research methods report example

When you choose to publish with PLOS, your research makes an impact. Make your work accessible to all, without restrictions, and accelerate scientific discovery with options like preprints and published peer review that make your work more Open.

• PLOS Biology
• PLOS Climate
• PLOS Computational Biology
• PLOS Digital Health
• PLOS Genetics
• PLOS Global Public Health
• PLOS Medicine
• PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
• PLOS Pathogens
• PLOS Sustainability and Transformation
• PLOS Collections
• How to Write Your Methods

Ensure understanding, reproducibility and replicability

What should you include in your methods section, and how much detail is appropriate?

Why Methods Matter

The methods section was once the most likely part of a paper to be unfairly abbreviated, overly summarized, or even relegated to hard-to-find sections of a publisher’s website. While some journals may responsibly include more detailed elements of methods in supplementary sections, the movement for increased reproducibility and rigor in science has reinstated the importance of the methods section. Methods are now viewed as a key element in establishing the credibility of the research being reported, alongside the open availability of data and results.

A clear methods section impacts editorial evaluation and readers’ understanding, and is also the backbone of transparency and replicability.

For example, the Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology project set out in 2013 to replicate experiments from 50 high profile cancer papers, but revised their target to 18 papers once they understood how much methodological detail was not contained in the original papers.

What to include in your methods section

What you include in your methods sections depends on what field you are in and what experiments you are performing. However, the general principle in place at the majority of journals is summarized well by the guidelines at PLOS ONE : “The Materials and Methods section should provide enough detail to allow suitably skilled investigators to fully replicate your study. ” The emphases here are deliberate: the methods should enable readers to understand your paper, and replicate your study. However, there is no need to go into the level of detail that a lay-person would require—the focus is on the reader who is also trained in your field, with the suitable skills and knowledge to attempt a replication.

A constant principle of rigorous science

A methods section that enables other researchers to understand and replicate your results is a constant principle of rigorous, transparent, and Open Science. Aim to be thorough, even if a particular journal doesn’t require the same level of detail . Reproducibility is all of our responsibility. You cannot create any problems by exceeding a minimum standard of information. If a journal still has word-limits—either for the overall article or specific sections—and requires some methodological details to be in a supplemental section, that is OK as long as the extra details are searchable and findable .

Imagine replicating your own work, years in the future

As part of PLOS’ presentation on Reproducibility and Open Publishing (part of UCSF’s Reproducibility Series ) we recommend planning the level of detail in your methods section by imagining you are writing for your future self, replicating your own work. When you consider that you might be at a different institution, with different account logins, applications, resources, and access levels—you can help yourself imagine the level of specificity that you yourself would require to redo the exact experiment. Consider:

• Which details would you need to be reminded of? 
• Which cell line, or antibody, or software, or reagent did you use, and does it have a Research Resource ID (RRID) that you can cite?
• Which version of a questionnaire did you use in your survey? 
• Exactly which visual stimulus did you show participants, and is it publicly available? 
• What participants did you decide to exclude? 
• What process did you adjust, during your work? 

Tip: Be sure to capture any changes to your protocols

You yourself would want to know about any adjustments, if you ever replicate the work, so you can surmise that anyone else would want to as well. Even if a necessary adjustment you made was not ideal, transparency is the key to ensuring this is not regarded as an issue in the future. It is far better to transparently convey any non-optimal methods, or methodological constraints, than to conceal them, which could result in reproducibility or ethical issues downstream.

Visual aids for methods help when reading the whole paper

Consider whether a visual representation of your methods could be appropriate or aid understanding your process. A visual reference readers can easily return to, like a flow-diagram, decision-tree, or checklist, can help readers to better understand the complete article, not just the methods section.

Ethical Considerations

In addition to describing what you did, it is just as important to assure readers that you also followed all relevant ethical guidelines when conducting your research. While ethical standards and reporting guidelines are often presented in a separate section of a paper, ensure that your methods and protocols actually follow these guidelines. Read more about ethics .

Existing standards, checklists, guidelines, partners

While the level of detail contained in a methods section should be guided by the universal principles of rigorous science outlined above, various disciplines, fields, and projects have worked hard to design and develop consistent standards, guidelines, and tools to help with reporting all types of experiment. Below, you’ll find some of the key initiatives. Ensure you read the submission guidelines for the specific journal you are submitting to, in order to discover any further journal- or field-specific policies to follow, or initiatives/tools to utilize.

Tip: Keep your paper moving forward by providing the proper paperwork up front

Be sure to check the journal guidelines and provide the necessary documents with your manuscript submission. Collecting the necessary documentation can greatly slow the first round of peer review, or cause delays when you submit your revision.

Randomized Controlled Trials – CONSORT The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) project covers various initiatives intended to prevent the problems of  inadequate reporting of randomized controlled trials. The primary initiative is an evidence-based minimum set of recommendations for reporting randomized trials known as the CONSORT Statement . 

Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses – PRISMA The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses ( PRISMA ) is an evidence-based minimum set of items focusing  on the reporting of  reviews evaluating randomized trials and other types of research.

Research using Animals – ARRIVE The Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments ( ARRIVE ) guidelines encourage maximizing the information reported in research using animals thereby minimizing unnecessary studies. (Original study and proposal , and updated guidelines , in PLOS Biology .) 

Laboratory Protocols Protocols.io has developed a platform specifically for the sharing and updating of laboratory protocols , which are assigned their own DOI and can be linked from methods sections of papers to enhance reproducibility. Contextualize your protocol and improve discovery with an accompanying Lab Protocol article in PLOS ONE .

Consistent reporting of Materials, Design, and Analysis – the MDAR checklist A cross-publisher group of editors and experts have developed, tested, and rolled out a checklist to help establish and harmonize reporting standards in the Life Sciences . The checklist , which is available for use by authors to compile their methods, and editors/reviewers to check methods, establishes a minimum set of requirements in transparent reporting and is adaptable to any discipline within the Life Sciences, by covering a breadth of potentially relevant methodological items and considerations. If you are in the Life Sciences and writing up your methods section, try working through the MDAR checklist and see whether it helps you include all relevant details into your methods, and whether it reminded you of anything you might have missed otherwise.

Summary Writing tips

The main challenge you may find when writing your methods is keeping it readable AND covering all the details needed for reproducibility and replicability. While this is difficult, do not compromise on rigorous standards for credibility!

• Keep in mind future replicability, alongside understanding and readability.
• Follow checklists, and field- and journal-specific guidelines.
• Consider a commitment to rigorous and transparent science a personal responsibility, and not just adhering to journal guidelines.
• Establish whether there are persistent identifiers for any research resources you use that can be specifically cited in your methods section.
• Deposit your laboratory protocols in Protocols.io, establishing a permanent link to them. You can update your protocols later if you improve on them, as can future scientists who follow your protocols.
• Consider visual aids like flow-diagrams, lists, to help with reading other sections of the paper.
• Be specific about all decisions made during the experiments that someone reproducing your work would need to know.

Don’t

• Summarize or abbreviate methods without giving full details in a discoverable supplemental section.
• Presume you will always be able to remember how you performed the experiments, or have access to private or institutional notebooks and resources.
• Attempt to hide constraints or non-optimal decisions you had to make–transparency is the key to ensuring the credibility of your research.
• How to Write a Great Title
• How to Write an Abstract
• How to Report Statistics
• How to Write Discussions and Conclusions
• How to Edit Your Work

There is no excerpt because this is a protected post.

There’s a lot to consider when deciding where to submit your work. Learn how to choose a journal that will help your study reach its audience, while reflecting your values as a researcher…

How to write the Methods section of a research paper

Dr. Dhriti Bhattacharyya

The Methods section of a research article is like a roadmap leading to the core of the research, guiding the readers through the actual journey the authors took to reach their destination. In the manuscript, this section contains the essential details for other scientists to replicate the experiments of the study and help the common readers to understand the study better.

In this article, we will share some tips to make the Methods section of your manuscript interesting and informative. While the article uses examples mostly from the biomedical and clinical research studies, authors from other fields too would find the tips useful for preparing their next manuscript.

Break ice between the readers and the Methods section

First, let’s ponder over the issue of the perception of boredom we often associate with the Methods section of an article. It may be the names of the reagents and instruments, separated by some numbers in terms of some concentrations or the technical terminologies that make the reading a heavy-duty task. Listed below are some useful ways of breaking the ice between the Methods section and the readers:

1. Explanation : Usually, each paragraph or subsection of the Methods section talks about a specific experiment. Early in each paragraph, explain the rationale behind your choices of that particular experiment.; for example, why you used a certain compound, a specific strain of mice as the experimental model or the particular concentration of that key reagent.

For clinical research, providing a detailed rationale for selecting the exclusion or inclusion criteria can be a good idea to present early in the Methods section. If you took a conventional or widely used method, you certainly don’t need to appear stating the obvious, but for less conventional approaches sharing your reasoning of the study design instantly makes the readers curious and engaged with your paper.

2. Visual presentation : To help the readers follow the study design or methodology better, visual elements like the schematic diagram, flowchart, and table can be used in this section. They help in breaking the monotony and making the absorption of complex information easy.  

The dos and don’ts of writing the Methods section

Secondly, the information in the methods section is closely scrutinized by the journal editors and peer reviewers to assess whether the most appropriate technique was used to reach your research goal. While every detail of your experiment need not be included, the essential and critical steps should be well described to receive a positive peer review.

The essential do’s and don’ts of writing a technically sound Methods section:

1. Adhere to the specific guidelines: Read the author’s instruction section of your target journal carefully and follow the specific instructions. For example, the heading of the section “Materials and Methods” may need to be changed to “Patients and the Method” to follow the guidelines of your target journal or the name of the institutes could be omitted for the journals that do not prefer open-label reporting. Also, you may be expected to follow a particular style guideline like the one published by the American Psychological Association while writing the Methods section.

Biomedical researchers would benefit from using the checklists for different study types to ensure the essential details are included in the Methods. Some of the standardized and widely referred checklists include the ones for randomized clinical trials CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials), cohort, case-control, cross‐sectional studies STROBE (STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology), diagnostic accuracy STARD (STAndards for the Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy studies), systematic reviews and meta‐analyses PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta‐Analyses), and Case reports CARE (CAse REport).

2.  Structure the section so that it tells the story of your research : All the experiments should be presented in a logical manner that helps the reader retrace the gradual and development and nuances of the study. A useful way of achieving this is to describe the methods in a chronological order of the experiments. For example: for a clinical trial, you may start with the setting and time of the study ( the beginning and termination dates of the study) , followed by the details of the patient recruitment ( Number of subjects/patients etc.) , study design (prospective, retrospective or other), randomization (if any), assigning into groups, intervention, and describing the techniques used to collect, measure, and analyse data.  

3. Follow the order of the results: To improve the readability and flow of your manuscript, match the order of specific methods to the order of the results that were achieved using those methods.

4. Use subheadings: Dividing the Methods section in terms of the experiments helps the reader to follow the section better. You may write the specific objective of each experiment as a subheading. Alternatively, if applicable, the name of each experiment can also be used as subheading.

5. Provide all details meticulously: Provide the details that you considered while designing the study or collecting the data because the smallest variations in these steps may affect the results and interpretation of their significance. When employing the outcome measures, the readers would like to know the information regarding validity and reliability. The correct way of reporting the reliability and the validity depends on the specific research design. Usually, information from existing literature is presented to support for the reliability and the validity of a measure.

Carefully describe the materials, equipment (like testing instruments and technical equipment), or stimuli used in the experiment. If your study involved a survey or any psychological assessment, mention the questionnaire, scoring methods, and validation of scales with every possible detail.

Also, be careful about one common manuscript error i.e. not mentioning the sample size estimation (whenever relevant). Although the estimated sample size is computed before the actual study starts, it helps the reader assess the expected change in the outcome variables and the number of subjects needed to detect that change within a certain confidence range. Similarly, mentioning power calculation is a critical point to be mentioned in the Methods section.

6. Mention the ethical approval: If relevant, early in the Methods section mention whether your study was approved by the ethics committee or institutional review board, and whether you have received oral/ written informed consent from the patients or the guardians.

7. Specify the variables : Clearly mention not only the control variables, independent variables, dependent variables but also if there were any extraneous variables that might influence the result of your study. For example, in a tutorial on learning how to write ‘Research Methodology’, one group is provided with a traditional text while the other group is provided with an interactive online tool. However, if some participants already have prior knowledge of ‘how to write the Methods section’, this pre-knowledge will act as an extraneous variable.

8. Statistical analysis:  In this section, describe all statistical tests, levels of significance, and software packages used to conduct the statistical analysis. You may also consult the biostatistician of your team to receive help to write this section . Don’t forget to indicate if the recommendations of a knowledgeable and experienced statistician were considered. Finally, it is important to provide the justification of the preferred statistical method used in the study. For example, why the author is using a one-tailed or two-tailed analysis.

1. Do not describe well-known methods in detail: For the sake of brevity, avoid listing the details of the experiments that are widely used or already published in numerous articles in your field of research. Instead, mention and cite the specific experiment and mention that the referred process was followed. However, if you have modified the standard process to meet the specific aim of your study, do describe the modifications and the reasons for those in sufficient detail.

2. Do not provide unnecessary details: Avoid unnecessary details that are not relevant to the result of the experiment. For example, you need not mention trivial details such as the color of the bucket that held the ice. Try to stick only to the details that are relevant and have an impact on your study.

3. Do not discuss the pros and cons of other methods: While it may be tempting to discuss the reasons why you did not use a particular method or how your chosen method is superior to others, save these details for the Discussion section. Utilize the Methods section only to mention the details of the methods you chose.

To summarize all the tips stated above, the Methods section of an ideal manuscript aims to share the scientific knowledge with transparency and also establishes the robustness of the study. I hope that this article helps you to reach the goal of writing a perfect manuscript!

Suggested reading:

• Manuscript structure: How to convey your most important ideas through your paper
• The secret to writing the introduction and methods section of a manuscript
• Supply adequate details of items mentioned in the materials and methods section

for this article

Published on: Sep 18, 2018

• Methods Section

You're looking to give wings to your academic career and publication journey. We like that!

Why don't we give you complete access! Create a free account and get unlimited access to all resources & a vibrant researcher community.

One click sign-in with your social accounts

Sign up via email

1536 visitors saw this today and 1210 signed up.

Subscribe to Manuscript Writing

Confirm that you would also like to sign up for free personalized email coaching for this stage.

Related Reading

The correct way to report p values

How to choose the research methodology best suited for your study

Planning to Write

Manuscript structure: How to convey your most important ideas through…

How to write the Methods section of a research paper 8 min read

10 Tips on how to write an effective research grant proposal 9 min read

11 Commonly confused elements of a research paper 16 min read

Manuscript structure: How to convey your most important ideas through your paper 6 min read

How to choose the research methodology best suited for your study 7 min read

Trending Searches

• Statement of the problem
• Background of study
• Scope of the study
• Types of qualitative research
• Rationale of the study
• Concept paper
• Literature review
• Introduction in research
• Under "Editor Evaluation"
• Ethics in research

Recent Searches

• Review paper
• Responding to reviewer comments
• Predatory publishers
• Scope and delimitations
• Open access
• Plagiarism in research
• Journal selection tips
• Editor assigned
• Types of articles
• "Reject and Resubmit" status
• Decision in process
• Conflict of interest

Scientific Reports

What this handout is about.

This handout provides a general guide to writing reports about scientific research you’ve performed. In addition to describing the conventional rules about the format and content of a lab report, we’ll also attempt to convey why these rules exist, so you’ll get a clearer, more dependable idea of how to approach this writing situation. Readers of this handout may also find our handout on writing in the sciences useful.

Background and pre-writing

Why do we write research reports.

You did an experiment or study for your science class, and now you have to write it up for your teacher to review. You feel that you understood the background sufficiently, designed and completed the study effectively, obtained useful data, and can use those data to draw conclusions about a scientific process or principle. But how exactly do you write all that? What is your teacher expecting to see?

To take some of the guesswork out of answering these questions, try to think beyond the classroom setting. In fact, you and your teacher are both part of a scientific community, and the people who participate in this community tend to share the same values. As long as you understand and respect these values, your writing will likely meet the expectations of your audience—including your teacher.

So why are you writing this research report? The practical answer is “Because the teacher assigned it,” but that’s classroom thinking. Generally speaking, people investigating some scientific hypothesis have a responsibility to the rest of the scientific world to report their findings, particularly if these findings add to or contradict previous ideas. The people reading such reports have two primary goals:

• They want to gather the information presented.
• They want to know that the findings are legitimate.

Your job as a writer, then, is to fulfill these two goals.

How do I do that?

Good question. Here is the basic format scientists have designed for research reports:

• Introduction

Methods and Materials

This format, sometimes called “IMRAD,” may take slightly different shapes depending on the discipline or audience; some ask you to include an abstract or separate section for the hypothesis, or call the Discussion section “Conclusions,” or change the order of the sections (some professional and academic journals require the Methods section to appear last). Overall, however, the IMRAD format was devised to represent a textual version of the scientific method.

The scientific method, you’ll probably recall, involves developing a hypothesis, testing it, and deciding whether your findings support the hypothesis. In essence, the format for a research report in the sciences mirrors the scientific method but fleshes out the process a little. Below, you’ll find a table that shows how each written section fits into the scientific method and what additional information it offers the reader.

Thinking of your research report as based on the scientific method, but elaborated in the ways described above, may help you to meet your audience’s expectations successfully. We’re going to proceed by explicitly connecting each section of the lab report to the scientific method, then explaining why and how you need to elaborate that section.

Although this handout takes each section in the order in which it should be presented in the final report, you may for practical reasons decide to compose sections in another order. For example, many writers find that composing their Methods and Results before the other sections helps to clarify their idea of the experiment or study as a whole. You might consider using each assignment to practice different approaches to drafting the report, to find the order that works best for you.

What should I do before drafting the lab report?

The best way to prepare to write the lab report is to make sure that you fully understand everything you need to about the experiment. Obviously, if you don’t quite know what went on during the lab, you’re going to find it difficult to explain the lab satisfactorily to someone else. To make sure you know enough to write the report, complete the following steps:

• What are we going to do in this lab? (That is, what’s the procedure?)
• Why are we going to do it that way?
• What are we hoping to learn from this experiment?
• Why would we benefit from this knowledge?
• Consult your lab supervisor as you perform the lab. If you don’t know how to answer one of the questions above, for example, your lab supervisor will probably be able to explain it to you (or, at least, help you figure it out).
• Plan the steps of the experiment carefully with your lab partners. The less you rush, the more likely it is that you’ll perform the experiment correctly and record your findings accurately. Also, take some time to think about the best way to organize the data before you have to start putting numbers down. If you can design a table to account for the data, that will tend to work much better than jotting results down hurriedly on a scrap piece of paper.
• Record the data carefully so you get them right. You won’t be able to trust your conclusions if you have the wrong data, and your readers will know you messed up if the other three people in your group have “97 degrees” and you have “87.”
• Consult with your lab partners about everything you do. Lab groups often make one of two mistakes: two people do all the work while two have a nice chat, or everybody works together until the group finishes gathering the raw data, then scrams outta there. Collaborate with your partners, even when the experiment is “over.” What trends did you observe? Was the hypothesis supported? Did you all get the same results? What kind of figure should you use to represent your findings? The whole group can work together to answer these questions.
• Consider your audience. You may believe that audience is a non-issue: it’s your lab TA, right? Well, yes—but again, think beyond the classroom. If you write with only your lab instructor in mind, you may omit material that is crucial to a complete understanding of your experiment, because you assume the instructor knows all that stuff already. As a result, you may receive a lower grade, since your TA won’t be sure that you understand all the principles at work. Try to write towards a student in the same course but a different lab section. That student will have a fair degree of scientific expertise but won’t know much about your experiment particularly. Alternatively, you could envision yourself five years from now, after the reading and lectures for this course have faded a bit. What would you remember, and what would you need explained more clearly (as a refresher)?

