writing the methods section research

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 Complex Systems
• PLOS Computational Biology
• PLOS Digital Health
• PLOS Genetics
• PLOS Global Public Health
• PLOS Medicine
• PLOS Mental Health
• 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

The contents of the Peer Review Center are also available as a live, interactive training session, complete with slides, talking points, and activities. …

The contents of the Writing Center are also available as a live, interactive training session, complete with slides, talking points, and activities. …

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…

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

How to Write a Methods Section for a Psychology Paper

Tips and Examples of an APA Methods Section

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Emily is a board-certified science editor who has worked with top digital publishing brands like Voices for Biodiversity, Study.com, GoodTherapy, Vox, and Verywell.

Verywell / Brianna Gilmartin 

The methods section of an APA format psychology paper provides the methods and procedures used in a research study or experiment . This part of an APA paper is critical because it allows other researchers to see exactly how you conducted your research.

Method refers to the procedure that was used in a research study. It included a precise description of how the experiments were performed and why particular procedures were selected. While the APA technically refers to this section as the 'method section,' it is also often known as a 'methods section.'

The methods section ensures the experiment's reproducibility and the assessment of alternative methods that might produce different results. It also allows researchers to replicate the experiment and judge the study's validity.

This article discusses how to write a methods section for a psychology paper, including important elements to include and tips that can help.

What to Include in a Method Section

So what exactly do you need to include when writing your method section? You should provide detailed information on the following:

• Research design
• Participants
• Participant behavior

The method section should provide enough information to allow other researchers to replicate your experiment or study.

Components of a Method Section

The method section should utilize subheadings to divide up different subsections. These subsections typically include participants, materials, design, and procedure.

Participants 

In this part of the method section, you should describe the participants in your experiment, including who they were (and any unique features that set them apart from the general population), how many there were, and how they were selected. If you utilized random selection to choose your participants, it should be noted here.

For example: "We randomly selected 100 children from elementary schools near the University of Arizona."

At the very minimum, this part of your method section must convey:

• Basic demographic characteristics of your participants (such as sex, age, ethnicity, or religion)
• The population from which your participants were drawn
• Any restrictions on your pool of participants
• How many participants were assigned to each condition and how they were assigned to each group (i.e., randomly assignment , another selection method, etc.)
• Why participants took part in your research (i.e., the study was advertised at a college or hospital, they received some type of incentive, etc.)

Information about participants helps other researchers understand how your study was performed, how generalizable the result might be, and allows other researchers to replicate the experiment with other populations to see if they might obtain the same results.

In this part of the method section, you should describe the materials, measures, equipment, or stimuli used in the experiment. This may include:

• Testing instruments
• Technical equipment
• Any psychological assessments that were used
• Any special equipment that was used

For example: "Two stories from Sullivan et al.'s (1994) second-order false belief attribution tasks were used to assess children's understanding of second-order beliefs."

For standard equipment such as computers, televisions, and videos, you can simply name the device and not provide further explanation.

Specialized equipment should be given greater detail, especially if it is complex or created for a niche purpose. In some instances, such as if you created a special material or apparatus for your study, you might need to include an illustration of the item in the appendix of your paper.

In this part of your method section, describe the type of design used in the experiment. Specify the variables as well as the levels of these variables. Identify:

• The independent variables
• Dependent variables
• Control variables
• Any extraneous variables that might influence your results.

Also, explain whether your experiment uses a  within-groups  or between-groups design.

For example: "The experiment used a 3x2 between-subjects design. The independent variables were age and understanding of second-order beliefs."

The next part of your method section should detail the procedures used in your experiment. Your procedures should explain:

• What the participants did
• How data was collected
• The order in which steps occurred

For example: "An examiner interviewed children individually at their school in one session that lasted 20 minutes on average. The examiner explained to each child that he or she would be told two short stories and that some questions would be asked after each story. All sessions were videotaped so the data could later be coded."

Keep this subsection concise yet detailed. Explain what you did and how you did it, but do not overwhelm your readers with too much information.

Tips for How to Write a Methods Section

In addition to following the basic structure of an APA method section, there are also certain things you should remember when writing this section of your paper. Consider the following tips when writing this section:

• Use the past tense : Always write the method section in the past tense.
• Be descriptive : Provide enough detail that another researcher could replicate your experiment, but focus on brevity. Avoid unnecessary detail that is not relevant to the outcome of the experiment.
• Use an academic tone : Use formal language and avoid slang or colloquial expressions. Word choice is also important. Refer to the people in your experiment or study as "participants" rather than "subjects."
• Use APA format : Keep a style guide on hand as you write your method section. The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association is the official source for APA style.
• Make connections : Read through each section of your paper for agreement with other sections. If you mention procedures in the method section, these elements should be discussed in the results and discussion sections.
• Proofread : Check your paper for grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.. typos, grammar problems, and spelling errors. Although a spell checker is a handy tool, there are some errors only you can catch.

After writing a draft of your method section, be sure to get a second opinion. You can often become too close to your work to see errors or lack of clarity. Take a rough draft of your method section to your university's writing lab for additional assistance.

A Word From Verywell

The method section is one of the most important components of your APA format paper. The goal of your paper should be to clearly detail what you did in your experiment. Provide enough detail that another researcher could replicate your study if they wanted.

Finally, if you are writing your paper for a class or for a specific publication, be sure to keep in mind any specific instructions provided by your instructor or by the journal editor. Your instructor may have certain requirements that you need to follow while writing your method section.

Frequently Asked Questions

While the subsections can vary, the three components that should be included are sections on the participants, the materials, and the procedures.

• Describe who the participants were in the study and how they were selected.
• Define and describe the materials that were used including any equipment, tests, or assessments
• Describe how the data was collected

To write your methods section in APA format, describe your participants, materials, study design, and procedures. Keep this section succinct, and always write in the past tense. The main heading of this section should be labeled "Method" and it should be centered, bolded, and capitalized. Each subheading within this section should be bolded, left-aligned and in title case.

The purpose of the methods section is to describe what you did in your experiment. It should be brief, but include enough detail that someone could replicate your experiment based on this information. Your methods section should detail what you did to answer your research question. Describe how the study was conducted, the study design that was used and why it was chosen, and how you collected the data and analyzed the results.

Erdemir F. How to write a materials and methods section of a scientific article ? Turk J Urol . 2013;39(Suppl 1):10-5. doi:10.5152/tud.2013.047

Kallet RH. How to write the methods section of a research paper . Respir Care . 2004;49(10):1229-32. PMID: 15447808.

American Psychological Association.  Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association  (7th ed.). Washington DC: The American Psychological Association; 2019.

American Psychological Association. APA Style Journal Article Reporting Standards . Published 2020.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• 6. The Methodology
• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Reading Research Effectively
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Applying Critical Thinking
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Research Process Video Series
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Insiderness
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Generative AI and Writing
• USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
• Bibliography

The methods section describes actions taken to investigate a research problem and the rationale for the application of specific procedures or techniques used to identify, select, process, and analyze information applied to understanding the problem, thereby, allowing the reader to critically evaluate a study’s overall validity and reliability. The methodology section of a research paper answers two main questions: How was the data collected or generated? And, how was it analyzed? The writing should be direct and precise and always written in the past tense.

Kallet, Richard H. "How to Write the Methods Section of a Research Paper." Respiratory Care 49 (October 2004): 1229-1232.

Importance of a Good Methodology Section

You must explain how you obtained and analyzed your results for the following reasons:

• Readers need to know how the data was obtained because the method you chose affects the results and, by extension, how you interpreted their significance in the discussion section of your paper.
• Methodology is crucial for any branch of scholarship because an unreliable method produces unreliable results and, as a consequence, undermines the value of your analysis of the findings.
• In most cases, there are a variety of different methods you can choose to investigate a research problem. The methodology section of your paper should clearly articulate the reasons why you have chosen a particular procedure or technique.
• The reader wants to know that the data was collected or generated in a way that is consistent with accepted practice in the field of study. For example, if you are using a multiple choice questionnaire, readers need to know that it offered your respondents a reasonable range of answers to choose from.
• The method must be appropriate to fulfilling the overall aims of the study. For example, you need to ensure that you have a large enough sample size to be able to generalize and make recommendations based upon the findings.
• The methodology should discuss the problems that were anticipated and the steps you took to prevent them from occurring. For any problems that do arise, you must describe the ways in which they were minimized or why these problems do not impact in any meaningful way your interpretation of the findings.
• In the social and behavioral sciences, it is important to always provide sufficient information to allow other researchers to adopt or replicate your methodology. This information is particularly important when a new method has been developed or an innovative use of an existing method is utilized.

Bem, Daryl J. Writing the Empirical Journal Article. Psychology Writing Center. University of Washington; Denscombe, Martyn. The Good Research Guide: For Small-Scale Social Research Projects . 5th edition. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press, 2014; Lunenburg, Frederick C. Writing a Successful Thesis or Dissertation: Tips and Strategies for Students in the Social and Behavioral Sciences . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 2008.

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Groups of Research Methods

There are two main groups of research methods in the social sciences:

• The e mpirical-analytical group approaches the study of social sciences in a similar manner that researchers study the natural sciences . This type of research focuses on objective knowledge, research questions that can be answered yes or no, and operational definitions of variables to be measured. The empirical-analytical group employs deductive reasoning that uses existing theory as a foundation for formulating hypotheses that need to be tested. This approach is focused on explanation.
• The i nterpretative group of methods is focused on understanding phenomenon in a comprehensive, holistic way . Interpretive methods focus on analytically disclosing the meaning-making practices of human subjects [the why, how, or by what means people do what they do], while showing how those practices arrange so that it can be used to generate observable outcomes. Interpretive methods allow you to recognize your connection to the phenomena under investigation. However, the interpretative group requires careful examination of variables because it focuses more on subjective knowledge.

II.  Content

The introduction to your methodology section should begin by restating the research problem and underlying assumptions underpinning your study. This is followed by situating the methods you used to gather, analyze, and process information within the overall “tradition” of your field of study and within the particular research design you have chosen to study the problem. If the method you choose lies outside of the tradition of your field [i.e., your review of the literature demonstrates that the method is not commonly used], provide a justification for how your choice of methods specifically addresses the research problem in ways that have not been utilized in prior studies.

The remainder of your methodology section should describe the following:

• Decisions made in selecting the data you have analyzed or, in the case of qualitative research, the subjects and research setting you have examined,
• Tools and methods used to identify and collect information, and how you identified relevant variables,
• The ways in which you processed the data and the procedures you used to analyze that data, and
• The specific research tools or strategies that you utilized to study the underlying hypothesis and research questions.

In addition, an effectively written methodology section should:

• Introduce the overall methodological approach for investigating your research problem . Is your study qualitative or quantitative or a combination of both (mixed method)? Are you going to take a special approach, such as action research, or a more neutral stance?
• Indicate how the approach fits the overall research design . Your methods for gathering data should have a clear connection to your research problem. In other words, make sure that your methods will actually address the problem. One of the most common deficiencies found in research papers is that the proposed methodology is not suitable to achieving the stated objective of your paper.
• Describe the specific methods of data collection you are going to use , such as, surveys, interviews, questionnaires, observation, archival research. If you are analyzing existing data, such as a data set or archival documents, describe how it was originally created or gathered and by whom. Also be sure to explain how older data is still relevant to investigating the current research problem.
• Explain how you intend to analyze your results . Will you use statistical analysis? Will you use specific theoretical perspectives to help you analyze a text or explain observed behaviors? Describe how you plan to obtain an accurate assessment of relationships, patterns, trends, distributions, and possible contradictions found in the data.
• Provide background and a rationale for methodologies that are unfamiliar for your readers . Very often in the social sciences, research problems and the methods for investigating them require more explanation/rationale than widely accepted rules governing the natural and physical sciences. Be clear and concise in your explanation.
• Provide a justification for subject selection and sampling procedure . For instance, if you propose to conduct interviews, how do you intend to select the sample population? If you are analyzing texts, which texts have you chosen, and why? If you are using statistics, why is this set of data being used? If other data sources exist, explain why the data you chose is most appropriate to addressing the research problem.
• Provide a justification for case study selection . A common method of analyzing research problems in the social sciences is to analyze specific cases. These can be a person, place, event, phenomenon, or other type of subject of analysis that are either examined as a singular topic of in-depth investigation or multiple topics of investigation studied for the purpose of comparing or contrasting findings. In either method, you should explain why a case or cases were chosen and how they specifically relate to the research problem.
• Describe potential limitations . Are there any practical limitations that could affect your data collection? How will you attempt to control for potential confounding variables and errors? If your methodology may lead to problems you can anticipate, state this openly and show why pursuing this methodology outweighs the risk of these problems cropping up.

NOTE :   Once you have written all of the elements of the methods section, subsequent revisions should focus on how to present those elements as clearly and as logically as possibly. The description of how you prepared to study the research problem, how you gathered the data, and the protocol for analyzing the data should be organized chronologically. For clarity, when a large amount of detail must be presented, information should be presented in sub-sections according to topic. If necessary, consider using appendices for raw data.

ANOTHER NOTE : If you are conducting a qualitative analysis of a research problem , the methodology section generally requires a more elaborate description of the methods used as well as an explanation of the processes applied to gathering and analyzing of data than is generally required for studies using quantitative methods. Because you are the primary instrument for generating the data [e.g., through interviews or observations], the process for collecting that data has a significantly greater impact on producing the findings. Therefore, qualitative research requires a more detailed description of the methods used.

YET ANOTHER NOTE :   If your study involves interviews, observations, or other qualitative techniques involving human subjects , you may be required to obtain approval from the university's Office for the Protection of Research Subjects before beginning your research. This is not a common procedure for most undergraduate level student research assignments. However, i f your professor states you need approval, you must include a statement in your methods section that you received official endorsement and adequate informed consent from the office and that there was a clear assessment and minimization of risks to participants and to the university. This statement informs the reader that your study was conducted in an ethical and responsible manner. In some cases, the approval notice is included as an appendix to your paper.

