how to write a research procedure

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

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

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

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

Importance of a Good Methodology Section

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

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

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

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Groups of Research Methods

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

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

II.  Content

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

The remainder of your methodology section should describe the following:

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

In addition, an effectively written methodology section should:

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

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

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

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

III.  Problems to Avoid

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

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

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

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

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

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

Writing Tip

Statistical Designs and Tests? Do Not Fear Them!

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

To locate data and statistics, GO HERE .

Another Writing Tip

Knowing the Relationship Between Theories and Methods

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

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

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

Yet Another Writing Tip

Methods and the Methodology

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

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

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

• << Previous: Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Next: Qualitative Methods >>
• Last Updated: May 15, 2024 9:53 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Research Procedures

• Open Access
• First Online: 28 March 2023

Cite this chapter

You have full access to this open access chapter

• Ivan Buljan   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8719-7277 3  

Part of the book series: Collaborative Bioethics ((CB,volume 1))

6965 Accesses

This chapter offers a guide on how to implement good research practices in research procedures, following the logical steps in research planning from idea development to the planning of analysis of collected data and data sharing. This chapter argues that sound research methodology is a foundation for responsible science. At the beginning of each part of the chapter, the subtitles are formulated as questions that may arise during your research process, in the attempt to bring the content closer to the everyday questions you may encounter in research. We hope to stimulate insight into how much we can predict about a research study before it even begins. Research integrity and research ethics are not presented as separate aspects of research planning, but as integral parts that are important from the beginning, and which often set the directions of research activities in the study.

You have full access to this open access chapter,  Download chapter PDF

Similar content being viewed by others

Ethical Issues in Research Methods

Research Integrity: Responsible Conduct of Research

• Research plan
• Research question
• Study design
• Measurement
• Protocol registration
• Reproducibility

What This Chapter Is About

Case scenario: planning research.

This hypothetical scenario was adapted from a narrative about the process of poor research planning and its consequences. The original case scenario is developed by the Members of The Embassy of Good Science and is available at the Embassy of Good Science . The case is published under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License, version 4.0 (CC BY-SA 4.0).

Professor Gallagher is a leader of a research project on moral intuitions in the field of psychology. She is working on the project with Dr. Jones, a philosopher, and Mr. Singh, a doctoral student. Although she has little experience in the matter, Dr. Jones is put as the principal investigator in the study design and analysis of the two experiments, while Mr. Singh prepares materials and conducts the experiments.

After the first experimental study, Mr. Singh sends the results to Dr. Jones for analysis. After some time, eager to enter the results in his thesis, Singh asks Dr. Jones about the results of the study. She admits that she forgot to formulate the hypothesis before data analysis, and now the results can be interpreted as confirmatory, regardless of the direction. They decide to formulate a hypothesis that will result in a positive finding.

Mr. Singh and Dr. Jones present the results to Dr. Gallagher, who is satisfied and proceeds with paper writing. In the second study, Dr. Jones formulates multiple hypotheses before the study begins. Mr. Singh conducts the study and sends the results to Dr. Jones. She performs the analysis by trying to find only significant differences between groups. Finally, to achieve significance, she excludes participants over 60 years from the analysis and while presenting the results, admits that to Prof Gallagher. Prof Galagher is happy about the results and proceeds with the paper writing, while Mr. Singh enters the results in his dissertation.

Before Mr. Singh has the public defense of his dissertation, one of the internal reviewers notices that some data has been excluded from the second study and only significant results were reported. She invites Mr. Singh for an examination board meeting during which MR Singh admits that the data has been excluded and that in the first study hypothesis was formulated after the results were known.

Questions for You

Why is hypothesizing after the results are known, as described in the first study, considered problematic?

What was wrong about reporting only significant results in Study 2?

How would you improve the entire research process described in the scenario?

Good research practice from the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity:

Researchers take into account the state-of-the-art in developing research ideas.

Researchers make proper and conscientious use of research funds.

What to Do First When You Have an Idea?

It is difficult to come up with a good research idea, and if you struggle to come up with a new research direction, that is perfectly fine. Creative processes are the highest form of learning and developing an idea requires significant cognitive effort. In some cases, you may have an epiphany, where you would suddenly come up with a great idea for your research project. This is something popularized by stereotypes about scientists as eccentric figures who come up with brilliant ways of tackling things using only their intelligence and intuition. However, scientific work resembles ore mining. It takes a tremendous effort to read relevant scientific literature, communicate with your peers, plan, and, in some cases, attempt and fail before you even start digging for gold. As in a mine, you will need to dig a lot of rocks before you come across diamonds and gold.

Usually, the most important decisions are made before digging even begins. To decide where you will start mining, you start with the exploration of the terrain. In research, this means knowing your field of study. You may read an interesting piece in the scientific literature or listen to a presentation at a conference and then think of a hypothesis whose testing will answer an interesting and important question in your research field. On the other hand, sometimes you have to adjust your research interest so that they fit the specific aims of grant funding calls. It does not matter what the source of the idea is, there are always two things to consider when developing research ideas: the current state of the field and the resources available to you. Good research practice is to consider the state of the art in developing your research ideas and make the proper use of research funds. This does not mean that you are not allowed to develop research ideas if they address a research topic that has been neglected. It is the responsibility of a researcher to combine the best of the “old” evidence with new research developments. It is important to keep in mind that research is not performed in a vacuum and that the funds and resources provided by public or private funders are given with an expectation of an honest answer to a specific research question. The main responsibility for the proper use of research funds is on the researcher, and this is overseen by funders during and at the end of the proposal. Another recommendation refers to the use of state-of-the-art information as a basis for your research. The control system in this case is other scientists who read or evaluate your research, and who will recognize outdated research results.

Let’s get back to the analogy of the mine for a moment. If you are paid to dig in the mine, you are expected to find important ore. In our case, a research funder is an employer, and the researchers are workers who need to go down the mine and get their hands dirty in the search for new true information. If you are set to dig a deep hole in the ground with the possibility of finding gold and diamonds, but you do not get any guarantee that you will find them unless you chose an appropriate place in a specific period, you would probably spend a lot of time planning and trying to decide where to start digging, what to do when specific problems arise and to avoid ending with a huge number of worthless rocks instead of gold and diamonds. The process is similar to research planning since a significant amount of the research process can be defined before data collection begins. As valuable as it can be, a research idea is just a thought which needs to be translated into research practice to gain its full impact.

How to Formulate a Good Research Question?

Research is performed to answer a specific question. The research process can be observed as a complex tool that, if used properly, can give a clear answer to a posed question. The research question is the compass of the research process (or the mine if we continue with our mine analogy) since it determines the steps of the research process. It translates into specific research aims and, consequently, into testable research hypotheses. Formulation of a research question is a skill that develops over time, a skill that can be learned. Your research question should have a FINER structure, which stands for: F easible, I nteresting, N ovel, E thical and R elevant. Although initially developed as a set of recommendations for quantitative research, FINER recommendations can be applied to formulating a research question in any given field of science.

The feasibility of a research aim is often defined by time restrictions and funding because research is often burdened by deadlines and output requirements set by the funders. F easibility is also affected by the availability of technology, geographical restrictions, availability of participants, or availability of collaborators. If one considers all those factors, it is obvious that research interests play only a small part in the formulation of a research question. Ask yourself: What research can be published in an excellent journal if you have limited funds and only 1 year for research, with limited access to a specific technology? (Today, highly specialized experts may be a greater problem than the technology in question). You might experience that the formulation of the research question is mostly defined by non-research factors, because, in the end, it is better to have a completed than never-finished research.

There are other elements of the research question that are as important as feasibility. The first one to consider is E thics, which affects all parts of the research process due to its broad nature. If research is not ethical, then it should not be conducted. In a mining analogy, ethics is training and safety, which helps you to protect others and yourself during the entire process. To get back to the best research practices, researchers should make proper use of research funds and fulfill the basic research aim – the benefit to society. This also implies treating members of that society with respect, respecting their privacy and dignity, and being honest and transparent about the research process and results. Therefore, when determining the feasibility of a research study, ethics aspects are the first to consider, along with the objective factors of time, cost, and manpower.

I nterest, N ovelty, and R elevance from the FINER guidance are the elements of the research question that increase the chances of getting funding or the chances for a journal publication, and they are closely aligned. Regardless of the audience (researchers, publishers, non-experts), research should be new to be interesting and relevant. However, doing research just for the novelty’s sake is analogous to the digger who starts digging a new mine every couple of days. It gives you the thrill of a new beginning, but you have not dug deep enough to get to the real results. Relevance, defined in this context as a significant add-on to the current knowledge, can be assessed with a high probability of success by a thorough search for available evidence. The main aim of that process is to identify research or practice gaps that can be filled to improve general knowledge.

Interest is related to the principal internal motivation of an individual to pursue research goals. The interest to pursue research aims is difficult to assess. When planning research, do you consider that research is interesting to you, your peers, potential users, or all three? Probably the last, but here is the catch. Interest is the most subjective part of research planning. Research planning could be understood as a balance between your interest and all other factors that affect the research outcome. A good research idea is often the compromise between objective possibilities and a desire to make a research discovery. If the research idea is interesting but extremely difficult (or even impossible) to conduct in given circumstances, you will end up frustrated. On the other hand, if you decide to perform research based solely on convenience (because it is something for which is easy to get funded or someone is offering you a research topic you are not interested in), it will be very difficult to stay motivated to complete the study.

The more structured your research question is, the easier it is to determine which research design is best to test the hypothesis and statistical analysis is more straightforward. Let’s look at several examples of research questions in biomedical research: Are psychedelics more effective in the treatment of psychosis than the standard treatment? What are the opinions of young fathers on exclusive breastfeeding of their spouses? Which percentage of the population has suffered from post-COVID-19 syndrome? Intuitively, for each of posed research questions, we would try to find answers differently. In cases of comparison of treatment methods and assessment of population percentage, we could express the results quantitatively, e.g., we could state explicitly how much the psychedelics treatment is better compared to standard methods in terms of days of remission or everyday functionality or an explicit number of people in the sample who had COVID-19-related symptoms. On the other hand, the answers to the question about the opinions of young fathers about exclusive breastfeeding are not straightforward or numerical, but more textual and descriptive. It is an example of the research question that would be more suitable for qualitative research. Qualitative and quantitative study designs answer different types of research questions and are therefore suitable for different situations. It is important to carefully consider and choose the most appropriate study design for your research question because only then can you get valid answers.

To conclude, research question development is the crucial factor in setting research direction. Although framed as a single sentence, it defines numerous parts of the research process, from research design to data analysis. On the other hand, non-research factors also have an equal role in research questions and need to be considered.

Literature Search

In a literature search, researchers go through the relevant information sources to systematically collect information, i.e. foreground knowledge, about a specific research phenomenon and/or procedure. While research information is readily available online not only to researchers but to the whole public, the skill of systematic literature search and critical appraisal of evidence is a specific research skill. A literature search is closely tied with the development of the research aim, because you may want to change it after you read about previous research.

When doing a literature search, you must be careful not to omit previous studies about the topic. Here we have two directions that must be balanced. The first one is to do a very precise search to find specific answers, and the other one is to perform a wide, sensitive search that will include many synonyms and combinations of words to discover articles that related to a specific term. Both of those approaches have their advantages and disadvantages: a precise search is less time-consuming and retrieves a small number of studies. However, it may omit important results, so you may end up performing studies for which we already have established conclusions. This creates waste in research because you will spend time and resources, and involve participants in unnecessary work, which would be unethical. You may also miss citing important studies. On the other hand, if you perform a search that is too wide, you will spend a lot of time filtering for useful articles, which leaves less time for doing research.

Researchers design, carry out, analyze and document research in a careful and well-considered manner.

Researchers report their results in a way that is compatible with the standards of the discipline and, where applicable, can be verified and reproduced.

What Is the Optimal Study Design for My Research?

Study designs are one of the main heuristics related to the reader’s perception of the credibility of research information. Also, different study designs give answers to different research questions. It is intuitively easy to understand that different approaches should be taken if the question is about the percentage of infected people in the population vs about which drug is the most effective in the treatment of the disease. The roughest categorization of the study designs is observational and experimental (Box 3.1 ). However, in different scientific areas, even that type of categorization is not enough, since study designs can be theoretical, as in physics or mathematics, or critical, as in humanities, and those types of research will not be covered in this chapter.

Box 3.1 Types of Study Designs

Observational study designs :.

Case study / case series / qualitative study : All three types of study designs take into account a small number of participants and examine the phenomenon of interest in-depth but cannot make generalizations about the entire population.

Case-control study : Individuals with a certain outcome or disease are selected and then information is obtained on whether the subjects have been exposed to the factor under investigation more frequently than the carefully selected controls. This approach is quick and cost-effective in the determination of factors related to specific states (e.g., risk factors), but it relies too much on records and/or self-report, which may be biased.

Cross-sectional study : Best study design for determining the prevalence and examination of relationships between variables that exist in the population at a specific time. Although it is simple to perform, and relatively cheap, it is susceptible to various types of bias related to participant selection, recall bias, and potential differences in group sizes.

Cohort study : Participants are followed over a certain period (retrospectively or prospectively) and data are compared between exposed and unexposed groups to determine predictive factors for the phenomenon of interest.

Experimental study designs :

Randomized controlled trial (RCT) : Participants are allocated to treatment or control groups using randomization procedures to test the strength of the interventions.

Quasi-experimental trial : Participants are allocated to treatment or control groups to test the strengths of the interventions, but there is no randomization procedure.

For some research areas (e.g. health sciences, social sciences), there is another type of research often referred to as evidence synthesis, or literature review. The literature review is a review of evidence-based on a formulated research question and elements. They differ in their scope and methodology (Box 3.2 ).

Box 3.2 Most Common Types of Review

Systematic review : A type of review that searches systematically for, appraises, and synthesizes research evidence, often adhering to guidelines on the conduct of a review.

Scoping review : Type of review which serves as a preliminary assessment of the potential size and scope of available research literature to identify the nature and extent of research evidence (usually including ongoing research).

Meta-analysis : Statistical synthesis of the results from quantitative studies to provide a more precise effect of the results.

Rapid review : A type of review that assesses what is already known about a policy or practice issue, by using systematic review methods to quickly search and critically appraise existing research to inform practical steps.

Umbrella review : Specific type of review that searches and assesses compiling evidence from multiple reviews into one accessible and usable document. Focuses on broad conditions or problems for which there are competing interventions and highlights reviews that address these interventions and their results.

How to Assess which Study Design Is Most Suitable for Your Research Question?

