background research science report

• Manuscript Preparation

What is the Background of a Study and How Should it be Written?

• 3 minute read
• 892.4K views

Table of Contents

The background of a study is one of the most important components of a research paper. The quality of the background determines whether the reader will be interested in the rest of the study. Thus, to ensure that the audience is invested in reading the entire research paper, it is important to write an appealing and effective background. So, what constitutes the background of a study, and how must it be written?

What is the background of a study?

The background of a study is the first section of the paper and establishes the context underlying the research. It contains the rationale, the key problem statement, and a brief overview of research questions that are addressed in the rest of the paper. The background forms the crux of the study because it introduces an unaware audience to the research and its importance in a clear and logical manner. At times, the background may even explore whether the study builds on or refutes findings from previous studies. Any relevant information that the readers need to know before delving into the paper should be made available to them in the background.

How is a background different from the introduction?

The introduction of your research paper is presented before the background. Let’s find out what factors differentiate the background from the introduction.

• The introduction only contains preliminary data about the research topic and does not state the purpose of the study. On the contrary, the background clarifies the importance of the study in detail.
• The introduction provides an overview of the research topic from a broader perspective, while the background provides a detailed understanding of the topic.
• The introduction should end with the mention of the research questions, aims, and objectives of the study. In contrast, the background follows no such format and only provides essential context to the study.

How should one write the background of a research paper?

The length and detail presented in the background varies for different research papers, depending on the complexity and novelty of the research topic. At times, a simple background suffices, even if the study is complex. Before writing and adding details in the background, take a note of these additional points:

• Start with a strong beginning: Begin the background by defining the research topic and then identify the target audience.
• Cover key components: Explain all theories, concepts, terms, and ideas that may feel unfamiliar to the target audience thoroughly.
• Take note of important prerequisites: Go through the relevant literature in detail. Take notes while reading and cite the sources.
• Maintain a balance: Make sure that the background is focused on important details, but also appeals to a broader audience.
• Include historical data: Current issues largely originate from historical events or findings. If the research borrows information from a historical context, add relevant data in the background.
• Explain novelty: If the research study or methodology is unique or novel, provide an explanation that helps to understand the research better.
• Increase engagement: To make the background engaging, build a story around the central theme of the research

Avoid these mistakes while writing the background:

• Ambiguity: Don’t be ambiguous. While writing, assume that the reader does not understand any intricate detail about your research.
• Unrelated themes: Steer clear from topics that are not related to the key aspects of your research topic.
• Poor organization: Do not place information without a structure. Make sure that the background reads in a chronological manner and organize the sub-sections so that it flows well.

Writing the background for a research paper should not be a daunting task. But directions to go about it can always help. At Elsevier Author Services we provide essential insights on how to write a high quality, appealing, and logically structured paper for publication, beginning with a robust background. For further queries, contact our experts now!

How to Use Tables and Figures effectively in Research Papers

• Research Process

The Top 5 Qualities of Every Good Researcher

You may also like.

Make Hook, Line, and Sinker: The Art of Crafting Engaging Introductions

Can Describing Study Limitations Improve the Quality of Your Paper?

A Guide to Crafting Shorter, Impactful Sentences in Academic Writing

6 Steps to Write an Excellent Discussion in Your Manuscript

How to Write Clear and Crisp Civil Engineering Papers? Here are 5 Key Tips to Consider

The Clear Path to An Impactful Paper: ②

The Essentials of Writing to Communicate Research in Medicine

Changing Lines: Sentence Patterns in Academic Writing

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

• Resources Home 🏠
• Try SciSpace Copilot
• Search research papers
• Add Copilot Extension
• Try AI Detector
• Try Paraphraser
• Try Citation Generator
• April Papers
• June Papers
• July Papers

How to Write an Effective Background of the Study: A Comprehensive Guide

Table of Contents

The background of the study in a research paper offers a clear context, highlighting why the research is essential and the problem it aims to address.

As a researcher, this foundational section is essential for you to chart the course of your study, Moreover, it allows readers to understand the importance and path of your research.

Whether in academic communities or to the general public, a well-articulated background aids in communicating the essence of the research effectively.

While it may seem straightforward, crafting an effective background requires a blend of clarity, precision, and relevance. Therefore, this article aims to be your guide, offering insights into:

• Understanding the concept of the background of the study.
• Learning how to craft a compelling background effectively.
• Identifying and sidestepping common pitfalls in writing the background.
• Exploring practical examples that bring the theory to life.
• Enhancing both your writing and reading of academic papers.

Keeping these compelling insights in mind, let's delve deeper into the details of the empirical background of the study, exploring its definition, distinctions, and the art of writing it effectively.

What is the background of the study?

The background of the study is placed at the beginning of a research paper. It provides the context, circumstances, and history that led to the research problem or topic being explored.

It offers readers a snapshot of the existing knowledge on the topic and the reasons that spurred your current research.

When crafting the background of your study, consider the following questions.

• What's the context of your research?
• Which previous research will you refer to?
• Are there any knowledge gaps in the existing relevant literature?
• How will you justify the need for your current research?
• Have you concisely presented the research question or problem?

In a typical research paper structure, after presenting the background, the introduction section follows. The introduction delves deeper into the specific objectives of the research and often outlines the structure or main points that the paper will cover.

Together, they create a cohesive starting point, ensuring readers are well-equipped to understand the subsequent sections of the research paper.

While the background of the study and the introduction section of the research manuscript may seem similar and sometimes even overlap, each serves a unique purpose in the research narrative.

Difference between background and introduction

A well-written background of the study and introduction are preliminary sections of a research paper and serve distinct purposes.

Here’s a detailed tabular comparison between the two of them.

What is the relevance of the background of the study?

It is necessary for you to provide your readers with the background of your research. Without this, readers may grapple with questions such as: Why was this specific research topic chosen? What led to this decision? Why is this study relevant? Is it worth their time?

Such uncertainties can deter them from fully engaging with your study, leading to the rejection of your research paper. Additionally, this can diminish its impact in the academic community, and reduce its potential for real-world application or policy influence .

To address these concerns and offer clarity, the background section plays a pivotal role in research papers.

The background of the study in research is important as it:

• Provides context: It offers readers a clear picture of the existing knowledge, helping them understand where the current research fits in.
• Highlights relevance: By detailing the reasons for the research, it underscores the study's significance and its potential impact.
• Guides the narrative: The background shapes the narrative flow of the paper, ensuring a logical progression from what's known to what the research aims to uncover.
• Enhances engagement: A well-crafted background piques the reader's interest, encouraging them to delve deeper into the research paper.
• Aids in comprehension: By setting the scenario, it aids readers in better grasping the research objectives, methodologies, and findings.

How to write the background of the study in a research paper?

The journey of presenting a compelling argument begins with the background study. This section holds the power to either captivate or lose the reader's interest.

An effectively written background not only provides context but also sets the tone for the entire research paper. It's the bridge that connects a broad topic to a specific research question, guiding readers through the logic behind the study.

But how does one craft a background of the study that resonates, informs, and engages?

Here, we’ll discuss how to write an impactful background study, ensuring your research stands out and captures the attention it deserves.

Identify the research problem

The first step is to start pinpointing the specific issue or gap you're addressing. This should be a significant and relevant problem in your field.

A well-defined problem is specific, relevant, and significant to your field. It should resonate with both experts and readers.

Here’s more on how to write an effective research problem .

Provide context

Here, you need to provide a broader perspective, illustrating how your research aligns with or contributes to the overarching context or the wider field of study. A comprehensive context is grounded in facts, offers multiple perspectives, and is relatable.

In addition to stating facts, you should weave a story that connects key concepts from the past, present, and potential future research. For instance, consider the following approach.

• Offer a brief history of the topic, highlighting major milestones or turning points that have shaped the current landscape.
• Discuss contemporary developments or current trends that provide relevant information to your research problem. This could include technological advancements, policy changes, or shifts in societal attitudes.
• Highlight the views of different stakeholders. For a topic like sustainable agriculture, this could mean discussing the perspectives of farmers, environmentalists, policymakers, and consumers.
• If relevant, compare and contrast global trends with local conditions and circumstances. This can offer readers a more holistic understanding of the topic.

Literature review

For this step, you’ll deep dive into the existing literature on the same topic. It's where you explore what scholars, researchers, and experts have already discovered or discussed about your topic.

Conducting a thorough literature review isn't just a recap of past works. To elevate its efficacy, it's essential to analyze the methods, outcomes, and intricacies of prior research work, demonstrating a thorough engagement with the existing body of knowledge.

• Instead of merely listing past research study, delve into their methodologies, findings, and limitations. Highlight groundbreaking studies and those that had contrasting results.
• Try to identify patterns. Look for recurring themes or trends in the literature. Are there common conclusions or contentious points?
• The next step would be to connect the dots. Show how different pieces of research relate to each other. This can help in understanding the evolution of thought on the topic.

By showcasing what's already known, you can better highlight the background of the study in research.

Highlight the research gap

This step involves identifying the unexplored areas or unanswered questions in the existing literature. Your research seeks to address these gaps, providing new insights or answers.

A clear research gap shows you've thoroughly engaged with existing literature and found an area that needs further exploration.

How can you efficiently highlight the research gap?

• Find the overlooked areas. Point out topics or angles that haven't been adequately addressed.
• Highlight questions that have emerged due to recent developments or changing circumstances.
• Identify areas where insights from other fields might be beneficial but haven't been explored yet.

State your objectives

Here, it’s all about laying out your game plan — What do you hope to achieve with your research? You need to mention a clear objective that’s specific, actionable, and directly tied to the research gap.

How to state your objectives?

• List the primary questions guiding your research.
• If applicable, state any hypotheses or predictions you aim to test.
• Specify what you hope to achieve, whether it's new insights, solutions, or methodologies.

Discuss the significance

This step describes your 'why'. Why is your research important? What broader implications does it have?

The significance of “why” should be both theoretical (adding to the existing literature) and practical (having real-world implications).

How do we effectively discuss the significance?

• Discuss how your research adds to the existing body of knowledge.
• Highlight how your findings could be applied in real-world scenarios, from policy changes to on-ground practices.
• Point out how your research could pave the way for further studies or open up new areas of exploration.

Summarize your points

A concise summary acts as a bridge, smoothly transitioning readers from the background to the main body of the paper. This step is a brief recap, ensuring that readers have grasped the foundational concepts.

How to summarize your study?

• Revisit the key points discussed, from the research problem to its significance.
• Prepare the reader for the subsequent sections, ensuring they understand the research's direction.

Include examples for better understanding

Research and come up with real-world or hypothetical examples to clarify complex concepts or to illustrate the practical applications of your research. Relevant examples make abstract ideas tangible, aiding comprehension.

How to include an effective example of the background of the study?

• Use past events or scenarios to explain concepts.
• Craft potential scenarios to demonstrate the implications of your findings.
• Use comparisons to simplify complex ideas, making them more relatable.

Crafting a compelling background of the study in research is about striking the right balance between providing essential context, showcasing your comprehensive understanding of the existing literature, and highlighting the unique value of your research .

While writing the background of the study, keep your readers at the forefront of your mind. Every piece of information, every example, and every objective should be geared toward helping them understand and appreciate your research.

How to avoid mistakes in the background of the study in research?

To write a well-crafted background of the study, you should be aware of the following potential research pitfalls .

• Stay away from ambiguity. Always assume that your reader might not be familiar with intricate details about your topic.
• Avoid discussing unrelated themes. Stick to what's directly relevant to your research problem.
• Ensure your background is well-organized. Information should flow logically, making it easy for readers to follow.
• While it's vital to provide context, avoid overwhelming the reader with excessive details that might not be directly relevant to your research problem.
• Ensure you've covered the most significant and relevant studies i` n your field. Overlooking key pieces of literature can make your background seem incomplete.
• Aim for a balanced presentation of facts, and avoid showing overt bias or presenting only one side of an argument.
• While academic paper often involves specialized terms, ensure they're adequately explained or use simpler alternatives when possible.
• Every claim or piece of information taken from existing literature should be appropriately cited. Failing to do so can lead to issues of plagiarism.
• Avoid making the background too lengthy. While thoroughness is appreciated, it should not come at the expense of losing the reader's interest. Maybe prefer to keep it to one-two paragraphs long.
• Especially in rapidly evolving fields, it's crucial to ensure that your literature review section is up-to-date and includes the latest research.

Example of an effective background of the study

Let's consider a topic: "The Impact of Online Learning on Student Performance." The ideal background of the study section for this topic would be as follows.

In the last decade, the rise of the internet has revolutionized many sectors, including education. Online learning platforms, once a supplementary educational tool, have now become a primary mode of instruction for many institutions worldwide. With the recent global events, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a rapid shift from traditional classroom learning to online modes, making it imperative to understand its effects on student performance.

Previous studies have explored various facets of online learning, from its accessibility to its flexibility. However, there is a growing need to assess its direct impact on student outcomes. While some educators advocate for its benefits, citing the convenience and vast resources available, others express concerns about potential drawbacks, such as reduced student engagement and the challenges of self-discipline.

This research aims to delve deeper into this debate, evaluating the true impact of online learning on student performance.

Why is this example considered as an effective background section of a research paper?

This background section example effectively sets the context by highlighting the rise of online learning and its increased relevance due to recent global events. It references prior research on the topic, indicating a foundation built on existing knowledge.

By presenting both the potential advantages and concerns of online learning, it establishes a balanced view, leading to the clear purpose of the study: to evaluate the true impact of online learning on student performance.

As we've explored, writing an effective background of the study in research requires clarity, precision, and a keen understanding of both the broader landscape and the specific details of your topic.

From identifying the research problem, providing context, reviewing existing literature to highlighting research gaps and stating objectives, each step is pivotal in shaping the narrative of your research. And while there are best practices to follow, it's equally crucial to be aware of the pitfalls to avoid.

Remember, writing or refining the background of your study is essential to engage your readers, familiarize them with the research context, and set the ground for the insights your research project will unveil.

Drawing from all the important details, insights and guidance shared, you're now in a strong position to craft a background of the study that not only informs but also engages and resonates with your readers.

