quality of research report

Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review

• Regular Article
• Open access
• Published: 18 September 2021
• Volume 31 , pages 679–689, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Drishti Yadav   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2974-0323 1  

81k Accesses

28 Citations

71 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This review aims to synthesize a published set of evaluative criteria for good qualitative research. The aim is to shed light on existing standards for assessing the rigor of qualitative research encompassing a range of epistemological and ontological standpoints. Using a systematic search strategy, published journal articles that deliberate criteria for rigorous research were identified. Then, references of relevant articles were surveyed to find noteworthy, distinct, and well-defined pointers to good qualitative research. This review presents an investigative assessment of the pivotal features in qualitative research that can permit the readers to pass judgment on its quality and to condemn it as good research when objectively and adequately utilized. Overall, this review underlines the crux of qualitative research and accentuates the necessity to evaluate such research by the very tenets of its being. It also offers some prospects and recommendations to improve the quality of qualitative research. Based on the findings of this review, it is concluded that quality criteria are the aftereffect of socio-institutional procedures and existing paradigmatic conducts. Owing to the paradigmatic diversity of qualitative research, a single and specific set of quality criteria is neither feasible nor anticipated. Since qualitative research is not a cohesive discipline, researchers need to educate and familiarize themselves with applicable norms and decisive factors to evaluate qualitative research from within its theoretical and methodological framework of origin.

Similar content being viewed by others

Good Qualitative Research: Opening up the Debate

Beyond qualitative/quantitative structuralism: the positivist qualitative research and the paradigmatic disclaimer.

What is Qualitative in Research

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

“… It is important to regularly dialogue about what makes for good qualitative research” (Tracy, 2010 , p. 837)

To decide what represents good qualitative research is highly debatable. There are numerous methods that are contained within qualitative research and that are established on diverse philosophical perspectives. Bryman et al., ( 2008 , p. 262) suggest that “It is widely assumed that whereas quality criteria for quantitative research are well‐known and widely agreed, this is not the case for qualitative research.” Hence, the question “how to evaluate the quality of qualitative research” has been continuously debated. There are many areas of science and technology wherein these debates on the assessment of qualitative research have taken place. Examples include various areas of psychology: general psychology (Madill et al., 2000 ); counseling psychology (Morrow, 2005 ); and clinical psychology (Barker & Pistrang, 2005 ), and other disciplines of social sciences: social policy (Bryman et al., 2008 ); health research (Sparkes, 2001 ); business and management research (Johnson et al., 2006 ); information systems (Klein & Myers, 1999 ); and environmental studies (Reid & Gough, 2000 ). In the literature, these debates are enthused by the impression that the blanket application of criteria for good qualitative research developed around the positivist paradigm is improper. Such debates are based on the wide range of philosophical backgrounds within which qualitative research is conducted (e.g., Sandberg, 2000 ; Schwandt, 1996 ). The existence of methodological diversity led to the formulation of different sets of criteria applicable to qualitative research.

Among qualitative researchers, the dilemma of governing the measures to assess the quality of research is not a new phenomenon, especially when the virtuous triad of objectivity, reliability, and validity (Spencer et al., 2004 ) are not adequate. Occasionally, the criteria of quantitative research are used to evaluate qualitative research (Cohen & Crabtree, 2008 ; Lather, 2004 ). Indeed, Howe ( 2004 ) claims that the prevailing paradigm in educational research is scientifically based experimental research. Hypotheses and conjectures about the preeminence of quantitative research can weaken the worth and usefulness of qualitative research by neglecting the prominence of harmonizing match for purpose on research paradigm, the epistemological stance of the researcher, and the choice of methodology. Researchers have been reprimanded concerning this in “paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences” (Lincoln & Guba, 2000 ).

In general, qualitative research tends to come from a very different paradigmatic stance and intrinsically demands distinctive and out-of-the-ordinary criteria for evaluating good research and varieties of research contributions that can be made. This review attempts to present a series of evaluative criteria for qualitative researchers, arguing that their choice of criteria needs to be compatible with the unique nature of the research in question (its methodology, aims, and assumptions). This review aims to assist researchers in identifying some of the indispensable features or markers of high-quality qualitative research. In a nutshell, the purpose of this systematic literature review is to analyze the existing knowledge on high-quality qualitative research and to verify the existence of research studies dealing with the critical assessment of qualitative research based on the concept of diverse paradigmatic stances. Contrary to the existing reviews, this review also suggests some critical directions to follow to improve the quality of qualitative research in different epistemological and ontological perspectives. This review is also intended to provide guidelines for the acceleration of future developments and dialogues among qualitative researchers in the context of assessing the qualitative research.

The rest of this review article is structured in the following fashion: Sect.  Methods describes the method followed for performing this review. Section Criteria for Evaluating Qualitative Studies provides a comprehensive description of the criteria for evaluating qualitative studies. This section is followed by a summary of the strategies to improve the quality of qualitative research in Sect.  Improving Quality: Strategies . Section  How to Assess the Quality of the Research Findings? provides details on how to assess the quality of the research findings. After that, some of the quality checklists (as tools to evaluate quality) are discussed in Sect.  Quality Checklists: Tools for Assessing the Quality . At last, the review ends with the concluding remarks presented in Sect.  Conclusions, Future Directions and Outlook . Some prospects in qualitative research for enhancing its quality and usefulness in the social and techno-scientific research community are also presented in Sect.  Conclusions, Future Directions and Outlook .

For this review, a comprehensive literature search was performed from many databases using generic search terms such as Qualitative Research , Criteria , etc . The following databases were chosen for the literature search based on the high number of results: IEEE Explore, ScienceDirect, PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science. The following keywords (and their combinations using Boolean connectives OR/AND) were adopted for the literature search: qualitative research, criteria, quality, assessment, and validity. The synonyms for these keywords were collected and arranged in a logical structure (see Table 1 ). All publications in journals and conference proceedings later than 1950 till 2021 were considered for the search. Other articles extracted from the references of the papers identified in the electronic search were also included. A large number of publications on qualitative research were retrieved during the initial screening. Hence, to include the searches with the main focus on criteria for good qualitative research, an inclusion criterion was utilized in the search string.

From the selected databases, the search retrieved a total of 765 publications. Then, the duplicate records were removed. After that, based on the title and abstract, the remaining 426 publications were screened for their relevance by using the following inclusion and exclusion criteria (see Table 2 ). Publications focusing on evaluation criteria for good qualitative research were included, whereas those works which delivered theoretical concepts on qualitative research were excluded. Based on the screening and eligibility, 45 research articles were identified that offered explicit criteria for evaluating the quality of qualitative research and were found to be relevant to this review.

Figure  1 illustrates the complete review process in the form of PRISMA flow diagram. PRISMA, i.e., “preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses” is employed in systematic reviews to refine the quality of reporting.

PRISMA flow diagram illustrating the search and inclusion process. N represents the number of records

Criteria for Evaluating Qualitative Studies

Fundamental criteria: general research quality.

Various researchers have put forward criteria for evaluating qualitative research, which have been summarized in Table 3 . Also, the criteria outlined in Table 4 effectively deliver the various approaches to evaluate and assess the quality of qualitative work. The entries in Table 4 are based on Tracy’s “Eight big‐tent criteria for excellent qualitative research” (Tracy, 2010 ). Tracy argues that high-quality qualitative work should formulate criteria focusing on the worthiness, relevance, timeliness, significance, morality, and practicality of the research topic, and the ethical stance of the research itself. Researchers have also suggested a series of questions as guiding principles to assess the quality of a qualitative study (Mays & Pope, 2020 ). Nassaji ( 2020 ) argues that good qualitative research should be robust, well informed, and thoroughly documented.

Qualitative Research: Interpretive Paradigms

All qualitative researchers follow highly abstract principles which bring together beliefs about ontology, epistemology, and methodology. These beliefs govern how the researcher perceives and acts. The net, which encompasses the researcher’s epistemological, ontological, and methodological premises, is referred to as a paradigm, or an interpretive structure, a “Basic set of beliefs that guides action” (Guba, 1990 ). Four major interpretive paradigms structure the qualitative research: positivist and postpositivist, constructivist interpretive, critical (Marxist, emancipatory), and feminist poststructural. The complexity of these four abstract paradigms increases at the level of concrete, specific interpretive communities. Table 5 presents these paradigms and their assumptions, including their criteria for evaluating research, and the typical form that an interpretive or theoretical statement assumes in each paradigm. Moreover, for evaluating qualitative research, quantitative conceptualizations of reliability and validity are proven to be incompatible (Horsburgh, 2003 ). In addition, a series of questions have been put forward in the literature to assist a reviewer (who is proficient in qualitative methods) for meticulous assessment and endorsement of qualitative research (Morse, 2003 ). Hammersley ( 2007 ) also suggests that guiding principles for qualitative research are advantageous, but methodological pluralism should not be simply acknowledged for all qualitative approaches. Seale ( 1999 ) also points out the significance of methodological cognizance in research studies.

Table 5 reflects that criteria for assessing the quality of qualitative research are the aftermath of socio-institutional practices and existing paradigmatic standpoints. Owing to the paradigmatic diversity of qualitative research, a single set of quality criteria is neither possible nor desirable. Hence, the researchers must be reflexive about the criteria they use in the various roles they play within their research community.

Improving Quality: Strategies

Another critical question is “How can the qualitative researchers ensure that the abovementioned quality criteria can be met?” Lincoln and Guba ( 1986 ) delineated several strategies to intensify each criteria of trustworthiness. Other researchers (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016 ; Shenton, 2004 ) also presented such strategies. A brief description of these strategies is shown in Table 6 .

It is worth mentioning that generalizability is also an integral part of qualitative research (Hays & McKibben, 2021 ). In general, the guiding principle pertaining to generalizability speaks about inducing and comprehending knowledge to synthesize interpretive components of an underlying context. Table 7 summarizes the main metasynthesis steps required to ascertain generalizability in qualitative research.

Figure  2 reflects the crucial components of a conceptual framework and their contribution to decisions regarding research design, implementation, and applications of results to future thinking, study, and practice (Johnson et al., 2020 ). The synergy and interrelationship of these components signifies their role to different stances of a qualitative research study.

Essential elements of a conceptual framework

In a nutshell, to assess the rationale of a study, its conceptual framework and research question(s), quality criteria must take account of the following: lucid context for the problem statement in the introduction; well-articulated research problems and questions; precise conceptual framework; distinct research purpose; and clear presentation and investigation of the paradigms. These criteria would expedite the quality of qualitative research.

How to Assess the Quality of the Research Findings?

The inclusion of quotes or similar research data enhances the confirmability in the write-up of the findings. The use of expressions (for instance, “80% of all respondents agreed that” or “only one of the interviewees mentioned that”) may also quantify qualitative findings (Stenfors et al., 2020 ). On the other hand, the persuasive reason for “why this may not help in intensifying the research” has also been provided (Monrouxe & Rees, 2020 ). Further, the Discussion and Conclusion sections of an article also prove robust markers of high-quality qualitative research, as elucidated in Table 8 .

Quality Checklists: Tools for Assessing the Quality

Numerous checklists are available to speed up the assessment of the quality of qualitative research. However, if used uncritically and recklessly concerning the research context, these checklists may be counterproductive. I recommend that such lists and guiding principles may assist in pinpointing the markers of high-quality qualitative research. However, considering enormous variations in the authors’ theoretical and philosophical contexts, I would emphasize that high dependability on such checklists may say little about whether the findings can be applied in your setting. A combination of such checklists might be appropriate for novice researchers. Some of these checklists are listed below:

The most commonly used framework is Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) (Tong et al., 2007 ). This framework is recommended by some journals to be followed by the authors during article submission.

Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) is another checklist that has been created particularly for medical education (O’Brien et al., 2014 ).

Also, Tracy ( 2010 ) and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP, 2021 ) offer criteria for qualitative research relevant across methods and approaches.

Further, researchers have also outlined different criteria as hallmarks of high-quality qualitative research. For instance, the “Road Trip Checklist” (Epp & Otnes, 2021 ) provides a quick reference to specific questions to address different elements of high-quality qualitative research.

Conclusions, Future Directions, and Outlook

This work presents a broad review of the criteria for good qualitative research. In addition, this article presents an exploratory analysis of the essential elements in qualitative research that can enable the readers of qualitative work to judge it as good research when objectively and adequately utilized. In this review, some of the essential markers that indicate high-quality qualitative research have been highlighted. I scope them narrowly to achieve rigor in qualitative research and note that they do not completely cover the broader considerations necessary for high-quality research. This review points out that a universal and versatile one-size-fits-all guideline for evaluating the quality of qualitative research does not exist. In other words, this review also emphasizes the non-existence of a set of common guidelines among qualitative researchers. In unison, this review reinforces that each qualitative approach should be treated uniquely on account of its own distinctive features for different epistemological and disciplinary positions. Owing to the sensitivity of the worth of qualitative research towards the specific context and the type of paradigmatic stance, researchers should themselves analyze what approaches can be and must be tailored to ensemble the distinct characteristics of the phenomenon under investigation. Although this article does not assert to put forward a magic bullet and to provide a one-stop solution for dealing with dilemmas about how, why, or whether to evaluate the “goodness” of qualitative research, it offers a platform to assist the researchers in improving their qualitative studies. This work provides an assembly of concerns to reflect on, a series of questions to ask, and multiple sets of criteria to look at, when attempting to determine the quality of qualitative research. Overall, this review underlines the crux of qualitative research and accentuates the need to evaluate such research by the very tenets of its being. Bringing together the vital arguments and delineating the requirements that good qualitative research should satisfy, this review strives to equip the researchers as well as reviewers to make well-versed judgment about the worth and significance of the qualitative research under scrutiny. In a nutshell, a comprehensive portrayal of the research process (from the context of research to the research objectives, research questions and design, speculative foundations, and from approaches of collecting data to analyzing the results, to deriving inferences) frequently proliferates the quality of a qualitative research.