Once you’ve completed these steps as you perform the experiment, you’ll be in a good position to draft an effective lab report.

Introductions

How do i write a strong introduction.

For the purposes of this handout, we’ll consider the Introduction to contain four basic elements: the purpose, the scientific literature relevant to the subject, the hypothesis, and the reasons you believed your hypothesis viable. Let’s start by going through each element of the Introduction to clarify what it covers and why it’s important. Then we can formulate a logical organizational strategy for the section.

The inclusion of the purpose (sometimes called the objective) of the experiment often confuses writers. The biggest misconception is that the purpose is the same as the hypothesis. Not quite. We’ll get to hypotheses in a minute, but basically they provide some indication of what you expect the experiment to show. The purpose is broader, and deals more with what you expect to gain through the experiment. In a professional setting, the hypothesis might have something to do with how cells react to a certain kind of genetic manipulation, but the purpose of the experiment is to learn more about potential cancer treatments. Undergraduate reports don’t often have this wide-ranging a goal, but you should still try to maintain the distinction between your hypothesis and your purpose. In a solubility experiment, for example, your hypothesis might talk about the relationship between temperature and the rate of solubility, but the purpose is probably to learn more about some specific scientific principle underlying the process of solubility.

For starters, most people say that you should write out your working hypothesis before you perform the experiment or study. Many beginning science students neglect to do so and find themselves struggling to remember precisely which variables were involved in the process or in what way the researchers felt that they were related. Write your hypothesis down as you develop it—you’ll be glad you did.

As for the form a hypothesis should take, it’s best not to be too fancy or complicated; an inventive style isn’t nearly so important as clarity here. There’s nothing wrong with beginning your hypothesis with the phrase, “It was hypothesized that . . .” Be as specific as you can about the relationship between the different objects of your study. In other words, explain that when term A changes, term B changes in this particular way. Readers of scientific writing are rarely content with the idea that a relationship between two terms exists—they want to know what that relationship entails.

Not a hypothesis:

“It was hypothesized that there is a significant relationship between the temperature of a solvent and the rate at which a solute dissolves.”

Hypothesis:

“It was hypothesized that as the temperature of a solvent increases, the rate at which a solute will dissolve in that solvent increases.”

Put more technically, most hypotheses contain both an independent and a dependent variable. The independent variable is what you manipulate to test the reaction; the dependent variable is what changes as a result of your manipulation. In the example above, the independent variable is the temperature of the solvent, and the dependent variable is the rate of solubility. Be sure that your hypothesis includes both variables.

Justify your hypothesis

You need to do more than tell your readers what your hypothesis is; you also need to assure them that this hypothesis was reasonable, given the circumstances. In other words, use the Introduction to explain that you didn’t just pluck your hypothesis out of thin air. (If you did pluck it out of thin air, your problems with your report will probably extend beyond using the appropriate format.) If you posit that a particular relationship exists between the independent and the dependent variable, what led you to believe your “guess” might be supported by evidence?

Scientists often refer to this type of justification as “motivating” the hypothesis, in the sense that something propelled them to make that prediction. Often, motivation includes what we already know—or rather, what scientists generally accept as true (see “Background/previous research” below). But you can also motivate your hypothesis by relying on logic or on your own observations. If you’re trying to decide which solutes will dissolve more rapidly in a solvent at increased temperatures, you might remember that some solids are meant to dissolve in hot water (e.g., bouillon cubes) and some are used for a function precisely because they withstand higher temperatures (they make saucepans out of something). Or you can think about whether you’ve noticed sugar dissolving more rapidly in your glass of iced tea or in your cup of coffee. Even such basic, outside-the-lab observations can help you justify your hypothesis as reasonable.

Background/previous research

This part of the Introduction demonstrates to the reader your awareness of how you’re building on other scientists’ work. If you think of the scientific community as engaging in a series of conversations about various topics, then you’ll recognize that the relevant background material will alert the reader to which conversation you want to enter.

Generally speaking, authors writing journal articles use the background for slightly different purposes than do students completing assignments. Because readers of academic journals tend to be professionals in the field, authors explain the background in order to permit readers to evaluate the study’s pertinence for their own work. You, on the other hand, write toward a much narrower audience—your peers in the course or your lab instructor—and so you must demonstrate that you understand the context for the (presumably assigned) experiment or study you’ve completed. For example, if your professor has been talking about polarity during lectures, and you’re doing a solubility experiment, you might try to connect the polarity of a solid to its relative solubility in certain solvents. In any event, both professional researchers and undergraduates need to connect the background material overtly to their own work.

Organization of this section

Most of the time, writers begin by stating the purpose or objectives of their own work, which establishes for the reader’s benefit the “nature and scope of the problem investigated” (Day 1994). Once you have expressed your purpose, you should then find it easier to move from the general purpose, to relevant material on the subject, to your hypothesis. In abbreviated form, an Introduction section might look like this:

“The purpose of the experiment was to test conventional ideas about solubility in the laboratory [purpose] . . . According to Whitecoat and Labrat (1999), at higher temperatures the molecules of solvents move more quickly . . . We know from the class lecture that molecules moving at higher rates of speed collide with one another more often and thus break down more easily [background material/motivation] . . . Thus, it was hypothesized that as the temperature of a solvent increases, the rate at which a solute will dissolve in that solvent increases [hypothesis].”

Again—these are guidelines, not commandments. Some writers and readers prefer different structures for the Introduction. The one above merely illustrates a common approach to organizing material.

How do I write a strong Materials and Methods section?

As with any piece of writing, your Methods section will succeed only if it fulfills its readers’ expectations, so you need to be clear in your own mind about the purpose of this section. Let’s review the purpose as we described it above: in this section, you want to describe in detail how you tested the hypothesis you developed and also to clarify the rationale for your procedure. In science, it’s not sufficient merely to design and carry out an experiment. Ultimately, others must be able to verify your findings, so your experiment must be reproducible, to the extent that other researchers can follow the same procedure and obtain the same (or similar) results.

Here’s a real-world example of the importance of reproducibility. In 1989, physicists Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischman announced that they had discovered “cold fusion,” a way of producing excess heat and power without the nuclear radiation that accompanies “hot fusion.” Such a discovery could have great ramifications for the industrial production of energy, so these findings created a great deal of interest. When other scientists tried to duplicate the experiment, however, they didn’t achieve the same results, and as a result many wrote off the conclusions as unjustified (or worse, a hoax). To this day, the viability of cold fusion is debated within the scientific community, even though an increasing number of researchers believe it possible. So when you write your Methods section, keep in mind that you need to describe your experiment well enough to allow others to replicate it exactly.

With these goals in mind, let’s consider how to write an effective Methods section in terms of content, structure, and style.

Sometimes the hardest thing about writing this section isn’t what you should talk about, but what you shouldn’t talk about. Writers often want to include the results of their experiment, because they measured and recorded the results during the course of the experiment. But such data should be reserved for the Results section. In the Methods section, you can write that you recorded the results, or how you recorded the results (e.g., in a table), but you shouldn’t write what the results were—not yet. Here, you’re merely stating exactly how you went about testing your hypothesis. As you draft your Methods section, ask yourself the following questions:

• How much detail? Be precise in providing details, but stay relevant. Ask yourself, “Would it make any difference if this piece were a different size or made from a different material?” If not, you probably don’t need to get too specific. If so, you should give as many details as necessary to prevent this experiment from going awry if someone else tries to carry it out. Probably the most crucial detail is measurement; you should always quantify anything you can, such as time elapsed, temperature, mass, volume, etc.
• Rationale: Be sure that as you’re relating your actions during the experiment, you explain your rationale for the protocol you developed. If you capped a test tube immediately after adding a solute to a solvent, why did you do that? (That’s really two questions: why did you cap it, and why did you cap it immediately?) In a professional setting, writers provide their rationale as a way to explain their thinking to potential critics. On one hand, of course, that’s your motivation for talking about protocol, too. On the other hand, since in practical terms you’re also writing to your teacher (who’s seeking to evaluate how well you comprehend the principles of the experiment), explaining the rationale indicates that you understand the reasons for conducting the experiment in that way, and that you’re not just following orders. Critical thinking is crucial—robots don’t make good scientists.
• Control: Most experiments will include a control, which is a means of comparing experimental results. (Sometimes you’ll need to have more than one control, depending on the number of hypotheses you want to test.) The control is exactly the same as the other items you’re testing, except that you don’t manipulate the independent variable-the condition you’re altering to check the effect on the dependent variable. For example, if you’re testing solubility rates at increased temperatures, your control would be a solution that you didn’t heat at all; that way, you’ll see how quickly the solute dissolves “naturally” (i.e., without manipulation), and you’ll have a point of reference against which to compare the solutions you did heat.

Describe the control in the Methods section. Two things are especially important in writing about the control: identify the control as a control, and explain what you’re controlling for. Here is an example:

“As a control for the temperature change, we placed the same amount of solute in the same amount of solvent, and let the solution stand for five minutes without heating it.”

Structure and style

Organization is especially important in the Methods section of a lab report because readers must understand your experimental procedure completely. Many writers are surprised by the difficulty of conveying what they did during the experiment, since after all they’re only reporting an event, but it’s often tricky to present this information in a coherent way. There’s a fairly standard structure you can use to guide you, and following the conventions for style can help clarify your points.

• Subsections: Occasionally, researchers use subsections to report their procedure when the following circumstances apply: 1) if they’ve used a great many materials; 2) if the procedure is unusually complicated; 3) if they’ve developed a procedure that won’t be familiar to many of their readers. Because these conditions rarely apply to the experiments you’ll perform in class, most undergraduate lab reports won’t require you to use subsections. In fact, many guides to writing lab reports suggest that you try to limit your Methods section to a single paragraph.
• Narrative structure: Think of this section as telling a story about a group of people and the experiment they performed. Describe what you did in the order in which you did it. You may have heard the old joke centered on the line, “Disconnect the red wire, but only after disconnecting the green wire,” where the person reading the directions blows everything to kingdom come because the directions weren’t in order. We’re used to reading about events chronologically, and so your readers will generally understand what you did if you present that information in the same way. Also, since the Methods section does generally appear as a narrative (story), you want to avoid the “recipe” approach: “First, take a clean, dry 100 ml test tube from the rack. Next, add 50 ml of distilled water.” You should be reporting what did happen, not telling the reader how to perform the experiment: “50 ml of distilled water was poured into a clean, dry 100 ml test tube.” Hint: most of the time, the recipe approach comes from copying down the steps of the procedure from your lab manual, so you may want to draft the Methods section initially without consulting your manual. Later, of course, you can go back and fill in any part of the procedure you inadvertently overlooked.
• Past tense: Remember that you’re describing what happened, so you should use past tense to refer to everything you did during the experiment. Writers are often tempted to use the imperative (“Add 5 g of the solid to the solution”) because that’s how their lab manuals are worded; less frequently, they use present tense (“5 g of the solid are added to the solution”). Instead, remember that you’re talking about an event which happened at a particular time in the past, and which has already ended by the time you start writing, so simple past tense will be appropriate in this section (“5 g of the solid were added to the solution” or “We added 5 g of the solid to the solution”).
• Active: We heated the solution to 80°C. (The subject, “we,” performs the action, heating.)
• Passive: The solution was heated to 80°C. (The subject, “solution,” doesn’t do the heating–it is acted upon, not acting.)

Increasingly, especially in the social sciences, using first person and active voice is acceptable in scientific reports. Most readers find that this style of writing conveys information more clearly and concisely. This rhetorical choice thus brings two scientific values into conflict: objectivity versus clarity. Since the scientific community hasn’t reached a consensus about which style it prefers, you may want to ask your lab instructor.

How do I write a strong Results section?

Here’s a paradox for you. The Results section is often both the shortest (yay!) and most important (uh-oh!) part of your report. Your Materials and Methods section shows how you obtained the results, and your Discussion section explores the significance of the results, so clearly the Results section forms the backbone of the lab report. This section provides the most critical information about your experiment: the data that allow you to discuss how your hypothesis was or wasn’t supported. But it doesn’t provide anything else, which explains why this section is generally shorter than the others.

Before you write this section, look at all the data you collected to figure out what relates significantly to your hypothesis. You’ll want to highlight this material in your Results section. Resist the urge to include every bit of data you collected, since perhaps not all are relevant. Also, don’t try to draw conclusions about the results—save them for the Discussion section. In this section, you’re reporting facts. Nothing your readers can dispute should appear in the Results section.

Most Results sections feature three distinct parts: text, tables, and figures. Let’s consider each part one at a time.

This should be a short paragraph, generally just a few lines, that describes the results you obtained from your experiment. In a relatively simple experiment, one that doesn’t produce a lot of data for you to repeat, the text can represent the entire Results section. Don’t feel that you need to include lots of extraneous detail to compensate for a short (but effective) text; your readers appreciate discrimination more than your ability to recite facts. In a more complex experiment, you may want to use tables and/or figures to help guide your readers toward the most important information you gathered. In that event, you’ll need to refer to each table or figure directly, where appropriate:

“Table 1 lists the rates of solubility for each substance”

“Solubility increased as the temperature of the solution increased (see Figure 1).”

If you do use tables or figures, make sure that you don’t present the same material in both the text and the tables/figures, since in essence you’ll just repeat yourself, probably annoying your readers with the redundancy of your statements.

Feel free to describe trends that emerge as you examine the data. Although identifying trends requires some judgment on your part and so may not feel like factual reporting, no one can deny that these trends do exist, and so they properly belong in the Results section. Example:

“Heating the solution increased the rate of solubility of polar solids by 45% but had no effect on the rate of solubility in solutions containing non-polar solids.”

This point isn’t debatable—you’re just pointing out what the data show.

As in the Materials and Methods section, you want to refer to your data in the past tense, because the events you recorded have already occurred and have finished occurring. In the example above, note the use of “increased” and “had,” rather than “increases” and “has.” (You don’t know from your experiment that heating always increases the solubility of polar solids, but it did that time.)

You shouldn’t put information in the table that also appears in the text. You also shouldn’t use a table to present irrelevant data, just to show you did collect these data during the experiment. Tables are good for some purposes and situations, but not others, so whether and how you’ll use tables depends upon what you need them to accomplish.

Tables are useful ways to show variation in data, but not to present a great deal of unchanging measurements. If you’re dealing with a scientific phenomenon that occurs only within a certain range of temperatures, for example, you don’t need to use a table to show that the phenomenon didn’t occur at any of the other temperatures. How useful is this table?

As you can probably see, no solubility was observed until the trial temperature reached 50°C, a fact that the text part of the Results section could easily convey. The table could then be limited to what happened at 50°C and higher, thus better illustrating the differences in solubility rates when solubility did occur.

As a rule, try not to use a table to describe any experimental event you can cover in one sentence of text. Here’s an example of an unnecessary table from How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper , by Robert A. Day:

As Day notes, all the information in this table can be summarized in one sentence: “S. griseus, S. coelicolor, S. everycolor, and S. rainbowenski grew under aerobic conditions, whereas S. nocolor and S. greenicus required anaerobic conditions.” Most readers won’t find the table clearer than that one sentence.

When you do have reason to tabulate material, pay attention to the clarity and readability of the format you use. Here are a few tips:

• Number your table. Then, when you refer to the table in the text, use that number to tell your readers which table they can review to clarify the material.
• Give your table a title. This title should be descriptive enough to communicate the contents of the table, but not so long that it becomes difficult to follow. The titles in the sample tables above are acceptable.
• Arrange your table so that readers read vertically, not horizontally. For the most part, this rule means that you should construct your table so that like elements read down, not across. Think about what you want your readers to compare, and put that information in the column (up and down) rather than in the row (across). Usually, the point of comparison will be the numerical data you collect, so especially make sure you have columns of numbers, not rows.Here’s an example of how drastically this decision affects the readability of your table (from A Short Guide to Writing about Chemistry , by Herbert Beall and John Trimbur). Look at this table, which presents the relevant data in horizontal rows:

It’s a little tough to see the trends that the author presumably wants to present in this table. Compare this table, in which the data appear vertically:

The second table shows how putting like elements in a vertical column makes for easier reading. In this case, the like elements are the measurements of length and height, over five trials–not, as in the first table, the length and height measurements for each trial.

• Make sure to include units of measurement in the tables. Readers might be able to guess that you measured something in millimeters, but don’t make them try.
• Don’t use vertical lines as part of the format for your table. This convention exists because journals prefer not to have to reproduce these lines because the tables then become more expensive to print. Even though it’s fairly unlikely that you’ll be sending your Biology 11 lab report to Science for publication, your readers still have this expectation. Consequently, if you use the table-drawing option in your word-processing software, choose the option that doesn’t rely on a “grid” format (which includes vertical lines).

How do I include figures in my report?

Although tables can be useful ways of showing trends in the results you obtained, figures (i.e., illustrations) can do an even better job of emphasizing such trends. Lab report writers often use graphic representations of the data they collected to provide their readers with a literal picture of how the experiment went.

When should you use a figure?

Remember the circumstances under which you don’t need a table: when you don’t have a great deal of data or when the data you have don’t vary a lot. Under the same conditions, you would probably forgo the figure as well, since the figure would be unlikely to provide your readers with an additional perspective. Scientists really don’t like their time wasted, so they tend not to respond favorably to redundancy.

If you’re trying to decide between using a table and creating a figure to present your material, consider the following a rule of thumb. The strength of a table lies in its ability to supply large amounts of exact data, whereas the strength of a figure is its dramatic illustration of important trends within the experiment. If you feel that your readers won’t get the full impact of the results you obtained just by looking at the numbers, then a figure might be appropriate.

Of course, an undergraduate class may expect you to create a figure for your lab experiment, if only to make sure that you can do so effectively. If this is the case, then don’t worry about whether to use figures or not—concentrate instead on how best to accomplish your task.

Figures can include maps, photographs, pen-and-ink drawings, flow charts, bar graphs, and section graphs (“pie charts”). But the most common figure by far, especially for undergraduates, is the line graph, so we’ll focus on that type in this handout.

At the undergraduate level, you can often draw and label your graphs by hand, provided that the result is clear, legible, and drawn to scale. Computer technology has, however, made creating line graphs a lot easier. Most word-processing software has a number of functions for transferring data into graph form; many scientists have found Microsoft Excel, for example, a helpful tool in graphing results. If you plan on pursuing a career in the sciences, it may be well worth your while to learn to use a similar program.

