employed would help researchers sort brains into different groups but wouldn’t provide information about how the sorting happened. Today, however, researchers have access to a tool called “explainable AI,” which can sift through vast amounts of data to explain how a model’s decisions are made.

Using explainable AI, Menon and his team identified the brain networks that were most important to the model’s judgment of whether a brain scan came from a man or a woman. They found the model was most often looking to the default mode network, striatum, and the limbic network to make the call.

The team then wondered if they could create another model that could predict how well participants would do on certain cognitive tasks based on functional brain features that differ between women and men. They developed sex-specific models of cognitive abilities: One model effectively predicted cognitive performance in men but not women, and another in women but not men. The findings indicate that functional brain characteristics varying between sexes have significant behavioral implications.

“These models worked really well because we successfully separated brain patterns between sexes,” Menon said. “That tells me that overlooking sex differences in brain organization could lead us to miss key factors underlying neuropsychiatric disorders.”

While the team applied their deep neural network model to questions about sex differences, Menon says the model can be applied to answer questions regarding how just about any aspect of brain connectivity might relate to any kind of cognitive ability or behavior. He and his team plan to make their model publicly available for any researcher to use.

“Our AI models have very broad applicability,” Menon said. “A researcher could use our models to look for brain differences linked to learning impairments or social functioning differences, for instance — aspects we are keen to understand better to aid individuals in adapting to and surmounting these challenges.”

The research was sponsored by the National Institutes of Health (grants MH084164, EB022907, MH121069, K25HD074652 and AG072114), the Transdisciplinary Initiative, the Uytengsu-Hamilton 22q11 Programs, the Stanford Maternal and Child Health Research Institute, and the NARSAD Young Investigator Award.

About Stanford Medicine

Stanford Medicine is an integrated academic health system comprising the Stanford School of Medicine and adult and pediatric health care delivery systems. Together, they harness the full potential of biomedicine through collaborative research, education and clinical care for patients. For more information, please visit med.stanford.edu .

Artificial intelligence

Exploring ways AI is applied to health care

Stanford Medicine Magazine: AI

Weill Cornell Medicine

Less Invasive Early Lung Cancer Study Receives Top 10 Clinical Research Achievement Award

  • Share to Twitter
  • Share to Facebook
  • Share to LinkedIn

A physician in a white coat behind a red backdrop

Dr. Nasser Altorki. Credit: Tiffany Walling/Getty Images for WCM. 

A Weill Cornell Medicine-led research team has been awarded a 2024 Top 10 Clinical Research Achievement Award from the Clinical Research Forum in recognition of an influential 2023 New England Journal of Medicine study on early-stage lung cancer resection.

The award is one of 10 given annually by the Clinical Research Forum for highly innovative and clinically translatable research with the potential to provide major benefits to patients. The Washington, D.C.-based organization is an influential advocate for government funding of clinical research and the interests of American clinical research institutions generally. The winners will present their award-winning research April 4 at the Clinical Research Forum’s annual meeting in Las Vegas.

The clinical trial results were published  Feb. 9, 2023 by a team led by Dr. Nasser Altorki , chief of the Division of Thoracic Surgery in the Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery at Weill Cornell Medicine and NewYork-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, and co-investigators from Duke University as well as investigators from 83 hospitals across the United States, Canada and Australia. The trial found that a surgery that removes only a portion of one of the five lobes that comprise a lung is as effective as removing an entire lobe for certain early-stage lung cancer patients.

“This award means a lot to me, as it recognizes an important advance in the surgical treatment of patients with early-stage lung cancer,” said Dr. Altorki, who is also the David B. Skinner, M.D. Professor of Thoracic Surgery and a professor of cardiothoracic surgery at Weill Cornell Medicine, and a thoracic surgeon at NewYork-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center. “I think the award also recognizes the contribution of Weill Cornell Medicine and NewYork-Presbyterian to cooperative group trials supported by the National Cancer Institute.”

In the trial, investigators compared outcomes for nearly 700 patients with early-stage lung cancer, about half of whom were randomly assigned to “lobectomy” surgery, which removes the whole lobe, while the other half had “sublobar resection” surgery, which removes part of the affected lobe. Over a median follow-up period of seven years after surgery, the two groups did not differ significantly in terms of disease-free or overall survival, and the sublobar group had modestly better lung function.

Lobectomy has been the standard approach for early-stage lung cancer surgery for almost 50 years, but the study’s results indicate that a subset of early-stage lung cancer patients would be better off, or at least no worse, with the more tissue-conserving sublobar surgery.

“We started the trial in 2007 and it took about 10 years to complete,”  said  Dr. Altorki, who is also a member of the Sandra and Edward Meyer Cancer Center at Weill Cornell Medicine. “We then we had to wait until we got the results, which unexpectedly came in May of 2022. They were amazing results, and it was worth the wait, and it changed practice.” 

Related News

  • Genetic Signature May Predict Response to Immunotherapy for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
  • New Insight into How an Old IBD Drug Works
  • Helping Patients with Low Income Overcome Eating Disorders

Back to News

Weill Cornell Medicine Office of External Affairs New York, NY --> Phone: (646) 962-9476

High levels of niacin linked to heart disease, new research suggests

High levels of niacin, an essential B vitamin, may raise the risk of heart disease by triggering inflammation and damaging blood vessels, according to new research.

The report, published Monday in Nature Medicine, revealed a previously unknown risk from excessive amounts of the vitamin, which is found in many foods, including meat, fish, nuts, and fortified cereals and breads.

The recommended daily allowance of niacin for men is 16 milligrams per day and for women who are not pregnant is 14 milligrams per day.

About 1 in 4 Americans has higher than the recommended level of niacin , said the study’s senior author, Dr. Stanley Hazen, chair of cardiovascular and metabolic sciences at the Cleveland Clinic’s Lerner Research Institute and co-section head of preventive cardiology at the Heart, Vascular and Thoracic Institute.

The researchers currently don’t know where to draw the line between healthy and unhealthy amounts of niacin, although that may be determined with future research.

"The average person should avoid niacin supplements now that we have reason to believe that taking too much niacin can potentially lead to an increased risk of developing cardiovascular disease,” Hazen said.

Currently, Americans get plenty of niacin from their diet since flour, grains and cereals have been fortified with niacin since the 1940s after scientists discovered that very low levels of the nutrient could lead to a potentially fatal condition called pellagra, Hazen said.

Prior to the development of cholesterol-lowering statins , niacin supplements were once even prescribed by doctors to improve cholesterol levels.

To search for unknown risk factors for cardiovascular disease, Hazen and his colleagues designed a multipart study that included an analysis of fasting blood samples from 1,162 patients who had come into a cardiology center to be evaluated for heart disease. The researchers were looking for common markers, or signs, in the patients’ blood that might reveal new risk factors. 

The research resulted in the discovery of a substance in some of the blood samples that is only made when there is excess niacin. 

Meat in grocery store

That finding led to two additional “validation” studies, which included data from a total of 3,163 adults who either had heart disease or were suspected of having it. The two investigations, one in the U.S. and one in Europe, showed that the niacin breakdown product, 4PY, predicted participants’ future risk of heart attack, stroke and death.

The final part of the study involved experiments in mice. When the rodents were injected with 4PY, inflammation increased in their blood vessels. 

The results are “fascinating” and “important,” said Dr. Robert Rosenson, director of metabolism and lipids for the Mount Sinai Health System in New York City.

More heart health news

  • A stealthy cholesterol is killing people, and most don't know they're at risk.
  • How levels of "good" cholesterol may increase risk of dementia.
  • Why one particular diet is found to be the best year after year.

The newly detected pathway to heart disease might lead to the discovery of a medication that could reduce blood vessel inflammation and decrease the likelihood of major cardiovascular events, he added.

Rosenson hopes that the food industry will take note and “stop using so much niacin in products like bread. This is a case where too much of a good thing can be a bad thing.”

The new information could influence dietary recommendations for niacin, said Rosenson, who was not involved with the Cleveland Clinic research.

Scientists have known for decades that a person’s cholesterol level could be a major driver of heart disease, said Dr. Amanda Doran, an assistant professor of medicine in the division of cardiovascular medicine at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center.

Even when patients’ cholesterol levels were brought down, some continued to have a high risk of heart attacks and stroke, Doran said, adding that a 2017 trial suggested that the increased risk might be related to blood vessel inflammation.

Doran was surprised to learn that niacin could be involved in driving up the risk of heart disease.

“I don’t think anyone would have predicted that niacin would have been pro-inflammatory,” she said. “This is a powerful study because it combines a variety of techniques: clinical data, genetic data and mouse data.”

Finding the new pathway may allow future researchers to discover ways to reduce blood vessel inflammation, Doran said.

“It’s very exciting and promising,” she said.

Linda Carroll is a regular health contributor to NBC News. She is coauthor of "The Concussion Crisis: Anatomy of a Silent Epidemic" and "Out of the Clouds: The Unlikely Horseman and the Unwanted Colt Who Conquered the Sport of Kings." 

Air pollution tied to signs of Alzheimer’s in brain tissue, study finds

a research to study

People who inhale higher concentrations of tiny airborne particulates, like from diesel exhaust or other traffic-related air pollutants, are more likely to have signs of Alzheimer’s disease in their brains, according to a new study, the latest in a growing body of research that shows a link between air pollution and cognitive decline.

For the study, published this week in the journal Neurology , researchers examined the association between concentrations of ambient air pollution and signs of Alzheimer’s disease in the human brain. They found that people who were exposed to higher concentrations of fine particulate matter air pollution, also known as PM2.5, at least a year before their death were more likely to have higher levels of plaques — abnormal clusters of protein fragments built up between nerve cells — which is a sign of Alzheimer’s in brain tissue. The research also found a strong association between the pollution and signs of the disease for people who were not already genetically predisposed to Alzheimer’s.

“This suggests that environmental factors like air pollution could be a contributing factor to Alzheimer’s disease, especially in patients in which the disease cannot be explained by genetics,” said Anke Huels, the lead author of the study and an assistant professor at Emory University’s School of Public Health. While the study does not prove that air pollution causes Alzheimer’s disease, it found an association between exposure to specific kinds of pollution and signs of the disease.

Researchers examined tissue from 224 donors in Atlanta’s metropolitan area who, before their deaths, volunteered to donate their brains to research.

“Donors who lived in areas with particularly high levels of traffic-related air pollution showed more plaques related to Alzheimer’s disease at death than donors who lived in areas with lower air pollution concentrations,” Huels said.