Prospects : A Road Ahead for Qualitative Research

Irrefutably, qualitative research is a vivacious and evolving discipline wherein different epistemological and disciplinary positions have their own characteristics and importance. In addition, not surprisingly, owing to the sprouting and varied features of qualitative research, no consensus has been pulled off till date. Researchers have reflected various concerns and proposed several recommendations for editors and reviewers on conducting reviews of critical qualitative research (Levitt et al., 2021 ; McGinley et al., 2021 ). Following are some prospects and a few recommendations put forward towards the maturation of qualitative research and its quality evaluation:

In general, most of the manuscript and grant reviewers are not qualitative experts. Hence, it is more likely that they would prefer to adopt a broad set of criteria. However, researchers and reviewers need to keep in mind that it is inappropriate to utilize the same approaches and conducts among all qualitative research. Therefore, future work needs to focus on educating researchers and reviewers about the criteria to evaluate qualitative research from within the suitable theoretical and methodological context.

There is an urgent need to refurbish and augment critical assessment of some well-known and widely accepted tools (including checklists such as COREQ, SRQR) to interrogate their applicability on different aspects (along with their epistemological ramifications).

Efforts should be made towards creating more space for creativity, experimentation, and a dialogue between the diverse traditions of qualitative research. This would potentially help to avoid the enforcement of one's own set of quality criteria on the work carried out by others.

Moreover, journal reviewers need to be aware of various methodological practices and philosophical debates.

It is pivotal to highlight the expressions and considerations of qualitative researchers and bring them into a more open and transparent dialogue about assessing qualitative research in techno-scientific, academic, sociocultural, and political rooms.

Frequent debates on the use of evaluative criteria are required to solve some potentially resolved issues (including the applicability of a single set of criteria in multi-disciplinary aspects). Such debates would not only benefit the group of qualitative researchers themselves, but primarily assist in augmenting the well-being and vivacity of the entire discipline.

To conclude, I speculate that the criteria, and my perspective, may transfer to other methods, approaches, and contexts. I hope that they spark dialog and debate – about criteria for excellent qualitative research and the underpinnings of the discipline more broadly – and, therefore, help improve the quality of a qualitative study. Further, I anticipate that this review will assist the researchers to contemplate on the quality of their own research, to substantiate research design and help the reviewers to review qualitative research for journals. On a final note, I pinpoint the need to formulate a framework (encompassing the prerequisites of a qualitative study) by the cohesive efforts of qualitative researchers of different disciplines with different theoretic-paradigmatic origins. I believe that tailoring such a framework (of guiding principles) paves the way for qualitative researchers to consolidate the status of qualitative research in the wide-ranging open science debate. Dialogue on this issue across different approaches is crucial for the impending prospects of socio-techno-educational research.

Amin, M. E. K., Nørgaard, L. S., Cavaco, A. M., Witry, M. J., Hillman, L., Cernasev, A., & Desselle, S. P. (2020). Establishing trustworthiness and authenticity in qualitative pharmacy research. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 16 (10), 1472–1482.

Article   Google Scholar  

Barker, C., & Pistrang, N. (2005). Quality criteria under methodological pluralism: Implications for conducting and evaluating research. American Journal of Community Psychology, 35 (3–4), 201–212.

Bryman, A., Becker, S., & Sempik, J. (2008). Quality criteria for quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods research: A view from social policy. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11 (4), 261–276.

Caelli, K., Ray, L., & Mill, J. (2003). ‘Clear as mud’: Toward greater clarity in generic qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2 (2), 1–13.

CASP (2021). CASP checklists. Retrieved May 2021 from https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/

Cohen, D. J., & Crabtree, B. F. (2008). Evaluative criteria for qualitative research in health care: Controversies and recommendations. The Annals of Family Medicine, 6 (4), 331–339.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1–32). Sage Publications Ltd.

Google Scholar  

Elliott, R., Fischer, C. T., & Rennie, D. L. (1999). Evolving guidelines for publication of qualitative research studies in psychology and related fields. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38 (3), 215–229.

Epp, A. M., & Otnes, C. C. (2021). High-quality qualitative research: Getting into gear. Journal of Service Research . https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670520961445

Guba, E. G. (1990). The paradigm dialog. In Alternative paradigms conference, mar, 1989, Indiana u, school of education, San Francisco, ca, us . Sage Publications, Inc.

Hammersley, M. (2007). The issue of quality in qualitative research. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 30 (3), 287–305.

Haven, T. L., Errington, T. M., Gleditsch, K. S., van Grootel, L., Jacobs, A. M., Kern, F. G., & Mokkink, L. B. (2020). Preregistering qualitative research: A Delphi study. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19 , 1609406920976417.

Hays, D. G., & McKibben, W. B. (2021). Promoting rigorous research: Generalizability and qualitative research. Journal of Counseling and Development, 99 (2), 178–188.

Horsburgh, D. (2003). Evaluation of qualitative research. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 12 (2), 307–312.

Howe, K. R. (2004). A critique of experimentalism. Qualitative Inquiry, 10 (1), 42–46.

Johnson, J. L., Adkins, D., & Chauvin, S. (2020). A review of the quality indicators of rigor in qualitative research. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 84 (1), 7120.

Johnson, P., Buehring, A., Cassell, C., & Symon, G. (2006). Evaluating qualitative management research: Towards a contingent criteriology. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8 (3), 131–156.

Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. (1999). A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 23 (1), 67–93.

Lather, P. (2004). This is your father’s paradigm: Government intrusion and the case of qualitative research in education. Qualitative Inquiry, 10 (1), 15–34.

Levitt, H. M., Morrill, Z., Collins, K. M., & Rizo, J. L. (2021). The methodological integrity of critical qualitative research: Principles to support design and research review. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 68 (3), 357.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1986). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 1986 (30), 73–84.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 163–188). Sage Publications.

Madill, A., Jordan, A., & Shirley, C. (2000). Objectivity and reliability in qualitative analysis: Realist, contextualist and radical constructionist epistemologies. British Journal of Psychology, 91 (1), 1–20.

Mays, N., & Pope, C. (2020). Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative Research in Health Care . https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119410867.ch15

McGinley, S., Wei, W., Zhang, L., & Zheng, Y. (2021). The state of qualitative research in hospitality: A 5-year review 2014 to 2019. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 62 (1), 8–20.

Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, US.

Meyer, M., & Dykes, J. (2019). Criteria for rigor in visualization design study. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 26 (1), 87–97.

Monrouxe, L. V., & Rees, C. E. (2020). When I say… quantification in qualitative research. Medical Education, 54 (3), 186–187.

Morrow, S. L. (2005). Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52 (2), 250.

Morse, J. M. (2003). A review committee’s guide for evaluating qualitative proposals. Qualitative Health Research, 13 (6), 833–851.

Nassaji, H. (2020). Good qualitative research. Language Teaching Research, 24 (4), 427–431.

O’Brien, B. C., Harris, I. B., Beckman, T. J., Reed, D. A., & Cook, D. A. (2014). Standards for reporting qualitative research: A synthesis of recommendations. Academic Medicine, 89 (9), 1245–1251.

O’Connor, C., & Joffe, H. (2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19 , 1609406919899220.

Reid, A., & Gough, S. (2000). Guidelines for reporting and evaluating qualitative research: What are the alternatives? Environmental Education Research, 6 (1), 59–91.

Rocco, T. S. (2010). Criteria for evaluating qualitative studies. Human Resource Development International . https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2010.501959

Sandberg, J. (2000). Understanding human competence at work: An interpretative approach. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (1), 9–25.

Schwandt, T. A. (1996). Farewell to criteriology. Qualitative Inquiry, 2 (1), 58–72.

Seale, C. (1999). Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 5 (4), 465–478.

Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22 (2), 63–75.

Sparkes, A. C. (2001). Myth 94: Qualitative health researchers will agree about validity. Qualitative Health Research, 11 (4), 538–552.

Spencer, L., Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., & Dillon, L. (2004). Quality in qualitative evaluation: A framework for assessing research evidence.

Stenfors, T., Kajamaa, A., & Bennett, D. (2020). How to assess the quality of qualitative research. The Clinical Teacher, 17 (6), 596–599.

Taylor, E. W., Beck, J., & Ainsworth, E. (2001). Publishing qualitative adult education research: A peer review perspective. Studies in the Education of Adults, 33 (2), 163–179.

Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., & Craig, J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19 (6), 349–357.

Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16 (10), 837–851.

Download references

Open access funding provided by TU Wien (TUW).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Informatics, Technische Universität Wien, 1040, Vienna, Austria

Drishti Yadav

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Drishti Yadav .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, 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 licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence 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. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Yadav, D. Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review. Asia-Pacific Edu Res 31 , 679–689 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00619-0

Download citation

Accepted : 28 August 2021

Published : 18 September 2021

Issue Date : December 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00619-0

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

• Qualitative research
• Evaluative criteria
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

What is quality research? A guide to identifying the key features and achieving success

Every researcher worth their salt strives for quality. But in research, what does quality mean?

Simply put, quality research is thorough, accurate, original and relevant. And to achieve this, you need to follow specific standards. You need to make sure your findings are reliable and valid. And when you know they're quality assured, you can share them with absolute confidence.

You’ll be able to draw accurate conclusions from your investigations and contribute to the wider body of knowledge in your field.

Importance of quality research

Quality research helps us better understand complex problems. It enables us to make decisions based on facts and evidence. And it empowers us to solve real-world issues. Without quality research, we can't advance knowledge or identify trends and patterns. We also can’t develop new theories and approaches to solving problems.

With rigorous and transparent research methods, you’ll produce reliable findings that other researchers can replicate. This leads to the development of new theories and interventions. On the other hand, low-quality research can hinder progress by producing unreliable findings that can’t be replicated, wasting resources and impeding advancements in the field.

In all cases, quality control is critical. It ensures that decisions are based on evidence rather than gut feeling or bias.

Standards for quality research

Over the years, researchers, scientists and authors have come to a consensus about the standards used to check the quality of research. Determined through empirical observation, theoretical underpinnings and philosophy of science, these include:

1. Having a well-defined research topic and a clear hypothesis

This is essential to verify that the research is focused and the results are relevant and meaningful. The research topic should be well-scoped and the hypothesis should be clearly stated and falsifiable .

For example, in a quantitative study about the effects of social media on behavior, a well-defined research topic could be, "Does the use of TikTok reduce attention span in American adolescents?"

This is good because:

• The research topic focuses on a particular platform of social media (TikTok). And it also focuses on a specific group of people (American adolescents).
• The research question is clear and straightforward, making it easier to design the study and collect relevant data.
• You can test the hypothesis and a research team can evaluate it easily. This can be done through the use of various research methods, such as survey research , experiments or observational studies.
• The hypothesis is focused on a specific outcome (the attention span). Then, this can be measured and compared to control groups or previous research studies.

2. Ensuring transparency

Transparency is crucial when conducting research. You need to be upfront about the methods you used, such as:

• Describing how you recruited the participants.
• How you communicated with them.
• How they were incentivized.

You also need to explain how you analyzed the data, so other researchers can replicate your results if necessary. re-registering your study is a great way to be as transparent in your research as possible. This  involves publicly documenting your study design, methods and analysis plan before conducting the research. This reduces the risk of selective reporting and increases the credibility of your findings.

3. Using appropriate research methods

Depending on the topic, some research methods are better suited than others for collecting data. To use our TikTok example, a quantitative research approach, such as a behavioral test that measures the participants' ability to focus on tasks, might be the most appropriate.

On the other hand, for topics that require a more in-depth understanding of individuals' experiences or perspectives, a qualitative research approach, such as interviews or focus groups, might be more suitable. These methods can provide rich and detailed information that you can’t capture through quantitative data alone.

4. Assessing limitations and the possible impact of systematic bias

When you present your research, it’s important to consider how the limitations of your study could affect the result. This could be systematic bias in the sampling procedure or data analysis, for instance. Let’s say you only study a small sample of participants from one school district. This would limit the generalizability and content validity of your findings.

5. Conducting accurate reporting

This is an essential aspect of any research project. You need to be able to clearly communicate the findings and implications of your study . Also, provide citations for any claims made in your report. When you present your work, it’s vital that you describe the variables involved in your study accurately and how you measured them.

Curious to learn more? Read our Data Quality eBook .

How to identify credible research findings

To determine whether a published study is trustworthy, consider the following:

• Peer review: If a study has been peer-reviewed by recognized experts, rest assured that it’s a reliable source of information. Peer review means that other scholars have read and verified the study before publication.
• Researcher's qualifications: If they're an expert in the field, that’s a good sign that you can trust their findings. However, if they aren't, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the study's information is unreliable. It simply means that you should be extra cautious about accepting its conclusions as fact.
• Study design: The design of a study can make or break its reliability. Consider factors like sample size and methodology.
• Funding source: Studies funded by organizations with a vested interest in a particular outcome may be less credible than those funded by independent sources.
• Statistical significance: You've heard the phrase "numbers don't lie," right? That's what statistical significance is all about. It refers to the likelihood that the results of a study occurred by chance. Results that are statistically significant are more credible.

Achieve quality research with Prolific

Want to ensure your research is high-quality? Prolific can help.

Our platform gives you access to a carefully vetted pool of participants. We make sure they're attentive, honest, and ready to provide rich and detailed answers where needed. This helps to ensure that the data you collect through Prolific is of the highest quality.

With Prolific, you can streamline your research process and feel confident in the results you receive. Our minimum pay threshold and commitment to fair compensation motivate participants to provide valuable responses and give their best effort. This ensures the quality of your research and helps you get the results you need. Sign up as a researcher today to get started!

You might also like

High-quality human data to deliver world-leading research and AIs.