Now that you've a clear understanding of what the background of the study aims to achieve, the natural progression is to delve into the next crucial component — write an effective introduction section of a research paper. Read here .

Frequently Asked Questions

The background of the study should include a clear context for the research, references to relevant previous studies, identification of knowledge gaps, justification for the current research, a concise overview of the research problem or question, and an indication of the study's significance or potential impact.

The background of the study is written to provide readers with a clear understanding of the context, significance, and rationale behind the research. It offers a snapshot of existing knowledge on the topic, highlights the relevance of the study, and sets the stage for the research questions and objectives. It ensures that readers can grasp the importance of the research and its place within the broader field of study.

The background of the study is a section in a research paper that provides context, circumstances, and history leading to the research problem or topic being explored. It presents existing knowledge on the topic and outlines the reasons that spurred the current research, helping readers understand the research's foundation and its significance in the broader academic landscape.

The number of paragraphs in the background of the study can vary based on the complexity of the topic and the depth of the context required. Typically, it might range from 3 to 5 paragraphs, but in more detailed or complex research papers, it could be longer. The key is to ensure that all relevant information is presented clearly and concisely, without unnecessary repetition.

You might also like

Introducing SciSpace’s Citation Booster To Increase Research Visibility

AI for Meta-Analysis — A Comprehensive Guide

How To Write An Argumentative Essay

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• Background Information
• 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
• 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

Background information identifies and describes the history and nature of a well-defined research problem with reference to contextualizing existing literature. The background information should indicate the root of the problem being studied, appropriate context of the problem in relation to theory, research, and/or practice , its scope, and the extent to which previous studies have successfully investigated the problem, noting, in particular, where gaps exist that your study attempts to address. Background information does not replace the literature review section of a research paper; it is intended to place the research problem within a specific context and an established plan for its solution.

Fitterling, Lori. Researching and Writing an Effective Background Section of a Research Paper. Kansas City University of Medicine & Biosciences; Creating a Research Paper: How to Write the Background to a Study. DurousseauElectricalInstitute.com; Background Information: Definition of Background Information. Literary Devices Definition and Examples of Literary Terms.

Importance of Having Enough Background Information

Background information expands upon the key points stated in the beginning of your introduction but is not intended to be the main focus of the paper. It generally supports the question, what is the most important information the reader needs to understand before continuing to read the paper? Sufficient background information helps the reader determine if you have a basic understanding of the research problem being investigated and promotes confidence in the overall quality of your analysis and findings. This information provides the reader with the essential context needed to conceptualize the research problem and its significance before moving on to a more thorough analysis of prior research.

Forms of contextualization included in background information can include describing one or more of the following:

• Cultural -- placed within the learned behavior of a specific group or groups of people.
• Economic -- of or relating to systems of production and management of material wealth and/or business activities.
• Gender -- located within the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with being self-identified as male, female, or other form of  gender expression.
• Historical -- the time in which something takes place or was created and how the condition of time influences how you interpret it.
• Interdisciplinary -- explanation of theories, concepts, ideas, or methodologies borrowed from other disciplines applied to the research problem rooted in a discipline other than the discipline where your paper resides.
• Philosophical -- clarification of the essential nature of being or of phenomena as it relates to the research problem.
• Physical/Spatial -- reflects the meaning of space around something and how that influences how it is understood.
• Political -- concerns the environment in which something is produced indicating it's public purpose or agenda.
• Social -- the environment of people that surrounds something's creation or intended audience, reflecting how the people associated with something use and interpret it.
• Temporal -- reflects issues or events of, relating to, or limited by time. Concerns past, present, or future contextualization and not just a historical past.

Background information can also include summaries of important research studies . This can be a particularly important element of providing background information if an innovative or groundbreaking study about the research problem laid a foundation for further research or there was a key study that is essential to understanding your arguments. The priority is to summarize for the reader what is known about the research problem before you conduct the analysis of prior research. This is accomplished with a general summary of the foundational research literature [with citations] that document findings that inform your study's overall aims and objectives.

NOTE : Research studies cited as part of the background information of your introduction should not include very specific, lengthy explanations. This should be discussed in greater detail in your literature review section. If you find a study requiring lengthy explanation, consider moving it to the literature review section.

ANOTHER NOTE : In some cases, your paper's introduction only needs to introduce the research problem, explain its significance, and then describe a road map for how you are going to address the problem; the background information basically forms the introduction part of your literature review. That said, while providing background information is not required, including it in the introduction is a way to highlight important contextual information that could otherwise be hidden or overlooked by the reader if placed in the literature review section.

Background of the Problem Section: What do you Need to Consider? Anonymous. Harvard University; Hopkins, Will G. How to Write a Research Paper. SPORTSCIENCE, Perspectives/Research Resources. Department of Physiology and School of Physical Education, University of Otago, 1999; Green, L. H. How to Write the Background/Introduction Section. Physics 499 Powerpoint slides. University of Illinois; Pyrczak, Fred. Writing Empirical Research Reports: A Basic Guide for Students of the Social and Behavioral Sciences . 8th edition. Glendale, CA: Pyrczak Publishing, 2014; Stevens, Kathleen C. “Can We Improve Reading by Teaching Background Information?.” Journal of Reading 25 (January 1982): 326-329; Woodall, W. Gill. Writing the Background and Significance Section. Senior Research Scientist and Professor of Communication. Center on Alcoholism, Substance Abuse, and Addictions. University of New Mexico.

Structure and Writing Style

Providing background information in the introduction of a research paper serves as a bridge that links the reader to the research problem . Precisely how long and in-depth this bridge should be is largely dependent upon how much information you think the reader will need to know in order to fully understand the problem being discussed and to appreciate why the issues you are investigating are important.

From another perspective, the length and detail of background information also depends on the degree to which you need to demonstrate to your professor how much you understand the research problem. Keep this in mind because providing pertinent background information can be an effective way to demonstrate that you have a clear grasp of key issues, debates, and concepts related to your overall study.

The structure and writing style of your background information can vary depending upon the complexity of your research and/or the nature of the assignment. However, in most cases it should be limited to only one to two paragraphs in your introduction.

Given this, here are some questions to consider while writing this part of your introduction :

• Are there concepts, terms, theories, or ideas that may be unfamiliar to the reader and, thus, require additional explanation?
• Are there historical elements that need to be explored in order to provide needed context, to highlight specific people, issues, or events, or to lay a foundation for understanding the emergence of a current issue or event?
• Are there theories, concepts, or ideas borrowed from other disciplines or academic traditions that may be unfamiliar to the reader and therefore require further explanation?
• Is there a key study or small set of studies that set the stage for understanding the topic and frames why it is important to conduct further research on the topic?
• Y our study uses a method of analysis never applied before;
• Your study investigates a very esoteric or complex research problem;
• Your study introduces new or unique variables that need to be taken into account ; or,
• Your study relies upon analyzing unique texts or documents, such as, archival materials or primary documents like diaries or personal letters that do not represent the established body of source literature on the topic?

Almost all introductions to a research problem require some contextualizing, but the scope and breadth of background information varies depending on your assumption about the reader's level of prior knowledge . However, despite this assessment, background information should be brief and succinct and sets the stage for the elaboration of critical points or in-depth discussion of key issues in the literature review section of your paper.

Writing Tip

Background Information vs. the Literature Review

Incorporating background information into the introduction is intended to provide the reader with critical information about the topic being studied, such as, highlighting and expanding upon foundational studies conducted in the past, describing important historical events that inform why and in what ways the research problem exists, defining key components of your study [concepts, people, places, phenomena] and/or placing the research problem within a particular context. Although introductory background information can often blend into the literature review portion of the paper, essential background information should not be considered a substitute for a comprehensive review and synthesis of relevant research literature.

Hart, Cris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1998; Pyrczak, Fred. Writing Empirical Research Reports: A Basic Guide for Students of the Social and Behavioral Sciences . 8th edition. Glendale, CA: Pyrczak Publishing, 2014.

• << Previous: The C.A.R.S. Model
• Next: The Research Problem/Question >>
• Last Updated: May 1, 2024 9:25 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

What is the Background in a Research Paper?

An effective Background section in your manuscript establishes the context for your study. And while original research requires novel findings, providing the necessary background information for these findings may be just as important. It lets your readers know that your findings are novel, important, and worthy of their time and attention.

Updated on October 3, 2022

A good Background section explains the history and nature of your research question in relation to existing literature – a “state of the art.” This section, along with the rationale, helps readers understand why you chose to study this problem and why your study is worthwhile. This article will show you how to do this.

Read on to better understand the:

• Real purpose of the Background section
• Typical length of a Background section and its placement
• Elements of an effective Background

What is the Background section of a research paper?

The Background section is an essential element of every study, answering:

• What do we already know about the topic?
• How does your study relate to what's been done so far in your field?
• What is its scope?
• Why does the topic warrant your interest and their interest?
• How did you develop the research question that you'll later introduce?

In grant writing, a Background section is often referred to as the “state of the art,” and this is a useful term to have in mind when writing this part of your paper.

What comes next?

After you make the above points,

• Formulate your research question/hypothesis . Research aims and objectives should be closely related to how you'll fill the gap you've identified in the literature. Your research gap is the central theme of your article and why people should read it.
• Summarize how you'll address it in the paper . Your methodology needs to be appropriate for addressing the “problem” you've identified.
• Describe the significance of your study . Show how your research fits into the bigger picture.

Note that the Background section isn't the same as the research rationale. Rather, it provides the relevant information the reader needs so they can follow your rationale. For example, it

• Explains scientific terms
• Provides available data and statistics on the topic
• Describes the methods used so far on your topic. Especially if these are different from what you're going to do. Take special care here, because this is often where peer reviewers focus intently.

This is a logical approach to what comes after the study's background. Use it and the reader can easily follow along from the broader information to the specific details that come later. Crucially, they'll have confidence that your analysis and findings are valid.

Where should the background be placed in a research paper?

Usually, the background comes after the statement of the problem, in the Introduction section. Logically, you need to provide the study context before discussing the research questions, methodology, and results.

The background can be found in:

The abstract

The background typically forms the first few sentences of the abstract. Why did you do the study? Most journals state this clearly. In an unstructured (no subheadings) abstract, it's the first sentence or two. In a structured abstract, it might be called the Introduction, Background, or State-of-the-Art.

PLOS Medicine , for example, asks for research article abstracts to be split into three sections: Background, Methods and Findings, and Conclusions. Journals in the humanities or social sciences might not clearly ask for it because articles sometimes have a looser structure than STEM articles.

The first part of the Introduction section

In the journal Nature , for example, the Introduction should be around 200 words and include

• Two to three sentences giving a basic introduction to the field.
• The background and rationale of the study are stated briefly.
• A simple phrase “Here we show ...”, or “In this study, we show ....” (to round out the Introduction).

The Journal of Organic Chemistry has similar author guidelines.

The Background as a distinct section

This is often the case for research proposals or some types of reports, as discussed above. Rather than reviewing the literature, this is a concise summary of what's currently known in the field relevant to the question being addressed in this proposed study.

How long should the Background section be?

As mentioned, there's no set length for the Background section. It generally depends on the journal and the content of your manuscript. Check the journal's author guidelines, the research center, granting agency, etc. If it's still not clear or if the instructions are contradictory, email or phone them directly.

The length of your background will depend on:

The manuscript length and content

A book-length study needs a more extensive Background than a four-page research article. Exploring a relatively unknown method or question might also need a longer Background.

For example, see this Frontiers article on the applications of artificial intelligence for developing COVID-19 vaccines. It has a seven-paragraph long Background (1,200 words) in a separate section. The authors need to discuss earlier successful uses of machine learning for therapy discovery to make a convincing case.

An academic paper published in an international journal is usually around 5,000 words. Your paper needs to be balanced, with appropriate text lengths used for the different sections: It would make no sense to have a 300-word introduction and then 4,000 words for the methods, for example. In a 5,000-word manuscript, you'll be able to use about 1,500 for the introduction, which includes the background.

How much you need to show your understanding of the topic

A lengthy grant application might need a longer Background (sub-)section. That's because if they're going to grant you money, they need a very good reason to. You'll need to show that the work is both interesting and doable. The Background is where you can do this.

What should the Background of a research manuscript include?

The Background of a research paper needs to show two things:

The study's territory ( scope )

First, provide a general overview of the field. Scientists in most disciplines should find it relatively easy to understand. Be broad, keep it interesting. Don't go into the specifics of your particular study.

Let's look at two examples:

• one from basic research (seeking to generate new knowledge)
• one from applied research (trying to solve or improve existing processes or products)

Applied research

This Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence article explores how AI can help discover treatments for COVID-19.

The background of the study can be found (i) in the abstract and (ii) in a separate section discussed at the end of this article. The abstract starts with this general overview: “SARS-COV-2 has roused the scientific community with a call to action to combat the growing pandemic.” ( Arshadi et al., 2020 ). This is broad, and it's interesting. This is a topic that many researchers (even from outside this specific area) may want to learn more about.

Think of any theories, models, concepts, or terms (maybe borrowed from different disciplines) that may be unfamiliar to your reader. Be sure to clarify them in plainer language, if necessary.

For example, this systematic review looks at the connections of physician burnout with career engagement and quality of patient care. The Background is in the Introduction section. It starts by defining what burnout is:

• “Burnout is defined as a syndrome related to work that involves three key dimensions.” ( Hodkinson et al., 2022 )

The authors go on to explain its three aspects: emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and a sense of reduced personal accomplishment.

Basic research

Imagine you're investigating how universities' moves to online teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic impacted students' learning outcomes in the United Kingdom. The overview could be:

• The COVID-19 pandemic and the ensuing lockdown generated tremendous challenges across the higher education sector. University campuses were forced to close. Face-to-face teaching and assessment transitioned into a virtual format.

2. The niche in the field (motivation)

To establish the niche in your field, describe what drove you to explore this specific topic.

• Explain how (un)successfully previous studies have investigated the problem.
• Note the knowledge gap or present a problem with a currently used process/practice/product.

