research manual methodology

Reference management. Clean and simple.

What is research methodology?

The basics of research methodology

Why do you need a research methodology, what needs to be included, why do you need to document your research method, what are the different types of research instruments, qualitative / quantitative / mixed research methodologies, how do you choose the best research methodology for you, frequently asked questions about research methodology, related articles.

When you’re working on your first piece of academic research, there are many different things to focus on, and it can be overwhelming to stay on top of everything. This is especially true of budding or inexperienced researchers.

If you’ve never put together a research proposal before or find yourself in a position where you need to explain your research methodology decisions, there are a few things you need to be aware of.

Once you understand the ins and outs, handling academic research in the future will be less intimidating. We break down the basics below:

A research methodology encompasses the way in which you intend to carry out your research. This includes how you plan to tackle things like collection methods, statistical analysis, participant observations, and more.

You can think of your research methodology as being a formula. One part will be how you plan on putting your research into practice, and another will be why you feel this is the best way to approach it. Your research methodology is ultimately a methodological and systematic plan to resolve your research problem.

In short, you are explaining how you will take your idea and turn it into a study, which in turn will produce valid and reliable results that are in accordance with the aims and objectives of your research. This is true whether your paper plans to make use of qualitative methods or quantitative methods.

The purpose of a research methodology is to explain the reasoning behind your approach to your research - you'll need to support your collection methods, methods of analysis, and other key points of your work.

Think of it like writing a plan or an outline for you what you intend to do.

When carrying out research, it can be easy to go off-track or depart from your standard methodology.

Tip: Having a methodology keeps you accountable and on track with your original aims and objectives, and gives you a suitable and sound plan to keep your project manageable, smooth, and effective.

With all that said, how do you write out your standard approach to a research methodology?

As a general plan, your methodology should include the following information:

Your research method. You need to state whether you plan to use quantitative analysis, qualitative analysis, or mixed-method research methods. This will often be determined by what you hope to achieve with your research.
Explain your reasoning. Why are you taking this methodological approach? Why is this particular methodology the best way to answer your research problem and achieve your objectives?
Explain your instruments. This will mainly be about your collection methods. There are varying instruments to use such as interviews, physical surveys, questionnaires, for example. Your methodology will need to detail your reasoning in choosing a particular instrument for your research.
What will you do with your results? How are you going to analyze the data once you have gathered it?
Advise your reader. If there is anything in your research methodology that your reader might be unfamiliar with, you should explain it in more detail. For example, you should give any background information to your methods that might be relevant or provide your reasoning if you are conducting your research in a non-standard way.
How will your sampling process go? What will your sampling procedure be and why? For example, if you will collect data by carrying out semi-structured or unstructured interviews, how will you choose your interviewees and how will you conduct the interviews themselves?
Any practical limitations? You should discuss any limitations you foresee being an issue when you’re carrying out your research.

In any dissertation, thesis, or academic journal, you will always find a chapter dedicated to explaining the research methodology of the person who carried out the study, also referred to as the methodology section of the work.

A good research methodology will explain what you are going to do and why, while a poor methodology will lead to a messy or disorganized approach.

You should also be able to justify in this section your reasoning for why you intend to carry out your research in a particular way, especially if it might be a particularly unique method.

Having a sound methodology in place can also help you with the following:

When another researcher at a later date wishes to try and replicate your research, they will need your explanations and guidelines.
In the event that you receive any criticism or questioning on the research you carried out at a later point, you will be able to refer back to it and succinctly explain the how and why of your approach.
It provides you with a plan to follow throughout your research. When you are drafting your methodology approach, you need to be sure that the method you are using is the right one for your goal. This will help you with both explaining and understanding your method.
It affords you the opportunity to document from the outset what you intend to achieve with your research, from start to finish.

A research instrument is a tool you will use to help you collect, measure and analyze the data you use as part of your research.

The choice of research instrument will usually be yours to make as the researcher and will be whichever best suits your methodology.

There are many different research instruments you can use in collecting data for your research.

Generally, they can be grouped as follows:

Interviews (either as a group or one-on-one). You can carry out interviews in many different ways. For example, your interview can be structured, semi-structured, or unstructured. The difference between them is how formal the set of questions is that is asked of the interviewee. In a group interview, you may choose to ask the interviewees to give you their opinions or perceptions on certain topics.
Surveys (online or in-person). In survey research, you are posing questions in which you ask for a response from the person taking the survey. You may wish to have either free-answer questions such as essay-style questions, or you may wish to use closed questions such as multiple choice. You may even wish to make the survey a mixture of both.
Focus Groups. Similar to the group interview above, you may wish to ask a focus group to discuss a particular topic or opinion while you make a note of the answers given.
Observations. This is a good research instrument to use if you are looking into human behaviors. Different ways of researching this include studying the spontaneous behavior of participants in their everyday life, or something more structured. A structured observation is research conducted at a set time and place where researchers observe behavior as planned and agreed upon with participants.

These are the most common ways of carrying out research, but it is really dependent on your needs as a researcher and what approach you think is best to take.

It is also possible to combine a number of research instruments if this is necessary and appropriate in answering your research problem.

There are three different types of methodologies, and they are distinguished by whether they focus on words, numbers, or both.

➡️ Want to learn more about the differences between qualitative and quantitative research, and how to use both methods? Check out our guide for that!

If you've done your due diligence, you'll have an idea of which methodology approach is best suited to your research.

It’s likely that you will have carried out considerable reading and homework before you reach this point and you may have taken inspiration from other similar studies that have yielded good results.

Still, it is important to consider different options before setting your research in stone. Exploring different options available will help you to explain why the choice you ultimately make is preferable to other methods.

If proving your research problem requires you to gather large volumes of numerical data to test hypotheses, a quantitative research method is likely to provide you with the most usable results.

If instead you’re looking to try and learn more about people, and their perception of events, your methodology is more exploratory in nature and would therefore probably be better served using a qualitative research methodology.

It helps to always bring things back to the question: what do I want to achieve with my research?

Once you have conducted your research, you need to analyze it. Here are some helpful guides for qualitative data analysis:

➡️ How to do a content analysis

➡️ How to do a thematic analysis

➡️ How to do a rhetorical analysis

Research methodology refers to the techniques used to find and analyze information for a study, ensuring that the results are valid, reliable and that they address the research objective.

Data can typically be organized into four different categories or methods: observational, experimental, simulation, and derived.

Writing a methodology section is a process of introducing your methods and instruments, discussing your analysis, providing more background information, addressing your research limitations, and more.

Your research methodology section will need a clear research question and proposed research approach. You'll need to add a background, introduce your research question, write your methodology and add the works you cited during your data collecting phase.

The research methodology section of your study will indicate how valid your findings are and how well-informed your paper is. It also assists future researchers planning to use the same methodology, who want to cite your study or replicate it.

Social Science Research: Principles, Methods and Practices - (Revised edition)

(43 reviews)

Anol Bhattacherjee, University of South Florida

ISBN 13: 9781475146127

Publisher: University of Southern Queensland

Language: English

Formats Available

Conditions of use.

Learn more about reviews.

Reviewed by Kelle DeBoth Foust, Associate Professor, Cleveland State University on 6/22/23

Comprehensiveness rating: 5 see less

The text really seems to do as it claims; provides the basic overview of the research material needed for graduate students without a lot of other “fluff.” It’s written very clearly, easy to understand and many figures and charts that enhance learning. It covers the majority of the topics that I need it to cover for OTH 740/Research I, at about the level of detail that the students should be able to digest. In particular, I like the sections on survey research, experimental research and that it covers quantitative and qualitative analyses.

Content Accuracy rating: 4

As far as I can tell reading through it, the content is accurate and unbiased (will be able to review further once actually implemented in the intended course).

Relevance/Longevity rating: 4

The content is current at least regarding how we continue to teach and use it in our field. Some of the references are a little outdated, although not much has changed in this world in recent years. I also recognize I can pull more recent literature in order to make the examples up to date and relevant for my particular students.

Clarity rating: 5

This book is written very clearly. I feel that the diagrams really help to add and make sense of higher level concepts that students may struggle with. Concepts that are challenging are recognized as such within the text, with appropriate examples that enhance clarity (will be able to review further once actually implemented in the intended course)

Consistency rating: 5

Yes, the text appears to be internally consistent in terms of terminology and framework.

Modularity rating: 5

The text is easily and readily divisible into smaller reading sections that can be assigned at different points within the course (i.e., enormous blocks of text without subheadings should be avoided). The text should not be overly self-referential, and should be easily reorganized and realigned with various subunits of a course without presenting much disruption to the reader. – Yes. The division of the content makes sense, and how smaller modules are paired (e.g., qualitative and quantitative analysis paired back to back) is logical to facilitate learning.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 5

The text and chapters are laid out in an order that makes sense and provides good flow and continuity between the concepts and analytical applications. In particular, I like how research is introduced, moving into research design and then analysis all within the same text. Will make this more manageable for students.