Based on the research aim, one may already get a hint about which study design will be applied, since different study designs give answers to different research questions. However, very often a research question is not so straightforward. Sometimes the research aim could be to determine whether category X is superior to category Y, related to the specific outcome. In those cases, one must determine what the core outcome of the study is (e.g., testing of the effectiveness of two interventions, the scores on current differences between two groups, or the changes over time between different groups), and then it is not difficult to determine the study type in question. In principle, a single research question can be answered with a single study design. However, what we can also use are substitute study designs that can give approximate answers to the question we are asking but will never give as clear an answer as the appropriate design. For example, if we want to explore the reasons early-career researchers seek training in research integrity using a survey approach, we could list all possible answers and say to participants to choose everything that applies to them. The more appropriate study design would be to use a qualitative approach instead because in the survey approach the assumption is that we already know most of the reasons. The survey approach gives us the answer which answer is the most frequent of all. It is a subtle, but important difference. Similarly, although we can test causation using a cohort approach, the evidence for causation is never strong enough in a cohort study as it would be in an experimental study, simply because in a cohort study the researcher does not have control over the independent variable. For example, if we would test the effects of alcohol uptake on the occurrence of cancer, we would compare participants who drink versus those who do not drink to determine the incidence of cancer and make the conclusion about the association between alcohol and cancer. However, the true study design for testing the causation is the randomized controlled trial, where participants are randomized into the interventional and control group, the researcher can give an exact amount of alcohol based on persons’ weight, over a specific period, and in the end, compare the incidence between two groups. However, that type of study would not be an ethical study, so it is not possible to do it. So, there are subtle, but important differences which answer whether can specific and good formulated research questions can be tested and answered fully with only one study design, but due to the various reasons (time restrictions, ethics, cost-benefit analysis) we often use substitute study designs.

When describing people involved in the research process, researchers often refer to them as “participants” or “respondents” (in the case of surveys). A more precise term would be to name the group based on the population they are drawn from (children, people with specific diseases, or people from a specific geographical area). The appropriate term to use would be “participants”, since people are willingly involved in the research process, and the generation of new findings depends on them. Being a participant in a research process means that a person has willingly entered into a research, without any real or imagined coercion, possesses respect and interest for the research topic, with the understanding that positive aspects of research findings encompass the research situation and contribute to general knowledge. This would be a definition of an ideal participant and the researcher should avoid a situation where the participants are coerced to enter research, whether by situational factors or personal reasons because that will probably result in a decrease in motivation for participation and lower quality of research findings. To act ethically and to improve the quality of the research you have to inform participants about the reasons for the study, its purpose, research procedure, their rights, and expected outcomes. A potential pitfall in the research process can happen if all information were not given to participants at the beginning of a research. On the other hand, if a participant enters willingly into the trial, but possesses no real interest in the research topic, it may also affect the motivation for participation in research, because those participants may consider the topic irrelevant and not take the research process seriously (it is easy to imagine a situation where teenagers in a classroom willingly decide to take the survey and participate in research about personality traits, but quickly lose interest after the second page of the questionnaire). All those things are not reflected in the research report but may have an enormous influence on the research findings. Therefore, it is important to define the population of interest and try to motivate participants by providing them with all information before the research begins. Some additional ways to increase participant retention are financial rewards or similar incentives. There are several sampling strategies used when approaching participants for a study (Box 3.3 ).

Box 3.3 Most Common Sampling Methods

Simple random sampling : Each member of the defined population has an equal chance of being included in the study. The sampling is often performed by a coin toss, throwing dice, or (most commonly) using a computer program.

Stratified random sampling : The population of interest is first divided into strata (subgroups) and then we perform random sampling from each subgroup. In this way, the sample with better reflects the target population in specific (relevant) characteristics.

Cluster random sampling : In cluster sampling, the parts of the population (subgroups) are used as sampling units instead of individuals.

Systematic sampling : Participants are selected by equal intervals set before the data collection begins (e.g., every third of every fifth participant who enters the hospital).

Convenience sampling : Participants are approached based on availability. This is perhaps the most common sampling method, especially for survey research.

Purposive sampling : This is the most common approach in qualitative study designs. Researchers choose participants (or they define their characteristics in detail), based on their needs since participants with those special characteristics are the research topic.

It is difficult to give clear criteria on when to stop collecting data. In the case of pre-registered studies, the stopping rule is defined in the protocol. Examples include time restrictions (e.g. 1 month), or the number of participants (e.g. after collecting data on 100 participants). If the research protocol has not been pre-registered, then the stopping rule should be explained in detail in the publication, with reasons. In the latter case, it is never completely clear if the stopping happened after researchers encountered the desired result or if it has been planned. The practice of stopping after you collect sufficient data to support your desired hypothesis is highly unethical since it can lead to biased findings. Therefore, the best way of deciding to terminate the data collection is to pre-register your study, or at least define the desired number of participants by performing sample size calculation before the study begins and pre-registering your study. More about pre-registration and biases which it eliminates will be said later in the chapter.

Ethics of the Sample Size: Too Small and Too Big Samples

A common problem in sampling is that researchers often determine the desired number of participants in a study. The problem is that the response rate is always lower than 100% (in survey research it is often around 15–20%), and a certain percentage of participants drops out of research, resulting in a sample size significantly lower than initially planned. The sample used in research can be too small, and there is a possibility that you will not find a true effect between groups, and in that case, you would make a type II error. The reason is that in small-scale studies the error margin is big, and you would need an extremely large effect size to reach statistical significance. On the other hand, in cases of a big sample, the problem is different. If you have big samples, even small effects will be statistically significant, but the effect size may be negligible. The reason is that within big samples, the margin of error is small, and consequently, every difference is statistically significant. Once again, the proper solution (practically and ethically) for this issue is to calculate the minimum sample size needed to determine the desired difference between groups to avoid the issues with small samples and report effect sizes also, to avoid issues related to (too) big samples.

What We Can and What Cannot Measure?

When it comes to measuring in research, that part is mostly associated with statistical analysis of research data. The principal thing in statistical analysis is to determine the nature of the main outcome variable. In qualitative research (e.g. interview, focus group) or a systematic review without meta-analysis, statistical analysis is not necessary. On the other hand, for quantitative studies (a term often used for mostly case-control, cross-sectional, cohort, and interventional studies) the most important part of the research plan is to define the outcome which can be measured.

In general, there are two types of variables: qualitative and quantitative. When it comes to statistical analysis of qualitative variables (in a statistical context you will encounter the terms nominal and ordinal variables), we can do only basic functions, like counting and comparing the proportions between different groups, but we are not able to calculate mean or standard deviation, because those variables do not possess numerical characteristics. Examples of qualitative variables in research can be the number of surviving patients in a group at the end of the trial, self-reported socioeconomic status as a demographic characteristic, or any binary (yes/no) question in a questionnaire. In some cases, qualitative variables may be coded with numbers, but that does not make them quantitative. A good example is jersey numbers where numbers serve only as a label and not as a measure of quantity (e.g. if you have team player numbers 2, 4, 6, you probably will not state that the average jersey number is 4 because the very concept of the “average” jersey number is absurd). On the other hand, for quantitative variables, differences between numbers indicate the differences in value (e.g. if you say that person X is 1.80 m high, you know that that person is taller than person Y who is 1.70 m tall). You can also calculate different statistical parameters, like mean and median, and dispersion measures, which gives you a more flexible approach in the choice of statistical tests, especially those tests for differences between groups. On the other hand, applying statistical tests would mean that you are more familiar with statistics, which sometimes may present a problem for less (and more) experienced researchers.

When Is the Time to Consult with a Statistician (and Do You Have to)?

Some (lucky) researchers possess sufficient knowledge to perform data analysis themselves. They usually do not need to rely on somebody else to do the statistical analysis for their study. For everybody else, statistical analysis is a crossroad where one needs to decide on including a person with statistical knowledge in a research team or to learn statistical analyses by themselves. The usual process is that the research team defines the research aim, spends time collecting data, collects data, and then tries to find a statistician who will analyse the data. If we keep in mind that research often has high stakes (e.g. doctoral diploma) and researchers are under a great time and financial pressure, the decision to include a statistician is sound and logical, but is it really necessary? The inclusion of a statistician in research when the data are already collected is similar to the situation when you give a cook an already finished stew and ask him/her how it can be improved. The cook may help with the decorations and give some spice which would make the food look and taste better but cannot change the essence of the food since it is already cooked. It is the same with data. The golden rule of statistics is “garbage in, garbage out”, referring to a situation where poorly collected data or data of poor quality will give rise to wrong conclusions. Researchers should know statistics, not only because of the statistical analysis but because statistical reasoning is important in the formulation of measurable research aims. Therefore, statistical analysis is an important part of responsible research and begins with the formulation of the research aim. Statistical experts should be included in the study at that point.

Statisticians usually analyse data based on the initially set research aim. They send back the results of the data analysis to the research team, and they all together (in an ideal scenario) write the manuscript. The dataset remains in the possession of the principal researcher and the paper is published in a journal. Many journals and funders require that the data are publicly available so that anyone can use it, respecting the FAIR principles. Keeping that in mind, the process when somebody else is doing statistical analysis for you requires an enormous level of trust for statisticians, because they can do analysis wrong but you may never know it. Unless, of course, someone else analyses publicly available data and sees the error. In that case, you are also responsible for the analysis because it does not matter that you did not perform it. In some cases, this may lead to the retraction of the paper, which consequently may lead to certain consequences for you (especially if the articles are the basis for a doctoral thesis). If you are willing to put trust in someone to do data analysis, that is perfectly fine, just be aware of this risk, and remember that people make mistakes, very often unintentionally, and therefore a double check by a third party would be recommended.

On the other hand, if you are willing to learn how to do statistical analysis, the good news is that today there are lots of resources to help you. The first thing about statistics you need to know is that you do not need to know all statistics to do statistics. The only knowledge about statistics and statistical programs you need is the one that would help you do the analysis of your research aim and test the research hypothesis. To do that, you will have to see the data you have and search online for ways to analyze a specific problem. You can use tutorials of the statistical program that simultaneously give instructions about the statistical principles and procedures for analysis. Today, most of those programs have online videos and detailed tutorials. Some of those programs are user-friendly and free (e.g., JAMOVI or JASP ), some are commercial (e.g., SPSS, Statistica), and some are less user-friendly but free and available (e.g., R programming language ). If you are a beginner, use a more user-friendly program that has detailed instructions and try to do the statistical analysis by yourself. It is expected that you will make errors, so it would be good if someone more experienced looked at the results and provides feedback on your first attempts.

There are many tutorials on how to do statistical analysis, but far less on how to do proper data entry, which is the preparation of data for statistical analysis. Usually, the data entry table is made in a computer program that provides a tabular view of the data (e.g., Microsoft Excel). The golden rule is that each column represents a variable collected in research, by the order it was collected in the research and that each row represents the unit of the analysis (usually participant, text, article, or any other unit). In a separate sheet or a document, there should be a codebook that contains information about each level of each variable in the dataset, in a way that a person who is not familiar with research can understand the nature of the variable. The codebook should always accompany the dataset, so if the dataset is shared publicly, the codebook should also be shared. The rule of thumb for the data entry is that textual variables are entered as texts and quantitative variables as numbers, and textual variables can later be coded with numbers if necessary. The table for data entry should be made before the research begins, and it is good to seek help from a statistician when defining that, too.

Researchers publish results and interpretations of research in an open, honest, transparent, and accurate manner, and respect the confidentiality of data or findings when legitimately required to do so.

Preregistration of Research Findings

Pre-registration refers to the presentation of the research plan before the research begins. This process serves as the quality control mechanism because it prevents a change in the research hypothesis and methodology to fit the data collected. Pre-registration of research findings should be done after the research has been approved by the ethics committee. There are various registries, some of which are more discipline-specific (e.g., ClinicalTrials.gov for clinical studies) while others are open to different disciplines and study designs (e.g., Open Science Framework ). For the pre-registration of a study, one should clearly define all steps related to the research aim, methods, planned analysis, and planned use of data. Pre-registration of data is nothing more than the public sharing of a research plan. However, even that relatively simple procedure helps eliminate specific biases and decreases the probability of unethical behavior. Pre-registration eliminates the problem of h ypothesizing a fter the r esults are k nown (so-called HARKing) because you need to state your hypothesis publicly before the research begins. Pre-registration should be done before the actual research begins, since you may have already collected the data and modified your hypothesis so that it fits your data (this is called PARKing – p re-registering a fter the r esults are k nown), which should be avoided since it is not a true pre-registration.

Why is pre-registration good for research? When a study is pre-registered, researchers will follow the research plan and planned analysis and will not alter the study protocol and statistical analysis unless there is a valid and strong reason for protocol modification. Many journals today require that studies are pre-registered and that research data are shared. It is recommended to pre-register not only the study aim and methods, planned analysis, but also planned impact, data use, and authorship. When pre-registering authorship, you make clear from the beginning of the study the roles and expectations of each member of the research team. If during the research process some changes happen with the study protocol, those should be clearly explained and pointed out in the final publication, because deviations from the protocol can sometimes bring suspicion in the interpretation of the results if they are not reported. Pre-registration can be peer-reviewed and some problems, which would affect the final interpretation of the results, can be addressed even before the study begins. Finally, when pre-registered, you have the evidence that it was you who came up first with a specific research idea.

One problem that pre-registration cannot prevent is research spin or exaggeration in the scope of study results. Even if data have been carefully collected and properly analyzed, the interpretation of the results is up to the researcher. You should be honest (and modest) when interpreting the results of your study, by stating the true magnitude of your results and putting them in the context of the previous studies.

After the research has been published, the data used in research should be made available to everyone who wants to use them, since data sharing helps research replication and evidence synthesis. You can read more about data sharing in the chapter on Data Management and the chapter on Publication and Dissemination.

With this knowledge in mind, how would you improve the research procedure from the case scenario at the beginning of this chapter?

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Research in Biomedicine and Health and Center for Evidence-based Medicine, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia

Ivan Buljan

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ivan Buljan .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

School of Medicine, University of Split, Split, Croatia

Ana Marusic

If You Want to Learn More

The embassy of good science.

Replicability

AllTrials campaign: https://embassy.science/wiki/Theme:0bb5e4f7-9336-4ca8-92e3-c506413d1450

Forensic statistics to detect data fabrication: https://embassy.science/wiki/Theme:467f5cf6-d41f-42a0-9b19-76556579845d

Pre-registration of animal study protocols

Prospective registration of clinical trials

Statistical pre-registration

Data driven hypothesis without disclosure (“HARKing”)

Insufficiently reported study flaws and limitations

Spin of research results .

Published Articles

Cooke A, Smith D, Booth A (2012) Beyond PICO: the SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis. Qual Health Res 22(10):1435–1443. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732312452938

Grant MJ, Booth A (2009) A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Inf Libr J 26(2):91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

Kerr NL (1998) HARKing: hypothesizing after the results are known. Personal Soc Psychol Rev 2(3):196–217. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0203_4

Lipowski EE (2008) Developing great research questions. Am J Health Syst Pharm 65(17):1667–1670. https://doi.org/10.2146/ajhp070276

Onwuegbuzie AJ, Leech NL (2006) Linking research questions to mixed methods data analysis procedures. Qual Rep 11(3):474–498

Rau JL (2004) Searching the literature and selecting the right references. Respir Care 49(10):1242–1245

Richardson WS, Wilson MC, Nishikawa J, Hayward RS (1995) The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions. ACP J Club 123(3):A12–A13

Yamada Y (2018) How to crack pre-registration: toward transparent and open science. Front Psychol 9:1831. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01831

Hulley SB. Designing clinical research: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007.