After setting the stage, the abstract of the Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence article identifies a problem:

• “At the time of this writing, there are as yet no novel antiviral agents or approved vaccines available for deployment as a frontline defense.” ( Arshadi et al., 2020 )

The authors need to support their claim that computational methods can help discover new COVID-19 treatments. They do so by referring to previous research findings:

• “In the last decade, machine learning-based models, trained on specific biomolecules, have offered inexpensive and rapid implementation methods for the discovery of effective viral therapies.” ( Arshadi et al., 2020 )

Going back to the study on students' learning outcomes after universities introduced e-learning. The background section will next identify and describe the current knowledge gap and your proposed method of fixing it. It may be something like:

• Existing literature and studies by the UK Department for Education reveal x + y changes and effects on teaching and learning. Yet they provide little to no information on students' learning outcomes. Understanding the impact of online teaching and assessments on student outcomes is key to adopting future teaching practices and ensuring students from disadvantaged backgrounds are not left behind.

How is the background different from the literature review?

Both the background and literature review sections compile previous studies that are relevant and important to the topic.

Despite their similarities, they're different in scope and aims.

Overall, the research background could be seen as a small part of the detailed critical discussion in the literature review. Almost always, primary research articles do not include a detailed literature review.

How is the Background different from the Introduction section?

Although often part of the Introduction, the Background differs from the Introduction in scope and aim.

Breakdown of the Background in published articles

Consider this systematic review looking at the connections of physician burnout with career engagement and quality of patient care.

The Background is placed in the Introduction section. It's critical, consistent, and logically structured, moving from general to specific information.

You can also check out the summary paragraph breakdown provided by Nature. (Nature's “summary paragraph” is essentially an abstract.)

And if you're looking for some help, or have an article that's finished but needs a pre-submission review click here to connect with one of our expert AJE editors.

Gareth Dyke, PhD

Director of Global Content

See our "Privacy Policy"

VFM 8th Grade Science Fair Project: Step 4: Background Research

• Step 1: Find a Project Idea
• Step 2: Formulate a Research Question & do a Project Proposal
• Step 3: State the Purpose
• Step 4: Background Research
• Free Web Search
• Step 5: Bibliography
• Step 6: Identify the Variables in your Experiment
• Step 7: Form a Hypothesis
• Step 8: Materials
• Step 9: Design & Write the Procedure
• Step 10: Perform the Experiment
• Step 11: Record your Data and Results
• Step 12: Analyze your Data & Results
• Step 13: Make a Conclusion
• Step 14: Write the Abstract
• Step 15: Acknowledgments
• Step 16: Title Page and Table of Contents
• Step 17: Proofread!
• Step 18: Write a Final Copy of your Lab Report
• Step 19: Create your Display Board
• Step 20: The VFMS Science Fair
• Oral Presentation
• Lab Journal/Notebook
• Schedule and Due Dates

In-Text Citation

• [APA] How do I write an APA parenthetical (in-text) reference? Give Credit to your website or author in the body of your research.

Background Research

Background research should help you to educate the reader of your project about important aspects of your topic.  

Using multiple resources, students should learn about past results of other experiments that are similar to theirs. Students should know how and why previous experimenters arrived at their conclusions. The background research should help the students give the “because…” in the “if… then… because…” section of their hypothesis.

20 - 30 facts from 3 sources  is a reasonable expectation for this section. In the final paper, this background research will be put into paragraph form.

Use the  Background Research Planning Worksheet  to help you formulate questions that you need to answer for your topic.  Each student should become an expert on anything that is closely related to their area of research. 

• Background Research Worksheet Complete this worksheet prior to beginning your background research for your project.
• Fact Collection Worksheet Collect 20-30 facts from a minimum of 3 sources: one source must be from Gale Science in Context
• Sample of Background Research Paragraphs Here is a sample of what your background research paragraphs might look like. Sample found on the web here: http://www.oncoursesystems.com/images/user/2162/302482/img074.jpg

Why You Should Use Databases

Databases are sometimes called the "deep web" or "invisible web" because their information is usually only accessible through paid subscriptions using passwords and isn't usually found (indexed) by search engines such as Google.

Database records are organized using a variety of indexes such as author and subject but are keyword searchable as well. 

Databases are either subject specific such as World History in Context or content specific such as the newspaper and magazine database through EBSCO. 

Databases contain information that has been checked for the  ABC's   of  authority  &   accuracy, bias, and content  &  currency . You can trust the information you find in databases, not like on the web or through Google searches. Sometimes it's accurate, but many times it isn't. 

Library Databases: Start your Search Here

What is Research?

Research is: 

• Driven by a question that guides the process.
• Seeking information with a clear goal.
• A process, which works best when done step- by-step. The steps may need to be repeated.
• Collection and interpretation of data in an attempt to resolve the problem.
• Going beyond facts and old ideas.
• Taking a new look at the information and taking a stand.

Research is not:

• Copying and pasting information you find through a Google search.
• Combining a paragraph from one article with a couple of paragraphs from websites. That's plagiarism.
• Rearranging facts
• Rewording each phrase and citing each source. That's just a summary of facts with someone else's name on them and still can be classified as plagiarism.

Words for the wise student: 

• Remember, begin with a "wide net" and then narrow your search results.
• If you only look for specific information to answer a specific question, you may miss many opportunities to broaden your understanding .
• Allow for surprises- you may find your views on your topic will change and take you in an entirely new direction.
• Remember that research is searching again and again.
• In the process of doing research, you will be looking at information that others have looked at before, trying to see something that they have not seen.
• << Previous: Step 3: State the Purpose
• Next: Free Web Search >>
• Last Updated: Jan 27, 2016 2:09 PM
• URL: https://tesd.libguides.com/VFMScienceFairProject

• Privacy Policy

Home » Background of The Study – Examples and Writing Guide

Background of The Study – Examples and Writing Guide

Table of Contents

Background of The Study

Definition:

Background of the study refers to the context, circumstances, and history that led to the research problem or topic being studied. It provides the reader with a comprehensive understanding of the subject matter and the significance of the study.

The background of the study usually includes a discussion of the relevant literature, the gap in knowledge or understanding, and the research questions or hypotheses to be addressed. It also highlights the importance of the research topic and its potential contributions to the field. A well-written background of the study sets the stage for the research and helps the reader to appreciate the need for the study and its potential significance.

How to Write Background of The Study

Here are some steps to help you write the background of the study:

Identify the Research Problem

Start by identifying the research problem you are trying to address. This problem should be significant and relevant to your field of study.

Provide Context

Once you have identified the research problem, provide some context. This could include the historical, social, or political context of the problem.

Review Literature

Conduct a thorough review of the existing literature on the topic. This will help you understand what has been studied and what gaps exist in the current research.

Identify Research Gap

Based on your literature review, identify the gap in knowledge or understanding that your research aims to address. This gap will be the focus of your research question or hypothesis.

State Objectives

Clearly state the objectives of your research . These should be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART).

Discuss Significance

Explain the significance of your research. This could include its potential impact on theory , practice, policy, or society.

Finally, summarize the key points of the background of the study. This will help the reader understand the research problem, its context, and its significance.

How to Write Background of The Study in Proposal

The background of the study is an essential part of any proposal as it sets the stage for the research project and provides the context and justification for why the research is needed. Here are the steps to write a compelling background of the study in your proposal:

• Identify the problem: Clearly state the research problem or gap in the current knowledge that you intend to address through your research.
• Provide context: Provide a brief overview of the research area and highlight its significance in the field.
• Review literature: Summarize the relevant literature related to the research problem and provide a critical evaluation of the current state of knowledge.
• Identify gaps : Identify the gaps or limitations in the existing literature and explain how your research will contribute to filling these gaps.
• Justify the study : Explain why your research is important and what practical or theoretical contributions it can make to the field.
• Highlight objectives: Clearly state the objectives of the study and how they relate to the research problem.
• Discuss methodology: Provide an overview of the methodology you will use to collect and analyze data, and explain why it is appropriate for the research problem.
• Conclude : Summarize the key points of the background of the study and explain how they support your research proposal.

How to Write Background of The Study In Thesis

The background of the study is a critical component of a thesis as it provides context for the research problem, rationale for conducting the study, and the significance of the research. Here are some steps to help you write a strong background of the study:

• Identify the research problem : Start by identifying the research problem that your thesis is addressing. What is the issue that you are trying to solve or explore? Be specific and concise in your problem statement.
• Review the literature: Conduct a thorough review of the relevant literature on the topic. This should include scholarly articles, books, and other sources that are directly related to your research question.
• I dentify gaps in the literature: After reviewing the literature, identify any gaps in the existing research. What questions remain unanswered? What areas have not been explored? This will help you to establish the need for your research.
• Establish the significance of the research: Clearly state the significance of your research. Why is it important to address this research problem? What are the potential implications of your research? How will it contribute to the field?
• Provide an overview of the research design: Provide an overview of the research design and methodology that you will be using in your study. This should include a brief explanation of the research approach, data collection methods, and data analysis techniques.
• State the research objectives and research questions: Clearly state the research objectives and research questions that your study aims to answer. These should be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound.
• Summarize the chapter: Summarize the chapter by highlighting the key points and linking them back to the research problem, significance of the study, and research questions.

How to Write Background of The Study in Research Paper

Here are the steps to write the background of the study in a research paper:

• Identify the research problem: Start by identifying the research problem that your study aims to address. This can be a particular issue, a gap in the literature, or a need for further investigation.
• Conduct a literature review: Conduct a thorough literature review to gather information on the topic, identify existing studies, and understand the current state of research. This will help you identify the gap in the literature that your study aims to fill.
• Explain the significance of the study: Explain why your study is important and why it is necessary. This can include the potential impact on the field, the importance to society, or the need to address a particular issue.
• Provide context: Provide context for the research problem by discussing the broader social, economic, or political context that the study is situated in. This can help the reader understand the relevance of the study and its potential implications.
• State the research questions and objectives: State the research questions and objectives that your study aims to address. This will help the reader understand the scope of the study and its purpose.
• Summarize the methodology : Briefly summarize the methodology you used to conduct the study, including the data collection and analysis methods. This can help the reader understand how the study was conducted and its reliability.

Examples of Background of The Study

Here are some examples of the background of the study:

Problem : The prevalence of obesity among children in the United States has reached alarming levels, with nearly one in five children classified as obese.

Significance : Obesity in childhood is associated with numerous negative health outcomes, including increased risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and certain cancers.

Gap in knowledge : Despite efforts to address the obesity epidemic, rates continue to rise. There is a need for effective interventions that target the unique needs of children and their families.

Problem : The use of antibiotics in agriculture has contributed to the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which poses a significant threat to human health.

Significance : Antibiotic-resistant infections are responsible for thousands of deaths each year and are a major public health concern.

Gap in knowledge: While there is a growing body of research on the use of antibiotics in agriculture, there is still much to be learned about the mechanisms of resistance and the most effective strategies for reducing antibiotic use.

Edxample 3:

Problem : Many low-income communities lack access to healthy food options, leading to high rates of food insecurity and diet-related diseases.

Significance : Poor nutrition is a major contributor to chronic diseases such as obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease.

Gap in knowledge : While there have been efforts to address food insecurity, there is a need for more research on the barriers to accessing healthy food in low-income communities and effective strategies for increasing access.

Examples of Background of The Study In Research

Here are some real-life examples of how the background of the study can be written in different fields of study:

Example 1 : “There has been a significant increase in the incidence of diabetes in recent years. This has led to an increased demand for effective diabetes management strategies. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a new diabetes management program in improving patient outcomes.”

Example 2 : “The use of social media has become increasingly prevalent in modern society. Despite its popularity, little is known about the effects of social media use on mental health. This study aims to investigate the relationship between social media use and mental health in young adults.”

Example 3: “Despite significant advancements in cancer treatment, the survival rate for patients with pancreatic cancer remains low. The purpose of this study is to identify potential biomarkers that can be used to improve early detection and treatment of pancreatic cancer.”

Examples of Background of The Study in Proposal

Here are some real-time examples of the background of the study in a proposal:

Example 1 : The prevalence of mental health issues among university students has been increasing over the past decade. This study aims to investigate the causes and impacts of mental health issues on academic performance and wellbeing.

Example 2 : Climate change is a global issue that has significant implications for agriculture in developing countries. This study aims to examine the adaptive capacity of smallholder farmers to climate change and identify effective strategies to enhance their resilience.

Example 3 : The use of social media in political campaigns has become increasingly common in recent years. This study aims to analyze the effectiveness of social media campaigns in mobilizing young voters and influencing their voting behavior.

Example 4 : Employee turnover is a major challenge for organizations, especially in the service sector. This study aims to identify the key factors that influence employee turnover in the hospitality industry and explore effective strategies for reducing turnover rates.

Examples of Background of The Study in Thesis

Here are some real-time examples of the background of the study in the thesis:

Example 1 : “Women’s participation in the workforce has increased significantly over the past few decades. However, women continue to be underrepresented in leadership positions, particularly in male-dominated industries such as technology. This study aims to examine the factors that contribute to the underrepresentation of women in leadership roles in the technology industry, with a focus on organizational culture and gender bias.”

Example 2 : “Mental health is a critical component of overall health and well-being. Despite increased awareness of the importance of mental health, there are still significant gaps in access to mental health services, particularly in low-income and rural communities. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a community-based mental health intervention in improving mental health outcomes in underserved populations.”

Example 3: “The use of technology in education has become increasingly widespread, with many schools adopting online learning platforms and digital resources. However, there is limited research on the impact of technology on student learning outcomes and engagement. This study aims to explore the relationship between technology use and academic achievement among middle school students, as well as the factors that mediate this relationship.”

Examples of Background of The Study in Research Paper

Here are some examples of how the background of the study can be written in various fields:

Example 1: The prevalence of obesity has been on the rise globally, with the World Health Organization reporting that approximately 650 million adults were obese in 2016. Obesity is a major risk factor for several chronic diseases such as diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and cancer. In recent years, several interventions have been proposed to address this issue, including lifestyle changes, pharmacotherapy, and bariatric surgery. However, there is a lack of consensus on the most effective intervention for obesity management. This study aims to investigate the efficacy of different interventions for obesity management and identify the most effective one.