What that told researchers, she added, is that being exposed to high levels of the pollution increases your risk for Alzheimer’s disease.

More than half of the donors had what’s known as the APOE gene, the strongest genetic risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease. But for the donors who were not already genetically predisposed, researchers found a stronger association between traffic-related air pollution and signs of Alzheimer’s disease.

It’s long been known that concentrations of PM2.5 can trigger short-term respiratory problems. That’s because the particulates are so small — measuring 2.5 microns and smaller in diameter — that they enter the bloodstream after being inhaled. Breathing in smoke can also irritate your sinuses, throat and eyes, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention . In more severe cases, exposure is linked to cardiovascular impacts — including heart attacks and stroke — as well as lung cancer and damage to cognitive functions.

Gaurab Basu, the director of education and policy at Harvard’s center for climate, health and the environment, said the study shines a spotlight on ambient air pollution’s dangers to the brain.

“We often think about air pollution in the lungs, but it’s critical that we put the brain at the forefront of the conversation of the ways that air pollution impacts our health,” Basu said.

While this study primarily examined the brains of White, college-educated men, Basu said poorer communities and communities of color are often more exposed to particulate matter and traffic-related pollution — because highways and roadways are intentionally built in their communities.

“This pollution does not impact everyone the same,” Basu said. “Vehicular air pollution is fundamentally an issue of health equity.”

More research is needed to determine the exact connection between traffic-related air pollution and the brain changes of Alzheimer’s disease, said Heather Snyder, the Alzheimer’s Association vice president of medical and scientific relations.

“We know that Alzheimer’s is a complex disease, and it is likely that there are a variety of factors, in combination, that impact a person’s lifetime risk,” Snyder told The Post in an email. “Avoiding exposure to air pollution is a risk factor that some people can change, but others can’t, or can’t so easily.”

This study is just the latest in the growing literature revealing associations between ambient air pollution and cognitive decline. Emerging research has also found that exposure to traffic-related fine particulate matter is correlated with reduced cortical thickness and thinner gray matter in the brain, which may influence information processing, learning and memory. Experts pointed to mounting evidence that links exposure to air pollution with cognitive decline, mood disorders and diagnoses of Alzheimer’s disease.

To Huels, the best way to mitigate exposure is to make individual changes such as limiting time outdoors when air pollution concentrations are high and wearing a mask when appropriate. She said other changes such as driving an electric vehicle or taking public transportation can contribute to reducing air pollution.

“To really reduce air pollution exposures, we need political decisions and changes,” Huels said. “There really isn’t a safe or healthy level of air pollution in general or traffic-related air pollution.”

a research to study

  • Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

A Quarter of Smokers Quit Under Menthol Bans, Study Finds

As public health groups pressure the Biden administration to impose a ban on menthol cigarettes, research suggests similar moves in other countries have led to lower smoking rates.

A large menthol pack doubles as a casket, with a cigarette for its handles, placed in front of a dais with several people on it during a speech. Placards and posters read "Ban Menthol, Save Black Lives."

By Christina Jewett

Nearly a quarter of menthol cigarette smokers quit in the year or two after a ban on menthol went into effect, according to a study published on Wednesday.

Researchers found that about half of the menthol smokers switched to other cigarettes and another quarter managed to keep smoking menthols. The rate of menthol smokers who quit was higher in nations that imposed bans, in contrast with cities or states, since it was harder for people to drive a few miles to keep buying menthol cigarettes, according to the study.

In studies where smokers predicted changing behavior, about 12 percent said a ban would prompt them to switch to e-cigarettes or other nicotine alternatives.

The Food and Drug Administration has been urging the Biden administration to impose a ban on menthol cigarettes, a goal that has generated intense opposition from retailers and tobacco companies alongside concerns in a presidential election year that it could alienate Black voters.

Black smokers, who heavily favor menthol cigarettes, also stand to gain the most from such a ban, public health researchers say, noting that premature deaths from cancer, heart and lung disease could be avoided after a sharp decline in smoking rates.

The study analyzed the effects of bans in other countries, including Canada and some in the European Union, as well as bans in force in states, including Massachusetts. The researchers reviewed studies, smoking rates and cigarette sales as part of their analysis.

“Our review found that a menthol ban will have a pro-equity impact, meaning that we expect smoking to reduce the most among Black individuals who smoke as compared to other racial or ethnic groups,” said Sarah Mills, lead author of the study and an assistant professor at the University of North Carolina school of public health.

What remains to be seen is whether the White House, perhaps haunted by the anti-regulatory backlash against public-health measures taken during the coronavirus pandemic, will advance the ban this year. In December, the White House postponed a decision on the proposal until at least March, raising speculation that it would languish while President Biden seeks a second term.

Menthol cigarettes generate billions of dollars in sales each year for opponents of a ban, including Reynolds American, maker of Newport Cigarettes; Altria, maker of menthol Marlboros; and gas stations and convenience stores.

Opponents have mounted a campaign about possible fallout from a ban, sponsoring commercials that threaten a surge of illicit cigarette trafficking at the U.S.-Mexico border. They have also elevated the profile of those predicting a potential increase in police violence against Black menthol cigarette smokers. But the proposed U.S. ban does not target individuals; enforcement is proposed at the manufacturer’s level.

Public health experts have stepped up their pressure in recent weeks, staging a “menthol funeral” outside the White House to draw attention to the annual toll of 480,000 smoking-related deaths. Former surgeons general called on the White House earlier this month to “save lives” by immediately finalizing the ban and “not to be distracted by the tobacco industry and its apologists.”

And the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids released its own poll Thursday that suggested a ban would not diminish support of Black voters for the president. The survey, conducted for the advocacy group, indicated that 62 percent of respondents reported favoring a menthol ban, compared with 25 percent who disapproved.

“This new data proves what we already know to be true — Black voters want to see a menthol ban,” Derrick Johnson, president of the N.A.A.C.P., said in a statement.

In the new study, researchers noted that cigarette companies had raised concerns about illicit menthol trafficking as an argument against the ban. But the study indicated that Canada did not experience an increase in seizures of illicit cigarettes after its nationwide ban. It remains unclear whether a U.S. prohibition would have a similar effect.

In a study in 2021 that used a model to assess the effects of a menthol ban, David Levy, a Georgetown University oncology professor, found that it could lead to an overall reduction in smoking of about 15 percent. By 2060, the study projected, as many as 11 million years of life could be gained rather than lost to smoking-related deaths.

“These effects are delayed,” Dr. Levy said, “but nevertheless important.”

Ruth Igielnik contributed.

Christina Jewett covers the Food and Drug Administration, which means keeping a close eye on drugs, medical devices, food safety and tobacco policy. More about Christina Jewett

U.S. flag

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
  • Advanced Search
  • Journal List
  • HHS Author Manuscripts

Logo of nihpa

How to Conduct Responsible Research: A Guide for Graduate Students

Alison l. antes.

1 Department of Medicine, Division of General Medical Sciences, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, 314-362-6006

Leonard B. Maggi, Jr.

2 Department of Medicine, Division of Molecular Oncology, Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, 314-362-4102

Researchers must conduct research responsibly for it to have an impact and to safeguard trust in science. Essential responsibilities of researchers include using rigorous, reproducible research methods, reporting findings in a trustworthy manner, and giving the researchers who contributed appropriate authorship credit. This “how-to” guide covers strategies and practices for doing reproducible research and being a responsible author. The article also covers how to utilize decision-making strategies when uncertain about the best way to proceed in a challenging situation. The advice focuses especially on graduate students but is appropriate for undergraduates and experienced researchers. The article begins with an overview of the responsible conduct of research, research misconduct, and ethical behavior in the scientific workplace. The takeaway message is that responsible conduct of research requires a thoughtful approach to doing research to ensure trustworthy results and conclusions and that researchers receive fair credit.

INTRODUCTION

Doing research is stimulating and fulfilling work. Scientists make discoveries to build knowledge and solve problems, and they work with other dedicated researchers. Research is a highly complex activity, so it takes years for beginning researchers to learn everything they need to know to do science well. Part of this large body of knowledge is learning how to do research responsibly. Our purpose in this article is to provide graduate students a guide for how to perform responsible research. Our advice is also relevant to undergraduate researchers and for principal investigators (PIs), postdocs, or other researchers who mentor beginning researchers and wish to share our advice.

We begin by introducing some fundamentals about the responsible conduct of research (RCR), research misconduct, and ethical behavior. We focus on how to do reproducible science and be a responsible author. We provide practical advice for these topics and present scenarios to practice thinking through challenges in research. Our article concludes with decision-making strategies for addressing complex problems.

What is the responsible conduct of research?

To be committed to RCR means upholding the highest standards of honesty, accuracy, efficiency, and objectivity ( Steneck, 2007 ). Each day, RCR requires engaging in research in a conscientious, intentional fashion that yields the best science possible ( “Research Integrity is Much More Than Misconduct,” 2019 ). We adopt a practical, “how-to” approach, discussing the behaviors and habits that yield responsible research. However, some background knowledge about RCR is helpful to frame our discussion.

The scientific community uses many terms to refer to ethical and responsible behavior in research: responsible conduct of research, research integrity, scientific integrity, and research ethics ( National Academies of Science, 2009 ; National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine, 2017 ; Steneck, 2007 ). A helpful way to think about these concepts is “doing good science in a good manner” ( DuBois & Antes, 2018 ). This means that the way researchers do their work, from experimental procedures to data analysis and interpretation, research reporting, and so on, leads to trustworthy research findings and conclusions. It also includes respectful interactions among researchers both within research teams (e.g., between peers, mentors and trainees, and collaborators) and with researchers external to the team (e.g., peer reviewers). We expand on trainee-mentor relationships and interpersonal dynamics with labmates in a companion article ( Antes & Maggi, 2021 ). When research involves human or animal research subjects, RCR includes protecting the well-being of research subjects.

We do not cover all potential RCR topics but focus on what we consider fundamentals for graduate students. Common topics covered in texts and courses on RCR include the following: authorship and publication; collaboration; conflicts of interest; data management, sharing, and ownership; intellectual property; mentor and trainee responsibilities; peer review; protecting human subjects; protecting animal subjects; research misconduct; the role of researchers in society; and laboratory safety. A number of topics prominently discussed among the scientific community in recent years are also relevant to RCR. These include the reproducibility of research ( Baker, 2016 ; Barba, 2016 ; Winchester, 2018 ), diversity and inclusion in science ( Asplund & Welle, 2018 ; Hofstra et al., 2020 ; Meyers, Brown, Moneta-Koehler, & Chalkley, 2018 ; National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine, 2018a ; Roper, 2019 ), harassment and bullying ( Else, 2018 ; National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine, 2018b ; “ No Place for Bullies in Science,” 2018 ), healthy research work environments ( Norris, Dirnagl, Zigmond, Thompson-Peer, & Chow, 2018 ; “ Research Institutions Must Put the Health of Labs First,” 2018 ), and the mental health of graduate students ( Evans, Bira, Gastelum, Weiss, & Vanderford, 2018 ).