University of Oxford. The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine .

HealthKnowledge .

Cummings SR, Browner WS, Hulley SB. Conceiving the research question and developing the study plan. In: Designing Clinical Research. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2013. p. 14–22.

Rights and permissions

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

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

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Buljan, I. (2023). Research Procedures. In: Marusic, A. (eds) A Guide to Responsible Research. Collaborative Bioethics, vol 1. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-22412-6_3

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-22412-6_3

Published : 28 March 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-22411-9

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-22412-6

eBook Packages : Biomedical and Life Sciences Biomedical and Life Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Cardiovasc Echogr
• v.28(3); Jul-Sep 2018

How to Write a Research Protocol: Tips and Tricks

Matteo cameli.

Department of Cardiovascular Diseases, University of Siena, Siena, Italy

Giuseppina Novo

1 Biomedical Department of Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties, Cardiology Unit, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy

Maurizio Tusa

2 Division of Cardiology, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, Italy

Giulia Elena Mandoli

Giovanni corrado.

3 Department of Cardiology, Valduce Hospital, Como, Italy

Frank Benedetto

4 Division of Cardiology, Bianchi-Melacrino-Morelli Hospital, Reggio Calabria, Italy

Francesco Antonini-Canterin

5 High Specialization Rehabilitation Hospital, ORAS, Motta di Livenza, Treviso, Italy

Rodolfo Citro

6 Heart Department, University Hospital “San Giovanni di Dio e Ruggi D’Aragona”, Salerno, Italy

The first drafting of the protocol for a new research project should start from a solid idea with one or more of these goals:

• Overcoming the limits of the current knowledge in a determinate field with the aim of bridging a “knowledge gap”
• Bringing something new in a scarcely explored field
• Validating or nullifying previous results obtained in limited records by studies on a wider population.

A research proposal born with the intent to convince the others that your project is worthy and you are able to manage it with a complete and specific work plan. With a strong idea in mind, it is time to write a document where all the aspects of the future research project must be explained in a precise, understandable manner. This will successively help the researcher to present it and process and elaborate the obtained results.[ 1 ] The protocol manuscript should also underline both the pros and the potentialities of the idea to put it under a new light.[ 2 ]

Our paper will give the authors suggestions and advices regarding how to organize a research protocol, step by step [ Table 1 ].

Main sections and subsections in a complete research protocol

A research protocol must start from the definition of the coordinator of the whole study: all the details of the main investigator must be reported in the first paragraph. This will allow each participant to know who ask for in case of doubts or criticalities during the research. If the study will be multicentric, in the first section must be written also the number of the involved centers, each one possibly matched with the corresponding reference investigator.

Second section: Specific features of the research study

After completing the administrative details, the next step is to provide and extend title of the study: This is made for identifying the field of research and the aim of the study itself in a sort of brief summary of the research; the title must be followed by a unique acronym, like an ID of the protocol. If the protocol has been already exposed and approved by the Ethical Committee, it is appropriate to include also protocol number.

A list of 3–7 keywords must be listed to simplify the collocation of the protocol in its field of research, including, for example, disease, research tools, and analyzed parameters (e.g. three-dimensional echocardiography, right ventricle, end-stage heart failure, and prognosis).

The protocol must continue stating the research background that is the rational cause on the base on which the study is pursued. This section is written to answer some of these questions: what is the project about? What is already available in this field in the current knowledge? Why we need to overcome that data? and How will the community will from the present study?

As for an original research manuscript, the introduction to the project must include a brief review of the literature (with corresponding references). It is also fundamental to support the premises of the study, to underline the importance of the project in that particular time period and above all, of the materials and methods that will be employed. The rationale should accurately put in evidence the current lack in that field of scientific knowledge, following a precise, logical thread with concrete solutions regarding how to overcome the gaps and to conclude with the hypothesis of the project. A distinct paragraph can be dedicated to references, paying attention to select only the previous papers that can help the reader to focus the attention on the topic and to not excessively extend the list. In the references paragraph, the main studies regarding the object of the research but also state-of-art reviews updating the most recent discoveries in the field should be inserted.

The section should successively expose the study design: monocentric or multicentric, retrospective or prospective, controlled or uncontrolled, open-label or blinded, randomized or nonrandomized, and observational or experimental. It should also be explained why that particular design has been chosen.

At this point, the author must include the primary objective of the research, that is, the main goal of the study. This is a crucial part of the proposal and more than 4–5 aims should be avoided to do not reduce the accuracy of the project. Using verbs as “to demonstrate,” “to assess,” “to verify,” “to improve,” “to reduce,” and “to compare” help to give relevance to this section. Add also a description of the general characteristics of the population that will be enrolled in the study (if different subgroups are planned, the criteria on the base of which they will be divided should be specified); primary and secondary end-points, including all the variables that represent the measure of the objective (e.g., all-cause death, cardiovascular death, hospitalization, and side effects of a drug) follow in this section.

All the single parameters and variables that will be assessed during the study must be accurately and precisely listed along with the tools, the methods, the process schedule timing, and the technical details by which they will be acquired; Here, the author should explain how the Investigators who work in the other involved centers have to sent their results and acquired data to the Core Laboratory (e.g. by filled databases or by sending images).

A special attention must then be paid to clarify the planning of each examination the study patients will undergo: basal evaluation, potential follow-up schedule, treatment strategy plan, comparison between new and already-in-use drugs, dose and dosage of the treatment in case of a pharmacological study. This part can be enhanced by flowcharts or algorithms that allow a more immediate comprehension and interpretation of the study strategy.

This section may result more complete if one more subsection, illustrating the expected results, is included. Considering the idea at the base on the project, the endpoints and the pre-arranged objectives, the author can explain how its research project will

• Contribute to optimize the scientific knowledge in that specific field
• Give real successive implications in clinical practice
• Pave the way for future scientific research in the same or similar area of interest, etc.

The study population must be specified in detail, starting from inclusion criteria (including age and gender if it is planned to be restricted) and exclusion criteria: the more precise are the lists, the more accurate the enrollment of the subjects will be to avoid selection biases. This will also help to raise the success rate of the project and to reduce the risks of statistical error during the successive analysis of the data. The sample size should be planned and justified on the base of a statistic calculation considering the incidence and prevalence of the disease, frequency of use of a drug, etc., and possibly also indicating if the study considers a minimal or maximal number of subjects for each enrollment center (in case of multicentric studies).

This section of the protocol should end with some indications regarding timing and duration of the study: Starting and end of enrollment date, starting and end of inclusion date, potential frequency of control examinations, and timing of the analysis of the acquired data. If already settled, it can be useful to indicate also the type of statistical analysis that the investigators will apply to the data.

It is always necessary to prepare an informed consent to be proposed to the patient where premises, methods, and aims of the research together with advantages (e.g., some visits or diagnostic examinations for free) and possible risks derived from the participation to the study.

In this short section, various pieces of information regarding safety of the study must be added (a classification is fundamental in case of studies that expect the use of invasive procedures or drugs use). Usually, for nonobservational studies, an insurance coverage must be considered.

If the investigators have requested or plan to request funding or financial support, all the obtained resources must be listed to avoid conflicts of interest.

C ONCLUSION

Writing a complete and detailed document is a paramount step before starting a research projects. The protocol, as described in this paper, should be simply and correctly written but must clarify all the aspects of the protocol. The document could be divided into three different sessions to give all the parts the appropriate attention.

R EFERENCES

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Dissertation
• What Is a Research Methodology? | Steps & Tips

What Is a Research Methodology? | Steps & Tips

Published on 25 February 2019 by Shona McCombes . Revised on 10 October 2022.

Your research methodology discusses and explains the data collection and analysis methods you used in your research. A key part of your thesis, dissertation, or research paper, the methodology chapter explains what you did and how you did it, allowing readers to evaluate the reliability and validity of your research.

It should include:

• The type of research you conducted
• How you collected and analysed your data
• Any tools or materials you used in the research
• Why you chose these methods
• Your methodology section should generally be written in the past tense .
• Academic style guides in your field may provide detailed guidelines on what to include for different types of studies.
• Your citation style might provide guidelines for your methodology section (e.g., an APA Style methods section ).

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Be assured that you'll submit flawless writing. Upload your document to correct all your mistakes.

Table of contents

How to write a research methodology, why is a methods section important, step 1: explain your methodological approach, step 2: describe your data collection methods, step 3: describe your analysis method, step 4: evaluate and justify the methodological choices you made, tips for writing a strong methodology chapter, frequently asked questions about methodology.

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.

Correct my document today

Your methods section is your opportunity to share how you conducted your research and why you chose the methods you chose. It’s also the place to show that your research was rigorously conducted and can be replicated .

It gives your research legitimacy and situates it within your field, and also gives your readers a place to refer to if they have any questions or critiques in other sections.

You can start by introducing your overall approach to your research. You have two options here.

Option 1: Start with your “what”

What research problem or question did you investigate?

• Aim to describe the characteristics of something?
• Explore an under-researched topic?
• Establish a causal relationship?

And what type of data did you need to achieve this aim?

• Quantitative data , qualitative data , or a mix of both?
• Primary data collected yourself, or secondary data collected by someone else?
• Experimental data gathered by controlling and manipulating variables, or descriptive data gathered via observations?

Option 2: Start with your “why”

Depending on your discipline, you can also start with a discussion of the rationale and assumptions underpinning your methodology. In other words, why did you choose these methods for your study?

• Why is this the best way to answer your research question?
• Is this a standard methodology in your field, or does it require justification?
• Were there any ethical considerations involved in your choices?
• What are the criteria for validity and reliability in this type of research ?

Once you have introduced your reader to your methodological approach, you should share full details about your data collection methods .

Quantitative methods

In order to be considered generalisable, you should describe quantitative research methods in enough detail for another researcher to replicate your study.

Here, explain how you operationalised your concepts and measured your variables. Discuss your sampling method or inclusion/exclusion criteria, as well as any tools, procedures, and materials you used to gather your data.

Surveys Describe where, when, and how the survey was conducted.

• How did you design the questionnaire?
• What form did your questions take (e.g., multiple choice, Likert scale )?
• Were your surveys conducted in-person or virtually?
• What sampling method did you use to select participants?
• What was your sample size and response rate?

Experiments Share full details of the tools, techniques, and procedures you used to conduct your experiment.

• How did you design the experiment ?
• How did you recruit participants?
• How did you manipulate and measure the variables ?
• What tools did you use?

Existing data Explain how you gathered and selected the material (such as datasets or archival data) that you used in your analysis.

• Where did you source the material?
• How was the data originally produced?
• What criteria did you use to select material (e.g., date range)?

The survey consisted of 5 multiple-choice questions and 10 questions measured on a 7-point Likert scale.

The goal was to collect survey responses from 350 customers visiting the fitness apparel company’s brick-and-mortar location in Boston on 4–8 July 2022, between 11:00 and 15:00.

Here, a customer was defined as a person who had purchased a product from the company on the day they took the survey. Participants were given 5 minutes to fill in the survey anonymously. In total, 408 customers responded, but not all surveys were fully completed. Due to this, 371 survey results were included in the analysis.

Qualitative methods

In qualitative research , methods are often more flexible and subjective. For this reason, it’s crucial to robustly explain the methodology choices you made.

Be sure to discuss the criteria you used to select your data, the context in which your research was conducted, and the role you played in collecting your data (e.g., were you an active participant, or a passive observer?)

Interviews or focus groups Describe where, when, and how the interviews were conducted.

• How did you find and select participants?
• How many participants took part?
• What form did the interviews take ( structured , semi-structured , or unstructured )?
• How long were the interviews?
• How were they recorded?

Participant observation Describe where, when, and how you conducted the observation or ethnography .

• What group or community did you observe? How long did you spend there?
• How did you gain access to this group? What role did you play in the community?
• How long did you spend conducting the research? Where was it located?
• How did you record your data (e.g., audiovisual recordings, note-taking)?

Existing data Explain how you selected case study materials for your analysis.

• What type of materials did you analyse?
• How did you select them?

In order to gain better insight into possibilities for future improvement of the fitness shop’s product range, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 8 returning customers.

Here, a returning customer was defined as someone who usually bought products at least twice a week from the store.

Surveys were used to select participants. Interviews were conducted in a small office next to the cash register and lasted approximately 20 minutes each. Answers were recorded by note-taking, and seven interviews were also filmed with consent. One interviewee preferred not to be filmed.

Mixed methods

Mixed methods research combines quantitative and qualitative approaches. If a standalone quantitative or qualitative study is insufficient to answer your research question, mixed methods may be a good fit for you.

Mixed methods are less common than standalone analyses, largely because they require a great deal of effort to pull off successfully. If you choose to pursue mixed methods, it’s especially important to robustly justify your methods here.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Next, you should indicate how you processed and analysed your data. Avoid going into too much detail: you should not start introducing or discussing any of your results at this stage.

In quantitative research , your analysis will be based on numbers. In your methods section, you can include:

• How you prepared the data before analysing it (e.g., checking for missing data , removing outliers , transforming variables)
• Which software you used (e.g., SPSS, Stata or R)
• Which statistical tests you used (e.g., two-tailed t test , simple linear regression )

In qualitative research, your analysis will be based on language, images, and observations (often involving some form of textual analysis ).

Specific methods might include:

• Content analysis : Categorising and discussing the meaning of words, phrases and sentences
• Thematic analysis : Coding and closely examining the data to identify broad themes and patterns
• Discourse analysis : Studying communication and meaning in relation to their social context

Mixed methods combine the above two research methods, integrating both qualitative and quantitative approaches into one coherent analytical process.

Above all, your methodology section should clearly make the case for why you chose the methods you did. This is especially true if you did not take the most standard approach to your topic. In this case, discuss why other methods were not suitable for your objectives, and show how this approach contributes new knowledge or understanding.

In any case, it should be overwhelmingly clear to your reader that you set yourself up for success in terms of your methodology’s design. Show how your methods should lead to results that are valid and reliable, while leaving the analysis of the meaning, importance, and relevance of your results for your discussion section .

• Quantitative: Lab-based experiments cannot always accurately simulate real-life situations and behaviours, but they are effective for testing causal relationships between variables .
• Qualitative: Unstructured interviews usually produce results that cannot be generalised beyond the sample group , but they provide a more in-depth understanding of participants’ perceptions, motivations, and emotions.
• Mixed methods: Despite issues systematically comparing differing types of data, a solely quantitative study would not sufficiently incorporate the lived experience of each participant, while a solely qualitative study would be insufficiently generalisable.

Remember that your aim is not just to describe your methods, but to show how and why you applied them. Again, it’s critical to demonstrate that your research was rigorously conducted and can be replicated.

1. Focus on your objectives and research questions

The methodology section should clearly show why your methods suit your objectives  and convince the reader that you chose the best possible approach to answering your problem statement and research questions .

2. Cite relevant sources

Your methodology can be strengthened by referencing existing research in your field. This can help you to:

• Show that you followed established practice for your type of research
• Discuss how you decided on your approach by evaluating existing research
• Present a novel methodological approach to address a gap in the literature

3. Write for your audience

Consider how much information you need to give, and avoid getting too lengthy. If you are using methods that are standard for your discipline, you probably don’t need to give a lot of background or justification.