Follow us on

All Rights Reserved Prolific 2024

• Search Menu
• Advance articles
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Why Publish?
• About Research Evaluation
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

1. introduction, 4. synthesis, 4.1 principles of tdr quality, 5. conclusions, supplementary data, acknowledgements, defining and assessing research quality in a transdisciplinary context.

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Brian M. Belcher, Katherine E. Rasmussen, Matthew R. Kemshaw, Deborah A. Zornes, Defining and assessing research quality in a transdisciplinary context, Research Evaluation , Volume 25, Issue 1, January 2016, Pages 1–17, https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvv025

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Research increasingly seeks both to generate knowledge and to contribute to real-world solutions, with strong emphasis on context and social engagement. As boundaries between disciplines are crossed, and as research engages more with stakeholders in complex systems, traditional academic definitions and criteria of research quality are no longer sufficient—there is a need for a parallel evolution of principles and criteria to define and evaluate research quality in a transdisciplinary research (TDR) context. We conducted a systematic review to help answer the question: What are appropriate principles and criteria for defining and assessing TDR quality? Articles were selected and reviewed seeking: arguments for or against expanding definitions of research quality, purposes for research quality evaluation, proposed principles of research quality, proposed criteria for research quality assessment, proposed indicators and measures of research quality, and proposed processes for evaluating TDR. We used the information from the review and our own experience in two research organizations that employ TDR approaches to develop a prototype TDR quality assessment framework, organized as an evaluation rubric. We provide an overview of the relevant literature and summarize the main aspects of TDR quality identified there. Four main principles emerge: relevance, including social significance and applicability; credibility, including criteria of integration and reflexivity, added to traditional criteria of scientific rigor; legitimacy, including criteria of inclusion and fair representation of stakeholder interests, and; effectiveness, with criteria that assess actual or potential contributions to problem solving and social change.

Contemporary research in the social and environmental realms places strong emphasis on achieving ‘impact’. Research programs and projects aim to generate new knowledge but also to promote and facilitate the use of that knowledge to enable change, solve problems, and support innovation ( Clark and Dickson 2003 ). Reductionist and purely disciplinary approaches are being augmented or replaced with holistic approaches that recognize the complex nature of problems and that actively engage within complex systems to contribute to change ‘on the ground’ ( Gibbons et al. 1994 ; Nowotny, Scott and Gibbons 2001 , Nowotny, Scott and Gibbons 2003 ; Klein 2006 ; Hemlin and Rasmussen 2006 ; Chataway, Smith and Wield 2007 ; Erno-Kjolhede and Hansson 2011 ). Emerging fields such as sustainability science have developed out of a need to address complex and urgent real-world problems ( Komiyama and Takeuchi 2006 ). These approaches are inherently applied and transdisciplinary, with explicit goals to contribute to real-world solutions and strong emphasis on context and social engagement ( Kates 2000 ).

While there is an ongoing conceptual and theoretical debate about the nature of the relationship between science and society (e.g. Hessels 2008 ), we take a more practical starting point based on the authors’ experience in two research organizations. The first author has been involved with the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) for almost 20 years. CIFOR, as part of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), began a major transformation in 2010 that shifted the emphasis from a primary focus on delivering high-quality science to a focus on ‘…producing, assembling and delivering, in collaboration with research and development partners, research outputs that are international public goods which will contribute to the solution of significant development problems that have been identified and prioritized with the collaboration of developing countries.’ ( CGIAR 2011 ). It was always intended that CGIAR research would be relevant to priority development and conservation issues, with emphasis on high-quality scientific outputs. The new approach puts much stronger emphasis on welfare and environmental results; research centers, programs, and individual scientists now assume shared responsibility for achieving development outcomes. This requires new ways of working, with more and different kinds of partnerships and more deliberate and strategic engagement in social systems.

Royal Roads University (RRU), the home institute of all four authors, is a relatively new (created in 1995) public university in Canada. It is deliberately interdisciplinary by design, with just two faculties (Faculty of Social and Applied Science; Faculty of Management) and strong emphasis on problem-oriented research. Faculty and student research is typically ‘applied’ in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2012) sense of ‘original investigation undertaken in order to acquire new knowledge … directed primarily towards a specific practical aim or objective’.

An increasing amount of the research done within both of these organizations can be classified as transdisciplinary research (TDR). TDR crosses disciplinary and institutional boundaries, is context specific, and problem oriented ( Klein 2006 ; Carew and Wickson 2010 ). It combines and blends methodologies from different theoretical paradigms, includes a diversity of both academic and lay actors, and is conducted with a range of research goals, organizational forms, and outputs ( Klein 2006 ; Boix-Mansilla 2006a ; Erno-Kjolhede and Hansson 2011 ). The problem-oriented nature of TDR and the importance placed on societal relevance and engagement are broadly accepted as defining characteristics of TDR ( Carew and Wickson 2010 ).

The experience developing and using TDR approaches at CIFOR and RRU highlights the need for a parallel evolution of principles and criteria for evaluating research quality in a TDR context. Scientists appreciate and often welcome the need and the opportunity to expand the reach of their research, to contribute more effectively to change processes. At the same time, they feel the pressure of added expectations and are looking for guidance.

In any activity, we need principles, guidelines, criteria, or benchmarks that can be used to design the activity, assess its potential, and evaluate its progress and accomplishments. Effective research quality criteria are necessary to guide the funding, management, ongoing development, and advancement of research methods, projects, and programs. The lack of quality criteria to guide and assess research design and performance is seen as hindering the development of transdisciplinary approaches ( Bergmann et al. 2005 ; Feller 2006 ; Chataway, Smith and Wield 2007 ; Ozga 2008 ; Carew and Wickson 2010 ; Jahn and Keil 2015 ). Appropriate quality evaluation is essential to ensure that research receives support and funding, and to guide and train researchers and managers to realize high-quality research ( Boix-Mansilla 2006a ; Klein 2008 ; Aagaard-Hansen and Svedin 2009 ; Carew and Wickson 2010 ).

Traditional disciplinary research is built on well-established methodological and epistemological principles and practices. Within disciplinary research, quality has been defined narrowly, with the primary criteria being scientific excellence and scientific relevance ( Feller 2006 ; Chataway, Smith and Wield 2007 ; Erno-Kjolhede and Hansson 2011 ). Disciplines have well-established (often implicit) criteria and processes for the evaluation of quality in research design ( Erno-Kjolhede and Hansson 2011 ). TDR that is highly context specific, problem oriented, and includes nonacademic societal actors in the research process is challenging to evaluate ( Wickson, Carew and Russell 2006 ; Aagaard-Hansen and Svedin 2009 ; Andrén 2010 ; Carew and Wickson 2010 ; Huutoniemi 2010 ). There is no one definition or understanding of what constitutes quality, nor a set guide for how to do TDR ( Lincoln 1995 ; Morrow 2005 ; Oberg 2008 ; Andrén 2010 ; Huutoniemi 2010 ). When epistemologies and methods from more than one discipline are used, disciplinary criteria may be insufficient and criteria from more than one discipline may be contradictory; cultural conflicts can arise as a range of actors use different terminology for the same concepts or the same terminology for different concepts ( Chataway, Smith and Wield 2007 ; Oberg 2008 ).

Current research evaluation approaches as applied to individual researchers, programs, and research units are still based primarily on measures of academic outputs (publications and the prestige of the publishing journal), citations, and peer assessment ( Boix-Mansilla 2006a ; Feller 2006 ; Erno-Kjolhede and Hansson 2011 ). While these indicators of research quality remain relevant, additional criteria are needed to address the innovative approaches and the diversity of actors, outputs, outcomes, and long-term social impacts of TDR. It can be difficult to find appropriate outlets for TDR publications simply because the research does not meet the expectations of traditional discipline-oriented journals. Moreover, a wider range of inputs and of outputs means that TDR may result in fewer academic outputs. This has negative implications for transdisciplinary researchers, whose performance appraisals and long-term career progression are largely governed by traditional publication and citation-based metrics of evaluation. Research managers, peer reviewers, academic committees, and granting agencies all struggle with how to evaluate and how to compare TDR projects ( ex ante or ex post ) in the absence of appropriate criteria to address epistemological and methodological variability. The extent of engagement of stakeholders 1 in the research process will vary by project, from information sharing through to active collaboration ( Brandt et al. 2013) , but at any level, the involvement of stakeholders adds complexity to the conceptualization of quality. We need to know what ‘good research’ is in a transdisciplinary context.

As Tijssen ( 2003 : 93) put it: ‘Clearly, in view of its strategic and policy relevance, developing and producing generally acceptable measures of “research excellence” is one of the chief evaluation challenges of the years to come’. Clear criteria are needed for research quality evaluation to foster excellence while supporting innovation: ‘A principal barrier to a broader uptake of TD research is a lack of clarity on what good quality TD research looks like’ ( Carew and Wickson 2010 : 1154). In the absence of alternatives, many evaluators, including funding bodies, rely on conventional, discipline-specific measures of quality which do not address important aspects of TDR.

There is an emerging literature that reviews, synthesizes, or empirically evaluates knowledge and best practice in research evaluation in a TDR context and that proposes criteria and evaluation approaches ( Defila and Di Giulio 1999 ; Bergmann et al. 2005 ; Wickson, Carew and Russell 2006 ; Klein 2008 ; Carew and Wickson 2010 ; ERIC 2010; de Jong et al. 2011 ; Spaapen and Van Drooge 2011 ). Much of it comes from a few fields, including health care, education, and evaluation; little comes from the natural resource management and sustainability science realms, despite these areas needing guidance. National-scale reviews have begun to recognize the need for broader research evaluation criteria but have had difficulty dealing with it and have made little progress in addressing it ( Donovan 2008 ; KNAW 2009 ; REF 2011 ; ARC 2012 ; TEC 2012 ). A summary of the national reviews that we reviewed in the development of this research is provided in Supplementary Appendix 1 . While there are some published evaluation schemes for TDR and interdisciplinary research (IDR), there is ‘substantial variation in the balance different authors achieve between comprehensiveness and over-prescription’ ( Wickson and Carew 2014 : 256) and still a need to develop standardized quality criteria that are ‘uniquely flexible to provide valid, reliable means to evaluate and compare projects, while not stifling the evolution and responsiveness of the approach’ ( Wickson and Carew 2014 : 256).

There is a need and an opportunity to synthesize current ideas about how to define and assess quality in TDR. To address this, we conducted a systematic review of the literature that discusses the definitions of research quality as well as the suggested principles and criteria for assessing TDR quality. The aim is to identify appropriate principles and criteria for defining and measuring research quality in a transdisciplinary context and to organize those principles and criteria as an evaluation framework.

The review question was: What are appropriate principles, criteria, and indicators for defining and assessing research quality in TDR?

This article presents the method used for the systematic review and our synthesis, followed by key findings. Theoretical concepts about why new principles and criteria are needed for TDR, along with associated discussions about evaluation process are presented. A framework, derived from our synthesis of the literature, of principles and criteria for TDR quality evaluation is presented along with guidance on its application. Finally, recommendations for next steps in this research and needs for future research are discussed.

2.1 Systematic review

Systematic review is a rigorous, transparent, and replicable methodology that has become widely used to inform evidence-based policy, management, and decision making ( Pullin and Stewart 2006 ; CEE 2010). Systematic reviews follow a detailed protocol with explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria to ensure a repeatable and comprehensive review of the target literature. Review protocols are shared and often published as peer reviewed articles before undertaking the review to invite critique and suggestions. Systematic reviews are most commonly used to synthesize knowledge on an empirical question by collating data and analyses from a series of comparable studies, though methods used in systematic reviews are continually evolving and are increasingly being developed to explore a wider diversity of questions ( Chandler 2014 ). The current study question is theoretical and methodological, not empirical. Nevertheless, with a diverse and diffuse literature on the quality of TDR, a systematic review approach provides a method for a thorough and rigorous review. The protocol is published and available at http://www.cifor.org/online-library/browse/view-publication/publication/4382.html . A schematic diagram of the systematic review process is presented in Fig. 1 .

Search process.

2.2 Search terms

Search terms were designed to identify publications that discuss the evaluation or assessment of quality or excellence 2 of research 3 that is done in a TDR context. Search terms are listed online in Supplementary Appendices 2 and 3 . The search strategy favored sensitivity over specificity to ensure that we captured the relevant information.

2.3 Databases searched

ISI Web of Knowledge (WoK) and Scopus were searched between 26 June 2013 and 6 August 2013. The combined searches yielded 15,613 unique citations. Additional searches to update the first searchers were carried out in June 2014 and March 2015, for a total of 19,402 titles scanned. Google Scholar (GS) was searched separately by two reviewers during each search period. The first reviewer’s search was done on 2 September 2013 (Search 1) and 3 September 2013 (Search 2), yielding 739 and 745 titles, respectively. The second reviewer’s search was done on 19 November 2013 (Search 1) and 25 November 2013 (Search 2), yielding 769 and 774 titles, respectively. A third search done on 17 March 2015 by one reviewer yielded 98 new titles. Reviewers found high redundancy between the WoK/Scopus searches and the GS searches.

2.4 Targeted journal searches

Highly relevant journals, including Research Evaluation, Evaluation and Program Planning, Scientometrics, Research Policy, Futures, American Journal of Evaluation, Evaluation Review, and Evaluation, were comprehensively searched using broader, more inclusive search strings that would have been unmanageable for the main database search.

2.5 Supplementary searches

References in included articles were reviewed to identify additional relevant literature. td-net’s ‘Tour d’Horizon of Literature’, lists important inter- and transdisciplinary publications collected through an invitation to experts in the field to submit publications ( td-net 2014 ). Six additional articles were identified via supplementary search.

2.6 Limitations of coverage

The review was limited to English-language published articles and material available through internet searches. There was no systematic way to search the gray (unpublished) literature, but relevant material identified through supplementary searches was included.