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) ( National Institutes of Health, 2009 ) and the National Science Foundation ( National Science Foundation, 2017 ) have formal policies indicating research trainees must receive education in RCR. Researchers are accountable to these funding agencies and the public which supports research through billions in tax dollars annually. The public stands to benefit from, or be harmed by, research. For example, the public may be harmed if medical treatments or social policies are based on untrustworthy research findings. Funding for research, participation in research, and utilization of the fruits of research all rely on public trust ( Resnik, 2011 ). Trustworthy findings are also essential for good stewardship of scarce resources ( Emanuel, Wendler, & Grady, 2000 ). Researchers are further accountable to their peers, colleagues, and scientists more broadly. Trust in the work of other researchers is essential for science to advance. Finally, researchers are accountable for complying with the rules and policies of their universities or research institutions, such as rules about laboratory safety, bullying and harassment, and the treatment of animal research subjects.

What is research misconduct?

When researchers intentionally misrepresent or manipulate their results, these cases of scientific fraud often make the news headlines ( Chappell, 2019 ; O’Connor, 2018 ; Park, 2012 ), and they can seriously undermine public trust in research. These cases also harm trust within the scientific community.

The U.S. defines research misconduct as fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (FFP) ( Department of Health and Human Services, 2005 ). FFP violate the fundamental ethical principle of honesty. Fabrication is making up data, and falsification is manipulating or changing data or results so they are no longer truthful. Plagiarism is a form of dishonesty because it includes using someone’s words or ideas and portraying them as your own. When brought to light, misconduct involves lengthy investigations and serious consequences, such as ineligibility to receive federal research funding, loss of employment, paper retractions, and, for students, withdrawal of graduate degrees.

One aspect of responsible behavior includes addressing misconduct if you observe it. We suggest a guide titled “Responding to Research Wrongdoing: A User-Friendly Guide” that provides advice for thinking about your options if you think you have observed misconduct ( Keith-Spiegel, Sieber, & Koocher, 2010 ). Your university will have written policies and procedures for investigating allegations of misconduct. Making an allegation is very serious. As Keith-Spiegel et al.’s guide indicates, it is important to know the evidence that supports your claim, and what to expect in the process. We encourage, if possible, talking to the persons involved first. For example, one of us knew of a graduate student who reported to a journal editor their suspicion of falsified data in a manuscript. It turned out that the student was incorrect. Going above the PI directly to the editor ultimately led to the PI leaving the university, and the student had a difficult time finding a new lab to complete their degree. If the student had first spoken to the PI and lab members, they could have learned that their assumptions about the data in the paper were wrong. In turn, they could have avoided accusing the PI of a serious form of scientific misconduct—making up data—and harming everyone’s scientific career.

What shapes ethical behavior in the scientific workplace?

Responsible conduct of research and research misconduct are two sides of a continuum of behavior—RCR upholds the ideals of research and research misconduct violates them. Problematic practices that fall in the middle but are not defined formally as research misconduct have been labeled as detrimental research practices ( National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine, 2017 ). Researchers conducting misleading statistical analyses or PIs providing inadequate supervision are examples of the latter. Research suggests that characteristics of individual researchers and research environments explain (un)ethical behavior in the scientific workplace ( Antes et al., 2007 ; Antes, English, Baldwin, & DuBois, 2018 ; Davis, Riske-Morris, & Diaz, 2007 ; DuBois et al., 2013 ).

These two influences on ethical behavior are helpful to keep in mind when thinking about your behavior. When people think about their ethical behavior, they think about their personal values and integrity and tend to overlook the influence of their environment. While “being a good person” and having the right intentions are essential to ethical behavior, the environment also has an influence. In addition, knowledge of standards for ethical research is important for ethical behavior, and graduate students new to research do not yet know everything they need to. They also have not fully refined their ethical decision-making skills for solving professional problems. We discuss strategies for ethical decision-making in the final section of this article ( McIntosh, Antes, & DuBois, 2020 ).

The research environment influences ethical behavior in a number of ways. For example, if a research group explicitly discusses high standards for research, people will be more likely to prioritize these ideals in their behavior ( Plemmons et al., 2020 ). A mentor who sets a good example is another important factor ( Anderson et al., 2007 ). Research labs must also provide individuals with adequate training, supervision and feedback, opportunities to discuss data, and the psychological safety to feel comfortable communicating about problems, including mistakes ( Antes, Kuykendall, & DuBois, 2019a , 2019b ). On the other hand, unfair research environments, inadequate supervision, poor communication, and severe stress and anxiety may undermine ethical decision-making and behavior; particularly when many of these factors exist together. Thus, (un)ethical behavior is a complex interplay of individual factors (e.g., personality, stress, decision-making skills) and the environment.

For graduate students, it is important to attend to what you are learning and how the environment around you might influence your behavior. You do not know what you do not know, and you necessarily rely on others to teach you responsible practices. So, it is important to be aware. Ultimately, you are accountable for your behavior. You cannot just say “I didn’t know.” Rather, just like you are curious about your scientific questions, maintain a curiosity about responsible behavior as a researcher. If you feel uncomfortable with something, pay attention to that feeling, speak to someone you trust, and seek out information about how to handle the situation. In what follows, we cover key tips for responsible behavior in the areas of reproducibility and authorship that we hope will help you as you begin.

HOW TO DO REPRODUCIBLE SCIENCE

The foremost responsibility of scientists is to ensure they conduct research in such a manner that the findings are trustworthy. Reproducibility is the ability to duplicate results ( Goodman, Fanelli, & Ioannidis, 2016 ). The scientific community has called for greater openness, transparency, and rigor as key remedies for lack of reproducibility ( Munafò et al., 2017 ). As a graduate student, essential to fostering reproducibility is the rigor of your approach to doing experiments and handling data. We discuss how to utilize research protocols, document experiments in a lab notebook, and handle data responsibly.

Utilize research protocols

1. learn and utilize the lab’s protocols.

Research protocols describe the step-by-step procedures for doing an experiment. They are critical for the quality and reproducibility of experiments. Lab members must learn and follow the lab’s protocols with the understanding that they may need to make adjustments based on the requirements of a specific experiment.

Also, it is important to distinguish between the experiment you are performing and analyzing the data from that experiment. For example, the experiment you want to perform might be to determine if loss of a gene blocks cell growth. Several protocols, each with pros and cons, will allow you to examine “cell growth.” Using the wrong experimental protocol can produce data that leads to muddled conclusions. In this example, the gene does block cell growth, but the experiment used to produce the data that you analyze to understand cell growth is wrong, thus giving a result that is a false negative.

When first joining a lab, it is essential to commit to learning the protocols necessary for your assigned research project. Researchers must ensure they are proficient in executing a protocol and can perform their experiments reliably. If you do not feel confident with a protocol, you should do practice runs if possible. Repetition is the best way to work through difficulties with protocols. Often it takes several attempts to work through the steps of a protocol before you will be comfortable performing it. Asking to watch another lab member perform the protocol is also helpful. Be sure to watch closely how steps are performed, as often there are minor steps taken that are not written down. Also, experienced lab members may do things as second nature and not think to explicitly mention them when working through the protocol. Ask questions of other lab members so that you can improve your knowledge and gain confidence with a protocol. It is better to ask a question than potentially ruin a valuable or hard-to-get sample.

Be cautious of differences in the standing protocols in the lab and how you actually perform the experiment. Even the most minor deviations can seriously impact the results and reproducibility of an experiment. As mentioned above, often there are minor things that are done that might not be listed in the protocol. Paying attention and asking questions are the best ways to learn, in addition to adding notes to the protocol if you find minor details are missing.

2. Develop your own protocols

Often you will find that a project requires a protocol that has not been performed in the lab. If performing a new experiment in the lab and no protocol exists, find a protocol and try it. Protocols can be obtained from many different sources. A great source is other labs on campus, as you can speak directly to the person who performs the experiment. There are many journal sources as well, such as Current Protocols, Nature Protocols, Nature Methods, and Cell STAR Methods . These methods journals provide the most detailed protocols for experiments often with troubleshooting tips. Scientific papers are the most common source of protocols. However, keep in mind that due to the common brevity of methods sections, they often omit crucial details or reference other papers that may not contain a complete description of the protocol.

3. Handle mistakes or problems promptly

At some point, everyone encounters problems with a protocol, or realizes they made a mistake. You should be prepared to handle this situation by being able to detail exactly how you performed the experiment. Did you skip a step? Shorten or lengthen a time point? Did you have to make a new buffer or borrow a labmate’s buffer? There are too many ways an experiment can go wrong to list here but being able to recount all the steps you performed in detail will help you work through the problem. Keep in mind that often the best way to understand how to perform an experiment is learning from when something goes wrong. This situation requires you to critically think through what was done and understand the steps taken. When everything works perfectly, it is easy to pay less attention to the details, which can lead to problems down the line.

It is up to you to be attentive and meticulous in the lab. Paying attention to the details may feel like a pain at first, or even seem overwhelming. Practice and repetition will help this focus on details become a natural part of your lab work. Ultimately, this skill will be essential to being a responsible scientist.

Document experiments in a lab notebook

1. recognize the importance of a lab notebook.

Maintaining detailed documentation in a lab notebook allows researchers to keep track of their experiments and generation of data. This detailed documentation helps you communicate about your research with others in the lab, and serves as a basis for preparing publications. It also provides a lasting record for the lab that exists beyond your time in the lab. After graduate students leave the lab, sometimes it is necessary to go back to the results of older experiments. A complete and detailed notebook is essential, or all of the time, effort, and resources are lost.

2. Learn the note-keeping practices in your lab

When you enter a new lab, it is important to understand how the lab keeps notebooks and the expectations for documentation. Being conscientious about documentation will make you a better scientist. In some labs, the PI might routinely examine your notebook, while in other labs you may be expected to maintain a notebook, but it may not be regularly viewed by others. It is tempting to become relaxed in documentation if you think your notebook may not be reviewed. Avoid this temptation; documentation of your ideas and process will improve your ability to think critically about research. Further, even if the PI or lab members do not physically view your notebook, you will need to communicate with them about your experiments. This documentation is necessary to communicate effectively about your work.