Regardless, your methodology should be a clear, well-structured text that makes an argument for your approach, not just a list of technical details and procedures.

Methodology refers to the overarching strategy and rationale of your research. Developing your methodology involves studying the research methods used in your field and the theories or principles that underpin them, in order to choose the approach that best matches your objectives.

Methods are the specific tools and procedures you use to collect and analyse data (e.g. interviews, experiments , surveys , statistical tests ).

In a dissertation or scientific paper, the methodology chapter or methods section comes after the introduction and before the results , discussion and conclusion .

Depending on the length and type of document, you might also include a literature review or theoretical framework before the methodology.

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

Quantitative methods allow you to test a hypothesis by systematically collecting and analysing data, while qualitative methods allow you to explore ideas and experiences in depth.

A sample is a subset of individuals from a larger population. Sampling means selecting the group that you will actually collect data from in your research.

For example, if you are researching the opinions of students in your university, you could survey a sample of 100 students.

Statistical sampling allows you to test a hypothesis about the characteristics of a population. There are various sampling methods you can use to ensure that your sample is representative of the population as a whole.

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2022, October 10). What Is a Research Methodology? | Steps & Tips. Scribbr. Retrieved 14 May 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/methodology/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write a dissertation proposal | a step-by-step guide, what is a literature review | guide, template, & examples, what is a theoretical framework | a step-by-step guide.

• Visit the University of Nebraska–Lincoln
• Apply to the University of Nebraska–Lincoln
• Give to the University of Nebraska–Lincoln

Search Form

Overview of research process.

The Research Process

Anything you write involves organization and a logical flow of ideas, so understanding the logic of the research process before beginning to write is essential. Simply put, you need to put your writing in the larger context—see the forest before you even attempt to see the trees.

In this brief introductory module, we’ll review the major steps in the research process, conceptualized here as a series of steps within a circle, with each step dependent on the previous one. The circle best depicts the recursive nature of the process; that is, once the process has been completed, the researcher may begin again by refining or expanding on the initial approach, or even pioneering a completely new approach to solving the problem.

Identify a Research Problem

You identify a research problem by first selecting a general topic that’s interesting to you and to the interests and specialties of your research advisor. Once identified, you’ll need to narrow it. For example, if teenage pregnancy is your general topic area, your specific topic could be a comparison of how teenage pregnancy affects young fathers and mothers differently.

Review the Literature

Find out what’s being asked or what’s already been done in the area by doing some exploratory reading. Discuss the topic with your advisor to gain additional insights, explore novel approaches, and begin to develop your research question, purpose statement, and hypothesis(es), if applicable.

Determine Research Question

A good research question is a question worth asking; one that poses a problem worth solving. A good question should:

• Be clear . It must be understandable to you and to others.
• Be researchable . It should be capable of developing into a manageable research design, so data may be collected in relation to it. Extremely abstract terms are unlikely to be suitable.
• Connect with established theory and research . There should be a literature on which you can draw to illuminate how your research question(s) should be approached.
• Be neither too broad nor too narrow. See Appendix A for a brief explanation of the narrowing process and how your research question, purpose statement, and hypothesis(es) are interconnected.

Appendix A Research Questions, Purpose Statement, Hypothesis(es)

Develop Research Methods

Once you’ve finalized your research question, purpose statement, and hypothesis(es), you’ll need to write your research proposal—a detailed management plan for your research project. The proposal is as essential to successful research as an architect’s plans are to the construction of a building.

See Appendix B to view the basic components of a research proposal.

Appendix B Components of a Research Proposal

Collect & Analyze Data

In Practical Research–Planning and Design (2005, 8th Edition), Leedy and Ormrod provide excellent advice for what the researcher does at this stage in the research process. The researcher now

• collects data that potentially relate to the problem,
• arranges the data into a logical organizational structure,
• analyzes and interprets the data to determine their meaning, 
• determines if the data resolve the research problem or not, and
• determines if the data support the hypothesis or not.

Document the Work

Because research reports differ by discipline, the most effective way for you to understand formatting and citations is to examine reports from others in your department or field. The library’s electronic databases provide a wealth of examples illustrating how others in your field document their research.

Communicate Your Research

Talk with your advisor about potential local, regional, or national venues to present your findings. And don’t sell yourself short: Consider publishing your research in related books or journals.

Refine/Expand, Pioneer

Earlier, we emphasized the fact that the research process, rather than being linear, is recursive—the reason we conceptualized the process as a series of steps within a circle. At this stage, you may need to revisit your research problem in the context of your findings. You might also investigate the implications of your work and identify new problems or refine your previous approach.

The process then begins anew . . . and you’ll once again move through the series of steps in the circle.

Continue to Module Two

Appendix C - Key Research Terms

How To Write A Research Paper

Step-By-Step Tutorial With Examples + FREE Template

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Expert Reviewer: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | March 2024

For many students, crafting a strong research paper from scratch can feel like a daunting task – and rightly so! In this post, we’ll unpack what a research paper is, what it needs to do , and how to write one – in three easy steps. 🙂 

Overview: Writing A Research Paper

What (exactly) is a research paper.

• How to write a research paper
• Stage 1 : Topic & literature search
• Stage 2 : Structure & outline
• Stage 3 : Iterative writing
• Key takeaways

Let’s start by asking the most important question, “ What is a research paper? ”.

Simply put, a research paper is a scholarly written work where the writer (that’s you!) answers a specific question (this is called a research question ) through evidence-based arguments . Evidence-based is the keyword here. In other words, a research paper is different from an essay or other writing assignments that draw from the writer’s personal opinions or experiences. With a research paper, it’s all about building your arguments based on evidence (we’ll talk more about that evidence a little later).

Now, it’s worth noting that there are many different types of research papers , including analytical papers (the type I just described), argumentative papers, and interpretative papers. Here, we’ll focus on analytical papers , as these are some of the most common – but if you’re keen to learn about other types of research papers, be sure to check out the rest of the blog .

With that basic foundation laid, let’s get down to business and look at how to write a research paper .

Overview: The 3-Stage Process

While there are, of course, many potential approaches you can take to write a research paper, there are typically three stages to the writing process. So, in this tutorial, we’ll present a straightforward three-step process that we use when working with students at Grad Coach.

These three steps are:

• Finding a research topic and reviewing the existing literature
• Developing a provisional structure and outline for your paper, and
• Writing up your initial draft and then refining it iteratively

Let’s dig into each of these.

Need a helping hand?

Step 1: Find a topic and review the literature

As we mentioned earlier, in a research paper, you, as the researcher, will try to answer a question . More specifically, that’s called a research question , and it sets the direction of your entire paper. What’s important to understand though is that you’ll need to answer that research question with the help of high-quality sources – for example, journal articles, government reports, case studies, and so on. We’ll circle back to this in a minute.

The first stage of the research process is deciding on what your research question will be and then reviewing the existing literature (in other words, past studies and papers) to see what they say about that specific research question. In some cases, your professor may provide you with a predetermined research question (or set of questions). However, in many cases, you’ll need to find your own research question within a certain topic area.

Finding a strong research question hinges on identifying a meaningful research gap – in other words, an area that’s lacking in existing research. There’s a lot to unpack here, so if you wanna learn more, check out the plain-language explainer video below.

Once you’ve figured out which question (or questions) you’ll attempt to answer in your research paper, you’ll need to do a deep dive into the existing literature – this is called a “ literature search ”. Again, there are many ways to go about this, but your most likely starting point will be Google Scholar .

If you’re new to Google Scholar, think of it as Google for the academic world. You can start by simply entering a few different keywords that are relevant to your research question and it will then present a host of articles for you to review. What you want to pay close attention to here is the number of citations for each paper – the more citations a paper has, the more credible it is (generally speaking – there are some exceptions, of course).

Ideally, what you’re looking for are well-cited papers that are highly relevant to your topic. That said, keep in mind that citations are a cumulative metric , so older papers will often have more citations than newer papers – just because they’ve been around for longer. So, don’t fixate on this metric in isolation – relevance and recency are also very important.

Beyond Google Scholar, you’ll also definitely want to check out academic databases and aggregators such as Science Direct, PubMed, JStor and so on. These will often overlap with the results that you find in Google Scholar, but they can also reveal some hidden gems – so, be sure to check them out.

Once you’ve worked your way through all the literature, you’ll want to catalogue all this information in some sort of spreadsheet so that you can easily recall who said what, when and within what context. If you’d like, we’ve got a free literature spreadsheet that helps you do exactly that.

Step 2: Develop a structure and outline

With your research question pinned down and your literature digested and catalogued, it’s time to move on to planning your actual research paper .

It might sound obvious, but it’s really important to have some sort of rough outline in place before you start writing your paper. So often, we see students eagerly rushing into the writing phase, only to land up with a disjointed research paper that rambles on in multiple

Now, the secret here is to not get caught up in the fine details . Realistically, all you need at this stage is a bullet-point list that describes (in broad strokes) what you’ll discuss and in what order. It’s also useful to remember that you’re not glued to this outline – in all likelihood, you’ll chop and change some sections once you start writing, and that’s perfectly okay. What’s important is that you have some sort of roadmap in place from the start.

At this stage you might be wondering, “ But how should I structure my research paper? ”. Well, there’s no one-size-fits-all solution here, but in general, a research paper will consist of a few relatively standardised components:

• Introduction
• Literature review
• Methodology

Let’s take a look at each of these.

First up is the introduction section . As the name suggests, the purpose of the introduction is to set the scene for your research paper. There are usually (at least) four ingredients that go into this section – these are the background to the topic, the research problem and resultant research question , and the justification or rationale. If you’re interested, the video below unpacks the introduction section in more detail. 

The next section of your research paper will typically be your literature review . Remember all that literature you worked through earlier? Well, this is where you’ll present your interpretation of all that content . You’ll do this by writing about recent trends, developments, and arguments within the literature – but more specifically, those that are relevant to your research question . The literature review can oftentimes seem a little daunting, even to seasoned researchers, so be sure to check out our extensive collection of literature review content here .

With the introduction and lit review out of the way, the next section of your paper is the research methodology . In a nutshell, the methodology section should describe to your reader what you did (beyond just reviewing the existing literature) to answer your research question. For example, what data did you collect, how did you collect that data, how did you analyse that data and so on? For each choice, you’ll also need to justify why you chose to do it that way, and what the strengths and weaknesses of your approach were.

Now, it’s worth mentioning that for some research papers, this aspect of the project may be a lot simpler . For example, you may only need to draw on secondary sources (in other words, existing data sets). In some cases, you may just be asked to draw your conclusions from the literature search itself (in other words, there may be no data analysis at all). But, if you are required to collect and analyse data, you’ll need to pay a lot of attention to the methodology section. The video below provides an example of what the methodology section might look like.

By this stage of your paper, you will have explained what your research question is, what the existing literature has to say about that question, and how you analysed additional data to try to answer your question. So, the natural next step is to present your analysis of that data . This section is usually called the “results” or “analysis” section and this is where you’ll showcase your findings.

Depending on your school’s requirements, you may need to present and interpret the data in one section – or you might split the presentation and the interpretation into two sections. In the latter case, your “results” section will just describe the data, and the “discussion” is where you’ll interpret that data and explicitly link your analysis back to your research question. If you’re not sure which approach to take, check in with your professor or take a look at past papers to see what the norms are for your programme.

Alright – once you’ve presented and discussed your results, it’s time to wrap it up . This usually takes the form of the “ conclusion ” section. In the conclusion, you’ll need to highlight the key takeaways from your study and close the loop by explicitly answering your research question. Again, the exact requirements here will vary depending on your programme (and you may not even need a conclusion section at all) – so be sure to check with your professor if you’re unsure.

Step 3: Write and refine

Finally, it’s time to get writing. All too often though, students hit a brick wall right about here… So, how do you avoid this happening to you?

Well, there’s a lot to be said when it comes to writing a research paper (or any sort of academic piece), but we’ll share three practical tips to help you get started.

First and foremost , it’s essential to approach your writing as an iterative process. In other words, you need to start with a really messy first draft and then polish it over multiple rounds of editing. Don’t waste your time trying to write a perfect research paper in one go. Instead, take the pressure off yourself by adopting an iterative approach.

Secondly , it’s important to always lean towards critical writing , rather than descriptive writing. What does this mean? Well, at the simplest level, descriptive writing focuses on the “ what ”, while critical writing digs into the “ so what ” – in other words, the implications . If you’re not familiar with these two types of writing, don’t worry! You can find a plain-language explanation here.

Last but not least, you’ll need to get your referencing right. Specifically, you’ll need to provide credible, correctly formatted citations for the statements you make. We see students making referencing mistakes all the time and it costs them dearly. The good news is that you can easily avoid this by using a simple reference manager . If you don’t have one, check out our video about Mendeley, an easy (and free) reference management tool that you can start using today.

Recap: Key Takeaways

We’ve covered a lot of ground here. To recap, the three steps to writing a high-quality research paper are:

• To choose a research question and review the literature
• To plan your paper structure and draft an outline
• To take an iterative approach to writing, focusing on critical writing and strong referencing

Remember, this is just a b ig-picture overview of the research paper development process and there’s a lot more nuance to unpack. So, be sure to grab a copy of our free research paper template to learn more about how to write a research paper.

You Might Also Like:

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

The Research Process | Steps, How to Start & Tips

Introduction

Basic steps in the research process, conducting a literature review, designing the research project, collecting and analyzing data.

• Interpretation, conclusion and presentation of findings

Key principles for conducting research

The research process is a systematic method used to gather information and answer specific questions. The process ensures the findings are credible, high-quality, and applicable to a broader context. It can vary slightly between disciplines but typically follows a structured pathway from initial inquiry to final presentation of results.

What is the research process?

At its core, the research process involves several fundamental activities: identifying a topic that needs further investigation, reviewing existing knowledge on the subject, forming a precise research question , and designing a method to investigate it. This is followed by collecting and analyzing data , interpreting the results, and reporting the findings. Each step is crucial and builds upon the previous one, requiring meticulous attention to detail and rigorous methodology.

The research process is important because it provides a scientific basis for decision-making. Whether in academic, scientific, or commercial fields, research helps us understand complex issues, develop new tools or products, and improve existing practices. By adhering to a structured research process , researchers can produce results that are not only insightful but also transparent so that others can understand how the findings were developed and build on them in future studies. The integrity of the research process is essential for advancing knowledge and making informed decisions that can have significant social, economic, and scientific impacts.

The research process fosters critical thinking and problem-solving skills. It demands a clear articulation of a problem, thorough investigation, and thoughtful interpretation of data, all of which are valuable skills in any professional field. By following this process, researchers are better equipped to tackle complex questions and contribute meaningful solutions to real-world problems.

From finding the key theoretical concepts to presenting the research findings in a report, every step in the research process forms a cohesive pathway that supports researchers in systematically uncovering deep insights and generating meaningful knowledge, which is crucial for the success of any qualitative investigation.