Example 2: Antibiotic resistance has become a major public health threat worldwide. Infections caused by antibiotic-resistant bacteria are associated with longer hospital stays, higher healthcare costs, and increased mortality. The inappropriate use of antibiotics is one of the main factors contributing to the development of antibiotic resistance. Despite numerous efforts to promote the rational use of antibiotics, studies have shown that many healthcare providers continue to prescribe antibiotics inappropriately. This study aims to explore the factors influencing healthcare providers’ prescribing behavior and identify strategies to improve antibiotic prescribing practices.

Example 3: Social media has become an integral part of modern communication, with millions of people worldwide using platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. Social media has several advantages, including facilitating communication, connecting people, and disseminating information. However, social media use has also been associated with several negative outcomes, including cyberbullying, addiction, and mental health problems. This study aims to investigate the impact of social media use on mental health and identify the factors that mediate this relationship.

Purpose of Background of The Study

The primary purpose of the background of the study is to help the reader understand the rationale for the research by presenting the historical, theoretical, and empirical background of the problem.

More specifically, the background of the study aims to:

• Provide a clear understanding of the research problem and its context.
• Identify the gap in knowledge that the study intends to fill.
• Establish the significance of the research problem and its potential contribution to the field.
• Highlight the key concepts, theories, and research findings related to the problem.
• Provide a rationale for the research questions or hypotheses and the research design.
• Identify the limitations and scope of the study.

When to Write Background of The Study

The background of the study should be written early on in the research process, ideally before the research design is finalized and data collection begins. This allows the researcher to clearly articulate the rationale for the study and establish a strong foundation for the research.

The background of the study typically comes after the introduction but before the literature review section. It should provide an overview of the research problem and its context, and also introduce the key concepts, theories, and research findings related to the problem.

Writing the background of the study early on in the research process also helps to identify potential gaps in knowledge and areas for further investigation, which can guide the development of the research questions or hypotheses and the research design. By establishing the significance of the research problem and its potential contribution to the field, the background of the study can also help to justify the research and secure funding or support from stakeholders.

Advantage of Background of The Study

The background of the study has several advantages, including:

• Provides context: The background of the study provides context for the research problem by highlighting the historical, theoretical, and empirical background of the problem. This allows the reader to understand the research problem in its broader context and appreciate its significance.
• Identifies gaps in knowledge: By reviewing the existing literature related to the research problem, the background of the study can identify gaps in knowledge that the study intends to fill. This helps to establish the novelty and originality of the research and its potential contribution to the field.
• Justifies the research : The background of the study helps to justify the research by demonstrating its significance and potential impact. This can be useful in securing funding or support for the research.
• Guides the research design: The background of the study can guide the development of the research questions or hypotheses and the research design by identifying key concepts, theories, and research findings related to the problem. This ensures that the research is grounded in existing knowledge and is designed to address the research problem effectively.
• Establishes credibility: By demonstrating the researcher’s knowledge of the field and the research problem, the background of the study can establish the researcher’s credibility and expertise, which can enhance the trustworthiness and validity of the research.

Disadvantages of Background of The Study

Some Disadvantages of Background of The Study are as follows:

• Time-consuming : Writing a comprehensive background of the study can be time-consuming, especially if the research problem is complex and multifaceted. This can delay the research process and impact the timeline for completing the study.
• Repetitive: The background of the study can sometimes be repetitive, as it often involves summarizing existing research and theories related to the research problem. This can be tedious for the reader and may make the section less engaging.
• Limitations of existing research: The background of the study can reveal the limitations of existing research related to the problem. This can create challenges for the researcher in developing research questions or hypotheses that address the gaps in knowledge identified in the background of the study.
• Bias : The researcher’s biases and perspectives can influence the content and tone of the background of the study. This can impact the reader’s perception of the research problem and may influence the validity of the research.
• Accessibility: Accessing and reviewing the literature related to the research problem can be challenging, especially if the researcher does not have access to a comprehensive database or if the literature is not available in the researcher’s language. This can limit the depth and scope of the background of the study.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

Institutional Review Board – Application Sample...

Evaluating Research – Process, Examples and...

Thursday, February 23: The Clark Library is closed today.

Getting Started with Research

• Identify a Topic or Research Question

Why and How

Video: finding and using background research.

• Library Resources
• Evaluating Sources
• Citing Your Sources
• Help Along the Way

When getting started with your research, it is a good idea to get a general overview of a topic or gather background information. This information can help you decide if the topic really is in line with your thinking, and whether you want to continue researching in that subject area.

Background information may include facts, historical figures, timelines, definitions, origins, theories, events, and more.

Reference resources (encyclopedias, dictionaries, handbooks) are the most authoritative sources for locating general or background information.

• Clark Library's Encyclopedias Add words to the search box to search within the library's specialized encyclopedias.

• << Previous: Identify a Topic or Research Question
• Next: Library Resources >>
• Last Updated: Jan 2, 2024 2:28 PM
• URL: https://libguides.up.edu/gettingstarted

How to Write a Science Fair Project Report

Lab Reports and Research Essays

• Projects & Experiments
• Chemical Laws
• Periodic Table
• Scientific Method
• Biochemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Medical Chemistry
• Chemistry In Everyday Life
• Famous Chemists
• Activities for Kids
• Abbreviations & Acronyms
• Weather & Climate
• Ph.D., Biomedical Sciences, University of Tennessee at Knoxville
• B.A., Physics and Mathematics, Hastings College

Writing a science fair project report may seem like a challenging task, but it is not as difficult as it first appears. This is a format that you may use to write a science project report. If your project included animals, humans, hazardous materials, or regulated substances, you can attach an appendix that describes any special activities your project required. Also, some reports may benefit from additional sections, such as abstracts and bibliographies. You may find it helpful to fill out the science fair lab report template to prepare your report.

Important: Some science fairs have guidelines put forth by the science fair committee or an instructor. If your science fair has these guidelines, be sure to follow them.

• Title:  For a science fair, you probably want a catchy, clever title. Otherwise, try to make it an accurate description of the project. For example, I could entitle a project, "Determining Minimum NaCl Concentration That Can Be Tasted in Water." Avoid unnecessary words, while covering the essential purpose of the project. Whatever title you come up with, get it critiqued by friends, family, or teachers.
• Introduction and Purpose:  Sometimes this section is called "background." Whatever its name, this section introduces the topic of the project, notes any information already available, explains why you are interested in the project, and states the purpose of the project. If you are going to state references in your report, this is where most of the citations are likely to be, with the actual references listed at the end of the entire report in the form of a bibliography or reference section.
• The Hypothesis or Question:  Explicitly state your hypothesis or question.
• Materials and Methods:  List the materials you used in your project and describe the procedure that you used to perform the project. If you have a photo or diagram of your project, this is a good place to include it.
• Data and Results:  Data and results are not the same things. Some reports will require that they be in separate sections, so make sure you understand the difference between the concepts. Data refers to the actual numbers or other information you obtained in your project. Data can be presented in tables or charts, if appropriate. The results section is where the data is manipulated or the hypothesis is tested. Sometimes this analysis will yield tables, graphs, or charts, too. For example, a table listing the minimum concentration of salt that I can taste in water, with each line in the table being a separate test or trial, would be data. If I average the data or perform a statistical test of a null hypothesis , the information would be the results of the project.
• Conclusion:  The conclusion focuses on the hypothesis or question as it compares to the data and results. What was the answer to the question? Was the hypothesis supported (keep in mind a hypothesis cannot be proved, only disproved)? What did you find out from the experiment? Answer these questions first. Then, depending on your answers, you may wish to explain the ways in which the project might be improved or introduce new questions that have come up as a result of the project. This section is judged not only by what you were able to conclude but also by your recognition of areas where you could not draw valid conclusions based on your data.

Appearances Matter

Neatness counts, spelling counts, grammar counts. Take the time to make the report look nice. Pay attention to margins, avoid fonts that are difficult to read or are too small or too large, use clean paper, and make print the report cleanly on as good a printer or copier as you can.

• Make a Science Fair Poster or Display
• How to Organize Your Science Fair Poster
• How to Do a Science Fair Project
• How To Design a Science Fair Experiment
• How to Select a Science Fair Project Topic
• Science Fair Project Help
• 6th Grade Science Fair Projects
• What Judges Look for in a Science Fair Project
• Biology Science Fair Project Ideas
• Science Lab Report Template - Fill in the Blanks
• How to Write a Lab Report
• How to Write a Bibliography For a Science Fair Project
• Chemistry Science Fair Project Ideas
• 5 Types of Science Fair Projects
• Why Do a Science Fair Project?
• 7th Grade Science Fair Projects

Scientific Reports

What this handout is about.

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

Background and pre-writing

Why do we write research reports.

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

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

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

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

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

How do I do that?

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

• Introduction

Methods and Materials

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

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

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

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

What should I do before drafting the lab report?

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

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

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

Introductions

How do i write a strong introduction.

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

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

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

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

Not a hypothesis:

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

Hypothesis:

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

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

Justify your hypothesis

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

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

Background/previous research

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

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

Organization of this section

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

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

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

How do I write a strong Materials and Methods section?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Structure and style

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

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

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

How do I write a strong Results section?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How do I include figures in my report?

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

When should you use a figure?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How do I write a strong Discussion section?

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

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

Explain whether the data support your hypothesis

• Acknowledge any anomalous data or deviations from what you expected

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

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

Explore the theoretical and/or practical implications of your findings

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

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

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

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

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

Acknowledge any anomalous data, or deviations from what you expected

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Works consulted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift

What Is Background in a Research Paper?

So you have carefully written your research paper  and probably ran it through your colleagues ten to fifteen times. While there are many elements to a good research article, one of the most important elements for your readers is the background of your study.

What is Background of the Study in Research

The background of your study will provide context to the information discussed throughout the research paper . Background information may include both important and relevant studies. This is particularly important if a study either supports or refutes your thesis.

Why is Background of the Study Necessary in Research?

The background of the study discusses your problem statement, rationale, and research questions. It links  introduction to your research topic  and ensures a logical flow of ideas.  Thus, it helps readers understand your reasons for conducting the study.

Providing Background Information

The reader should be able to understand your topic and its importance. The length and detail of your background also depend on the degree to which you need to demonstrate your understanding of the topic. Paying close attention to the following questions will help you in writing background information:

• Are there any theories, concepts, terms, and ideas that may be unfamiliar to the target audience and will require you to provide any additional explanation?
• Any historical data that need to be shared in order to provide context on why the current issue emerged?
• Are there any concepts that may have been borrowed from other disciplines that may be unfamiliar to the reader and need an explanation?

Related: Ready with the background and searching for more information on journal ranking? Check this infographic on the SCImago Journal Rank today!

Is the research study unique for which additional explanation is needed? For instance, you may have used a completely new method

How to Write a Background of the Study

The structure of a background study in a research paper generally follows a logical sequence to provide context, justification, and an understanding of the research problem. It includes an introduction, general background, literature review , rationale , objectives, scope and limitations , significance of the study and the research hypothesis . Following the structure can provide a comprehensive and well-organized background for your research.

Here are the steps to effectively write a background of the study.

1. Identify Your Audience:

Determine the level of expertise of your target audience. Tailor the depth and complexity of your background information accordingly.

2. Understand the Research Problem:

Define the research problem or question your study aims to address. Identify the significance of the problem within the broader context of the field.

3. Review Existing Literature:

Conduct a thorough literature review to understand what is already known in the area. Summarize key findings, theories, and concepts relevant to your research.

4. Include Historical Data:

Integrate historical data if relevant to the research, as current issues often trace back to historical events.

5. Identify Controversies and Gaps:

Note any controversies or debates within the existing literature. Identify gaps , limitations, or unanswered questions that your research can address.

6. Select Key Components:

Choose the most critical elements to include in the background based on their relevance to your research problem. Prioritize information that helps build a strong foundation for your study.

7. Craft a Logical Flow:

Organize the background information in a logical sequence. Start with general context, move to specific theories and concepts, and then focus on the specific problem.

8. Highlight the Novelty of Your Research:

Clearly explain the unique aspects or contributions of your study. Emphasize why your research is different from or builds upon existing work.

Here are some extra tips to increase the quality of your research background:

Example of a Research Background

Here is an example of a research background to help you understand better.

The above hypothetical example provides a research background, addresses the gap and highlights the potential outcome of the study; thereby aiding a better understanding of the proposed research.

What Makes the Introduction Different from the Background?

Your introduction is different from your background in a number of ways.

• The introduction contains preliminary data about your topic that  the reader will most likely read , whereas the background clarifies the importance of the paper.
• The background of your study discusses in depth about the topic, whereas the introduction only gives an overview.
• The introduction should end with your research questions, aims, and objectives, whereas your background should not (except in some cases where your background is integrated into your introduction). For instance, the C.A.R.S. ( Creating a Research Space ) model, created by John Swales is based on his analysis of journal articles. This model attempts to explain and describe the organizational pattern of writing the introduction in social sciences.

Points to Note

Your background should begin with defining a topic and audience. It is important that you identify which topic you need to review and what your audience already knows about the topic. You should proceed by searching and researching the relevant literature. In this case, it is advisable to keep track of the search terms you used and the articles that you downloaded. It is helpful to use one of the research paper management systems such as Papers, Mendeley, Evernote, or Sente. Next, it is helpful to take notes while reading. Be careful when copying quotes verbatim and make sure to put them in quotation marks and cite the sources. In addition, you should keep your background focused but balanced enough so that it is relevant to a broader audience. Aside from these, your background should be critical, consistent, and logically structured.

Writing the background of your study should not be an overly daunting task. Many guides that can help you organize your thoughts as you write the background. The background of the study is the key to introduce your audience to your research topic and should be done with strong knowledge and thoughtful writing.

The background of a research paper typically ranges from one to two paragraphs, summarizing the relevant literature and context of the study. It should be concise, providing enough information to contextualize the research problem and justify the need for the study. Journal instructions about any word count limits should be kept in mind while deciding on the length of the final content.

The background of a research paper provides the context and relevant literature to understand the research problem, while the introduction also introduces the specific research topic, states the research objectives, and outlines the scope of the study. The background focuses on the broader context, whereas the introduction focuses on the specific research project and its objectives.