Computers can’t, however, decide for you how your graph really works; you have to know how to design your graph to meet your readers’ expectations. Here are some of these expectations:

• Keep it as simple as possible. You may be tempted to signal the complexity of the information you gathered by trying to design a graph that accounts for that complexity. But remember the purpose of your graph: to dramatize your results in a manner that’s easy to see and grasp. Try not to make the reader stare at the graph for a half hour to find the important line among the mass of other lines. For maximum effectiveness, limit yourself to three to five lines per graph; if you have more data to demonstrate, use a set of graphs to account for it, rather than trying to cram it all into a single figure.
• Plot the independent variable on the horizontal (x) axis and the dependent variable on the vertical (y) axis. Remember that the independent variable is the condition that you manipulated during the experiment and the dependent variable is the condition that you measured to see if it changed along with the independent variable. Placing the variables along their respective axes is mostly just a convention, but since your readers are accustomed to viewing graphs in this way, you’re better off not challenging the convention in your report.
• Label each axis carefully, and be especially careful to include units of measure. You need to make sure that your readers understand perfectly well what your graph indicates.
• Number and title your graphs. As with tables, the title of the graph should be informative but concise, and you should refer to your graph by number in the text (e.g., “Figure 1 shows the increase in the solubility rate as a function of temperature”).
• Many editors of professional scientific journals prefer that writers distinguish the lines in their graphs by attaching a symbol to them, usually a geometric shape (triangle, square, etc.), and using that symbol throughout the curve of the line. Generally, readers have a hard time distinguishing dotted lines from dot-dash lines from straight lines, so you should consider staying away from this system. Editors don’t usually like different-colored lines within a graph because colors are difficult and expensive to reproduce; colors may, however, be great for your purposes, as long as you’re not planning to submit your paper to Nature. Use your discretion—try to employ whichever technique dramatizes the results most effectively.
• Try to gather data at regular intervals, so the plot points on your graph aren’t too far apart. You can’t be sure of the arc you should draw between the plot points if the points are located at the far corners of the graph; over a fifteen-minute interval, perhaps the change occurred in the first or last thirty seconds of that period (in which case your straight-line connection between the points is misleading).
• If you’re worried that you didn’t collect data at sufficiently regular intervals during your experiment, go ahead and connect the points with a straight line, but you may want to examine this problem as part of your Discussion section.
• Make your graph large enough so that everything is legible and clearly demarcated, but not so large that it either overwhelms the rest of the Results section or provides a far greater range than you need to illustrate your point. If, for example, the seedlings of your plant grew only 15 mm during the trial, you don’t need to construct a graph that accounts for 100 mm of growth. The lines in your graph should more or less fill the space created by the axes; if you see that your data is confined to the lower left portion of the graph, you should probably re-adjust your scale.
• If you create a set of graphs, make them the same size and format, including all the verbal and visual codes (captions, symbols, scale, etc.). You want to be as consistent as possible in your illustrations, so that your readers can easily make the comparisons you’re trying to get them to see.

How do I write a strong Discussion section?

The discussion section is probably the least formalized part of the report, in that you can’t really apply the same structure to every type of experiment. In simple terms, here you tell your readers what to make of the Results you obtained. If you have done the Results part well, your readers should already recognize the trends in the data and have a fairly clear idea of whether your hypothesis was supported. Because the Results can seem so self-explanatory, many students find it difficult to know what material to add in this last section.

Basically, the Discussion contains several parts, in no particular order, but roughly moving from specific (i.e., related to your experiment only) to general (how your findings fit in the larger scientific community). In this section, you will, as a rule, need to:

Explain whether the data support your hypothesis

• Acknowledge any anomalous data or deviations from what you expected

Derive conclusions, based on your findings, about the process you’re studying

• Relate your findings to earlier work in the same area (if you can)

Explore the theoretical and/or practical implications of your findings

Let’s look at some dos and don’ts for each of these objectives.

This statement is usually a good way to begin the Discussion, since you can’t effectively speak about the larger scientific value of your study until you’ve figured out the particulars of this experiment. You might begin this part of the Discussion by explicitly stating the relationships or correlations your data indicate between the independent and dependent variables. Then you can show more clearly why you believe your hypothesis was or was not supported. For example, if you tested solubility at various temperatures, you could start this section by noting that the rates of solubility increased as the temperature increased. If your initial hypothesis surmised that temperature change would not affect solubility, you would then say something like,

“The hypothesis that temperature change would not affect solubility was not supported by the data.”

Note: Students tend to view labs as practical tests of undeniable scientific truths. As a result, you may want to say that the hypothesis was “proved” or “disproved” or that it was “correct” or “incorrect.” These terms, however, reflect a degree of certainty that you as a scientist aren’t supposed to have. Remember, you’re testing a theory with a procedure that lasts only a few hours and relies on only a few trials, which severely compromises your ability to be sure about the “truth” you see. Words like “supported,” “indicated,” and “suggested” are more acceptable ways to evaluate your hypothesis.

Also, recognize that saying whether the data supported your hypothesis or not involves making a claim to be defended. As such, you need to show the readers that this claim is warranted by the evidence. Make sure that you’re very explicit about the relationship between the evidence and the conclusions you draw from it. This process is difficult for many writers because we don’t often justify conclusions in our regular lives. For example, you might nudge your friend at a party and whisper, “That guy’s drunk,” and once your friend lays eyes on the person in question, she might readily agree. In a scientific paper, by contrast, you would need to defend your claim more thoroughly by pointing to data such as slurred words, unsteady gait, and the lampshade-as-hat. In addition to pointing out these details, you would also need to show how (according to previous studies) these signs are consistent with inebriation, especially if they occur in conjunction with one another. To put it another way, tell your readers exactly how you got from point A (was the hypothesis supported?) to point B (yes/no).

Acknowledge any anomalous data, or deviations from what you expected

You need to take these exceptions and divergences into account, so that you qualify your conclusions sufficiently. For obvious reasons, your readers will doubt your authority if you (deliberately or inadvertently) overlook a key piece of data that doesn’t square with your perspective on what occurred. In a more philosophical sense, once you’ve ignored evidence that contradicts your claims, you’ve departed from the scientific method. The urge to “tidy up” the experiment is often strong, but if you give in to it you’re no longer performing good science.

Sometimes after you’ve performed a study or experiment, you realize that some part of the methods you used to test your hypothesis was flawed. In that case, it’s OK to suggest that if you had the chance to conduct your test again, you might change the design in this or that specific way in order to avoid such and such a problem. The key to making this approach work, though, is to be very precise about the weakness in your experiment, why and how you think that weakness might have affected your data, and how you would alter your protocol to eliminate—or limit the effects of—that weakness. Often, inexperienced researchers and writers feel the need to account for “wrong” data (remember, there’s no such animal), and so they speculate wildly about what might have screwed things up. These speculations include such factors as the unusually hot temperature in the room, or the possibility that their lab partners read the meters wrong, or the potentially defective equipment. These explanations are what scientists call “cop-outs,” or “lame”; don’t indicate that the experiment had a weakness unless you’re fairly certain that a) it really occurred and b) you can explain reasonably well how that weakness affected your results.

If, for example, your hypothesis dealt with the changes in solubility at different temperatures, then try to figure out what you can rationally say about the process of solubility more generally. If you’re doing an undergraduate lab, chances are that the lab will connect in some way to the material you’ve been covering either in lecture or in your reading, so you might choose to return to these resources as a way to help you think clearly about the process as a whole.

This part of the Discussion section is another place where you need to make sure that you’re not overreaching. Again, nothing you’ve found in one study would remotely allow you to claim that you now “know” something, or that something isn’t “true,” or that your experiment “confirmed” some principle or other. Hesitate before you go out on a limb—it’s dangerous! Use less absolutely conclusive language, including such words as “suggest,” “indicate,” “correspond,” “possibly,” “challenge,” etc.

Relate your findings to previous work in the field (if possible)

We’ve been talking about how to show that you belong in a particular community (such as biologists or anthropologists) by writing within conventions that they recognize and accept. Another is to try to identify a conversation going on among members of that community, and use your work to contribute to that conversation. In a larger philosophical sense, scientists can’t fully understand the value of their research unless they have some sense of the context that provoked and nourished it. That is, you have to recognize what’s new about your project (potentially, anyway) and how it benefits the wider body of scientific knowledge. On a more pragmatic level, especially for undergraduates, connecting your lab work to previous research will demonstrate to the TA that you see the big picture. You have an opportunity, in the Discussion section, to distinguish yourself from the students in your class who aren’t thinking beyond the barest facts of the study. Capitalize on this opportunity by putting your own work in context.

If you’re just beginning to work in the natural sciences (as a first-year biology or chemistry student, say), most likely the work you’ll be doing has already been performed and re-performed to a satisfactory degree. Hence, you could probably point to a similar experiment or study and compare/contrast your results and conclusions. More advanced work may deal with an issue that is somewhat less “resolved,” and so previous research may take the form of an ongoing debate, and you can use your own work to weigh in on that debate. If, for example, researchers are hotly disputing the value of herbal remedies for the common cold, and the results of your study suggest that Echinacea diminishes the symptoms but not the actual presence of the cold, then you might want to take some time in the Discussion section to recapitulate the specifics of the dispute as it relates to Echinacea as an herbal remedy. (Consider that you have probably already written in the Introduction about this debate as background research.)

This information is often the best way to end your Discussion (and, for all intents and purposes, the report). In argumentative writing generally, you want to use your closing words to convey the main point of your writing. This main point can be primarily theoretical (“Now that you understand this information, you’re in a better position to understand this larger issue”) or primarily practical (“You can use this information to take such and such an action”). In either case, the concluding statements help the reader to comprehend the significance of your project and your decision to write about it.

Since a lab report is argumentative—after all, you’re investigating a claim, and judging the legitimacy of that claim by generating and collecting evidence—it’s often a good idea to end your report with the same technique for establishing your main point. If you want to go the theoretical route, you might talk about the consequences your study has for the field or phenomenon you’re investigating. To return to the examples regarding solubility, you could end by reflecting on what your work on solubility as a function of temperature tells us (potentially) about solubility in general. (Some folks consider this type of exploration “pure” as opposed to “applied” science, although these labels can be problematic.) If you want to go the practical route, you could end by speculating about the medical, institutional, or commercial implications of your findings—in other words, answer the question, “What can this study help people to do?” In either case, you’re going to make your readers’ experience more satisfying, by helping them see why they spent their time learning what you had to teach them.

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout’s topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial . We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.

American Psychological Association. 2010. Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association . 6th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Beall, Herbert, and John Trimbur. 2001. A Short Guide to Writing About Chemistry , 2nd ed. New York: Longman.

Blum, Deborah, and Mary Knudson. 1997. A Field Guide for Science Writers: The Official Guide of the National Association of Science Writers . New York: Oxford University Press.

Booth, Wayne C., Gregory G. Colomb, Joseph M. Williams, Joseph Bizup, and William T. FitzGerald. 2016. The Craft of Research , 4th ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Briscoe, Mary Helen. 1996. Preparing Scientific Illustrations: A Guide to Better Posters, Presentations, and Publications , 2nd ed. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Council of Science Editors. 2014. Scientific Style and Format: The CSE Manual for Authors, Editors, and Publishers , 8th ed. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.

Davis, Martha. 2012. Scientific Papers and Presentations , 3rd ed. London: Academic Press.

Day, Robert A. 1994. How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper , 4th ed. Phoenix: Oryx Press.

Porush, David. 1995. A Short Guide to Writing About Science . New York: Longman.

Williams, Joseph, and Joseph Bizup. 2017. Style: Lessons in Clarity and Grace , 12th ed. Boston: Pearson.

Make a Gift

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

Chapter 11: Presenting Your Research

Writing a Research Report in American Psychological Association (APA) Style

Learning Objectives

• Identify the major sections of an APA-style research report and the basic contents of each section.
• Plan and write an effective APA-style research report.

In this section, we look at how to write an APA-style empirical research report , an article that presents the results of one or more new studies. Recall that the standard sections of an empirical research report provide a kind of outline. Here we consider each of these sections in detail, including what information it contains, how that information is formatted and organized, and tips for writing each section. At the end of this section is a sample APA-style research report that illustrates many of these principles.

Sections of a Research Report

Title page and abstract.

An APA-style research report begins with a  title page . The title is centred in the upper half of the page, with each important word capitalized. The title should clearly and concisely (in about 12 words or fewer) communicate the primary variables and research questions. This sometimes requires a main title followed by a subtitle that elaborates on the main title, in which case the main title and subtitle are separated by a colon. Here are some titles from recent issues of professional journals published by the American Psychological Association.

• Sex Differences in Coping Styles and Implications for Depressed Mood
• Effects of Aging and Divided Attention on Memory for Items and Their Contexts
• Computer-Assisted Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Child Anxiety: Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial
• Virtual Driving and Risk Taking: Do Racing Games Increase Risk-Taking Cognitions, Affect, and Behaviour?

Below the title are the authors’ names and, on the next line, their institutional affiliation—the university or other institution where the authors worked when they conducted the research. As we have already seen, the authors are listed in an order that reflects their contribution to the research. When multiple authors have made equal contributions to the research, they often list their names alphabetically or in a randomly determined order.

In some areas of psychology, the titles of many empirical research reports are informal in a way that is perhaps best described as “cute.” They usually take the form of a play on words or a well-known expression that relates to the topic under study. Here are some examples from recent issues of the Journal Psychological Science .

• “Smells Like Clean Spirit: Nonconscious Effects of Scent on Cognition and Behavior”
• “Time Crawls: The Temporal Resolution of Infants’ Visual Attention”
• “Scent of a Woman: Men’s Testosterone Responses to Olfactory Ovulation Cues”
• “Apocalypse Soon?: Dire Messages Reduce Belief in Global Warming by Contradicting Just-World Beliefs”
• “Serial vs. Parallel Processing: Sometimes They Look Like Tweedledum and Tweedledee but They Can (and Should) Be Distinguished”
• “How Do I Love Thee? Let Me Count the Words: The Social Effects of Expressive Writing”

Individual researchers differ quite a bit in their preference for such titles. Some use them regularly, while others never use them. What might be some of the pros and cons of using cute article titles?

For articles that are being submitted for publication, the title page also includes an author note that lists the authors’ full institutional affiliations, any acknowledgments the authors wish to make to agencies that funded the research or to colleagues who commented on it, and contact information for the authors. For student papers that are not being submitted for publication—including theses—author notes are generally not necessary.

The  abstract  is a summary of the study. It is the second page of the manuscript and is headed with the word  Abstract . The first line is not indented. The abstract presents the research question, a summary of the method, the basic results, and the most important conclusions. Because the abstract is usually limited to about 200 words, it can be a challenge to write a good one.

Introduction

The  introduction  begins on the third page of the manuscript. The heading at the top of this page is the full title of the manuscript, with each important word capitalized as on the title page. The introduction includes three distinct subsections, although these are typically not identified by separate headings. The opening introduces the research question and explains why it is interesting, the literature review discusses relevant previous research, and the closing restates the research question and comments on the method used to answer it.

The Opening

The  opening , which is usually a paragraph or two in length, introduces the research question and explains why it is interesting. To capture the reader’s attention, researcher Daryl Bem recommends starting with general observations about the topic under study, expressed in ordinary language (not technical jargon)—observations that are about people and their behaviour (not about researchers or their research; Bem, 2003 [1] ). Concrete examples are often very useful here. According to Bem, this would be a poor way to begin a research report:

Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance received a great deal of attention during the latter part of the 20th century (p. 191)

The following would be much better:

The individual who holds two beliefs that are inconsistent with one another may feel uncomfortable. For example, the person who knows that he or she enjoys smoking but believes it to be unhealthy may experience discomfort arising from the inconsistency or disharmony between these two thoughts or cognitions. This feeling of discomfort was called cognitive dissonance by social psychologist Leon Festinger (1957), who suggested that individuals will be motivated to remove this dissonance in whatever way they can (p. 191).

After capturing the reader’s attention, the opening should go on to introduce the research question and explain why it is interesting. Will the answer fill a gap in the literature? Will it provide a test of an important theory? Does it have practical implications? Giving readers a clear sense of what the research is about and why they should care about it will motivate them to continue reading the literature review—and will help them make sense of it.

Breaking the Rules

Researcher Larry Jacoby reported several studies showing that a word that people see or hear repeatedly can seem more familiar even when they do not recall the repetitions—and that this tendency is especially pronounced among older adults. He opened his article with the following humourous anecdote:

A friend whose mother is suffering symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) tells the story of taking her mother to visit a nursing home, preliminary to her mother’s moving there. During an orientation meeting at the nursing home, the rules and regulations were explained, one of which regarded the dining room. The dining room was described as similar to a fine restaurant except that tipping was not required. The absence of tipping was a central theme in the orientation lecture, mentioned frequently to emphasize the quality of care along with the advantages of having paid in advance. At the end of the meeting, the friend’s mother was asked whether she had any questions. She replied that she only had one question: “Should I tip?” (Jacoby, 1999, p. 3)

Although both humour and personal anecdotes are generally discouraged in APA-style writing, this example is a highly effective way to start because it both engages the reader and provides an excellent real-world example of the topic under study.

The Literature Review

Immediately after the opening comes the  literature review , which describes relevant previous research on the topic and can be anywhere from several paragraphs to several pages in length. However, the literature review is not simply a list of past studies. Instead, it constitutes a kind of argument for why the research question is worth addressing. By the end of the literature review, readers should be convinced that the research question makes sense and that the present study is a logical next step in the ongoing research process.

Like any effective argument, the literature review must have some kind of structure. For example, it might begin by describing a phenomenon in a general way along with several studies that demonstrate it, then describing two or more competing theories of the phenomenon, and finally presenting a hypothesis to test one or more of the theories. Or it might describe one phenomenon, then describe another phenomenon that seems inconsistent with the first one, then propose a theory that resolves the inconsistency, and finally present a hypothesis to test that theory. In applied research, it might describe a phenomenon or theory, then describe how that phenomenon or theory applies to some important real-world situation, and finally suggest a way to test whether it does, in fact, apply to that situation.

Looking at the literature review in this way emphasizes a few things. First, it is extremely important to start with an outline of the main points that you want to make, organized in the order that you want to make them. The basic structure of your argument, then, should be apparent from the outline itself. Second, it is important to emphasize the structure of your argument in your writing. One way to do this is to begin the literature review by summarizing your argument even before you begin to make it. “In this article, I will describe two apparently contradictory phenomena, present a new theory that has the potential to resolve the apparent contradiction, and finally present a novel hypothesis to test the theory.” Another way is to open each paragraph with a sentence that summarizes the main point of the paragraph and links it to the preceding points. These opening sentences provide the “transitions” that many beginning researchers have difficulty with. Instead of beginning a paragraph by launching into a description of a previous study, such as “Williams (2004) found that…,” it is better to start by indicating something about why you are describing this particular study. Here are some simple examples:

Another example of this phenomenon comes from the work of Williams (2004).

Williams (2004) offers one explanation of this phenomenon.

An alternative perspective has been provided by Williams (2004).

We used a method based on the one used by Williams (2004).

Finally, remember that your goal is to construct an argument for why your research question is interesting and worth addressing—not necessarily why your favourite answer to it is correct. In other words, your literature review must be balanced. If you want to emphasize the generality of a phenomenon, then of course you should discuss various studies that have demonstrated it. However, if there are other studies that have failed to demonstrate it, you should discuss them too. Or if you are proposing a new theory, then of course you should discuss findings that are consistent with that theory. However, if there are other findings that are inconsistent with it, again, you should discuss them too. It is acceptable to argue that the  balance  of the research supports the existence of a phenomenon or is consistent with a theory (and that is usually the best that researchers in psychology can hope for), but it is not acceptable to  ignore contradictory evidence. Besides, a large part of what makes a research question interesting is uncertainty about its answer.

The Closing

The  closing  of the introduction—typically the final paragraph or two—usually includes two important elements. The first is a clear statement of the main research question or hypothesis. This statement tends to be more formal and precise than in the opening and is often expressed in terms of operational definitions of the key variables. The second is a brief overview of the method and some comment on its appropriateness. Here, for example, is how Darley and Latané (1968) [2] concluded the introduction to their classic article on the bystander effect:

These considerations lead to the hypothesis that the more bystanders to an emergency, the less likely, or the more slowly, any one bystander will intervene to provide aid. To test this proposition it would be necessary to create a situation in which a realistic “emergency” could plausibly occur. Each subject should also be blocked from communicating with others to prevent his getting information about their behaviour during the emergency. Finally, the experimental situation should allow for the assessment of the speed and frequency of the subjects’ reaction to the emergency. The experiment reported below attempted to fulfill these conditions. (p. 378)

Thus the introduction leads smoothly into the next major section of the article—the method section.