Identifying key theoretical concepts

The first step in the research process involves finding the key theoretical concepts or words that specify the research topic and are always included in the title of the investigation. Without a definition, these words have no sense or meaning (Daft, 1995). To identify these concepts, a researcher must ask which theoretical keywords are implicit in the investigation. To answer this question a researcher should identify the logical relationships among the two words that catch the focus of the investigation. It is also crucial that researchers provide clear definitions for their theoretical keywords. The title of the research can then include these theoretical keywords and signal how they are being studied.

A piece of useful advice is to draw a conceptual map to visualize the direct or indirect relationships between the key theoretical words and choose a relationship between them as the focus of the investigation.

Developing a research question

One of the most important steps in the research endeavor is identifying a research question. Research questions answer aspects of the topic that need more knowledge or shed light on information that has to be prioritized before others. It is the first step in identifying which participants or type of data collection methods. Research questions put into practice the conceptual framework and make the initial theoretical concepts more explicit.

A research question carries a different implicit meaning depending on how it is framed. Questions starting with what, who, and where usually identify a phenomenon or elements of one, while how, why, when and how much describe, explain, predict or control a phenomenon.

Overall, research questions must be clear, focused and complex. They must also generate knowledge relevant to society and the answers must pose a comprehensive understanding that contributes to the scientific community.

Make the most of your data with ATLAS.ti

Powerful tools in an intuitive interface, ready for you with a free trial today.

A literature review is the synthesis of the existing body of research relevant to a research topic. It allows researchers to identify the current state of the art of knowledge of a particular topic. When conducting research, it is the foundation and guides the researcher to the knowledge gaps that need to be covered to best contribute to the scientific community.

Common methodologies include miniaturized or complete reviews, descriptive or integrated reviews, narrative reviews, theoretical reviews, methodological reviews and systematic reviews.

When navigating through the literature, researchers must try to answer their research question with the most current peer-reviewed research when finding relevant data for a research project. It is important to use the existing literature in at least two different databases and adapt the key concepts to amplify their search. Researchers also pay attention to the titles, summaries and references of each article. It is recommended to have a research diary for useful previous research as it could be the researcher´s go-to source when writing the final report.

A good research design involves data analysis methods suited to the research question, and where data collection generates appropriate data for the analysis method (Willig, 2001).

Designing a qualitative study is a critical step in the research process, serving as the blueprint for the research study. This phase is a fundamental part of the planning process, ensuring that the chosen research methods align perfectly with the research's purpose. During this stage, a researcher decides on a specific approach—such as narrative , phenomenological , grounded theory , ethnographic , or case study —tailoring the design to the unique research problem and needs of the research project. By carefully selecting the research method and planning how to approach the data, researchers can ensure that their work remains focused and relevant to the intended study area.

A well-constructed research design is vital for maintaining the integrity and credibility of the study. It guides the researcher through the research process steps, from data collection to analysis, helping to manage and mitigate potential interpretations and errors. This detailed planning is crucial, particularly in qualitative studies, where the depth of understanding and interpretive nature of analysis can significantly influence outcomes.

The design of a qualitative study is more than a procedural formality; it is a strategic component of the research that enhances the quality of the results. It requires thoughtful consideration of the research question, ensuring that every aspect of the methodology contributes effectively to the overarching goals of the project.

Collecting data

Gathering data can involve various methods tailored to the study's specific needs. To collect data , techniques may include interviews , focus groups, surveys and observations , each chosen for its ability to target a specific group relevant to the research population. For example, focus groups might explore attitudes within a specific age group, while observations might analyze behaviours in a community for population research projects. Data may also come from secondary sources with quantitative and qualitative approaches such as library resources, market research, customer feedback or employee evaluations.

Effective data management is crucial, ensuring that primary data from direct collection and secondary data from sources like public health records are organized and maintained properly. This step is vital for maintaining the integrity of the data throughout the research process steps, supporting the overall goal of conducting thorough and coherent research.

Analyzing data

Once research data has been collected, the next critical step is to analyze the data. This phase is crucial for transforming raw data into high-quality information for meaningful research findings.

Analyzing qualitative data often involves coding and thematic analysis , which helps identify patterns and themes within the data. While qualitative research typically does not focus on drawing statistical conclusions, integrating basic statistical methods can sometimes add depth to the data interpretation, especially in mixed-methods research where quantitative data complements qualitative insights.

In each of the research process steps, researchers utilize various research tools and techniques to conduct research and analyze the data systematically. This may include computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software (CAQDAS) such as ATLAS.ti, which assists in organizing, sorting, and coding the data efficiently. It can also host the research diary and apply analysis methods such as word frequencies and network visualizations.

Interpretation, conclusion and presentation of research findings

Interpreting research findings.

By meticulously following systematic procedures and working through the data, researchers can ensure that their interpretations are grounded in the actual data collected, enhancing the trustworthiness and credibility of the research findings.

The interpretation of data is not merely about extracting information but also involves making sense of the data in the context of the existing literature and research objectives. This step is not only about what the data is, but what it means in the broader context of the study, enabling researchers to draw insightful conclusions that contribute to the academic and practical understanding of the field.

Concluding and presenting research findings

The final step is concluding and presenting the research data which are crucial for transforming analyzed data into meaningful insights and credible findings.

The results are typically shared in a research report or academic paper, detailing the findings and contextualizing them within the broader field. This document outlines how the insights contribute to existing knowledge, suggests areas for future research, and may propose practical applications.

Effective presentation is key to ensuring that these findings reach and impact the intended audience. This involves not just articulating the conclusions clearly but also using engaging formats and visual aids to enhance comprehension and engagement with the research.

The research process is a dynamic journey, characterized by a series of systematic research process steps designed to guide researchers successfully from inception to conclusion. Each step—from designing the study and collecting data to analyzing results and drawing conclusions—plays a critical role in ensuring the integrity and credibility of the research.

Qualitative research is guided by key principles designed to ensure the rigour and depth of the research study. Credibility is crucial, achieved through accurate representations of participant experiences, often verified by peer-review revision. Transferability is addressed by providing rich context, allowing others to evaluate the applicability of findings to similar settings. Dependability emphasizes the stability and consistency of data, maintained through detailed documentation of the research process (such as in a research diary), facilitating an audit trail. This aligns with confirmability, where the neutrality of the data is safeguarded by documenting researcher interpretations and decisions, ensuring findings are shaped by participants and not researcher predispositions.

Ethical integrity is paramount, upholding standards like informed consent and confidentiality to protect participant rights throughout the research journey. Qualitative research also strives for a richness and depth of data that captures the complex nature of human experiences and interactions, often exploring these phenomena through an iterative learning process. This involves cycles of data collection and analysis, allowing for ongoing adjustments based on emerging insights. Lastly, a holistic perspective is adopted to view phenomena in their entirety, considering all aspects of the context and environment, which enriches the understanding and relevance of the research outcomes. Together, these principles ensure qualitative research is both profound and ethically conducted, yielding meaningful and applicable insights.

Daft, R. L. (1995). Organization Theory and Design. West Publishing Company.

Willig, C. (2001). Introducing Qualitative Research in Psychology: Adventures in Theory and Method. McGraw-Hill Companies, Incorporated.

Whatever your research objectives, make it happen with ATLAS.ti. Download a free trial today.

• Search Menu
• Advance articles
• Editor's Choice
• Supplements
• French Abstracts
• Portuguese Abstracts
• Spanish Abstracts
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• About International Journal for Quality in Health Care
• About the International Society for Quality in Health Care
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Contact ISQua
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Primacy of the research question, structure of the paper, writing a research article: advice to beginners.

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Thomas V. Perneger, Patricia M. Hudelson, Writing a research article: advice to beginners, International Journal for Quality in Health Care , Volume 16, Issue 3, June 2004, Pages 191–192, https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzh053

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Writing research papers does not come naturally to most of us. The typical research paper is a highly codified rhetorical form [ 1 , 2 ]. Knowledge of the rules—some explicit, others implied—goes a long way toward writing a paper that will get accepted in a peer-reviewed journal.

A good research paper addresses a specific research question. The research question—or study objective or main research hypothesis—is the central organizing principle of the paper. Whatever relates to the research question belongs in the paper; the rest doesn’t. This is perhaps obvious when the paper reports on a well planned research project. However, in applied domains such as quality improvement, some papers are written based on projects that were undertaken for operational reasons, and not with the primary aim of producing new knowledge. In such cases, authors should define the main research question a posteriori and design the paper around it.

Generally, only one main research question should be addressed in a paper (secondary but related questions are allowed). If a project allows you to explore several distinct research questions, write several papers. For instance, if you measured the impact of obtaining written consent on patient satisfaction at a specialized clinic using a newly developed questionnaire, you may want to write one paper on the questionnaire development and validation, and another on the impact of the intervention. The idea is not to split results into ‘least publishable units’, a practice that is rightly decried, but rather into ‘optimally publishable units’.

What is a good research question? The key attributes are: (i) specificity; (ii) originality or novelty; and (iii) general relevance to a broad scientific community. The research question should be precise and not merely identify a general area of inquiry. It can often (but not always) be expressed in terms of a possible association between X and Y in a population Z, for example ‘we examined whether providing patients about to be discharged from the hospital with written information about their medications would improve their compliance with the treatment 1 month later’. A study does not necessarily have to break completely new ground, but it should extend previous knowledge in a useful way, or alternatively refute existing knowledge. Finally, the question should be of interest to others who work in the same scientific area. The latter requirement is more challenging for those who work in applied science than for basic scientists. While it may safely be assumed that the human genome is the same worldwide, whether the results of a local quality improvement project have wider relevance requires careful consideration and argument.

Once the research question is clearly defined, writing the paper becomes considerably easier. The paper will ask the question, then answer it. The key to successful scientific writing is getting the structure of the paper right. The basic structure of a typical research paper is the sequence of Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion (sometimes abbreviated as IMRAD). Each section addresses a different objective. The authors state: (i) the problem they intend to address—in other terms, the research question—in the Introduction; (ii) what they did to answer the question in the Methods section; (iii) what they observed in the Results section; and (iv) what they think the results mean in the Discussion.

In turn, each basic section addresses several topics, and may be divided into subsections (Table 1 ). In the Introduction, the authors should explain the rationale and background to the study. What is the research question, and why is it important to ask it? While it is neither necessary nor desirable to provide a full-blown review of the literature as a prelude to the study, it is helpful to situate the study within some larger field of enquiry. The research question should always be spelled out, and not merely left for the reader to guess.

Typical structure of a research paper

The Methods section should provide the readers with sufficient detail about the study methods to be able to reproduce the study if so desired. Thus, this section should be specific, concrete, technical, and fairly detailed. The study setting, the sampling strategy used, instruments, data collection methods, and analysis strategies should be described. In the case of qualitative research studies, it is also useful to tell the reader which research tradition the study utilizes and to link the choice of methodological strategies with the research goals [ 3 ].

The Results section is typically fairly straightforward and factual. All results that relate to the research question should be given in detail, including simple counts and percentages. Resist the temptation to demonstrate analytic ability and the richness of the dataset by providing numerous tables of non-essential results.

The Discussion section allows the most freedom. This is why the Discussion is the most difficult to write, and is often the weakest part of a paper. Structured Discussion sections have been proposed by some journal editors [ 4 ]. While strict adherence to such rules may not be necessary, following a plan such as that proposed in Table 1 may help the novice writer stay on track.

References should be used wisely. Key assertions should be referenced, as well as the methods and instruments used. However, unless the paper is a comprehensive review of a topic, there is no need to be exhaustive. Also, references to unpublished work, to documents in the grey literature (technical reports), or to any source that the reader will have difficulty finding or understanding should be avoided.

Having the structure of the paper in place is a good start. However, there are many details that have to be attended to while writing. An obvious recommendation is to read, and follow, the instructions to authors published by the journal (typically found on the journal’s website). Another concerns non-native writers of English: do have a native speaker edit the manuscript. A paper usually goes through several drafts before it is submitted. When revising a paper, it is useful to keep an eye out for the most common mistakes (Table 2 ). If you avoid all those, your paper should be in good shape.

Common mistakes seen in manuscripts submitted to this journal

Huth EJ . How to Write and Publish Papers in the Medical Sciences , 2nd edition. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins, 1990 .

Browner WS . Publishing and Presenting Clinical Research . Baltimore, MD: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, 1999 .

Devers KJ , Frankel RM. Getting qualitative research published. Educ Health 2001 ; 14 : 109 –117.

Docherty M , Smith R. The case for structuring the discussion of scientific papers. Br Med J 1999 ; 318 : 1224 –1225.

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1464-3677
• Print ISSN 1353-4505
• Copyright © 2024 International Society for Quality in Health Care and Oxford University Press
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Basic Steps in the Research Process

The following steps outline a simple and effective strategy for writing a research paper. Depending on your familiarity with the topic and the challenges you encounter along the way, you may need to rearrange these steps.

Step 1: Identify and develop your topic

Selecting a topic can be the most challenging part of a research assignment. Since this is the very first step in writing a paper, it is vital that it be done correctly. Here are some tips for selecting a topic:

• Select a topic within the parameters set by the assignment. Many times your instructor will give you clear guidelines as to what you can and cannot write about. Failure to work within these guidelines may result in your proposed paper being deemed unacceptable by your instructor.
• Select a topic of personal interest to you and learn more about it. The research for and writing of a paper will be more enjoyable if you are writing about something that you find interesting.
• Select a topic for which you can find a manageable amount of information. Do a preliminary search of information sources to determine whether existing sources will meet your needs. If you find too much information, you may need to narrow your topic; if you find too little, you may need to broaden your topic.
• Be original. Your instructor reads hundreds of research papers every year, and many of them are on the same topics (topics in the news at the time, controversial issues, subjects for which there is ample and easily accessed information). Stand out from your classmates by selecting an interesting and off-the-beaten-path topic.
• Still can't come up with a topic to write about? See your instructor for advice.

Once you have identified your topic, it may help to state it as a question. For example, if you are interested in finding out about the epidemic of obesity in the American population, you might pose the question "What are the causes of obesity in America ?" By posing your subject as a question you can more easily identify the main concepts or keywords to be used in your research.

Step 2 : Do a preliminary search for information

Before beginning your research in earnest, do a preliminary search to determine whether there is enough information out there for your needs and to set the context of your research. Look up your keywords in the appropriate titles in the library's Reference collection (such as encyclopedias and dictionaries) and in other sources such as our catalog of books, periodical databases, and Internet search engines. Additional background information may be found in your lecture notes, textbooks, and reserve readings. You may find it necessary to adjust the focus of your topic in light of the resources available to you.

Step 3: Locate materials

With the direction of your research now clear to you, you can begin locating material on your topic. There are a number of places you can look for information:

If you are looking for books, do a subject search in One Search . A Keyword search can be performed if the subject search doesn't yield enough information. Print or write down the citation information (author, title,etc.) and the location (call number and collection) of the item(s). Note the circulation status. When you locate the book on the shelf, look at the books located nearby; similar items are always shelved in the same area. The Aleph catalog also indexes the library's audio-visual holdings.