III.  Problems to Avoid

Irrelevant Detail The methodology section of your paper should be thorough but concise. Do not provide any background information that does not directly help the reader understand why a particular method was chosen, how the data was gathered or obtained, and how the data was analyzed in relation to the research problem [note: analyzed, not interpreted! Save how you interpreted the findings for the discussion section]. With this in mind, the page length of your methods section will generally be less than any other section of your paper except the conclusion.

Unnecessary Explanation of Basic Procedures Remember that you are not writing a how-to guide about a particular method. You should make the assumption that readers possess a basic understanding of how to investigate the research problem on their own and, therefore, you do not have to go into great detail about specific methodological procedures. The focus should be on how you applied a method , not on the mechanics of doing a method. An exception to this rule is if you select an unconventional methodological approach; if this is the case, be sure to explain why this approach was chosen and how it enhances the overall process of discovery.

Problem Blindness It is almost a given that you will encounter problems when collecting or generating your data, or, gaps will exist in existing data or archival materials. Do not ignore these problems or pretend they did not occur. Often, documenting how you overcame obstacles can form an interesting part of the methodology. It demonstrates to the reader that you can provide a cogent rationale for the decisions you made to minimize the impact of any problems that arose.

Literature Review Just as the literature review section of your paper provides an overview of sources you have examined while researching a particular topic, the methodology section should cite any sources that informed your choice and application of a particular method [i.e., the choice of a survey should include any citations to the works you used to help construct the survey].

It’s More than Sources of Information! A description of a research study's method should not be confused with a description of the sources of information. Such a list of sources is useful in and of itself, especially if it is accompanied by an explanation about the selection and use of the sources. The description of the project's methodology complements a list of sources in that it sets forth the organization and interpretation of information emanating from those sources.

Azevedo, L.F. et al. "How to Write a Scientific Paper: Writing the Methods Section." Revista Portuguesa de Pneumologia 17 (2011): 232-238; Blair Lorrie. “Choosing a Methodology.” In Writing a Graduate Thesis or Dissertation , Teaching Writing Series. (Rotterdam: Sense Publishers 2016), pp. 49-72; Butin, Dan W. The Education Dissertation A Guide for Practitioner Scholars . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin, 2010; Carter, Susan. Structuring Your Research Thesis . New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012; Kallet, Richard H. “How to Write the Methods Section of a Research Paper.” Respiratory Care 49 (October 2004):1229-1232; Lunenburg, Frederick C. Writing a Successful Thesis or Dissertation: Tips and Strategies for Students in the Social and Behavioral Sciences . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 2008. Methods Section. The Writer’s Handbook. Writing Center. University of Wisconsin, Madison; Rudestam, Kjell Erik and Rae R. Newton. “The Method Chapter: Describing Your Research Plan.” In Surviving Your Dissertation: A Comprehensive Guide to Content and Process . (Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications, 2015), pp. 87-115; What is Interpretive Research. Institute of Public and International Affairs, University of Utah; Writing the Experimental Report: Methods, Results, and Discussion. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Methods and Materials. The Structure, Format, Content, and Style of a Journal-Style Scientific Paper. Department of Biology. Bates College.

Writing Tip

Statistical Designs and Tests? Do Not Fear Them!

Don't avoid using a quantitative approach to analyzing your research problem just because you fear the idea of applying statistical designs and tests. A qualitative approach, such as conducting interviews or content analysis of archival texts, can yield exciting new insights about a research problem, but it should not be undertaken simply because you have a disdain for running a simple regression. A well designed quantitative research study can often be accomplished in very clear and direct ways, whereas, a similar study of a qualitative nature usually requires considerable time to analyze large volumes of data and a tremendous burden to create new paths for analysis where previously no path associated with your research problem had existed.

To locate data and statistics, GO HERE .

Another Writing Tip

Knowing the Relationship Between Theories and Methods

There can be multiple meaning associated with the term "theories" and the term "methods" in social sciences research. A helpful way to delineate between them is to understand "theories" as representing different ways of characterizing the social world when you research it and "methods" as representing different ways of generating and analyzing data about that social world. Framed in this way, all empirical social sciences research involves theories and methods, whether they are stated explicitly or not. However, while theories and methods are often related, it is important that, as a researcher, you deliberately separate them in order to avoid your theories playing a disproportionate role in shaping what outcomes your chosen methods produce.

Introspectively engage in an ongoing dialectic between the application of theories and methods to help enable you to use the outcomes from your methods to interrogate and develop new theories, or ways of framing conceptually the research problem. This is how scholarship grows and branches out into new intellectual territory.

Reynolds, R. Larry. Ways of Knowing. Alternative Microeconomics . Part 1, Chapter 3. Boise State University; The Theory-Method Relationship. S-Cool Revision. United Kingdom.

Yet Another Writing Tip

Methods and the Methodology

Do not confuse the terms "methods" and "methodology." As Schneider notes, a method refers to the technical steps taken to do research . Descriptions of methods usually include defining and stating why you have chosen specific techniques to investigate a research problem, followed by an outline of the procedures you used to systematically select, gather, and process the data [remember to always save the interpretation of data for the discussion section of your paper].

The methodology refers to a discussion of the underlying reasoning why particular methods were used . This discussion includes describing the theoretical concepts that inform the choice of methods to be applied, placing the choice of methods within the more general nature of academic work, and reviewing its relevance to examining the research problem. The methodology section also includes a thorough review of the methods other scholars have used to study the topic.

Bryman, Alan. "Of Methods and Methodology." Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal 3 (2008): 159-168; Schneider, Florian. “What's in a Methodology: The Difference between Method, Methodology, and Theory…and How to Get the Balance Right?” PoliticsEastAsia.com. Chinese Department, University of Leiden, Netherlands.

• << Previous: Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Next: Qualitative Methods >>
• Last Updated: May 2, 2024 4:39 PM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

• Link to facebook
• Link to linkedin
• Link to twitter
• Link to youtube
• Writing Tips

How to Write the Methods Section of an APA Paper

3-minute read

• 23rd December 2021

If you’re a researcher writing an APA paper , you’ll need to include a Methods section. This part explains the methods you used to conduct your experiment or research study and is always written in the past tense.

It’s crucial that you include all the relevant information here because other researchers will use this section to recreate your study, as well as judge how valid and accurate your results are.

In this guide, we’ll show you how to write a clear and comprehensive Methods section for your research paper.

Structuring the Methods Section

This section of an APA paper is typically split into three subsections under the following subheadings:

• Participants —who took part in the experiment and why?
• Materials —what tools did you use to conduct the experiment?
• Procedure —what steps were involved in the experiment?

If necessary, you may add further subsections. Different institutions have specific rules on what subsections should be included (for example, some universities require a “Design” subsection), so make sure to check your institution’s requirements before you start writing your Methods section.

Writing the Participants Subsection

In this first subsection, you will need to identify the participants of your experiment or study. You should include:

●  How many people took part, and how many were assigned to the experimental condition

●  How they were selected for participation

●  Any relevant demographic information (e.g., age, sex, ethnicity)

You’ll also need to address whether any restrictions were placed on who was selected and if any incentives were offered to encourage participants to take part.

Writing the Materials Subsection

In this subsection, you should address the materials, equipment, measures, and stimuli used in the study. These might include technology and computer software, tools such as questionnaires and psychological assessments, and, if relevant, the physical setting where the study took place.

You’ll need to describe specialist equipment in detail, especially if it has a niche purpose. However, you don’t need to provide specific information about common or standard equipment (e.g., the type of computer on which participants completed a survey) unless it’s relevant to the experiment.

Find this useful?

Subscribe to our newsletter and get writing tips from our editors straight to your inbox.

In addition, you don’t need to explain a material in depth if it’s well known within your field, such as a famous psychological assessment. Instead, you can provide a citation referring to that material.

If any materials were designed specifically for the experiment, such as a questionnaire, you’ll need to provide such materials in the appendix .

Writing the Procedure Subsection

The procedure subsection should describe what you had participants do in a step-by-step format. It should be detailed but concise and will typically include:

●  A summary of the instructions given to participants (as well as any information that was intentionally withheld)

●  A description of how participants in different conditions were treated

●  How long each step of the process took

●  How participants were debriefed or dismissed at the end of the experiment

After detailing the steps of the experiment, you should then address the methods you used to collect and analyze data.

Proofreading Your Methods Section

Because the Methods section of your paper will help other researchers understand and recreate your experiment, you’ll want your writing to be at its best.

Our expert research paper proofreaders can help your research get the recognition it deserves by making sure your work is clear, concise, and error-free. Why not try our services for free by submitting a trial document ?

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

Got content that needs a quick turnaround? Let us polish your work. Explore our editorial business services.

How to insert a text box in a google doc.

Google Docs is a powerful collaborative tool, and mastering its features can significantly enhance your...

2-minute read

How to Cite the CDC in APA

If you’re writing about health issues, you might need to reference the Centers for Disease...

5-minute read

Six Product Description Generator Tools for Your Product Copy

Introduction If you’re involved with ecommerce, you’re likely familiar with the often painstaking process of...

What Is a Content Editor?

Are you interested in learning more about the role of a content editor and the...

4-minute read

The Benefits of Using an Online Proofreading Service

Proofreading is important to ensure your writing is clear and concise for your readers. Whether...

6 Online AI Presentation Maker Tools

Creating presentations can be time-consuming and frustrating. Trying to construct a visually appealing and informative...

Make sure your writing is the best it can be with our expert English proofreading and editing.

• Affiliate Program

• UNITED STATES
• 台灣 (TAIWAN)
• TÜRKIYE (TURKEY)
• Academic Editing Services
• - Research Paper
• - Journal Manuscript
• - Dissertation
• - College & University Assignments
• Admissions Editing Services
• - Application Essay
• - Personal Statement
• - Recommendation Letter
• - Cover Letter
• - CV/Resume
• Business Editing Services
• - Business Documents
• - Report & Brochure
• - Website & Blog
• Writer Editing Services
• - Script & Screenplay
• Our Editors
• Client Reviews
• Editing & Proofreading Prices
• Wordvice Points
• Partner Discount
• Plagiarism Checker
• APA Citation Generator
• MLA Citation Generator
• Chicago Citation Generator
• Vancouver Citation Generator
• - APA Style
• - MLA Style
• - Chicago Style
• - Vancouver Style
• Writing & Editing Guide
• Academic Resources
• Admissions Resources

How to Write a Methods Section for a Research Paper

A common piece of advice for authors preparing their first journal article for publication is to start with the methods section: just list everything that was done and go from there. While that might seem like a very practical approach to a first draft, if you do this without a clear outline and a story in mind, you can easily end up with journal manuscript sections that are not logically related to each other. 

Since the methods section constitutes the core of your paper, no matter when you write it, you need to use it to guide the reader carefully through your story from beginning to end without leaving questions unanswered. Missing or confusing details in this section will likely lead to early rejection of your manuscript or unnecessary back-and-forth with the reviewers until eventual publication. Here, you will find some useful tips on how to make your methods section the logical foundation of your research paper.

Not just a list of experiments and methods

While your introduction section provides the reader with the necessary background to understand your rationale and research question (and, depending on journal format and your personal preference, might already summarize the results), the methods section explains what exactly you did and how you did it. The point of this section is not to list all the boring details just for the sake of completeness. The purpose of the methods sections is to enable the reader to replicate exactly what you did, verify or corroborate your results, or maybe find that there are factors you did not consider or that are more relevant than expected. 

To make this section as easy to read as possible, you must clearly connect it to the information you provide in the introduction section before and the results section after, it needs to have a clear structure (chronologically or according to topics), and you need to present your results according to the same structure or topics later in the manuscript. There are also official guidelines and journal instructions to follow and ethical issues to avoid to ensure that your manuscript can quickly reach the publication stage.

Table of Contents:

• General Methods Structure: What is Your Story? 
• What Methods Should You Report (and Leave Out)? 
• Details Frequently Missing from the Methods Section

More Journal Guidelines to Consider 

• Accurate and Appropriate Language in the Methods

General Methods Section Structure: What Is Your Story? 

You might have conducted a number of experiments, maybe also a pilot before the main study to determine some specific factors or a follow-up experiment to clarify unclear details later in the process. Throwing all of these into your methods section, however, might not help the reader understand how everything is connected and how useful and appropriate your methodological approach is to investigate your specific research question. You therefore need to first come up with a clear outline and decide what to report and how to present that to the reader.

The first (and very important) decision to make is whether you present your experiments chronologically (e.g., Experiment 1, Experiment 2, Experiment 3… ), and guide the reader through every step of the process, or if you organize everything according to subtopics (e.g., Behavioral measures, Structural imaging markers, Functional imaging markers… ). In both cases, you need to use clear subheaders for the different subsections of your methods, and, very importantly, follow the same structure or focus on the same topics/measures in the results section so that the reader can easily follow along (see the two examples below).

If you are in doubt which way of organizing your experiments is better for your study, just ask yourself the following questions:

• Does the reader need to know the timeline of your study? 
• Is it relevant that one experiment was conducted first, because the outcome of this experiment determined the stimuli or factors that went into the next?
• Did the results of your first experiment leave important questions open that you addressed in an additional experiment (that was maybe not planned initially)?
• Is the answer to all of these questions “no”? Then organizing your methods section according to topics of interest might be the more logical choice.

If you think your timeline, protocol, or setup might be confusing or difficult for the reader to grasp, consider adding a graphic, flow diagram, decision tree, or table as a visual aid.

What Methods Should You Report (and Leave Out)?

The answer to this question is quite simple–you need to report everything that another researcher needs to know to be able to replicate your study. Just imagine yourself reading your methods section in the future and trying to set up the same experiments again without prior knowledge. You would probably need to ask questions such as:

• Where did you conduct your experiments (e.g., in what kind of room, under what lighting or temperature conditions, if those are relevant)? 
• What devices did you use? Are there specific settings to report?
• What specific software (and version of that software) did you use?
• How did you find and select your participants?
• How did you assign participants into groups?  
• Did you exclude participants from the analysis? Why and how?
• Where did your reagents or antibodies come from? Can you provide a Research Resource Identifier (RRID) ?
• Did you make your stimuli yourself or did you get them from somewhere?
• Are the stimuli you used available for other researchers?
• What kind of questionnaires did you use? Have they been validated?
• How did you analyze your data? What level of significance did you use?
• Were there any technical issues and did you have to adjust protocols?