The  method section  is where you describe how you conducted your study. An important principle for writing a method section is that it should be clear and detailed enough that other researchers could replicate the study by following your “recipe.” This means that it must describe all the important elements of the study—basic demographic characteristics of the participants, how they were recruited, whether they were randomly assigned, how the variables were manipulated or measured, how counterbalancing was accomplished, and so on. At the same time, it should avoid irrelevant details such as the fact that the study was conducted in Classroom 37B of the Industrial Technology Building or that the questionnaire was double-sided and completed using pencils.

The method section begins immediately after the introduction ends with the heading “Method” (not “Methods”) centred on the page. Immediately after this is the subheading “Participants,” left justified and in italics. The participants subsection indicates how many participants there were, the number of women and men, some indication of their age, other demographics that may be relevant to the study, and how they were recruited, including any incentives given for participation.

After the participants section, the structure can vary a bit. Figure 11.1 shows three common approaches. In the first, the participants section is followed by a design and procedure subsection, which describes the rest of the method. This works well for methods that are relatively simple and can be described adequately in a few paragraphs. In the second approach, the participants section is followed by separate design and procedure subsections. This works well when both the design and the procedure are relatively complicated and each requires multiple paragraphs.

What is the difference between design and procedure? The design of a study is its overall structure. What were the independent and dependent variables? Was the independent variable manipulated, and if so, was it manipulated between or within subjects? How were the variables operationally defined? The procedure is how the study was carried out. It often works well to describe the procedure in terms of what the participants did rather than what the researchers did. For example, the participants gave their informed consent, read a set of instructions, completed a block of four practice trials, completed a block of 20 test trials, completed two questionnaires, and were debriefed and excused.

In the third basic way to organize a method section, the participants subsection is followed by a materials subsection before the design and procedure subsections. This works well when there are complicated materials to describe. This might mean multiple questionnaires, written vignettes that participants read and respond to, perceptual stimuli, and so on. The heading of this subsection can be modified to reflect its content. Instead of “Materials,” it can be “Questionnaires,” “Stimuli,” and so on.

The  results section  is where you present the main results of the study, including the results of the statistical analyses. Although it does not include the raw data—individual participants’ responses or scores—researchers should save their raw data and make them available to other researchers who request them. Several journals now encourage the open sharing of raw data online.

Although there are no standard subsections, it is still important for the results section to be logically organized. Typically it begins with certain preliminary issues. One is whether any participants or responses were excluded from the analyses and why. The rationale for excluding data should be described clearly so that other researchers can decide whether it is appropriate. A second preliminary issue is how multiple responses were combined to produce the primary variables in the analyses. For example, if participants rated the attractiveness of 20 stimulus people, you might have to explain that you began by computing the mean attractiveness rating for each participant. Or if they recalled as many items as they could from study list of 20 words, did you count the number correctly recalled, compute the percentage correctly recalled, or perhaps compute the number correct minus the number incorrect? A third preliminary issue is the reliability of the measures. This is where you would present test-retest correlations, Cronbach’s α, or other statistics to show that the measures are consistent across time and across items. A final preliminary issue is whether the manipulation was successful. This is where you would report the results of any manipulation checks.

The results section should then tackle the primary research questions, one at a time. Again, there should be a clear organization. One approach would be to answer the most general questions and then proceed to answer more specific ones. Another would be to answer the main question first and then to answer secondary ones. Regardless, Bem (2003) [3] suggests the following basic structure for discussing each new result:

• Remind the reader of the research question.
• Give the answer to the research question in words.
• Present the relevant statistics.
• Qualify the answer if necessary.
• Summarize the result.

Notice that only Step 3 necessarily involves numbers. The rest of the steps involve presenting the research question and the answer to it in words. In fact, the basic results should be clear even to a reader who skips over the numbers.

The  discussion  is the last major section of the research report. Discussions usually consist of some combination of the following elements:

• Summary of the research
• Theoretical implications
• Practical implications
• Limitations
• Suggestions for future research

The discussion typically begins with a summary of the study that provides a clear answer to the research question. In a short report with a single study, this might require no more than a sentence. In a longer report with multiple studies, it might require a paragraph or even two. The summary is often followed by a discussion of the theoretical implications of the research. Do the results provide support for any existing theories? If not, how  can  they be explained? Although you do not have to provide a definitive explanation or detailed theory for your results, you at least need to outline one or more possible explanations. In applied research—and often in basic research—there is also some discussion of the practical implications of the research. How can the results be used, and by whom, to accomplish some real-world goal?

The theoretical and practical implications are often followed by a discussion of the study’s limitations. Perhaps there are problems with its internal or external validity. Perhaps the manipulation was not very effective or the measures not very reliable. Perhaps there is some evidence that participants did not fully understand their task or that they were suspicious of the intent of the researchers. Now is the time to discuss these issues and how they might have affected the results. But do not overdo it. All studies have limitations, and most readers will understand that a different sample or different measures might have produced different results. Unless there is good reason to think they  would have, however, there is no reason to mention these routine issues. Instead, pick two or three limitations that seem like they could have influenced the results, explain how they could have influenced the results, and suggest ways to deal with them.

Most discussions end with some suggestions for future research. If the study did not satisfactorily answer the original research question, what will it take to do so? What  new  research questions has the study raised? This part of the discussion, however, is not just a list of new questions. It is a discussion of two or three of the most important unresolved issues. This means identifying and clarifying each question, suggesting some alternative answers, and even suggesting ways they could be studied.

Finally, some researchers are quite good at ending their articles with a sweeping or thought-provoking conclusion. Darley and Latané (1968) [4] , for example, ended their article on the bystander effect by discussing the idea that whether people help others may depend more on the situation than on their personalities. Their final sentence is, “If people understand the situational forces that can make them hesitate to intervene, they may better overcome them” (p. 383). However, this kind of ending can be difficult to pull off. It can sound overreaching or just banal and end up detracting from the overall impact of the article. It is often better simply to end when you have made your final point (although you should avoid ending on a limitation).

The references section begins on a new page with the heading “References” centred at the top of the page. All references cited in the text are then listed in the format presented earlier. They are listed alphabetically by the last name of the first author. If two sources have the same first author, they are listed alphabetically by the last name of the second author. If all the authors are the same, then they are listed chronologically by the year of publication. Everything in the reference list is double-spaced both within and between references.

Appendices, Tables, and Figures

Appendices, tables, and figures come after the references. An  appendix  is appropriate for supplemental material that would interrupt the flow of the research report if it were presented within any of the major sections. An appendix could be used to present lists of stimulus words, questionnaire items, detailed descriptions of special equipment or unusual statistical analyses, or references to the studies that are included in a meta-analysis. Each appendix begins on a new page. If there is only one, the heading is “Appendix,” centred at the top of the page. If there is more than one, the headings are “Appendix A,” “Appendix B,” and so on, and they appear in the order they were first mentioned in the text of the report.

After any appendices come tables and then figures. Tables and figures are both used to present results. Figures can also be used to illustrate theories (e.g., in the form of a flowchart), display stimuli, outline procedures, and present many other kinds of information. Each table and figure appears on its own page. Tables are numbered in the order that they are first mentioned in the text (“Table 1,” “Table 2,” and so on). Figures are numbered the same way (“Figure 1,” “Figure 2,” and so on). A brief explanatory title, with the important words capitalized, appears above each table. Each figure is given a brief explanatory caption, where (aside from proper nouns or names) only the first word of each sentence is capitalized. More details on preparing APA-style tables and figures are presented later in the book.

Sample APA-Style Research Report

Figures 11.2, 11.3, 11.4, and 11.5 show some sample pages from an APA-style empirical research report originally written by undergraduate student Tomoe Suyama at California State University, Fresno. The main purpose of these figures is to illustrate the basic organization and formatting of an APA-style empirical research report, although many high-level and low-level style conventions can be seen here too.

Key Takeaways

• An APA-style empirical research report consists of several standard sections. The main ones are the abstract, introduction, method, results, discussion, and references.
• The introduction consists of an opening that presents the research question, a literature review that describes previous research on the topic, and a closing that restates the research question and comments on the method. The literature review constitutes an argument for why the current study is worth doing.
• The method section describes the method in enough detail that another researcher could replicate the study. At a minimum, it consists of a participants subsection and a design and procedure subsection.
• The results section describes the results in an organized fashion. Each primary result is presented in terms of statistical results but also explained in words.
• The discussion typically summarizes the study, discusses theoretical and practical implications and limitations of the study, and offers suggestions for further research.
• Practice: Look through an issue of a general interest professional journal (e.g.,  Psychological Science ). Read the opening of the first five articles and rate the effectiveness of each one from 1 ( very ineffective ) to 5 ( very effective ). Write a sentence or two explaining each rating.
• Practice: Find a recent article in a professional journal and identify where the opening, literature review, and closing of the introduction begin and end.
• Practice: Find a recent article in a professional journal and highlight in a different colour each of the following elements in the discussion: summary, theoretical implications, practical implications, limitations, and suggestions for future research.

Long Descriptions

Figure 11.1 long description: Table showing three ways of organizing an APA-style method section.

In the simple method, there are two subheadings: “Participants” (which might begin “The participants were…”) and “Design and procedure” (which might begin “There were three conditions…”).

In the typical method, there are three subheadings: “Participants” (“The participants were…”), “Design” (“There were three conditions…”), and “Procedure” (“Participants viewed each stimulus on the computer screen…”).

In the complex method, there are four subheadings: “Participants” (“The participants were…”), “Materials” (“The stimuli were…”), “Design” (“There were three conditions…”), and “Procedure” (“Participants viewed each stimulus on the computer screen…”). [Return to Figure 11.1]

• Bem, D. J. (2003). Writing the empirical journal article. In J. M. Darley, M. P. Zanna, & H. R. Roediger III (Eds.),  The compleat academic: A practical guide for the beginning social scientist  (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. ↵
• Darley, J. M., & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4 , 377–383. ↵

A type of research article which describes one or more new empirical studies conducted by the authors.

The page at the beginning of an APA-style research report containing the title of the article, the authors’ names, and their institutional affiliation.

A summary of a research study.

The third page of a manuscript containing the research question, the literature review, and comments about how to answer the research question.

An introduction to the research question and explanation for why this question is interesting.

A description of relevant previous research on the topic being discusses and an argument for why the research is worth addressing.

The end of the introduction, where the research question is reiterated and the method is commented upon.

The section of a research report where the method used to conduct the study is described.

The main results of the study, including the results from statistical analyses, are presented in a research article.

Section of a research report that summarizes the study's results and interprets them by referring back to the study's theoretical background.

Part of a research report which contains supplemental material.

Research Methods in Psychology - 2nd Canadian Edition by Paul C. Price, Rajiv Jhangiani, & I-Chant A. Chiang is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Financial Aid
• Campus Life
• About UNI
• Support UNI
• UNI Bookstore

• Rod Library

Research Methods

Chapter 1: introduction.

Whether you are studying communication, sociology, literature, history, psychology, music, biology, or any other major, that academic field relies on standardized practices to produce scholarly knowledge.  Scholarship  can be in the form of highly controlled laboratory research, observation of human activities in daily life, surveys, interviews, critical analyses of public documents or visual images, and creative work like music, videography, performance, or playwriting. Each field of scholarship is based on thousands, if not millions, of research studies or creative projects conducted by students and faculty. Sociologists know what they know about societies because of research. Biologists know what they know about the biological function of organisms because of research. Artists know what they know about drawing human forms because of previous artists' work. Communication Studies scholars know what they know about how people construct meaning through interactions because of research and creative projects. The overall purpose of this book is to help you understand  how  knowledge is constructed in Communication Studies. We hope to provide an appreciation of, and critical lens for examining, research and enable you to begin constructing your own contributions to the body of scholarly knowledge.

In this chapter, we first describe how developing a command of research methods can assist you in your careers and personal lives. Second, we provide a brief definition of our topic of study in this book – communication research. Third we identify the predominant research and creative methods used in the field of Communication Studies. Fourth, we explain the academic roots of the diverse methods used in communication studies: the humanities and social sciences. Fifth, we explain the implicit and explicit relationships between theory and research methods. Sixth, we describe how the choice of research methods influences the results of a study. Sixth, we provide a preview of the remainder of the book, and finally, seventh, we describe our approach to writing this book.

How Will Research Methods Help in My Life?

If you want to learn practical skills relevant to your professional, personal and community life, learn research methods. Given that daily life is full of decision-making opportunities and challenges, knowing how to effectively do research is essential. Ideally, any decision you make is based on research, and rigorous methods enable you to conduct better research and make better decisions. People who know how to ethically use research methods quickly become leaders in their workplaces and communities. Research also can inform creative expression. If you understand why things work the way they do, you can make more thoughtful, creative choices.

Consider how you make choices in everyday life such as the following:

• Which route to take to get to class on time
• What to eat for lunch
• How to make a major purchasing decision

Or, how you address more complex questions such as whether dishonesty is ever warranted, or if there is a God?

Brainstorm all the ways in which you think you know something for one or more of the examples listed above.

If you are like previous students in this course, you may have responded: "read," "observe," "intuit," "faith," "advice," "physical senses," "test it out," "compare," "Google it" and more.

What does this activity reveal about how you come to know something?

We hope the activity above reveals you already are a researcher, and use some informal research methods every day of your life. You likely use more than one way to know something. Multiple methods construct knowledge. And being educated includes questioning the results of each method. For example, if you use  Google  or  Wikipedia  to find information, how do you know the source is reliable? What clues should you look for?

Research methods will help you be a better ....

• Critical Consumer  — You will find you look at the world of information through a more refined lens. You may ask questions about information you never thought to ask before, such as: "What evidence is this conclusion based on?" "Why did the researcher interview rather than survey a larger number of people?" and "Would the results have been different if the participants were more ethnically and racially diverse?
• Competent Contributor  — When an organization you belong to wants to attain a group's input on a program, product or service, you will know how to construct, administer and statistically analyze survey results. Or if the project warrants small focus group discussions for information gathering, you will know how to facilitate them as well as how to identify themes from the discussions.
• Problem-Solver  — Research methods skills are nearly synonymous with problem- solving skills. You will learn how to synthesize information, assess a current state of knowledge, think creatively, and make a plan of action for original research gathering and application.
• Strategic Planner – Knowing research methods can teach you how to gather the necessary information to forecast and plan tactically rather than only react to situations, whether it is in your work place or personal life.
• Decision-Maker  — As you cross through life transitions and major decisions stare you in the face, such as how to keep a job, give the best care for aging parents, or select the least invasive medical treatment, you will have coping skills to help you break down the decision into manageable parts and approach the decision making process from more than one perspective.
• Informed Citizen  — As a person educated in how knowledge is constructed, you will have the skills needed to be vigilant for your community and to identify and address potential problems, be they environmental, political, social, educational, and/or about quality of community life.

For more specific ideas about how a command of research methods can broaden your life options, see the examples of practical research at  Communication Currents: Knowledge for Communicating Well . It is a reader-friendly magazine where communication scholars discuss research about current social problems ( The National Communication Association - Communication Currents ). Also check out the National Communication Association website  http://www.natcom.org/  for careers in communication.

The Topic of Study: Communication Research

You may have noticed we, the authors, use the singular form of the term communication to refer to the academic field of study on a wide variety of message types, rather than the plural form: communications. The distinction is a quick way to tell who understands communication is one specific field of study and who does not, so you will want to use the proper, singular form when referring to the field of study. Communications – plural is used only when referring to multiple media sources, as in "the communications news media" (Korn, Morreale, & Boileau, 2000).

The forms communication can take are nearly endless. They include, but are not limited to: language, nonverbal communication, one-on-one interpersonal communication, organizational communication, film, oral interpretations of prose or poetry, theatre, public speeches, public events, political campaigns, public relations campaigns, news media, Internet, social media, photography, television, social movements, performance in everyday life, journalistic writing, and more. Yet, the theme that runs through almost all Communication Studies research is that communication is more than a means to transmit information. Although it is used to transmit information and get things done, more importantly, communication is the means through which people make meaning and come to understand each other and the world.

Because of this, communication scholars tend to operate with the assumption that reality is a social construction, constructed through human beings' use of communication, both verbal and visual (Gergen, 1994). Thus, when communication scholars conduct research, they ask questions not only about how to make communication more precise and/or effective, but they also ask questions about how communication is being used in a particular context to shape individuals' and groups' world views.

Research, as a form of communication, contributes to the social construction of knowledge. Knowledge does not come out of a vacuum that is free of cultural values. Instead, research results, or what society calls knowledge, is influenced by the values, beliefs, methods choices, and interpretations of those in a given culture doing the research. Knowledge and one's reality are constructed through an interactive, interpretive process. Although scholars from a more traditional natural science view might argue there are absolute truths and set realities, in the study of human interaction, there are few universal truths about communication and what is seen as knowledge changes across cultures and over time. Unique cultural contexts, social roles, and inequities create a wide spectrum of behaviors ( Kim ,  http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/weber/ ). That is what makes miscommunication common and why research in our field is so much in demand. It is highly practical and relevant work.

 Research  refers to the systematic study of a topic and can include social science and creative work. Research, quite simply, refers to people's intellectual work of gathering, organizing, and analyzing data, which enables them to create meaning they can then present to others. Research is conducted to answer questions or solve problems in a systematic way. Being  systematic  means that the steps of the study are guided by principles and theory, rather than just chaotic wandering; the data used is representative and not just anecdotal or random. Being systematic in a way that can be replicated is usually emphasized more in natural and social science research, such as organizational and interpersonal communication research, than the humanities and fine arts, such as rhetorical studies and performance studies, but, rhetoric scholars and artists also rely on methods and theoretical training to guide their work.

Communication Studies research has several unique characteristics:

• Communication research is the study of how people make meaning.  If one thinks of communication as the process of making meaning, then the study of communication is the study of this meaning making process.
• Communication research is the study of patterns  (Keyton, 2011). Communication and meaning are made possible through the creation of patterns. For example, languages are rule-based and construct recognizable patterns (such as sentences). Conversations have social norms of politeness to enable participants to build on each party's turns at talk; social media have unique patterns of interaction (such as the abbreviations used in text messaging on cell phones or the emoticons used in e-mail and social networks); and persuasive messages are built on patterns of communication strategies (such as advertisements showing sequences of visual appeals for destitute children to solicit donations).
• Communication research is practical knowledge construction.  The field of communication is highly applied. Scholars and practitioners try to do work that matters. Work that improves the quality of people's lives, that solves problems, and that is needed. Research in the field is pragmatic. Film makers tell a story that they believe needs to be told, performance studies students create interactive scenarios to draw the audience into needed cultural discussion, and public relations practitioners conduct market analyses as a basis for planning a client's communication strategies.
• A ll research builds an argument. Whether it is a creative, rhetorical, qualitative or quantitative project, the author necessarily has a point to make. The introductory rationale for a project, the choices the researcher makes in methods selection, the interpretations offered, and the significance she or he claims for the results are all a part of building an argument. If all knowledge is socially constructed, then all research or scholarship is a persuasive process.

Whether one is doing Creative, qualitative, rhetorical or quantitative work, the methods share the above characteristics, as they are inherent in the very communication process being studied.

The term  method  refers to the processes that govern scholarly and creative work. Methods provide a framework for collecting, organizing, analyzing and presenting data. Scholars use a range of methods in Communication Studies: quantitative, qualitative, critical/rhetorical, and creative. This text focuses on the first three, but the authors note connections to creative work when relevant.

Quantitative Studies  reduce data into measurable numerical units (quantities). An example would be a survey administered to determine the number of times first-year college students use social networking sites and for what purposes. Such a survey could provide general statistics on frequency and purpose of use. But, such a study also could be set up to determine if first and fourth year college students use social networks differently, or if students with smart phones spend more time on Facebook than students who rely on computers to check Facebook.