When writing the background for a study, start by providing a brief overview of the research topic and its significance in the field. Then, highlight the gaps in existing knowledge or unresolved issues that the study aims to address. Finally, summarize the key findings from relevant literature to establish the context and rationale for conducting the research, emphasizing the need and importance of the study within the broader academic landscape.

The background in a research paper is crucial as it sets the stage for the study by providing essential context and rationale. It helps readers understand the significance of the research problem and its relevance in the broader field. By presenting relevant literature and highlighting gaps, the background justifies the need for the study, building a strong foundation for the research and enhancing its credibility.

The presentation very informative

It is really educative. I love the workshop. It really motivated me into writing my first paper for publication.

an interesting clue here, thanks.

thanks for the answers.

Good and interesting explanation. Thanks

Thank you for good presentation.

Hi Adam, we are glad to know that you found our article beneficial

The background of the study is the key to introduce your audience to YOUR research topic.

Awesome. Exactly what i was looking forwards to 😉

Hi Maryam, we are glad to know that you found our resource useful.

my understanding of ‘Background of study’ has been elevated.

Hi Peter, we are glad to know that our article has helped you get a better understanding of the background in a research paper.

thanks to give advanced information

Hi Shimelis, we are glad to know that you found the information in our article beneficial.

When i was studying it is very much hard for me to conduct a research study and know the background because my teacher in practical research is having a research so i make it now so that i will done my research

Very informative……….Thank you.

The confusion i had before, regarding an introduction and background to a research work is now a thing of the past. Thank you so much.

Thanks for your help…

Thanks for your kind information about the background of a research paper.

Thanks for the answer

Very informative. I liked even more when the difference between background and introduction was given. I am looking forward to learning more from this site. I am in Botswana

Hello, I am Benoît from Central African Republic. Right now I am writing down my research paper in order to get my master degree in British Literature. Thank you very much for posting all this information about the background of the study. I really appreciate. Thanks!

The write up is quite good, detailed and informative. Thanks a lot. The article has certainly enhanced my understanding of the topic.

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?

• Planet Earth
• Strange News

How To Write A Background Paper For Science Fair

APA Background Research Paper . Science Fair Background Research Process: 1. You will need 60 index cards 2. You will make a list of 20 questions about your topic and then find answers for each of your 20 questions from 3…

Typing The APA Background Research Paper – Science Fair Background Research Process:1. You will need 60 index cards2. You will make a list of 20 questions about your topic and then find answers for each of your 20 questions from 3 different sources: Books, Internet, and Encyclopedias3. You will then write each of your 20 questions on one side of the index cards; one per index card. Repeat this a total of three times so that you have 60 index cards. IE: Topic: Sun Spots Question #1 “What causes sun spots?

Video advice: How to Write the Background of the Study in Research (Part 1). See Links Below for Parts 2, 3, and 4

Full transcript of the video lecture on \”How to Write the Background of the Study Part 1\” is available at:

Acaciawood Prep :: Science Fair – Acaciawood School 5th-8th grade students participate in an annual Science Fair competition. Projects are prepared throughout the fall semester and the first part of the spring semester for a competition in the early spring. The top projects in each grade of the school’s competition compete at the Orange County Science and Engineering Fair. Winners at the county level move on to the State Science Fair competition.

Background Information for Science Projects

Science projects for school students range from simple setups and graphs to more complex fair-style displays or even extended activities. Students and teachers can complete some projects directly in the classroom, while others may need some at-home care to finish. Whether you (or your child or student) create an …

. . Science projects for college students vary from simple setups and graphs to more complicated fair-style displays or perhaps extended activities. Students and teachers can complete some projects directly within the classroom, while some may require some at-homecare to complete. Regardless of whether you (or perhaps your child or student) create a more sophisticated activity or something like that more fundamental, all science projects should contain history or perhaps a purpose statement. Explore this short article What’s History? Additional Information to incorporate Keeping History Finding History 1 What’s History? Science project history includes all research that you simply conduct prior to starting the game. For instance, should you design a task about how acids and bases react when mixed together, the backdrop section should contain specific info on acids, bases, litmus tests, chemical formulas, solutions, molecules and reactions.

Video advice: Challenge A Science Fair part 2… Research Question, Background Research, and Hypothesis

Video advice: Introduction to Science Fair Background Research Paper

What is a background paper for science project?

The purpose of the Background Research Report is for you to gain knowledge about your Science Fair Project topic. This way you will be able to interpret the results of your experiment and draw conclusions based on the previous knowledge you gained by writing this report.

How do you write a science background?

The background should be written as a summary of your interpretation of previous research and what your study proposes to accomplish .... How to avoid common mistakes in writing the background

• Don't write a background that is too long or too short. ...
• Don't be ambiguous. ...
• Don't discuss unrelated themes. ...
• Don't be disorganized.

What is the background information of an experiment?

Science project background information includes all research that you conduct before beginning the activity .

How do you start a background research?

The background study for a thesis includes a review of the area being researched, current information surrounding the issue, previous studies on the issue, and relevant history on the issue. Ideally, the study should effectively set forth the history and background information on your thesis problem.

What is an example of background information?

Background information is often provided after the hook, or opening statement that is used to grab the reader's attention. ... Examples of Background Information: In his inaugural speech at Rice University, John F. Kennedy spoke about the space race and going to the moon.

Related Articles:

• How To Write Background Information For Science Fair
• What Is Background Research For Science Fair
• What Is Background Research For Science Fair Project
• How To Write A Computer Science Paper
• How To Write Abstract For Science Research Paper
• Which Paper Towel Absorbs The Most Water Science Fair Project

Science Journalist

Science atlas, our goal is to spark the curiosity that exists in all of us. We invite readers to visit us daily, explore topics of interest, and gain new perspectives along the way.

You may also like

Is A Bachelors In Biology Useless

When Was It Proven That The Earth Is Round

How Do I Read Davids Concrete Innovation Catalog

Add comment, cancel reply.

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

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

Recent discoveries

What Geology Contains Most Gold

Is The Second Law Of Thermodynamics Capitalized

How Is Stress Defined In Geology

How Will An Innovation In Technology Affect A Labors Wage

• Animals 3041
• Astronomy 8
• Biology 2281
• Chemistry 482
• Culture 1333
• Health 8466
• History 2152
• Physics 913
• Planet Earth 3239
• Science 2158
• Strange News 1230
• Technology 3625

Random fact

Toxicity of Protein Involved with Alzheimer’s Triggered by Chemical “Switch

Background Research

What is background research, tyes of background information.

• General Sources
• Subject Specific Sources

Background research (or pre-research) is the research that you do before you start writing your paper or working on your project. Sometimes background research happens before you've even chosen a topic. The purpose of background research is to make the research that goes into your paper or project easier and more successful.

Some reasons to do background research include:

• Determining an appropriate scope for your research: Successful research starts with a topic or question that is appropriate to the scope of the assignment. A topic that is too broad means too much relevant information to review and distill. If your topic is too narrow, there won't be enough information to do meaningful research.
• Understanding how your research fits in with the broader conversation surrounding the topic: What are the major points of view or areas of interest in discussions of your research topic and how does your research fit in with these? Answering this question can help you define the parts of your topic that you need to explore.
• Establishing the value of your research : What is the impact of your research and why does it matter? How might your research clarify or change our understanding of the topic?
• Identifying experts and other important perspectives: Are there scholars whose work you need to understand for your research to be complete? Are there points of view that you need to include or address?

Doing background research helps you choose a topic that you'll be happy with and develop a sense of what research you'll need to do in order to successfully complete your assignment. It will also help you plan your research and understand how much time you'll need to dedicate to understanding and exploring your topic.

Some types of information sources can be particularly helpful when you're doing background research. These are often primarily tertiary sources meaning that, rather than conducting original research they often summarize existing research on the topic.

Current Events Briefs Databases like CQ Researcher are focused on understanding controversial topics in current events. They provide information about the background of the issue as well as explanations of the positions of those on either side of a controversy.

Encyclopedias  Encyclopedias are ideal sources for doing background research in order build your knowledge about a topic sufficiently to identify a topic and develop a research plan.

Dictionaries Dictionaries include both general dictionaries like the Oxford English Dictionary as well as more specialized dictionaries focused on a single area. Dictionary entries are usually shorter and less detailed than encyclopedia entries and generally do not include references. However, they can be helpful when your research introduces you to concepts with which you aren't familiar.

Textbooks Your textbook is a potential source of background information, providing an explanation of the topic that prepares you to focus and dig deeper. Textbooks give a general overview of lot of information.

Statistics While you may find that it's difficult to make sense of statistics related to your topic while you're still exploring, statistics can be a powerful tool for establishing the context and importance of your research.

• Next: General Sources >>
• Last Updated: Nov 13, 2023 3:40 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.odu.edu/background

National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics

Working paper.

• Report PDF (309 KB)
• Report - All Formats .ZIP (1.3 MB)
• Share on X/Twitter
• Share on Facebook
• Share on LinkedIn
• Send as Email

Assessment of the FY 2016 Survey of Nonprofit Research Activities to Determine Whether Data Meet Current Statistical Standards for Publication

Working papers are intended to report exploratory results of research and analysis undertaken by the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES) within the National Science Foundation (NSF). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this working paper do not necessarily reflect the views of NSF. This working paper has been released to inform interested parties of ongoing research or activities and to encourage further discussion of the topic.

This working paper describes an assessment of the data in the FY 2016 Survey of Nonprofit Research Activities to identify estimates that would meet the NCSES quality criteria for official statistics. Please see the corresponding InfoBrief ( https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf22337 /) and data tables ( https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf22338/ ) for the estimates that meet the criteria for NCSES official statistics.

The Survey of Nonprofit Research Activities (NPRA Survey) collects information on activities related to research and development that are performed or funded by nonprofits in the United States. The NPRA Survey is part of the data collection portfolio directed by the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES) within the National Science Foundation (NSF). The FY 2016 NPRA Survey was conducted in 2018 with a sample of nonprofit organizations in the United States. The overall response rate was 48% unweighted and 61% weighted. Due to a low response rate, particularly for certain subgroups such as hospitals (35% unweighted and 45% weighted response rate), not all of the NPRA Survey data met NCSES’ criteria for official statistics. NCSES decided to undertake additional assessment in order to determine the subset of NPRA data that would meet the current NCSES statistical standards required for official release. This working paper identifies which data from the FY 2016 NPRA Survey met NCSES’ statistical standards. This document summarizes the steps taken to conduct this additional assessment, and it also includes detailed information on the data quality comparisons.

Introduction

The National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES) conducted the Survey of Nonprofit Research Activities (NPRA Survey) to collect information on activities related to research and development that are performed or funded by nonprofits in the United States. ​ An organization is considered a nonprofit if it is categorized by the Internal Revenue Service as a 501(c)(3) public charity, a 501(c)(3) private foundation, or another exempt organization—e.g., a 501(c)(4), 501(c)(5), or 501(c)(6). A pilot survey was conducted from September 2016 through February 2017 that collected FY 2015 data, ​ The pilot survey data were provided by the respondents for testing purposes only and were not published. and a full implementation of the survey was conducted in 2018 that collected FY 2016 data.

The survey obtained a 48% unweighted response rate overall (61% weighted response rate). However, response rates varied across groups, with the lowest response rate from hospitals (35% unweighted and 45% weighted response rate). Due to high nonresponse rate, not all of the NPRA Survey data meet NCSES’s criteria for official statistics as outlined in the NCSES statistical standards for information products (released in September 2020). At the conclusion of the FY 2016 survey, NCSES decided to proceed with discussing the results via a working paper, FY 2016 Nonprofit Research Activities Survey: Summary of Methodology, Assessment of Quality, and Synopsis of Results. Working Paper NCSES 21-202. Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering. Available at https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2021/ncses21202/ ." data-bs-content="Britt R, Jankowski J; National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES). 2021. FY 2016 Nonprofit Research Activities Survey: Summary of Methodology, Assessment of Quality, and Synopsis of Results. Working Paper NCSES 21-202. Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering. Available at https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2021/ncses21202/ ." data-endnote-uuid="84623eba-d8d5-47ff-b8a5-788c7185d8e3">​ Britt R, Jankowski J; National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES). 2021. FY 2016 Nonprofit Research Activities Survey: Summary of Methodology, Assessment of Quality, and Synopsis of Results. Working Paper NCSES 21-202. Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering. Available at https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2021/ncses21202/ . which gave caveats that all data did not meet the criteria for official statistics. At the same time, NCSES decided to undertake additional assessment to determine the subset of NPRA Survey data that would meet the current NCSES statistical standards required for official release. This document reflects the results of that additional assessment.

The data quality of the NPRA Survey was assessed based on the Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology (FCSM) Framework for Data Quality . https://nces.ed.gov/fcsm/pdf/FCSM.20.04_A_Framework_for_Data_Quality.pdf ." data-bs-content="Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology. 2020. A Framework for Data Quality. FCSM 20-04. Available at https://nces.ed.gov/fcsm/pdf/FCSM.20.04_A_Framework_for_Data_Quality.pdf ." data-endnote-uuid="e6909e1a-4979-4237-b31c-ac59869f9274">​ Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology. 2020. A Framework for Data Quality. FCSM 20-04. Available at https://nces.ed.gov/fcsm/pdf/FCSM.20.04_A_Framework_for_Data_Quality.pdf . The framework states, “Data quality is the degree to which data capture the desired information using appropriate methodology in a manner that sustains public trust.” Therefore, NCSES’s assessment of the NPRA Survey data is guided by the three FCSM data quality dimensions—utility, objectivity, and integrity.