Use the library's  electronic periodical databases  to find magazine and newspaper articles. Choose the databases and formats best suited to your particular topic; ask at the librarian at the Reference Desk if you need help figuring out which database best meets your needs. Many of the articles in the databases are available in full-text format.

Use search engines ( Google ,  Yahoo , etc.) and subject directories to locate materials on the Internet. Check the  Internet Resources  section of the NHCC Library web site for helpful subject links.

Step 4: Evaluate your sources

See the  CARS Checklist for Information Quality   for tips on evaluating the authority and quality of the information you have located. Your instructor expects that you will provide credible, truthful, and reliable information and you have every right to expect that the sources you use are providing the same. This step is especially important when using Internet resources, many of which are regarded as less than reliable.

Step 5: Make notes

Consult the resources you have chosen and note the information that will be useful in your paper. Be sure to document all the sources you consult, even if you there is a chance you may not use that particular source. The author, title, publisher, URL, and other information will be needed later when creating a bibliography.

Step 6: Write your paper

Begin by organizing the information you have collected. The next step is the rough draft, wherein you get your ideas on paper in an unfinished fashion. This step will help you organize your ideas and determine the form your final paper will take. After this, you will revise the draft as many times as you think necessary to create a final product to turn in to your instructor.

Step 7: Cite your sources properly

Give credit where credit is due; cite your sources.

Citing or documenting the sources used in your research serves two purposes: it gives proper credit to the authors of the materials used, and it allows those who are reading your work to duplicate your research and locate the sources that you have listed as references. The  MLA  and the  APA  Styles are two popular citation formats.

Failure to cite your sources properly is plagiarism. Plagiarism is avoidable!

Step 8: Proofread

The final step in the process is to proofread the paper you have created. Read through the text and check for any errors in spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Make sure the sources you used are cited properly. Make sure the message that you want to get across to the reader has been thoroughly stated.

Additional research tips:

• Work from the general to the specific -- find background information first, then use more specific sources.
• Don't forget print sources -- many times print materials are more easily accessed and every bit as helpful as online resources.
• The library has books on the topic of writing research papers at call number area LB 2369.
• If you have questions about the assignment, ask your instructor.
• If you have any questions about finding information in the library, ask the librarian.

Contact Information

Craig larson.

Librarian 763-424-0733 [email protected] Zoom:  myzoom   Available by appointment

Get Started

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

11.1 The Purpose of Research Writing

Learning objectives.

• Identify reasons to research writing projects.
• Outline the steps of the research writing process.

Why was the Great Wall of China built? What have scientists learned about the possibility of life on Mars? What roles did women play in the American Revolution? How does the human brain create, store, and retrieve memories? Who invented the game of football, and how has it changed over the years?

You may know the answers to these questions off the top of your head. If you are like most people, however, you find answers to tough questions like these by searching the Internet, visiting the library, or asking others for information. To put it simply, you perform research.

Whether you are a scientist, an artist, a paralegal, or a parent, you probably perform research in your everyday life. When your boss, your instructor, or a family member asks you a question that you do not know the answer to, you locate relevant information, analyze your findings, and share your results. Locating, analyzing, and sharing information are key steps in the research process, and in this chapter, you will learn more about each step. By developing your research writing skills, you will prepare yourself to answer any question no matter how challenging.

Reasons for Research

When you perform research, you are essentially trying to solve a mystery—you want to know how something works or why something happened. In other words, you want to answer a question that you (and other people) have about the world. This is one of the most basic reasons for performing research.

But the research process does not end when you have solved your mystery. Imagine what would happen if a detective collected enough evidence to solve a criminal case, but she never shared her solution with the authorities. Presenting what you have learned from research can be just as important as performing the research. Research results can be presented in a variety of ways, but one of the most popular—and effective—presentation forms is the research paper . A research paper presents an original thesis, or purpose statement, about a topic and develops that thesis with information gathered from a variety of sources.

If you are curious about the possibility of life on Mars, for example, you might choose to research the topic. What will you do, though, when your research is complete? You will need a way to put your thoughts together in a logical, coherent manner. You may want to use the facts you have learned to create a narrative or to support an argument. And you may want to show the results of your research to your friends, your teachers, or even the editors of magazines and journals. Writing a research paper is an ideal way to organize thoughts, craft narratives or make arguments based on research, and share your newfound knowledge with the world.

Write a paragraph about a time when you used research in your everyday life. Did you look for the cheapest way to travel from Houston to Denver? Did you search for a way to remove gum from the bottom of your shoe? In your paragraph, explain what you wanted to research, how you performed the research, and what you learned as a result.

Research Writing and the Academic Paper

No matter what field of study you are interested in, you will most likely be asked to write a research paper during your academic career. For example, a student in an art history course might write a research paper about an artist’s work. Similarly, a student in a psychology course might write a research paper about current findings in childhood development.

Having to write a research paper may feel intimidating at first. After all, researching and writing a long paper requires a lot of time, effort, and organization. However, writing a research paper can also be a great opportunity to explore a topic that is particularly interesting to you. The research process allows you to gain expertise on a topic of your choice, and the writing process helps you remember what you have learned and understand it on a deeper level.

Research Writing at Work

Knowing how to write a good research paper is a valuable skill that will serve you well throughout your career. Whether you are developing a new product, studying the best way to perform a procedure, or learning about challenges and opportunities in your field of employment, you will use research techniques to guide your exploration. You may even need to create a written report of your findings. And because effective communication is essential to any company, employers seek to hire people who can write clearly and professionally.

Writing at Work

Take a few minutes to think about each of the following careers. How might each of these professionals use researching and research writing skills on the job?

• Medical laboratory technician
• Small business owner
• Information technology professional
• Freelance magazine writer

A medical laboratory technician or information technology professional might do research to learn about the latest technological developments in either of these fields. A small business owner might conduct research to learn about the latest trends in his or her industry. A freelance magazine writer may need to research a given topic to write an informed, up-to-date article.

Think about the job of your dreams. How might you use research writing skills to perform that job? Create a list of ways in which strong researching, organizing, writing, and critical thinking skills could help you succeed at your dream job. How might these skills help you obtain that job?

Steps of the Research Writing Process

How does a research paper grow from a folder of brainstormed notes to a polished final draft? No two projects are identical, but most projects follow a series of six basic steps.

These are the steps in the research writing process:

• Choose a topic.
• Plan and schedule time to research and write.
• Conduct research.
• Organize research and ideas.
• Draft your paper.
• Revise and edit your paper.

Each of these steps will be discussed in more detail later in this chapter. For now, though, we will take a brief look at what each step involves.

Step 1: Choosing a Topic

As you may recall from Chapter 8 “The Writing Process: How Do I Begin?” , to narrow the focus of your topic, you may try freewriting exercises, such as brainstorming. You may also need to ask a specific research question —a broad, open-ended question that will guide your research—as well as propose a possible answer, or a working thesis . You may use your research question and your working thesis to create a research proposal . In a research proposal, you present your main research question, any related subquestions you plan to explore, and your working thesis.

Step 2: Planning and Scheduling

Before you start researching your topic, take time to plan your researching and writing schedule. Research projects can take days, weeks, or even months to complete. Creating a schedule is a good way to ensure that you do not end up being overwhelmed by all the work you have to do as the deadline approaches.

During this step of the process, it is also a good idea to plan the resources and organizational tools you will use to keep yourself on track throughout the project. Flowcharts, calendars, and checklists can all help you stick to your schedule. See Chapter 11 “Writing from Research: What Will I Learn?” , Section 11.2 “Steps in Developing a Research Proposal” for an example of a research schedule.

Step 3: Conducting Research

When going about your research, you will likely use a variety of sources—anything from books and periodicals to video presentations and in-person interviews.

Your sources will include both primary sources and secondary sources . Primary sources provide firsthand information or raw data. For example, surveys, in-person interviews, and historical documents are primary sources. Secondary sources, such as biographies, literary reviews, or magazine articles, include some analysis or interpretation of the information presented. As you conduct research, you will take detailed, careful notes about your discoveries. You will also evaluate the reliability of each source you find.

Step 4: Organizing Research and the Writer’s Ideas

When your research is complete, you will organize your findings and decide which sources to cite in your paper. You will also have an opportunity to evaluate the evidence you have collected and determine whether it supports your thesis, or the focus of your paper. You may decide to adjust your thesis or conduct additional research to ensure that your thesis is well supported.

Remember, your working thesis is not set in stone. You can and should change your working thesis throughout the research writing process if the evidence you find does not support your original thesis. Never try to force evidence to fit your argument. For example, your working thesis is “Mars cannot support life-forms.” Yet, a week into researching your topic, you find an article in the New York Times detailing new findings of bacteria under the Martian surface. Instead of trying to argue that bacteria are not life forms, you might instead alter your thesis to “Mars cannot support complex life-forms.”

Step 5: Drafting Your Paper

Now you are ready to combine your research findings with your critical analysis of the results in a rough draft. You will incorporate source materials into your paper and discuss each source thoughtfully in relation to your thesis or purpose statement.

When you cite your reference sources, it is important to pay close attention to standard conventions for citing sources in order to avoid plagiarism , or the practice of using someone else’s words without acknowledging the source. Later in this chapter, you will learn how to incorporate sources in your paper and avoid some of the most common pitfalls of attributing information.

Step 6: Revising and Editing Your Paper

In the final step of the research writing process, you will revise and polish your paper. You might reorganize your paper’s structure or revise for unity and cohesion, ensuring that each element in your paper flows into the next logically and naturally. You will also make sure that your paper uses an appropriate and consistent tone.

Once you feel confident in the strength of your writing, you will edit your paper for proper spelling, grammar, punctuation, mechanics, and formatting. When you complete this final step, you will have transformed a simple idea or question into a thoroughly researched and well-written paper you can be proud of!

Review the steps of the research writing process. Then answer the questions on your own sheet of paper.

• In which steps of the research writing process are you allowed to change your thesis?
• In step 2, which types of information should you include in your project schedule?
• What might happen if you eliminated step 4 from the research writing process?

Key Takeaways

• People undertake research projects throughout their academic and professional careers in order to answer specific questions, share their findings with others, increase their understanding of challenging topics, and strengthen their researching, writing, and analytical skills.
• The research writing process generally comprises six steps: choosing a topic, scheduling and planning time for research and writing, conducting research, organizing research and ideas, drafting a paper, and revising and editing the paper.

Writing for Success Copyright © 2015 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

How to Write a Research Paper

Use the links below to jump directly to any section of this guide:

Research Paper Fundamentals

How to choose a topic or question, how to create a working hypothesis or thesis, common research paper methodologies, how to gather and organize evidence , how to write an outline for your research paper, how to write a rough draft, how to revise your draft, how to produce a final draft, resources for teachers .

It is not fair to say that no one writes anymore. Just about everyone writes text messages, brief emails, or social media posts every single day. Yet, most people don't have a lot of practice with the formal, organized writing required for a good academic research paper. This guide contains links to a variety of resources that can help demystify the process. Some of these resources are intended for teachers; they contain exercises, activities, and teaching strategies. Other resources are intended for direct use by students who are struggling to write papers, or are looking for tips to make the process go more smoothly.

The resources in this section are designed to help students understand the different types of research papers, the general research process, and how to manage their time. Below, you'll find links from university writing centers, the trusted Purdue Online Writing Lab, and more.

What is an Academic Research Paper?

"Genre and the Research Paper" (Purdue OWL)

There are different types of research papers. Different types of scholarly questions will lend themselves to one format or another. This is a brief introduction to the two main genres of research paper: analytic and argumentative. 

"7 Most Popular Types of Research Papers" (Personal-writer.com)

This resource discusses formats that high school students commonly encounter, such as the compare and contrast essay and the definitional essay. Please note that the inclusion of this link is not an endorsement of this company's paid service.

How to Prepare and Plan Out Writing a Research Paper

Teachers can give their students a step-by-step guide like these to help them understand the different steps of the research paper process. These guides can be combined with the time management tools in the next subsection to help students come up with customized calendars for completing their papers.

"Ten Steps for Writing Research Papers" (American University)  

This resource from American University is a comprehensive guide to the research paper writing process, and includes examples of proper research questions and thesis topics.

"Steps in Writing a Research Paper" (SUNY Empire State College)

This guide breaks the research paper process into 11 steps. Each "step" links to a separate page, which describes the work entailed in completing it.

How to Manage Time Effectively

The links below will help students determine how much time is necessary to complete a paper. If your sources are not available online or at your local library, you'll need to leave extra time for the Interlibrary Loan process. Remember that, even if you do not need to consult secondary sources, you'll still need to leave yourself ample time to organize your thoughts.

"Research Paper Planner: Timeline" (Baylor University)

This interactive resource from Baylor University creates a suggested writing schedule based on how much time a student has to work on the assignment.

"Research Paper Planner" (UCLA)

UCLA's library offers this step-by-step guide to the research paper writing process, which also includes a suggested planning calendar.

There's a reason teachers spend a long time talking about choosing a good topic. Without a good topic and a well-formulated research question, it is almost impossible to write a clear and organized paper. The resources below will help you generate ideas and formulate precise questions.

"How to Select a Research Topic" (Univ. of Michigan-Flint)

This resource is designed for college students who are struggling to come up with an appropriate topic. A student who uses this resource and still feels unsure about his or her topic should consult the course instructor for further personalized assistance.

"25 Interesting Research Paper Topics to Get You Started" (Kibin)

This resource, which is probably most appropriate for high school students, provides a list of specific topics to help get students started. It is broken into subsections, such as "paper topics on local issues."

"Writing a Good Research Question" (Grand Canyon University)

This introduction to research questions includes some embedded videos, as well as links to scholarly articles on research questions. This resource would be most appropriate for teachers who are planning lessons on research paper fundamentals.

"How to Write a Research Question the Right Way" (Kibin)

This student-focused resource provides more detail on writing research questions. The language is accessible, and there are embedded videos and examples of good and bad questions.

It is important to have a rough hypothesis or thesis in mind at the beginning of the research process. People who have a sense of what they want to say will have an easier time sorting through scholarly sources and other information. The key, of course, is not to become too wedded to the draft hypothesis or thesis. Just about every working thesis gets changed during the research process.

CrashCourse Video: "Sociology Research Methods" (YouTube)

Although this video is tailored to sociology students, it is applicable to students in a variety of social science disciplines. This video does a good job demonstrating the connection between the brainstorming that goes into selecting a research question and the formulation of a working hypothesis.

"How to Write a Thesis Statement for an Analytical Essay" (YouTube)

Students writing analytical essays will not develop the same type of working hypothesis as students who are writing research papers in other disciplines. For these students, developing the working thesis may happen as a part of the rough draft (see the relevant section below). 

"Research Hypothesis" (Oakland Univ.)

This resource provides some examples of hypotheses in social science disciplines like Political Science and Criminal Justice. These sample hypotheses may also be useful for students in other soft social sciences and humanities disciplines like History.

When grading a research paper, instructors look for a consistent methodology. This section will help you understand different methodological approaches used in research papers. Students will get the most out of these resources if they use them to help prepare for conversations with teachers or discussions in class.