Note that for every experimental detail you provide, you need to tell the reader (briefly) why you used this type of stimulus/this group of participants/these specific amounts of reagents. If there is earlier published research reporting the same methods, cite those studies. If you did pilot experiments to determine those details, describe the procedures and the outcomes of these experiments. If you made assumptions about the suitability of something based on the literature and common practice at your institution, then explain that to the reader.

In a nutshell, established methods need to be cited, and new methods need to be clearly described and briefly justified. However, if the fact that you use a new approach or a method that is not traditionally used for the data or phenomenon you study is one of the main points of your study (and maybe already reflected in the title of your article), then you need to explain your rationale for doing so in the introduction already and discuss it in more detail in the discussion section .

Note that you also need to explain your statistical analyses at the end of your methods section. You present the results of these analyses later, in the results section of your paper, but you need to show the reader in the methods section already that your approach is either well-established or valid, even if it is new or unusual. 

When it comes to the question of what details you should leave out, the answer is equally simple ‒ everything that you would not need to replicate your study in the future. If the educational background of your participants is listed in your institutional database but is not relevant to your study outcome, then don’t include that. Other things you should not include in the methods section:

• Background information that you already presented in the introduction section.
• In-depth comparisons of different methods ‒ these belong in the discussion section.
• Results, unless you summarize outcomes of pilot experiments that helped you determine factors for your main experiment.

Also, make sure your subheadings are as clear as possible, suit the structure you chose for your methods section, and are in line with the target journal guidelines. If you studied a disease intervention in human participants, then your methods section could look similar to this:

Since the main point of interest here are your patient-centered outcome variables, you would center your results section on these as well and choose your headers accordingly (e.g., Patient characteristics, Baseline evaluation, Outcome variable 1, Outcome variable 2, Drop-out rate ). 

If, instead, you did a series of visual experiments investigating the perception of faces including a pilot experiment to create the stimuli for your actual study, you would need to structure your methods section in a very different way, maybe like this:

Since here the analysis and outcome of the pilot experiment are already described in the methods section (as the basis for the main experimental setup and procedure), you do not have to mention it again in the results section. Instead, you could choose the two main experiments to structure your results section ( Discrimination and classification, Familiarization and adaptation ), or divide the results into all your test measures and/or potential interactions you described in the methods section (e.g., Discrimination performance, Classification performance, Adaptation aftereffects, Correlation analysis ).

Details Commonly Missing from the Methods Section

Manufacturer information.

For laboratory or technical equipment, you need to provide the model, name of the manufacturer, and company’s location. The usual format for these details is the product name (company name, city, state) for US-based manufacturers and the product name (company name, city/town, country) for companies outside the US.

Sample size and power estimation

Power and sample size estimations are measures for how many patients or participants are needed in a study in order to detect statistical significance and draw meaningful conclusions from the results. Outside of the medical field, studies are sometimes still conducted with a “the more the better” approach in mind, but since many journals now ask for those details, it is better to not skip this important step.

Ethical guidelines and approval

In addition to describing what you did, you also need to assure the editor and reviewers that your methods and protocols followed all relevant ethical standards and guidelines. This includes applying for approval at your local or national ethics committee, providing the name or location of that committee as well as the approval reference number you received, and, if you studied human participants, a statement that participants were informed about all relevant experimental details in advance and signed consent forms before the start of the study. For animal studies, you usually need to provide a statement that all procedures included in your research were in line with the Declaration of Helsinki. Make sure you check the target journal guidelines carefully, as these statements sometimes need to be placed at the end of the main article text rather than in the method section.

Structure & word limitations

While many journals simply follow the usual style guidelines (e.g., APA for the social sciences and psychology, AMA for medical research) and let you choose the headers of your method section according to your preferred structure and focus, some have precise guidelines and strict limitations, for example, on manuscript length and the maximum number of subsections or header levels. Make sure you read the instructions of your target journal carefully and restructure your method section if necessary before submission. If the journal does not give you enough space to include all the details that you deem necessary, then you can usually submit additional details as “supplemental” files and refer to those in the main text where necessary.

Standardized checklists

In addition to ethical guidelines and approval, journals also often ask you to submit one of the official standardized checklists for different study types to ensure all essential details are included in your manuscript. For example, there are checklists 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) .

Make sure you check if the manuscript uses a single- or double-blind review procedure , and delete all information that might allow a reviewer to guess where the authors are located from the manuscript text if necessary. This means that your method section cannot list the name and location of your institution, the names of researchers who conducted specific tests, or the name of your institutional ethics committee.  

Accurate and Appropriate Language in the Methods Section

Like all sections of your research paper, your method section needs to be written in an academic tone . That means it should be formal, vague expressions and colloquial language need to be avoided, and you need to correctly cite all your sources. If you describe human participants in your method section then you should be especially careful about your choice of words. For example, “participants” sounds more respectful than “subjects,” and patient-first language, that is, “patients with cancer,” is considered more appropriate than “cancer patients” by many journals.

Passive voice is often considered the standard for research papers, but it is completely fine to mix passive and active voice, even in the method section, to make your text as clear and concise as possible. Use the simple past tense to describe what you did, and the present tense when you refer to diagrams or tables. Have a look at this article if you need more general input on which verb tenses to use in a research paper . 

Lastly, make sure you label all the standard tests and questionnaires you use correctly (look up the original publication when in doubt) and spell genes and proteins according to the common databases for the species you studied, such as the HUGO Gene Nomenclature Committee database for human studies .  

Visit Wordvice AI’s AI Text Editor to receive a free grammar check and English editing services (including manuscript editing , paper editing , and dissertation editing ) before submitting your manuscript to journal editors.

We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you’re on board with our cookie policy

• A Research Guide
• Research Paper Guide

How to Write a Methods Section for a Research Paper

• Purpose of methods section
• Key components
• How to describe
• Step-by-step guide
• Methods section formats
• Additional elements

Purpose of the Methods section

What key components must be included in the methods section.

• Research design. This is the most important section to help your audience see the methods used. Make sure to structure your research methodology correctly and follow the rules of the scientific field. Depending on your work type, the research design of a methods section should represent an outline with the basic introduction, set objectives, a lab/field environment, and other related elements.
• Participants. When dealing with a sample group or a case study, you must discuss the research participants. Always narrow things down to why a specific group of participants have been chosen and talk about how it will be helpful to stay objective and unbiased.
• Equipment. This part describes the set of tools that have been used. Writing a methods section can include software, hardware, voice recorders, chemical equipment, special labs, and more.
• Materials. Describe what materials have been used for your studies. Talk about the studies and procedures used based on the available data.
• Variables. Talk about independent and dependent variables. The independent variables are related to those elements of your research that can be changed, like the amount of water or the use of certain colors to replicate a process. As for dependent variables, these are those affected by specific changes. In other words, variables in a methods section can change during the process of studies, like the experiment outcome or exceptions in the sample group.
• Participant behavior . This is where you talk about what has been experienced by the participants (if relevant). A methods section example may include a description of actions taken, processes experienced, and the environment used to conduct the research.

How to describe your research design and procedures?

• Reflect on your hypothesis . Talk about variables or aspects you should research. This is a procedure section of a research paper where you describe the type of information you must collect as you work on your main arguments. Narrow down the scope of data that has to be evaluated.
• Define your research approach . In most cases, it can be either qualitative or quantitative. While you can choose a mixture of both for your paper, focusing on one to clarify a relevant section is recommended.
• Choose your research design type . If you are dealing with quantitative research, it’s possible to use experimental, quasi-experimental, correlational, or descriptive design methods. Suppose you are choosing a qualitative design methodology. In that case, you may approach ethnography (a method based on cultural immersion, inside research), phenomenology (research based on the perspective of an individual, an intuitive analytical variable), or a grounded method (social-based research).
• Define your research sampling method . The risk here is to generate excessive data, making it extremely challenging to see things to include and avoid. You can choose a probabilistic sampling method or a deterministic sampling approach, also known as non-random selection. Certain methods can fit better depending on the materials section of the research paper. If you still choose a non-random design, the only challenge is that the latter sampling method is more biased.
• Evaluate the best data collection method . Start your Methodology section by marking the difference between your primary (surveys, interviews) and secondary data (references that have already been published) sources.
• Choose an approach to data analysis . You can alternate between qualitative and quantitative data analysis methods section approaches.

Step-by-step guide on how to compose your Methods section

• Step 1: Focus on two main purposes of your Methods section. You should help your target audience understand your research project easier and make it possible to replicate all the vital processes.
• Step 2: Offer sufficient information to make replication unbiased and complete. While you may have your research project ready for publishing, providing overly detailed information is only sometimes necessary. Always check things twice to learn the requirements. Most importantly, keep your research transparent, provide a clear methodology, and keep every step easy to replicate.
• Step 3: To make things easier, imagine you are an individual in your target audience. Think about how you would replicate your study and what scientific paper methods you would find accessible. Ask yourself about what information you would require. Take notes and create 2-3 outlines for additional clarity.
• Step 4: Consider adding visual aid elements. It may include relevant flow charts, mind maps, checklists, or statistical data for your methodology. It will help your readers interpret the study and avoid unnecessary steps.
• Step 5: Always adhere to strict ethical standards and scientific guidelines. Even though the “Ethical Guidelines” section will be presented in another research paper part, you must show the main arguments and thesis concerning ethical rules. It will show that you are using strict standards and following the rules related to your discipline.

Methods section checklist

• Is your logic consistent in every section?
• Does your introduction provide sufficient background information?
• Does your methodology structure sound clear and follows a chronology of the research?
• Do you provide the results of your research in the same format?
• Can you replicate your study based on a given methodology?
• Do your readers have all the necessary objectives mentioned?
• Are the tools used mentioned?

Methods section formats and features

Additional elements to consider.

• Location specifics. This is where the location and research environment can make a major difference for replication purposes.
• Limitations of the research. Talk about the limitations and specifics of the tools and methods being used.
• Writing style and tone. Remember to write in the past tense and keep the same tone throughout your research paper.
• Ethical considerations. Clarify and specify all the ethical guidelines for your institution, a scientific journal methodology, and a field of science.
• Data analysis methodology.
• Participants and subjects.
• Data collection methodology.
• Things required to replicate the research.
• Addressing the research objectives.
• Basic research question.

• Writing a Research Paper
• Research Paper Title
• Research Paper Sources
• Research Paper Problem Statement
• Research Paper Thesis Statement
• Hypothesis for a Research Paper
• Research Question
• Research Paper Outline
• Research Paper Summary
• Research Paper Prospectus
• Research Paper Proposal
• Research Paper Format
• Research Paper Styles
• AMA Style Research Paper
• MLA Style Research Paper
• Chicago Style Research Paper
• APA Style Research Paper
• Research Paper Structure
• Research Paper Cover Page
• Research Paper Abstract
• Research Paper Introduction
• Research Paper Body Paragraph
• Research Paper Literature Review
• Research Paper Background
• Research Paper Methods Section
• Research Paper Results Section
• Research Paper Discussion Section
• Research Paper Conclusion
• Research Paper Appendix
• Research Paper Bibliography
• APA Reference Page
• Annotated Bibliography
• Bibliography vs Works Cited vs References Page
• Research Paper Types
• What is Qualitative Research

Receive paper in 3 Hours!

• Choose the number of pages.
• Select your deadline.
• Complete your order.

Number of Pages

550 words (double spaced)

Deadline: 10 days left

By clicking "Log In", you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We'll occasionally send you account related and promo emails.

Sign Up for your FREE account

• Translators
• Graphic Designers

Please enter the email address you used for your account. Your sign in information will be sent to your email address after it has been verified.

How to Master the Methods Section of Your Research Paper

The Methods section is a fundamental component of any research paper, playing a crucial role in establishing the validity and reliability of your study. It serves as a detailed roadmap of the research process that you undertook, providing sufficient information for the replication of the study. An effectively written Methods section can enhance the impact and credibility of your research, giving your readers a clear understanding of how your findings were achieved.

The methods section essentially answers the questions:

• What did you do?
• How did you do it?
• What tools and procedures did you use?
• And how did you analyze the data you collected?

Providing thorough responses to these questions, it typically includes detailed descriptions of your research design , participants or subjects of study, equipment or materials used, the procedures you followed, and the statistical methods applied for data analysis.

In the following sections, we'll delve into each of these elements, providing you with a comprehensive guide on how to craft a compelling, informative, and rigorous Methods section for your research paper.

Understanding the purpose of the methods section

Adding validity and credibility to the research.

The Methods section plays a pivotal role in adding validity and credibility to your research. By detailing the procedures you used, it allows readers to evaluate the soundness of your methodology. A well-written Methods section makes your research transparent, enabling others to understand exactly what you did and how you did it. This transparency not only adds to the credibility of your work but also allows for an accurate evaluation of the results. The Methods section is where you demonstrate that your research has been conducted in a rigorous, systematic, and ethical manner.

Enabling replication of the study

Perhaps one of the most crucial roles of the Methods section is to allow other researchers to replicate your study. Replication is a key aspect of scientific research - it's how we ensure that findings are not mere flukes or products of bias. By providing a clear and detailed description of your methodology, others can repeat your study under the same conditions to see if they achieve similar results. This not only reinforces the robustness of your own research but also contributes to the collective knowledge in your field. Consequently, the Methods section must be thorough and precise, ensuring that every step of your process can be duplicated accurately.

Deciding what to include in your methods section

Elements to include in the methods section.