Utility refers to the extent to which information is well-targeted to identified and anticipated needs; it reflects the usefulness of the information to the intended users. Objectivity refers to whether information is accurate, reliable, and unbiased, and is presented in an accurate, clear and interpretable, and unbiased manner. Integrity refers to the maintenance of rigorous scientific standards and the protection of information from manipulation or influence as well as unauthorized access or revision. (p. 3)

The nonprofit sector is one of four major sectors of the economy (i.e., business, government, higher education, and nonprofit organizations) that perform or fund R&D. ​ The nonprofit sector includes nonprofit organizations other than government or academia. R&D performed by nonprofits that receive federal funds is reported on in the Survey of Federal Funds for Research and Development. R&D performed by higher education nonprofits is reported on in the Higher Education Research and Development Survey. Historically, NCSES has combined nonprofit sector data with data from the other three sectors to estimate total national R&D expenditures, which are presented in the annual report National Patterns of R&D Resources . The other three sectors are surveyed annually; however, prior to fielding the pilot NPRA Survey, NCSES had last collected R&D data from nonprofit organizations in 1997. That mail survey was based on a sample of 1,131 nonprofit organizations that were prescreened as performing or funding R&D worth at least $250,000 in 1996. Since the 1997 survey, the National Patterns of R&D Resources has relied on statistical modeling based on the results of the 1996–97 Survey of Research and Development Funding and Performance by Nonprofit Organizations, supplemented by information from the Survey of Federal Funds for Research and Development, to continue estimation of the nonprofit sector’s R&D expenditures.

The primary objective of the NPRA Survey is to fill in data gaps in the National Patterns of R&D Resources in such a way that the data are compatible with the data collected on other sectors of the U.S. economy and are appropriate for international comparisons. The results of the FY 2016 NPRA Survey provide the first estimates of nonprofit R&D activity in the United States since the late 1990s, as well as a better understanding of the scope and nature of R&D in the nonprofit sector.

From a Framework for Data Quality utility perspective, specifically the relevance and timeliness dimensions, the NPRA Survey will improve NCSES’s estimate of total R&D from the nonprofit sector for publication in the National Patterns of R&D Resources . Conducted in 2018, with a FY 2016 reference year, the NPRA Survey provides more current data than the existing source (1997 with annual adjustments). Moreover, the growth of the nonprofit sector highlights the relevancy of these data to accurately measure the share of R&D from the nonprofit sector.

Summary of NPRA Survey Methodology

A sample of nonprofit organizations was selected from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Exempt Organizations Business Master File Extract. Organizations filing Form 990 (public charities) and Form 990-PF (private foundations) were eligible. Organizations were stratified based on their estimated likelihood of performing or funding research. The stratification included a set of organizations “known” to perform or fund research since they were identified as performers or funders in auxiliary data sources, including past survey data from NCSES (2010–13 Survey of Federal Science and Engineering Support to Universities, Colleges, and Nonprofit Institutions, 2009 Survey of Science and Engineering Research Facilities, and 1996 and 1997 Survey of Research and Development Funding and Performance by Nonprofit Organizations), association and society memberships (Association of Independent Research Institutes, Consortium of Social Science Associations, Science Philanthropy Alliance, Health Research Alliance), and other sources (affiliates of the Higher Education Research and Development Survey, Grant Station Funder Database, and sources discovered through cognitive interviews). These organizations were selected with certainty.

The NPRA Survey staff attempted to contact U.S.-based nonprofit organizations using a two-phase approach to obtain information about whether the organization performed or funded research. ​ Throughout this document, the term “research” is synonymous with “research and development” or “R&D.” Some organizations’ performer and funder status were known based on auxiliary data sources (see previous paragraph). Organizations in the sample with an unknown performer or funder status were sent a screener card in phase 1, which began in February 2018.

Phase 2, which began in April 2018, included the phase 1 organizations that reported either performing or funding R&D during phase 1 (including those that did not respond) and organizations with a known performer or funder status through sources external to the survey. Performer and funder status (i.e., whether an organization performed research, funded research, or both in FY 2016) was then confirmed in phase 2, and organizations that either performed or funded research were asked to complete additional questions about their research activities. Performer or funder status could have been obtained in either data collection phase 1 or phase 2, but research activity questionnaires were only completed in phase 2.

Overall response rates were calculated by using best practices established by the American Association for Public Opinion Research ( https://www.aapor.org/Standards-Ethics/Standard-Definitions-(1).aspx ). Organizations that reported no R&D activity in phase 1 or phase 2 were considered complete surveys and were included in the numerator of response rate calculations. Organizations that reported performing or funding R&D in phase 1 or phase 2 and completed some or all of the full questionnaire, with a minimum of the total amounts answered (Q9 and Q16), were considered complete or partial surveys and were included in the numerator of response rate calculations. Organizations that reported performing or funding in phase 1 but did not complete the phase 2 questionnaire were not included in the numerator of response rate calculations.

Imputation was conducted for organizations that reported that they performed or funded research (in phase 1 or phase 2) but did not provide information on the amounts spent in the full questionnaire. These organizations were considered nonrespondents. The imputation included substituted values using auxiliary data about the amounts spent performing or funding research (including information reported in annual reports and IRS filings, as well as information from the pilot survey), information from the pilot survey, and model-based imputations. The imputed amount represented about 30% of the overall total amount performing R&D, with 20% from auxiliary data and the pilot and 10% from the imputation model. Nonresponse weights were used to account for organizations that did not respond about their performing or funding status in either phase 1 or phase 2. These organizations were considered nonrespondents. After reviewing nonresponse adjustment alternatives by using total expenses and total organizations, the nonresponse adjustment was ultimately based on a ratio estimator using total expenses considering its correlation with the survey outcomes of total R&D performance (0.49) and funding (0.27).

NPRA Survey Adherence to NCSES Statistical Standards

NCSES has a set of statistical standards for the release of “official statistics,” specifically

Standard 9.2: The statistical quality of official statistics must undergo rigorous program review and statistical review and approved by the chief statistician for releasing.

Guideline 9.2a: The reliability of official statistics must meet the following quality criteria:

• Top line estimates have a coefficient of variation (CV) < 5%.
• The estimated CV for the majority of the key estimates is ≤ 30%.

Guideline 9.2b: The indicators of accuracy of official statistics must meet the following quality criteria:

• Unit response rates >60%.
• Item response rates >70%.
• Coverage ratios for population groups associated with key estimates are >70%.
• Above thresholds may not apply if nonresponse bias analyses are at an acceptable level.

The NCSES standards focus on the aspects of accuracy, including response rates, data missingness, and frame coverage as well as precision. These elements align with the accuracy and reliability dimension of the objectivity domain. Demonstrating that the NPRA Survey produces accurate and reliable estimates of total R&D performing and funding is the primary focus of this assessment. Therefore, we summarize the metrics as compared to the standard in table 1 and follow with a more detailed description for each standard.

FY 2016 NPRA Survey adherence to standards

CV = coefficient of variation; NPRA Survey = Survey of Nonprofit Research Activities.

a Does not include imputation variance. Amount of performance and funding was imputed for organizations that confirmed that they fund or perform research but did not provide the amount. No imputation was conducted for total expenses, performance status, or funding status. b Includes imputations using substitutions based on auxiliary data.    

For the CV, the total number of responding organizations is 3,254. When evaluating total expenses, the CV is 0.5%, well below the 5% CV standard. However, the sample was designed to optimize total expenses, so other estimates are expected to have higher variability. The CV for the proportion of performing organizations and proportion of funding organizations are 12%. The high CVs are largely due to the low proportions of nonprofits that reported performing and funding R&D, 6% (+/−1.4%) and 4% (+/−1.0%) respectively. However, the confidence intervals are small for both of these estimates. The CVs for the mean performance and mean funding are both 8%. These CVs, based on a subset of organizations that indicated they perform and fund research, meet the CV standard of 30% for the majority of key estimates but not the CV standard of 5% for the top line estimates. Since imputation is a separate criterion, these CV estimates are based only on sampling variance. Table 2 includes additional CVs for total performance and funding amounts by source, R&D type, and field as well as the mean number of full-time equivalents. All but nine of the estimates meet the standard of a 30% CV for key estimates.

National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, Survey of Nonprofit Research Activities, FY 2016.

CV . The total number of responding organizations is 3,254. When evaluating total expenses, the CV is 0.5%, well below the 5% CV standard. However, the sample was designed to optimize total expenses, so other estimates are expected to have higher variability. The CVs for the proportion of performing organizations and proportion of funding organizations are 12%. The high CVs are largely due to the low proportions of nonprofits that reported performing and funding R&D, 6% (+/−1.4%) and 4% (+/−1.0%), respectively. However, the confidence intervals are small for both of these estimates. The CVs for the mean performance and mean funding are both 8%. These CVs, based on a subset of organizations that indicated they perform and fund research, meet the CV standard of 30% for the majority of key estimates but not the CV standard of 5% for the top line estimates. Since imputation is a separate criterion, these CV estimates are based only on sampling variance. Table 2 includes additional CVs for total performance and funding amounts by source, R&D type, and field as well as the mean number of full-time equivalents. All but nine of the estimates meet the standard of a 30% CV for key estimates.

Total amount spent on R&D by nonprofits that performed or funded R&D and coefficient of variation of FY 2016 NPRA Survey, by source, R&D type, and field

NPRA Survey = Survey of Nonprofit Research Activities.

a Does not include imputation variance.

Details for full-time equivalent do not add to total because of missing data.

Coverage ratio . Based on analysis conducted during the sampling, 85% of performers and 88% of funders are estimated to be covered in the frame, which is well above the NCSES threshold of 70% coverage. The frame coverage estimates are based on an analysis of the percentage of “likely” performers and “likely” funders on the frame after exclusions based on type of organization (e.g., educational institutions or churches) and the size truncation based on total expenses for public charities or total assets for private foundations. The exclusions and truncation were conducted to increase the efficiency of finding R&D performers and funders. Since the exclusions focused on organization types that are not likely to perform or fund or are small in terms of overall expenses or assets, the undercoverage most likely has little impact on the estimated total R&D performance and funding.

Unit response rate . The unweighted response rate (48%) falls short of the 60% standard. The weighted response rate (61%), which uses the sampling weights for all 6,373 sample organizations (6,071 identified as eligible), does meet the standard. The difference in the unweighted and weighted response rates means that the average weight for responders (mean weight = 23.6) is higher than that for nonresponders (14.2). Unweighted and weighted response rates provide distinct measures of survey quality. Unweighted response rates are an indicator of success with data collection operations. FY 2016 Nonprofit Research Activities Survey: Summary of Methodology, Assessment of Quality, and Synopsis of Results at https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2021/ncses21202/#chp5 ." data-bs-content="For more information on lessons learned regarding data collection operations, see the Working Paper, FY 2016 Nonprofit Research Activities Survey: Summary of Methodology, Assessment of Quality, and Synopsis of Results at https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2021/ncses21202/#chp5 ." data-endnote-uuid="10238958-b178-46ab-a4af-c5220649ee7c">​ For more information on lessons learned regarding data collection operations, see the Working Paper, FY 2016 Nonprofit Research Activities Survey: Summary of Methodology, Assessment of Quality, and Synopsis of Results at https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2021/ncses21202/#chp5 . Weighted response rates are most useful when the sampling fractions vary across strata in a sample design and when the interest is population-level inference about the amount of information captured from the population sampled.

Both unweighted and weighted response rates are important metrics for evaluating the quality of the data. Although the weighted response rate meets the standard, the unweighted response rate does not. Therefore, additional analysis measuring the impact of nonresponse is required.

Item response rate . The amount of imputation for performing status (28%) and funding status (17%) meets the minimum threshold for item response, as does the imputation for funding amount (26%). However, the performing amount is just below the standard with 32% of the responses imputed (289 of 912).

Nonresponse bias . The response rate and the item response rate evaluations both include metrics that do not meet the NCSES quality standards. The standards state that the nonresponse standard threshold may be exceeded if the estimate for nonresponse bias is acceptable. The nonresponse bias is a function of the weighted response rate and the weighted mean difference between the respondents and nonrespondents is as follows:

is the weighted response rate,

is the weighted respondent mean, and

is the weighted nonrespondent mean.

The estimated nonresponse bias was a mean bias of −4 million for total expenses (overall mean = 13, respondent mean = 9). This was a relative bias of −0.451 ( table 3 ). This result suggests that organizations with higher amounts of expenses were less likely to respond than those with lower total expenses. This is confirmed from the response rates for deciles based on total expenses presented in table 4 . The lowest response rates occur in deciles 9 and 10, the organizations with the highest amount of expenses. Over 50% of the organizations in these deciles are hospitals, the organization type experiencing lowest response. When removing organizations in deciles 9 and 10, the relative bias is decreased to −0.112 (data not shown), demonstrating that the largest organizations contribute the majority of bias in the total.

Estimated bias of expenses, assets, and revenues in the FY 2016 NPRA Survey

a The sample analyzed in this this table excludes 302 cases identified as being out of sample. In addition, 31 organizations had missing expenses and revenues; 32 had missing assets.

The imputation and nonresponse adjustments were informed by the nonresponse bias analysis. The imputations were prioritized based on previous data from the pilot survey as well as administrative data for the largest organizations. These substitutions reduced the bias of total expenses to −0.336. Further, the imputation model predicting the amount of performance and funding based on total expenses reduces the nonresponse bias to −0.169 for total expenses.

To address higher nonresponse for hospitals and larger organizations, the nonresponse adjustment cells included hospitals and a flag identifying the largest 500 organizations in terms of expenses. The nonresponse adjustment was based on a ratio adjustment using total expenses. Therefore, the bias is 0 when evaluating weighted nonresponse bias in terms of total expenses. Further, if successful, the nonresponse adjustment based on expenses will reduce the nonresponse bias for correlated measures such as assets and revenues. The relative bias in assets (−0.403) and revenues (−0.414) are similarly high based on the full and partially completed surveys. After weighting, the nonresponse bias is reduced to +0.046 for total assets and +0.014 for total revenues.

Considering that hospitals and health organizations tended to have lower response rates, an indicator for hospitals and non-hospitals was included when defining the nonresponse adjustment cells. The result was low relative bias for health and medical organizations when measuring total expenses (−0.04), total assets (−0.03), and total revenues (−0.04) (data not shown).