"Types of Research Designs" (USC)

A "research design," used for complex papers, is related to the paper's method. This resource contains introductions to a variety of popular research designs in the social sciences. Although it is not the most intuitive site to read, the information here is very valuable. 

"Major Research Methods" (YouTube)

Although this video is a bit on the dry side, it provides a comprehensive overview of the major research methodologies in a format that might be more accessible to students who have struggled with textbooks or other written resources.

"Humanities Research Strategies" (USC)

This is a portal where students can learn about four methodological approaches for humanities papers: Historical Methodologies, Textual Criticism, Conceptual Analysis, and the Synoptic method.

"Selected Major Social Science Research Methods: Overview" (National Academies Press)

This appendix from the book  Using Science as Evidence in Public Policy , printed by National Academies Press, introduces some methods used in social science papers.

"Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper: 6. The Methodology" (USC)

This resource from the University of Southern California's library contains tips for writing a methodology section in a research paper.

How to Determine the Best Methodology for You

Anyone who is new to writing research papers should be sure to select a method in consultation with their instructor. These resources can be used to help prepare for that discussion. They may also be used on their own by more advanced students.

"Choosing Appropriate Research Methodologies" (Palgrave Study Skills)

This friendly and approachable resource from Palgrave Macmillan can be used by students who are just starting to think about appropriate methodologies.

"How to Choose Your Research Methods" (NFER (UK))

This is another approachable resource students can use to help narrow down the most appropriate methods for their research projects.

The resources in this section introduce the process of gathering scholarly sources and collecting evidence. You'll find a range of material here, from introductory guides to advanced explications best suited to college students. Please consult the LitCharts  How to Do Academic Research guide for a more comprehensive list of resources devoted to finding scholarly literature.

Google Scholar

Students who have access to library websites with detailed research guides should start there, but people who do not have access to those resources can begin their search for secondary literature here.

"Gathering Appropriate Information" (Texas Gateway)

This resource from the Texas Gateway for online resources introduces students to the research process, and contains interactive exercises. The level of complexity is suitable for middle school, high school, and introductory college classrooms.

"An Overview of Quantitative and Qualitative Data Collection Methods" (NSF)

This PDF from the National Science Foundation goes into detail about best practices and pitfalls in data collection across multiple types of methodologies.

"Social Science Methods for Data Collection and Analysis" (Swiss FIT)

This resource is appropriate for advanced undergraduates or teachers looking to create lessons on research design and data collection. It covers techniques for gathering data via interviews, observations, and other methods.

"Collecting Data by In-depth Interviewing" (Leeds Univ.)

This resource contains enough information about conducting interviews to make it useful for teachers who want to create a lesson plan, but is also accessible enough for college juniors or seniors to make use of it on their own.

There is no "one size fits all" outlining technique. Some students might devote all their energy and attention to the outline in order to avoid the paper. Other students may benefit from being made to sit down and organize their thoughts into a lengthy sentence outline. The resources in this section include strategies and templates for multiple types of outlines. 

"Topic vs. Sentence Outlines" (UC Berkeley)

This resource introduces two basic approaches to outlining: the shorter topic-based approach, and the longer, more detailed sentence-based approach. This resource also contains videos on how to develop paper paragraphs from the sentence-based outline.

"Types of Outlines and Samples" (Purdue OWL)

The Purdue Online Writing Lab's guide is a slightly less detailed discussion of different types of outlines. It contains several sample outlines.

"Writing An Outline" (Austin C.C.)

This resource from a community college contains sample outlines from an American history class that students can use as models.

"How to Structure an Outline for a College Paper" (YouTube)

This brief (sub-2 minute) video from the ExpertVillage YouTube channel provides a model of outline writing for students who are struggling with the idea.

"Outlining" (Harvard)

This is a good resource to consult after completing a draft outline. It offers suggestions for making sure your outline avoids things like unnecessary repetition.

As with outlines, rough drafts can take on many different forms. These resources introduce teachers and students to the various approaches to writing a rough draft. This section also includes resources that will help you cite your sources appropriately according to the MLA, Chicago, and APA style manuals.

"Creating a Rough Draft for a Research Paper" (Univ. of Minnesota)

This resource is useful for teachers in particular, as it provides some suggested exercises to help students with writing a basic rough draft. 

Rough Draft Assignment (Duke of Definition)

This sample assignment, with a brief list of tips, was developed by a high school teacher who runs a very successful and well-reviewed page of educational resources.

"Creating the First Draft of Your Research Paper" (Concordia Univ.)

This resource will be helpful for perfectionists or procrastinators, as it opens by discussing the problem of avoiding writing. It also provides a short list of suggestions meant to get students writing.

Using Proper Citations

There is no such thing as a rough draft of a scholarly citation. These links to the three major citation guides will ensure that your citations follow the correct format. Please consult the LitCharts How to Cite Your Sources guide for more resources.

Chicago Manual of Style Citation Guide

Some call  The Chicago Manual of Style , which was first published in 1906, "the editors' Bible." The manual is now in its 17th edition, and is popular in the social sciences, historical journals, and some other fields in the humanities.

APA Citation Guide

According to the American Psychological Association, this guide was developed to aid reading comprehension, clarity of communication, and to reduce bias in language in the social and behavioral sciences. Its first full edition was published in 1952, and it is now in its sixth edition.

MLA Citation Guide

The Modern Language Association style is used most commonly within the liberal arts and humanities. The  MLA Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing  was first published in 1985 and (as of 2008) is in its third edition.

Any professional scholar will tell you that the best research papers are made in the revision stage. No matter how strong your research question or working thesis, it is not possible to write a truly outstanding paper without devoting energy to revision. These resources provide examples of revision exercises for the classroom, as well as tips for students working independently.

"The Art of Revision" (Univ. of Arizona)

This resource provides a wealth of information and suggestions for both students and teachers. There is a list of suggested exercises that teachers might use in class, along with a revision checklist that is useful for teachers and students alike.

"Script for Workshop on Revision" (Vanderbilt University)

Vanderbilt's guide for leading a 50-minute revision workshop can serve as a model for teachers who wish to guide students through the revision process during classtime. 

"Revising Your Paper" (Univ. of Washington)

This detailed handout was designed for students who are beginning the revision process. It discusses different approaches and methods for revision, and also includes a detailed list of things students should look for while they revise.

"Revising Drafts" (UNC Writing Center)

This resource is designed for students and suggests things to look for during the revision process. It provides steps for the process and has a FAQ for students who have questions about why it is important to revise.

Conferencing with Writing Tutors and Instructors

No writer is so good that he or she can't benefit from meeting with instructors or peer tutors. These resources from university writing, learning, and communication centers provide suggestions for how to get the most out of these one-on-one meetings.

"Getting Feedback" (UNC Writing Center)

This very helpful resource talks about how to ask for feedback during the entire writing process. It contains possible questions that students might ask when developing an outline, during the revision process, and after the final draft has been graded.

"Prepare for Your Tutoring Session" (Otis College of Art and Design)

This guide from a university's student learning center contains a lot of helpful tips for getting the most out of working with a writing tutor.

"The Importance of Asking Your Professor" (Univ. of Waterloo)

This article from the university's Writing and Communication Centre's blog contains some suggestions for how and when to get help from professors and Teaching Assistants.

Once you've revised your first draft, you're well on your way to handing in a polished paper. These resources—each of them produced by writing professionals at colleges and universities—outline the steps required in order to produce a final draft. You'll find proofreading tips and checklists in text and video form.

"Developing a Final Draft of a Research Paper" (Univ. of Minnesota)

While this resource contains suggestions for revision, it also features a couple of helpful checklists for the last stages of completing a final draft.

Basic Final Draft Tips and Checklist (Univ. of Maryland-University College)

This short and accessible resource, part of UMUC's very thorough online guide to writing and research, contains a very basic checklist for students who are getting ready to turn in their final drafts.

Final Draft Checklist (Everett C.C.)

This is another accessible final draft checklist, appropriate for both high school and college students. It suggests reading your essay aloud at least once.

"How to Proofread Your Final Draft" (YouTube)

This video (approximately 5 minutes), produced by Eastern Washington University, gives students tips on proofreading final drafts.

"Proofreading Tips" (Georgia Southern-Armstrong)

This guide will help students learn how to spot common errors in their papers. It suggests focusing on content and editing for grammar and mechanics.

This final set of resources is intended specifically for high school and college instructors. It provides links to unit plans and classroom exercises that can help improve students' research and writing skills. You'll find resources that give an overview of the process, along with activities that focus on how to begin and how to carry out research. 

"Research Paper Complete Resources Pack" (Teachers Pay Teachers)

This packet of assignments, rubrics, and other resources is designed for high school students. The resources in this packet are aligned to Common Core standards.

"Research Paper—Complete Unit" (Teachers Pay Teachers)

This packet of assignments, notes, PowerPoints, and other resources has a 4/4 rating with over 700 ratings. It is designed for high school teachers, but might also be useful to college instructors who work with freshmen.

"Teaching Students to Write Good Papers" (Yale)

This resource from Yale's Center for Teaching and Learning is designed for college instructors, and it includes links to appropriate activities and exercises.

"Research Paper Writing: An Overview" (CUNY Brooklyn)

CUNY Brooklyn offers this complete lesson plan for introducing students to research papers. It includes an accompanying set of PowerPoint slides.

"Lesson Plan: How to Begin Writing a Research Paper" (San Jose State Univ.)

This lesson plan is designed for students in the health sciences, so teachers will have to modify it for their own needs. It includes a breakdown of the brainstorming, topic selection, and research question process. 

"Quantitative Techniques for Social Science Research" (Univ. of Pittsburgh)

This is a set of PowerPoint slides that can be used to introduce students to a variety of quantitative methods used in the social sciences.

• PDFs for all 136 Lit Terms we cover
• Downloads of 1925 LitCharts Lit Guides
• Teacher Editions for every Lit Guide
• Explanations and citation info for 40,581 quotes across 1925 books
• Downloadable (PDF) line-by-line translations of every Shakespeare play

Need something? Request a new guide .

How can we improve? Share feedback .

LitCharts is hiring!

• Privacy Policy

Home » How To Write A Research Proposal – Step-by-Step [Template]

How To Write A Research Proposal – Step-by-Step [Template]

Table of Contents

How To Write a Research Proposal

Writing a Research proposal involves several steps to ensure a well-structured and comprehensive document. Here is an explanation of each step:

1. Title and Abstract

• Choose a concise and descriptive title that reflects the essence of your research.
• Write an abstract summarizing your research question, objectives, methodology, and expected outcomes. It should provide a brief overview of your proposal.

2. Introduction:

• Provide an introduction to your research topic, highlighting its significance and relevance.
• Clearly state the research problem or question you aim to address.
• Discuss the background and context of the study, including previous research in the field.

3. Research Objectives

• Outline the specific objectives or aims of your research. These objectives should be clear, achievable, and aligned with the research problem.

4. Literature Review:

• Conduct a comprehensive review of relevant literature and studies related to your research topic.
• Summarize key findings, identify gaps, and highlight how your research will contribute to the existing knowledge.

5. Methodology:

• Describe the research design and methodology you plan to employ to address your research objectives.
• Explain the data collection methods, instruments, and analysis techniques you will use.
• Justify why the chosen methods are appropriate and suitable for your research.

6. Timeline:

• Create a timeline or schedule that outlines the major milestones and activities of your research project.
• Break down the research process into smaller tasks and estimate the time required for each task.

7. Resources:

• Identify the resources needed for your research, such as access to specific databases, equipment, or funding.
• Explain how you will acquire or utilize these resources to carry out your research effectively.

8. Ethical Considerations:

• Discuss any ethical issues that may arise during your research and explain how you plan to address them.
• If your research involves human subjects, explain how you will ensure their informed consent and privacy.

9. Expected Outcomes and Significance:

• Clearly state the expected outcomes or results of your research.
• Highlight the potential impact and significance of your research in advancing knowledge or addressing practical issues.

10. References:

• Provide a list of all the references cited in your proposal, following a consistent citation style (e.g., APA, MLA).

11. Appendices:

• Include any additional supporting materials, such as survey questionnaires, interview guides, or data analysis plans.

Research Proposal Format

The format of a research proposal may vary depending on the specific requirements of the institution or funding agency. However, the following is a commonly used format for a research proposal:

1. Title Page:

• Include the title of your research proposal, your name, your affiliation or institution, and the date.

2. Abstract:

• Provide a brief summary of your research proposal, highlighting the research problem, objectives, methodology, and expected outcomes.

3. Introduction:

• Introduce the research topic and provide background information.
• State the research problem or question you aim to address.
• Explain the significance and relevance of the research.
• Review relevant literature and studies related to your research topic.
• Summarize key findings and identify gaps in the existing knowledge.
• Explain how your research will contribute to filling those gaps.

5. Research Objectives:

• Clearly state the specific objectives or aims of your research.
• Ensure that the objectives are clear, focused, and aligned with the research problem.

6. Methodology:

• Describe the research design and methodology you plan to use.
• Explain the data collection methods, instruments, and analysis techniques.
• Justify why the chosen methods are appropriate for your research.

7. Timeline:

8. Resources:

• Explain how you will acquire or utilize these resources effectively.

9. Ethical Considerations:

• If applicable, explain how you will ensure informed consent and protect the privacy of research participants.

10. Expected Outcomes and Significance:

11. References:

12. Appendices:

Research Proposal Template

Here’s a template for a research proposal:

1. Introduction:

2. Literature Review:

3. Research Objectives:

4. Methodology:

5. Timeline:

6. Resources:

7. Ethical Considerations:

8. Expected Outcomes and Significance:

9. References:

10. Appendices:

Research Proposal Sample

Title: The Impact of Online Education on Student Learning Outcomes: A Comparative Study

1. Introduction

Online education has gained significant prominence in recent years, especially due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This research proposal aims to investigate the impact of online education on student learning outcomes by comparing them with traditional face-to-face instruction. The study will explore various aspects of online education, such as instructional methods, student engagement, and academic performance, to provide insights into the effectiveness of online learning.

2. Objectives

The main objectives of this research are as follows:

• To compare student learning outcomes between online and traditional face-to-face education.
• To examine the factors influencing student engagement in online learning environments.
• To assess the effectiveness of different instructional methods employed in online education.
• To identify challenges and opportunities associated with online education and suggest recommendations for improvement.

3. Methodology

3.1 Study Design

This research will utilize a mixed-methods approach to gather both quantitative and qualitative data. The study will include the following components:

3.2 Participants

The research will involve undergraduate students from two universities, one offering online education and the other providing face-to-face instruction. A total of 500 students (250 from each university) will be selected randomly to participate in the study.

3.3 Data Collection

The research will employ the following data collection methods:

• Quantitative: Pre- and post-assessments will be conducted to measure students’ learning outcomes. Data on student demographics and academic performance will also be collected from university records.
• Qualitative: Focus group discussions and individual interviews will be conducted with students to gather their perceptions and experiences regarding online education.