2.7 Inclusion of articles

This study sought articles that review, critique, discuss, and/or propose principles, criteria, indicators, and/or measures for the evaluation of quality relevant to TDR. As noted, this yielded a large number of titles. We then selected only those articles with an explicit focus on the meaning of IDR and/or TDR quality and how to achieve, measure or evaluate it. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed through an iterative process of trial article screening and discussion within the research team. Through this process, inter-reviewer agreement was tested and strengthened. Inclusion criteria are listed in Tables 1 and 2 .

Inclusion criteria for title and abstract screening

Inclusion criteria for abstract and full article screening

Article screening was done in parallel by two reviewers in three rounds: (1) title, (2) abstract, and (3) full article. In cases of uncertainty, papers were included to the next round. Final decisions on inclusion of contested papers were made by consensus among the four team members.

2.8 Critical appraisal

In typical systematic reviews, individual articles are appraised to ensure that they are adequate for answering the research question and to assess the methods of each study for susceptibility to bias that could influence the outcome of the review (Petticrew and Roberts 2006). Most papers included in this review are theoretical and methodological papers, not empirical studies. Most do not have explicit methods that can be appraised with existing quality assessment frameworks. Our critical appraisal considered four criteria adapted from Spencer et al. (2003): (1) relevance to the review question, (2) clarity and logic of how information in the paper was generated, (3) significance of the contribution (are new ideas offered?), and (4) generalizability (is the context specified; do the ideas apply in other contexts?). Disagreements were discussed to reach consensus.

2.9 Data extraction and management

The review sought information on: arguments for or against expanding definitions of research quality, purposes for research quality evaluation, principles of research quality, criteria for research quality assessment, indicators and measures of research quality, and processes for evaluating TDR. Four reviewers independently extracted data from selected articles using the parameters listed in Supplementary Appendix 4 .

2.10 Data synthesis and TDR framework design

Our aim was to synthesize ideas, definitions, and recommendations for TDR quality criteria into a comprehensive and generalizable framework for the evaluation of quality in TDR. Key ideas were extracted from each article and summarized in an Excel database. We classified these ideas into themes and ultimately into overarching principles and associated criteria of TDR quality organized as a rubric ( Wickson and Carew 2014 ). Definitions of each principle and criterion were developed and rubric statements formulated based on the literature and our experience. These criteria (adjusted appropriately to be applied ex ante or ex post ) are intended to be used to assess a TDR project. The reviewer should consider whether the project fully satisfies, partially satisfies, or fails to satisfy each criterion. More information on application is provided in Section 4.3 below.

We tested the framework on a set of completed RRU graduate theses that used transdisciplinary approaches, with an explicit problem orientation and intent to contribute to social or environmental change. Three rounds of testing were done, with revisions after each round to refine and improve the framework.

3.1 Overview of the selected articles

Thirty-eight papers satisfied the inclusion criteria. A wide range of terms are used in the selected papers, including: cross-disciplinary; interdisciplinary; transdisciplinary; methodological pluralism; mode 2; triple helix; and supradisciplinary. Eight included papers specifically focused on sustainability science or TDR in natural resource management, or identified sustainability research as a growing TDR field that needs new forms of evaluation ( Cash et al. 2002 ; Bergmann et al. 2005 ; Chataway, Smith and Wield 2007 ; Spaapen, Dijstelbloem and Wamelink 2007 ; Andrén 2010 ; Carew and Wickson 2010 ; Lang et al. 2012 ; Gaziulusoy and Boyle 2013 ). Carew and Wickson (2010) build on the experience in the TDR realm to propose criteria and indicators of quality for ‘responsible research and innovation’.

The selected articles are written from three main perspectives. One set is primarily interested in advancing TDR approaches. These papers recognize the need for new quality measures to encourage and promote high-quality research and to overcome perceived biases against TDR approaches in research funding and publishing. A second set of papers is written from an evaluation perspective, with a focus on improving evaluation of TDR. The third set is written from the perspective of qualitative research characterized by methodological pluralism, with many characteristics and issues relevant to TDR approaches.

The majority of the articles focus at the project scale, some at the organization level, and some do not specify. Some articles explicitly focus on ex ante evaluation (e.g. proposal evaluation), others on ex post evaluation, and many are not explicit about the project stage they are concerned with. The methods used in the reviewed articles include authors’ reflection and opinion, literature review, expert consultation, document analysis, and case study. Summaries of report characteristics are available online ( Supplementary Appendices 5–8 ). Eight articles provide comprehensive evaluation frameworks and quality criteria specifically for TDR and research-in-context. The rest of the articles discuss aspects of quality related to TDR and recommend quality definitions, criteria, and/or evaluation processes.

3.2 The need for quality criteria and evaluation methods for TDR

Many of the selected articles highlight the lack of widely agreed principles and criteria of TDR quality. They note that, in the absence of TDR quality frameworks, disciplinary criteria are used ( Morrow 2005 ; Boix-Mansilla 2006a , b ; Feller 2006 ; Klein 2006 , 2008 ; Wickson, Carew and Russell 2006 ; Scott 2007 ; Spaapen, Dijstelbloem and Wamelink 2007 ; Oberg 2008 ; Erno-Kjolhede and Hansson 2011 ), and evaluations are often carried out by reviewers who lack cross-disciplinary experience and do not have a shared understanding of quality ( Aagaard-Hansen and Svedin 2009 ). Quality is discussed by many as a relative concept, developed within disciplines, and therefore defined and understood differently in each field ( Morrow 2005 ; Klein 2006 ; Oberg 2008 ; Mitchell and Willets 2009 ; Huutoniemi 2010 ; Hellstrom 2011 ). Jahn and Keil (2015) point out the difficulty of creating a common set of quality criteria for TDR in the absence of a standard agreed-upon definition of TDR. Many of the selected papers argue the need to move beyond narrowly defined ideas of ‘scientific excellence’ to incorporate a broader assessment of quality which includes societal relevance ( Hemlin and Rasmussen 2006 ; Chataway, Smith and Wield 2007 ; Ozga 2007 ; Spaapen, Dijstelbloem and Wamelink 2007 ). This shift includes greater focus on research organization, research process, and continuous learning, rather than primarily on research outputs ( Hemlin and Rasmussen 2006 ; de Jong et al. 2011 ; Wickson and Carew 2014 ; Jahn and Keil 2015 ). This responds to and reflects societal expectations that research should be accountable and have demonstrated utility ( Cloete 1997 ; Defila and Di Giulio 1999 ; Wickson, Carew and Russell 2006 ; Spaapen, Dijstelbloem and Wamelink 2007 ; Stige 2009 ).

A central aim of TDR is to achieve socially relevant outcomes, and TDR quality criteria should demonstrate accountability to society ( Cloete 1997 ; Hemlin and Rasmussen 2006 ; Chataway, Smith and Wield 2007 ; Ozga 2007 ; Spaapen, Dijstelbloem and Wamelink 2007 ; de Jong et al. 2011 ). Integration and mutual learning are a core element of TDR; it is not enough to transcend boundaries and incorporate societal knowledge but, as Carew and Wickson ( 2010 : 1147) summarize: ‘…the TD researcher needs to put effort into integrating these potentially disparate knowledges with a view to creating useable knowledge. That is, knowledge that can be applied in a given problem context and has some prospect of producing desired change in that context’. The inclusion of societal actors in the research process, the unique and often dispersed organization of research teams, and the deliberate integration of different traditions of knowledge production all fall outside of conventional assessment criteria ( Feller 2006 ).

Not only do the range of criteria need to be updated, expanded, agreed upon, and assumptions made explicit ( Boix-Mansilla 2006a ; Klein 2006 ; Scott 2007 ) but, given the specific problem orientation of TDR, reviewers beyond disciplinary academic peers need to be included in the assessment of quality ( Cloete 1997 ; Scott 2007 ; Spappen et al. 2007 ; Klein 2008 ). Several authors discuss the lack of reviewers with strong cross-disciplinary experience ( Aagaard-Hansen and Svedin 2009 ) and the lack of common criteria, philosophical foundations, and language for use by peer reviewers ( Klein 2008 ; Aagaard-Hansen and Svedin 2009 ). Peer review of TDR could be improved with explicit TDR quality criteria, and appropriate processes in place to ensure clear dialog between reviewers.

Finally, there is the need for increased emphasis on evaluation as part of the research process ( Bergmann et al. 2005 ; Hemlin and Rasmussen 2006 ; Meyrick 2006 ; Chataway, Smith and Wield 2007 ; Stige, Malterud and Midtgarden 2009 ; Hellstrom 2011 ; Lang et al. 2012 ; Wickson and Carew 2014 ). This is particularly true in large, complex, problem-oriented research projects. Ongoing monitoring of the research organization and process contributes to learning and adaptive management while research is underway and so helps improve quality. As stated by Wickson and Carew ( 2014 : 262): ‘We believe that in any process of interpreting, rearranging and/or applying these criteria, open negotiation on their meaning and application would only positively foster transformative learning, which is a valued outcome of good TD processes’.

3.3 TDR quality criteria and assessment approaches

Many of the papers provide quality criteria and/or describe constituent parts of quality. Aagaard-Hansen and Svedin (2009) define three key aspects of quality: societal relevance, impact, and integration. Meyrick (2006) states that quality research is transparent and systematic. Boaz and Ashby (2003) describe quality in four dimensions: methodological quality, quality of reporting, appropriateness of methods, and relevance to policy and practice. Although each article deconstructs quality in different ways and with different foci and perspectives, there is significant overlap and recurring themes in the papers reviewed. There is a broadly shared perspective that TDR quality is a multidimensional concept shaped by the specific context within which research is done ( Spaapen, Dijstelbloem and Wamelink 2007 ; Klein 2008 ), making a universal definition of TDR quality difficult or impossible ( Huutoniemi 2010 ).

Huutoniemi (2010) identifies three main approaches to conceptualizing quality in IDR and TDR: (1) using existing disciplinary standards adapted as necessary for IDR; (2) building on the quality standards of disciplines while fundamentally incorporating ways to deal with epistemological integration, problem focus, context, stakeholders, and process; and (3) radical departure from any disciplinary orientation in favor of external, emergent, context-dependent quality criteria that are defined and enacted collaboratively by a community of users.

The first approach is prominent in current research funding and evaluation protocols. Conservative approaches of this kind are criticized for privileging disciplinary research and for failing to provide guidance and quality control for transdisciplinary projects. The third approach would ‘undermine the prevailing status of disciplinary standards in the pursuit of a non-disciplinary, integrated knowledge system’ ( Huutoniemi 2010 : 313). No predetermined quality criteria are offered, only contextually embedded criteria that need to be developed within a specific research project. To some extent, this is the approach taken by Spaapen, Dijstelbloem and Wamelink (2007) and de Jong et al. (2011) . Such a sui generis approach cannot be used to compare across projects. Most of the reviewed papers take the second approach, and recommend TDR quality criteria that build on a disciplinary base.

Eight articles present comprehensive frameworks for quality evaluation, each with a unique approach, perspective, and goal. Two of these build comprehensive lists of criteria with associated questions to be chosen based on the needs of the particular research project ( Defila and Di Giulio 1999 ; Bergmann et al. 2005 ). Wickson and Carew (2014) develop a reflective heuristic tool with questions to guide researchers through ongoing self-evaluation. They also list criteria for external evaluation and to compare between projects. Spaapen, Dijstelbloem and Wamelink (2007) design an approach to evaluate a research project against its own goals and is not meant to compare between projects. Wickson and Carew (2014) developed a comprehensive rubric for the evaluation of Research and Innovation that builds of their extensive previous work in TDR. Finally, Lang et al. (2012) , Mitchell and Willets (2009) , and Jahn and Keil (2015) develop criteria checklists that can be applied across transdisciplinary projects.

Bergmann et al. (2005) and Carew and Wickson (2010) organize their frameworks into managerial elements of the research project, concerning problem context, participation, management, and outcomes. Lang et al. (2012) and Defila and Di Giulio (1999) focus on the chronological stages in the research process and identify criteria at each stage. Mitchell and Willets (2009) , , with a focus on doctoral s tudies, adapt standard dissertation evaluation criteria to accommodate broader, pluralistic, and more complex studies. Spaapen, Dijstelbloem and Wamelink (2007) focus on evaluating ‘research-in-context’. Wickson and Carew (2014) created a rubric based on criteria that span the research process, stages, and all actors included. Jahn and Keil (2015) organized their quality criteria into three categories of quality including: quality of the research problems, quality of the research process, and quality of the research results.

The remaining papers highlight key themes that must be considered in TDR evaluation. Dominant themes include: engagement with problem context, collaboration and inclusion of stakeholders, heightened need for explicit communication and reflection, integration of epistemologies, recognition of diverse outputs, the focus on having an impact, and reflexivity and adaptation throughout the process. The focus on societal problems in context and the increased engagement of stakeholders in the research process introduces higher levels of complexity that cannot be accommodated by disciplinary standards ( Defila and Di Giulio 1999 ; Bergmann et al. 2005 ; Wickson, Carew and Russell 2006 ; Spaapen, Dijstelbloem and Wamelink 2007 ; Klein 2008 ).

Finally, authors discuss process ( Defila and Di Giulio 1999 ; Bergmann et al. 2005 ; Boix-Mansilla 2006b ; Spaapen, Dijstelbloem and Wamelink 2007 ) and utilitarian values ( Hemlin 2006 ; Ernø-Kjølhede and Hansson 2011 ; Bornmann 2013 ) as essential aspects of quality in TDR. Common themes include: (1) the importance of formative and process-oriented evaluation ( Bergmann et al. 2005 ; Hemlin 2006 ; Stige 2009 ); (2) emphasis on the evaluation process itself (not just criteria or outcomes) and reflexive dialog for learning ( Bergmann et al. 2005 ; Boix-Mansilla 2006b ; Klein 2008 ; Oberg 2008 ; Stige, Malterud and Midtgarden 2009 ; Aagaard-Hansen and Svedin 2009 ; Carew and Wickson 2010 ; Huutoniemi 2010 ); (3) the need for peers who are experienced and knowledgeable about TDR for fair peer review ( Boix-Mansilla 2006a , b ; Klein 2006 ; Hemlin 2006 ; Scott 2007 ; Aagaard-Hansen and Svedin 2009 ); (4) the inclusion of stakeholders in the evaluation process ( Bergmann et al. 2005 ; Scott 2007 ; Andréen 2010 ); and (5) the importance of evaluations that are built in-context ( Defila and Di Giulio 1999 ; Feller 2006 ; Spaapen, Dijstelbloem and Wamelink 2007 ; de Jong et al. 2011 ).