Interface rating: 5

The text is free of significant interface issues, including navigation problems, distortion of images/charts, and any other display features that may distract or confuse the reader. – Very well put together, no issues with the interface. I would consider this to be very user/student friendly. In particular, the authors made a point to keep it “short and sweet” so students should not be intimidated by the length of the chapters (which is excellent for helping to convince the students to actually read them).

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

The text contains no grammatical errors. – None detected.

Cultural Relevance rating: 5

The text is not culturally insensitive or offensive in any way. It should make use of examples that are inclusive of a variety of races, ethnicities, and backgrounds. – No offensive content noted, the majority of the examples used do not have cultural significance and therefore the amount of diversity is sufficient.

This review was written based on a preliminary review of the text prior to use and implementation within the intended course. I will update the review if it significantly differs once students have used it for their course study.

Reviewed by Ingrid Carter, Professor, Metropolitan State University of Denver on 4/14/23

The textbook includes many of the important elements of a foundational social science research course. A key element of the course I teach which is not included in the text is how to search for literature to inform the research, how to synthesize... read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 4 see less

Content Accuracy rating: 3

The content appears to be mostly accurate and unbiased. There is a large emphasis on positivist approaches, and more post-positivist and innovative research approaches should be added to the content.

The text is relevant to foundational/introductory social science research courses. As mentioned previously, broader and more diverse perspectives of research are missing.

Clarity rating: 4

The content is presented clearly.

Consistency rating: 4

The text is presented with a consistent framework and format. The variety of frameworks included could be greater, with at minimum a presentation of different research paradigms and ideally with discussion or questions to grapple with related to various research paradigms and approaches.

As the author indicates, the textbook consists of 16 chapters which can be used in a 16-week semester. These can be easily assigned for weekly readings.

The textbook is well-organized.

Interface rating: 4

The interface is relatively clear

No grammatical errors were found in my initial review. I have not yet used the textbook for the course I am teaching, and therefore have not reviewed the textbook page by page nor line by line.

Cultural Relevance rating: 3

More diverse and culturally relevant example to a diverse audience could be embedded. I did not encounter offensive material.

Reviewed by Sanaa Riaz, Associate Professor, Metropolitan State University of Denver on 3/27/23

Comprehensiveness rating: 3 see less

While not meant for advanced graduate and doctoral students, this text is an excellent introductory resource for learning about paradigms in research methods and data analysis and prepares the learner to begin writing a successful research project proposal. The text largely privileges the scientific method and labels diverse social science research methods as such. However, the preparatory considerations in beginning social science research have been discussed. The book contains important terms in bold to guide a beginner reader as well as sample syllabi for incorporating it at the graduate level. However, the text could be made more comprehensive with the inclusion of an effective index and/or glossary.

Content Accuracy rating: 5

The text is a quick guide to considerations and terminologies used in social science research. The content is accurate, error-free and unbiased.

The text provides a basic introduction to research methods in the social sciences. Updates in social science inquiry with respect to social media and popular culture platforms and mixed methods research should be easy to incorporate.

The text has been written from the point of view of a non-expert. It is free of technical jargon and is meant to provide the essentials of social science inquiry and research considerations.

Consistency rating: 3

The text is internally consistent in terms of terminology within a chapter section. However, it is strongly recommended that the framework is revisited for chapters discussing qualitative research methods and approaches. Qualitative data analysis has not been explored in depth and the basic framework for Chapter 13 will need to be substantially expanded to provide for a smoother transition from a discussion on grounded theory to content analysis and hermeneutic analysis and to incorporate information on other analyses undertaken in qualitative research.

Chapters and sections in the text can be easily reorganized and assigned as per needs of the instructor and the course without causing disruption to the reader.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 3

Chapter sections of the book covering qualitative research are not presented in a logical manner. It is highly recommended that the readers are told about the place of exploratory and other research in social science research inquiry, rather than labeling them as scientific research. Moreover, mixed methods and qualitative visual and social media platform research needs to be discussed. The book overall shies away from delving into approaches and methods in non-empirical research in the social sciences.

The text is easy to navigate. All words, sections and tables are easily searchable.

The book is free of grammatical errors.

The text does not contain any culturally insensitive information as there are hardly any research project examples incorporated.

Incorporating examples and case studies across social science disciplines (after introducing the disciplines in which social science research is employed in the first chapter) would allow readers to see the applicability of one social science research approach, method and data analysis over another based on the research project focus.

Reviewed by Cahit Kaya, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, University of Texas Rio Grande Valley on 10/17/22

I LIKE THE FIGURE EXPLAINING RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY ON PAGE 55. read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 2 see less

I LIKE THE FIGURE EXPLAINING RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY ON PAGE 55.

IT SEEMED ACCURATE

Relevance/Longevity rating: 3

IT IS RELEVANT

IT IS CLEAR

IT IS CONSISTENT

Modularity rating: 3

IT NEEDS MORE MODULES

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 2

IT CAN BE OGRANIZED BETTER

YES BUT EVEN THOUGH IT CAN BE IMPROVED

Grammatical Errors rating: 4

I DID NOT SEE IT

MORE CULTURAL DIVERSE EXAMPLES CAN BE GIVEN

Reviewed by Dawn DeVries, Associate Professor, Grand Valley State University on 12/9/21

The text provides a complete summary of the research process. While discussions are brief and concise, the text addresses the main issues and processes providing an overview and general understanding of the research process for social science fields. Two areas could be more in-depth, specifically the IRB discussion and the chapter on surveys. Information provided is accurate and succinct as the author intended, providing a comprehensive overview of the research process.

The content is accurate and presented in an objective manner. There was no perception of bias or conflict that would impact accuracy. The chapters offer a variety of examples, inclusive of a variety of social science fields.

Written in 2012, the information remains relevant with few areas that would ever need to change. The research process and research methods stay fairly consistent with little variation; thus, the text would not need regular updating. Updates, if and when needed, would be easy to implement due to the concise and objective writing and the logical organization of the textbook. One area needing updating (or that instructors would need to supplement) is Chapter 9 on Survey Research. The chapter refers to mail surveys, which in 2021, are almost obsolete. Little is presented or discussed on electronic surveys, survey platforms, or the use of social media in recruitment, survey distribution or every survey completion. Furthermore, there is no mention of the ethical issues related to social media research.

Key terminology is bolded with the definition following, making it easy to identify. Definitions are clear and adequate to facilitate understanding of the concepts and terms. The text presents the research process in a logical and understandable way using scaffolding.

The chapter structure, framework, and style are consistent.

Modularity rating: 4

The chapters provide easily divisible readings of 8-10 pages. The chapters are ordered in a logical fashion and flow easily, yet they could be rearranged to fit instructor preferences for order. Chapters are concise, allowing the combination of multiple chapters for a week’s reading if needed. The text is designed for a 16-week semester, but again, because the chapters are not long, several chapters could be read as one assignment. It would be difficult to reduce chapter readings (say, using only 5 pages of the chapter) because of the conciseness of the information and the shortness of the chapters.

The text is logical and has flow. It starts general (with How to Think Like a Researcher) and builds to specific, more detailed content (Inferential Statistics).

There are no observed problems with the interface of the text. Images used are clear and display without difficulty. No hyperlinks are used.

No observed issues or concerns related to grammar or mechanics.

No concerns about inclusivity or offensiveness. The text is clear and concise, offering a variety of short examples specific to various social science professions.

The text reminds me of my Research Methods textbook from my doctoral program. It addresses the differences between scientific research and social science methods in a clear and concise manner. While it is an overview of the information, it is specific and concise enough for students who need to understand the research process but won’t be engaging in research as their full-time profession. Content is brief in a few areas as mentioned, which will allow the instructor to provide supplemental reading or lecture content specific to the university (i.e., IRB) or to the profession. As the author suggests, certain chapters could be skipped depending on the program. For example, chapters 13 – 15 on statistics could easily be omitted if the program has a research statistics course. A nice add is the sample syllabus for a doctoral program.

Reviewed by David Denton, Associate Professor, Seattle Pacific University on 5/3/21

I use this book with graduate students in education taking an initial course in education research. Dr. Bhattacherjee notes the book is organized for semesters with supplemental readings, as shown by the sample syllabus in the appendix. Nevertheless, I have found the book is excellent in meeting objectives for an introductory course in education research, though it is necessary to add education context and examples. Some of the course objectives I have developed from the textbook include i) distinguishing between questionnaire survey method and interview survey method and ii) summarizing criteria for developing effective questionnaire items, among many others. There are some sections that exceed student knowledge without some background in statistics (e.g. description of factor analysis) but omitting these sections as required reading is easy since there are many subheadings used to segment chapters.