Qualitative Studies  use more natural observations and interviews as data. An example would be a study about a workplace organization's leadership and communication patterns. A researcher could interview all the members of the business, and then also observe the members in action in their place of work. The researcher would then analyze the data to see if themes emerge, and if the interview and observational data results are similar. The researcher might then propose changes to the organization to enhance communication and performance for the organization.

Critical/Rhetorical Studies  focus on texts as sources for data. The term  texts  is used loosely here to refer to any communication artifact --films, speeches, historical monuments, news stories, letters, tattoos, photos, etc. Here, the data collected is the text, and it is used by the researcher to support an argument about how the text participates in the construction of people's understanding of the world. An example would be an analysis of a presidential inaugural address to understand how the speech writers and speaker are attempting to reunite the nation after a hotly contested election and invest the new president with the powers of the office.

Creative Scholarship  in the field of Communication Studies refers most often to work done in performance studies, film making, and computer digital imagery, such as Dreamweaver and Photoshop (e.g. Camp Multimedia Begins Two-Week Run ).  Performance Studies  is a wide umbrella term used to refer to several methods and products of scholarship. It is distinct from theater in that it is the study of performances in everyday life. It involves students in script writing, acting, and directing productions based upon oral history and ethnographic qualitative research, as well as personal experience and creative performance techniques used to tell a story more evocatively.  Film Making  can also include interviews, oral histories, and ethnographies, as well as learning aesthetic methods to effectively present verbal and visual images. Our colleague Karen Mitchell has used qualitative methods of interviewing and ethnography to script performances on topics from the lives of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. to romance novel readers (1996).

Communication Studies Bridges the Humanities and Social Sciences

How is it that Communication Studies as an academic field came to embrace so many different methods, given most other disciplines tend to use only one, or maybe two? The answer lies in the history of the field.

Communication Studies is different from other academic fields because it is rooted in one of the oldest areas of scholarship (rhetoric is one of the original four liberal arts) and in several of the newest areas of scholarship (such as electronic media and intercultural communication). The study of rhetoric dates back to 350 B.C.E, the time of Aristotle and the formation of democratic governance in Greece. The study of intercultural communication dates back to the 1940s and emerged out of the commerce and political needs in the U.S. after World War II (Leeds-Hurwitz, 1990). The study of the Internet took shape in the 1990s as it became a popular medium for communication (Campbell, Martin & Fabos, 2010). Because the discipline of Communication Studies includes research on all forms of communication, the method of study needs to fit as the form of communication. However, just because new forms emerge (like social media), old forms (like public speaking) do not disappear. Thus, as students, future practitioners and scholars, we need to employ a wide range of scholarly approaches. (for more about the history of the field see:  Communication Scholarship and the Humanities ) .

The diverse origins of Communication Studies mean its scholars use a range of methods from the humanities (e.g., rhetorical criticism and performance) and the social sciences (e.g., quantitative and qualitative research). Both focus on the study of society, but the humanities embrace a more holistic approach to knowledge and creativity. The  humanities  are those fields of study that focus on analytic and interpretive studies of human stories, ideas and words (rather than numbers), and include philosophy, English, religion, modern and classical languages, and Communication Studies. When Communication Studies scholars analyze how communicative acts (like speeches or photographs or letters) create social meaning, they do so from a perspective that emphasizes interpretation.

The social sciences use research methods borrowed from previously established and recognized fields of natural science study, such as biology and chemistry.  Scientific methods  of knowledge construction are accomplished through controlled observation and measurement or laboratory experiments, and generally use statistics to form conclusions (Kim, 2007). The  social sciences  apply scientific methods to study human behavior, for example scholars use surveys to find out about people's communication patterns or create laboratory experiments to observe interruption patterns in conversation. In addition to Communication Studies, examples of other social science fields include economics, geography, psychology, sociology, and political science.

Studying human communication from the perspective of the social sciences differs in important ways from studying human communication from the perspective of the humanities. Social scientists typically are interested in studying shared everyday life experiences, such as turn-taking norms in conversation, how people build relationships through self-disclosure, and what behaviors contribute to a successful group, family or organizational culture. Social science researchers attempt to find generalizations about human behaviors based on extensive research that may be used to make predictions about that behavior. Take, for instance, research on communication in heterosexual married couples. Based on over twenty years of research, psychologist John Gottman found in 1994 he could predict with 94% accuracy which marriages will fail based on patterns of only five negative conflict behaviors among couples who ended in divorce(for updates on his work visit his website ( Research FAQs ). (Of course exceptions exist to generalizations, but for a social scientist, the exception to the rule may be ignored as an insignificant outliers, a random error.

Instead of seeking out generalizations about communication, scholars in the humanities tend to focus on the outliers, or what are considered distinctive human creations, such as Abraham Lincoln's "Gettysburg Address," Elizabeth Cady Stanton's "Solitude of Self," Shakespeare's  Romeo and Juliet , Lorraine Hansberry's  Raisin in the Sun , Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, or Ani diFranco's "Dilate." Humanities scholars tend to focus on understanding  how  something happened or how someone attempted to evoke meanings and aesthetic reactions in the receivers of a message, rather than describing what occurred and predicting what will occur.

As an example of how diverse methods have been used to research a topic, consider how researchers who want to try to reduce intimate partner violence have approached the problem drawing on methods from across fields of study.

Quantitative researchers administered the National Survey on Violence Against Women and found 1.5 million women are physically or sexually assaulted by their domestic partners annually in the U.S. (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). The survey identified the difficult reality about the enormous extent of the problem. Qualitative researcher, Loren Olson (2010), wrote an autoethnography of her personal experience as a battered woman. By doing so she put a face on the problem and demonstrated a way in which she was able to reconstruct her identity after the abuse.

Performance studies scholar M. Heather Carver and ethnographic folklorist Elaine Lawless (2009) conducted a qualitative study with women who are surviving intimate violence and generated a creative performance script from their observations. The theatrical performance developed with creative methods literally help to give voice to the experiences of the women in the qualitative study, raises awareness about the problem, and may motivate audience members to address the problem in their personal or community lives.

Researchers also have critically analyzed the way domestic violence is communicated in various media. For example, Cathy Ferrand Bullock (2008) studied media framing in domestic violence news stories in Utah newspapers and rhetoric scholar Nathan Stormer (2003) studied the play,  A Jury of Her Peers , to explore how collective memory is formed about acts of domestic violence. These samples of research into the complex social problem of domestic violence demonstrate how both humanities and social science approaches to scholarship are needed and valued. Because the social sciences and humanities provide different contributions to the construction of knowledge, together they create a fuller picture of a social problem or issue of study.

Given its multi-methodological research, Communication Studies is uniquely positioned to contribute to both of the two most prominent approaches to knowledge construction: humanistic and social scientific approaches. This is why, as the authors of this book, we believe Communication Studies provides a well-rounded education to prepare students to respond to the challenges and opportunities of the culturally, technologically, and economically complex 21st century.

The Interdependence of Theory and Research Methods

Whether you approach a topic of study from a humanistic or social science perspective, you will necessarily work with two-components: theory (explanations that guide or evolve from a study) and methods (application of tools to analyze texts or data). Even though the two serve distinct research functions, there is great interdependence between theory and method. Theory informs methods, and methods enable theory construction and revision.

At its essence, a  theory  is simply a person's attempt to explain or understand something. Individuals use theories to help make sense of their world and everyday lives. An academic theory is different from everyday theories only in the degree of rigor and research used to develop it and the depth of explanation it provides. Academic theories are more formal, with detailed explanations of the parts that make up the theory, and are usually tested (West & Turner, 2010). But as with theories for everyday life, they are subject to change and refinement. DeFrancisco and Palczewski (2007) emphasize, "A theory is not an absolute truth, but an argument to see, order, and explain the world in a particular way" (p. 27). For any topic of study, multiple theories could explain it, and research can be used to determine which theory offers the best explanation. Communication theories tend to focus on helping explain how and why people interact as they do in interpersonal relationships, small groups, organizations, cultures, nations, publics, and mediated contexts. Theories can help people understand their own and others' communication.

When you make decisions in daily life, you probably use an informal theory. You might collect some data (or try and recall what information you have), you might discard data that comes from non-credible sources, and then you might assess your options. You will likely make your assessment based on hunches or underlying assumptions you have about what makes sense. Those hunches or assumptions are a lay person's theory. They help you make sense of things and inform your decisions.

Activity Consider the following questions to determine if you use theories in your daily life:

• What is your advice for how to live on a college student's budget?
• Do you think advertising influences your purchasing decisions? If so, how?
• What is your approach to making a good first impression on a person to whom you are attracted?
• How do you know someone is attracted to you?
• Why do you think people tend to avoid relationships with others they perceive as different from them?

If you have ideas on the above topics, you are a theorist.

Now ask yourself: what do your answers to the specific questions consist of?

• Are they attempts to explain a phenomenon?
• How did you form the explanations?
• Are they based on prior experience, advice from others, and/or informal research?

Likely your answers are a little of each.

A further question to ask yourself is:

• Are other explanations possible besides the ones you developed?

Students have developed more than one way to survive on a college student's budget. For one thing, not all college students are living on a tight budget, many will survive through student loans and jobs, others may get allowances from their parents, have spouses or partners who are supporting them, etc. Some will delay gratification of purchases such as cars, I-Pads, smartphones, spring break trips, and more. Others may argue, "You only live once," and use credit cards to charge for their pleasures or life necessities. The point is people develop multiple theories for any topic of interest, and many are useful.

People develop theories through testing, academic debates, and scholarly/creative work. Natural science and social science researchers, in particular, believe that the best research is directed or driven by academic theory. This means the research methods chosen are not random but are firmly based in a credible theoretical approach that has been tested over time.

Theories often guide research. When studying presidential campaigns for example, scholars often use Thomas Burke's theories on how speakers create identification to explore the ways in which candidates create connections with their audience (Burke, 2002).

Sometimes the research will extend or challenge the legitimacy of the theory. For example, intercultural communication scholar, William Gudykunst extended Berger and Calabrese's (1975) assumed universal Uncertainty Reduction Theory (URT) regarding what people do to reduce uncertainty anxiety when communicating with strangers. During 30 years of research, Gudykunst tested URT in cross cultural interactions and developed a new intercultural theory, Anxiety/Uncertainty Management (AUM) with 47 axioms or specific distinctions that help explain the universal and cultural variances he found (2005). Contrary to the original URT, Gudykunst now proclaims cultures vary in terms of comfort with uncertainty and the methods they use to manage it. These cultural differences contribute to unique cultural identities and help explain communication problems with other groups.

In the field of gender studies in communication there are countless examples of research that has disproven the commonly held theoretical assumption that universal gender differences exist between all women and men (e.g. Tannen, 1990; or in the popular press:  Men are from Mars and Women are from Venice  (Gray, 1992). In fact, communication scholars Kathryn Dindia and Dan Canary (2006) published a series of quantitative  meta-analyses  (a statistical way to control for differences across studies to directly compare the results) on just about every presumed communication difference previous researchers have studied. What did they find? While some differences were present, the variances  among  women's behaviors and among men's behaviors were greater than those  between  the sexes, and furthermore, women and men communicate in many more ways that are similar rather than different. Finally, they found that the assumption of two distinct sets of behavior is far too simplistic. It ignores the fact that people have the ability to adjust their behaviors according to situational needs and that gender identity does not affect one's behavior alone. It is also influenced by one's race, ethnic, age, nationality, sexual orientation and more.

A useful way to think of the relationship between theory and scholarly/creative work is that it is synergistic – each influences the other, almost simultaneously. As the illustration below shows, the theories selected direct the types of  research questions  posed to guide a study, the questions dictate the appropriate research methods needed, which then affect the results produced, which in turn contributes to theory building, thus the cycle repeats.

The General Research Process:  Circular and Interdependent

The diagram is circular rather than hierarchal because the starting point for different types of research will vary. For example, qualitative work begins with research questions with an end goal of producing theory, whereas quantitative work often begins with theory with an end goal of producing results. Rhetorical research and creative scholarship do not typically use research questions but the research process is still synergistic, and decisions made at each part of the cycle influences the others. The parts are interdependent. The circular model also reminds one that the process of theory construction, conducting research, and producing knowledge are never ending.

Knowledge  generally refers to a command of facts, theory and practical information. There is not one agreed upon approach for constructing knowledge as is illustrated in the above discussion of diverse research methods. Indeed, there is an entire field of philosophy,  epistemology , which focuses on debates about how knowledge is attained. Epistemologists ask "how does one know something?" Is knowledge found or created? These are questions we encourage you to ask as you learn about the various research methods. The methods researchers use to construct knowledge are generally called  methodology . The term simply means an approach being used to form knowledge is assumed to have both a theory and a method. Here again the interdependence between theory and method are evident.

Finally, throughout the research process the ability to think critically is essential. To be critical means to examine material in more depth, to peel back layers of meaning, to look beyond chunks of information to the context in which the information is presented, to look for multiple interpretations, to attempt to identify why a piece of information or perspective is important and/or not important. It requires doing a close reading or investigation of the topic of study in a more nuanced, systematic way. It does not mean to always be negative, but rather to question even common assumptions.

Research Methods Influence Results

The research methods one chooses for a study are critical. The methods will largely determine the results or what is called knowledge. The influence of methods choices is more visible when comparing social science and humanities approaches to the construction of knowledge, as will be discussed in chapter 2. The two are designed to answer different types of research questions. Together, they will offer you a wealth of methods choices.

For example, consider the relatively simple task of measuring the floor area of a room. We assigned small groups of students to measure the square footage in a room. Each group was provided different measurement tools. One group used a tape measure 12 feet long, another used a tape measure 40 feet long, another group used their own feet, and another used a metric tape measure. As you can imagine, the groups' results differed every time. Some used feet rather than inches to calculate square feet, some did not measure the same exact places in the room, metric measurements produced different results than the U.S. measuring system, and human feet produced varying results. The point here is not that one method was superior to another or that the groups made errors. The point is that even a slight change in methods can produce significant changes in results (Turman, personal communication, January 27, 2010). (If you would like to see more on metrics versus U.S. units conversion, see for example,  Metric to U.S. units conversion .

If diverse results can be produced when measuring the floor area of a room, imagine how different research methods may influence the study of processes as complex as human communication. Leslie Baxter has studied interpersonal relationship development and maintenance for nearly 20 years. Most of her early research was based on quantitative surveys of romantic partners in an attempt to identify the specific tensions or stresses in their relationship. By using standardized surveys she was able to identify three dominant tensions most couples struggled with: connection/independence, openness/closedness, and predictability/spontaneity. From this she developed what is now a well known theory in the field, Dialectic Tensions Theory. However, more recently she revised her theory based on qualitative studies of relational partners' conversations. Baxter now argues that by examining tensions in actual discourse rather than surveys, she is not only able to identify common tensions, but move beyond identification to see why some relationships successfully negotiate the tensions and why others do not (2011). We offer this example not to argue qualitative methods are superior to quantitative ones, but simply to make the point that the two serve different functions.

As you will learn in the coming chapters, each method used to collect data carries with it a different implied theory about how knowledge should be, or is formed. When researchers use surveys they value the ability to solicit a larger number of people and make generalizations from the responses. When researchers analyze conversations or use interviews, they value the ability to probe individual perspectives in more depth and are less concerned with generalizations. As teachers, scholars and practitioners, the authors of this book believe a command of research methods is central to developing one's unique expertise.

Preview of Chapters

In this book, three general research approaches are included: quantitative social science research methods, qualitative social science research methods, and critical rhetorical research methods. This does not mean these three are the only approaches to knowledge construction used in the field of Communication Studies or that they are necessarily independent or opposite of each other. Communication Studies is a wonderfully diverse field of study. In addition to rhetorical methods, other humanities scholarship include performance studies and film making. Because of the extreme interdisciplinary nature of film-making and performance studies, no one research method or chapter is dedicated to them. Instead we integrate examples throughout the collection, and readers should keep in mind how such work pushes the boundaries of traditional academic fields. Below are summaries/previews of the remaining chapters in this book.

Chapter One Summary : In the present chapter, we overviewed the interdisciplinary nature of the field of Communication Studies and demonstrated how this provides a broader choice of research methods for students and faculty members in the field. We introduced basic concepts necessary to have a foundation for the study of research methods. Even though scholars use diverse research methods in the field, they are built on common premises. One is that knowledge is constructed. The way it is constructed is influenced by the theoretical approaches used and the related research methods chosen. Understanding these fundamental relationships will help students be more informed critical consumers and contributors to the field of Communication Studies, their chosen professions, and society.

Chapter Two: General Comparisons . In chapter two, we offer basic points of comparison for the research methods taught in this book. This comparison should help provide a structure to understand how the diverse methods are distinct from each other before you are introduced to the specifics of conducting research in each method in subsequent chapters. The comparison is based on the two general orientations to knowledge construction introduced in chapter one: humanistic and social scientific.

Chapter Three: Ethical Research, Writing, and Creative Work . In this chapter, we discuss the importance of researcher ethics. This chapter is placed at the front of the book to stress this importance. Regardless of the method chosen, researchers have ethical choices to make in writing honestly, citing other sources, and treating human subjects fairly. Good research is, at its core, based on ethical principles.

Chapter Four: Quantitative Methods . The first research approach presented is quantitative research methods from the social sciences. The rules involved in doing quantitative methods are very clear, with a linear research process. Reading this chapter will teach you how to plan and conduct a quantitative study, and make sense of your findings once you have collected your data.

Chapter Five: Qualitative Methods . Qualitative research methods can be placed in the middle of a continuum of research methods from the scientific to the humanistic. Qualitative methods are usually considered to be a social science approach, but in more recent years researchers have been pushing these boundaries to embrace multiple ways of knowing.

Chapter Six: Critical/Rhetorical Methods . The core assumption of rhetorical criticism is that symbolic action (the use of words, images, stories, and argument) are more than a means to transmit information, but actually construct social reality, or people's understanding of the world. Learning methods of rhetorical criticism enable you to critique the use of symbolic action and understand how it constructs a particular understanding of the world by framing a concept in one way rather than another. The more adept you become at analyzing others' messages, the more skilled you become at constructing your own.

Chapter Seven: Presenting Your Results . This chapter teaches you how to present the results of your study, regardless of the choice made among the three methods. Writing in academics has a basic form and style that you will want to learn not only to report your own research, but also to enhance your skills at reading original research published in academic journals. Beyond the basic academic style of report writing, there are specific, often unwritten assumptions about how quantitative, qualitative, and rhetorical studies should be organized and the information they should contain. In this chapter students will learn about the functions of each part of a report (e.g. introduction, methods and data description, and critical conclusion) and find useful criteria to help guide the writing of each part in a research report.

Approach to Writing this Resource Book

When the faculty in the UNI Department of Communication Studies decided to make research methods a required course for all students majoring in the department (starting Fall, 2010), we searched for a textbook that equitably covered methods used in the humanities  and  social sciences. We could not find one, so we decided to write our own. This resource book is the product of a collaborative effort by faculty in the department. Although five of us wrote and organized the chapters, everyone in the department was invited to contribute ideas and examples.

The result is not a traditional textbook. For one thing, rather than one voice, the authors hope you will hear their distinct voices in each chapter influenced, in part, by the methods chosen and the values these methods reflect. The differing styles should help prepare you for the differing writing styles you will find when you read original research in journals that feature quantitative, qualitative, or critical/rhetorical studies. Consequently, the citation systems we use to document sources differ across chapters. In chapters on social science research (quantitative and qualitative research methods) we use the American Psychological Association (APA) (2010) style, because it is the format of choice for most journals publishing social science research. In the chapters on ethics and rhetorical methods we use the format prescribed by the Modern Language Association (MLA) (2009) because rhetoric is rooted in the Humanities, and rhetorical research often is published in journals that also include scholarship from performance studies, English literature and the fine arts. As one reads the coming chapters, it can be insightful to attempt to identify how the methods and values are reflected in the writing styles.