The Methods section should provide a clear and comprehensive account of how you conducted your study. The content can vary depending on your field of study and the nature of your research, but typically, you should include the following elements:

• Participants: Describe who took part in your study. This might include details about their demographics (age, gender, etc.), how they were selected, and how they were assigned to groups in the case of experimental research.
• Materials and Equipment: Detail the materials or equipment you used during your study. This can range from lab equipment in a scientific study, surveys or tests in a social science study, to software and data sources in a computational study.
• Procedure: Give a step-by-step account of what you did during your study. This should be detailed enough to enable another researcher to replicate your study exactly.
• Data Analysis Methods: Explain how you analyzed your data. This might include statistical analysis methods, coding procedures for qualitative data , or computational algorithms.

Balancing detail and brevity

While it's important to provide enough detail in your Methods section to allow for replication, it's also crucial to avoid including unnecessary or irrelevant information. Striking a balance between detail and brevity is key. You should aim to provide a complete account of your methodology without getting lost in minute details that don't significantly impact the understanding or replication of your research.

Ask yourself, "Would including this detail enhance the understanding of my study or the ability to replicate it?" If the answer is no, you can likely leave that detail out. Remember, the goal is to provide a thorough, yet concise and readable account of your research methods .

Writing the participants section

Describing the participants.

In describing your participants, or subjects, it's essential to provide clear demographic information. This includes, but is not limited to, aspects like age, sex, ethnicity, occupation, education level, or any other characteristic relevant to your study. These details help provide context and allow readers to understand who your research is applicable to. For instance, a study involving only teenagers will have different implications than one involving adults.

Discussing selection and assignment to groups

The process of participant selection and assignment to groups is fundamental to many research studies, especially those involving experimental design. You should describe how you recruited your participants (e.g., through random sampling, convenience sampling, etc. ), and how they were assigned to different conditions or treatment groups if applicable. This might include a description of any randomization or matching procedures used. Clarity in this section bolsters the transparency and replicability of your study.

Ethical considerations in participant selection and treatment

It's also vital to discuss any ethical considerations related to your participants. This includes obtaining informed consent, ensuring participant privacy and confidentiality, and minimizing potential harm. If your study was reviewed and approved by an Institutional Review Board (IRB) or Ethics Committee, mention this in your Methods section. It's also appropriate to detail any steps you took to minimize potential bias or discrimination in participant selection. This not only demonstrates your commitment to ethical research practices but also contributes to the credibility of your study.

Writing the materials and equipment section

Detailing materials and equipment used in the study.

When detailing the materials and equipment used in your study, it's important to be as specific and precise as possible. This might include the make and model of equipment, the type and source of materials, and even the versions of software packages used. These specifics enable replication and also allow other researchers to understand the tools that contributed to your findings. This part of the Methods section might vary significantly depending on your field of research. For example, a biology study might detail the type of microscopes used, whereas a psychology study could discuss specific psychometric tests.

Providing information about unique or unusually used tools

If you used special or unique tools, or if you used standard tools in an unusual way, this should be clearly specified in the Materials and Equipment section. Describe these tools or methods in detail, and explain why they were necessary for your study. If a tool is rare or specialized, consider providing a citation or source where readers can learn more about it. If a standard tool was used in a novel or unconventional way, explain what you did and why. This not only adds interest to your paper, but also contributes to the complete understanding and potential replication of your research. Remember, transparency is key in this section, as it helps enhance the credibility of your study and its findings.

Writing the procedure section

Importance of including each step taken during the study.

The Procedure section serves as a step-by-step guide to your study, detailing each phase from start to finish. The significance of this section cannot be overstated, as it offers a comprehensive look at the "how" of your research. Each step you took, every decision you made, and all procedures you followed should be recorded in this section. This level of detail not only supports your study's validity but also enables others to replicate your study accurately, fostering scientific transparency.

Tips for writing clearly and concisely, yet with enough detail for replication

When detailing your procedures, clarity and conciseness are key. Strive to describe your methods in a way that's straightforward and easy to follow. Avoid jargon where possible, and when it's unavoidable, make sure to provide clear definitions.

Remember, while conciseness is important, so too is the inclusion of sufficient detail to allow for replication. One approach to ensuring the right level of detail is to write as though you are explaining your study to another researcher in your field. They should be able to read your Procedure section and know exactly how to carry out your study.

Considerations for describing experimental and control conditions

If your study involved experimental and control conditions, these should be described with particular care. Detail the experimental procedures, clearly stating what distinguishes the experimental group from the control group. This includes any stimuli or treatments that were administered, as well as how, when, and where they were delivered. In addition, it's essential to articulate any measures that were taken to minimize the effects of confounding variables. This precise detailing underscores the reliability of your research and enhances the likelihood of accurate replication.

Writing the data analysis section

Describing the statistical or other methods used to analyze the data.

In the Data Analysis section, your aim should be to clearly describe the statistical or other methods you used to analyze your data. Include specifics about the tests used, the software employed, and the reasoning behind choosing these particular methods. For statistical tests, mention the test name, the variables it was used for, and any specific variations of the test that were applied. If you conducted qualitative analysis, explain the coding process, thematic analysis, or other methods used. Providing this level of detail allows other researchers to assess the appropriateness and rigor of your data analysis.

Importance of including all steps of the analysis, not just the final results

Remember that the Data Analysis section is not just about presenting the final results, but also about revealing the process you used to get there. Including each step of your analysis provides a complete picture of your research journey and ensures that your methodology can be accurately replicated and evaluated by others. Whether it involves data cleaning, variable coding, preliminary analyses, or specific sequences of statistical tests, all these details contribute to the overall transparency of your research.

Explaining any adjustments for potential biases or confounds

Lastly, be sure to explain any adjustments or corrections you made to account for potential biases or confounding variables in your data. This may include controlling for certain variables, dealing with missing data, or using specific statistical techniques to address these issues. Clearly articulating these adjustments enhances the reliability and validity of your findings, and also provides a more comprehensive understanding of your research approach. This is also where you can discuss the limitations of your study and how you accounted for them in your analysis.

Common mistakes and how to avoid them

Typical errors in the methods section.

One common mistake in writing the Methods section is providing too little detail. A lack of specificity can make it difficult for others to replicate your study or fully understand your process. On the other hand, including too much detail, particularly irrelevant information, can dilute the focus of your Methods section and confuse your readers.

Another common error is forgetting to include important steps, such as the processes for data cleaning, preprocessing, or certain aspects of participant recruitment and management. Also, failing to adequately discuss ethical considerations, when relevant, can negatively impact the perceived credibility of your research.

Tips and strategies for avoiding these mistakes

In order to effectively avoid common errors when writing the Methods section of your research paper, consider implementing the following strategies:

• Create a Detailed Outline: Begin by outlining your Methods section in detail. This will help you ensure that all important elements of your research process are captured and not forgotten in the final write-up.
• Strive for Balance: Aim for a balance between brevity and comprehensiveness. Remember, your primary objective is to provide enough information so that someone else can replicate your study.
• Review for Relevance: After drafting your section, review it to ensure that all included information is relevant and necessary. If certain details do not directly contribute to understanding your method or facilitating replication, consider removing them.
• Include Ethical Considerations: Ethics are a crucial aspect of any research. Therefore, remember to discuss any ethical considerations and approvals related to your study.
• Get Feedback: Have colleagues or mentors review your Methods section. They can offer valuable feedback and catch any errors or omissions you may have overlooked. It's always beneficial to have another pair of eyes on your work.

Sample methods sections and analysis

Consider the following examples of well-written methods sections from different fields of study. These fictional examples illustrate the important elements discussed above:

Psychology study example

In this study, 100 undergraduate students (50 males and 50 females, aged 18-25) were randomly selected from XYZ University. The selection criteria included full-time enrollment status and willingness to participate in the study. All participants provided informed consent prior to participation, and the study received ethical approval from the University's Institutional Review Board.

The instruments used included a demographic questionnaire, the Big Five Personality Test, and an academic performance survey. The demographic questionnaire gathered data on participants' age, gender, major, and year in college. The Big Five Personality Test, a validated and reliable instrument, was used to assess participants' personality traits. Academic performance was gauged through self-reported grade point averages (GPAs).

The experiment was conducted in a quiet and well-lit room. Participants first completed the demographic questionnaire, followed by the personality test. Afterward, they reported their GPAs on the academic performance survey. All responses were recorded anonymously to protect participant confidentiality.

The data were analyzed using SPSS software, version 24. Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to assess the relationship between personality traits and academic performance.

Psychology study example analysis

The above example illustrates several good practices in writing a methods section.

• Clear description of participants: The researcher clearly stated the number, gender distribution, and age range of the participants, and also mentioned the selection criteria.
• Detailed information about materials: The researcher named the tests and surveys used and briefly described what they measure.
• Transparent procedure: The researcher provided a step-by-step guide to how the experiment was conducted, ensuring that it could be replicated by others.
• Explanation of data analysis: The researcher stated which software was used and what statistical tests were performed.

Environmental science study example

For this study, soil samples were collected from 10 different locations within the ABC National Park. The locations were chosen to represent a variety of habitats within the park, including grassland, wetland, and forest areas. The study was conducted in the spring season to ensure consistency in environmental conditions.

At each location, five soil samples were taken using a standard soil corer. The samples were taken from the top 10 cm of the soil, as this is where the majority of biological activity typically occurs. Each sample was immediately sealed in a sterile container to prevent contamination.

Back in the lab, the soil samples were analyzed for nutrient content and microbial diversity. Nutrient content, including levels of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, was measured using a soil nutrient testing kit from XYZ Company. Microbial diversity was assessed through DNA extraction and sequencing, using the DEF DNA extraction kit and the GHI sequencing platform.

The collected data were then analyzed using the JKL statistical software package. A one-way ANOVA was used to compare nutrient levels between the different habitats, while microbial diversity was evaluated using a diversity index.

In all cases, appropriate precautions were taken to minimize potential contamination and to ensure the accuracy of our measurements. This study was approved by the ABC National Park's Research Review Board.

Environmental science study example analysis

This example effectively demonstrates the correct structure and content for a methods section in environmental science.

• Clear explanation of sample collection: The researcher has detailed where, when, and how the soil samples were collected.
• Transparent process of sample analysis: The specific procedures and equipment used for analyzing the samples are clearly outlined, providing potential for replication.
• Methodical data analysis: The use of specific software and statistical tests is mentioned, providing clarity on how results were derived.

Linguistics study example

For this study, the use of passive voice in academic writing across disciplines was investigated. A corpus of 500 peer-reviewed journal articles was created, comprising 100 articles from each of the following disciplines: Social Sciences, Humanities, Natural Sciences, Applied Sciences, and Formal Sciences. Articles were selected randomly from journals indexed in the ABC Database from the year 2022.

The data collection tool was a script written in Python, utilizing the Natural Language Toolkit (NLTK) for text processing and analysis. The script identified and counted instances of passive voice in each article.

The articles were processed one by one, first being converted into plain text files to allow for easy processing. The Python script then ran on each text file, analyzing and storing the data on passive voice usage. This process was automated to minimize errors and ensure consistency.

For data analysis, the counts of passive voice instances were normalized by the total word count of each article to account for variations in article length. The differences in passive voice usage across disciplines were then statistically analyzed using a Chi-square test in the R software environment.

All procedures in this study were designed with consideration to copyright and fair use policies. The Python script used for this study is openly available for other researchers to use and modify.

Linguistics study example analysis

This example demonstrates effective writing of a methods section in a Linguistics study.

• Detailed description of the corpus: The researcher clearly defined the source and composition of the corpus, including the number of texts and their disciplinary distribution.
• Explanation of data collection tool and process: The researcher explained the software and process used for text analysis, providing enough detail for replication.
• Transparent data analysis: The researcher mentioned how they accounted for variations in article length and which statistical test was used for analysis.

Remember, although methods sections will differ across disciplines, they all should provide a clear, concise, and replicable roadmap of the research process.

The methods section of a research paper is a critical component that adds credibility to your research and allows others to replicate and verify your study. It involves providing detailed descriptions of the participants, materials and equipment used, the procedures followed, and the methods of data analysis.

While the exact content may vary depending on your research design and field of study, a well-crafted methods section will always focus on clarity, comprehensiveness, and transparency. The examples provided in this post illustrate good practices in diverse fields and can serve as a guide for you to construct your own.

Avoid common errors by creating a detailed outline, striving for balance in information, reviewing for relevance, including ethical considerations, and getting feedback from colleagues or mentors.

With these steps, you'll be well on your way to writing a high-quality methods section that bolsters your research paper's integrity and contributes meaningfully to your field.

Header image by Cytonn Photography .

Related Posts

How To Use Microsoft Word References Tool For Smarter Academic Writing

Single-blind vs. Double-blind Peer Review

• Academic Writing Advice
• All Blog Posts
• Writing Advice
• Admissions Writing Advice
• Book Writing Advice
• Short Story Advice
• Employment Writing Advice
• Business Writing Advice
• Web Content Advice
• Article Writing Advice
• Magazine Writing Advice
• Grammar Advice
• Dialect Advice
• Editing Advice
• Freelance Advice
• Legal Writing Advice
• Poetry Advice
• Graphic Design Advice
• Logo Design Advice
• Translation Advice
• Blog Reviews
• Short Story Award Winners
• Scholarship Winners

Elevate your research paper with expert editing services

How To Write A Research Paper

Research Paper Methods Section

How To Write The Methods Section of a Research Paper Step-by-Step

13 min read

Published on: Mar 6, 2024

Last updated on: Mar 5, 2024

People also read

How to Write a Research Paper Step by Step

How to Write a Proposal For a Research Paper in 10 Steps

A Comprehensive Guide to Creating a Research Paper Outline

Types of Research - Methodologies and Characteristics

300+ Engaging Research Paper Topics to Get You Started

Interesting Psychology Research Topics & Ideas

Qualitative Research - Types, Methods & Examples

Understanding Quantitative Research - Definition, Types, Examples, And More

Research Paper Example - Examples for Different Formats

How To Start A Research Paper - Steps With Examples

How to Write an Abstract That Captivates Your Readers

How To Write a Literature Review for a Research Paper | Steps & Examples

Types of Qualitative Research Methods - An Overview

Understanding Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research - A Complete Guide

How to Cite a Research Paper in Different Citation Styles

Easy Sociology Research Topics for Your Next Project

200+ Outstanding History Research Paper Topics With Expert Tips

How To Write a Hypothesis in a Research Paper | Steps & Examples

How to Write an Introduction for a Research Paper - A Step-by-Step Guide

How to Write a Good Research Paper Title

How to Write a Conclusion for a Research Paper in 3 Simple Steps

How to Write an Abstract For a Research Paper with Examples

How To Write a Thesis For a Research Paper Step by Step

How to Write a Discussion For a Research Paper | Objectives, Steps & Examples

How to Write the Results Section of a Research Paper - Structure and Tips

How to Write a Problem Statement for a Research Paper in 6 Steps

How to Find Sources For a Research Paper | A Guide

Share this article

The method and material section stands as the cornerstone of any research paper. Crafting this section with precision is important, especially when aiming for a target journal. 