Dr. Bhattacherjee has done an excellent job of clearly communicating the content with accuracy. For example, the textbook distinguishes between qualitative and quantitative analysis (rather than qualitative and quantitative research, an appropriate distinction). The textbook makes other distinctions in a way that helps students comprehend concepts (e.g. survey interview and survey questionnaire). At the same time, the textbook does not over-emphasize research methods or design, which might mislead students to think inflexibly about the topic.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 5

One of the advantages of the book, in my view, is that it will not become obsolete anytime soon. It addresses all major topics of interest for instructors needing to develop student background knowledge in social science research methodology. For example, some topics for which the book provides helpful structure include i) Thinking Like a Researcher, ii) The Research Process, iii) Research Design, iv) and Sampling. In addition, an instructor can easily supplement or provide subject-specific examples where needed since the book is thoroughly segmented by chapter and chapter subheadings.

Dr. Bhattacherjee does a fine job of defining terms concisely. I do not recall use of jargon, or if there are complicated terms, the text provides enough elaboration so that students can at least attain a conceptual understanding. In some instances, definitions are so concise that I find it necessary to elaborate with examples. This, however, is a part of instruction and would be done in any case.

The textbook is highly coherent, in my view. Similar to modularity, consistency is a strength. For example, chapters are grouped into four sections: Introduction to Research, Basics of Empirical Research, Data Collection, and Data Analysis. Further, chapters within major sections are sequential, such as chapters on Science and Scientific Research, followed by Thinking Like a Researchers, followed by The Research Process. In addition, content within chapters is consistent, such as Dr. Bhattacherjee’s logical progression of concepts: empiricism, to positivism, to forms of analysis (qualitative and quantitative), etc

Modularity is one of the clear strengths, again in my view. From a structural perspective, neither the chapters nor subsections are very long because Dr. Bhattacherjee writes concisely. Both chapters and subordinate subsections lend themselves to various kinds of divisions. For example, students in need of supplemental instruction on descriptive statistics, such as content about the normal distribution, can be assigned the subsection on Statistics of Sampling in chapter 8, followed by the subsection on Central tendency in chapter 14. Some non-sequential reading is required if students do not have any background in statistics, but this is not difficult to manage using page numbers or subheadings as reference.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 4

The textbook is well organized. Nevertheless, there are some sections that I found helpful to have students read out of sequence. For example, there is a short section at the end of chapter 5, Scale Reliability and Validity, which is perhaps best read after students cover correlation and normal distribution, dealt with in chapter 14. Again, I did not find it difficult to assign sections out of sequence using either page numbers or chapter subheadings as reference.

The textbook does not have interface issues. Chapter titles are hyperlinked within PDF copies to simplify navigation. Some may judge a few of the images as low resolution, but if this is a defect it is not one that interferes with communicating concepts, which is the purpose of the images.

There are a few minor grammatical errors in the 2nd edition, 2012. For example, on p. 126, Dr. Bhattacherjee notes “five female students” when the Chi-square table appears to show four. This is minor, but if students are new to reading Chi-square tables they may not detect the error and believe interpreting a Chi-square table is different than interpreting a typical data table.

The textbook presents appropriate information without prejudice or unfairness. As mentioned, instructors will likely need to include examples that are specific to their course objectives and student populations. For example, chapter 11. Case Research provides exemplars that focus on business and marketing domains. This seems entirely appropriate given Dr. Bhattacherjee’s research area. Instructors using the text for other domains, such as education research, will be interested in elaborating on concepts using examples specific to the needs of their students.

I greatly appreciate that Dr. Bhattacherjee has shared his book as an Open Textbook.

Reviewed by Elizabeth Moore, Associate Professor, University of Indianapolis on 4/24/21

In Chapter 5 on Research Design there isn't any discussion on how to improve content and statistical conclusion validity. There isn't a discussion of threats associated with the four types of validity. The chapter also does not present how the research design and threats to validity are interconnected. There is a lack of comprehensiveness in the presentation of qualitative research as qualitative research rigor is not addressed.

The content is accurate, error-free, and unbiased. I would like more examples focused on social sciences. Some of the examples are related to business/industry. There are many social science examples that could be used.

Many of the examples should be updated. With everything that is (has been) happening in the U.S. and world, there are many examples that can come from the social sciences. For example, there are several examples that could represent the concept of technostress, especially with many professionals having to move into online environments. Students would be more likely to read assigned chapters and understand the material presented if the examples were relevant to their profession.

The book is clear and has high readability. There are several accessibility issues in the document. This should be checked and fixed. There are 5 issues in the document, 4 in tables, 5 in alternative text, etc. Accessibility is a big issue right now. All documents have to be accessible to all students.

While there is consistency within the textbook, in some topics there is a lock of consistency in how some of the terms and material relate to what is actually used in social science disciplines. For example, in basic social science textbooks in chapters presenting an introduction to measurement of constructs, descriptive statistics that are unfamiliar and rarely used, such as geometric mean and harmonic mean, should not be introduced. This information is usually difficult for novice researchers to understand without adding more advanced descriptive statistics.

It is confusing as to why research validity is in Chapter 5 - Research Design. There is not a discussion of how different research types are affected by different types and threats of research validity. The title of Chapter 7 is misleading. The word "scale" is associated with scale of measurement. It would be better to use designing measurement tools/instruments in the chapter name since the types of validity and reliability discussed are related to creating and developing measurement tools/instruments. I also think Chapter 6 - Measurement of Construction should not come before Chapter 7 - Scale Reliability and Validity since measurement of constructs and scale reliability and validity are related to qualitative research.

I like the organization. It follows the current syllabus I use so it will require very little modifications.

As mentioned below, bookmarks would improve navigation of the pdf file. Also, having links from the table of contents to chapters would be helpful. Including some of the important subsections of the chapters would also improve navigation of the pdf version of the book. Tables and charts are helpful and supplement the text. Use of images would break-up the text.

None were noted.

Cultural Relevance rating: 4

See comments above about the relevancy of the material. While it is important to make sure a book is culturally sensitive and not offensive, it is also important to not ignore what is known about social injustices which are well-documented. Look at the lack of diversity in many professions and organizations, this is important to address.

It would be helpful if bookmarks were placed in the pdf version. While this is a social science textbook, it would be helpful to have subsection in Chapter 4 that introduces at least a couple of the main health behavior theories. These are commonly used by many researchers in social sciences.

Reviewed by Barbara Molargik-Fitch, Adjunct Professor, Trine University on 3/6/21

This textbook provides a nice overview of several topics related to social science specific research. read more

This textbook provides a nice overview of several topics related to social science specific research.

The textbook seems to be accurate and error free.

The text seems to be accurate, relevant, and useful.

The text is organized well and had a professional and academic tone while also understandable.

Text seemed to be internally consistent.

Text is easily divisible to be assigned as different points within the course.

Text is well organized.

The text is free of significant interface issues that would distract or confuse the reader.

I did not see grammatical errors.

I did not see any cultural issues.

I will be using this textbook for one of my classes. I am looking forward to using it. I think it has a lot to offer students looking to develop their research skills.

Reviewed by Kenneth Gentry, Assistant Professor, Radford University on 6/2/20

This text provides a great overview of core concepts relevant to health-science research. An overview of theory, designs, sampling, data collection, data analysis, and ethics are provided. It may be helpful in future editions to add additional content relating to qualitative research (i.e. additional types of designs, as well as how trustworthiness and rigor are addressed [for example, what specific steps can be taken by researchers to address dependability, credibility, confirmability and transferability]).

Information presented appears accurate and unbiased.

While much of the content is 'durable' (not likely to soon become obsolete), the relevance is dependent upon the focus of the instructor/course. For example, if the emphasis of the course will be on quantitative research, then this text is highly relevant, however, if the emphasis is on an equal balance between the traditions of qualitative and quantitative, then this text is slightly less relevant due to the more limited nature of its content in qualitative (in comparison to content on quantitative). That is not to say that this text does not address content relevant to qualitative research, however, it does so with decidedly less depth and breadth than quantitative.

While a subjective interpretation of clarity is highly dependent upon the reader, I found this text to strike a good balance between a scholarly, academic tone, and commonly-understood, easily-relatable descriptions of key concepts. There were times where I wish that the latter had been more so, however, considering the target audience of this text, I feel that the author struck a good balance. Occasionally, there were concepts that I anticipated would require additional clarification (beyond the reading) for my graduate students.

Overall, I found the text to be generally consistent in its approach to the content. Occasionally, there were instances when the flow made sense at the chapter level, however, content might have been spread between chapters (i.e. theory is discussed in Chapters 1, 2 and 4).