3. Organize your lab notebook

Different labs use different formats; some use electronic notebooks while others handwritten notebooks. The contents of a good notebook include the purpose of the experiment, the details of the experimental procedure, the data, and thoughts about the results. To effectively document your experiment, there are 5 critical questions that the information you record should be able to answer.

  • Why I am doing this experiment? (purpose)
  • What did I do to perform the experiment? (protocol)
  • What are the results of what I did? (data, graphs)
  • What do I think about the results?
  • What do I think are the next steps?

We also recommend a table of contents. It will make the information more useful to you and the lab in the future. The table of contents should list the title of the experiment, the date(s) it was performed, and the page numbers on which it is recorded. Also, make sure that you write clearly and provide a legend or explanation of any shorthand or non-standard abbreviation you use. Often labs will have a combination of written lab notebooks and electronic data. It is important to reference where electronic data are located that go with each experiment. The idea is to make it as easy as possible to understand what you did and where to find all the data (electronic and hard copy) that accompanies your experiment.

Keeping a lab notebook becomes easier with practice. It can be thought of almost like journaling about your experiment. Sometimes people think of it as just a place to paste their protocol and a graph or data. We strongly encourage you to include your thoughts about why you made the decisions you made when conducting the experiment and to document your thoughts about next steps.

4. Commit to doing it the right way

A common reason to become lax in documentation is feeling rushed for time. Although documentation takes time, it saves time in the long-run and fosters good science. Without good notes, you will waste time trying to recall precisely what you did, reproduce your findings, and remember what you thought would be important next steps. The lab notebook helps you think about your research critically and keep your thoughts together. It can also save you time later when writing up results for publication. Further, well-documented data will help you draft a cogent and rigorous dissertation.

Handle data responsibly

1. keep all data.

Data are the product of research. Data include raw data, processed data, analyzed data, figures, and tables. Many data today are electronic, but not all. Generating data requires a lot of time and resources and researchers must treat data with care. The first essential tip is to keep all data. Do not discard data just because the experiment did not turn out as expected. A lot of experiments do not turn out to yield publishable data, but the results are still important for informing next steps.

Always keep the original, raw data. That is, as you process and analyze data, always maintain an unprocessed version of the original data.

Universities and funding agencies have data retention policies. These policies specify the number of years beyond a grant that data must be kept. Some policies also indicate researchers need to retain original data that served as the basis for a publication for a certain number of years. Therefore, your data will be important well beyond your time in graduate school. Most labs require you to keep samples for reanalysis until a paper is published, then the analyzed data are enough. If you leave a lab before a paper is accepted for publication, you are responsible for ensuring your data and original samples are well documented for others to find and use.

2. Document all data

In addition to keeping all data, data must be well-organized and documented. This means that no matter the way you keep your data (e.g., electronic or in written lab notebooks), there is a clear guide—in your lab notebook, a binder, or on a lab hard drive—to finding the data for a particular experiment. For example, it must be clear which data produced a particular graph. Version control of data is also critical. Your documentation should include “metadata” (data about your data) that tracks versions of the data. For example, as you edit data for a table, you should save separate versions of the tables, name the files sequentially, and note the changes that were made to each version.

3. Backup your data

You should backup electronic data regularly. Ideally, your lab has a shared server or cloud storage to backup data. If you are supposed to put your data there, make sure you do it! When you leave the lab, it must be possible to find your data.

4. Perform data analysis honestly and competently

Inappropriate use of statistics is a major concern in the scientific community, as the results and conclusions will be misleading if done incorrectly ( DeMets, 1999 ). Some practices are clearly an abuse of statistics, while other inappropriate practices stem from lack of knowledge. For example, a practice called “p-hacking” describes when researchers “collect or select data or statistical analyses until nonsignificant results become significant” ( Head, Holman, Lanfear, Kahn, & Jennions, 2015 ). In addition to avoiding such misbehavior, it is essential to be proficient with statistics to ensure you do statistical procedures appropriately. Learning statistical procedures and analyzing data takes many years of practice, and your statistics courses may only cover the basics. You will need to know when to consult others for help. In addition to consulting members in your lab or your PI, your university may have statistical experts who can provide consultations.

5. Master pressure to obtain favored results

When you conduct an experiment, the results are the results. As a beginning researcher, it is important to be prepared to manage the frustration of experiments not turning out as expected. It is also important to manage the real or perceived pressure to produce favored results. Investigators can become wedded to a hypothesis, and they can have a difficult time accepting the results. Sometimes you may feel this pressure coming from yourself; for example, if you want to please your PI, or if you want to get results for a certain publication. It is important to always follow the data no matter where it leads.

If you do feel pressure, this situation can be uncomfortable and stressful. If you have been meticulous and followed the above recommendations, this can be one great safeguard. You will be better able to confidently communicate your results to the PI because of your detailed documentation, and you will be more confident in your procedures if the possibility of error is suggested. Typically, with enough evidence that the unexpected results are real, the PI will concede. We recommend seeking the support of friends or colleagues to vent and cope with stress. In the rare case that the PI does not relent, you could turn to an advisor outside the lab if you need advice about how to proceed. They can help you look at the data objectively and also help you think about the interpersonal aspects of navigating this situation.

6. Communicate about your data in the lab

A critical element of reproducible research is communication in the lab. Ideally, there are weekly or bi-weekly meetings to discuss data. You need to develop your communication skills for writing and speaking about data. Often you and your labmates will discuss experimental issues and results informally during the course of daily work. This is an excellent way to hone critical thinking and communication skills about data.

Scenario 1 – The Protocol is Not Working

At the beginning of a rotation during their first year, a graduate student is handed a lab notebook and a pen and is told to keep track of their work. There does not appear to be a specific format to follow. There are standard lab protocols that everyone follows, but minor tweaks to the protocols do not seem to be tracked from experiment to experiment in the standard lab protocol nor in other lab notebooks. After two weeks of trying to follow one of the standard lab protocols, the student still cannot get the experiment to work. The student has included the appropriate positive and negative controls which are failing, making the experiment uninterpretable. After asking others in the lab for help, the graduate student learns that no one currently in the lab has performed this particular experiment. The former lab member who had performed the experiment only lists the standard protocol in their lab notebook.

How should the graduate student start to solve the problem?

Speaking to the PI would be the next logical step. As a first-year student in a lab rotation, the PI should expect this type of situation and provide additional troubleshooting guidance. It is possible that the PI may want to see how the new graduate student thinks critically and handles adversity in the lab. Rather than giving an answer, the PI might ask the student to work through the problem. The PI should give guidance, but it may not be an immediate fix for the problem. If the PI’s suggestions fail to correct the problem, asking a labmate or the PI for the contact information of the former lab member who most recently performed the experiment would be a reasonable next step. The graduate student’s conversations with the PI and labmates in this situation will help them learn a lot about how the people in the lab interact.

Most of the answers for these types of problems will require you as a graduate student to take the initiative to answer. They will require your effort and ingenuity to talk to other lab members, other labs at the university, and even scour the literature for alternatives. While labs have standard protocols, there are multiple ways to do many experiments, and working out an alternative will teach you more than when everything works. Having to troubleshoot problems will result in better standard protocols in the lab and better science.

HOW TO BE A RESPONSIBLE AUTHOR

Researchers communicate their findings via peer-reviewed publications, and publications are important for advancing in a research career. Many graduate students will first author or co-author publications in graduate school. For good advice on how to write a research manuscript, consult the Current Protocols article “How to write a research manuscript” ( Frank, 2018 ). We focus on the issues of assigning authors and reporting your findings responsibly. First, we describe some important basics: journal impact factors, predatory journals, and peer review.

What are journal impact factors?

It is helpful to understand journal impact factors. There is criticism about an overemphasis on impact factors for evaluating the quality or importance of researchers’ work ( DePellegrin & Johnston, 2015 ), but they remain common for this purpose. Journal impact factors reflect the average number of times articles in a journal were cited in the last two years. Higher impact factors place journals at a higher rank. Approximately 2% of journals have an impact factor of 10 or higher. For example, Cell, Science, and Nature have impact factors of approximately 39, 42, and 43, respectively. Journals can be great journals but have lower impact factors; often this is because they focus on a smaller specialty field. For example, Journal of Immunology and Oncogene are respected journals, but their impact factors are about 4 and 7, respectively.

Research trainees often want to publish in journals with the highest possible impact factor because they expect this to be viewed favorably when applying to future positions. We encourage you to bear in mind that many different journals publish excellent science and focus on publishing where your work will reach the desired audience. Also, keep in mind that while a high impact factor can direct you to respectable, high-impact science, it does not guarantee that the science in the paper is good or even correct. You must critically evaluate all papers you read no matter the impact factor.

What are predatory journals?

Predatory journals have flourished over the past few years as publishing science has moved online. An international panel defined predatory journals as follows ( Grudniewicz et al., 2019 ):

Predatory journals and publishers are entities that prioritize self-interest at the expense of scholarship and are characterized by false or misleading information, deviation from best editorial and publication practices, a lack of transparency, and/or the use of aggressive and indiscriminate solicitation practices. (p. 211)

Often young researchers receive emails soliciting them to submit their work to a journal. There are typically small fees (around $99 US) requested but these fees will be much lower than open access fees of reputable journals (often around $2000 US). A warning sign of a predatory journal is outlandish promises, such as 24-hour peer review or immediate publication. You can find a list of predatory journals created by a postdoc in Europe at BeallsList.net ( “Beall’s List of Potential Predatory Journals and Publishers,” 2020 ).

What is peer review?

Peer reviewers are other scientists who have the expertise to evaluate a manuscript. Typically 2 or 3 reviewers evaluate a manuscript. First, an editor performs an initial screen of the manuscript to ensure its appropriateness for the journal and that it meets basic quality standards. At this stage, an editor can decide to reject the manuscript and not send it to review. Not sending a paper for peer review is common in the highest impact journals that receive more submissions per year than can be reviewed and published. For average-impact journals and specialty journals, typically your paper will be sent for peer review.