If you're navigating the intricacies of research paper writing and pondering on how to ace the methodology, fear not – we've got you covered. Our guide will walk you through the essentials, ensuring your methodology shines in the eyes of your target journal. 

Let's jump into the basics of the method section!

On This Page On This Page -->

What is the Methods Section of a Research Paper?

The methods section of a research paper provides a detailed description of the procedures, techniques, and methods employed to conduct the study ( American Psychological Association, 2020 ). It outlines the steps taken to collect, analyze, and interpret data, allowing other researchers to replicate the study and assess the validity of the results. 

This section includes information on the study design, participants, materials or apparatus used, data collection procedures, and statistical analyses. Typically, the methodology section is placed after the introduction and before the results section in a research paper.

Tough Essay Due? Hire Tough Writers!

Importance of Methods Section

The methods section of a research paper holds significant importance. Here is why: 

• Replicability: The methods section ensures the replicability of the study by providing a clear and comprehensive account of the procedures used.
• Transparency: It enhances transparency, allowing other researchers to understand and evaluate the validity of the study's findings.
• Credibility: A well-documented methods section enhances the credibility of the research, instilling confidence in the study's design and execution.
• Guidance for Future Research: It serves as a guide for future research, offering insights into methodologies that can be applied or modified in similar studies.
• Ethical Considerations: The section highlights ethical considerations, promoting responsible and accountable research practices.

Structure of Methods Section of a Research Paper

There are some important parts of the method section of a research paper that you will need to include, whether you have done an experimental study or a descriptive study. 

Provided structured approach below ensures clarity and replicability of the research methodology:

Formatting of the Methods Section 

Make the main " Methods " heading centered, bold, and capitalized. For subtopics under "Methods," like participant details or data collection, use left-aligned, bold, and title cases. 

Feel free to include even sub-headings for more specifics. This formatting helps readers easily follow your study steps.

Next, we will address the most common query, i.e., how to write the methodology section of a research paper. Let’s explain the steps for writing the methodology section of a research paper:

Step 1: Start with Study Design

The initial step in the method section of a research paper is to provide a clear description of the study type. This involves outlining the overall plan and structure of the research. 

Different types of studies, such as cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional, may be employed based on the research objectives.

For instance:

Starting with the study design sets the stage for understanding the methodology. It provides readers with a foundation for subsequent sections in the methods portion of the research paper.

Step 2: Describe Participants

In the methods section, the second step involves providing a detailed account of the participants involved in the study. Start by describing the characteristics of both human and non-human subjects, using clear and descriptive language.

Address specific demographic characteristics relevant to your study, such as age, sex, ethnic or racial group, gender identity, education level, and socioeconomic status. Clearly outlining these essential details ensures transparency, replicability, and a comprehensive understanding of the study's sample.

Sampling Procedures:

• Clearly outline how participants were selected, specifying any inclusion and exclusion criteria applied.
• Appropriately identify the sampling procedure used, such as random sampling, convenience sampling, or stratified sampling.
• If applicable, note the percentage of invited participants who actually participated.
• Specify if participants were self-selected or chosen by their institutions (e.g., schools submitting student data).

Sample Size and Power:

• Detail the intended sample size estimation per condition and the statistical power aimed for in the study.
• Provide information on any analyses conducted to determine the sample size and power.
• Emphasize the importance of statistical power for detecting effects if present.
• State whether the final sample size differed from the originally intended sample.
• Base your interpretations of study outcomes solely on the final sample, reinforcing the importance of transparency in reporting.

Step 3: State Materials or Apparatus

In the third step, thoroughly describe the materials or apparatus used in your research. In addition, gives detailed information on the tools and techniques employed to measure relevant outcome variables.

Primary and Secondary Measures:

• Clearly define both primary and secondary outcome measures aligned with research questions.
• Specify all instruments used, citing hardware models, software versions, or references to manuals/articles.
• Report settings of specialized apparatus, such as screen resolution.

Reliability and Validity:

• For each instrument, detail measures of reliability and validity.
• Include an explanation of how consistently (reliability) and precisely (validity) the method measures the targeted variables.
• Provide examples or reference materials to illustrate the reliability and validity of tests, questionnaires, or interviews.

Covariates and Quality Assurance:

• Describe any covariates considered and their relevance to explaining or predicting outcomes.
• Review methods used to assure measurement quality, such as researcher training, multiple assessors, translation procedures, and pilot studies.
• For subjectively coded data, report interrater reliability scores to gauge consistency among raters.

Step 4 Write the Procedure

Next is the procedure section of the research paper, which thoroughly details the procedures applied for administering the study, processing data, and planning data analyses.

Data Collection Methods and Research Design

• Summarize data collection methods (e.g., surveys, tests) and the overall research design.
• Provide detailed procedures for administering surveys, tests, or any other data collection instruments.
• Clarify the research design framework, specifying whether it's experimental, quasi-experimental, descriptive, correlational, and/or longitudinal.
• For multi-group studies, report assignment methods, group instructions, interventions, and session details.

Data Analysis 

• Clearly state the planned data analysis methods for each research question or hypothesis.
• Specify descriptive statistics, inferential statistical tests, and any other analysis techniques.
• Include software or tools used for data analysis (e.g., SPSS, R).
• Provide a brief rationale for choosing each analysis method.

Step 5: Mention Ethical Approvals

In the fifth step of the methods section, explicitly address the ethical considerations of your research, ensuring transparency and adherence to ethical standards. Here are some key ethical considerations: 

• IRB Approval:

Clearly state that the research received approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) or an equivalent ethical review body.

• Informed Consent:

Specify the process of obtaining informed consent, including the provision of information sheets to participants.

• Confidentiality:

Describe measures taken to maintain confidentiality, such as assigning unique identification numbers and securing data.

• Participant Rights:

Emphasize participants' right to withdraw from the study at any point without consequences.

• Debriefing:

Mention if debriefing procedures were implemented to address any participant concerns post-study.

Methods Section of Research Paper Examples

Exploring sample methodology sections is crucial when composing your first research paper, as it enhances your understanding of the structure. We provide PDF examples of methodology sections that you can review to gain inspiration for your own research paper.

Methods Section of A Qualitative Research Paper

Methods Section of Research Paper Template

Methods Section of Research Proposal Example

Methods Section of Research Paper APA

How To Write A Method For An Experiment

Journal Guidelines to Consider

When writing the methods section, be mindful of the specific guidelines set by your target journal. These guidelines can vary, impacting the structure, word limitations, and even the presentation of your methodology. 

Here's a detailed explanation, along with an example:

Structure & Word Limitations

If a journal follows APA guidelines, it might allow flexibility in structuring the method section. However, some journals may impose strict limitations on the manuscript's length and the number of subsections. 

For instance, a journal might specify a maximum of 3000 words for the entire paper and limit the method section to 500 words. In such cases, ensure you adhere to these constraints, potentially submitting supplemental files for additional details.

Standardized Checklists

Journals often request authors to use standardized checklists for various study types to ensure completeness. 

For a randomized clinical trial, the CONSORT(Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) checklist might be required. If your research involves observational studies, the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) checklist may be applicable. 

For diagnostic accuracy studies, adherence to the STARD (Standards for the Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) checklist is common. These checklists serve as a systematic way to include essential details in your manuscript, aligning with the journal's preferred reporting standards.

Blind Review Procedures

Some journals implement single- or double-blind review procedures. If a double-blind review is in place, authors need to remove any information that might reveal their identity or institutional affiliations. 

For instance, the method section cannot explicitly mention the institution's name, researchers' identities, or the institutional ethics committee. This ensures an unbiased evaluation of the research without reviewers being influenced by the authors' affiliations.

The Dos And Don’ts Of Writing The Methods Section

While it's important to be thorough, certain elements are better suited for other sections of the paper. Here are some Do’s and Don’ts of writing the methods section:

Dos of Writing the Methods Section

Here are what to include in the methods section: 

• Clarity and Precision: Clearly and concisely describe the procedures used in your study. Ensure that another researcher can replicate your work based on your explanation.
• Chronological Order: Present the methods in a logical and chronological sequence. This helps readers follow the flow of your research.
• Detail and Specificity: Provide sufficient detail to allow for replication. Specify equipment, materials, and procedures used, including any modifications.
• Consistency with Study Design: Align your methods with the overall design of your study. Clearly state whether it's experimental, observational, or another design.
• Inclusion of Participants: Detail participant characteristics, including demographics and any inclusion/exclusion criteria. Clearly state the sample size.
• Operational Definitions: Define and operationalize key variables. Clearly explain how each variable was measured or manipulated.
• Transparency in Data Collection: Describe the data collection process, including the timing, location, and any relevant protocols followed during the study.
• Statistical Information: Outline the statistical methods used for analysis. Specify the software, tests employed and significance levels.
• Ethical Considerations: Discuss ethical approvals obtained, informed consent procedures, and measures taken to ensure participant confidentiality. Address any potential conflicts of interest.

Don'ts of Writing the Methods Section

• Extraneous Details: Unlike the discussion section avoid including unnecessary details or information that does not contribute directly to understanding the research methods.
• Results Discussion: Refrain from discussing or interpreting the results in the methods section. Focus solely on describing the methods employed.
• Ambiguity and Vagueness: Steer clear of vague or ambiguous language. Be precise and specific in your descriptions.
• Overemphasis on Background: While some background information is relevant, avoid turning the methods section into an extensive literature review . Keep the focus on the research methods.
• Personal Opinions: Do not include personal opinions or anecdotes. Stick to factual and objective descriptions.
• Excessive Jargon: Minimize the use of technical jargon that may be confusing to readers who are not experts in your field. If necessary, provide clear explanations.
• Inadequate Explanation of Modifications: If you deviate from standard procedures, clearly explain the modifications and justify why they were made.
• Inconsistency with Design: Ensure that your methods align with the study design. Avoid inconsistencies that could create confusion for readers.

In conclusion , learning the art of writing the methods section is pivotal for any research paper. Following a step-by-step approach, from defining the study design to detailed data collection and analysis, ensures clarity and replicability. 

Remember, precision matters. If you find yourself grappling with the intricacies of your methodology, don't hesitate to reach out to CollegeEssay.org.  

Our professional writing service is ready to assist you in crafting a robust and well-structured methods section. 

Connect with our research paper writing service for expert guidance and conquer the challenges of research paper writing.

Nova A. (Literature, Marketing)

As a Digital Content Strategist, Nova Allison has eight years of experience in writing both technical and scientific content. With a focus on developing online content plans that engage audiences, Nova strives to write pieces that are not only informative but captivating as well.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That’s our Job!

Keep reading

Legal & Policies

• Privacy Policy
• Cookies Policy
• Terms of Use
• Refunds & Cancellations
• Our Writers
• Success Stories
• Our Guarantees
• Affiliate Program
• Referral Program
• AI Essay Writer

Disclaimer: All client orders are completed by our team of highly qualified human writers. The essays and papers provided by us are not to be used for submission but rather as learning models only.

How to Write the Methods Section of a Scientific Article

What Is the Methods Section of a Research Paper?

The Methods section of a research article includes an explanation of the procedures used to conduct the experiment. For authors of scientific research papers, the objective is to present their findings clearly and concisely and to provide enough information so that the experiment can be duplicated.

Research articles contain very specific sections, usually dictated by either the target journal or specific style guides. For example, in the social and behavioral sciences, the American Psychological Association (APA) style guide is used to gather information on how the manuscript should be arranged . As with most styles, APA’s objectives are to ensure that manuscripts are written with minimum distractions to the reader. Every research article should include a detailed Methods section after the Introduction.

Why is the Methods Section Important?

The Methods section (also referred to as “Materials and Methods”) is important because it provides the reader enough information to judge whether the study is valid and reproducible.

Structure of the Methods Section in a Research Paper

While designing a research study, authors typically decide on the key points that they’re trying to prove or the “ cause-and-effect relationship ” between objects of the study. Very simply, the study is designed to meet the objective. According to APA, a Methods section comprises of the following three subsections: participants, apparatus, and procedure.

How do You Write a Method Section in Biology?

In biological sciences, the Methods section might be more detailed, but the objectives are the same—to present the study clearly and concisely so that it is understandable and can be duplicated.

If animals (including human subjects) were used in the study, authors should ensure to include statements that they were treated according to the protocols outlined to ensure that treatment is as humane as possible.

• The Declaration of Helsinki is a set of ethical principles developed by The World Medical Association to provide guidance to scientists and physicians in medical research involving human subjects.

Research conducted at an institution using human participants is overseen by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) with which it is affiliated. IRB is an administrative body whose purpose is to protect the rights and welfare of human subjects during their participation in the study.

Literature Search

Literature searches are performed to gather as much information as relevant from previous studies. They are important for providing evidence on the topic and help validate the research. Most are accomplished using keywords or phrases to search relevant databases. For example, both MEDLINE and PubMed provide information on biomedical literature. Google Scholar, according to APA, is “one of the best sources available to an individual beginning a literature search.” APA also suggests using PsycINFO and refers to it as “the premier database for locating articles in psychological science and related literature.”

Authors must make sure to have a set of keywords (usually taken from the objective statement) to stay focused and to avoid having the search move far from the original objective. Authors will benefit by setting limiting parameters, such as date ranges, and avoiding getting pulled into the trap of using non-valid resources, such as social media, conversations with people in the same discipline, or similar non-valid sources, as references.