In summary, although the nonresponse bias is high, the information available on the nonrespondents allows for imputation and nonresponse adjustments to address these observed biases. Assuming R&D performance and funding expenditures are correlated with the size of the organization based on expenses, the risk of nonresponse bias is reduced. This is the case when measuring assets and revenues, which were not used in the weighting but are both correlated with expenses. We cannot directly measure the reduction in the bias for total performing and total funding since we do not have data for nonrespondents. However, we can evaluate the correlation of expenses and R&D performance and funding using the respondents to the survey. Table 4 provides the mean R&D performance and R&D funding for each expense decile. Both increase as the deciles of total expenses increase. The log-log imputation models used for the NPRA Survey are further evidence of a relationship between expenses and R&D performance and funding, where total expenses was a significant predictor for both models, 0.54 (standard error = 0.08) for total performing and 0.47 (standard error = 0.09) for total funding.

Response rate of nonprofits to the FY 2016 NPRA Survey, by expense decile, and percentage of hospitals in each expense decile

Decile 1 has the least number of expenses, and the decile 10 has the most expenses.

Recommendations for Data Tables to Publish as Official Statistics

The final domain of the Framework for Data Quality is the integrity domain, which focuses on the data producer and the unbiased development of data that instills confidence in its accuracy. This assessment and the rigorous review of these data before publication speak directly to the scientific integrity and credibility dimensions:

Scientific integrity refers to an environment that ensures adherence to scientific standards, use of established scientific methods to produce and disseminate objective data products, and protection of these products from inappropriate political influence.

Credibility characterizes the confidence that users place in data products based simply on the qualifications and past performance of the data producer.

The NPRA Survey was designed to provide timely and relevant data to meet a long-standing need for information on R&D expenditures within the nonprofit sector. As noted in this report, low response rates called into question the quality of the data. The quality assessment included a thorough review of the error sources, including sampling error, response rates, frame coverage error, item nonresponse, and nonresponse bias. Further, the assessment reviewed the post-survey adjustments (e.g., weighting and imputation) designed to mitigate the risk of bias. This process of additional assessment identified which data from the NPRA Survey meet the NCSES statistical standards and illuminated the aspects of the data that should not be published.

Based on this additional assessment, we recommend publishing a set of high-level summary data tables, shown in appendix A, as NCSES official statistics. The tables cover all categories in table 2 except field, due to the high CVs for several fields. Variance estimates are based on successive difference replication using 80 replicates. The CVs in the appendix tables include both the sampling variance and imputation variance. All estimates are under the CV standard of 30%.

As part of the post survey evaluation report, we evaluated the stability of the variance estimates by comparing variance estimates with 80 replicates to the variance estimates based on 160 replicates. The CV for the total R&D performance was 13.2% for 80 replicates and 13.6% for 160 replicates. The CV for the total R&D funding was 18.0% for 80 replicates and 16.1% for 160 replicates. For the estimates in appendix A, three estimates exceeded the 30% CV standard when using 160 replicates instead of 80 replicates. These included the following:

Appendix table 1-A . Total R&D expenditures sourced from nonprofits (31%)

Appendix table 7-A . Total funds for R&D from internal funds (CV = 31%)

Appendix table 9-A . Nonfederal funds for R&D for other nonprofit organizations (CV = 34%)

All other estimates have a CV under 30%.

Specifically, this subset of FY 2016 NPRA data will be published via a Data Release InfoBrief and a set of data tables ( https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf22337 / and https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf22338/ ). Technical notes published with the data tables will also be provided to summarize the survey methodology and the data limitations. The technical notes will reference this working paper where additional survey information is provided, including details about the initial assessment of the NPRA survey estimates.

1 An organization is considered a nonprofit if it is categorized by the Internal Revenue Service as a 501(c)(3) public charity, a 501(c)(3) private foundation, or another exempt organization—e.g., a 501(c)(4), 501(c)(5), or 501(c)(6).

2 The pilot survey data were provided by the respondents for testing purposes only and were not published.

3 Britt R, Jankowski J; National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES). 2021. FY 2016 Nonprofit Research Activities Survey: Summary of Methodology, Assessment of Quality, and Synopsis of Results. Working Paper NCSES 21-202. Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering. Available at https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2021/ncses21202/ .

4 Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology. 2020. A Framework for Data Quality. FCSM 20-04. Available at https://nces.ed.gov/fcsm/pdf/FCSM.20.04_A_Framework_for_Data_Quality.pdf .

5 The nonprofit sector includes nonprofit organizations other than government or academia. R&D performed by nonprofits that receive federal funds is reported on in the Survey of Federal Funds for Research and Development. R&D performed by higher education nonprofits is reported on in the Higher Education Research and Development Survey.

6 Throughout this document, the term “research” is synonymous with “research and development” or “R&D.”

7 For more information on lessons learned regarding data collection operations, see the Working Paper, FY 2016 Nonprofit Research Activities Survey: Summary of Methodology, Assessment of Quality, and Synopsis of Results at https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2021/ncses21202/#chp5 .

Appendix A. Data Tables with Relative Standard Errors

Suggested citation.

Britt R, Mamon S, ZuWallack R; National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES). 2022. Assessment of the FY 2016 Survey of Nonprofit Research Activities to Determine Whether Data Meet Current Statistical Standards for Publication . Working Paper NCSES 22-212. Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation. Available at https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/ncses22212/ .

Report Authors

Ronda Britt Survey Manager, NCSES

Sherri Mamon ICF, under contract to NCSES

Randal ZuWallack ICF, under contract to NCSES

National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences National Science Foundation 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite W14200 Alexandria, VA 22314 Tel: (703) 292-8780 FIRS: (800) 877-8339 TDD: (800) 281-8749 E-mail: [email protected]

Source Data & Analysis

InfoBrief (NSF 22-337) and Data Tables (NSF 22-338)

Get e-mail updates from NCSES

NCSES is an official statistical agency. Subscribe below to receive our latest news and announcements.

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

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• NEWS EXPLAINER
• 25 April 2024

NATO is boosting AI and climate research as scientific diplomacy remains on ice

• Natasha Gilbert 0

Natasha Gilbert is a freelance writer in Washington, DC.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

You have full access to this article via your institution.

A NATO research vessel conducting studies of marine mammals in the Mediterranean Sea (pictured in 2009). Credit: U.S. Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Kristen Allen via Mil image/Alamy

Science has been essential to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the political and military alliance founded 75 years ago this month. The 32-country alliance is admitting more members as it faces evolving geopolitical and military threats. The organization’s scientific work focuses largely on defence and civil-security projects that, for instance, investigate how climate change is affecting war, how emerging technologies could enhance soldiers’ performance and how to reduce discrimination and intolerance among military personnel. “The role of science and technology for NATO is likely to grow significantly over the next two decades,” predicts Simona Soare, a defence-technologies researcher at Lancaster University, UK.

How does NATO use science?

“We’re looking to make sure that we can provide scientific advice to the nations of NATO to enable them to maintain a technical and military advantage,” says Bryan Wells, a chemist and the organization’s chief scientist. Wells works at NATO’s Brussels headquarters, where world leaders gathered earlier this month to mark the organization’s 75th anniversary.

NATO has a complex organizational structure including both military and civilian staff. The civilian part of NATO is headed by a senior political figure from a member state and also includes diplomats representing member countries. The military part is headed by senior military personnel.

Much of NATO’s research and development (R&D) takes place through the Science and Technology Organization (STO), a network of more than 6,000 scientists at universities and national laboratories and in industry. They work together on defence research projects. NATO’s member states and non-member countries together contribute around €350 million (US$380 million) annually for the work of this network, says Wells.

The STO also has its own research laboratory, the Centre for Maritime Research and Experimentation (CMRE) in La Spezia, Italy. The laboratory employs around 150 people and is led by Eric Pouliquen, a physicist who has worked on underwater remote sensing.

NATO’s civilian arm provides grants for a Science for Peace and Security (SPS) research programme, headed by Claudio Palestini, a researcher in communications engineering.

The programme funds studies in areas such as counterterrorism and cyber defence. Earlier this month , the SPS programme updated its priorities. These now include studies on the impact on defence and security from climate change and from AI; protecting underwater infrastructure; and what it calls “hybrid threats”, which include interference in elections and disinformation. Each of its larger grants is worth between €250,000 and €400,000 and lasts for two to three years.

Wells says the STO publishes research — mostly from the CMRE — in peer-reviewed journals where possible. “We recognize if we can publish openly, it’s very beneficial to do that,” he says.

However, many of its research projects are classified. NATO does not publish a detailed breakdown of its R&D income and expenditure by country; nor does it release its funding trend data.

What sort of research is NATO doing?

Projects cover a spectrum of fields including using autonomous undersea surveillance to hunt for and identify mines; tracking and identifying submarines; quantum radar; and synthetic biology.

For example, one programme led by CMRE researchers explores how autonomous underwater vehicles can identify submarines using quantum technologies and artificial intelligence. Similarly, another project, ‘Military Diversity in Multinational Defence Environments: From Ethnic Intolerance to Inclusion’ studied the reasons for intolerance in NATO members’ armed forces as part of an overall strategy to improve diversity and inclusion across the organization.

NATO is examining how AI could affect troops’ ability to conceal themselves and evade detection . Another initiative is investigating how biotechnology could boost soldiers’ performance by enhancing the microbiome or through brain–computer interface technologies.

Why is NATO interested in climate research?

NATO is concerned that c limate change has significant impacts on security . Melting sea ice creates more routes for naval shipping in the Arctic, for example, and NATO and non-NATO countries are increasingly operating in the region.

NATO is also interested in how temperature changes could affect the security of its member and non-member countries as well as of military installations around the world. In a 2024 review paper in the Texas National Security Review , CMRE researchers — along with colleagues from the University of St Andrews, UK, the University of L’Aquila, Italy, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich — found that submarines could become more difficult to detect using sonar in the North Atlantic Ocean as water temperature rises.

In another study , presented at last week’s conference of the European Geosciences Union in Vienna, CMRE researchers working with scientists at the universities of Princeton in New Jersey and Central Florida in Orlando assessed how extreme weather might affect 91 NATO military bases and installations. The researchers found that multiple bases and installations are likely to become susceptible to climate change as emissions continue to rise.

Last year, one of NATO’s research vessels moored vertical lines holding oceanographic and acoustic recorders in the Arctic Ocean. The intention was to monitor temperature, salinity and ambient noise throughout the water column. Other research projects are looking at the use of new materials for military clothing in warmer climates, says Wells.

In 2022, NATO published the first of a series called Climate change and Security Impact Assessment . It is also developing a methodology for mapping greenhouse-gas emissions from NATO-member military activities and installations.

Personnel from NATO and the Royal Jordanian Navy lower an autonomous undersea vehicle into the Gulf of Aqaba in 2022. Credit: U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Dawson Roth

How has NATO’s expansion affected science?

NATO’s membership has more than doubled since its founding on 4 April 1949. Finland and Sweden are the latest countries to join. Three more — Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia and Ukraine — want to become members.

More members potentially means more funding and support for R&D, as well as access to a bigger pool of scientific expertise. However, Finland and Sweden both participated in NATO’s collaborative research for several years before they joined, says Wells.

Soare says that NATO’s defence science originally focused on aerospace, to help its members catch up after the Soviet Union launched Earth’s first artificial satellites — Sputnik 1 and Sputnik 2 — in 1957. “Throughout the cold war, ensuring air superiority was considered crucial,” she says.

What about a role for science in diplomacy?

In 1958, NATO established research fellowships and projects in what later became its SPS programme, to boost collaboration between nations including the United States and the Soviet Union. “Science provided a path for superpower adversaries to cooperate,” says Paul Arthur Berkman, founder of the Science Diplomacy Center in Falmouth, Massachusetts.

The fellowships and collaborative projects continued to provide a point of contact between NATO and Russia until 2014, when Russia invaded Crimea. That year, Russia, Romania and the United States were jointly developing a system to connect telemedicine capabilities across all three countries to provide medical care in remote and emergency situations. However, the invasion prompted NATO to freeze cooperation with Russia.

Berkman, who in 2010 co-organized and chaired the first dialogue between NATO and Russia regarding environmental security in the Arctic , is concerned at the alliance’s shift away from using science as a “safety valve” in its relations with Russia. He warns that cutting off scientific dialogue with Russia undermines democracy and nations’ ability to tackle global challenges such as climate change.

“Open science is akin to freedom of speech. If we turn off open science, in a sense we’re undermining democracy,” says Berkman.

Nature 629 , 18-19 (2024)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01052-1

Reprints and permissions

• Biotechnology
• Climate change

How I’m supporting other researchers who have moved to Lithuania

Spotlight 01 MAY 24

I fell out of love with the lab, and in love with business

How bioinformatics led one scientist home to Lithuania

85 million cells — and counting — at your fingertips

Technology Feature 29 APR 24

Are robots the solution to the crisis in older-person care?

Outlook 25 APR 24

Lethal AI weapons are here: how can we control them?

News Feature 23 APR 24

Support communities that will lose out in the energy transition

Editorial 01 MAY 24

Frequent disturbances enhanced the resilience of past human populations

Article 01 MAY 24

Why it was right to reject the Anthropocene as a geological epoch

Correspondence 30 APR 24

W2 Professorship with tenure track to W3 in Animal Husbandry (f/m/d)

The Faculty of Agricultural Sciences at the University of Göttingen invites applications for a temporary professorship with civil servant status (g...

Göttingen (Stadt), Niedersachsen (DE)

Georg-August-Universität Göttingen

Postdoctoral Associate- Cardiovascular Research

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

Faculty Positions & Postdocs at Institute of Physics (IOP), Chinese Academy of Sciences

IOP is the leading research institute in China in condensed matter physics and related fields. Through the steadfast efforts of generations of scie...

Beijing, China

Institute of Physics (IOP), Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS)

Director, NLM

Vacancy Announcement Department of Health and Human Services National Institutes of Health   DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE   THE POSITION:...

Bethesda, Maryland

National Library of Medicine - Office of the Director

Call for postdoctoral fellows in Molecular Medicine, Nordic EMBL Partnership for Molecular Medicine

The Nordic EMBL Partnership is seeking postdoctoral fellows for collaborative projects in molecular medicine through the first NORPOD call.

Helsinki, Finland

Nordic EMBL Partnership for Molecular Medicine

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Scientists identify new treatment target for leading cause of blindness

Medical College of Georgia scientists report that a gene previously implicated in the development of atherosclerotic lesions in coronary arteries could be key to understanding why many people don't benefit from the most used therapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD), a leading cause of blindness.