3.4 Data Analysis

Quantitative data will be analyzed using statistical software, employing descriptive statistics, t-tests, and regression analysis. Qualitative data will be transcribed, coded, and analyzed thematically to identify recurring patterns and themes.

4. Ethical Considerations

The study will adhere to ethical guidelines, ensuring the privacy and confidentiality of participants. Informed consent will be obtained, and participants will have the right to withdraw from the study at any time.

5. Significance and Expected Outcomes

This research will contribute to the existing literature by providing empirical evidence on the impact of online education on student learning outcomes. The findings will help educational institutions and policymakers make informed decisions about incorporating online learning methods and improving the quality of online education. Moreover, the study will identify potential challenges and opportunities related to online education and offer recommendations for enhancing student engagement and overall learning outcomes.

6. Timeline

The proposed research will be conducted over a period of 12 months, including data collection, analysis, and report writing.

The estimated budget for this research includes expenses related to data collection, software licenses, participant compensation, and research assistance. A detailed budget breakdown will be provided in the final research plan.

8. Conclusion

This research proposal aims to investigate the impact of online education on student learning outcomes through a comparative study with traditional face-to-face instruction. By exploring various dimensions of online education, this research will provide valuable insights into the effectiveness and challenges associated with online learning. The findings will contribute to the ongoing discourse on educational practices and help shape future strategies for maximizing student learning outcomes in online education settings.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

How To Write A Proposal – Step By Step Guide...

Grant Proposal – Example, Template and Guide

How To Write A Business Proposal – Step-by-Step...

Business Proposal – Templates, Examples and Guide

Proposal – Types, Examples, and Writing Guide

How to choose an Appropriate Method for Research?

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

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 08 May 2024

Accurate structure prediction of biomolecular interactions with AlphaFold 3

• Josh Abramson   ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0000-3496-6952 1   na1 ,
• Jonas Adler   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9928-3407 1   na1 ,
• Jack Dunger 1   na1 ,
• Richard Evans   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4675-8469 1   na1 ,
• Tim Green   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3227-1505 1   na1 ,
• Alexander Pritzel   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4233-9040 1   na1 ,
• Olaf Ronneberger   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4266-1515 1   na1 ,
• Lindsay Willmore   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4314-0778 1   na1 ,
• Andrew J. Ballard   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4956-5304 1 ,
• Joshua Bambrick   ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0003-3908-0722 2 ,
• Sebastian W. Bodenstein 1 ,
• David A. Evans 1 ,
• Chia-Chun Hung   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5264-9165 2 ,
• Michael O’Neill 1 ,
• David Reiman   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1605-7197 1 ,
• Kathryn Tunyasuvunakool   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8594-1074 1 ,
• Zachary Wu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2429-9812 1 ,
• Akvilė Žemgulytė 1 ,
• Eirini Arvaniti 3 ,
• Charles Beattie   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1840-054X 3 ,
• Ottavia Bertolli   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8578-3216 3 ,
• Alex Bridgland 3 ,
• Alexey Cherepanov   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5227-0622 4 ,
• Miles Congreve 4 ,
• Alexander I. Cowen-Rivers 3 ,
• Andrew Cowie   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4491-1434 3 ,
• Michael Figurnov   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1386-8741 3 ,
• Fabian B. Fuchs 3 ,
• Hannah Gladman 3 ,
• Rishub Jain 3 ,
• Yousuf A. Khan   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0201-2796 3 ,
• Caroline M. R. Low 4 ,
• Kuba Perlin 3 ,
• Anna Potapenko 3 ,
• Pascal Savy 4 ,
• Sukhdeep Singh 3 ,
• Adrian Stecula   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6914-6743 4 ,
• Ashok Thillaisundaram 3 ,
• Catherine Tong   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7570-4801 4 ,
• Sergei Yakneen   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7827-9839 4 ,
• Ellen D. Zhong   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6345-1907 3 ,
• Michal Zielinski 3 ,
• Augustin Žídek   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0748-9684 3 ,
• Victor Bapst 1   na2 ,
• Pushmeet Kohli   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7466-7997 1   na2 ,
• Max Jaderberg   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9033-2695 2   na2 ,
• Demis Hassabis   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2812-9917 1 , 2   na2 &
• John M. Jumper   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6169-6580 1   na2  

Nature ( 2024 ) Cite this article

230k Accesses

1 Citations

1152 Altmetric

Metrics details

We are providing an unedited version of this manuscript to give early access to its findings. Before final publication, the manuscript will undergo further editing. Please note there may be errors present which affect the content, and all legal disclaimers apply.

• Drug discovery
• Machine learning
• Protein structure predictions
• Structural biology

The introduction of AlphaFold 2 1 has spurred a revolution in modelling the structure of proteins and their interactions, enabling a huge range of applications in protein modelling and design 2–6 . In this paper, we describe our AlphaFold 3 model with a substantially updated diffusion-based architecture, which is capable of joint structure prediction of complexes including proteins, nucleic acids, small molecules, ions, and modified residues. The new AlphaFold model demonstrates significantly improved accuracy over many previous specialised tools: far greater accuracy on protein-ligand interactions than state of the art docking tools, much higher accuracy on protein-nucleic acid interactions than nucleic-acid-specific predictors, and significantly higher antibody-antigen prediction accuracy than AlphaFold-Multimer v2.3 7,8 . Together these results show that high accuracy modelling across biomolecular space is possible within a single unified deep learning framework.

You have full access to this article via your institution.

Similar content being viewed by others

Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold

De novo generation of multi-target compounds using deep generative chemistry

Augmenting large language models with chemistry tools

Author information.

These authors contributed equally: Josh Abramson, Jonas Adler, Jack Dunger, Richard Evans, Tim Green, Alexander Pritzel, Olaf Ronneberger, Lindsay Willmore

These authors jointly supervised this work: Victor Bapst, Pushmeet Kohli, Max Jaderberg, Demis Hassabis, John M. Jumper

Authors and Affiliations

Core Contributor, Google DeepMind, London, UK

Josh Abramson, Jonas Adler, Jack Dunger, Richard Evans, Tim Green, Alexander Pritzel, Olaf Ronneberger, Lindsay Willmore, Andrew J. Ballard, Sebastian W. Bodenstein, David A. Evans, Michael O’Neill, David Reiman, Kathryn Tunyasuvunakool, Zachary Wu, Akvilė Žemgulytė, Victor Bapst, Pushmeet Kohli, Demis Hassabis & John M. Jumper

Core Contributor, Isomorphic Labs, London, UK

Joshua Bambrick, Chia-Chun Hung, Max Jaderberg & Demis Hassabis

Google DeepMind, London, UK

Eirini Arvaniti, Charles Beattie, Ottavia Bertolli, Alex Bridgland, Alexander I. Cowen-Rivers, Andrew Cowie, Michael Figurnov, Fabian B. Fuchs, Hannah Gladman, Rishub Jain, Yousuf A. Khan, Kuba Perlin, Anna Potapenko, Sukhdeep Singh, Ashok Thillaisundaram, Ellen D. Zhong, Michal Zielinski & Augustin Žídek

Isomorphic Labs, London, UK

Alexey Cherepanov, Miles Congreve, Caroline M. R. Low, Pascal Savy, Adrian Stecula, Catherine Tong & Sergei Yakneen

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Max Jaderberg , Demis Hassabis or John M. Jumper .

Supplementary information

Supplementary information.

This Supplementary Information file contains the following 9 sections: (1) Notation; (2) Data pipeline; (3) Model architecture; (4) Auxiliary heads; (5) Training and inference; (6) Evaluation; (7) Differences to AlphaFold2 and AlphaFold-Multimer; (8) Supplemental Results; and (9) Appendix: CCD Code and PDB ID tables.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Abramson, J., Adler, J., Dunger, J. et al. Accurate structure prediction of biomolecular interactions with AlphaFold 3. Nature (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07487-w

Download citation

Received : 19 December 2023

Accepted : 29 April 2024

Published : 08 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07487-w

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Major alphafold upgrade offers boost for drug discovery.

• Ewen Callaway

Nature (2024)

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

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

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Translational Research newsletter — top stories in biotechnology, drug discovery and pharma.

Abstract Submission Policies

Share your research with the physics community at aps meetings and events., aps membership and abstract submission eligibility, aps meeting eligibility.

You must be an APS member or member of a reciprocal society to submit an abstract. If you aren't yet a member, you can join APS . If you are a member, please log into your myAPS account to submit your abstract.

If you are an invited speaker or reciprocal society member, you do not need to be APS member to submit an abstract. However, you will need to create an APS web account .

Please review the list of reciprocal societies to learn if you are a member of a reciprocal society.

Unit meeting eligibility

Membership requirements vary when submitting an abstract to unit meetings. Please review upcoming unit meetings on the APS Calendar and the requirements detailed on the appropriate unit event website.

Verifying membership when submitting your abstract

You will need to include your APS membership ID number with your abstract submission. If you are a current member, you can find your membership ID number through your myAPS account .

After joining APS, you will receive your APS membership ID number within 24 hours. If you have joined APS but do not yet have your membership ID number, please enter "membership pending" when submitting our abstract and your membership will be verified after submission.

APS Membership will not issue membership ID numbers during the week of abstract deadlines, so please plan ahead.

Abstract deadlines

Abstracts must be submitted by the deadline to be guaranteed acceptance in the scientific program.

Meeting organizers are not obligated to include contributed abstracts submitted after the deadline.

Upcoming deadlines

Visit the meet meetings and events calendar to find upcoming meetings and submission deadlines.

Abstract submission guidelines

Please refer to the specific abstract submission instructions on the meeting or event website. In general, however, authors should:

• Thoroughly review and edit their abstracts before submitting
• Keep contributed abstract length within the 1,300 character limit
• Add all co-authors before the submission deadline
• Ensure the abstract is relevant to the topical scope of the meeting or event

When submitting your abstract, please include your preference for:

• An oral or poster presentation
• Your preferred presentation time and/or date
• Your preferred order of presentations within a session

At their discretion, event organizers will make an effort to accommodate these scheduling preferences. However, scheduling may be affected by time and space limitations.

Editing abstracts

APS will only correct mistakes and misspellings in the author’s name or affiliation. To edit abstract content, please withdraw the original abstract and resubmit a corrected version before the abstract submission deadline.

You cannot change your abstract content after author notification have been sent to submitters.

Withdrawing abstracts

After submitting your abstract, you will receive a confirmation email with the withdrawal deadline. Abstracts can be withdrawn online before this date and will not appear in the event program. Only the abstract submitter can request to withdraw an abstract.

After the withdrawal deadline, you must contact us to withdraw an abstract submission . The abstract will still appear as "abstract withdrawn" in the printed program, if one is available for the event.

Altered or rejected abstracts

APS may alter or reject abstracts based on the appropriateness of the content for the meeting or for other reasons such as:

• Excessive length
• Failure to comply with style guidelines
• Repeated cancellations from the submitter

Contributed abstract guidelines

Contributed abstract submission eligibility.

APS members and reciprocal society members may give one technical contributed presentation, either an oral or poster presentation, at March or April Meeting.

APS members may also submit a contributed abstract that lists a non-member as a presenter. The presenter must attend the meeting and give the presentation.

Technical and non-technical contributed submissions

For each presenting author, only one contributed oral abstract on a technical topic will be accepted into the scientific program. At our discretion, APS may accepted additional technical abstracts as poster presentations, if space is available.

An author may submit an additional oral abstract on a non-technical topic, such as education or policy, to present at a session sponsored by an APS Forum or Committee.

At the APS March and April meetings, oral presentations of contributed abstracts are given 10 minutes for presentation and two minutes for questions. Unit meeting presentation times vary.

Submitting and editing contributed abstracts

Please proofread your abstract carefully and thoroughly before submitting. APS will only correct system-generated LaTeX mistakes and misspellings in authors' names or affiliations. APS will not make additional edits, add new authors or reorder the author list.

When submitting your contributed abstract, please do not exceed 1,300 characters and please comply with the submission system style defaults—do not introduce your own formatting in the abstract.

March Meeting abstract edits

Submitters to APS March Meeting may edit abstracts in the online submission system up until the submission deadline.

Contributed abstract acceptance

If your contributed abstract is accepted, APS will notify you via email. You are responsible for confirming your session date and time and requesting changes by contacting APS Abstract Help .

Invited abstract guidelines

Invited speaker eligibility.

APS members may be invited to present a scientific abstract at March or April meeting.

Individual speakers may not be invited to speak at two consecutive meetings. That is, an invited speaker who presented at March Meeting 2023 may not present as an invited speaker at March Meeting 2024. Exceptions are made for speakers who will receive APS Prizes and Awards at the meeting.

Please review the speaker nominations instructions for more information.

In addition to their invited presentation, invited speakers may submit one contributed abstract for the scientific program. APS will communicated with invited speakers about submitting their abstracts and registering for the meeting.

Invited speakers must register to attend the meeting where they are presenting. Some invited speakers' registration fees may be sponsored by an APS unit.

Invited abstract submission instructions

Authors and collaborators.

Abstracts submitted for an invited speaker may only have that individual as the author. APS suggests that the invited speaker credit collaborating researchers in a footnote in the paper.

During the submission process, an invited speaker can add collaborators as co-authors. However, the invited speaker must give the presentation, unless a replacement speaker is agreed upon beforehand, as discussed with APS Abstract Help .

An invited paper is expected to have 30 minutes for presentation time, plus six minutes for a question and answer session.

Technical and non-technical invited submissions

If you are submitting an invited abstract, you may also submit one additional abstract of a non-technical nature, such as on education, history of physics or public policy. This abstract may be presented at a session, sponsored by an APS forum or committee , of broad concern to the physics community.

Invited abstract character limits

When submitting an invited abstract, please do not exceed the 2,000 character limit for your invited abstract text.

Withdrawing an invited abstract

If you accept an invitation to present but are later unable to do so, please contact APS Abstract Help .

Advice for abstract writing

As an initial summary of your research, your abstract and its title are your first chance to impress your audience and entice them to attend your presentation or read your paper.

When writing your abstract and title, think about your research's relevance and context. How does your research fit into the broad scope of the meeting where you will present?

Effective titles

When crafting an effective title, be sure that it:

• Predicts the abstract contents
• Contains important keywords
• Defines the research's purpose, scope, tone and methods

Parts of an abstract

Good abstracts include many of the parts of a paper, condensed or simplified to the most essential information:

• Introduction
• Previous or relevant references
• The goal of the project
• A description of how that goal was met
• Key results
• Details about why your results are unique or noteworthy

Additional advice

While writing your abstract, also keep the following in mind:

• Stay within the required character or word count
• Use proper submission format—often LaTeX, MS Word or plain text
• Ensure your abstract is understandable without reading the paper or seeing the presentation
• Define acronyms and minimize jargon

Abstract helpline

If you have questions or require assistance in submitting your abstract, please contact the APS Abstract Help team.

Phone: +1 (301) 209-3290 (Monday – Friday, 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. Eastern) Email : The APS Abstract help team

Join your Society

If you embrace scientific discovery, truth and integrity, partnership, inclusion, and lifelong curiosity, this is your professional home.