Related: Ready with your methods section and looking forward to manuscript submission ? Check these journal selection guidelines now!

What Should be Included in the Methods Section of a Research Paper?

One commonly misused term in research papers is “methodology.” Methodology refers to a branch of the Philosophy of Science which deals with scientific methods, not to the methods themselves, so authors should avoid using it. Here is the list of main subsections that should be included in the Methods section of a research paper ; authors might use subheadings more clearly to describe their research.

• Literature search : Authors should cite any sources that helped with their choice of methods. Authors should indicate timeframes of past studies and their particular parameters.
• Study participants : Authors should cite the source from where they received any non-human subjects. The number of animals used, the ages, sex, their initial conditions, and how they were housed and cared for, should be listed. In case of human subjects, authors should provide the characteristics, such as geographical location; their age ranges, sex, and medical history (if relevant); and the number of subjects. In case hospital records were used, authors should include the subjects’ basic health information and vital statistics at the beginning of the study. Authors should also state that written informed consent was provided by each subject.
• Inclusion/exclusion criteria : Authors should describe their inclusion and exclusion criteria, how they were determined, and how many subjects were eliminated.
• Group characteristics (could be combined with “Study participants”) : Authors should describe how the chosen group was divided into subgroups and their characteristics, including the control. Authors should also describe any specific equipment used, such as housing needs and feed (usually for animal studies). If patient records are reviewed and assessed, authors should mention whether the reviewers were blinded to them.
• Procedures : Authors should describe their study design. Any necessary preparations (e.g., tissue samples, drugs) and instruments must be explained. Authors should describe how the subjects were “ manipulated to answer the experimental question .” Timeframes should be included to ensure that the procedures are clear (e.g., “Rats were given XX drug for 14 d”). For animals sacrificed, the methods used and the protocols followed should be outlined.
• Statistical analyses: The type of data, how they were measured, and which statistical tests were performed, should be described. (Note: This is not the “results” section; any relevant tables and figures should be referenced later.) Specific software used must be cited.

What Should not be Included in Your Methods Section?

Common pitfalls can make the manuscript cumbersome to read or might make the readers question the validity of the research. The University of Southern California provides some guidelines .

• Background information that is not helpful must be avoided.
• Authors must avoid providing a lot of detail.
• Authors should focus more on how their method was used to meet their objective and less on mechanics .
• Any obstacles faced and how they were overcome should be described (often in your “Study Limitations”). This will help validate the results.

According to the University of Richmond , authors must avoid including extensive details or an exhaustive list of equipment that have been used as readers could quickly lose attention. These unnecessary details add nothing to validate the research and do not help the reader understand how the objective was satisfied. A well-thought-out Methods section is one of the most important parts of the manuscript. Authors must make a note to always prepare a draft that lists all parts, allow others to review it, and revise it to remove any superfluous information.

m so confused about ma research but now m okay so thank uh so mxh

Mil gracias por su ayuda.

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• AI in Academia
• Infographic
• Manuscripts & Grants
• Reporting Research
• Trending Now

Can AI Tools Prepare a Research Manuscript From Scratch? — A comprehensive guide

As technology continues to advance, the question of whether artificial intelligence (AI) tools can prepare…

Abstract Vs. Introduction — Do you know the difference?

Ross wants to publish his research. Feeling positive about his research outcomes, he begins to…

• Old Webinars
• Webinar Mobile App

Demystifying Research Methodology With Field Experts

Choosing research methodology Research design and methodology Evidence-based research approach How RAxter can assist researchers

• Manuscript Preparation
• Publishing Research

How to Choose Best Research Methodology for Your Study

Successful research conduction requires proper planning and execution. While there are multiple reasons and aspects…

Top 5 Key Differences Between Methods and Methodology

While burning the midnight oil during literature review, most researchers do not realize that the…

How to Draft the Acknowledgment Section of a Manuscript

Discussion Vs. Conclusion: Know the Difference Before Drafting Manuscripts

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

What should universities' stance be on AI tools in research and academic writing?

Covidence website will be inaccessible as we upgrading our platform on Monday 23rd August at 10am AEST, / 2am CEST/1am BST (Sunday, 15th August 8pm EDT/5pm PDT) 

How to write the methods section of a systematic review

Home | Blog | How To | How to write the methods section of a systematic review

Covidence breaks down how to write a methods section

The methods section of your systematic review describes what you did, how you did it, and why. Readers need this information to interpret the results and conclusions of the review. Often, a lot of information needs to be distilled into just a few paragraphs. This can be a challenging task, but good preparation and the right tools will help you to set off in the right direction 🗺️🧭.

Systematic reviews are so-called because they are conducted in a way that is rigorous and replicable. So it’s important that these methods are reported in a way that is thorough, clear, and easy to navigate for the reader – whether that’s a patient, a healthcare worker, or a researcher. 

Like most things in a systematic review, the methods should be planned upfront and ideally described in detail in a project plan or protocol. Reviews of healthcare interventions follow the PRISMA guidelines for the minimum set of items to report in the methods section. But what else should be included? It’s a good idea to consider what readers will want to know about the review methods and whether the journal you’re planning to submit the work to has expectations on the reporting of methods. Finding out in advance will help you to plan what to include.

Describe what happened

While the research plan sets out what you intend to do, the methods section is a write-up of what actually happened. It’s not a simple case of rewriting the plan in the past tense – you will also need to discuss and justify deviations from the plan and describe the handling of issues that were unforeseen at the time the plan was written. For this reason, it is useful to make detailed notes before, during, and after the review is completed. Relying on memory alone risks losing valuable information and trawling through emails when the deadline is looming can be frustrating and time consuming! 

Keep it brief

The methods section should be succinct but include all the noteworthy information. This can be a difficult balance to achieve. A useful strategy is to aim for a brief description that signposts the reader to a separate section or sections of supporting information. This could include datasets, a flowchart to show what happened to the excluded studies, a collection of search strategies, and tables containing detailed information about the studies.This separation keeps the review short and simple while enabling the reader to drill down to the detail as needed. And if the methods follow a well-known or standard process, it might suffice to say so and give a reference, rather than describe the process at length. 

Follow a structure

A clear structure provides focus. Use of descriptive headings keeps the writing on track and helps the reader get to key information quickly. What should the structure of the methods section look like? As always, a lot depends on the type of review but it will certainly contain information relating to the following areas:

• Selection criteria ⭕
• Data collection and analysis 👩‍💻
• Study quality and risk of bias ⚖️

Let’s look at each of these in turn.

1. Selection criteria ⭕

The criteria for including and excluding studies are listed here. This includes detail about the types of studies, the types of participants, the types of interventions and the types of outcomes and how they were measured. 

2. Search 🕵🏾‍♀️

Comprehensive reporting of the search is important because this means it can be evaluated and replicated. The search strategies are included in the review, along with details of the databases searched. It’s also important to list any restrictions on the search (for example, language), describe how resources other than electronic databases were searched (for example,  non-indexed journals), and give the date that the searches were run. The PRISMA-S extension provides guidance on reporting literature searches. 

Systematic reviewer pro-tip:

 Copy and paste the search strategy to avoid introducing typos

3. Data collection and analysis 👩‍💻

This section describes:

• how studies were selected for inclusion in the review
• how study data were extracted from the study reports
• how study data were combined for analysis and synthesis

To describe how studies were selected for inclusion , review teams outline the screening process. Covidence uses reviewers’ decision data to automatically populate a PRISMA flow diagram for this purpose. Covidence can also calculate Cohen’s kappa to enable review teams to report the level of agreement among individual reviewers during screening.

To describe how study data were extracted from the study reports , reviewers outline the form that was used, any pilot-testing that was done, and the items that were extracted from the included studies. An important piece of information to include here is the process used to resolve conflict among the reviewers. Covidence’s data extraction tool saves reviewers’ comments and notes in the system as they work. This keeps the information in one place for easy retrieval ⚡.

To describe how study data were combined for analysis and synthesis, reviewers outline the type of synthesis (narrative or quantitative, for example), the methods for grouping data, the challenges that came up, and how these were dealt with. If the review includes a meta-analysis, it will detail how this was performed and how the treatment effects were measured.

4. Study quality and risk of bias ⚖️

Because the results of systematic reviews can be affected by many types of bias, reviewers make every effort to minimise it and to show the reader that the methods they used were appropriate. This section describes the methods used to assess study quality and an assessment of the risk of bias across a range of domains. 

Steps to assess the risk of bias in studies include looking at how study participants were assigned to treatment groups and whether patients and/or study assessors were blinded to the treatment given. Reviewers also report their assessment of the risk of bias due to missing outcome data, whether that is due to participant drop-out or non-reporting of the outcomes by the study authors.

Covidence’s default template for assessing study quality is Cochrane’s risk of bias tool but it is also possible to start from scratch and build a tool with a set of custom domains if you prefer.

Careful planning, clear writing, and a structured approach are key to a good methods section. A methodologist will be able to refer review teams to examples of good methods reporting in the literature. Covidence helps reviewers to screen references, extract data and complete risk of bias tables quickly and efficiently. Sign up for a free trial today!

Laura Mellor. Portsmouth, UK

Perhaps you'd also like....

Top 5 Tips for High-Quality Systematic Review Data Extraction

Data extraction can be a complex step in the systematic review process. Here are 5 top tips from our experts to help prepare and achieve high quality data extraction.

How to get through study quality assessment Systematic Review

Find out 5 tops tips to conducting quality assessment and why it’s an important step in the systematic review process.

How to extract study data for your systematic review

Learn the basic process and some tips to build data extraction forms for your systematic review with Covidence.

Better systematic review management

Head office, working for an institution or organisation.

Find out why over 350 of the world’s leading institutions are seeing a surge in publications since using Covidence!

Request a consultation with one of our team members and start empowering your researchers:

By using our site you consent to our use of cookies to measure and improve our site’s performance. Please see our Privacy Policy for more information. 

• Advanced search

Advanced Search

How to Write the Methods Section of a Research Paper

• Find this author on Google Scholar
• Find this author on PubMed
• Search for this author on this site
• For correspondence: [email protected]
• Info & Metrics

The methods section of a research paper provides the information by which a study's validity is judged. Therefore, it requires a clear and precise description of how an experiment was done, and the rationale for why specific experimental procedures were chosen. The methods section should describe what was done to answer the research question, describe how it was done, justify the experimental design, and explain how the results were analyzed. Scientific writing is direct and orderly. Therefore, the methods section structure should: describe the materials used in the study, explain how the materials were prepared for the study, describe the research protocol, explain how measurements were made and what calculations were performed, and state which statistical tests were done to analyze the data. Once all elements of the methods section are written, subsequent drafts should focus on how to present those elements as clearly and logically as possibly. The description of preparations, measurements, and the protocol should be organized chronologically. For clarity, when a large amount of detail must be presented, information should be presented in sub-sections according to topic. Material in each section should be organized by topic from most to least important.

• publications
• research methodology
• clinical trials
• laboratory research
• Correspondence: Richard H Kallet MS RRT FAARC, Respiratory Care Services, San Francisco General Hospital, NH:GA-2, 1001 Potrero Avenue, San Francisco CA. 94110. E-mail: rkallet{at}sfghsom.ucsf.edu .
• Copyright © 2004 by Daedalus Enterprises Inc.

In this issue

• Table of Contents
• Table of Contents (PDF)
• Cover (PDF)
• Index by author

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Association for Respiratory Care.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Citation Manager Formats

• EndNote (tagged)
• EndNote 8 (xml)
• RefWorks Tagged
• Ref Manager

• Tweet Widget
• Facebook Like
• Google Plus One

Jump to section

Related articles, cited by....

How to Write the Methods Section of a Research Manuscript

Affiliation.

• 1 Respiratory Care Services, Arkansas Children's Hospital, Little Rock, Arkansas. [email protected].
• PMID: 37643870
• PMCID: PMC10676260 (available on 2024-12-01 )
• DOI: 10.4187/respcare.11437

The methods section of a manuscript is one of the most important parts of a research paper because it provides information on the validity of the study and credibility of the results. Inadequate description of the methods has been reported as one of the main reasons for manuscript rejection. The methods section must include sufficient detail so that others could repeat the study and reproduce the results. The structure of the methods section should flow logically and chronologically. There are multiple components of methods sections, including study design, materials used, study procedures, and data analysis. Each element must be adequately described and thoroughly detailed to provide an understanding of how the results were obtained and how to interpret the findings. Studies that involved humans or animals must include an ethics statement of approval from the appropriate governing body. The methods section should explain how subjects were identified and should state inclusion and exclusion criteria. All materials used to complete the study should be described in detail, including equipment, drugs, gases, chemicals, treatments, interventions, or other items. Study procedures should outline all steps taken to obtain the results and clearly state the outcome measures. Subheadings might be helpful for organizing the methods section into subsections when there is a considerable amount of information to report. A well-written methods section will guide the reader through the research process and provide adequate information to evaluate study validity and reproduce the work. The purpose of this paper is to provide guidance for writing the methods section of a manuscript.

Keywords: manuscript; methods; publication; research; research paper; science writing; study protocol.

Copyright © 2023 by Daedalus Enterprises.

• Research Design*

• Privacy Policy

Home » Research Methodology – Types, Examples and writing Guide

Research Methodology – Types, Examples and writing Guide

Table of Contents

Research Methodology

Definition:

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

Structure of Research Methodology

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

I. Introduction

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

II. Research Design

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

III. Data Collection Methods

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

IV. Data Analysis Methods

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

V. Ethical Considerations

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

VI. Limitations

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

VII. Conclusion

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

Research Methodology Types

Types of Research Methodology are as follows:

Quantitative Research Methodology

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

Qualitative Research Methodology

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

Mixed-Methods Research Methodology

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

Case Study Research Methodology

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

Action Research Methodology

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

Experimental Research Methodology

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

Survey Research Methodology

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

Grounded Theory Research Methodology

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

Research Methodology Example

An Example of Research Methodology could be the following:

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

Introduction:

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

Research Design:

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

Participants:

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

Intervention :

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

Data Collection:

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

Data Analysis:

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

Ethical Considerations:

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

Data Management:

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

Limitations:

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

Conclusion:

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

How to Write Research Methodology

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

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

When to Write Research Methodology

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

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

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

Applications of Research Methodology

Here are some of the applications of research methodology:

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

Purpose of Research Methodology

Research methodology serves several important purposes, including:

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

Advantages of Research Methodology

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

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

Research Methodology Vs Research Methods

About the author.