Another distinction is that because the text is digital, rather than paper, we are able to make the book more interactive, including additional websites and other resources to hopefully help make the methods come alive. Perhaps most importantly for you as a student, using a digital delivery system means far less expense. The digital delivery system also means we have the ability to update material continuously.

Through this book, we hope you will become excited by the possibilities of participating in the construction of knowledge in Communication Studies. We also hope to help demystify the research process and reveal underlying assumptions of each process. Contrary to what some public figures, educators and media sources would have the public believe, most knowledge is not absolute. We invite your critical voice to this learning process.

American Psychological Association. (2010).  Publication manual of the American Psychological Association  (6th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Baxter, L. (2011).  Voicing relationships: A dialogic perspective . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. (1975). Some explorations in initial interactions and beyond: Toward a development theory of interpersonal communication.  Human Communication Research , 1, 99-112.

Bullock, C. F. (2008). Official sources dominate domestic violence reporting.  Newspaper Research Journal , 29(2), 6-22.

Burke, K. (1966).  Language as symbolic action: Essays on life, literature, and method . Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Burke, T. (2002).  Lawyers, lawsuits and legal rights: The battle over litigation in American society . Berkeley, CA: University of California.

Campbell, R., Martin, C. R., & Fabos, B. (2010).  Media & culture: An introduction to mass communication  (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's.

Carver, M. H., & Lawless, E. J. (2009).  Troubling violence: A performance project . Jackson, MI: University of Mississippi Press.

DeFrancisco, V. P., & Palczewski, C. H. (2007).  Communicating gender diversity: A critical approach . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dindia, K., & Canary, D. J. (Eds.). (2006).  Sex differences and similarities in communication  (2nd edition). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Dues, M., & Brown, M. (2004).  Boxing Plato' s shadow: An introduction to the study of human communication . Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.

Gergen, K. J. (1994).  Realities and relationships: Soundings in social construction . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Gray, J. (1992).  Men are from Mars, women are from Venus: A practical guide for improving communication and getting what you want in your relationship . New York: HarperCollins.

Gottman, J. M. (1994).  What predicts divorce? The relationship between marital processes and marital outcomes . Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Gudykunst, W. B. (2005). An anxiety/uncertainty management (AUM) theory of effective communication: Making the mesh of the net finer. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.),  Theorizing about intercultural communication  (pp. 281-322). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Keyton, J. (2011).  Communicating research: Asking questions, finding answers  (3rd ed). New York: McGraw Hill.

Kim, B. (n.d.) Social constructivism. In M. Orey (Ed.),  Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology . Department of Educational Psychology and Instructional Technology, University of Georgia. Retrieved from  http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Social_Constructivism

Kim, S. H. (2007). Max Weber.  Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy . Retrieved from  http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/weber/

Korn, C.J., Morreale, S.P., and Boileau, D.M. (2000). Defining the field: Revisiting the ACA 1995 definition of communication studies.  Journal of the Association for Communication Administration , 29, 40-52.

Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (1990). Notes in the history of intercultural communication: The foreign service institute and the mandate for intercultural training.  Quarterly Journal of Speech , 76, 262-281.

Merriam-Webster's Word of the Year 2006. (2006). Merriam-Webster Online. Retrieved from  http://www.merriam-webster.com/info/06words.htm

Mitchell, K. S. (1996). Ever after: Reading the women who read (and re-write) romance.  Theatre Topics 6.1  (1996) 51-69

The Modern Language Association. (2009).  MLA handbook for writers of research papers  (7th ed.). New York: The Modern Language Association of America.

National Communication Association. (2007). Communication scholarship and the humanities: A white paper sponsored by the National Communication Association. Retrieved from  http://www.natcom.org/uploadedFiles/Resources_For/Policy_Makers/PDF-Communication_Scholarship_and_the_Humanities_A_White_Paper_by_NCA.pdf

Olson, L. N. (2010). The role of voice in the (re)construction of a battered woman's identity: An autoethnography of one woman's experiences of abuse. Women's Studies in Communication 27(1), 1-33. DOI: 10.1080/0749/409-2004.10162464

Stormer, N. (2003). To remember, to act, to forget: Tracing collective remembrance through "A Jury of Her Peers".  Communication Studies , 54(4), 510-529.

Sunstein, C. (2001).  Republic.com . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Tannen, D. (1990).  You just don't understand: Women and men in conversation . New York: William Morrow.

Tjaden, P. & Thoennes, N. (2000, July). Extent, nature and consequences of intimate partner violence: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. (NCJ 181867). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved from  http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/181867.pdf

Walker, L. (1979).  The battered woman . New York: Harper & Row Publishers.

West, R., & Turner, L. H. (2010).  Introducing communication theory: Analysis and application . Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• What Is Qualitative Research? | Methods & Examples

What Is Qualitative Research? | Methods & Examples

Published on June 19, 2020 by Pritha Bhandari . Revised on June 22, 2023.

Qualitative research involves collecting and analyzing non-numerical data (e.g., text, video, or audio) to understand concepts, opinions, or experiences. It can be used to gather in-depth insights into a problem or generate new ideas for research.

Qualitative research is the opposite of quantitative research , which involves collecting and analyzing numerical data for statistical analysis.

Qualitative research is commonly used in the humanities and social sciences, in subjects such as anthropology, sociology, education, health sciences, history, etc.

• How does social media shape body image in teenagers?
• How do children and adults interpret healthy eating in the UK?
• What factors influence employee retention in a large organization?
• How is anxiety experienced around the world?
• How can teachers integrate social issues into science curriculums?

Table of contents

Approaches to qualitative research, qualitative research methods, qualitative data analysis, advantages of qualitative research, disadvantages of qualitative research, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about qualitative research.

Qualitative research is used to understand how people experience the world. While there are many approaches to qualitative research, they tend to be flexible and focus on retaining rich meaning when interpreting data.

Common approaches include grounded theory, ethnography , action research , phenomenological research, and narrative research. They share some similarities, but emphasize different aims and perspectives.

Note that qualitative research is at risk for certain research biases including the Hawthorne effect , observer bias , recall bias , and social desirability bias . While not always totally avoidable, awareness of potential biases as you collect and analyze your data can prevent them from impacting your work too much.

What can proofreading do for your paper?

Scribbr editors not only correct grammar and spelling mistakes, but also strengthen your writing by making sure your paper is free of vague language, redundant words, and awkward phrasing.

See editing example

Each of the research approaches involve using one or more data collection methods . These are some of the most common qualitative methods:

• Observations: recording what you have seen, heard, or encountered in detailed field notes.
• Interviews:  personally asking people questions in one-on-one conversations.
• Focus groups: asking questions and generating discussion among a group of people.
• Surveys : distributing questionnaires with open-ended questions.
• Secondary research: collecting existing data in the form of texts, images, audio or video recordings, etc.
• You take field notes with observations and reflect on your own experiences of the company culture.
• You distribute open-ended surveys to employees across all the company’s offices by email to find out if the culture varies across locations.
• You conduct in-depth interviews with employees in your office to learn about their experiences and perspectives in greater detail.

Qualitative researchers often consider themselves “instruments” in research because all observations, interpretations and analyses are filtered through their own personal lens.

For this reason, when writing up your methodology for qualitative research, it’s important to reflect on your approach and to thoroughly explain the choices you made in collecting and analyzing the data.

Qualitative data can take the form of texts, photos, videos and audio. For example, you might be working with interview transcripts, survey responses, fieldnotes, or recordings from natural settings.

Most types of qualitative data analysis share the same five steps:

• Prepare and organize your data. This may mean transcribing interviews or typing up fieldnotes.
• Review and explore your data. Examine the data for patterns or repeated ideas that emerge.
• Develop a data coding system. Based on your initial ideas, establish a set of codes that you can apply to categorize your data.
• Assign codes to the data. For example, in qualitative survey analysis, this may mean going through each participant’s responses and tagging them with codes in a spreadsheet. As you go through your data, you can create new codes to add to your system if necessary.
• Identify recurring themes. Link codes together into cohesive, overarching themes.

There are several specific approaches to analyzing qualitative data. Although these methods share similar processes, they emphasize different concepts.

Qualitative research often tries to preserve the voice and perspective of participants and can be adjusted as new research questions arise. Qualitative research is good for:

• Flexibility

The data collection and analysis process can be adapted as new ideas or patterns emerge. They are not rigidly decided beforehand.

• Natural settings

Data collection occurs in real-world contexts or in naturalistic ways.

• Meaningful insights

Detailed descriptions of people’s experiences, feelings and perceptions can be used in designing, testing or improving systems or products.

• Generation of new ideas

Open-ended responses mean that researchers can uncover novel problems or opportunities that they wouldn’t have thought of otherwise.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Researchers must consider practical and theoretical limitations in analyzing and interpreting their data. Qualitative research suffers from:

• Unreliability

The real-world setting often makes qualitative research unreliable because of uncontrolled factors that affect the data.

• Subjectivity

Due to the researcher’s primary role in analyzing and interpreting data, qualitative research cannot be replicated . The researcher decides what is important and what is irrelevant in data analysis, so interpretations of the same data can vary greatly.

• Limited generalizability

Small samples are often used to gather detailed data about specific contexts. Despite rigorous analysis procedures, it is difficult to draw generalizable conclusions because the data may be biased and unrepresentative of the wider population .

• Labor-intensive

Although software can be used to manage and record large amounts of text, data analysis often has to be checked or performed manually.

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

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

Research bias

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

Quantitative research deals with numbers and statistics, while qualitative research deals with words and meanings.

Quantitative methods allow you to systematically measure variables and test hypotheses . Qualitative methods allow you to explore concepts and experiences in more detail.

There are five common approaches to qualitative research :

• Grounded theory involves collecting data in order to develop new theories.
• Ethnography involves immersing yourself in a group or organization to understand its culture.
• Narrative research involves interpreting stories to understand how people make sense of their experiences and perceptions.
• Phenomenological research involves investigating phenomena through people’s lived experiences.
• Action research links theory and practice in several cycles to drive innovative changes.

Data collection is the systematic process by which observations or measurements are gathered in research. It is used in many different contexts by academics, governments, businesses, and other organizations.

There are various approaches to qualitative data analysis , but they all share five steps in common:

• Prepare and organize your data.
• Review and explore your data.
• Develop a data coding system.
• Assign codes to the data.
• Identify recurring themes.

The specifics of each step depend on the focus of the analysis. Some common approaches include textual analysis , thematic analysis , and discourse analysis .

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.

Bhandari, P. (2023, June 22). What Is Qualitative Research? | Methods & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved August 28, 2023, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/qualitative-research/

Is this article helpful?

Pritha Bhandari

Other students also liked, qualitative vs. quantitative research | differences, examples & methods, how to do thematic analysis | step-by-step guide & examples, what is your plagiarism score.

Research Methods

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Educator, Researcher

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, Ph.D., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years experience of working in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

Hypotheses are statements about the prediction of the results, that can be verified or disproved by some kind of investigation.

There are four types of hypotheses :

• Null Hypotheses (H0 ) – these predict that no difference will be found in the results between the conditions. Typically these are written ‘There will be no difference…’
• Alternative Hypotheses (Ha or H1) – these predict that there will be a significant difference in the results between the two conditions. This is also known as the experimental hypothesis.
• One-tailed (directional) hypotheses – these state the specific direction the researcher expects the results to move in, e.g. higher, lower, more, less. In a correlation study, the predicted direction of the correlation can be either positive or negative.
• Two-tailed (non-directional) hypotheses – these state that a difference will be found between the conditions of the independent variable but does not state the direction of a difference or relationship. Typically these are always written ‘There will be a difference ….’

All research has an alternative hypothesis (either a one-tailed or two-tailed) and a corresponding null hypothesis.

Once the research is conducted and results are found, psychologists must accept one hypothesis and reject the other. 

So if a difference is found, the Psychologist would accept the alternative hypothesis and reject the null.  The opposite applies if no difference is found.

Sampling techniques

Sampling is the process of selecting a representative group from the population under study.

A sample is the participants you select from a target population (the group you are interested in) to make generalisations about.

Representative means the extent to which a sample mirrors a researcher’s target population and reflects its characteristics.

Generalisability means the extent to which their findings can be applied to the larger population of which their sample was a part.

• A Volunteer sample is where participants pick themselves through newspaper adverts, noticeboards or online.
• Opportunity sampling, also known as convenience sampling , uses people who are available at the time the study is carried out and willing to take part. It is based on convenience.
• Random sampling is when every person in the target population has an equal chance of being selected. An example of random sampling would be picking names out of a hat.
• Systematic sampling is when a system is used to select participants. Picking every Nth person from all possible participants. N = the number of people in the research population / the number of people needed for the sample.
• Stratified sampling is when you identify the subgroups and select participants in proportion with their occurrences.
• Snowball sampling is when researchers find a few participants, and then ask them to find participants themselves and so on.
• Quota sampling is when researchers will be told to ensure the sample fits with certain quotas, for example they might be told to find 90 participants, with 30 of them being unemployed.

Experiments always have an independent and dependent variable .

• The independent variable is the one the experimenter manipulates (the thing that changes between the conditions the participants are placed into). It is aassumed to have a direct effect on the dependent variable.
• The dependent variable is the thing being measured, or the results of the experiment.

Operationalization of variables means making them measurable/quantifiable. We must use operationalization to ensure that variables are in a form that can be easily tested.

For instance, we can’t really measure ‘happiness’ but we can measure how many times a person smiles within a two hour period. 

By operationalizing variables, we make it easy for someone else to replicate our research. Remember, this is important because we can check if our findings are reliable.

Extraneous variables are all variables, which are not the independent variable, but could affect the results of the experiment.

It can be a natural characteristic of the participant, such as intelligence levels, gender, or age for example, or it could be a situational feature of the environment such as lighting or noise.

Demand characteristics are a type of extraneous variable that occurs if the participants work out the aims of the research study, they may begin to behave in a certain way.

For example, in Milgram’s research , critics argued that participants worked out that the shocks were not real and they administered them as they thought this was what was required of them. 

Extraneous variables must be controlled so that they do not affect (confound) the results.

Randomly allocating participants to their conditions or using a matched pairs experimental design can help to reduce participant variables. 

Situational variables are controlled by using standardized procedures, ensuring every participant in a given condition is treated in the same way

Experimental Design

Experimental design refers to how participants are allocated to each condition of the independent variable, such as a control or experimental group.

• Independent design ( between-groups design ): each participant is selected for only one group. With the independent design, the most common way of deciding which participants go into which group is by means of randomization. 
• Matched participants design : each participant is selected for only one group, but the participants in the two groups are matched for some relevant factor or factors (e.g. ability; sex; age).
• Repeated measures design ( within groups) : each participant appears in both groups, so that there are exactly the same participants in each group.
• The main problem with the repeated measures design is that there may well be order effects. Their experiences during the experiment may change the participants in various ways.
• They may perform better when they appear in the second group because they have gained useful information about the experiment or about the task. On the other hand, they may perform less well on the second occasion because of tiredness or boredom.
• Counterbalancing is the best way of preventing order effects from disrupting the findings of an experiment, and involves ensuring that each condition is equally likely to be used first and second by the participants

If we wish to compare two groups with respect to a given independent variable, it is essential to make sure that the two groups do not differ in any other important way. 

Experimental Methods

All experimental methods involve an iv (independent variable) and dv (dependent variable)., lab experiments are conducted in a well-controlled environment, not necessarily a laboratory, and therefore accurate and objective measurements are possible..

The researcher decides where the experiment will take place, at what time, with which participants, in what circumstances,  using a standardized procedure.

Field experiments are conducted in the everyday (natural) environment of the participants. The experimenter still manipulates the IV, but in a real-life setting. It may be possible to control extraneous variables, though such control is more difficult than in a lab experiment. 

Natural experiments are when a naturally occurring IV is investigated that isn’t deliberately manipulated, it exists anyway. Participants are not randomly allocated, and the natural event may only occur rarely.

Case studies are in-depth investigations of a person, group, event, or community. It uses information from a range of sources, such as from the person concerned and also from their family and friends.

Many techniques may be used such as interviews, psychological tests, observations and experiments. Case studies are generally longitudinal: in other words, they follow the individual or group over an extended period of time. 

Case studies are widely used in psychology and among the best-known ones carried out were by Sigmund Freud . He conducted very detailed investigations into the private lives of his patients in an attempt to both understand and help them overcome their illnesses.

Case studies provide rich qualitative data and have high levels of ecological validity. However, it is difficult to generalize from individual cases as each one has unique characteristics.

Correlational Studies

Correlation means association; it is a measure of the extent to which two variables are related. One of the variables can be regarded as the predictor variable with the other one as the outcome variable.

Correlational studies typically involve obtaining two different measures from a group of participants, and then assessing the degree of association between the measures. 

The predictor variable can be seen as occurring before the outcome variable in some sense. It is called the predictor variable, because it forms the basis for predicting the value of the outcome variable

Relationships between variables can be displayed on a graph or as a numerical score called a correlation coefficient.

• If an increase in one variable tends to be associated with an increase in the other, then this is known as a positive correlation .
• If an increase in one variable tends to be associated with a decrease in the other, then this is known as a negative correlation .
• A zero correlation occurs when there is no relationship between variables.

After looking at the scattergraph, if we want to be sure that a significant relationship does exist between the two variables, a statistical test of correlation can be conducted, such as Spearman’s rho.

The test will give us a score, called a correlation coefficient . This is a value between 0 and 1, and the closer to 1 the score is, the stronger the relationship between the variables. This value can be both positive e.g. 0.63, or negative -0.63.

A correlation between variables, however, does not automatically mean that the change in one variable is the cause of the change in the values of the other variable. A correlation only shows if there is a relationship between variables.

Correlation does not always prove causation as a third variable may be involved. 

Interview Methods

Interviews are commonly divided into two types: structured and unstructured.

In a structured interview , the interview situation is standardized as far as possible. Structured interviews are formal, like job interviews.

There is a fixed, predetermined set of questions that are put to every participant in the same order and in the same way.  Responses are recorded on a questionnaire, and the order and wording of questions, and sometimes the range of alternative answers, is preset by the researcher.

The interviewer stays within their role and maintains social distance from the interviewee.

Unstructured interviews are informal, like casual conversations. They are normally preceded by a general conversation, and the researcher deliberately adopts an informal approach in an attempt to break down social barriers.

There are no set questions, and the participant is allowed to raise whatever topics he/she feels are relevant and ask them in their own way. Questions are posed in relation to participants’ answers to the subject

In this kind of interview, much qualitative data is likely to be collected.

Unstructured interviews are most useful in qualitative research designed to analyze attitudes and values. Though rarely provide a valid basis for generalization, their main advantage is that they enable the researcher to probe the subjective point of view of social actors. 

Questionnaire Method

Questionnaires can be thought of as a kind of written interview. They can be carried out face to face, by telephone, or post.

The questions asked can be open-ended, allowing flexibility in the respondent’s answers, or they can be more tightly structured, requiring short answers or a choice of answers from given alternatives.

The choice of questions is important because of the need to avoid bias or ambiguity in the questions, ‘leading’ the respondent, or causing offense.

Postal questionnaires seems to offer the opportunity of getting round the problem of interview bias by reducing the personal involvement of the researcher.

Its other practical advantages are that it is cheaper than face-to-face interviews and can be used to contact a large number of respondents scattered over a wide area relatively quickly.