While each reviewed approach offers helpful insights, none adequately fulfills the need for a broad and adaptable framework for assessing TDR quality. Wickson and Carew ( 2014 : 257) highlight the need for quality criteria that achieve balance between ‘comprehensiveness and over-prescription’: ‘any emerging quality criteria need to be concrete enough to provide real guidance but flexible enough to adapt to the specificities of varying contexts’. Based on our experience, such a framework should be:

Comprehensive: It should accommodate the main aspects of TDR, as identified in the review.

Time/phase adaptable: It should be applicable across the project cycle.

Scalable: It should be useful for projects of different scales.

Versatile: It should be useful to researchers and collaborators as a guide to research design and management, and to internal and external reviews and assessors.

Comparable: It should allow comparison of quality between and across projects/programs.

Reflexive: It should encourage and facilitate self-reflection and adaptation based on ongoing learning.

In this section, we synthesize the key principles and criteria of quality in TDR that were identified in the reviewed literature. Principles are the essential elements of high-quality TDR. Criteria are the conditions that need to be met in order to achieve a principle. We conclude by providing a framework for the evaluation of quality in TDR ( Table 3 ) and guidance for its application.

Transdisciplinary research quality assessment framework

a Research problems are the particular topic, area of concern, question to be addressed, challenge, opportunity, or focus of the research activity. Research problems are related to the societal problem but take on a specific focus, or framing, within a societal problem.

b Problem context refers to the social and environmental setting(s) that gives rise to the research problem, including aspects of: location; culture; scale in time and space; social, political, economic, and ecological/environmental conditions; resources and societal capacity available; uncertainty, complexity, and novelty associated with the societal problem; and the extent of agency that is held by stakeholders ( Carew and Wickson 2010 ).

c Words such as ‘appropriate’, ‘suitable’, and ‘adequate’ are used deliberately to allow for quality criteria to be flexible and specific enough to the needs of individual research projects ( Oberg 2008 ).

d Research process refers to the series of decisions made and actions taken throughout the entire duration of the research project and encompassing all aspects of the research project.

e Reflexivity refers to an iterative process of formative, critical reflection on the important interactions and relationships between a research project’s process, context, and product(s).

f In an ex ante evaluation, ‘evidence of’ would be replaced with ‘potential for’.

There is a strong trend in the reviewed articles to recognize the need for appropriate measures of scientific quality (usually adapted from disciplinary antecedants), but also to consider broader sets of criteria regarding the societal significance and applicability of research, and the need for engagement and representation of stakeholder values and knowledge. Cash et al. (2002) nicely conceptualize three key aspects of effective sustainability research as: salience (or relevance), credibility, and legitimacy. These are presented as necessary attributes for research to successfully produce transferable, useful information that can cross boundaries between disciplines, across scales, and between science and society. Many of the papers also refer to the principle that high-quality TDR should be effective in terms of contributing to the solution of problems. These four principles are discussed in the following sections.

4.1.1 Relevance

Relevance is the importance, significance, and usefulness of the research project's objectives, process, and findings to the problem context and to society. This includes the appropriateness of the timing of the research, the questions being asked, the outputs, and the scale of the research in relation to the societal problem being addressed. Good-quality TDR addresses important social/environmental problems and produces knowledge that is useful for decision making and problem solving ( Cash et al. 2002 ; Klein 2006 ). As Erno-Kjolhede and Hansson ( 2011 : 140) explain, quality ‘is first and foremost about creating results that are applicable and relevant for the users of the research’. Researchers must demonstrate an in-depth knowledge of and ongoing engagement with the problem context in which their research takes place ( Wickson, Carew and Russell 2006 ; Stige, Malterud and Midtgarden 2009 ; Mitchell and Willets 2009 ). From the early steps of problem formulation and research design through to the appropriate and effective communication of research findings, the applicability and relevance of the research to the societal problem must be explicitly stated and incorporated.

4.1.2 Credibility

Credibility refers to whether or not the research findings are robust and the knowledge produced is scientifically trustworthy. This includes clear demonstration that the data are adequate, with well-presented methods and logical interpretations of findings. High-quality research is authoritative, transparent, defensible, believable, and rigorous. This is the traditional purview of science, and traditional disciplinary criteria can be applied in TDR evaluation to an extent. Additional and modified criteria are needed to address the integration of epistemologies and methodologies and the development of novel methods through collaboration, the broad preparation and competencies required to carry out the research, and the need for reflection and adaptation when operating in complex systems. Having researchers actively engaged in the problem context and including extra-scientific actors as part of the research process helps to achieve relevance and legitimacy of the research; it also adds complexity and heightened requirements of transparency, reflection, and reflexivity to ensure objective, credible research is carried out.

Active reflexivity is a criterion of credibility of TDR that may seem to contradict more rigid disciplinary methodological traditions ( Carew and Wickson 2010 ). Practitioners of TDR recognize that credible work in these problem-oriented fields requires active reflexivity, epitomized by ongoing learning, flexibility, and adaptation to ensure the research approach and objectives remain relevant and fit-to-purpose ( Lincoln 1995 ; Bergmann et al. 2005 ; Wickson, Carew and Russell 2006 ; Mitchell and Willets 2009 ; Andreén 2010 ; Carew and Wickson 2010 ; Wickson and Carew 2014 ). Changes made during the research process must be justified and reported transparently and explicitly to maintain credibility.

The need for critical reflection on potential bias and limitations becomes more important to maintain credibility of research-in-context ( Lincoln 1995 ; Bergmann et al. 2005 ; Mitchell and Willets 2009 ; Stige, Malterud and Midtgarden 2009 ). Transdisciplinary researchers must ensure they maintain a high level of objectivity and transparency while actively engaging in the problem context. This point demonstrates the fine balance between different aspects of quality, in this case relevance and credibility, and the need to be aware of tensions and to seek complementarities ( Cash et al. 2002 ).

4.1.3 Legitimacy

Legitimacy refers to whether the research process is perceived as fair and ethical by end-users. In other words, is it acceptable and trustworthy in the eyes of those who will use it? This requires the appropriate inclusion and consideration of diverse values, interests, and the ethical and fair representation of all involved. Legitimacy may be achieved in part through the genuine inclusion of stakeholders in the research process. Whereas credibility refers to technical aspects of sound research, legitimacy deals with sociopolitical aspects of the knowledge production process and products of research. Do stakeholders trust the researchers and the research process, including funding sources and other sources of potential bias? Do they feel represented? Legitimate TDR ‘considers appropriate values, concerns, and perspectives of different actors’ ( Cash et al. 2002 : 2) and incorporates these perspectives into the research process through collaboration and mutual learning ( Bergmann et al. 2005 ; Chataway, Smith and Wield 2007 ; Andrén 2010 ; Huutoneimi 2010 ). A fair and ethical process is important to uphold standards of quality in all research. However, there are additional considerations that are unique to TDR.

Because TDR happens in-context and often in collaboration with societal actors, the disclosure of researcher perspective and a transparent statement of all partnerships, financing, and collaboration is vital to ensure an unbiased research process ( Lincoln 1995 ; Defila and Di Giulio 1999 ; Boaz and Ashby 2003 ; Barker and Pistrang 2005 ; Bergmann et al. 2005 ). The disclosure of perspective has both internal and external aspects, on one hand ensuring the researchers themselves explicitly reflect on and account for their own position, potential sources of bias, and limitations throughout the process, and on the other hand making the process transparent to those external to the research group who can then judge the legitimacy based on their perspective of fairness ( Cash et al. 2002 ).

TDR includes the engagement of societal actors along a continuum of participation from consultation to co-creation of knowledge ( Brandt et al. 2013 ). Regardless of the depth of participation, all processes that engage societal actors must ensure that inclusion/engagement is genuine, roles are explicit, and processes for effective and fair collaboration are present ( Bergmann et al. 2005 ; Wickson, Carew and Russell 2006 ; Spaapen, Dijstelbloem and Wamelink 2007 ; Hellstrom 2012 ). Important considerations include: the accurate representation of those involved; explicit and agreed-upon roles and contributions of actors; and adequate planning and procedures to ensure all values, perspectives, and contexts are adequately and appropriately incorporated. Mitchell and Willets (2009) consider cultural competence as a key criterion that can support researchers in navigating diverse epistemological perspectives. This is similar to what Morrow terms ‘social validity’, a criterion that asks researchers to be responsive to and critically aware of the diversity of perspectives and cultures influenced by their research. Several authors highlight that in order to develop this critical awareness of the diversity of cultural paradigms that operate within a problem situation, researchers should practice responsive, critical, and/or communal reflection ( Bergmann et al. 2005 ; Wickson, Carew and Russell 2006 ; Mitchell and Willets 2009 ; Carew and Wickson 2010 ). Reflection and adaptation are important quality criteria that cut across multiple principles and facilitate learning throughout the process, which is a key foundation to TD inquiry.

4.1.4 Effectiveness

We define effective research as research that contributes to positive change in the social, economic, and/or environmental problem context. Transdisciplinary inquiry is rooted in the objective of solving real-word problems ( Klein 2008 ; Carew and Wickson 2010 ) and must have the potential to ( ex ante ) or actually ( ex post ) make a difference if it is to be considered of high quality ( Erno-Kjolhede and Hansson 2011 ). Potential research effectiveness can be indicated and assessed at the proposal stage and during the research process through: a clear and stated intention to address and contribute to a societal problem, the establishment of the research process and objectives in relation to the problem context, and the continuous reflection on the usefulness of the research findings and products to the problem ( Bergmann et al. 2005 ; Lahtinen et al. 2005 ; de Jong et al. 2011 ).

Assessing research effectiveness ex post remains a major challenge, especially in complex transdisciplinary approaches. Conventional and widely used measures of ‘scientific impact’ count outputs such as journal articles and other publications and citations of those outputs (e.g. H index; i10 index). While these are useful indicators of scholarly influence, they are insufficient and inappropriate measures of research effectiveness where research aims to contribute to social learning and change. We need to also (or alternatively) focus on other kinds of research and scholarship outputs and outcomes and the social, economic, and environmental impacts that may result.

For many authors, contributing to learning and building of societal capacity are central goals of TDR ( Defila and Di Giulio 1999 ; Spaapen, Dijstelbloem and Wamelink 2007 ; Carew and Wickson 2010 ; Erno-Kjolhede and Hansson 2011 ; Hellstrom 2011 ), and so are considered part of TDR effectiveness. Learning can be characterized as changes in knowledge, attitudes, or skills and can be assessed directly, or through observed behavioral changes and network and relationship development. Some evaluation methodologies (e.g. Outcome Mapping ( Earl, Carden and Smutylo 2001 )) specifically measure these kinds of changes. Other evaluation methodologies consider the role of research within complex systems and assess effectiveness in terms of contributions to changes in policy and practice and resulting social, economic, and environmental benefits ( ODI 2004 , 2012 ; White and Phillips 2012 ; Mayne et al. 2013 ).

4.2 TDR quality criteria

TDR quality criteria and their definitions (explicit or implicit) were extracted from each article and summarized in an Excel database. These criteria were classified into themes corresponding to the four principles identified above, sorted and refined to develop sets of criteria that are comprehensive, mutually exclusive, and representative of the ideas presented in the reviewed articles. Within each principle, the criteria are organized roughly in the sequence of a typical project cycle (e.g. with research design following problem identification and preceding implementation). Definitions of each criterion were developed to reflect the concepts found in the literature, tested and refined iteratively to improve clarity. Rubric statements were formulated based on the literature and our own experience.

The complete set of principles, criteria, and definitions is presented as the TDR Quality Assessment Framework ( Table 3 ).

4.3 Guidance on the application of the framework

4.3.1 timing.

Most criteria can be applied at each stage of the research process, ex ante , mid term, and ex post , using appropriate interpretations at each stage. Ex ante (i.e. proposal) assessment should focus on a project’s explicitly stated intentions and approaches to address the criteria. Mid-term indicators will focus on the research process and whether or not it is being implemented in a way that will satisfy the criteria. Ex post assessment should consider whether the research has been done appropriately for the purpose and that the desired results have been achieved.

4.3.2 New meanings for familiar terms

Many of the terms used in the framework are extensions of disciplinary criteria and share the same or similar names and perhaps similar but nuanced meaning. The principles and criteria used here extend beyond disciplinary antecedents and include new concepts and understandings that encapsulate the unique characteristics and needs of TDR and allow for evaluation and definition of quality in TDR. This is especially true in the criteria related to credibility. These criteria are analogous to traditional disciplinary criteria, but with much stronger emphasis on grounding in both the scientific and the social/environmental contexts. We urge readers to pay close attention to the definitions provided in Table 3 as well as the detailed descriptions of the principles in Section 4.1.