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

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

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Paper Format – Types, Examples and...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

• Utility Menu

GA4 Tracking Code

bok_logo_2-02_-_harvard_left.png

Writing the Methods Section

In her expos section, jerusha achterberg teaches how to clearly describe the methods that will be used in a subsequent paper.  this activity was motivated by the fact that students were having trouble writing the methods section in their final paper proposals..

In groups, the students are prompted to write as if they are explaining to an audience what to do with a mousetrap, given that they have mice and do not want to have mice anymore. Jerusha gives the students mousetraps with popsicle sticks, and the students have to play with the contraption and figure out how it works.

The idea here is to have the students struggle with trial and error and then create a proposal that describes what to do. According to Jerusha, this helps their papers as they learn that good proposals have "sufficient details for another qualified researcher to actually implement the study or intervention."

Jerusha notes that the students often forget to even mention mice in their instructions.  This helps them realize that "success" must be defined and the audience has to understand what success is and how it is achieved.

See below for the corresponding handout.

More activities like this

• Workshop Conferences
• Paper Structure Exercise
• Student Paper Workshop
• Making a Persuasive Adaptive Argument
• Adaptive Scenario Exercise

Further Filter By

Activity type.

• Discussion (102) Apply Discussion filter
• Research (79) Apply Research filter
• Presentation (55) Apply Presentation filter
• Role Play (54) Apply Role Play filter
• Homework (44) Apply Homework filter
• Pair and Share (42) Apply Pair and Share filter
• Case Study (31) Apply Case Study filter
• Do Now (31) Apply Do Now filter
• Lab (30) Apply Lab filter
• Game (29) Apply Game filter
• Debate (24) Apply Debate filter
• Peer Instruction (23) Apply Peer Instruction filter
• Quick Write (23) Apply Quick Write filter
• Field Trip (21) Apply Field Trip filter
• Lecture (20) Apply Lecture filter
• Jigsaw (18) Apply Jigsaw filter
• Concept Map (14) Apply Concept Map filter
• Sequence Reconstruction (8) Apply Sequence Reconstruction filter
• Speed Dating (3) Apply Speed Dating filter
• Statement Correction (1) Apply Statement Correction filter
• General Education (44) Apply General Education filter
• Government (38) Apply Government filter
• Physics (20) Apply Physics filter
• English (13) Apply English filter
• Organismic and Evolutionary Biology (13) Apply Organismic and Evolutionary Biology filter
• Sociology (12) Apply Sociology filter
• Statistics (12) Apply Statistics filter
• Expository Writing (10) Apply Expository Writing filter
• Romance Languages and Literatures (10) Apply Romance Languages and Literatures filter
• Germanic Languages and Literatures (9) Apply Germanic Languages and Literatures filter
• History (9) Apply History filter
• Humanities (9) Apply Humanities filter
• Music (9) Apply Music filter
• Mathematics (8) Apply Mathematics filter
• Molecular and Cellular Biology (8) Apply Molecular and Cellular Biology filter
• Economics (7) Apply Economics filter
• Freshman Seminars (6) Apply Freshman Seminars filter
• Social Studies (6) Apply Social Studies filter
• Astronomy (5) Apply Astronomy filter
• Chemistry and Chemical Biology (5) Apply Chemistry and Chemical Biology filter
• Psychology (5) Apply Psychology filter
• Computer Science (4) Apply Computer Science filter
• East Asian Languages and Civilizations (4) Apply East Asian Languages and Civilizations filter
• History of Science (4) Apply History of Science filter
• Linguistics (4) Apply Linguistics filter
• Stem Cell and Regenerative Biology (4) Apply Stem Cell and Regenerative Biology filter
• Comparative Literature (3) Apply Comparative Literature filter
• History and Literature (3) Apply History and Literature filter
• African and African American Studies (2) Apply African and African American Studies filter
• Classics (2) Apply Classics filter
• Earth and Planetary Science (2) Apply Earth and Planetary Science filter
• Education (2) Apply Education filter
• History of Art and Architecture (2) Apply History of Art and Architecture filter
• Public Health (2) Apply Public Health filter
• Studies of Women, Gender, and Sexuality (2) Apply Studies of Women, Gender, and Sexuality filter
• Systems Biology (2) Apply Systems Biology filter
• Anthropology (1) Apply Anthropology filter
• Biomedical Engineering (1) Apply Biomedical Engineering filter
• Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations (1) Apply Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations filter
• Psychiatry (1) Apply Psychiatry filter
• Visual and Environmental Studies (1) Apply Visual and Environmental Studies filter

Learning Objective

• Collaborate (107) Apply Collaborate filter
• Develop Subject Specific Intuitions (101) Apply Develop Subject Specific Intuitions filter
• Make Real World Connections to Course Material (101) Apply Make Real World Connections to Course Material filter
• Interpret Primary Sources to Propose a Model or Argument (95) Apply Interpret Primary Sources to Propose a Model or Argument filter
• Learn Foundational Knowledge (82) Apply Learn Foundational Knowledge filter
• Develop Communication Skills (73) Apply Develop Communication Skills filter
• Defend a Position in a Model or Argument (55) Apply Defend a Position in a Model or Argument filter
• Evaluate and Critique a Model or Argument (45) Apply Evaluate and Critique a Model or Argument filter
• Reflect on the Learning Process (Metacognition) (44) Apply Reflect on the Learning Process (Metacognition) filter
• Compare the Strengths and Weaknesses of Different Methods (23) Apply Compare the Strengths and Weaknesses of Different Methods filter

Length of Activity

• Full Class (142) Apply Full Class filter
• 10 to 30 minutes (49) Apply 10 to 30 minutes filter
• Multiple Classes (31) Apply Multiple Classes filter
• up to 10 minutes (22) Apply up to 10 minutes filter
• Full Semester (19) Apply Full Semester filter

• The Scientist University

How to Write a Good Introduction Section

A strong narrative is as integral a part of science writing as it is for any other form of communication..

Nathan Ni holds a PhD from Queens University. He is a science editor for The Scientist’s Creative Services Team who strives to better understand and communicate the relationships between health and disease.

View full profile.

Learn about our editorial policies.

First impressions are important. Scientists need to make their work stand out among a sea of others. However, many mistakenly believe that first impressions are formed based only on titles and abstracts. In actuality, the introduction section is critical to making a real impression on the audience. The introduction is where authors outline their research topic and describe their study. It is where they provide background information and showcase their writing and argumentation styles. For these reasons, the introduction engages the audience in a deeper way than the formalities and rigidities of the title and abstract can afford. To use a fishing analogy: if the title and the abstract serve as the hook and the bait, then the introduction is the process of actually reeling the fish into the boat.

Good Introductions Are Important Guides

In contrast to the constraints placed on the title and abstract, the introduction is the first real opportunity for the scientist to engage with their audience and showcase and convey their passions and motivations for the study in question. This opportunity is somewhat of a double-edged sword. Study authors inevitably have a treasure trove of knowledge and expertise when it comes to their projects and their fields. However, they must remember that the audience does not necessarily have this background information—and that they are only engaging with their audience for a finite amount of time. Despite the urge to excitedly write about all of the different aspects and intricacies of the project, it is very important that authors keep their introductions simple and well organized. 

Therefore, the introduction should move from broad scopes to narrow focuses as the audience reads further. The author should direct the reader along this journey, focusing on topics with direct relevance to what was investigated in the study. A broad fact introduced early on should be linked or paired with a more specific fact along the same lines of thought, eventually culminating in how this information led to the motivation behind the study itself. It is vital to not go off on tangents or talk about things that are too esoteric. A confused audience is an audience that tends not to read further.

Applying Common Principles Across Well-Known and Niche Subjects

Writers can apply these principles in more specialized manuscripts focusing on a single entity rather than a well-known pathology. Consider the following example from a manuscript by cell biologist Luis R. Cruz-Vera’s research team from the University of Alabama in Huntsville, published in the Journal of Biological Chemistry. 1

Here, they divide the opening paragraph of their introduction into four distinct sections. First, they explain what ribosome arresting peptides (RAPs) are and what they do.

Ribosome arresting peptides (RAPs) are nascent polypeptides that act in cis on the translating ribosome to control the expression of genes by inducing ribosome arrest during translation elongation or termination. RAPs commonly sense external forces or low molecular weight compounds in the environment that spatially and temporally contribute to the expression of genes. 

Then they introduce the two different types of RAPs.

RAPs such as SecM that sense external forces on the ribosome are typically large, because these nascent peptides have a domain that functions outside of the ribosome. In contrast, those that sense small molecules inside of the ribosome, such as TnaC are smaller. 

They describe how each type works via a different mechanism.

Typically, larger RAPs interact with cellular factors that can control their capacity for arresting ribosomes. Because of their size and proximity to ribosomal components, large RAPs clearly show two structural domains, a sensor domain and an arresting domain. At the moment of the arrest for the large RAPs, the sensor domain is located outside the ribosome exit tunnel, whereas the arresting domain remains inside the tunnel. The short RAPs currently characterized interact with the compounds that they sense by using the ribosome exit tunnel as a binding surface. For these short RAPs, it has been determined that conserved amino acid residues are necessary to induce arrest by either directly binding the effector molecule or by acting at the peptidyl-transferase center (PTC) during ribosome arrest. 

And finally, they conclude by highlighting a knowledge gap in how small RAPs operate versus what is already known about large RAPs.

However, because the size of short RAPs ranges from only a few to a couple of dozen amino acids, as in the case of TnaC, it has remained unclear whether short RAPs are constituted by the two independent sensor and stalling domains, as it has been observed with larger RAPs.

In this way, the authors make a natural progression from “why this topic is important” to “what is known about this topic,” setting the stage for “what is unknown about this topic and why it should be studied.” 

Gradually Moving from Broad to Narrow

These principles can be further transferred towards the introductory section as a whole. The first paragraph should serve as an introduction to the field and the topic. The middle paragraph(s) provide exposition and detail regarding what is known and unknown, and what has already been done and still remains to do, and the final paragraph outlines the study and its principle findings, providing a transition into either the materials and methods or the results section. 

For example, this work by radiation oncologist Eric Deutsch’s group at Université Paris-Saclay, published in PLoS One , 2 opens by succinctly explaining a scientific problem: “ the threat of extensive dispersion of radioactive isotopes within populated areas that would have an unfortunate effect on human health has increased drastically .” It then offers the call to action necessitated by this problem: “ the development of a decorporating agent capable of effectively mitigating the effects of a wide range of isotopes is critical .”

In the next two paragraphs, the study authors provide information on how and why dispersion of radioactive isotopes are a problem—“ the FDA has approved only three compounds (only one of which is used as a preventative therapy) for the treatment of exposure to specific radioactive elements ”—and highlights the strengths and weaknesses of what is currently available. They then introduce the focal point of their own work, chitosan@DOTAGA, within this context, explaining its potential as a solution to the problem they previously introduced: “ After oral administration to rodents over several days, no signs of acute or chronic toxicity were observed, and DOTAGA did not enter the blood stream and was fully eliminated from the gastrointestinal tract within 24 hours of administration. ”

Finally, the introduction concludes by listing the study objective—“ explore the potential of this polymer for use in the decorporation of a wide range of radioactive isotopes ”—and the motivations and rationale behind the study objective—“ there are no suitable countermeasures available for uranium poisoning. […] This innovative approach aims to directly chelate the radioactive cations, specifically uranium, within the gastrointestinal tract prior to their systemic absorption, which ensures their prompt elimination and mitigation of the associated toxicities. ”

The Introduction Engages with the Reader

The introduction section is often overlooked in favor of the title and the abstract, but it serves two important functions. First, it gives the audience all of the information that it needs to contextualize the yet-to-be-presented data within the context of the problem that needs to be solved or the scientific question that needs to be addressed. Second, and more importantly, it justifies the importance of the study, of its initiative, rationale, and purpose. The introduction is the author’s best—and arguably only real—opportunity to convince the audience that their study is worth reading.  

Looking for more information on scientific writing? Check out  The Scientist’s   TS SciComm  section. Looking for some help putting together a manuscript, a figure, a poster, or anything else?    The Scientist’s   Scientific Services  may have the professional help that you need.

• Judd HNG, et al. Functional domains of a ribosome arresting peptide are affected by surrounding nonconserved residues . J Biol Chem . 2024;300(3):105780.
• Durand A, et al. Enhancing radioprotection: A chitosan-based chelating polymer is a versatile radioprotective agent for prophylactic and therapeutic interventions against radionuclide contamination . PLoS One . 2024;19(4):e0292414.

Related community Research Resources

Building a Scientific Narrative

Where Books Meet Bacteria

The Fundamentals of Academic Science Writing

Thousands Believe Covid Vaccines Harmed Them. Is Anyone Listening?

All vaccines have at least occasional side effects. But people who say they were injured by Covid vaccines believe their cases have been ignored.

Shaun Barcavage, 54, a nurse practitioner in New York City, said that ever since his first Covid shot, standing up has sent his heart racing. Credit... Hannah Yoon for The New York Times

Supported by

• Share full article

By Apoorva Mandavilli

Apoorva Mandavilli spent more than a year talking to dozens of experts in vaccine science, policymakers and people who said they had experienced serious side effects after receiving a Covid-19 vaccine.

• Published May 3, 2024 Updated May 4, 2024, 10:37 a.m. ET

Within minutes of getting the Johnson & Johnson Covid-19 vaccine, Michelle Zimmerman felt pain racing from her left arm up to her ear and down to her fingertips. Within days, she was unbearably sensitive to light and struggled to remember simple facts.