This ties in with my comments on consistency. Since some concepts are discussed in more than one place, it might be difficult to identify a single reading for a specific topic ... one might need to assign several readings from more than one chapter. However, having said that, I anticipate that those instances would be infrequent. On the whole, the text demonstrates a fairly good degree of modularity.

At the chapter level (i.e. main topics), and within each chapter, information appears well organized. It is the appearance of content in multiple places that was occasionally problematic for me as I read (i.e. when reading about reliability and validity, I questioned why the author did not discuss the types of reliability and validity ... I later found that content in a subsequent chapter).

Interface rating: 3

While images were viewable, many appeared 'pixelated'/'grainy' (low resolution). This was more of a cosmetic issue, and did not affect the overall interpretation of the image.

Overall, the content was grammatically strong.

Content was not culturally insensitive or offensive.

My sincere thanks to this author, and to the Open Textbook Library and Scholar Commons for this text. I truly appreciate the investment of resources that were invested. I just completed instructing 2 semester courses on research in a graduate health science degree program ... I plan to adopt this text the next time I am rotated into those courses again!

Reviewed by Wendy Bolyard, Clinical Assistant Professor, University of Colorado Denver on 4/30/20

This text presents all the topics, and more, that I cover in my master's-level research and analytic methods course. A glossary would be helpful as students often need to reference basic definitions as they learn these new concepts. I would have... read more

The concepts were presented accurately and often with citations.

The great thing about research methods is that the content ages well (does not change over time). The examples were relevant and should not make the text obsolete. Any instructor should be able to provide current, real-world examples to compare and contrast to those in the text. Although the sample syllabus if for a business class, I did not find the text to be relevant only to business students. The authors uses broad social science illustrations that cross disciplines. This text is definitely relevant to public affairs/public administration.

The text is well-written and provides clear yet concise context.

When students are learning a new language - research methods - they may be confused when definitions vary. Causality is explained with slightly different language which may be misunderstood by students.

One chapter includes a summary section. It would have been helpful to include a summary of key takeaways for each chapter, and perhaps include a list of key terms and definitions (since the text does not include a glossary).

The text follows the linear, systematic research process very well.

The font, size, and spacing varied in some sections. The images were a bit blurred.

A few typos, but otherwise well-written and very clear.

Culturally sensitive with relevant and inclusive cases provided.

I will be adopting this text to supplement other readings assigned in my master's-level research and analytic methods course. I appreciate the clear and helpful context it provides on key concepts that students must understand to become effective researchers. The text is comprehensive yet concise and would not overwhelm students.

Reviewed by Valerie Young, Associate Professor, Hanover College on 12/19/19

I really appreciate the broad focus and examples from social science fields. As a fellow social scientist from a high growth area (communication studies), I would appreciate even more breadth! I supplement with many field-specific resources, so this critique is very minor. An appropriate place and reference might be within the first chapter, under the heading Types of Scientific Research, to give a nod to some of the social science fields and the importance of interdisciplinary questions across disciplinary lines.

I did not find any errors in the content of the book. One critique is that the author rarely cites any sources for assertions or materials. I get the impression that the author is relying on "commonly known" ideas regarding research methods and processes, but I have to consistently remind my students to cite all non-original information, and that example is lacking in this text. As an example, regarding evaluating measurement scales for internal consistency, the author references commonly-accepted factor loadings (>.60) but does not reference or provide linked resources for readers to corroborate this or seek additional readings.

The text content is relevant and the author has taken care to provide relatively timeless sample research examples throughout. Some examples include areas of social and political interest (conflict, crime), business and marketing, and social psychology. The contents of the text are not dated and the author does a fantastic job of offering a variety of relevant examples so that readers of all backgrounds can relate to the content.

Incredibly clear and concise. Main ideas are clearly articulated in headings. Bullet point lists are used infrequently, but appropriately. The writing style is professional, academic in tone, yet relate-able. There is little, if any, discipline-specific references that a graduate student from any area of social sciences could not comprehend; however, this book is empirically-grounded and quantitatively focused. For our readers in fields with lower quantitative literacy, some of the terminology in chapters is better suited for students with basic statistical experience, some research methods or theory coursework completed.

This text is consistent and detailed in the use of interdisciplinary, social scientific terminology.

The layout of materials and the concise writing style contribute to an easy-to-visualize text. The page layout and brief chapters make it appropriate to assign supplemental readings along with the chapter topics. Some areas for improvement: use hyperlinks to reference forward and backward within the text so that readers can pop back and forth to related concepts. Include links in the text to reputable online materials or publications. See my comment below in Organization feedback concerning chapter ordering.

One thing that strikes me as amazing and also challenging about this text is the concision and simplicity for which Bhattacherjee integrates complex information. The chapters are very brief- about half of what would be a typical, field-specific textbook, but the content is simultaneously dense and clear. For example, Chapter 7 addresses scale reliability and validity. In just a few short pages, we get an incredible density of information and terminology, from a formula and brief explanation of Chronbach's alpha to exploratory factor analysis as a method to demonstrate convergent and discriminant validity. There is an appropriate number of tables to visually demonstrate complex topics in-text. Overall, the chapters are well-organized and easy to follow with a working knowledge of basic stats. The introductory chapters have been intentionally placed to introduce readers to basic principles. The following chapters could be assigned as readings in any order that fit with the student's needs (but I find the order of these chapters appropriate, as-is): Chapter 9 Survey Research, Chapter 10 Experimental Research, Chapter 11 Case Research, Chapter 12 Interpretive Research, Chapter 13 Qualitative Analysis, Chapter 14 Quantitative Descriptive Statistics, Chapter 15 Quantitative Inferential Statistics. The final chapter, 16, covers Research Ethics, which seems to have been lopped on at the end of the text. It would be a better fit in the first third; perhaps integrated into one of the first several chapters with a nod toward the evolution of social research.

Regarding navigation, the pdf online version does not allow for creative navigation through the document. Graphics and charts are clear and easy to see in the online pdf version. They are a little smaller than I would like on the page, but the text is clear and the tables and graphs are visually appealing. It looks like most of the graphics were created using PowerPoint. One odd thing I noticed is that the paragraph spacing is inconsistent. In one section, the spacing between paragraph lines seems to be set at 1.25, and then, for no apparent reason, the line spacing moves back to single space. This is not visually distracting, just peculiar. Overall, the graphics in the online version are much clearer than in the softcover print version, which prints only in greyscale, with quite a bit of granulated distortion in the figures.

I did not notice any writing errors.

The research topic examples represented a diverse array of research topics, methods, fields, etc. The overview of science, scientific research, and social science was welcomed and unique to this text. Some areas for improvement would be to include historical scientific figures who are not all male, and link critical methodology in a clearer manner with specific critical and cultural examples of this form of research.

Reviewed by Lee Bidgood, Associate Professor, East Tennessee State University on 10/29/19

The text seems comprehensive, covers a wide range of research approaches, and parts of the research process. I will have to supplement with more of the area-specific writing that my students need, but this is easily added in the adapted version... read more

This text seems to follow the path of other texts that outline research design and methods, such as the Creswell book that I have used for several semesters. I do not detect bias in the text, or any significant errors.

I will discuss disciplinary relevance rather than chronological applicability (which other reviewers have already addressed thoroughly). The course for which I seek a textbook is meant to prepare students in a non-discipline-specific regional studies context, and for a range of methodologies and research design possibilities, mostly in the social sciences and humanities. This text is most relevant to the potential research programs of our students in discussions of the precursors to research design in Chapter 2 (“Thinking like a researcher”) and of the using and creating of theory in Chapter 4 (“Theories in Scientific Research”).

The authors’ prose is clear and easily comprehensible. Definitions are clear, and sufficient (jargon is explained). There could be more examples to clarify and assure comprehension of concepts, I plan to add these in my adaptation.

There is not an overt intra-chapter organization scheme that is consistent from chapter to chapter--each chapter differs in the sorts of content, that some sort of generic outline would feel forced, I think. The “feel” of the text, though, is consistent, and effectively conveys the content.

Because it uses footnote citations instead of endnotes / parenthetical citations, each page contains all of the references contained on it, which helps with modularity. The portions of the text that are less relevant to the course I teach (i.e. the more technical and statistical chapters, such as Chapters 6, 7, 8, 14, and 15 are easily omitted; I will be able to adapt portions of this text (i.e. the discussion of sampling in Chapter 8) without needing to provide all of the chapters. Some of the more technical vocabulary will require editing and explanation, but this seems manageable for me as an adapter.