In general, peer review focuses on three aspects of a manuscript: research design and methods, validity of the data and conclusions, and significance. Peer reviewers assess the merit and rigor of the research design and methodology, and they evaluate the overall validity of the results, interpretations, and conclusions. Essentially, reviewers want to ensure that the data support the claims. Additionally, reviewers evaluate the overall significance, or contribution, of the findings, which involves the novelty of the research and the likelihood that the findings will advance the field. Significance standards vary between journals. Some journals are open to publishing findings that are incremental advancements in a field, while others want to publish only what they deem as major advancements. This feature can distinguish the highest impact journals which seek the most significant advancements and other journals that tend to consider a broader range of work as long as it is scientifically sound. It is important to keep in mind that determining at the stage of review and publication whether a paper is “high impact” is quite subjective. In reality, this can only really be determined in retrospect.

The key ethical issues in peer review are fairness, objectivity, and confidentiality ( Shamoo & Resnik, 2015 ). Peer reviewers are to evaluate the manuscript on its merits and not based on biases related to the authors or the science itself. If reviewers have a conflict of interest, this should be disclosed to the editor. Confidentiality of peer review means that the reviewers should keep private the information; they should not share the information with others or use it to their benefit. Reviewers can ultimately recommend that the manuscript is rejected, revised, and resubmitted (major or minor revisions), or accepted. The editor evaluates the reviewers’ feedback and makes a judgment about rejecting, accepting, or requesting a revision. Sometimes PIs will ask experienced graduate students to assist with peer reviewing a manuscript. This is a good learning opportunity. The PI should disclose to the editor that they included a trainee in preparing the review.

Assign authorship fairly

Authorship gives credit to the people who contributed to the research. This includes thinking of the ideas, designing and performing experiments, interpreting the results, and writing the paper. Two key questions regarding authorship include: 1 - Who will be an author? 2 - What will be the order in which authors are listed? These seem simple on the surface but can get quite complex.

1. Know authorship guidelines

Authorship guidelines published by journals, professional societies, and universities communicate key principles of authorship and standards for earning authorship. The core ethical principle of assigning authorship is fairness in who receives credit for the work. The people who contributed to the work should get credit for it. This seems simply enough, but determining authorship can (and often does) create conflict.

Many universities have authorship guidelines, and you should know the policies at your university. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) provides four criteria for determining who should be an author ( International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, 2020 ). These criteria indicate that an author should do all of the following: 1) make “substantial contributions” to the development of the idea or research design, or to acquiring, analyzing, or interpreting the data, 2) write the manuscript or revise it a substantive way, 3) give approval of the final manuscript (i.e., before it is submitted for review, and after it is revised, if necessary), and 4) agree to be responsible for any questions about the accuracy or integrity of the research.

Several types of authorship violate these guidelines and should be avoided. Guest authorship is when respected researchers are added out of appreciation, or to have the manuscript be perceived more favorably to get it published or increase its impact. Gift authorship is giving authorship to reward an individual, or as a favor. Ghost authorship is when someone made significant contributions to the paper but is not listed as an author. To increase transparency, some journals require authors to indicate how each individual contributed to the research and manuscript.

2. Apply the guidelines

Conflicts often arise from disagreements about how much people contributed to the research and whether those contributions merit authorship. The best approach is an open, honest, and ongoing discussion about authorship, which we discuss in #3 below. To have effective, informed conversations about authorship, you must understand how to apply the guidelines to your specific situation. The following is a simple rule of thumb that indicates there are three components of authorship. We do not list giving final approval of the manuscript and agreeing to be accountable, but we do consider these essentials of authorship.

  • Thinking – this means contributing to the ideas leading to the hypothesis of the work, designing experiments to address the hypothesis, and/or analyzing the results in the larger context of the literature in the field.
  • Doing – this means performing and analyzing the experiments.
  • Writing – this means editing a draft, or writing the entire paper. The first author often writes the entire first draft.

In our experience, a first author would typically do all three. They also usually coordinate the writing and editing process. Co-authors are typically very involved in at least two of the three, and are somewhat involved in the other. The PI, who oversees and contributes to all three, is often the last, or “senior author.” The “senior author” is typically the “corresponding author”—the person listed as the individual to contact about the paper. The other co-authors are listed between the first and senior author either alphabetically, or more commonly, in order from the largest to smallest contribution.

Problems in assigning authorship typically arise due to people’s interpretations of #1 (thinking) and #2 (doing)—what and how much each individual contributed to a project’s design, execution, and analysis. Different fields or PIs may have their own slight variations on these guidelines. The potential conflicts associated with assigning authorship lead to the most common recommendation for responsibly assigning authorship: discuss authorship expectations early and revisit them during the project.

3. Discuss authorship with your collaborators

Publications are important for career advancement, so you can see why people might be worried about fairness in assigning authorship. If the problem arises from a lack of a shared understanding about contributions to the research, the only way to clarify this is an open discussion. This discussion should ideally take place very early at the beginning of a project, and should be ongoing. Hopefully you work in a laboratory that makes these discussions a natural part of the research process; this makes it much easier to understand the expectations upfront.

We encourage you to speak up about your interest in making a contribution that would merit authorship, especially if you want to earn first authorship. Sometimes norms about authoring papers in a lab make it clear you are expected to first and co-author publications, but it is best to communicate your interest in earning authorship. If the project is not yours, but you wish to collaborate, you can inquire what you may be able to contribute that would merit authorship.

If it is not a norm in your lab to discuss authorship throughout the life of projects, then as a graduate student you may feel reluctant to speak up. You could initiate a conversation with a more senior graduate student, a postdoc, or your PI, depending on the dynamics in the group. You could ask generally about how the lab approaches assignment of authorship, but discussing a specific project and paper may be best. It may feel awkward to ask, but asking early is less uncomfortable than waiting until the end of the project. If the group is already drafting a manuscript and you are told that your contribution is insufficient for authorship, this situation is much more discouraging than if you had asked earlier about what is expected to earn authorship.

How to report findings responsibly

The most significant responsibility of authors is to present their research accurately and honestly. Deliberately presenting misleading information is clearly unethical, but there are significant judgment calls about how to present your research findings. For example, an author can mislead by overstating the conclusions given what the data support.

1. Commit to presenting your findings honestly

Any good scientific manuscript writer will tell you that you need to “tell a good story.” This means that your paper is organized and framed to draw the reader into the research and convince them of the importance of the findings. But, this story must be sound and justified by the data. Other authors are presenting their findings in the best, most “publishable” light, so it is a balancing act to be persuasive but also responsible in presenting your findings in a trustworthy manner. To present your findings honestly, you must be conscious of how you interpret your data and present your conclusions so that they are accurate and not overstated.

One misbehavior known as “HARKing,” Hypothesis After the Results are Known, occurs when hypotheses are created after seeing the results of an experiment, but they are presented as if they were defined prior to collecting the data ( Munafò et al., 2017 ). This practice should be avoided. HARKing may be driven, in part, by a concern in scientific publishing known as publication bias. This bias is a preference that reviewers, editors, and researchers have for papers describing positive findings instead of negative findings ( Carroll, Toumpakari, Johnson, & Betts, 2017 ). This preference can lead to manipulating one’s practices, such as by HARKing, so that positive findings can be reported.

It is important to note that in addition to avoiding misbehaviors such as HARKing, all researchers are susceptible to a number of more subtle traps in judgment. Even the most well-intentioned researcher may jump to conclusions, discount alternative explanations, or accept results that seem correct without further scrutiny ( Nuzzo, 2015 ). Therefore, researchers must not only commit to presenting their findings honestly but consider how they can counteract such traps by slowing down and increasing their skepticism towards their findings.

2. Provide an appropriate amount of detail

Providing enough detail in a manuscript can be a challenge with the word limits imposed by most journals. Therefore, you will need to determine what details to include and which to exclude, or potentially include in the supplemental materials. Methods sections can be long and are often the first to be shortened, but complete methods are important for others to evaluate the research and to repeat the methods in other studies. Even more significant is making decisions about what experimental data to include and potentially exclude from the manuscript. Researchers must determine what data is required to create a complete scientific story that supports the central hypothesis of the paper. On the other hand, it is not necessary or helpful to include so much data in the manuscript, or in supplemental material, that the central point of the paper is difficult to discern. It is a tricky balance.

3. Follow proper citation practices

Of course, responsible authorship requires avoiding plagiarism. Many researchers think that plagiarism is not a concern for them because they assume it is always done intentionally by “copying and pasting” someone else’s words and claiming them as your own. Sometimes poor writing practices, such as taking notes from references without distinguishing between direct quotes and paraphrased material, can lead to including material that is not quoted properly. More broadly, proper citation practices include accurately and completely referencing prior studies to provide appropriate context for your manuscript.

4. Attend to the other important details

The journal will require several pieces of additional information, such as disclosure of sources of funding and potential conflicts of interest. Typically, graduate students do not have relationships that constitute conflicts of interest, but a PI who is a co-author may. In submitting a manuscript, also make sure to acknowledge individuals not listed as authors but who contributed to the work.

5. Share data and promote transparency

Data sharing is a key facet of promoting transparency in science ( Nosek et al., 2015 ). It will be important to know the expectations of the journals in which you wish to publish. Many top journals now require data sharing; for example, sharing your data files in an online repository so others have access to the data for secondary use. Funding agencies like NIH also increasingly require data sharing. To further foster transparency and public trust in research, researchers must deposit their final peer-reviewed manuscripts that report on research funded by NIH to PubMed Central. PubMed makes biomedical and life science research publicly accessible in a free, online database.

Scenario 2 – Authors In Conflict

To prepare a manuscript for publication, a postdoc’s data is added to a graduate student’s thesis project. After working together to combine the data and write the paper, the postdoc requests co-first authorship on the paper. The graduate student balks at this request on the basis that it is their thesis project. In a weekly meeting with the lab’s PI to discuss the status of the paper, the graduate student states that they should divide the data between the authors as a way to prove that the graduate student should be the sole first author. The PI agrees to this attempt to quantify how much data each person contributed to the manuscript. All parties agree the writing and thinking were equally shared between them. After this assessment, the graduate student sees that the postdoc actually contributed more than half of the data presented in the paper. The graduate student and a second graduate student contributed the remaining data; this means the graduate student contributed much less than half of the data in the paper. However, the graduate student is still adamant that they must be the sole first author of the paper because it is their thesis project.

Is the graduate student correct in insisting that it is their project, so they are entitled to be the sole first author?