Observations

There are different types of observation methods :

• Covert observation is where the researcher doesn’t tell the participants that they are being observed until after the study is complete. There could be ethical problems or deception and consent with this particular observation method.
• Overt observation is where a researcher tells the participants that they are being observed and what they are being observed for.
• Controlled : behavior is observed under controlled laboratory conditions (e.g., Bandura’s Bobo doll study).
• Natural : Here, spontaneous behavior is recorded in a natural setting.
• Participant : Here, the observer has direct contact with the group of people they are observing. The researcher becomes a member of the group they are researching.  
• Non-participant (aka “fly on the wall): The researcher does not have direct contact with the people being observed. The observation of participants’ behavior is from a distance

Pilot Study

A pilot  study is a small scale preliminary study conducted in order to evaluate the feasibility of the key s teps in a future, full-scale project.

A pilot study is an initial run-through of the procedures to be used in an investigation; it involves selecting a few people and trying out the study on them. It is possible to save time, and in some cases, money, by identifying any flaws in the procedures designed by the researcher.

A pilot study can help the researcher spot any ambiguities (i.e. unusual things) or confusion in the information given to participants or problems with the task devised.

Sometimes the task is too hard, and the researcher may get a floor effect, because none of the participants can score at all or can complete the task – all performances are low.

The opposite effect is a ceiling effect, when the task is so easy that all achieve virtually full marks or top performances and are “hitting the ceiling”.

Research Design

In cross-sectional research , a researcher compares multiple segments of the population at the same time

Sometimes we want to see how people change over time, as in studies of human development and lifespan. Longitudinal research is a research design in which data-gathering is administered repeatedly over an extended period of time.

In cohort studies , the participants must share a common factor or characteristic such as age, demographic, or occupation. A cohort study is a type of longitudinal study in which researchers monitor and observe a chosen population over an extended period.

Triangulation means using more than one research method to improve the validity of the study.

Reliability

Reliability is a measure of consistency, if a particular measurement is repeated and the same result is obtained then it is described as being reliable.

Test-retest reliability – Assessing the same person on two different occasions which shows the extent to which the test produces the same answers.

Inter-observer reliability – the extent to which there is an agreement between two or more observers.

Meta-Analysis

A meta-analysis is a systematic review that involves identifying an aim and then searching for research studies that have addressed similar aims/hypotheses.

This is done by looking through various databases and then decisions are made about what studies are to be included/excluded.

Strengths: Increases the validity of the conclusions drawn as they’re based on a wider range.

Weaknesses: Research designs in studies can vary so they are not truly comparable.

Peer Review

A researcher submits an article to a journal. The choice of the journal may be determined by the journal’s audience or prestige.

The journal selects two or more appropriate experts (psychologists working in a similar field) to peer review the article without payment. The peer reviewers assess: the methods and designs used, originality of the findings, the validity of the original research findings and its content, structure and language.

Feedback from the reviewer determines whether the article is accepted. The article may be: Accepted as it is, accepted with revisions, sent back to the author to revise and re-submit or rejected without the possibility of submission.

The editor makes the final decision whether to accept or reject the research report based on the reviewers comments/ recommendations.

Peer review is important because it prevent faulty data from entering the public domain, it provides a way of checking the validity of findings and the quality of the methodology and is used to assess the research rating of university departments.

Peer reviews may be an ideal, whereas in practice there are lots of problems. For example, it slows publication down and may prevent unusual, new work being published. Some reviewers might use it as an opportunity to prevent competing researchers from publishing work.

Some people doubt whether peer review can really prevent the publication of fraudulent research.

The advent of the internet means that a lot of research and academic comment is being published without official peer reviews than before, though systems are evolving on the internet where everyone really has a chance to offer their opinions and police the quality of research.

Types of Data

• Quantitative data is numerical data e.g. reaction time or number of mistakes. It represents how much or how long, how many there are of something. A tally of behavioral categories and closed questions in a questionnaire collect quantitative data.
• Qualitative data is virtually any type of information that can be observed and recorded that is not numerical in nature and can be in the form of written or verbal communication. Open questions in questionnaires and accounts from observational studies collect qualitative data.
• Primary data is first-hand data collected for the purpose of the investigation.
• Secondary data is information that has been collected by someone other than the person who is conducting the research e.g. taken from journals, books or articles.

Validity means how well a piece of research actually measures what it sets out to, or how well it reflects the reality it claims to represent.

Validity is whether the observed effect in genuine and represents what is actually out there in the world.

• Concurrent validity is the extent to which a psychological measure relates to an existing similar measure and obtains close results. For example, a new intelligence test compared to an established test.
• Face validity : does the test measure what it’s supposed to measure ‘on the face of it’. This is done by ‘eyeballing’ the measuring or by passing it to an expert to check.
• Ecological validit y is the extent to which findings from a research study can be generalized to other settings / real life.
• Temporal validity is the extent to which findings from a research study can be generalized to other historical times.

Features of Science

• Paradigm – A set of shared assumptions and agreed methods within a scientific discipline.
• Paradigm shift – The result of the scientific revolution: a significant change in the dominant unifying theory within a scientific discipline.
• Objectivity – When all sources of personal bias are minimised so not to distort or influence the research process.
• Empirical method – Scientific approaches that are based on the gathering of evidence through direct observation and experience.
• Replicability – The extent to which scientific procedures and findings can be repeated by other researchers.
• Falsifiability – The principle that a theory cannot be considered scientific unless it admits the possibility of being proved untrue.

Statistical Testing

A significant result is one where there is a low probability that chance factors were responsible for any observed difference, correlation or association in the variables tested.

If our test is significant, we can reject our null hypothesis and accept our alternative hypothesis.

If our test is not significant, we can accept our null hypothesis and reject our alternative hypothesis. A null hypothesis is a statement of no effect.

In Psychology, we use p < 0.05 (as it strikes a balance between making a type I and II error) but p < 0.01 is used in tests that could cause harm like introducing a new drug.

A type I error is when the null hypothesis is rejected when it should have been accepted (happens when a lenient significance level is used, an error of optimism).

A type II error is when the null hypothesis is accepted when it should have been rejected (happens when a stringent significance level is used, an error of pessimism).

Ethical Issues

• Informed consent is when participants are able to make an informed judgment about whether to take part. It causes them to guess the aims of the study and change their behavior.
• To deal with it, we can gain presumptive consent or ask them to formally indicate their agreement to participate but it may invalidate the purpose of the study and it is not guaranteed that the participants would understand.
• Deception should only be used when it is approved by an ethics committee, as it involves deliberately misleading or withholding information. Participants should be fully debriefed after the study but debriefing can’t turn the clock back.
• All participants should be informed at the beginning that they have the right to withdraw if they ever feel distressed or uncomfortable.
• It causes bias as the ones that stayed are obedient and some may not withdraw as they may have been given incentives or feel like they’re spoiling the study. Researchers can offer the right to withdraw data after participation.
• Participants should all have protection from harm . The researcher should avoid risks greater than those experienced in everyday life and they should stop the study if any harm is suspected. However, the harm may not be apparent at the time of the study.
• Confidentiality concerns the communication of personal information. The researchers should not record any names but use numbers or false names though it may not be possible as it is sometimes possible to work out who the researchers were.
• SAVE ARTICLE

• RMIT Australia
• RMIT Europe
• RMIT Vietnam
• RMIT Global
• RMIT Online
• Alumni & Giving

• What will I do?
• What will I need?
• Who will help me?
• About the institution
• New to university?
• Studying efficiently
• Time management
• Mind mapping
• Note-taking
• Reading skills
• Argument analysis
• Preparing for assessment
• Critical thinking and argument analysis
• Online learning skills
• Starting my first assignment
• Researching your assignment
• What is referencing?
• Understanding citations
• When referencing isn't needed
• Paraphrasing
• Summarising
• Synthesising
• Integrating ideas with reporting words
• Referencing with Easy Cite
• Getting help with referencing
• Acting with academic integrity
• Artificial intelligence tools
• Understanding your audience
• Writing for coursework
• Literature review
• Academic style
• Writing for the workplace
• Spelling tips
• Writing paragraphs
• Writing sentences
• Academic word lists
• Annotated bibliographies
• Artist statement
• Case studies
• Creating effective poster presentations
• Essays, Reports, Reflective Writing
• Law assessments
• Oral presentations
• Reflective writing
• Art and design
• Critical thinking
• Maths and statistics
• Sustainability
• Educators' guide
• Learning Lab content in context
• Latest updates
• Students Alumni & Giving Staff Library

Learning Lab

Getting started at uni, study skills, referencing.

• When referencing isn't needed
• Integrating ideas

Writing and assessments

• Critical reading
• Poster presentations
• Postgraduate report writing

Subject areas

For educators.

• Educators' guide
• Methodology section in a report

Method/Methodology

The method section of a report details how the research was conducted, the research methods used and the reasons for choosing those methods. It should outline:

• the participants and research methods used, e.g. surveys/questionnaire, interviews
• refer to other relevant studies.

The methodology is a step-by-step explanation of the research process. It should be factual and is mainly written in the past tense.

Sample Methodology

The research used a quantitative methodology based on the approach advocated by Williams (2009). This study was conducted by questionnaire and investigated university teaching staff attitudes to the use of mobile phones in tutorials (see Appendix 1). The questionnaire used Likert scales to assess social attitudes (Jones 2007) to student mobile phone use and provided open-ended responses for additional comments. The survey was voluntary and anonymous. A total of 412 questionnaires were distributed online to randomly selected staff from each of the three colleges within the university. The completed questionnaires were returned by email.

• 'Describe' is short for: describing how the research was done.
• 'Refers' is short for: refers to relevant reading/literature.

[Describe: The research used a quantitative methodology based on the approach advocated by Williams (2009).] [Refer: This study was conducted by questionnaire and investigated university teaching staff attitudes to the use of mobile phones in tutorials (see Appendix 1). The questionnaire used Likert scales to assess social attitudes (Jones 2007) to student mobile phone use and provided open-ended responses for additional comments.] [Describes: The survey was voluntary and anonymous. A total of 412 questionnaires were distributed online to randomly selected staff from each of the three colleges within the university. The completed questionnaires were returned by email.]

• Overall structure of a report
• Example of a report
• Report checklist
• Writing a business research report

Still can't find what you need?

The RMIT University Library provides study support , one-on-one consultations and peer mentoring to RMIT students.

• Facebook (opens in a new window)
• Twitter (opens in a new window)
• Instagram (opens in a new window)
• Linkedin (opens in a new window)
• YouTube (opens in a new window)
• Weibo (opens in a new window)
• Copyright © 2022 RMIT University |
• Accessibility |
• Learning Lab feedback |
• Complaints |
• ABN 49 781 030 034 |
• CRICOS provider number: 00122A |
• RTO Code: 3046 |
• Open Universities Australia

Popular searches

• How to Get Participants For Your Study
• How to Do Segmentation?
• Conjoint Preference Share Simulator
• MaxDiff Analysis
• Likert Scales
• Reliability & Validity

Request consultation

Do you need support in running a pricing or product study? We can help you with agile consumer research and conjoint analysis.

Looking for an online survey platform?

Conjointly offers a great survey tool with multiple question types, randomisation blocks, and multilingual support. The Basic tier is always free.

Research Methods Knowledge Base

• Navigating the Knowledge Base
• Foundations
• Measurement
• Research Design
• Key Elements

Sample Paper

• Table of Contents

Fully-functional online survey tool with various question types, logic, randomisation, and reporting for unlimited number of responses and surveys.

Completely free for academics and students .

This paper should be used only as an example of a research paper write-up. Horizontal rules signify the top and bottom edges of pages. For sample references which are not included with this paper, you should consult the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 4th Edition .

This paper is provided only to give you an idea of what a research paper might look like. You are not allowed to copy any of the text of this paper in writing your own report.

Because word processor copies of papers don’t translate well into web pages, you should note that an actual paper should be formatted according to the formatting rules for your context. Note especially that there are three formatting rules you will see in this sample paper which you should NOT follow. First, except for the title page, the running header should appear in the upper right corner of every page with the page number below it. Second, paragraphs and text should be double spaced and the start of each paragraph should be indented. Third, horizontal lines are used to indicate a mandatory page break and should not be used in your paper.

The Effects of a Supported Employment Program on Psychosocial Indicators for Persons with Severe Mental Illness William M.K. Trochim Cornell University

Running Head: SUPPORTED EMPLOYMENT

This paper describes the psychosocial effects of a program of supported employment (SE) for persons with severe mental illness. The SE program involves extended individualized supported employment for clients through a Mobile Job Support Worker (MJSW) who maintains contact with the client after job placement and supports the client in a variety of ways. A 50% simple random sample was taken of all persons who entered the Thresholds Agency between 3/1/93 and 2/28/95 and who met study criteria. The resulting 484 cases were randomly assigned to either the SE condition (treatment group) or the usual protocol (control group) which consisted of life skills training and employment in an in-house sheltered workshop setting. All participants were measured at intake and at 3 months after beginning employment, on two measures of psychological functioning (the BPRS and GAS) and two measures of self esteem (RSE and ESE). Significant treatment effects were found on all four measures, but they were in the opposite direction from what was hypothesized. Instead of functioning better and having more self esteem, persons in SE had lower functioning levels and lower self esteem. The most likely explanation is that people who work in low-paying service jobs in real world settings generally do not like them and experience significant job stress, whether they have severe mental illness or not. The implications for theory in psychosocial rehabilitation are considered.

The Effects of a Supported Employment Program on Psychosocial Indicators for Persons with Severe Mental Illness

Over the past quarter century a shift has occurred from traditional institution-based models of care for persons with severe mental illness (SMI) to more individualized community-based treatments. Along with this, there has been a significant shift in thought about the potential for persons with SMI to be “rehabilitated” toward lifestyles that more closely approximate those of persons without such illness. A central issue is the ability of a person to hold a regular full-time job for a sustained period of time. There have been several attempts to develop novel and radical models for program interventions designed to assist persons with SMI to sustain full-time employment while living in the community. The most promising of these have emerged from the tradition of psychiatric rehabilitation with its emphases on individual consumer goal setting, skills training, job preparation and employment support (Cook, Jonikas and Solomon, 1992). These are relatively new and field evaluations are rare or have only recently been initiated (Cook and Razzano, 1992; Cook, 1992). Most of the early attempts to evaluate such programs have naturally focused almost exclusively on employment outcomes. However, theory suggests that sustained employment and living in the community may have important therapeutic benefits in addition to the obvious economic ones. To date, there have been no formal studies of the effects of psychiatric rehabilitation programs on key illness-related outcomes. To address this issue, this study seeks to examine the effects of a new program of supported employment on psychosocial outcomes for persons with SMI.

Over the past several decades, the theory of vocational rehabilitation has experienced two major stages of evolution. Original models of vocational rehabilitation were based on the idea of sheltered workshop employment. Clients were paid a piece rate and worked only with other individuals who were disabled. Sheltered workshops tended to be “end points” for persons with severe and profound mental retardation since few ever moved from sheltered to competitive employment (Woest, Klein & Atkins, 1986). Controlled studies of sheltered workshop performance of persons with mental illness suggested only minimal success (Griffiths, 1974) and other research indicated that persons with mental illness earned lower wages, presented more behavior problems, and showed poorer workshop attendance than workers with other disabilities (Whitehead, 1977; Ciardiello, 1981).

In the 1980s, a new model of services called Supported Employment (SE) was proposed as less expensive and more normalizing for persons undergoing rehabilitation (Wehman, 1985). The SE model emphasizes first locating a job in an integrated setting for minimum wage or above, and then placing the person on the job and providing the training and support services needed to remain employed (Wehman, 1985). Services such as individualized job development, one-on-one job coaching, advocacy with co-workers and employers, and “fading” support were found to be effective in maintaining employment for individuals with severe and profound mental retardation (Revell, Wehman & Arnold, 1984). The idea that this model could be generalized to persons with all types of severe disabilities, including severe mental illness, became commonly accepted (Chadsey-Rusch & Rusch, 1986).

One of the more notable SE programs was developed at Thresholds, the site for the present study, which created a new staff position called the mobile job support worker (MJSW) and removed the common six month time limit for many placements. MJSWs provide ongoing, mobile support and intervention at or near the work site, even for jobs with high degrees of independence (Cook & Hoffschmidt, 1993). Time limits for many placements were removed so that clients could stay on as permanent employees if they and their employers wished. The suspension of time limits on job placements, along with MJSW support, became the basis of SE services delivered at Thresholds.

There are two key psychosocial outcome constructs of interest in this study. The first is the overall psychological functioning of the person with SMI. This would include the specification of severity of cognitive and affective symptomotology as well as the overall level of psychological functioning. The second is the level of self-reported self esteem of the person. This was measured both generally and with specific reference to employment.

The key hypothesis of this study is:

• HO: A program of supported employment will result in either no change or negative effects on psychological functioning and self esteem.

which will be tested against the alternative:

• HA: A program of supported employment will lead to positive effects on psychological functioning and self esteem.

The population of interest for this study is all adults with SMI residing in the U.S. in the early 1990s. The population that is accessible to this study consists of all persons who were clients of the Thresholds Agency in Chicago, Illinois between the dates of March 1, 1993 and February 28, 1995 who met the following criteria: 1) a history of severe mental illness (e.g., either schizophrenia, severe depression or manic-depression); 2) a willingness to achieve paid employment; 3) their primary diagnosis must not include chronic alcoholism or hard drug use; and 4) they must be 18 years of age or older. The sampling frame was obtained from records of the agency. Because of the large number of clients who pass through the agency each year (e.g., approximately 500 who meet the criteria) a simple random sample of 50% was chosen for inclusion in the study. This resulted in a sample size of 484 persons over the two-year course of the study.

On average, study participants were 30 years old and high school graduates (average education level = 13 years). The majority of participants (70%) were male. Most had never married (85%), few (2%) were currently married, and the remainder had been formerly married (13%). Just over half (51%) are African American, with the remainder Caucasian (43%) or other minority groups (6%). In terms of illness history, the members in the sample averaged 4 prior psychiatric hospitalizations and spent a lifetime average of 9 months as patients in psychiatric hospitals. The primary diagnoses were schizophrenia (42%) and severe chronic depression (37%). Participants had spent an average of almost two and one-half years (29 months) at the longest job they ever held.

While the study sample cannot be considered representative of the original population of interest, generalizability was not a primary goal – the major purpose of this study was to determine whether a specific SE program could work in an accessible context. Any effects of SE evident in this study can be generalized to urban psychiatric agencies that are similar to Thresholds, have a similar clientele, and implement a similar program.

All but one of the measures used in this study are well-known instruments in the research literature on psychosocial functioning. All of the instruments were administered as part of a structured interview that an evaluation social worker had with study participants at regular intervals.

Two measures of psychological functioning were used. The Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS)(Overall and Gorham, 1962) is an 18-item scale that measures perceived severity of symptoms ranging from “somatic concern” and “anxiety” to “depressive mood” and “disorientation.” Ratings are given on a 0-to-6 Likert-type response scale where 0=“not present” and 6=“extremely severe” and the scale score is simply the sum of the 18 items. The Global Assessment Scale (GAS)(Endicott et al, 1976) is a single 1-to-100 rating on a scale where each ten-point increment has a detailed description of functioning (higher scores indicate better functioning). For instance, one would give a rating between 91-100 if the person showed “no symptoms, superior functioning…” and a value between 1-10 if the person “needs constant supervision…”

Two measures of self esteem were used. The first is the Rosenberg Self Esteem (RSE) Scale (Rosenberg, 1965), a 10-item scale rated on a 6-point response format where 1=“strongly disagree” and 6=“strongly agree” and there is no neutral point. The total score is simply the sum across the ten items, with five of the items being reversals. The second measure was developed explicitly for this study and was designed to measure the Employment Self Esteem (ESE) of a person with SMI. This is a 10-item scale that uses a 4-point response format where 1=“strongly disagree” and 4=“strongly agree” and there is no neutral point. The final ten items were selected from a pool of 97 original candidate items, based upon high item-total score correlations and a judgment of face validity by a panel of three psychologists. This instrument was deliberately kept simple – a shorter response scale and no reversal items – because of the difficulties associated with measuring a population with SMI. The entire instrument is provided in Appendix A.