The book is logically organized and the topics make sense in the order presented. I agree with another reviewer that the ethics portion seems like an appendix, rather than an essential and structural part of the book. As I adapt this text, I would address ethics at the beginning (as I do in my current teaching of research methods) and infuse the topic through other sections to address ethics-related concerns at all stages of research design and implementation. The author’s choice to use footnotes for references is not the one that seemed logical to me at first - it seems “elegant” to put all the references in a list at the rear of a book; now, reading through the whole text, however, I see some value to having the entirety of a citation at hand when reading through the main body of the text. Still, I miss the comprehensive list of works cited at the end of the book, which I would add to a text that I create, since an e-text is not limited by the economics of physically-printed books.

The text is workable as presented in the PDF document that I downloaded. Charts and other imagery are usable. There are no extra navigation features (a link to take a reader to the table of contents in a header or footer, etc.). I am left wondering if, in a PDF form, an OER textbook would be more useful with more navigation features, or if they might make the document buggy, cluttered, or otherwise affect use.

I did not detect any issues with grammar, usage, etc. in the text.

There is a lack of specific examples that might lend a sense of wide scope / global appeal to the textbook, and create an inclusive atmosphere for a reader/student. The author has stated that they hope to translate and widely distribute the text - perhaps, as is the case in the syllabus that the author provides, the hope is that in use for a course, additional readings will provide local knowledge and place-, culture-, and discipline-specific details and context.

This is a solid text that will provide a framework for adaptation in another disciplinary / area context.

Reviewed by Kevin Deitle, Adjunct Associate Professor, TRAILS on 10/6/19

I am pleased with the coverage in the text; it includes the history and foundations of research, as well as chapters on ethics and a sample syllabus. The structure and arrangement of the book differs from my own understandings of research and how I present it in class, but all the material covered in my class appears in the text, and it can be ordered to fit my syllabus. This text spends more time with statistics than I include in a research course, but again, that can be omitted or just used for reference. The book does not include either an index or a glossary, which is unfortunate for anyone who wants a paper version. Of course, most students seem to prefer an electronic text, so I assume they use a search function rather than an index.

I have not spotted any glaring errors, other than an occasional grammatical slip or a cumbersome edit. The author includes a few citations, usually following APA style, but employs footnotes instead of a reference section. The content mostly aligns with my own conceptions of research, although it does have a different arrangement from my presentation in class. This does not suggest that the content is wrong, only that I would likely rearrange it to suit my instructional sequence. I sense no bias in the presentation, including the historical or ethical portions, or sections that mention religion. I’m comfortable that I could rely on this book in class without worrying over slanted content or editorialization.

Research is something of a traditional topic, in the sense that changes or evolutions move at a comfortably slow pace. I expect there is very little of this text that is likely to become obsolete any time soon. The flip side is there is little in this book that is necessarily cutting-edge, but that is not the fault of the author at all. And in the unforeseeable situation where a new protocol or a new advance in either statistics or research warrants an update, I think the organization and the modular design will allow that to happen without major upheavals in the structure or arrangement of the text.

As mentioned elsewhere, the writing is comfortably academic without becoming dense or burdensome. I have seen introductions to research that were more casual and probably fit a beginner audience better than this would, but I daresay this is intended as a core text for a graduate-level class, and for that reason, can be expected to sound less approachable and more authoritative. The text employs features for fast visual reference, to include breaks in the text to allow for visual elements, and bolded text where key terms are introduced or defined. While this would probably not be a particularly exciting text for a self-study course, it will sit well with classes that need a reference text that takes the time to explain concepts with some authority.

Structurally the author has a style and sticks to it throughout the text. Visually this book is sparse, and it will require some effort on the part of the professor to make the content digestible in a classroom environment. However, that also suggests that the arrangement and format remain predictable from the first page to the last, without any surprises in presentation or discourse. Research has a tendency to step on its own toes when it comes to terminology, but this text follows those conventions for the most part, making it mostly congruent with other research texts I have seen. I think this book would complement other research texts without causing too many difficulties in terminology or arrangement.

The author suggests in the preface that the work was intended to be rearranged by sections, and I can appreciate how the chapters and structure support that statement. I do see this more as a foundational reference for a graduate-level course than a self-study text though, and it has the feel of a reference work to it. Text appears in large blocks, is illustrated sparsely, and has no callout texts or pull quotes. Key words are bolded but get no more embellishment, which again suggests a reference rather than an instructional work. I’m sure this material could be the groundwork for a more reader-friendly presentation, if someone wanted less of a reference and more of a textbook.

This might be the most appealing point of the text for me. As I mentioned earlier, I like the overall sequence that the author follows, but at the same time I can appreciate how the sections can be detached and still stand alone. The logic follows principles and theory through to fundamentals, then diverges to cover the details that fit more complex or esoteric versions of research. There is enough statistical explanation to avoid vague generalizations, but at points I expect it would overwhelm a beginner. I would prefer ethics was near the start of the text, rather than an epilogue; our course is arranged to require students to complete ethics training before they may pursue later assignments. But this is easily solved.

On the whole the text is satisfactory, the layout from page to page is acceptable, but there’s a minimum of graphic elements or visual components. Some of the statistical formulas or graphs are low-quality, or have suffered compression artifacts. Their appearance in the text is logical though, and the few tables or diagrams that do appear are in color, with arrows or labels to ease interpretation. The table of contents is primitive, and there is no way to navigate specific tables or diagrams except moving page by page in sequence. External sites are hyperlinked, and the table of contents has been designed for electronic use, but there are no cross-reference features. This gives the text the feel of a word processed document converted to a PDF format, intended to be printed. Overall, the core content is strong, as a printed book it is probably acceptable, but as an electronic textbook it lacks some contemporary features.

I have found very few grammatical errors or incomplete sentences, and none of those were so flagrant as to make the text unusable. If this had been submitted as an academic work it would likely earn some criticism for style or grammar (the author seems to follow APA style, but tends to footnote references simultaneously), but this never impedes the delivery. The text is readable at a collegiate level without becoming over-academic, or for that matter, casual.

The text manages to broach sensitive issues in a level and balanced format; in particular the ethics section manages to discuss some well-known failings in past research without becoming overly critical of the researcher or the participants. Arguably, research and its underlying processes are mostly mechanical (or at least standardized), meaning it is possible for individual researchers to violate cultural, ethnic, racial, or other boundaries, but the underlying science is generally unconcerned with those issues. In that sense, the book has very few opportunities to broach hot-button topics except when dealing with historical or ethical examples.

I appreciate this text as a starting point for a more accessible design, or as a background reference for a full course introducing social science research. I see it as a foundation text or an external source for students who seek a concise fallback for lessons, and with content that is compatible with other textbooks. In many ways it needs much more to compete with established textbooks or dedicated electronic learning tools, and in some places I would like more references for the material that is included. On the whole though, I would consider this as the core text for my next introductory research course.

Reviewed by Krystin Krause, Assistant Professor, Emory and Henry College on 4/10/19

This text covers the core elements of a social science research methods course at the undergraduate level. While the notes state it is intended for graduate coursework, I would have no problem teaching in my undergraduate courses. The concise chapters are undergraduate-friendly and will make a solid foundation with the addition of supplemental reading assignments that show examples of the concepts discussed in the textbook. There is no glossary or index, but keyword searching in the pdf copy is simple and effective.

The text seems to be an accurate reflection of social science research methods, particularly when considering causal inference and hypothesis testing. If your course is also covering descriptive inference, you would want to supplement the text with additional material.

Research methods is not a subject that changes quickly, and thus this text will not become obsolete quickly. The only things that may need updating over time are any links that lead to pages that no longer exist. Any other updates will be relatively easy and straightforward to implement.

The text is written in a style that is accessible for undergraduates. It follows the conventions of including relevant key words and phrases in bold and includes easy to follow definitions of terms. I anticipate that undergraduates will also appreciate how concise the text is.

The chapters are consistent in both terminology and framework. It offers a unified organization that also allows for mixing and matching chapters if an instructor wishes to teach the chapters out of order.

The organization of the text lends itself to be adapted to any introductory social science research methods course, regardless of what order the instructor wants to place the topics being discussed. Chapters could be taught out of order and can be subdivided accordingly.

While it is certainly possible to break apart to teach the text in a different order than how the chapters are originally offered, the progression of the text from the introduction to the chapters on qualitative data analysis is both logical and clear.

The text is free of interface issues, and charts and images appear to be clear and correct. The only exception to this are the links found in the sample syllabus at the end of the book. I was only able to get one of the links to work.

No grammatical errors jumped out at me. There are a few here and there, but they are not distracting for the reader.

The text is not culturally insensitive or offensive.

Because the book is concise, I would recommend its use in addition to other supplementary resources such as class lectures, academic articles that demonstrate the methods discussed in the textbook, and projects that allow students to experience the methods first-hand. It would make a good alternative to more elaborate basic research methods textbooks when the instructor wishes to keep costs for the students low.