Co-first authorship became popular about 10 years ago as a way to acknowledge shared contributions to a paper in which authors worked together and contributed equally. If the postdoc contributed half of the data and worked with the graduate student to combine their interpretations and write the first draft of the paper, then the postdoc did make a substantial contribution. If the graduate student wrote much of the first draft of the paper, contributed significantly to the second half of data, and played a major role in the thesis concept and design, this is also a major contribution. We summarized authorship requirements as contributing to thinking, doing, and writing, and we noted that a first author usually contributes to all of these. The graduate student has met all 3 elements to claim first authorship. However, it appears that the postdoc has also met these 3 requirements. Thus, it is at least reasonable for the postdoc to ask about co-first authorship.

The best way to move forward is to discuss their perspectives openly. Both the graduate student and postdoc want first authorship on papers to advance their careers. The postdoc feels they contributed more to the overall concept and design than the graduate student is recognizing, and the postdoc did contribute half of the data. This is likely frustrating and upsetting for the postdoc. On the other hand, perhaps the postdoc is forgetting how much a thesis becomes like “your baby,” so to speak. The work is the graduate student’s thesis, so it is easy to see why the graduate student would feel a sense of ownership of it. Given this fact, it may be hard for the graduate student to accept the idea that they would share first-author recognition for the work. Yet, the graduate student should consider that the manuscript would not be possible without the postdoc’s contribution. Further, if the postdoc was truly being unreasonable, then the postdoc could make the case for sole first authorship based on contributing the most data to the paper, in addition to contributing ideas and writing the paper. The graduate student should consider that the postdoc may be suggesting co-first authorship in good faith.

As with any interpersonal conflict, clear communication is key. While it might be temporarily uncomfortable to voice their views and address this disagreement, it is critical to avoiding permanent damage to their working relationship. The pair should consider each other’s perspectives and potential alternatives. For example, if the graduate student is first author and the postdoc second, at a minimum they could include an author note in the manuscript that describes the contribution of each author. This would make it clear the scope of the postdoc’s contribution, if they decided not to go with co-first authorship. Also, the graduate student should consider their assumptions about co-first authorship. Maybe they assume it makes it appear they contributed less, but instead, perhaps co-first authorship highlights their collaborative approach to science. Collaboration is a desirable quality many (although arguably not all) research organizations look for when they are hiring.

They will also need to speak with others for advice. The pair should definitely speak with the PI who could provide input about how these cases have been handled in the past. Ultimately, if they cannot reach an agreement, the PI, who is likely to be the last or “senior” author, may make the final decision. They should also speak to the other graduate student who is an author.

If either individual is upset with the situation, they will want to discuss it when they have had time to cool down. This might mean taking a day before discussing, or speaking with someone outside of the lab for support. Ideally, all authors on this paper would have initiated this conversation earlier, and the standards in the lab for first authorship would be discussed routinely. Clear communication may have avoided the conflict.

HOW TO USE DECISION-MAKING STRATEGIES TO NAVIGATE CHALLENGES

We have provided advice on some specific challenges you might encounter in research. This final section covers our overarching recommendation that you adopt a set of ethical decision-making strategies. These strategies help researchers address challenges by helping them think through a problem and possible alternatives ( McIntosh et al., 2020 ). The strategies encourage you to gather information, examine possible outcomes, consider your assumptions, and address emotional reactions before acting. They are especially helpful when you are uncertain how to proceed, face a new problem, or when the consequences of a decision could negatively impact you or others. The strategies also help people be honest with themselves, such as when they are discounting important factors or have competing goals, by encouraging them to identify outside perspectives and test their motivations. You can remember the strategies using the acronym SMART .

1. S eek Help

Obtain input from others who can be objective and that you trust. They can assist you with assessing the situation, predicting possible outcomes, and identifying potential options. They can also provide you with support. Individuals to consult may be peers, other faculty, or people in your personal life. It is important that you trust the people you talk with, but it is also good when they challenge your perspective, or encourage you to think in a new way about a problem. Keep in mind that people such as program directors and university ombudsmen are often available for confidential, objective advice.

2. M anage Emotions

Consider your emotional reaction to the situation and how it might influence your assessment of the situation, and your potential decisions and actions. In particular, identify negative emotions, like frustration, anxiety, fear, and anger, as they particularly tend to diminish decision-making and the quality of interactions with others. Take time to address these emotions before acting, for example, by exercising, listening to music, or simply taking a day before responding.

3. A nticipate Consequences

Think about how the situation could turn out. This includes for you, for the research team, and anyone else involved. Consider the short, middle-term, and longer-term impacts of the problem and your potential approach to addressing the situation. Ideally, it is possible to identify win-win outcomes. Often, however, in tough professional situations, you may need to select the best option from among several that are not ideal.

4. R ecognize Rules and Context

Determine if any ethical principles, professional policies, or rules apply that might help guide your choices. For instance, if the problem involves an authorship dispute, consider the authorship guidelines that apply. Recognizing the context means considering the situational factors that could impact your options and how you proceed. For example, factors such as the reality that ultimately the PI may have the final decision about authorship.

5. T est Assumptions and Motives

Examine your beliefs about the situation and whether any of your thoughts may not be justified. This includes critically examining the personal motivations and goals that are driving your interpretation of the problem and thoughts about how to resolve it.

These strategies do not have to be engaged in order, and they are interrelated. For example, seeking help can help you manage emotions, test assumptions, and anticipate consequences. Go back to the scenarios and our advice throughout this article, and you will see many of our suggestions align with these strategies. Practice applying SMART strategies when you encounter a problem and they will become more natural.

Learning practices for responsible research will be the foundation for your success in graduate school and your career. We encourage you to be reflective and intentional as you learn and hope that our advice helps you along the way.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work was supported by the National Human Genome Research Institute (Antes, K01HG008990) and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (UL1 TR002345).