4.3.3 Using the framework

The TDR quality framework ( Table 3 ) is designed to be used to assess TDR research according to a project’s purpose; i.e. the criteria must be interpreted with respect to the context and goals of an individual research activity. The framework ( Table 3 ) lists the main criteria synthesized from the literature and our experience, organized within the principles of relevance, credibility, legitimacy, and effectiveness. The table presents the criteria within each principle, ordered to approximate a typical process of identifying a research problem and designing and implementing research. We recognize that the actual process in any given project will be iterative and will not necessarily follow this sequence, but this provides a logical flow. A concise definition is provided in the second column to explain each criterion. We then provide a rubric statement in the third column, phrased to be applied when the research has been completed. In most cases, the same statement can be used at the proposal stage with a simple tense change or other minor grammatical revision, except for the criteria relating to effectiveness. As discussed above, assessing effectiveness in terms of outcomes and/or impact requires evaluation research. At the proposal stage, it is only possible to assess potential effectiveness.

Many rubrics offer a set of statements for each criterion that represent progressively higher levels of achievement; the evaluator is asked to select the best match. In practice, this often results in vague and relative statements of merit that are difficult to apply. We have opted to present a single rubric statement in absolute terms for each criterion. The assessor can then rank how well a project satisfies each criterion using a simple three-point Likert scale. If a project fully satisfies a criterion—that is, if there is evidence that the criterion has been addressed in a way that is coherent, explicit, sufficient, and convincing—it should be ranked as a 2 for that criterion. A score of 2 means that the evaluator is persuaded that the project addressed that criterion in an intentional, appropriate, explicit, and thorough way. A score of 1 would be given when there is some evidence that the criterion was considered, but it is lacking completion, intention, and/or is not addressed satisfactorily. For example, a score of 1 would be given when a criterion is explicitly discussed but poorly addressed, or when there is some indication that the criterion has been considered and partially addressed but it has not been treated explicitly, thoroughly, or adequately. A score of 0 indicates that there is no evidence that the criterion was addressed or that it was addressed in a way that was misguided or inappropriate.

It is critical that the evaluation be done in context, keeping in mind the purpose, objectives, and resources of the project, as well as other contextual information, such as the intended purpose of grant funding or relevant partnerships. Each project will be unique in its complexities; what is sufficient or adequate in one criterion for one research project may be insufficient or inappropriate for another. Words such as ‘appropriate’, ‘suitable’, and ‘adequate’ are used deliberately to encourage application of criteria to suit the needs of individual research projects ( Oberg 2008 ). Evaluators must consider the objectives of the research project and the problem context within which it is carried out as the benchmark for evaluation. For example, we tested the framework with RRU masters theses. These are typically small projects with limited scope, carried out by a single researcher. Expectations for ‘effective communication’ or ‘competencies’ or ‘effective collaboration’ are much different in these kinds of projects than in a multi-year, multi-partner CIFOR project. All criteria should be evaluated through the lens of the stated research objectives, research goals, and context.

The systematic review identified relevant articles from a diverse literature that have a strong central focus. Collectively, they highlight the complexity of contemporary social and environmental problems and emphasize that addressing such issues requires combinations of new knowledge and innovation, action, and engagement. Traditional disciplinary research has often failed to provide solutions because it cannot adequately cope with complexity. New forms of research are proliferating, crossing disciplinary and academic boundaries, integrating methodologies, and engaging a broader range of research participants, as a way to make research more relevant and effective. Theoretically, such approaches appear to offer great potential to contribute to transformative change. However, because these approaches are new and because they are multidimensional, complex, and often unique, it has been difficult to know what works, how, and why. In the absence of the kinds of methodological and quality standards that guide disciplinary research, there are no generally agreed criteria for evaluating such research.

Criteria are needed to guide and to help ensure that TDR is of high quality, to inform the teaching and learning of new researchers, and to encourage and support the further development of transdisciplinary approaches. The lack of a standard and broadly applicable framework for the evaluation of quality in TDR is perceived to cause an implicit or explicit devaluation of high-quality TDR or may prevent quality TDR from being done. There is a demonstrated need for an operationalized understanding of quality that addresses the characteristics, contributions, and challenges of TDR. The reviewed articles approach the topic from different perspectives and fields of study, using different terminology for similar concepts, or the same terminology for different concepts, and with unique ways of organizing and categorizing the dimensions and quality criteria. We have synthesized and organized these concepts as key TDR principles and criteria in a TDR Quality Framework, presented as an evaluation rubric. We have tested the framework on a set of masters’ theses and found it to be broadly applicable, usable, and useful for analyzing individual projects and for comparing projects within the set. We anticipate that further testing with a wider range of projects will help further refine and improve the definitions and rubric statements. We found that the three-point Likert scale (0–2) offered sufficient variability for our purposes, and rating is less subjective than with relative rubric statements. It may be possible to increase the rating precision with more points on the scale to increase the sensitivity for comparison purposes, for example in a review of proposals for a particular grant application.

Many of the articles we reviewed emphasize the importance of the evaluation process itself. The formative, developmental role of evaluation in TDR is seen as essential to the goals of mutual learning as well as to ensure that research remains responsive and adaptive to the problem context. In order to adequately evaluate quality in TDR, the process, including who carries out the evaluations, when, and in what manner, must be revised to be suitable to the unique characteristics and objectives of TDR. We offer this review and synthesis, along with a proposed TDR quality evaluation framework, as a contribution to an important conversation. We hope that it will be useful to researchers and research managers to help guide research design, implementation and reporting, and to the community of research organizations, funders, and society at large. As underscored in the literature review, there is a need for an adapted research evaluation process that will help advance problem-oriented research in complex systems, ultimately to improve research effectiveness.

This work was supported by funding from the Canada Research Chairs program. Funding support from the Canadian Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) and technical support from the Evidence Based Forestry Initiative of the Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), funded by UK DfID are also gratefully acknowledged.

Supplementary data is available here

The authors thank Barbara Livoreil and Stephen Dovers for valuable comments and suggestions on the protocol and Gillian Petrokofsky for her review of the protocol and a draft version of the manuscript. Two anonymous reviewers and the editor provided insightful critique and suggestions in two rounds that have helped to substantially improve the article.

Conflict of interest statement . None declared.

1. ‘Stakeholders’ refers to individuals and groups of societal actors who have an interest in the issue or problem that the research seeks to address.

2. The terms ‘quality’ and ‘excellence’ are often used in the literature with similar meaning. Technically, ‘excellence’ is a relative concept, referring to the superiority of a thing compared to other things of its kind. Quality is an attribute or a set of attributes of a thing. We are interested in what these attributes are or should be in high-quality research. Therefore, the term ‘quality’ is used in this discussion.

3. The terms ‘science’ and ‘research’ are not always clearly distinguished in the literature. We take the position that ‘science’ is a more restrictive term that is properly applied to systematic investigations using the scientific method. ‘Research’ is a broader term for systematic investigations using a range of methods, including but not restricted to the scientific method. We use the term ‘research’ in this broad sense.

Aagaard-Hansen J. Svedin U. ( 2009 ) ‘Quality Issues in Cross-disciplinary Research: Towards a Two-pronged Approach to Evaluation’ , Social Epistemology , 23 / 2 : 165 – 76 . DOI: 10.1080/02691720902992323

Google Scholar

Andrén S. ( 2010 ) ‘A Transdisciplinary, Participatory and Action-Oriented Research Approach: Sounds Nice but What do you Mean?’ [unpublished working paper] Human Ecology Division: Lund University, 1–21. < https://lup.lub.lu.se/search/publication/1744256 >

Australian Research Council (ARC) ( 2012 ) ERA 2012 Evaluation Handbook: Excellence in Research for Australia . Australia : ARC . < http://www.arc.gov.au/pdf/era12/ERA%202012%20Evaluation%20Handbook_final%20for%20web_protected.pdf >

Google Preview

Balsiger P. W. ( 2004 ) ‘Supradisciplinary Research Practices: History, Objectives and Rationale’ , Futures , 36 / 4 : 407 – 21 .

Bantilan M. C. et al.  . ( 2004 ) ‘Dealing with Diversity in Scientific Outputs: Implications for International Research Evaluation’ , Research Evaluation , 13 / 2 : 87 – 93 .

Barker C. Pistrang N. ( 2005 ) ‘Quality Criteria under Methodological Pluralism: Implications for Conducting and Evaluating Research’ , American Journal of Community Psychology , 35 / 3-4 : 201 – 12 .

Bergmann M. et al.  . ( 2005 ) Quality Criteria of Transdisciplinary Research: A Guide for the Formative Evaluation of Research Projects . Central report of Evalunet – Evaluation Network for Transdisciplinary Research. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Institute for Social-Ecological Research. < http://www.isoe.de/ftp/evalunet_guide.pdf >

Boaz A. Ashby D. ( 2003 ) Fit for Purpose? Assessing Research Quality for Evidence Based Policy and Practice .

Boix-Mansilla V. ( 2006a ) ‘Symptoms of Quality: Assessing Expert Interdisciplinary Work at the Frontier: An Empirical Exploration’ , Research Evaluation , 15 / 1 : 17 – 29 .

Boix-Mansilla V. . ( 2006b ) ‘Conference Report: Quality Assessment in Interdisciplinary Research and Education’ , Research Evaluation , 15 / 1 : 69 – 74 .

Bornmann L. ( 2013 ) ‘What is Societal Impact of Research and How can it be Assessed? A Literature Survey’ , Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology , 64 / 2 : 217 – 33 .

Brandt P. et al.  . ( 2013 ) ‘A Review of Transdisciplinary Research in Sustainability Science’ , Ecological Economics , 92 : 1 – 15 .

Cash D. Clark W.C. Alcock F. Dickson N. M. Eckley N. Jäger J . ( 2002 ) Salience, Credibility, Legitimacy and Boundaries: Linking Research, Assessment and Decision Making (November 2002). KSG Working Papers Series RWP02-046. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=372280 .

Carew A. L. Wickson F. ( 2010 ) ‘The TD Wheel: A Heuristic to Shape, Support and Evaluate Transdisciplinary Research’ , Futures , 42 / 10 : 1146 – 55 .

Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE) . ( 2013 ) Guidelines for Systematic Review and Evidence Synthesis in Environmental Management . Version 4.2. Environmental Evidence < www.environmentalevidence.org/Documents/Guidelines/Guidelines4.2.pdf >

Chandler J. ( 2014 ) Methods Research and Review Development Framework: Policy, Structure, and Process . < http://methods.cochrane.org/projects-developments/research >

Chataway J. Smith J. Wield D. ( 2007 ) ‘Shaping Scientific Excellence in Agricultural Research’ , International Journal of Biotechnology 9 / 2 : 172 – 87 .

Clark W. C. Dickson N. ( 2003 ) ‘Sustainability Science: The Emerging Research Program’ , PNAS 100 / 14 : 8059 – 61 .

Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) ( 2011 ) A Strategy and Results Framework for the CGIAR . < http://library.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10947/2608/Strategy_and_Results_Framework.pdf?sequence=4 >

Cloete N. ( 1997 ) ‘Quality: Conceptions, Contestations and Comments’, African Regional Consultation Preparatory to the World Conference on Higher Education , Dakar, Senegal, 1-4 April 1997 .

Defila R. DiGiulio A. ( 1999 ) ‘Evaluating Transdisciplinary Research,’ Panorama: Swiss National Science Foundation Newsletter , 1 : 4 – 27 . < www.ikaoe.unibe.ch/forschung/ip/Specialissue.Pano.1.99.pdf >

Donovan C. ( 2008 ) ‘The Australian Research Quality Framework: A Live Experiment in Capturing the Social, Economic, Environmental, and Cultural Returns of Publicly Funded Research. Reforming the Evaluation of Research’ , New Directions for Evaluation , 118 : 47 – 60 .

Earl S. Carden F. Smutylo T. ( 2001 ) Outcome Mapping. Building Learning and Reflection into Development Programs . Ottawa, ON : International Development Research Center .

Ernø-Kjølhede E. Hansson F. ( 2011 ) ‘Measuring Research Performance during a Changing Relationship between Science and Society’ , Research Evaluation , 20 / 2 : 130 – 42 .

Feller I. ( 2006 ) ‘Assessing Quality: Multiple Actors, Multiple Settings, Multiple Criteria: Issues in Assessing Interdisciplinary Research’ , Research Evaluation 15 / 1 : 5 – 15 .

Gaziulusoy A. İ. Boyle C. ( 2013 ) ‘Proposing a Heuristic Reflective Tool for Reviewing Literature in Transdisciplinary Research for Sustainability’ , Journal of Cleaner Production , 48 : 139 – 47 .

Gibbons M. et al.  . ( 1994 ) The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies . London : Sage Publications .

Hellstrom T. ( 2011 ) ‘Homing in on Excellence: Dimensions of Appraisal in Center of Excellence Program Evaluations’ , Evaluation , 17 / 2 : 117 – 31 .

Hellstrom T. . ( 2012 ) ‘Epistemic Capacity in Research Environments: A Framework for Process Evaluation’ , Prometheus , 30 / 4 : 395 – 409 .

Hemlin S. Rasmussen S. B . ( 2006 ) ‘The Shift in Academic Quality Control’ , Science, Technology & Human Values , 31 / 2 : 173 – 98 .

Hessels L. K. Van Lente H. ( 2008 ) ‘Re-thinking New Knowledge Production: A Literature Review and a Research Agenda’ , Research Policy , 37 / 4 , 740 – 60 .

Huutoniemi K. ( 2010 ) ‘Evaluating Interdisciplinary Research’ , in Frodeman R. Klein J. T. Mitcham C. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity , pp. 309 – 20 . Oxford : Oxford University Press .

de Jong S. P. L. et al.  . ( 2011 ) ‘Evaluation of Research in Context: An Approach and Two Cases’ , Research Evaluation , 20 / 1 : 61 – 72 .

Jahn T. Keil F. ( 2015 ) ‘An Actor-Specific Guideline for Quality Assurance in Transdisciplinary Research’ , Futures , 65 : 195 – 208 .

Kates R. ( 2000 ) ‘Sustainability Science’ , World Academies Conference Transition to Sustainability in the 21st Century 5/18/00 , Tokyo, Japan .