Reviewed by Mari Sakiyama, Assistant Professor, Western Oregon University on 4/5/19

The textbook covers the major key elements that are essential in research methods for social science. However, both the breadth and depth of information might be too elementary for Ph.D. and graduate students. With the use of additional reading... read more

I did not notice any errors or unbiased content. The author had provided accurate information with simple/straightforward examples that can be understood by students with various discipline in social science.

Given the nature of the subject, the content is considered to be up-to-date. However, although there will not be too many changed expected in the research strategies and designs, it is important to note that some of the sampling procedure have been facing some changes in recent years (e.g., telephone survey, online sampling frame).

The textbook provided the content in a clear and concise manner. The author, instead of providing a complex list of academic jargon/technical terminologies, but rather clarified and explained these terms in a simple and straightforward fashion.

Overall, the content was consistent throughout the textbook. Starting with a broad/general statement of each chapter topic, the author narrowed it down to smaller element which is easy for the reader to follow and understand. As he provided in CH.6, it might be even more helpful to have summaries for each chapter.

This textbook is certainly divided into smaller segments, but maybe too small (short). However, as mentioned above, this problem can be solved by adapting additional readings.

The textbook is significantly reader-friendly and well-structured. Although some instructors prefer to cover some chapters earlier (or later) in their semester/term than others, this is just a personal preference. There are no issues with the author’s organization of the textbook.

Overall, the use of indentations, bolding, italicization, and bullet points, was consistent. However, many of the images were blurry (e.g., Figure 8.2, Table 14.1) and some fonts were smaller than others (i.e., pg. 34).

I did not notice any grammatical errors. Even I had missed some, they would not be destructions for the reader. (Note: The scale is confusing. What I mean by '5' is the least amount of grammatical errors were found)

The author did not use any concept that was insensitive or offended people and/or subjects from various backgrounds. (Note: The scale is confusing. What I mean by '5' is the least amount of cultural insensitivity or offensiveness were found)

See my comments above.

Reviewed by Candace Bright, Assistant Professor, East Tennessee State University on 11/7/18

There are some key elements that I would expect to be in a social science research methods book that are missing in this book. I think this comprehensiveness may be appropriate for an undergraduate course (with some supplementation), but the text... read more

The information in the book seems accurate. When necessary, it is cited appropriately.

The content is very relevant. Because the book focuses on methods, it does not need too much change over time. It was published in 2012. The main area that might need to be updated in the discussion regarding the Internet and how it impacts our research options. Perhaps more could be added on machine learning, AI, web-scraping, and social media in general. I increasingly see studies conducted either using social media content or recruiting through social media; neither of these are addressed in this book.

I really like the way the book is laid out. In particular, the qualitative and quantitative analysis sections are well organized. They succinctly cover a lot of information is a way that is very consumable. There were some instances, however, where I thought wording lacked clarity or definitions needed further explanation.

I do not see any issues with consistency.

I like the organization of this book and each chapter does a good job of standing alone on important topics within research methods. The sections within the chapters are clearly marked and logically organized.

The organization is clear and logical. It covers important concepts in research methods in the same order in which they are typically taught, with the exception of ethics. In this book, ethics comes last, whereas I would have taught it earlier.

This might be minor, but I noticed some places where the spacing was different and it was a little distracting. Overall, it is well formatted.

I didn't notice any grammatical errors.

Overall, the text book could use more examples and applied examples, but when present, I find them culturally appropriate.

I have mixed feeling on the image on the cover and the limited visuals within the book. I also don't feel like this textbook has enough visuals or figures that could be used to support comprehension of the materials. More examples would also be helpful. Overall, however, the author has presented a lot of information succinctly and I look forward to using this text (in parts) in future methods courses.

Reviewed by Alysia Roehrig, Associate Professor , Florida State University on 11/5/18

This text provides an overview of many important issues for my graduate research methods course in education. There are a few important topics missing, however. In particular, types of correlational designs and mixed-methods designs would be important to include. Likewise, single-subject designs are not mentioned at all. I will have to supplement these areas with other readings. I also think more about specific threats to internal and external validity should be provided, along with information about when and how certain threats are avoided. There is no glossary but being an online text, it is simple enough to search for certain terms.

Content seems to be error-free and unbiased for the most part. However, I have an issues with the language in chapter 2 about about strong and weak hypotheses because it seems to treat the experimental/causal hypotheses preferentially. The author also states that hypotheses should have IVs and DVs...but what about non-experimental hypotheses?? I think students could be misled by this and I think this requires a lot of unpacking. Thus, I do sense somewhat of a prejudicial treatment of quantitative and experimental research methods. I plan to add information to pages 13 and 15 about how qualitative methods do not involve testing hypotheses though the results might be an inductively derived hypothesis or nascent theory.

The content covered is pretty standard and basic and so not likely to be out-dated soon.

The writing is straightforward and easy to follow.

The use of terms and framework seems to be consistent throughout the book.

The chapter and subject headers all seem to be clear. They will make it easy to select sections for assignment or reordering if revising for use.

The order of topics makes sense and is aligned with the process of conducting research.

The hotlinks in the table of content are nice, but additional navigational aids would be helpful. For example, a back to the Table of Contents (TOC) button would be nice, as well we a list of all subsections (hotlinked) added to a long version of the TOC.

I have not noticed any egregious problems.

There are not many examples, which means there is little opportunity to offend.

Reviewed by Eddie T. C. Lam, Associate Professor/Editor-in-Chief, Cleveland State University on 9/12/18

The book provides ample information for a research course, but it may not meet the needs of every instructor. For this reason, the book should include a few more chapters so that course instructors can have more options for a semester-long research course. For instance, at least one chapter should be on nonparametric statistics and their applications on research studies, while another chapter should be on research paper writing (e.g., what should be included in the Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and so on). For the Appendix, it is nice to provide a sample syllabus for the instructors, but the students may want a sample research paper in proper journal or thesis/dissertation format.

Most of the information presented in this book is accurate. The author has mentioned in Chapter 5 (p. 37) that “construct validity” will be described in the next chapter, but I don’t see any construct validity in Chapter 6 or Chapter 7. In addition, the author may want to emphasize what “alpha is set to 0.05” means. Does it mean the p-value has to be less than 0.05 (p. 125) or p ≤ 0.05 (p. 130) to reject the null hypothesis?

In terms of content, the book has fairly good amount of information. However, it is also obvious that many terms appeared in the last few decades are missing from the book. For example, Survey Monkey and social media can be included in Chapter 9 (Survey Research) and structure equation modeling can be introduced in Chapter 15.

The information is presented in layman’s terms without any jargon. New terms are bolded with clear definition, and sometimes they are illustrated with examples.

The terminology and framework are consistent throughout the text.

The chapters are logically presented and they are grouped under different sections. As mentioned before, the text should add a few more chapters for the course instructors to select from.

In my opinion, “Chapter 16 Research Ethics” should not be standalone (under the “Epilogue”) and it could be part of the “Introduction to Research” (i.e., the first few chapters).

The text does not have any significant interface issues, though the font size of the figures can be larger (e.g., they should not smaller than the font size of the text).

Overall, the text contains very few grammatical errors. However, in a number of occasions, a comma is added for no reason, such as “. . . we must understand that sometimes, these constructs are not real . . .” (p. 44). It is also unnecessary to always add a comma before the word “because.”

The content of the text is not culturally insensitive, and the author does not present any offensive statements or comments anywhere in the text.

It’s time to have a second edition.

Reviewed by Amy Thompson, Associate Professor, University of South Florida on 6/19/18

This text is a nice overview of some of the key points in social science research. There are useful definitions of key terms throughout the book, although none of the chapters go into much depth. It should be noted that there is more of a focus on... read more

Overall, the text seems accurate. There are some cases when the author gives advice that I don't agree with (i.e. advises against even-numbered Likert scale items, p. 48; encourages people not to do "trendy" research, such as that on new technology, p. 24). Even so, most of the information seems to be accurate.

The book is relevant. It gives a good overview of the theories and methods, which change little over time. I would suggest a few updates, however. Currently, there is controversy on the over-reliance of the p-value, and it would be useful to include some of this discussion on p. 125. Also, on p. 73, the author talks about "mail-in" and "telephone" surveys as a research method, and even goes on to say on p. 74 that most survey research is done by self-administered mail-in surveys with a pre-paid return envelop. This information needs to be updated, as currently, much of the survey research is done via online platforms.

The book is quite clear and provides succinct definitions.

The book seems consistent throughout.

The chapters are short and very readable. There would be no problem dividing the chapters up for a class, or using a portion of the book.

The topics are presented in a logical manner.

The text in some of the tables is blurry, especially when enlarging the PDF. Perhaps the print copy is clearer. The text outside of the tables is clear.