LITERATURE CITED

  • Anderson MS, Horn AS, Risbey KR, Ronning EA, De Vries R, & Martinson BC (2007). What Do Mentoring and Training in the Responsible Conduct of Research Have To Do with Scientists’ Misbehavior? Findings from a National Survey of NIH-Funded Scientists . Academic Medicine , 82 ( 9 ), 853–860. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31812f764c [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Antes AL, Brown RP, Murphy ST, Waples EP, Mumford MD, Connelly S, & Devenport LD (2007). Personality and Ethical Decision-Making in Research: The Role of Perceptions of Self and Others . Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics , 2 ( 4 ), 15–34. doi: 10.1525/jer.2007.2.4.15 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Antes AL, English T, Baldwin KA, & DuBois JM (2018). The Role of Culture and Acculturation in Researchers’ Perceptions of Rules in Science . Science and Engineering Ethics , 24 ( 2 ), 361–391. doi: 10.1007/s11948-017-9876-4 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Antes AL, Kuykendall A, & DuBois JM (2019a). The Lab Management Practices of “Research Exemplars” that Foster Research Rigor and Regulatory Compliance: A Qualitative Study of Successful Principal Investigators . PloS One , 14 ( 4 ), e0214595. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0214595 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Antes AL, Kuykendall A, & DuBois JM (2019b). Leading for Research Excellence and Integrity: A Qualitative Investigation of the Relationship-Building Practices of Exemplary Principal Investigators . Accountability in Research , 26 ( 3 ), 198–226. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2019.1611429 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Antes AL, & Maggi LB Jr. (2021). How to Navigate Trainee-Mentor Relationships and Interpersonal Dynamics in the Lab . Current Protocols Essential Laboratory Techniques. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Asplund M, & Welle CG (2018). Advancing Science: How Bias Holds Us Back . Neuron , 99 ( 4 ), 635–639. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2018.07.045 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Baker M (2016). Is There a Reproducibility Crisis? Nature , 533 , 452–454. doi: 10.1038/533452a [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Barba LA (2016). The Hard Road to Reproducibility . Science , 354 ( 6308 ), 142. doi: 10.1126/science.354.6308.142 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Beall’s List of Potential Predatory Journals and Publishers . (2020). Retrieved from https://beallslist.net/#update [ Google Scholar ]
  • Carroll HA, Toumpakari Z, Johnson L, & Betts JA (2017). The Perceived Feasibility of Methods to Reduce Publication Bias . PloS One , 12 ( 10 ), e0186472–e0186472. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0186472 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Chappell B (2019). Duke Whistleblower Gets More Than $33 Million in Research Fraud Settlement . NPR. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2019/03/25/706604033/duke-whistleblower-gets-more-than-33-million-in-research-fraud-settlement [ Google Scholar ]
  • Davis MS, Riske-Morris M, & Diaz SR (2007). Causal Factors Implicated in Research Misconduct: Evidence from ORI Case Files . Science and Engineering Ethics , 13 ( 4 ), 395–414. doi: 10.1007/s11948-007-9045-2 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • DeMets DL (1999). Statistics and Ethics in Medical Research . Science and Engineering Ethics , 5 ( 1 ), 97–117. doi: 10.1007/s11948-999-0059-9 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Department of Health and Human Services. (2005). 42 CFR Parts 50 and 93 Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct; Final Rule. Retrieved from https://ori.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/42_cfr_parts_50_and_93_2005.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
  • DePellegrin TA, & Johnston M (2015). An Arbitrary Line in the Sand: Rising Scientists Confront the Impact Factor . Genetics , 201 ( 3 ), 811–813. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • DuBois JM, Anderson EE, Chibnall J, Carroll K, Gibb T, Ogbuka C, & Rubbelke T (2013). Understanding Research Misconduct: A Comparative Analysis of 120 Cases of Professional Wrongdoing . Account Res , 20 ( 5–6 ), 320–338. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2013.822248 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • DuBois JM, & Antes AL (2018). Five Dimensions of Research Ethics: A Stakeholder Framework for Creating a Climate of Research Integrity . Academic Medicine , 93 ( 4 ), 550–555. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001966 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Else H (2018). Does Science have a Bullying Problem? Nature , 563 , 616–618. doi: 10.1038/d41586-018-07532-5 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, & Grady C (2000). What Makes Clinical Research Ethical ? Journal of the American Medical Association , 283 ( 20 ), 2701–2711. doi:jsc90374 [pii] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Evans TM, Bira L, Gastelum JB, Weiss LT, & Vanderford NL (2018). Evidence for a Mental Health Crisis in Graduate Education . Nature Biotechnology , 36 ( 3 ), 282–284. doi: 10.1038/nbt.4089 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Frank DJ (2018). How to Write a Research Manuscript . Current Protocols Essential Laboratory Techniques , 16 ( 1 ), e20. doi: 10.1002/cpet.20 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Goodman SN, Fanelli D, & Ioannidis JPA (2016). What Does Research Reproducibility Mean? Science Translational Medicine , 8 ( 341 ), 341ps312. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aaf5027 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Grudniewicz A, Moher D, Cobey KD, Bryson GL, Cukier S, Allen K, … Lalu MM (2019). Predatory journals: no definition, no defence . Nature , 576 ( 7786 ), 210–212. doi: 10.1038/d41586-019-03759-y [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Head ML, Holman L, Lanfear R, Kahn AT, & Jennions MD (2015). The Extent and Consequences of P-Hacking in Science . PLoS Biology , 13 ( 3 ), e1002106. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002106 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Hofstra B, Kulkarni VV, Munoz-Najar Galvez S, He B, Jurafsky D, & McFarland DA (2020). The Diversity–Innovation Paradox in Science . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 117 ( 17 ), 9284. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1915378117 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2020). Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors . Retrieved from http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html
  • Keith-Spiegel P, Sieber J, & Koocher GP (2010). Responding to Research Wrongdoing: A User-Friendly Guide . Retrieved from http://users.neo.registeredsite.com/1/4/0/20883041/assets/RRW_11-10.pdf
  • McIntosh T, Antes AL, & DuBois JM (2020). Navigating Complex, Ethical Problems in Professional Life: A Guide to Teaching SMART Strategies for Decision-Making . Journal of Academic Ethics . doi: 10.1007/s10805-020-09369-y [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Meyers LC, Brown AM, Moneta-Koehler L, & Chalkley R (2018). Survey of Checkpoints along the Pathway to Diverse Biomedical Research Faculty . PloS One , 13 ( 1 ), e0190606–e0190606. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0190606 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Munafò MR, Nosek BA, Bishop DVM, Button KS, Chambers CD, Percie du Sert N, … Ioannidis JPA (2017). A manifesto for reproducible science . Nature Human Behaviour , 1 ( 1 ), 0021. doi: 10.1038/s41562-016-0021 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • National Academies of Science. (2009). On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research . Washington DC: National Academics Press. [ Google Scholar ]
  • National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine. (2017). Fostering Integrity in Research . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press [ Google Scholar ]
  • National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine. (2018a). An American Crisis: The Growing Absence of Black Men in Medicine and Science: Proceedings of a Joint Workshop . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. [ Google Scholar ]
  • National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine. (2018b). Sexual harassment of women: climate, culture, and consequences in academic sciences, engineering, and medicine : National Academies Press. [ Google Scholar ]
  • National Institutes of Health. (2009). Update on the Requirement for Instruction in the Responsible Conduct of Research . NOT-OD-10-019 . Retrieved from https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-10-019.html
  • National Science Foundation. (2017). Important Notice No. 140 Training in Responsible Conduct of Research – A Reminder of the NSF Requirement . Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/issuances/in140.jsp
  • No Place for Bullies in Science. (2018). Nature , 559 ( 7713 ), 151. doi: 10.1038/d41586-018-05683-z [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Norris D, Dirnagl U, Zigmond MJ, Thompson-Peer K, & Chow TT (2018). Health Tips for Research Groups . Nature , 557 , 302–304. doi: 10.1038/d41586-018-05146-5 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Nosek BA, Alter G, Banks GC, Borsboom D, Bowman SD, Breckler SJ, … Yarkoni T (2015). Scientific Standards . Promoting an Open Research Culture. Science , 348 ( 6242 ), 1422–1425. doi: 10.1126/science.aab2374 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Nuzzo R (2015). How Scientists Fool Themselves - and How They Can Stop . Nature , 526 , 182–185. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • O’Connor A (2018). More Evidence that Nutrition Studies Don’t Always Add Up . The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/29/sunday-review/cornell-food-scientist-wansink-misconduct.html [ Google Scholar ]
  • Park A (2012). Great Science Frauds . Time. Retrieved from https://healthland.time.com/2012/01/13/great-science-frauds/slide/the-baltimore-case/ [ Google Scholar ]
  • Plemmons DK, Baranski EN, Harp K, Lo DD, Soderberg CK, Errington TM, … Esterling KM (2020). A Randomized Trial of a Lab-embedded Discourse Intervention to Improve Research Ethics . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 117 ( 3 ), 1389. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1917848117 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Research Institutions Must Put the Health of Labs First. (2018). Nature , 557 ( 7705 ), 279–280. doi: 10.1038/d41586-018-05159-0 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Research Integrity is Much More Than Misconduct . (2019). ( 570 ). doi: 10.1038/d41586-019-01727-0 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Resnik DB (2011). Scientific Research and the Public Trust . Science and Engineering Ethics , 17 ( 3 ), 399–409. doi: 10.1007/s11948-010-9210-x [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Roper RL (2019). Does Gender Bias Still Affect Women in Science? Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews , 83 ( 3 ), e00018–00019. doi: 10.1128/MMBR.00018-19 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Shamoo AE, & Resnik DB (2015). Responsible Conduct of Research (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Steneck NH (2007). ORI Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research (Updated ed.). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Winchester C (2018). Give Every Paper a Read for Reproducibility . Nature , 557 , 281. doi: 10.1038/d41586-018-05140-x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Read our research on: Immigration & Migration | Podcasts | Election 2024

Regions & Countries

How u.s. adults use tiktok, around half of adult tiktok users in the u.s. have never posted a video themselves. and a minority of users produce the vast majority of content.

An image of someone using the TikTok app on their smartphone

Pew Research Center conducted this study to gain insight into TikTok users’ views of and behaviors on the site, as well as how those opinions might vary based on their posting activity. To conduct this analysis, we surveyed 2,745 U.S. adult TikTok users in August 2023. Everyone who took part in this survey is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP) – an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses – and indicated that they use TikTok.

869 of these respondents volunteered a valid TikTok handle (their unique username preceded by an “@” sign) for research purposes. This allowed us to analyze their actual (observed) behaviors on the platform and compare them with their responses to the survey.

Here are the questions used for the report , along with responses, and its methodology .

A new Pew Research Center study matching the survey responses and on-site behaviors of U.S. adult TikTok users finds that a minority of avid posters create the vast majority of content on the site. And most users post seldom, if at all – instead using TikTok primarily to view and consume content made by others.

These findings come at a time when one-third of U.S. adults say they use the site and a growing share get news there . Among our key findings about how the American public is using TikTok:

A small share of users are responsible for producing the majority of TikTok content. The top 25% of U.S. adults on TikTok by posting volume produce 98% of all publicly accessible videos from this group. This is in line with the Center’s previous research on Twitter users , which found a similar ratio of highly active users creating the majority of content on the platform.

The typical TikTok user posts seldom, if ever. About half of all U.S. adults on the site have never posted a video themselves. And the typical user has not added any information to the “bio” field on their account.

A chart showing that The most active 25% of U.S. adult TikTok users produce 98% of public content

The posting behaviors of younger adults do not stand out dramatically from other age groups. Users ages 18 to 34 are much more likely than their older counterparts to use TikTok in the first place. But around half of these younger users have ever posted on the site – similar to the share among users ages 35 to 49.

Users who have posted videos on TikTok are more active on the platform in general than non-posters. Posters typically follow more users, have more followers themselves, are more likely to have filled out their account bio and are somewhat more likely to find the content of their “For You” page extremely interesting.

TikTok users are more likely than not to find their “For You” page interesting. TikTok is defined by its algorithmically curated “For You” page, and users generally like the content the algorithm serves them. Some 40% of users say this content is either extremely or very interesting to them, far more than the 14% in total who say it is not too or not at all interesting.

The study began with a survey conducted in August 2023 of 2,745 U.S. adult TikTok users. It includes direct observation of the accounts and posting behavior of 869 respondents who volunteered to share their account handle for research purposes.

All these accounts – regardless of their privacy settings – contained basic account metadata. This includes their bio and display name fields, counts of followers and followed accounts, and the total number of “likes” the user had received on any videos they posted. For accounts set to public, we were also able to observe any public videos posted to the account to get a better understanding of adult TikTok users’ posting behavior.

  • Americans’ social media use in 2023
  • More Americans are getting news on TikTok
  • What the public thinks about banning TikTok

Who posts videos to TikTok

A dot plot showing that about half of TikTok users have ever posted a video

Around half (52%) of U.S. adults on TikTok have ever posted a video on the platform. 1 And although there are substantial differences in which groups of Americans use TikTok in the first place, there are only modest differences in the posting behavior of users based on their demographic characteristics. Notably, there are no significant differences in the share of users who have posted on the site based on gender, political affiliation or educational attainment.

TikTok use is especially prevalent among younger adults – 56% of all U.S. adults ages 18 to 34 say they use the platform. But 52% of users in this age group have posted a video to their account. That is identical to the average among users overall, and similar to the share of users ages 35 to 49 who have ever posted.

A minority of users produce the majority of TikTok content from U.S. adults

While about half of U.S. adult TikTok users have ever posted a video at all, an even smaller share – 40% – have posted videos that are publicly visible. As a result, a relatively small share of users produce the vast majority of content that appears on the platform. 2

The typical TikTok user does not customize their bio

A wireframe of a TikTok profile showing that the median user follows 154 accounts, but has just 36 followers

TikTok users do not tend to present a detailed profile of themselves on their accounts.

Although 70% of users have changed their account nickname from the site-provided default, an identical share have not added any information to the “bio” field on their account. The median U.S. adult user follows 154 other accounts but has just 36 accounts who follow them – and has received no likes from other users.

How posters differ from non-posters in their use of TikTok

A table showing that Users who post content to TikTok are more active in other ways as well

TikTok users who post on the platform differ from non-posters in several important ways. Those who have ever posted a video are nearly five times as likely to have customized the bio field on their profile. They are also a bit more likely to have updated their account nickname from its default.

Posters also engage with a lot more other accounts on TikTok: A typical (median) poster follows nearly four times as many other accounts as someone who doesn’t post, and they have more followers as well. While it’s true that a small share of U.S. adults on TikTok are highly prolific, not everyone who posts videos does this a lot. The median poster has put up a total of six public videos in the life of their accounts and received a total of 149 likes in return.

What TikTok users think of their ‘For You’ page

Some 85% of TikTok users say the content on their “For You” page is at least somewhat interesting, including 40% who call it either extremely or very interesting. Only 14% say it is not too or not at all interesting.

Younger users are especially interested in the content they see on the platform. Some 47% of users ages 18 to 34 say they find the videos on their “For You” page either extremely or very interesting, compared with 36% of users ages 35 to 49 and 31% of those 50 or older.