Klein J. T . ( 2006 ) ‘Afterword: The Emergent Literature on Interdisciplinary and Transdisciplinary Research Evaluation’ , Research Evaluation , 15 / 1 : 75 – 80 .

Klein J. T . ( 2008 ) ‘Evaluation of Interdisciplinary and Transdisciplinary Research: A Literature Review’ , American Journal of Preventive Medicine , 35 / 2 Supplment S116–23. DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2008.05.010

Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, Association of Universities in the Netherlands, Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (KNAW) . ( 2009 ) Standard Evaluation Protocol 2009-2015: Protocol for Research Assessment in the Netherlands . Netherlands : KNAW . < www.knaw.nl/sep >

Komiyama H. Takeuchi K. ( 2006 ) ‘Sustainability Science: Building a New Discipline’ , Sustainability Science , 1 : 1 – 6 .

Lahtinen E. et al.  . ( 2005 ) ‘The Development of Quality Criteria For Research: A Finnish approach’ , Health Promotion International , 20 / 3 : 306 – 15 .

Lang D. J. et al.  . ( 2012 ) ‘Transdisciplinary Research in Sustainability Science: Practice , Principles , and Challenges’, Sustainability Science , 7 / S1 : 25 – 43 .

Lincoln Y. S . ( 1995 ) ‘Emerging Criteria for Quality in Qualitative and Interpretive Research’ , Qualitative Inquiry , 1 / 3 : 275 – 89 .

Mayne J. Stern E. ( 2013 ) Impact Evaluation of Natural Resource Management Research Programs: A Broader View . Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, Canberra .

Meyrick J . ( 2006 ) ‘What is Good Qualitative Research? A First Step Towards a Comprehensive Approach to Judging Rigour/Quality’ , Journal of Health Psychology , 11 / 5 : 799 – 808 .

Mitchell C. A. Willetts J. R. ( 2009 ) ‘Quality Criteria for Inter and Trans - Disciplinary Doctoral Research Outcomes’ , in Prepared for ALTC Fellowship: Zen and the Art of Transdisciplinary Postgraduate Studies ., Sydney : Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology .

Morrow S. L . ( 2005 ) ‘Quality and Trustworthiness in Qualitative Research in Counseling Psychology’ , Journal of Counseling Psychology , 52 / 2 : 250 – 60 .

Nowotny H. Scott P. Gibbons M. ( 2001 ) Re-Thinking Science . Cambridge : Polity .

Nowotny H. Scott P. Gibbons M. . ( 2003 ) ‘‘Mode 2’ Revisited: The New Production of Knowledge’ , Minerva , 41 : 179 – 94 .

Öberg G . ( 2008 ) ‘Facilitating Interdisciplinary Work: Using Quality Assessment to Create Common Ground’ , Higher Education , 57 / 4 : 405 – 15 .

Ozga J . ( 2007 ) ‘Co - production of Quality in the Applied Education Research Scheme’ , Research Papers in Education , 22 / 2 : 169 – 81 .

Ozga J . ( 2008 ) ‘Governing Knowledge: research steering and research quality’ , European Educational Research Journal , 7 / 3 : 261 – 272 .

OECD ( 2012 ) Frascati Manual 6th ed. < http://www.oecd.org/innovation/inno/frascatimanualproposedstandardpracticeforsurveysonresearchandexperimentaldevelopment6thedition >

Overseas Development Institute (ODI) ( 2004 ) ‘Bridging Research and Policy in International Development: An Analytical and Practical Framework’, ODI Briefing Paper. < http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/198.pdf >

Overseas Development Institute (ODI) . ( 2012 ) RAPID Outcome Assessment Guide . < http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/7815.pdf >

Pullin A. S. Stewart G. B. ( 2006 ) ‘Guidelines for Systematic Review in Conservation and Environmental Management’ , Conservation Biology , 20 / 6 : 1647 – 56 .

Research Excellence Framework (REF) . ( 2011 ) Research Excellence Framework 2014: Assessment Framework and Guidance on Submissions. Reference REF 02.2011. UK: REF. < http://www.ref.ac.uk/pubs/2011-02/ >

Scott A . ( 2007 ) ‘Peer Review and the Relevance of Science’ , Futures , 39 / 7 : 827 – 45 .

Spaapen J. Dijstelbloem H. Wamelink F. ( 2007 ) Evaluating Research in Context: A Method for Comprehensive Assessment . Netherlands: Consultative Committee of Sector Councils for Research and Development. < http://www.qs.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/qualitaetssicherung/PDF/Weitere_Aktivit%C3%A4ten/Eric.pdf >

Spaapen J. Van Drooge L. ( 2011 ) ‘Introducing “Productive Interactions” in Social Impact Assessment’ , Research Evaluation , 20 : 211 – 18 .

Stige B. Malterud K. Midtgarden T. ( 2009 ) ‘Toward an Agenda for Evaluation of Qualitative Research’ , Qualitative Health Research , 19 / 10 : 1504 – 16 .

td-net ( 2014 ) td-net. < www.transdisciplinarity.ch/e/Bibliography/new.php >

Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) . ( 2012 ) Performance-based Research Fund: Quality Evaluation Guidelines 2012. New Zealand: TEC. < http://www.tec.govt.nz/Documents/Publications/PBRF-Quality-Evaluation-Guidelines-2012.pdf >

Tijssen R. J. W. ( 2003 ) ‘Quality Assurance: Scoreboards of Research Excellence’ , Research Evaluation , 12 : 91 – 103 .

White H. Phillips D. ( 2012 ) ‘Addressing Attribution of Cause and Effect in Small n Impact Evaluations: Towards an Integrated Framework’. Working Paper 15. New Delhi: International Initiative for Impact Evaluation .

Wickson F. Carew A. ( 2014 ) ‘Quality Criteria and Indicators for Responsible Research and Innovation: Learning from Transdisciplinarity’ , Journal of Responsible Innovation , 1 / 3 : 254 – 73 .

Wickson F. Carew A. Russell A. W. ( 2006 ) ‘Transdisciplinary Research: Characteristics, Quandaries and Quality,’ Futures , 38 / 9 : 1046 – 59

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1471-5449
• Print ISSN 0958-2029
• Copyright © 2024 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.

Child Care and Early Education Research Connections

Assessing research quality.

This page presents information and tools to help evaluate the quality of a research study, as well as information on the ethics of research.

The quality of social science and policy research can vary considerably. It is important that consumers of research keep this in mind when reading the findings from a research study or when considering whether or not to use data from a research study for secondary analysis.

Announcements

Find announcements, including conferences and meetings, Research Connections newsletters, opportunities, and more.

Search Resources

Search all resources in the Research Connections Library.

Explore Our Topics

Research Connections' resources are organized into topical categories and subcategories.

Key Questions to Ask

This section outlines key questions to ask in assessing the quality of research.

Research Assessment Tools

This section provides resources related to quantitative and qualitative assessment tools.

Ethics of Research

This section provides an overview of three basic ethical principles.

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

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer
• QuestionPro

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

Home Market Research

Research Reports: Definition and How to Write Them

Reports are usually spread across a vast horizon of topics but are focused on communicating information about a particular topic and a niche target market. The primary motive of research reports is to convey integral details about a study for marketers to consider while designing new strategies.

Certain events, facts, and other information based on incidents need to be relayed to the people in charge, and creating research reports is the most effective communication tool. Ideal research reports are extremely accurate in the offered information with a clear objective and conclusion. These reports should have a clean and structured format to relay information effectively.

What are Research Reports?

Research reports are recorded data prepared by researchers or statisticians after analyzing the information gathered by conducting organized research, typically in the form of surveys or qualitative methods .

A research report is a reliable source to recount details about a conducted research. It is most often considered to be a true testimony of all the work done to garner specificities of research.

The various sections of a research report are:

• Background/Introduction
• Implemented Methods
• Results based on Analysis
• Deliberation

Learn more: Quantitative Research

Components of Research Reports

Research is imperative for launching a new product/service or a new feature. The markets today are extremely volatile and competitive due to new entrants every day who may or may not provide effective products. An organization needs to make the right decisions at the right time to be relevant in such a market with updated products that suffice customer demands.

The details of a research report may change with the purpose of research but the main components of a report will remain constant. The research approach of the market researcher also influences the style of writing reports. Here are seven main components of a productive research report:

• Research Report Summary: The entire objective along with the overview of research are to be included in a summary which is a couple of paragraphs in length. All the multiple components of the research are explained in brief under the report summary.  It should be interesting enough to capture all the key elements of the report.
• Research Introduction: There always is a primary goal that the researcher is trying to achieve through a report. In the introduction section, he/she can cover answers related to this goal and establish a thesis which will be included to strive and answer it in detail.  This section should answer an integral question: “What is the current situation of the goal?”.  After the research design was conducted, did the organization conclude the goal successfully or they are still a work in progress –  provide such details in the introduction part of the research report.
• Research Methodology: This is the most important section of the report where all the important information lies. The readers can gain data for the topic along with analyzing the quality of provided content and the research can also be approved by other market researchers . Thus, this section needs to be highly informative with each aspect of research discussed in detail.  Information needs to be expressed in chronological order according to its priority and importance. Researchers should include references in case they gained information from existing techniques.
• Research Results: A short description of the results along with calculations conducted to achieve the goal will form this section of results. Usually, the exposition after data analysis is carried out in the discussion part of the report.

Learn more: Quantitative Data

• Research Discussion: The results are discussed in extreme detail in this section along with a comparative analysis of reports that could probably exist in the same domain. Any abnormality uncovered during research will be deliberated in the discussion section.  While writing research reports, the researcher will have to connect the dots on how the results will be applicable in the real world.
• Research References and Conclusion: Conclude all the research findings along with mentioning each and every author, article or any content piece from where references were taken.

Learn more: Qualitative Observation

15 Tips for Writing Research Reports

Writing research reports in the manner can lead to all the efforts going down the drain. Here are 15 tips for writing impactful research reports:

• Prepare the context before starting to write and start from the basics:  This was always taught to us in school – be well-prepared before taking a plunge into new topics. The order of survey questions might not be the ideal or most effective order for writing research reports. The idea is to start with a broader topic and work towards a more specific one and focus on a conclusion or support, which a research should support with the facts.  The most difficult thing to do in reporting, without a doubt is to start. Start with the title, the introduction, then document the first discoveries and continue from that. Once the marketers have the information well documented, they can write a general conclusion.
• Keep the target audience in mind while selecting a format that is clear, logical and obvious to them:  Will the research reports be presented to decision makers or other researchers? What are the general perceptions around that topic? This requires more care and diligence. A researcher will need a significant amount of information to start writing the research report. Be consistent with the wording, the numbering of the annexes and so on. Follow the approved format of the company for the delivery of research reports and demonstrate the integrity of the project with the objectives of the company.
• Have a clear research objective: A researcher should read the entire proposal again, and make sure that the data they provide contributes to the objectives that were raised from the beginning. Remember that speculations are for conversations, not for research reports, if a researcher speculates, they directly question their own research.
• Establish a working model:  Each study must have an internal logic, which will have to be established in the report and in the evidence. The researchers’ worst nightmare is to be required to write research reports and realize that key questions were not included.

Learn more: Quantitative Observation

• Gather all the information about the research topic. Who are the competitors of our customers? Talk to other researchers who have studied the subject of research, know the language of the industry. Misuse of the terms can discourage the readers of research reports from reading further.
• Read aloud while writing. While reading the report, if the researcher hears something inappropriate, for example, if they stumble over the words when reading them, surely the reader will too. If the researcher can’t put an idea in a single sentence, then it is very long and they must change it so that the idea is clear to everyone.
• Check grammar and spelling. Without a doubt, good practices help to understand the report. Use verbs in the present tense. Consider using the present tense, which makes the results sound more immediate. Find new words and other ways of saying things. Have fun with the language whenever possible.
• Discuss only the discoveries that are significant. If some data are not really significant, do not mention them. Remember that not everything is truly important or essential within research reports.

Learn more: Qualitative Data

• Try and stick to the survey questions. For example, do not say that the people surveyed “were worried” about an research issue , when there are different degrees of concern.
• The graphs must be clear enough so that they understand themselves. Do not let graphs lead the reader to make mistakes: give them a title, include the indications, the size of the sample, and the correct wording of the question.
• Be clear with messages. A researcher should always write every section of the report with an accuracy of details and language.
• Be creative with titles – Particularly in segmentation studies choose names “that give life to research”. Such names can survive for a long time after the initial investigation.
• Create an effective conclusion: The conclusion in the research reports is the most difficult to write, but it is an incredible opportunity to excel. Make a precise summary. Sometimes it helps to start the conclusion with something specific, then it describes the most important part of the study, and finally, it provides the implications of the conclusions.
• Get a couple more pair of eyes to read the report. Writers have trouble detecting their own mistakes. But they are responsible for what is presented. Ensure it has been approved by colleagues or friends before sending the find draft out.

Learn more: Market Research and Analysis

MORE LIKE THIS

The Best Email Survey Tool to Boost Your Feedback Game

May 7, 2024

Top 10 Employee Engagement Survey Tools

Top 20 Employee Engagement Software Solutions

May 3, 2024

15 Best Customer Experience Software of 2024

May 2, 2024

Other categories

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

• Cookies & Privacy
• GETTING STARTED
• Introduction
• FUNDAMENTALS
• Acknowledgements
• Research questions & hypotheses
• Concepts, constructs & variables
• Research limitations
• Getting started
• Sampling Strategy
• Research Quality
• Research Ethics
• Data Analysis

Research quality

All research has limitations , which negatively impact upon the quality of the findings you arrive at from your data analysis . This is the case whether you are an undergraduate or master?s level student doing a dissertation, a doctoral student, or a seasoned academic researcher. Quite simply, the better the research quality of your dissertation, (a) the fewer problems you will experience when carrying out your dissertation research, (b) the less time you will need to write up the Research Limitations section of your Conclusions chapter (i.e., Chapter Five: Conclusions ), and (c) the greater the likelihood of a high mark. Reducing such limitations involves (a) understanding the types of research limitation you may face when doing a dissertation, (b) anticipating what these will be in your dissertation, and (c) avoiding them becoming a reality (where possible).