I didn't have any trouble reading or understanding the text.

This book is not offensive.

Overall, this is a good book to have as a reference or an additional text for a class. For my field, it wouldn't be sufficient to use as a stand-alone text. Although its intended audience is graduate students, it's a bit too basic for Ph.D. students, in my opinion. It would be a good text for an intro to research class at the UG or MA level, as a supplemental text. I would recommend it to Ph.D. students to use as a reference because of the key terms included. It's great that a resource like this is available for free to students and faculty in a wide variety of disciplines.

Reviewed by Huili Hao, Assistant Professor, University of North Carolina Wilmington on 5/21/18

This book provides an introductory and broad review of some of the key topics in social science research including research theories, research design, data collection, data analysis and research ethics Students from different disciplines in social science will find these topics useful in developing their research method skills. However, the book falls short on the depth of the essential concepts. It would also benefit from offering more practical examples for some of the theories or terminology. A glossary is not found within the text, although the table of content lists the topics covered in each of the modules.

Overall, this textbooks seems to be accurate.

The relevancy and longevity of this book are great. It focuses on fundamental research methods as well as incorporates current research approaches. Given the nature of research method that does not change drastically, content is up-to-date and won’t make the text obsolete within a short period of time. The topics are written in the way that necessary updates will be relatively easy and straightforward to implement.

The text is written in a logical and concise fashion. The text is easy to follow. I did not find any jargon or technical terminology used without explanation.

The text consistently matches the topics outlined in the table of content.

The text is clearly organized into five modules: introduction to research, basics of empirical research, data collection, data analysis, and research ethics. It also includes a course syllabus, which is nice and useful. Each of the modules / chapters can also be used as subunits of a research method course without putting the reader at a disadvantage.

The table of content is clear and the chapters are organized in a logic order.

I downloaded the PDF version of the textbook and find it easy to read offline. The formatting, navigation and images/charts seems clear and appropriate.

I had no trouble reading or understanding the textbook.

Overall, this is a good textbook that covers a broad range of topics important in research method. As this textbook is designed as a succinct overview of research design and process, more practical topics are not included in much detail such as how to conduct different statistical analyses using SPSS or SAS, or how to interpret statistical analysis results. It would require additional materials / textbooks for graduate level research method courses.

Reviewed by Jenna Wintemberg, Assistant Teaching Professor, University of Missouri on 5/21/18

I use almost the entire text in an undergraduate Health Science research methods course. I do supplement the text with additional readings on: -selecting a research topic -developing a research question -how to read scholarly articles -how to search the literature -mixed methods research -community-based participatory research -disseminating research findings -evidence-based practice

I have found this text to be accurate, error-free and unbiased.

The content is written in a way that will allow for longevity of use. I compliment this text with current peer-reviewed journal articles which are relevant to my students' career paths and can be updated more regularly.

I have found the book to be clearly written and appropriate for upper-level Health Science undergraduate students. Technical terminology is sufficiently defined.

The text uses a consistent framework throughout.

The text is easily divisible into smaller reading sections. I assign the chapters in an alternative order and students have not had problems with this.

I assign the chapters in an alternative order for my undergraduate students. For example, I have students read chapter 1 following by chapter 16 (research ethics).

There are no interface issues.

The text is free of grammatical errors

The text is not culturally offensive.

Because of the basic nature of the materials presented and clear writing, my upper level undergraduate students have done well with this text. The brevity of the chapters and bolded key terms particularly appeal to the students. I do have to supplement the text with journal articles and other materials. However, I am pleased with this straight-forward text and will continue to use it as the main text in my course moving forward.

Reviewed by Amy Thompson , Associate Professor, University of South Florida on 3/27/18

Reviewed by Debra Mowery, Assistant Professor, University of South Florida on 3/27/18

The text covers all of the areas of basic research information that I cover when I teach research and research methods in the social sciences. The table of contents is straight forward, and the chapters are arranged in a fluid, logical order. The nice thing with this text is that you could rearrange as you see fit for your course without an issue. There is also a sample syllabus in the appendix which could be useful when setting up a course. I feel this text is great for students who may not necessarily be interested in research as a job prospect (their interests may be more clinical in nature) but need the basics of research in a clear, easy to understand, and straight forward format.

I felt the content of this text is accurate, unbiased, and free of any glaring errors..

This text appears to be up-to-date including issues such as web-based or internet surveys and questionnaires. I did see that the copyright for this text was 2012 so not sure if revisions or updates to the original have happened or not. It seems that there should be a way to document if this is the latest version of the text. This may be useful information for users of this text.

This textbook is written in a concise and easy to read and understand manner - it is very user-friendly. This is a plus for students - it means they may actually read the text! Jargon and acronyms were appropriately defined with an explanation of how the terms originated and came to be utilized in research. This is appealing to me as an instructor so there is background information for the students.

The consistency of this text is uniform throughout. One appealing issue I liked was the use of social science examples when explaining topics like theories or paradigms. In some research texts examples are utilized but they may not necessarily be in the discipline that you are teaching.

I do like that this text is divided into 16 chapters which is perfect for a 15/16 week semester. The chapters are not so overwhelming that other supporting readings cannot be assigned to students as well to assist with explanation of the weekly topic. The text serves as a great base for building weekly assignments/readings for students.

The majority of the text is presented in a logical format. One issue I had with the order of the chapters in the text was including Ethics at the end in the Epilogue as if it was an after thought. Ethics, ethical behavior, and rigor are a must in research and should be addressed early on in the research process. Having said this, I feel the chapter on Ethics should be moved up further in the chapter line-up (possibly to chapter 2 or 3).

I did not experience any navigation problems. There was however, distortion with many of the images especially the graphics that were utilized throughout the text. A review of the images/graphics and an update to them would be useful. If this e-text has not been updated since 2012 this may be the issue for the distorted figures.

There are a few grammar/spelling/word choice errors. The errors do not effect the content of the text but when reading it makes you pause and think - what is trying to be said here? It might be useful to the author to have the text proofread or copy edited to resolve these issues.

In reviewing this text I did not see any examples that might be deemed offensive or insensitive to other cultures, orientations, ethnicities, etc,

Reviewed by Kendall Bustad, Clinical Assistant Professor, University of Maryland, College Park on 2/1/18

This book covers all the important topics in social science research and is approachable regardless of discipline and course level (high school, undergraduate, graduate, and even post-graduate). It provides an introduction to philosophy as well as components of research. You'll find yourself returning to the basics, and it gives strong foundations. Specifically, I find that the book provides a very comprehensive introduction to research philosophy and research designs, particularly in addressing how to come up with research questions, which is often a challenge for new doctoral students. However, due to the succinct nature of the book, some sections seemed lacking. Particularly, in the more practical steps of the research process (the data collection and data analysis sections)

The text does not seem to be biased in any way.

The content of the book is up-to-date. The text included relevant descriptions of current software commonly used in research.

If you want to have a compressed body of knowledge of social science research, you may read this one. Beneficial.

The text consistently matches the book outline. Terms were used consistently throughout the text.

Each chapter can stand along as a separate lecture. The headings, subheadings, an bold items are great additions that highlight important topics or definitions.

Most of the text flows in a logical, clear fashion. However, it may be clearer to have quantitative data analysis methods immediately follow quantitative data collection methods, and similarly for the qualitative data collection and analysis.

No issues noted.

There are a few grammatical errors.

There does not seem to be any culturally insensitive or offensive text.

Reviewed by Jason Giersch, Assistant Professor, UNC Charlotte on 2/1/18

The biggest challenge faced when writing a book about research methods is the decision about what NOT to include. Instructors and disciplines within the social sciences vary widely in terms of their expectations of students in an introductory methods course, and thus their needs from a textbook also vary. This textbook does an excellent job setting the stage for what we mean by "research" in the social sciences. Students will develop a solid foundation in the goals and rationales behind the methods social scientists employ. Students will also develop a comprehensive vocabulary in social science research methods. However, the book falls short in the development of students' research skills. Learning about methods is important, but not much is gained from that knowledge unless the student also learns how to execute at least some techniques. Furthermore, there is little guidance for the student regarding how to properly write a research paper, something that many instructors will find disappointing. This book is probably comprehensive enough for a 3-credit methods course with test-based assessments in a program where few students pursue graduate work. But if teaching students to actually conduct and write up research is important to the course, there are much better books out there (although at significant cost).

Content is accurate and unbiased.

The relevance and longevity are strong. This book describes some of the most current methods but still focuses on the foundations of research that will be appropriate for the foreseeable future. Updates could be easily made every five years or so to keep up with methodology.

The writing is very easy to follow with helpful examples. Prose is direct and to the point, giving only the essential information so as to allow the learner to develop a grasp of fundamentals. The section on theory, for example, is refreshingly clear for learners. Graphics aid in understanding the material in many parts.