There are only modest differences on this question based on other demographic factors like gender, political affiliation or educational attainment. Similar shares of posters and non-posters find the “For You” page at least very interesting.

A bar chart showing that 4 in 10 TikTok users find their ‘For You’ page extremely or very interesting

But posters are slightly more likely to report the highest level of interest in the material that TikTok’s content algorithm suggests to them. Some 17% of these users say they find the content of their “For You” page extremely interesting, compared with 11% of non-posters.

  • On TikTok, videos can be listed either publicly or privately, but total “like” counts for the whole account are public, even if associated videos are private. Therefore, we consider an account to have posted content if there are any public videos on the account, or if the account is set to private but there are likes recorded on the account. ↩
  • Due to the privacy settings of some accounts, we could only count videos that were publicly listed on TikTok in this analysis. ↩

Sign up for our Internet, Science and Tech newsletter

New findings, delivered monthly

Report Materials

Table of contents, americans’ social media use, a declining share of adults, and few teens, support a u.s. tiktok ban, teens, social media and technology 2023, more americans are getting news on tiktok, bucking the trend seen on most other social media sites, many americans get news on youtube, where news organizations and independent producers thrive side by side, 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
  • Starting the research process
  • 10 Research Question Examples to Guide Your Research Project

10 Research Question Examples to Guide your Research Project

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

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

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

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

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

Other interesting articles

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

Methodology

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

 Statistics

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

Research bias

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, October 19). 10 Research Question Examples to Guide your Research Project. Scribbr. Retrieved February 22, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/research-process/research-question-examples/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, writing strong research questions | criteria & examples, how to choose a dissertation topic | 8 steps to follow, evaluating sources | methods & examples, what is your plagiarism score.

IMAGES

  1. 15 Common Reasons: Why is Research Important for Students

    a research to study

  2. 💐 How to write up research findings. How to write chapter 4 Research

    a research to study

  3. Why Is Academic Research Important? Your Complete Guide

    a research to study

  4. Key Components of a Research Study

    a research to study

  5. Essential Things to Do Before Starting Your Research Study

    a research to study

  6. Why is Research Important for Undergraduate Students?

    a research to study

VIDEO

  1. What is Research??

  2. What is research

  3. Introduction to Research

  4. EASY APPROACH TO WRITING RESEARCH OBJECTIVES IN A RESEARCH

  5. Learning the basics of research. Session 1:Selecting a Topic

  6. How to identify the Research Gaps and Problems in your Research Study / Dr. Shaista Anwar

COMMENTS

  1. ScienceDaily: Your source for the latest research news

    Researchers Find Evidence That Sticks Feb. 21, 2024 — Neanderthals created stone tools held together by a multi-component adhesive, a team of scientists has discovered. Its findings, which are the...

  2. What types of studies are there?

    The main types of studies are randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, case-control studies and qualitative studies. Go to: Randomized controlled trials If you want to know how effective a treatment or diagnostic test is, randomized trials provide the most reliable answers.

  3. Qualitative Study

    Qualitative research is a type of research that explores and provides deeper insights into real-world problems. [1] Instead of collecting numerical data points or intervene or introduce treatments just like in quantitative research, qualitative research helps generate hypotheses as well as further investigate and understand quantitative data.

  4. What Is a Research Design

    Step 1: Consider your aims and approach Step 2: Choose a type of research design Step 3: Identify your population and sampling method Step 4: Choose your data collection methods Step 5: Plan your data collection procedures Step 6: Decide on your data analysis strategies Other interesting articles Frequently asked questions about research design

  5. Research Methods--Quantitative, Qualitative, and More: Overview

    Overview Quantitative Research Qualitative Research Data Science Methods (Machine Learning, AI, Big Data) Text Mining and Computational Text Analysis Evidence Synthesis/Systematic Reviews Get Data, Get Help! About Research Methods

  6. A Beginner's Guide to Starting the Research Process

    Step 1: Choose your topic Step 2: Identify a problem Step 3: Formulate research questions Step 4: Create a research design Step 5: Write a research proposal Other interesting articles Step 1: Choose your topic First you have to come up with some ideas. Your thesis or dissertation topic can start out very broad.

  7. Study designs: Part 1

    Research study design is a framework, or the set of methods and procedures used to collect and analyze data on variables specified in a particular research problem. Research study designs are of many types, each with its advantages and limitations.

  8. Types of Research Designs Compared

    Types of Research Designs Compared | Guide & Examples. Published on June 20, 2019 by Shona McCombes.Revised on June 22, 2023. When you start planning a research project, developing research questions and creating a research design, you will have to make various decisions about the type of research you want to do.. There are many ways to categorize different types of research.

  9. What is Research

    Research is the careful consideration of study regarding a particular concern or research problem using scientific methods. According to the American sociologist Earl Robert Babbie, "research is a systematic inquiry to describe, explain, predict, and control the observed phenomenon. It involves inductive and deductive methods."

  10. What Is Research, and Why Do People Do It?

    What Is Research, and Why Do People Do It? James Hiebert, Jinfa Cai, Stephen Hwang, Anne K Morris & Charles Hohensee Chapter Open Access First Online: 03 December 2022 13k Accesses Part of the Research in Mathematics Education book series (RME) Abstractspiepr Abs1

  11. 6 Basic Types of Research Studies (Plus Pros and Cons)

    Here are six common types of research studies, along with examples that help explain the advantages and disadvantages of each: 1. Meta-analysis. A meta-analysis study helps researchers compile the quantitative data available from previous studies. It's an observational study in which the researchers don't manipulate variables.

  12. Research articles

    Comparison of tendon and muscle belly vibratory stimulation in the treatment of post-stroke upper extremity spasticity: a retrospective observational pilot study. Kenta Takeuchi. Takashi ...

  13. Designing a Research Study

    Part of generating a hypothesis involves identifying the variables that you want to study and operationally defining those variables so that they can be measured. Research questions in psychology are about variables. A variable is a quantity or quality that varies across people or situations. For example, the height of the students enrolled in ...

  14. What Is Quantitative Research?

    Published on June 12, 2020 by Pritha Bhandari . Revised on June 22, 2023. Quantitative research is the process of collecting and analyzing numerical data. It can be used to find patterns and averages, make predictions, test causal relationships, and generalize results to wider populations.

  15. Participating in a Research Study

    Research studies are done to discover new information or to answer a question about how we learn, behave and function with the end-goal of benefitting society. Some studies might involve simple tasks like completing a survey, being observed among a group of people or participating in a group discussion. Other studies might involve more risky ...

  16. A Practical Guide to Writing Quantitative and Qualitative Research

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

  17. Module 1: Introduction: What is Research?

    Research is a process to discover new knowledge. In the Code of Federal Regulations (45 CFR 46.102 (d)) pertaining to the protection of human subjects research is defined as: "A systematic investigation (i.e., the gathering and analysis of information) designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge.".

  18. ResearchGate

    Access 160+ million publications and connect with 25+ million researchers. Join for free and gain visibility by uploading your research.

  19. Stanford Medicine study identifies distinct brain organization patterns

    A new study by Stanford Medicine investigators unveils a new artificial intelligence model that was more than 90% successful at determining whether scans of brain activity came from a woman or a man.. The findings, published Feb. 20 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, help resolve a long-term controversy about whether reliable sex differences exist in the human brain and ...

  20. 275 Million New Genetic Variants Identified in NIH Precision Medicine

    Study details the unprecedented scale, diversity, and power of the All of Us Research Program. Leer en enspañol. Researchers have discovered more than 275 million previously unreported genetic variants, identified from data shared by nearly 250,000 participants of the National Institutes of Health's All of Us Research Program.Half of the genomic data are from participants of non-European ...

  21. Research Methods

    Research Methods | Definitions, Types, Examples Research methods are specific procedures for collecting and analyzing data. Developing your research methods is an integral part of your research design. When planning your methods, there are two key decisions you will make. First, decide how you will collect data.

  22. Less Invasive Early Lung Cancer Study Receives Top 10 Clinical Research

    A Weill Cornell Medicine-led research team has been awarded a 2024 Top 10 Clinical Research Achievement Award from the Clinical Research Forum in recognition of an influential 2023 New England Journal of Medicine study on early-stage lung cancer resection.. The award is one of 10 given annually by the Clinical Research Forum for highly innovative and clinically translatable research with the ...

  23. What is Scientific Research and How Can it be Done?

    Scientific researches are studies that should be systematically planned before performing them. In this review, classification and description of scientific studies, planning stage randomisation and bias are explained. Keywords: Scientific researches, clinic researches, randomisation

  24. High levels of niacin linked to heart disease, new research suggests

    "This is a powerful study because it combines a variety of techniques: clinical data, genetic data and mouse data." Finding the new pathway may allow future researchers to discover ways to ...

  25. Air pollution tied to signs of Alzheimer's in brain tissue, study finds

    For the study, published this week in the journal Neurology, researchers examined the association between concentrations of ambient air pollution and signs of Alzheimer's disease in the human brain.

  26. What Is a Research Methodology?

    What Is a Research Methodology? | Steps & Tips. Published on August 25, 2022 by Shona McCombes and Tegan George. Revised on November 20, 2023. Your research methodology discusses and explains the data collection and analysis methods you used in your research. A key part of your thesis, dissertation, or research paper, the methodology chapter explains what you did and how you did it, allowing ...

  27. A Quarter of Smokers Quit Under Menthol Bans, Study Finds

    By 2060, the study projected, as many as 11 million years of life could be gained rather than lost to smoking-related deaths. "These effects are delayed," Dr. Levy said, "but nevertheless ...

  28. How to Conduct Responsible Research: A Guide for Graduate Students

    Abstract. Researchers must conduct research responsibly for it to have an impact and to safeguard trust in science. Essential responsibilities of researchers include using rigorous, reproducible research methods, reporting findings in a trustworthy manner, and giving the researchers who contributed appropriate authorship credit.

  29. How U.S. Adults Use TikTok

    Pew Research Center conducted this study to gain insight into TikTok users' views of and behaviors on the site, as well as how those opinions might vary based on their posting activity. To conduct this analysis, we surveyed 2,745 U.S. adult TikTok users in August 2023. Everyone who took part in this survey is a member of the Center's ...

  30. 10 Research Question Examples to Guide your Research Project

    The first question asks for a ready-made solution, and is not focused or researchable. The second question is a clearer comparative question, but note that it may not be practically feasible. For a smaller research project or thesis, it could be narrowed down further to focus on the effectiveness of drunk driving laws in just one or two countries.