All four of the measures evidenced strong reliability and validity. Internal consistency reliability estimates using Cronbach’s alpha ranged from .76 for ESE to .88 for SE. Test-retest reliabilities were nearly as high, ranging from .72 for ESE to .83 for the BPRS. Convergent validity was evidenced by the correlations within construct. For the two psychological functioning scales the correlation was .68 while for the self esteem measures it was somewhat lower at .57. Discriminant validity was examined by looking at the cross-construct correlations which ranged from .18 (BPRS-ESE) to .41 (GAS-SE).

A pretest-posttest two-group randomized experimental design was used in this study. In notational form, the design can be depicted as:

• R = the groups were randomly assigned
• O = the four measures (i.e., BPRS, GAS, RSE, and ESE)
• X = supported employment

The comparison group received the standard Thresholds protocol which emphasized in-house training in life skills and employment in an in-house sheltered workshop. All participants were measured at intake (pretest) and at three months after intake (posttest).

This type of randomized experimental design is generally strong in internal validity. It rules out threats of history, maturation, testing, instrumentation, mortality and selection interactions. Its primary weaknesses are in the potential for treatment-related mortality (i.e., a type of selection-mortality) and for problems that result from the reactions of participants and administrators to knowledge of the varying experimental conditions. In this study, the drop-out rate was 4% (N=9) for the control group and 5% (N=13) in the treatment group. Because these rates are low and are approximately equal in each group, it is not plausible that there is differential mortality. There is a possibility that there were some deleterious effects due to participant knowledge of the other group’s existence (e.g., compensatory rivalry, resentful demoralization). Staff were debriefed at several points throughout the study and were explicitly asked about such issues. There were no reports of any apparent negative feelings from the participants in this regard. Nor is it plausible that staff might have equalized conditions between the two groups. Staff were given extensive training and were monitored throughout the course of the study. Overall, this study can be considered strong with respect to internal validity.

Between 3/1/93 and 2/28/95 each person admitted to Thresholds who met the study inclusion criteria was immediately assigned a random number that gave them a 50/50 chance of being selected into the study sample. For those selected, the purpose of the study was explained, including the nature of the two treatments, and the need for and use of random assignment. Participants were assured confidentiality and were given an opportunity to decline to participate in the study. Only 7 people (out of 491) refused to participate. At intake, each selected sample member was assigned a random number giving them a 50/50 chance of being assigned to either the Supported Employment condition or the standard in-agency sheltered workshop. In addition, all study participants were given the four measures at intake.

All participants spent the initial two weeks in the program in training and orientation. This consisted of life skill training (e.g., handling money, getting around, cooking and nutrition) and job preparation (employee roles, coping strategies). At the end of that period, each participant was assigned to a job site – at the agency sheltered workshop for those in the control condition, and to an outside employer if in the Supported Employment group. Control participants were expected to work full-time at the sheltered workshop for a three-month period, at which point they were posttested and given an opportunity to obtain outside employment (either Supported Employment or not). The Supported Employment participants were each assigned a case worker – called a Mobile Job Support Worker (MJSW) – who met with the person at the job site two times per week for an hour each time. The MJSW could provide any support or assistance deemed necessary to help the person cope with job stress, including counseling or working beside the person for short periods of time. In addition, the MJSW was always accessible by cellular telephone, and could be called by the participant or the employer at any time. At the end of three months, each participant was post-tested and given the option of staying with their current job (with or without Supported Employment) or moving to the sheltered workshop.

There were 484 participants in the final sample for this study, 242 in each treatment. There were 9 drop-outs from the control group and 13 from the treatment group, leaving a total of 233 and 229 in each group respectively from whom both pretest and posttest were obtained. Due to unexpected difficulties in coping with job stress, 19 Supported Employment participants had to be transferred into the sheltered workshop prior to the posttest. In all 19 cases, no one was transferred prior to week 6 of employment, and 15 were transferred after week 8. In all analyses, these cases were included with the Supported Employment group (intent-to-treat analysis) yielding treatment effect estimates that are likely to be conservative.

The major results for the four outcome measures are shown in Figure 1.

Insert Figure 1 about here

It is immediately apparent that in all four cases the null hypothesis has to be accepted – contrary to expectations, Supported Employment cases did significantly worse on all four outcomes than did control participants.

The mean gains, standard deviations, sample sizes and t-values (t-test for differences in average gain) are shown for the four outcome measures in Table 1.

Insert Table 1 about here

The results in the table confirm the impressions in the figures. Note that all t-values are negative except for the BPRS where high scores indicate greater severity of illness. For all four outcomes, the t-values were statistically significant (p<.05).

Conclusions

The results of this study were clearly contrary to initial expectations. The alternative hypothesis suggested that SE participants would show improved psychological functioning and self esteem after three months of employment. Exactly the reverse happened – SE participants showed significantly worse psychological functioning and self esteem.

There are two major possible explanations for this outcome pattern. First, it seems reasonable that there might be a delayed positive or “boomerang” effect of employment outside of a sheltered setting. SE cases may have to go through an initial difficult period of adjustment (longer than three months) before positive effects become apparent. This “you have to get worse before you get better” theory is commonly held in other treatment-contexts like drug addiction and alcoholism. But a second explanation seems more plausible – that people working full-time jobs in real-world settings are almost certainly going to be under greater stress and experience more negative outcomes than those who work in the relatively safe confines of an in-agency sheltered workshop. Put more succinctly, the lesson here might very well be that work is hard. Sheltered workshops are generally very nurturing work environments where virtually all employees share similar illness histories and where expectations about productivity are relatively low. In contrast, getting a job at a local hamburger shop or as a shipping clerk puts the person in contact with co-workers who may not be sympathetic to their histories or forgiving with respect to low productivity. This second explanation seems even more plausible in the wake of informal debriefing sessions held as focus groups with the staff and selected research participants. It was clear in the discussion that SE persons experienced significantly higher job stress levels and more negative consequences. However, most of them also felt that the experience was a good one overall and that even their “normal” co-workers “hated their jobs” most of the time.

One lesson we might take from this study is that much of our contemporary theory in psychiatric rehabilitation is naive at best and, in some cases, may be seriously misleading. Theory led us to believe that outside work was a “good” thing that would naturally lead to “good” outcomes like increased psychological functioning and self esteem. But for most people (SMI or not) work is at best tolerable, especially for the types of low-paying service jobs available to study participants. While people with SMI may not function as well or have high self esteem, we should balance this with the desire they may have to “be like other people” including struggling with the vagaries of life and work that others struggle with.

Future research in this are needs to address the theoretical assumptions about employment outcomes for persons with SMI. It is especially important that attempts to replicate this study also try to measure how SE participants feel about the decision to work, even if traditional outcome indicators suffer. It may very well be that negative outcomes on traditional indicators can be associated with a “positive” impact for the participants and for the society as a whole.

Chadsey-Rusch, J. and Rusch, F.R. (1986). The ecology of the workplace. In J. Chadsey-Rusch, C. Haney-Maxwell, L. A. Phelps and F. R. Rusch (Eds.), School-to-Work Transition Issues and Models. (pp. 59-94), Champaign IL: Transition Institute at Illinois.

Ciardiello, J.A. (1981). Job placement success of schizophrenic clients in sheltered workshop programs. Vocational Evaluation and Work Adjustment Bulletin, 14, 125-128, 140.

Cook, J.A. (1992). Job ending among youth and adults with severe mental illness. Journal of Mental Health Administration, 19(2), 158-169.

Cook, J.A. & Hoffschmidt, S. (1993). Psychosocial rehabilitation programming: A comprehensive model for the 1990’s. In R.W. Flexer and P. Solomon (Eds.), Social and Community Support for People with Severe Mental Disabilities: Service Integration in Rehabilitation and Mental Health. Andover, MA: Andover Publishing.

Cook, J.A., Jonikas, J., & Solomon, M. (1992). Models of vocational rehabilitation for youth and adults with severe mental illness. American Rehabilitation, 18, 3, 6-32.

Cook, J.A. & Razzano, L. (1992). Natural vocational supports for persons with severe mental illness: Thresholds Supported Competitive Employment Program, in L. Stein (ed.), New Directions for Mental Health Services, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 56, 23-41.

Endicott, J.R., Spitzer, J.L. Fleiss, J.L. and Cohen, J. (1976). The Global Assessment Scale: A procedure for measuring overall severity of psychiatric disturbance. Archives of General Psychiatry, 33, 766-771.

Griffiths, R.D. (1974). Rehabilitation of chronic psychotic patients. Psychological Medicine, 4, 316-325.

Overall, J. E. and Gorham, D. R. (1962). The Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale. Psychological Reports, 10, 799-812.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and Adolescent Self Image. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.

Wehman, P. (1985). Supported competitive employment for persons with severe disabilities. In P. McCarthy, J. Everson, S. Monn & M. Barcus (Eds.), School-to-Work Transition for Youth with Severe Disabilities, (pp. 167-182), Richmond VA: Virginia Commonwealth University.

Whitehead, C.W. (1977). Sheltered Workshop Study: A Nationwide Report on Sheltered Workshops and their Employment of Handicapped Individuals. (Workshop Survey, Volume 1), U.S. Department of Labor Service Publication. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Woest, J., Klein, M. and Atkins, B.J. (1986). An overview of supported employment strategies. Journal of Rehabilitation Administration, 10(4), 130-135.

Figure 1. Pretest and posttest means for treatment (SE) and control groups for the four outcome measures.

The Employment Self Esteem Scale

Please rate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.

Cookie Consent

Conjointly uses essential cookies to make our site work. We also use additional cookies in order to understand the usage of the site, gather audience analytics, and for remarketing purposes.

For more information on Conjointly's use of cookies, please read our Cookie Policy .

Which one are you?

I am new to conjointly, i am already using conjointly.

• EXPLORE Coupons Tech Help Pro Random Article About Us Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• EDIT Edit this Article
• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• This Or That Game New
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• H&M Coupons
• Hotwire Promo Codes
• StubHub Discount Codes
• Ashley Furniture Coupons
• Blue Nile Promo Codes
• NordVPN Coupons
• Samsung Promo Codes
• Chewy Promo Codes
• Ulta Coupons
• Vistaprint Promo Codes
• Shutterfly Promo Codes
• DoorDash Promo Codes
• Office Depot Coupons
• adidas Promo Codes
• Home Depot Coupons
• DSW Coupons
• Bed Bath and Beyond Coupons
• Lowe's Coupons
• Surfshark Coupons
• Nordstrom Coupons
• Walmart Promo Codes
• Dick's Sporting Goods Coupons
• Fanatics Coupons
• Edible Arrangements Coupons
• eBay Coupons
• Log in / Sign up
• Education and Communications
• College University and Postgraduate
• Academic Writing

How to Write Research Methodology

Last Updated: May 21, 2023 References

This article was co-authored by wikiHow staff writer, Jennifer Mueller, JD . Jennifer Mueller is a wikiHow Content Creator. She specializes in reviewing, fact-checking, and evaluating wikiHow's content to ensure thoroughness and accuracy. Jennifer holds a JD from Indiana University Maurer School of Law in 2006. This article has been viewed 494,939 times. Learn more...

The research methodology section of any academic research paper gives you the opportunity to convince your readers that your research is useful and will contribute to your field of study. An effective research methodology is grounded in your overall approach – whether qualitative or quantitative – and adequately describes the methods you used. Justify why you chose those methods over others, then explain how those methods will provide answers to your research questions. [1] X Research source

Describing Your Methods

• In your restatement, include any underlying assumptions that you're making or conditions that you're taking for granted. These assumptions will also inform the research methods you've chosen.
• Generally, state the variables you'll test and the other conditions you're controlling or assuming are equal.

• If you want to research and document measurable social trends, or evaluate the impact of a particular policy on various variables, use a quantitative approach focused on data collection and statistical analysis.
• If you want to evaluate people's views or understanding of a particular issue, choose a more qualitative approach.
• You can also combine the two. For example, you might look primarily at a measurable social trend, but also interview people and get their opinions on how that trend is affecting their lives.

• For example, if you conducted a survey, you would describe the questions included in the survey, where and how the survey was conducted (such as in person, online, over the phone), how many surveys were distributed, and how long your respondents had to complete the survey.
• Include enough detail that your study can be replicated by others in your field, even if they may not get the same results you did. [4] X Research source

• Qualitative research methods typically require more detailed explanation than quantitative methods.
• Basic investigative procedures don't need to be explained in detail. Generally, you can assume that your readers have a general understanding of common research methods that social scientists use, such as surveys or focus groups.

• For example, suppose you conducted a survey and used a couple of other research papers to help construct the questions on your survey. You would mention those as contributing sources.

Justifying Your Choice of Methods

• Describe study participants specifically, and list any inclusion or exclusion criteria you used when forming your group of participants.
• Justify the size of your sample, if applicable, and describe how this affects whether your study can be generalized to larger populations. For example, if you conducted a survey of 30 percent of the student population of a university, you could potentially apply those results to the student body as a whole, but maybe not to students at other universities.

• Reading other research papers is a good way to identify potential problems that commonly arise with various methods. State whether you actually encountered any of these common problems during your research.

• If you encountered any problems as you collected data, explain clearly the steps you took to minimize the effect that problem would have on your results.

• In some cases, this may be as simple as stating that while there were numerous studies using one method, there weren't any using your method, which caused a gap in understanding of the issue.
• For example, there may be multiple papers providing quantitative analysis of a particular social trend. However, none of these papers looked closely at how this trend was affecting the lives of people.

Connecting Your Methods to Your Research Goals

• Depending on your research questions, you may be mixing quantitative and qualitative analysis – just as you could potentially use both approaches. For example, you might do a statistical analysis, and then interpret those statistics through a particular theoretical lens.

• For example, suppose you're researching the effect of college education on family farms in rural America. While you could do interviews of college-educated people who grew up on a family farm, that would not give you a picture of the overall effect. A quantitative approach and statistical analysis would give you a bigger picture.

• If in answering your research questions, your findings have raised other questions that may require further research, state these briefly.
• You can also include here any limitations to your methods, or questions that weren't answered through your research.

• Generalization is more typically used in quantitative research. If you have a well-designed sample, you can statistically apply your results to the larger population your sample belongs to.

Template to Write Research Methodology

Community Q&A

Video . By using this service, some information may be shared with YouTube.

• Organize your methodology section chronologically, starting with how you prepared to conduct your research methods, how you gathered data, and how you analyzed that data. [13] X Research source Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0
• Write your research methodology section in past tense, unless you're submitting the methodology section before the research described has been carried out. [14] X Research source Thanks Helpful 1 Not Helpful 0
• Discuss your plans in detail with your advisor or supervisor before committing to a particular methodology. They can help identify possible flaws in your study. [15] X Research source Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0

You Might Also Like

• ↑ http://expertjournals.com/how-to-write-a-research-methodology-for-your-academic-article/
• ↑ http://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/methodology
• ↑ https://www.skillsyouneed.com/learn/dissertation-methodology.html
• ↑ https://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10500/4245/05Chap%204_Research%20methodology%20and%20design.pdf
• ↑ https://elc.polyu.edu.hk/FYP/html/method.htm

About This Article

To write a research methodology, start with a section that outlines the problems or questions you'll be studying, including your hypotheses or whatever it is you're setting out to prove. Then, briefly explain why you chose to use either a qualitative or quantitative approach for your study. Next, go over when and where you conducted your research and what parameters you used to ensure you were objective. Finally, cite any sources you used to decide on the methodology for your research. To learn how to justify your choice of methods in your research methodology, scroll down! Did this summary help you? Yes No

• Send fan mail to authors

Did this article help you?

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

wikiHow Tech Help Pro:

Level up your tech skills and stay ahead of the curve

Research Methodology Example

Detailed Walkthrough + Free Methodology Chapter Template

If you’re working on a dissertation or thesis and are looking for an example of a research methodology chapter , you’ve come to the right place.

In this video, we walk you through a research methodology from a dissertation that earned full distinction , step by step. We start off by discussing the core components of a research methodology by unpacking our free methodology chapter template . We then progress to the sample research methodology to show how these concepts are applied in an actual dissertation, thesis or research project.

If you’re currently working on your research methodology chapter, you may also find the following resources useful:

• Research methodology 101 : an introductory video discussing what a methodology is and the role it plays within a dissertation
• Research design 101 : an overview of the most common research designs for both qualitative and quantitative studies
• Variables 101 : an introductory video covering the different types of variables that exist within research.
• Sampling 101 : an overview of the main sampling methods
• Methodology tips : a video discussion covering various tips to help you write a high-quality methodology chapter
• Private coaching : Get hands-on help with your research methodology

FAQ: Research Methodology Example

Research methodology example: frequently asked questions, is the sample research methodology real.

Yes. The chapter example is an extract from a Master’s-level dissertation for an MBA program. A few minor edits have been made to protect the privacy of the sponsoring organisation, but these have no material impact on the research methodology.

Can I replicate this methodology for my dissertation?

As we discuss in the video, every research methodology will be different, depending on the research aims, objectives and research questions. Therefore, you’ll need to tailor your literature review to suit your specific context.

You can learn more about the basics of writing a research methodology chapter here .

Where can I find more examples of research methodologies?

The best place to find more examples of methodology chapters would be within dissertation/thesis databases. These databases include dissertations, theses and research projects that have successfully passed the assessment criteria for the respective university, meaning that you have at least some sort of quality assurance.

The Open Access Thesis Database (OATD) is a good starting point.

How do I get the research methodology chapter template?

You can access our free methodology chapter template here .

Is the methodology template really free?

Yes. There is no cost for the template and you are free to use it as you wish.

You Might Also Like:

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

• Advertising
• Applications
• Assessments
• Certificates
• Announcement
• Invitations
• Newsletters
• Questionnaires
• Food & Beverages
• Recruitment
• Marketing Examples
• Transportation

30+ Research Report Examples in PDF | Word | Apple Pages | Google Docs

Research report, brand research report template, academic research report template, investment research report template, equity research report template, corporate research report template, product research report template, research progress report template, market research report template, research report executive summary template, research report gantt chart template, company research report template, business research report template, monthly research report template, survey research report template, quantitative research report template, research paper report template, acknowledgement for research project report, business project report word template, printable survey report template, training report template to edit, formal report template ms word, research report cover page template, sample equity research, market research report, research report outline, action research report, company research report example, psychology research, final research report, sample of research report, statistics report, what is a research report, tips for writing your own research report, what are the different types of research reports, what are the different components of a research report outline, how can you end or conclude a research report.

• Google Docs
• Apple Pages

Tip 1: Decide on the Report Type

Tip 2: identify your goals, tip 3: keep everything organized, tip 4: do not neglect to proofread, more design, 8+ feasibility report examples, 8+ visit report examples & samples, 7+ marketing report examples, 7+ activity report examples, 6+ technical report examples, how to write an evaluation report, what should be in an executive summary of a report, how to write a progress report, 37+ examples of free reports, 23+ examples of expense reports, 10+ audit report examples & samples, 8+ annual report examples.

Related Articles

• id; ?>)" rel="noopener" role="button" tabindex aria-label="postclick">10+ Quality Report Examples
• id; ?>)" rel="noopener" role="button" tabindex aria-label="postclick">12+ Financial Report Examples