AMD is a condition characterized by abnormal blood vessel growth in the back of the eye. It is highly prevalent in the elderly and people with diabetes, obesity, and many other chronic metabolic diseases. Excessive vascular growth damages the macula, the part of the eye that translates light into image signals.

Anti-VEGF therapy, which blocks vascular endothelial growth factor and keeps excessive blood vessel growth at bay, is usually the first line of defense.

But that treatment only works well for around a third of patients suffering from this form of AMD, says Dr. Yuqing Huo, MD, PhD, the Director of the Vascular Inflammation Program at MCG's Vascular Biology Center. "The reason is that the excess vasculature is often accompanied by the growth of fibroblast cells," he says.

Collagen and many other proteins produced by these fibroblast cells accumulate outside of the vascular cells and eventually lead to fibrosis or scarring in the eye. This keeps the excess vasculature from being suppressed by anti-VEGF treatments. "We show, for the first time in this study, that many fibroblast cells are actually produced by these excessive endothelial cells. We must find a way to prevent this from happening," Huo says.

He and his team believe the answer lies in targeting the adenosine receptor 2A (Adora2a) -- a G-protein-coupled adenosine receptor found in high levels in the brain, immune cells, and blood vessels. Adora2a has been reported to be crucial in modulating inflammation, myocardial oxygen consumption, and coronary blood flow. Adenosine, a metabolite produced by cells under conditions of stress, injuries, and lack of oxygen, can activate Adora2a to protect our body from injury.

But in excess, adenosine can lead to excessive blood vessel growth. In their current research, Huo and his colleagues found a high-level or persistent adenosine-activated Adora2a signal could transform endothelial cells, the luminal cells of the vasculature, into activated fibroblast cells and, eventually, cause fibrosis. Huo and his colleagues hypothesize that blocking this receptor can prevent that from happening.

Using genetically engineered mice that develop fibrosis in the backs of their eyes, researchers delivered an Adora2a agonist (KW6002), which binds to the receptor and blocks its function. "We also studied mice that had Adora2a removed from only the vascular endothelial cells," says Qiuhua Yang, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow with Huo and the first author on this study. "All of these mice demonstrated decreased fibrosis in the eye." These novel findings were reported and recently selected as the cover image for Science Translational Medicine .

"We have previously demonstrated that blocking Adora2a can reduce excessive blood vessel growth, which happens in the early stages of AMD," says Yongfeng Cai, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow in Huo's lab and a member of the research team. They now have an eye toward generating an antibody that could recognize Adora2A.

"The antibody could be delivered via an injection to the back of the eyes, an approach often used in eye clinics, to block the activation of adenosine to Adora2A," Huo says. "An antibody could really block both excessive blood vessel growth, the early stage of AMD, and fibrosis, the late stage of AMD. Our findings indicate that blocking Adora2a can certainly target multiple stages of this disease, which might be much more efficient than current treatments."

This research was supported by a National Institutes of Health K99 award to Dr. Qiuhua Yang and funds from the National Eye Institute.

• Heart Disease
• Immune System
• Hypertension
• Coronary heart disease
• Ischaemic heart disease
• Gene therapy
• Coronary circulation
• Bitemporal hemianopsia
• Chinese food therapy
• Atherosclerosis

Story Source:

Materials provided by Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University . Original written by Jennifer Hilliard Scott. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Journal Reference :

• Qiuhua Yang, Yongfeng Cai, Qian Ma, Albert Xiong, Peishan Xu, Zhidan Zhang, Jiean Xu, Yaqi Zhou, Zhiping Liu, Dingwei Zhao, John Asara, Wei Li, Huidong Shi, Ruth B. Caldwell, Akrit Sodhi, Yuqing Huo. Inactivation of adenosine receptor 2A suppresses endothelial-to-mesenchymal transition and inhibits subretinal fibrosis in mice . Science Translational Medicine , 2024; 16 (737) DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.adk3868

Cite This Page :

Explore More

• 75,000-Year-Old Neanderthal from Burial Cave
• Anticoagulant With an On-Off Switch
• Sleep Resets Brain Connections -- At First
• Far-Reaching Effects of Exercise
• Hidden Connections Between Brain and Body
• Novel Genetic Plant Regeneration Approach
• Early Human Occupation of China
• Journey of Inhaled Plastic Particle Pollution
• Earth-Like Environment On Ancient Mars
• A 'Cosmic Glitch' in Gravity

Trending Topics

Strange & offbeat.

Princeton University

Princeton engineering, the science of static shock jolted into the 21st century.

By Scott Lyon

April 9, 2024

Static electricity has puzzled scientists for thousands of years. Above, water ions carry charge between two electrically insulating materials. The blue mesh represents the flow of charge that could be felt as a spark. Image courtesy of the researchers

Shuffling across the carpet to zap a friend may be the oldest trick in the book, but on a deep level that prank still mystifies scientists, even after thousands of years of study.

Now Princeton researchers have sparked new life into static. Using millions of hours of computational time to run detailed simulations, the researchers found a way to describe static charge atom-by-atom with the mathematics of heat and work. Their paper appeared in Nature Communications on March 23.

The study looked specifically at how charge moves between materials that do not allow the free flow of electrons, called insulating materials, such as vinyl and acrylic. The researchers said there is no established view on what mechanisms drive these jolts, despite the ubiquity of static: the crackle and pop of clothes pulled from a dryer, packing peanuts that cling to a box.

“We know it’s not electrons,” said Mike Webb , assistant professor of chemical and biological engineering , who led the study. “What is it?”

Webb first asked himself that question as a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Chicago. He puzzled over it with colleagues, baffled that such a common phenomenon could be so poorly understood. But the more they looked, the more insurmountable the questions became. “It just seemed out of reach,” he said.

It had been out of reach since Thales of Miletus first rubbed amber with fur and watched the amber (Greek: elektron ) collect feathers and dust — 26 centuries ago. Thales was one of the first people to explain nature through reason rather than supernatural forces. He played a critical role in the development of philosophy and eventually science. Despite the depth and breadth of knowledge accumulated over subsequent millennia, despite the myriad technologies born of that knowledge, science, in all that time, never cracked static. Maybe it never would.

At Princeton Webb got to talking to his colleague Sankaran Sundaresan , a leading expert in chemical reaction engineering who specializes in the flow of materials in gaseous chambers. In those environments, loaded with volatile chemicals, a stray spark could be deadly. Sundaresan had worked with static charge for decades, using reliable experimental data to predict but not fully fathom how charge moved in these systems.

“I treat that like a black box,” said Sundaresan, the Norman John Sollenberger Professor in Engineering. “We do some experiments and the experiments tell me: This is what happens. This is the charge.” He works down to the limit and carefully notes what he sees. What happens inside the black box remains a mystery.

One thing you find no matter where you look, though, according to Sundaresan, is trace amounts of water. Charged water molecules are everywhere, in nearly everything, clinging to virtually every surface on Earth. Even in extremely arid conditions, under intense heat, stray water ions pool into microscopic oases that harbor electrical charge.

Incidentally, Thales is best known not for his work on electricity but for an even grander project. He proposed that the entirety of nature was made of water, that water was the ur-substance, the essential stuff. It was the first attempt at a unified theory of everything. Aristotle wrote it all down.

Over the arc of Sundaresan’s career, he and his colleagues shrunk that black box so that the mysteries have been pushed ever deeper. But mysteries they remain.

The conversation between him and Webb led to a mutual realization: Sundaresan had decades of insight into data from reactors, and Webb could apply sophisticated atom-scale computational techniques to look at these water ions from the perspective of thermodynamics. How much energy would it take for a water ion to bolt from surface to surface? Maybe that would explain what was happening inside Sundaresan’s black box. The unresolved puzzle from Webb’s postdoc days came unlocked.

By modeling the relationship between charged water molecules and the amount of energy those molecules have available to propel them between surfaces, Webb and graduate student Hang Zhang demonstrated a very precise mathematical approximation of how electrical charge moves between two insulating materials.

In other words, they used math to simulate the movement of around 80,000 atoms. Those simulations matched real-life observations with a very high degree of precision. It turns out, in all likelihood, static shock is a function of water, and more specifically, the free energy of stray water ions. With that framework, Webb and Zhang revealed the molecular underpinnings of those familiar shocks in infinitesimal detail. They blew Sundaresan’s black box wide open. If only Thales could see.

The paper “Thermodynamic driving forces in contact electrification between polymeric materials” was published March 23 in the journal Nature Communications. Support for this work was provided by the Princeton Innovation Project X Fund and the U.S. Department of Energy. The simulations and analyses were performed using the resources of Princeton Research Computing.

Related News

Holographic displays offer a glimpse into an immersive future

Elke Weber receives BBVA Frontiers of Knowledge Award

Grad alum Avi Wigderson wins Turing Award for groundbreaking insights in computer science

Episode 4: Bethany Beardslee Winham and Chris Winham

Retro-reflectors could help future cities keep their cool

Episode 3: Haydn Seek

Michael A. Webb

Sankaran Sundaresan

Materials Science and Engineering

Related departments and centers.

Chemical and Biological Engineering

Princeton Materials Institute

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

A Peek Inside the Brains of ‘Super-Agers’

New research explores why some octogenarians have exceptional memories.

By Dana G. Smith

When it comes to aging, we tend to assume that cognition gets worse as we get older. Our thoughts may slow down or become confused, or we may start to forget things, like the name of our high school English teacher or what we meant to buy at the grocery store.

But that’s not the case for everyone.

For a little over a decade, scientists have been studying a subset of people they call “super-agers.” These individuals are age 80 and up, but they have the memory ability of a person 20 to 30 years younger.

Most research on aging and memory focuses on the other side of the equation — people who develop dementia in their later years. But, “if we’re constantly talking about what’s going wrong in aging, it’s not capturing the full spectrum of what’s happening in the older adult population,” said Emily Rogalski, a professor of neurology at the University of Chicago, who published one of the first studies on super-agers in 2012.

A paper published Monday in the Journal of Neuroscience helps shed light on what’s so special about the brains of super-agers. The biggest takeaway, in combination with a companion study that came out last year on the same group of individuals, is that their brains have less atrophy than their peers’ do.

The research was conducted on 119 octogenarians from Spain: 64 super-agers and 55 older adults with normal memory abilities for their age. The participants completed multiple tests assessing their memory, motor and verbal skills; underwent brain scans and blood draws; and answered questions about their lifestyle and behaviors.

The scientists found that the super-agers had more volume in areas of the brain important for memory, most notably the hippocampus and entorhinal cortex. They also had better preserved connectivity between regions in the front of the brain that are involved in cognition. Both the super-agers and the control group showed minimal signs of Alzheimer’s disease in their brains.

“By having two groups that have low levels of Alzheimer’s markers, but striking cognitive differences and striking differences in their brain, then we’re really speaking to a resistance to age-related decline,” said Dr. Bryan Strange, a professor of clinical neuroscience at the Polytechnic University of Madrid, who led the studies.

These findings are backed up by Dr. Rogalski’s research , initially conducted when she was at Northwestern University, which showed that super-agers’ brains looked more like 50- or 60-year-olds’ brains than their 80-year-old peers. When followed over several years, the super-agers’ brains atrophied at a slower rate than average.

No precise numbers exist on how many super-agers there are among us, but Dr. Rogalski said they’re “relatively rare,” noting that “far less than 10 percent” of the people she sees end up meeting the criteria.

But when you meet a super-ager, you know it, Dr. Strange said. “They are really quite energetic people, you can see. Motivated, on the ball, elderly individuals.”

Experts don’t know how someone becomes a super-ager, though there were a few differences in health and lifestyle behaviors between the two groups in the Spanish study. Most notably, the super-agers had slightly better physical health, both in terms of blood pressure and glucose metabolism, and they performed better on a test of mobility . The super-agers didn’t report doing more exercise at their current age than the typical older adults, but they were more active in middle age. They also reported better mental health .

But overall, Dr. Strange said, there were a lot of similarities between the super-agers and the regular agers. “There are a lot of things that are not particularly striking about them,” he said. And, he added, “we see some surprising omissions, things that you would expect to be associated with super-agers that weren’t really there.” For example, there were no differences between the groups in terms of their diets, the amount of sleep they got, their professional backgrounds or their alcohol and tobacco use.

The behaviors of some of the Chicago super-agers were similarly a surprise. Some exercised regularly, but some never had; some stuck to a Mediterranean diet, others subsisted off TV dinners; and a few of them still smoked cigarettes. However, one consistency among the group was that they tended to have strong social relationships , Dr. Rogalski said.

“In an ideal world, you’d find out that, like, all the super-agers, you know, ate six tomatoes every day and that was the key,” said Tessa Harrison, an assistant project scientist at the University of California, Berkeley, who collaborated with Dr. Rogalski on the first Chicago super-ager study.

Instead, Dr. Harrison continued, super-agers probably have “some sort of lucky predisposition or some resistance mechanism in the brain that’s on the molecular level that we don’t understand yet,” possibly related to their genes.

While there isn’t a recipe for becoming a super-ager, scientists do know that, in general , eating healthily, staying physically active, getting enough sleep and maintaining social connections are important for healthy brain aging.

Dana G. Smith is a Times reporter covering personal health, particularly aging and brain health. More about Dana G. Smith

A Guide to Aging Well

Looking to grow old gracefully we can help..

The “car key conversation,” when it’s time for an aging driver to hit the brakes, can be painful for families to navigate . Experts say there are ways to have it with empathy and care.

Calorie restriction and intermittent fasting both increase longevity in animals, aging experts say. Here’s what that means for you .

Researchers are investigating how our biology changes as we grow older — and whether there are ways to stop it .

You need more than strength to age well — you also need power. Here’s how to measure how much power you have  and here’s how to increase yours .

Ignore the hyperbaric chambers and infrared light: These are the evidence-backed secrets to aging well .

Your body’s need for fuel shifts as you get older. Your eating habits should shift , too.

People who think positively about getting older often live longer, healthier lives. These tips can help you reconsider your perspective .