Qualitative research designs are generally assessed in terms of their credibility , confirmability , dependability and transferability , amongst other factors. However, the research quality of quantitative research designs is determined in terms of their internal validity , external validity , construct validity , reliability and objectivity . In the article below, we also discuss content validity , convergent and divergent validity , and criterion validity ( concurrent and predictive validity ) because these are ways of assess the construct validity of the measurement procedures/research methods you used in your dissertation. In addition, since many undergraduate (and even master?s students) sometimes use little more than face validity , we discuss this also.

You will notice from the articles below that we focus on factors that are used to assess research quality in quantitative research designs. However, we plan to introduce guides to assess research quality in qualitative research designs in the not too distant future. If you would like to know when these guides become available, please leave feedback .

• Internal validity
• External validity
• Extraneous and confounding variables
• Construct validity: Getting started
• Convergent and divergent validity
• Content validity
• Criterion validity (concurrent and predictive validity)
• Face validity
• Reliability in research

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

CMS Newsroom

Search cms.gov.

• Physician Fee Schedule
• Local Coverage Determination
• Medically Unlikely Edits

Data & Reports

All CMS Innovation Center Models are rigorously evaluated, and the CMS Innovation Center makes some model data available to researchers and other model data available publicly. Learn how to access model data and evaluation reports.

Get Model Data

CMMI makes model data available to ensure transparency and support external research and learning.

• Access requires registration with associated fees.
• Additional models (such as Next Generation ACO, Comprehensive ESRD Care, Pioneer ACO, and Million Hearts), may also be available by searching ResDAC directly .
• Public Use Files on models are available through data.cms.gov (search by model name or ‘innovation’).
• Individual CMMI model pages may also contain data ( search models ).

View Evaluation Reports

Find evaluation reports for CMMI models by browsing or searching below.

Get more information about how CMMI conducts model evaluations , including the difference between model participant financial results and model evaluation spending results.

Additional Information

• HealthData.gov A public resource designed to bring together high-value datasets, tools, and applications using data about health and health care to support your need for better knowledge and to help you to solve problems. These datasets and tools have been gathered from agencies across the Federal government with the goal of improving health for all Americans. expand Right Caret Read more about HealthData.gov
• CMS Data Compendium The CMS Office of Information Products and Data Analytics produces an annual CMS Data Compendium to provide key statistics about CMS programs and national health care expenditures. The CMS Data Compendium contains historic, current, and projected data on Medicare enrollment and Medicaid recipients, expenditures, and utilization. Data pertaining to budget, administrative and operating costs, individual income, financing, and health care providers and suppliers are also included. National health expenditure data not specific to the Medicare or Medicaid programs is also included making the CMS Data Compendium one of the most comprehensive sources of information available on U.S. health care finance. This CMS report is published annually in electronic form and is available for each year from 2002 through present. expand Right Caret Read more about CMS Data Compendium

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

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.

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation

Feasibility of Calculating Measures to Monitor Quality Performance of Behavioral Health Programs

The calculation of behavioral health quality measures at the clinic level holds great promise for monitoring clinic performance over time, and for providing information for clinics to use to revise their processes and procedures to improve their performance. This report describes a novel process of testing the feasibility of using the Transformed Medicaid Statistical Information System Analytic Files data to calculate behavioral health quality measures at the clinic level. Results indicated that calculating reliable, valid behavioral health quality measures at the organization level was feasible for most organizations and years in all states included in this analysis, but that calculating clinic-level measures was not feasible in many cases. These findings highlight the potential utility of monitoring behavioral health organizations’ performance on quality measures over time and highlight the need for states to develop methods to identify behavioral health clinics in federal Medicaid data to enable these kinds of analyses to the clinic level as well.

This research was conducted under contract between HHS/ASPE’s Office of Behavioral Health, Disability, and Aging Policy (BHDAP) and Mathematica Policy Research. Additional research in this area is available at the ASPE Behavioral Health page .

*This content is in the process of Section 508 review. If you need immediate assistance accessing this content, please submit a request to Brenda Veazey, [email protected] . Content will be updated pending the outcome of the Section 508 review.

Available Reports:

• Feasibility of Calculating Measures to Monitor Quality Performance of Behavioral Health Programs (calculating-measures-quality-performance)

An official website of the Department of Health and Human Services

Browse Topics

Priority populations.

• Children/Adolescents
• Racial/Ethnic Minorities
• Rural/Inner-City Residents
• Special Healthcare Needs
• Clinicians & Providers
• Data & Measures
• Digital Healthcare Research
• Education & Training
• Hospitals & Health Systems
• Prevention & Chronic Care
• Quality & Patient Safety

Publications & Products

• AHRQ Publishing and Communications Guidelines
• Search Publications

Research Findings & Reports

• Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) Reports
• Fact Sheets
• Grantee Final Reports: Patient Safety
• Making Healthcare Safer Report
• National Healthcare Quality and Disparities Reports
• Technology Assessment Program
• AHRQ Research Studies

National Healthcare Quality and Disparities Report

Latest available findings on quality of and access to health care

• Data Infographics
• Data Visualizations
• Data Innovations
• All-Payer Claims Database
• Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP)
• Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS)
• AHRQ Quality Indicator Tools for Data Analytics
• State Snapshots
• United States Health Information Knowledgebase (USHIK)
• Data Sources Available from AHRQ

Funding & Grants

Notice of funding opportunities, research policies.

• Notice of Funding Opportunity Guidance
• AHRQ Grants Policy Notices
• AHRQ Informed Consent & Authorization Toolkit for Minimal Risk Research
• HHS Grants Policy Statement
• Federal Regulations & Authorities
• Federal Register Notices
• AHRQ Public Access Policy
• Protection of Human Subjects

Funding Priorities

• Special Emphasis Notices
• Staff Contacts

Training & Education Funding

Grant application, review & award process.

• Grant Application Basics
• Application Forms
• Application Deadlines & Important Dates
• AHRQ Tips for Grant Applicants
• Grant Mechanisms & Descriptions
• Application Receipt & Review
• Study Sections for Scientific Peer Review
• Award Process

Post-Award Grant Management

• AHRQ Grantee Profiles
• Getting Recognition for Your AHRQ-Funded Study
• Grants by State
• No-Cost Extensions (NCEs)

AHRQ Grants by State

Searchable database of AHRQ Grants

AHRQ Projects funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Trust Fund.

• Press Releases
• AHRQ Social Media
• Impact Case Studies
• AHRQ News Now
• AHRQ Research Summit on Diagnostic Safety
• AHRQ Research Summit on Learning Health Systems
• National Advisory Council Meetings
• AHRQ Research Conferences
• AHRQ's 35th Anniversary
• Mission and Budget
• AHRQ's Core Competencies
• National Advisory Council
• Careers at AHRQ
• Maps and Directions
• Other AHRQ Web Sites
• Other HHS Agencies
• Testimonials

Organization & Contacts

• Centers and Offices
• Organization Chart
• Key Contacts

• About the National Center
• Research Initiatives
• Data Resources
• Tools and Resources
• Research Communities
• Primary Care Research Videos
• Estimating the Costs of Primary Care Transformation
• IMPaCT Grants Catalog of Tools
• IMPaCT Grants Report
• Transforming Primary Care Grants Bibliography
• Transforming Primary Care Findings
• 30-Year Investment in Primary Care Research
• Investments in Primary Care Research for 2021 and 2022
• Funding Opportunities
• About This Report

Table of Contents

• Message from the Acting Director of AHRQ's National Center for Excellence in Primary Care Research
• 1. Background on AHRQ's National Center for Excellence in Primary Care Research
• 2. Overview of AHRQ's Recent Investments in Primary Care Research
• 3. Future Directions for NCEPCR
• 4. AHRQ's Recent Primary Care Grants and Resources
• Practice and Quality Improvement
• Healthcare Systems and Infrastructure
• Digital Healthcare
• Person-Centered Care
• Behavioral Health and Substance Use Disorders
• Health Equity
• Primary Care Workforce
• Public Health and Community Integration
• Additional Topic Areas
• Patient Safety
• 5. Appendix A: Approach and Methods
• 6. Appendix B: Other AHRQ Programs Relevant for Primary Care Research Audiences
• 7.  Appendix C: Additional Tables by Topic Area
• 8. Appendix D: Grant Summaries
• P1: Does A New Care Model Improve Care for Patients with Acute Kidney Injury After Hospital Discharge?
• P2: Using an Electronic Screening Tool to Identify Adolescents at Risk for STIs
• P3: Using Veterans Health Administration Data to Understand How Primary Care Team Configuration and Stability Impact Quality
• P4: Impacts of Changes in Payment Policy on Access to Primary Care for People with Lower Incomes
• P5: Assessing the Impact of the Affordable Care Act on Reproductive Health Care
• P6: Understanding the Combined Impact of Healthcare Delivery and Payment Reform Models
• P7: Understanding the Relationship Between Proximity and Utilization of Patient-Centered Medical Homes
• P8: Do Telemedicine Visits Provide Similar Quality and Safety as In-Person Visits?
• P9: Using a Mobile Health Tool to Improve Patient-Centered Care for Patients with Type 2 Diabetes
• P10: Improving Clinical-Community Linkages in Primary Care for Patients with Multiple Chronic Conditions
• P11: Identifying Ways to Improve Preventive Care for Children
• P12: Using a Televideo-based Training Model for Providers to Expand Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder in Rural New Mexico
• P13: Developing a Prediction Model to Identify Health Clinics at High-Risk for Clinician Burnout
• P14: Is Telehealth Effective for Providing Nurse-Led Healthcare to Vulnerable Populations in Colorado?
• Emerging Research Spotlights
• S1: Developing a Dashboard To Help Clinical Teams Prioritize and Manage Vulnerable Patients
• S2: Using EHR-Based Simulations to Reduce Diagnostic Errors in Ambulatory Care Settings
• S3: Implementing and Evaluating the Use of a Mobile Health Tool to Help Address Medication Non-Adherence
• S4: Does Support for CDS Implementation Increase the Use of Patient-Centered Care To Treat Chronic Pain in Primary Care
• S5: Developing a Mobile Tool to Improve Self-Care and Shared Decision-Making for Patients with Chronic Conditions
• S6: Can an Electronic Shared Decision-Making Tool Increase the Uptake of Collaborative Care...
• S7: Identifying How to Improve Health Outcomes for Children in Foster Care
• S8: Understanding How Nurse Practitioners Increase Access to Primary Care
• S9: Using Integrated Social and Medical Risk Data Dashboards To Improve Chronic Disease Management and Prevention
• S10: Enhancing a Mobile Health App for Patient Asthma Symptom Monitoring During the COVID-19 Pandemic
• 9. References

This report aims to showcase the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's (AHRQ's) broad and deep investments in primary care research and introduce AHRQ's National Center for Excellence in Primary Care Research (NCEPCR). To do this, we provide an overview across AHRQ's primary care grants and contracts, highlight studies with potential to impact the primary care field, and share resources that may be useful for researchers and clinicians. In addition, we discuss existing gaps in AHRQ's investments and potential future areas of focus for NCEPCR.

In this report we define "primary care research" as that which meets at least one of the following criteria:

• is conducted in a primary care setting;
• is about primary care patients, clinicians, or teams;
• is focused on a topic integral to the primary care setting; or
• has clear implications for the delivery of primary care.

Information about the methods used to develop this report are included in Appendix A.

How To Navigate the Report

The content of this report is organized into the following sections:

• Background on AHRQ's National Center for Excellence in Primary Care Research This section introduces NCEPCR and shares the center's goals and vision. We also share some history of AHRQ’s primary care research investments.
• Overview of AHRQ’s Recent Investments in Primary Care Research This section includes a high-level analysis of AHRQ's portfolio of primary care research in 2021 and 2022, including information about the funding committed to grants and contracts during this period. Information about those investments includes the types of grants, types of organizations that received the grant funding, and where those organizations are located.
• Future Directions for NCEPCR In this section, we discuss NCEPCR’s plans for a primary care research agenda and share feedback and suggestions from primary care stakeholders on future directions for NCEPCR, including a discussion of identified gaps in AHRQ’s current funding.
• AHRQ's Recent Primary Care Grants and Resources This section provides more detailed information about AHRQ's primary care research related grants and resources, organized into key topic areas and additional topic areas. Each topic area includes: an introduction to the topic, information about each grant that fits primarily in the topic area, links to more in-depth summaries for a few grants, and information about relevant AHRQ initiatives and resources.

The key topic areas are:

• Practice and Quality improvement
• Public Health and Community integration

The additional topic areas are:

The appendices include additional information to supplement the main body of this report.

• Appendix A: Approach and Methods describes the methods we used to develop this report, including how the content was compiled and analyzed.
• Appendix B: Other AHRQ Programs Relevant for Primary Care Research Audiences  includes information about additional AHRQ investments, initiatives, and resources that may be of interest to primary care researchers and clinicians. This includes information about the Effective Health Care (EHC) Program, and the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).
• Appendix C: Additional Tables by Topic Area compiles lists of grants described throughout this report, organized by the following themes: COVID-19, Clinical Decision Support, Multiple Chronic Conditions, Opioids, Patient Safety, Telehealth, and Women's Health/Reproductive Health.
• Appendix D: Grant Summaries includes short summaries highlighting potentially high impact grants, including both Research Profiles (for studies with at least preliminary findings) and Emerging Research Spotlights (which do not yet have findings), which are linked to from throughout the report.

Internet Citation: About This Report. Content last reviewed March 2024. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. https://www.ahrq.gov/ncepcr/reports/2024-annual-report/about-this-report.html