She was 37, with a Ph.D. in neuroscience, and until then could ride her bicycle 20 miles, teach a dance class and give a lecture on artificial intelligence, all in the same day. Now, more than three years later, she lives with her parents. Eventually diagnosed with brain damage, she cannot work, drive or even stand for long periods of time.

“When I let myself think about the devastation of what this has done to my life, and how much I’ve lost, sometimes it feels even too hard to comprehend,” said Dr. Zimmerman, who believes her injury is due to a contaminated vaccine batch .

The Covid vaccines, a triumph of science and public health, are estimated to have prevented millions of hospitalizations and deaths . Yet even the best vaccines produce rare but serious side effects . And the Covid vaccines have been given to more than 270 million people in the United States, in nearly 677 million doses .

Dr. Zimmerman’s account is among the more harrowing, but thousands of Americans believe they suffered serious side effects following Covid vaccination. As of April, just over 13,000 vaccine-injury compensation claims have been filed with the federal government — but to little avail. Only 19 percent have been reviewed. Only 47 of those were deemed eligible for compensation, and only 12 have been paid out, at an average of about $3,600 .

Some scientists fear that patients with real injuries are being denied help and believe that more needs to be done to clarify the possible risks.

“At least long Covid has been somewhat recognized,” said Akiko Iwasaki, an immunologist and vaccine expert at Yale University. But people who say they have post-vaccination injuries are “just completely ignored and dismissed and gaslighted,” she added.

In interviews and email exchanges conducted over several months, federal health officials insisted that serious side effects were extremely rare and that their surveillance efforts were more than sufficient to detect patterns of adverse events.

“Hundreds of millions of people in the United States have safely received Covid vaccines under the most intense safety monitoring in U.S. history,” Jeff Nesbit, a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services, said in an emailed statement.

But in a recent interview, Dr. Janet Woodcock, a longtime leader of the Food and Drug Administration, who retired in February, said she believed that some recipients had experienced uncommon but “serious” and “life-changing” reactions beyond those described by federal agencies.

“I feel bad for those people,” said Dr. Woodcock, who became the F.D.A.’s acting commissioner in January 2021 as the vaccines were rolling out. “I believe their suffering should be acknowledged, that they have real problems, and they should be taken seriously.”

“I’m disappointed in myself,” she added. “I did a lot of things I feel very good about, but this is one of the few things I feel I just didn’t bring it home.”

Federal officials and independent scientists face a number of challenges in identifying potential vaccine side effects.

The nation’s fragmented health care system complicates detection of very rare side effects, a process that depends on an analysis of huge amounts of data. That’s a difficult task when a patient may be tested for Covid at Walgreens, get vaccinated at CVS, go to a local clinic for minor ailments and seek care at a hospital for serious conditions. Each place may rely on different health record systems.

There is no central repository of vaccine recipients, nor of medical records, and no easy to way to pool these data. Reports to the largest federal database of so-called adverse events can be made by anyone, about anything. It’s not even clear what officials should be looking for.

“I mean, you’re not going to find ‘brain fog’ in the medical record or claims data, and so then you’re not going to find” a signal that it may be linked to vaccination, Dr. Woodcock said. If such a side effect is not acknowledged by federal officials, “it’s because it doesn’t have a good research definition,” she added. “It isn’t, like, malevolence on their part.”

The government’s understaffed compensation fund has paid so little because it officially recognizes few side effects for Covid vaccines. And vaccine supporters, including federal officials, worry that even a whisper of possible side effects feeds into misinformation spread by a vitriolic anti-vaccine movement.

‘I’m Not Real’

Patients who believe they experienced serious side effects say they have received little support or acknowledgment.

Shaun Barcavage, 54, a nurse practitioner in New York City who has worked on clinical trials for H.I.V. and Covid, said that ever since his first Covid shot, merely standing up sent his heart racing — a symptom suggestive of postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome , a neurological disorder that some studies have linked to both Covid and, much less often, vaccination .

He also experienced stinging pain in his eyes, mouth and genitals, which has abated, and tinnitus, which has not.

“I can’t get the government to help me,” Mr. Barcavage said of his fruitless pleas to federal agencies and elected representatives. “I am told I’m not real. I’m told I’m rare. I’m told I’m coincidence.”

Renee France, 49, a physical therapist in Seattle, developed Bell’s palsy — a form of facial paralysis, usually temporary — and a dramatic rash that neatly bisected her face. Bell’s palsy is a known side effect of other vaccines, and it has been linked to Covid vaccination in some studies.

But Dr. France said doctors were dismissive of any connection to the Covid vaccines. The rash, a bout of shingles, debilitated her for three weeks, so Dr. France reported it to federal databases twice.

“I thought for sure someone would reach out, but no one ever did,” she said.

Similar sentiments were echoed in interviews, conducted over more than a year, with 30 people who said they had been harmed by Covid shots. They described a variety of symptoms following vaccination, some neurological, some autoimmune, some cardiovascular.

All said they had been turned away by physicians, told their symptoms were psychosomatic, or labeled anti-vaccine by family and friends — despite the fact that they supported vaccines.

Even leading experts in vaccine science have run up against disbelief and ambivalence.

Dr. Gregory Poland, 68, editor in chief of the journal Vaccine, said that a loud whooshing sound in his ears had accompanied every moment since his first shot, but that his entreaties to colleagues at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to explore the phenomenon, tinnitus, had led nowhere.

He received polite responses to his many emails, but “I just don’t get any sense of movement,” he said.

“If they have done studies, those studies should be published,” Dr. Poland added. In despair that he might “never hear silence again,” he has sought solace in meditation and his religious faith.

Dr. Buddy Creech, 50, who led several Covid vaccine trials at Vanderbilt University, said his tinnitus and racing heart lasted about a week after each shot. “It’s very similar to what I experienced during acute Covid, back in March of 2020,” Dr. Creech said.

Research may ultimately find that most reported side effects are unrelated to the vaccine, he acknowledged. Many can be caused by Covid itself.

“Regardless, when our patients experience a side effect that may or may not be related to the vaccine, we owe it to them to investigate that as completely as we can,” Dr. Creech said.

Federal health officials say they do not believe that the Covid vaccines caused the illnesses described by patients like Mr. Barcavage, Dr. Zimmerman and Dr. France. The vaccines may cause transient reactions, such as swelling, fatigue and fever, according to the C.D.C., but the agency has documented only four serious but rare side effects .

Two are associated with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, which is no longer available in the United States: Guillain-Barré syndrome , a known side effect of other vaccines , including the flu shot; and a blood-clotting disorder.

The C.D.C. also links mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna to heart inflammation, or myocarditis, especially in boys and young men. And the agency warns of anaphylaxis, or severe allergic reaction, which can occur after any vaccination.

Listening for Signals

Agency scientists are monitoring large databases containing medical information on millions of Americans for patterns that might suggest a hitherto unknown side effect of vaccination, said Dr. Demetre Daskalakis, director of the C.D.C.’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

“We toe the line by reporting the signals that we think are real signals and reporting them as soon as we identify them as signals,” he said. The agency’s systems for monitoring vaccine safety are “pretty close” to ideal, he said.

Those national surveillance efforts include the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). It is the largest database, but also the least reliable: Reports of side effects can be submitted by anyone and are not vetted, so they may be subject to bias or manipulation.

The system contains roughly one million reports regarding Covid vaccination, the vast majority for mild events, according to the C.D.C.

Federal researchers also comb through databases that combine electronic health records and insurance claims on tens of millions of Americans. The scientists monitor the data for 23 conditions that may occur following Covid vaccination. Officials remain alert to others that may pop up, Dr. Daskalakis said.

But there are gaps, some experts noted. The Covid shots administered at mass vaccination sites were not recorded in insurance claims databases, for example, and medical records in the United States are not centralized.

“It’s harder to see signals when you have so many people, and things are happening in different parts of the country, and they’re not all collected in the same system,” said Rebecca Chandler, a vaccine safety expert at the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations.

An expert panel convened by the National Academies concluded in April that for the vast majority of side effects, there was not enough data to accept or reject a link.

Asked at a recent congressional hearing whether the nation’s vaccine-safety surveillance was sufficient, Dr. Peter Marks, director of the F.D.A.’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said, “I do believe we could do better.”

In some countries with centralized health care systems, officials have actively sought out reports of serious side effects of Covid vaccines and reached conclusions that U.S. health authorities have not.

In Hong Kong, the government analyzed centralized medical records of patients after vaccination and paid people to come forward with problems. The strategy identified “a lot of mild cases that other countries would not otherwise pick up,” said Ian Wong, a researcher at the University of Hong Kong who led the nation’s vaccine safety efforts.

That included the finding that in rare instances — about seven per million doses — the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine triggered a bout of shingles serious enough to require hospitalization.

The European Medicines Agency has linked the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines to facial paralysis, tingling sensations and numbness. The E.M.A. also counts tinnitus as a side effect of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, although the American health agencies do not. There are more than 17,000 reports of tinnitus following Covid vaccination in VAERS.

Are the two linked? It’s not clear. As many as one in four adults has some form of tinnitus. Stress, anxiety, grief and aging can lead to the condition, as can infections like Covid itself and the flu.

There is no test or scan for tinnitus, and scientists cannot easily study it because the inner ear is tiny, delicate and encased in bone, said Dr. Konstantina Stankovic, an otolaryngologist at Stanford University.

Still, an analysis of health records from nearly 2.6 million people in the United States found that about 0.04 percent , or about 1,000, were diagnosed with tinnitus within three weeks of their first mRNA shot. In March, researchers in Australia published a study linking tinnitus and vertigo to the vaccines .

The F.D.A. is monitoring reports of tinnitus, but “at this time, the available evidence does not suggest a causal association with the Covid-19 vaccines,” the agency said in a statement.

Despite surveillance efforts, U.S. officials were not the first to identify a significant Covid vaccine side effect: myocarditis in young people receiving mRNA vaccines. It was Israeli authorities who first raised the alarm in April 2021. Officials in the United States said at the time that they had not seen a link.

On May 22, 2021, news broke that the C.D.C. was investigating a “relatively few” cases of myocarditis. By June 23, the number of myocarditis reports in VAERS had risen to more than 1,200 — a hint that it is important to tell doctors and patients what to look for.

Later analyses showed that the risk for myocarditis and pericarditis, a related condition, is highest after a second dose of an mRNA Covid vaccine in adolescent males aged 12 to 17 years.

In many people, vaccine-related myocarditis is transient. But some patients continue to experience pain, breathlessness and depression, and some show persistent changes on heart scans . The C.D.C. has said there were no confirmed deaths related to myocarditis, but in fact there have been several accounts of deaths reported post-vaccination .

Pervasive Misinformation

The rise of the anti-vaccine movement has made it difficult for scientists, in and out of government, to candidly address potential side effects, some experts said. Much of the narrative on the purported dangers of Covid vaccines is patently false, or at least exaggerated, cooked up by savvy anti-vaccine campaigns.

Questions about Covid vaccine safety are core to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s presidential campaign. Citing debunked theories about altered DNA, Florida’s surgeon general has called for a halt to Covid vaccination in the state.

“The sheer nature of misinformation, the scale of misinformation, is staggering, and anything will be twisted to make it seem like it’s not just a devastating side effect but proof of a massive cover-up,” said Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, a vice dean at Johns Hopkins University.

Among the hundreds of millions of Americans who were immunized for Covid, some number would have had heart attacks or strokes anyway. Some women would have miscarried. How to distinguish those caused by the vaccine from those that are coincidences? The only way to resolve the question is intense research .

But the National Institutes of Health is conducting virtually no studies on Covid vaccine safety, several experts noted. William Murphy, a cancer researcher who worked at the N.I.H. for 12 years, has been prodding federal health officials to initiate these studies since 2021.

The officials each responded with “that very tired mantra: ‘But the virus is worse,’” Dr. Murphy recalled. “Yes, the virus is worse, but that doesn’t obviate doing research to make sure that there may be other options.”

A deeper understanding of possible side effects, and who is at risk for them, could have implications for the design of future vaccines, or may indicate that for some young and healthy people, the benefit of Covid shots may no longer outweigh the risks — as some European countries have determined.

Thorough research might also speed assistance to thousands of Americans who say they were injured.

The federal government has long run the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program , designed to compensate people who suffer injuries after vaccination. Established more than three decades ago, the program sets no limit on the amounts awarded to people found to have been harmed.

But Covid vaccines are not covered by that fund because Congress has not made them subject to the excise tax that pays for it. Some lawmakers have introduced bills to make the change.

Instead, claims regarding Covid vaccines go to the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program . Intended for public health emergencies, this program has narrow criteria to pay out and sets a limit of $50,000, with stringent standards of proof.

It requires applicants to prove within a year of the injury that it was “the direct result” of getting the Covid vaccine, based on “compelling, reliable, valid, medical, and scientific evidence.”

The program had only four staff members at the beginning of the pandemic, and now has 35 people evaluating claims. Still, it has reviewed only a fraction of the 13,000 claims filed, and has paid out only a dozen.

Dr. Ilka Warshawsky, a 58-year-old pathologist, said she lost all hearing in her right ear after a Covid booster shot. But hearing loss is not a recognized side effect of Covid vaccination.

The compensation program for Covid vaccines sets a high bar for proof, she said, yet offers little information on how to meet it: “These adverse events can be debilitating and life-altering, and so it’s very upsetting that they’re not acknowledged or addressed.”

Dr. Zimmerman, the neuroscientist, submitted her application in October 2021 and provided dozens of supporting medical documents. She received a claim number only in January 2023.

In adjudicating her claim for workers’ compensation, Washington State officials accepted that Covid vaccination caused her injury, but she has yet to get a decision from the federal program.

One of her therapists recently told her she might never be able to live independently again.

“That felt like a devastating blow,” Dr. Zimmerman said. “But I’m trying not to lose hope there will someday be a treatment and a way to cover it.”

Apoorva Mandavilli is a reporter focused on science and global health. She was a part of the team that won the 2021 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service for coverage of the pandemic. More about Apoorva Mandavilli

Advertisement