This textbook uses consistent terminology and framework.

The textbook is appropriately structured for a standard 15 week course and even recommends a syllabus. Adapting it to other formats, like a 5 or 10 week summer course, might be tricky. There are ample headings and sub-headings, however, that allow the text to be divided into smaller chunks, which is nice to see given how many students feel overwhelmed by this topic.

Organization and flow is excellent. From an education and instructional standpoint, I wouldn't change the organization.

The simplicity of design is a strength -- students should have no difficulty opening and viewing the text on a wide variety of devices. On the downside, there are no bells and whistles that many some students have come to expect from online textbooks.

The casual writing style makes it very accessible, but one consequence is the very occasional grammar problem. It's a trade-off, I think, that is worth making.

Research methods are pretty "culturally-neutral", so there's nothing in it I would see as insensitive or offensive. That being said, the text recommends SPSS and SAS as software to use while neglecting free options (like R) or more ubiquitous programs (like Excel). For a textbook intended to keep costs at zero, these are glaring omissions.

I could certainly see this book being used as an accessible and low-stress introduction to the world of research methods in the social sciences. The main improvements I would like to see would be (1) sidebars throughout that guide students through the paper-writing process and (2) activities using datasets for students to actually perform some of their own quantitative analyses. Perhaps a companion volume could address these needs.

Reviewed by Nathan Favero, Assistant Professor, American University on 2/1/18

This text provides a fairly comprehensive coverage of topics. It is broad, hitting most of the major topics I need to cover in an intro PhD seminar for social science research methods (I'm teaching public administration/policy, political science, and criminology students). That said, there is not a ton of depth in this textbook. I don't view that as a negative; I prefer having a textbook that gives a basic outline of essential concepts and then fleshing this out with supplemental readings, but some might prefer a textbook that goes into more depth.

Overall, this textbook is accurate but not perfect. Sometimes I wish it was a bit more precise, particularly in coverage of quantitative topics. But I use another textbook to more fully cover quantitative topics anyway for my course.

I would say this textbook reads as modern and relevant, although perhaps it could do more to address emerging methodological concerns in social science disciplines (p-hacking, replication, pre-registration of research designs, etc.).

The textbooks is very accessible and easy to read for someone new to the disciplines of social science.

The book appears to be consistent.

I've assigned students to read the chapters in a different order than they are presented in the text had have not encountered any problems. Chapters are coherently organized into distinct topics.

The organization of the book is logical.

Overall, this book is easy to read and use. Graphs are not always high-resolution, but they are readable.

I have not noticed many grammatical errors.

I have not noticed any clear biases or insensitive handling of material in the book.

I'm delighted to have found this book. It's a great starting point for teaching my students to think about the basics of social science research and provides a nice skeleton on which I can layer more in-depth material for my course.

Reviewed by Holly Gould, Associate Professor, Lynchburg College on 8/15/17

The author states that the text is not designed to go in-depth into the subject matter but rather give a basic understanding of the material. I believe the author covers the necessary topics with enough depth to give the reader a basic... read more

I found no errors in content and no observable bias in any of the chapters.

This text will continue to be relevant because of the nature of the subject matter. Updates may be needed to reflect more current research or trends, but no major changes should be necessary.

The text is written clearly and succinctly. The text is understandable for those who are new to the subject matter.

I found no inconsistencies in the text.

The text is divided into logical chapters, and subheadings seem to be appropriate. Chapters can be read fairly easily in isolation without putting the reader at a disadvantage.

The topics are presented in a logical fashion. Some of the chapters have summaries or conclusions, while other chapters seem to end abruptly. It would be helpful to the reader to have a summary statement at the end of each chapter.

I downloaded and read the text in a PDF reader and had no trouble with formatting, navigation, or images/charts.

The text contains some grammatical errors but the errors are minor and do not distract the reader.

This text is well written and I would recommend it to an individual looking for a bare bones book on basic research methods. It contains information essential to understanding quantitative and qualitative research. The charts and images provided enhance the understanding of the text. At times, the author digs a little deeper into background and formulas for certain statistical ideas, which may be unnecessary to someone looking to understand the basics (e.g. the formula for Cronbach's alpha). Some chapters seem to end abruptly while other chapters have excellent summaries or conclusions. There is one recommendation that goes against the prevailing wisdom on survey design. On page 77, the author indicates that a survey should begin with non-threatening questions such as demographic information. Many experts have written that these types of questions, when asked at the beginning of a questionnaire or survey, can affect the respondents' answers to subsequent questions and should be saved for the end. Aside from these minor issues, this text is a great resource and I recommend it.

Reviewed by Virginia Chu, Assistant Professor, Virginia Commonwealth University on 4/11/17

The text offers an introductory overview to scientific research for PhD and graduate students in social sciences. It covers a broad range of topics, research theories, research process, research design, data collection methods, qualitative and quantitative research, statistical analysis, and research ethics. This book touches on many important topics related to the scientific research process that is typically found in several different text. As the author stated in the preface, this is an introductory book that is minimalist by design, it does not contain in-depth discussions or many examples. This is both a plus and a minus, as it makes the book more compact and allow it to be used by many different disciplines, but may be harder for students to relate. The comprehensive nature of the book allows the reader to be exposed to all the necessary topics, or provides a structure for a course instructor, who then supplements with additional materials to create the depth that is specifically tailored for their discipline. Specifically, I find that the book provides a very comprehensive introduction to research philosophy and research designs, particularly in addressing how to come up with research questions, which is often a challenge for new doctoral students. However, due to the succinct nature of the book, some sections seemed lacking. Particularly, in the more practical steps of the research process (the data collection and data analysis sections), as a new doctoral student will certainly need more details than what is provided in the text to begin their first research endeavor. For example, in the quantitative analysis section, only a handful of basic analysis were discussed in detail (univariate analysis, hypothesis testing, t-test, regression). I would like to see a more practical discussion of ANOVA, as it is a very commonly used statistical analysis tool. These topics may also be more discipline specific, where instructors of research classes can supplement with additional materials. The discussion on research ethics is certainly a nice addition to the book where many other research methods texts lack. An index/glossary is not included with the text, but the table of content clearly outlines the topics discussed for each module.

The book is overall accurate and unbiased. The book covered different social science research methods fairly. I did notice a discrepancy in Figure 5.1, where “single case study” is plotted on the graph as high in external validity, but the rest of the text frequently brought up case studies (especially single case studies) having the difficulty with generalizability which should have low external validity.

The content of the book is up-to-date. The text included relevant descriptions of current softwares commonly used in research. It will also stand against the test of time as research methods do not change drastically. The content can also be updated to reflect new technological updates. One needed update noticed is on page 120, where the authors cautioned that only smaller datasets can be stored in Excel and larger datasets needs a more elaborate database system. While the statement is still relevant, the numbers the author cited appear to be old and Excel has since been updated to handle larger datasets (1,000,000 observations and 16,000 items) than what the author had listed.

The content is written in a very clear and concise manner. It is easy to read and to follow the author’s arguments. I did not notice any jargon or technical term that was used without explanation.

The book has a modular organization, with each chapter designed to be used for a different lecture. Each chapter is a self contained unit that can be used as its own reading. Each chapter also has subsections that are clearly marked with subheadings. Important terms are also highlighted by bolding, making it easy for the reader to identify the important concepts.

The chapters of the book flows logically from one to the next. The current layout of the text groups all the data collection methods together and all the data analysis methods together. It may be clearer to have quantitative data analysis methods immediately follow quantitative data collection methods, and similarly for the qualitative data collection and analysis. This could be easily done based on the course instructor preference.

No interface issues noted.

The text is generally free of grammatical and spelling errors, with the exception of 2 minor typos noticed on page 139 (“Rik”, “riska”).

The text and examples provided are not culturally insensitive or offensive.

The text is easy to read and covers a broad and comprehensive range of topics important for research. I particularly enjoyed the discussion on research ethics which is often missing in many research methods texts. I would recommend discussing that topic earlier, together with research design, as many of these ethical issues and IRB requirements come up during research design phase. As the text is a meant to be a concise overview of the research process, the more practical topics are not covered in as much detail and would require supplementary material.

Reviewed by Brock Rozich, Instructor, University of Texas at Arlington on 4/11/17

The textbook covers the majority of what would be expected for a research methods course. It builds upon basic topics to more advanced concepts, so students from various backgrounds of research experience should still find the text useful. The glossary for the text is clear and a sample syllabus is provided by the author for individuals wishing to use this text for their course. The text was lacking an index, which would prove helpful for students.

The text is accurate and up-to-date with research methods in the social sciences. A variety of data collection methods and concepts are discussed in an easy to understand manor.

The content is up-to-date with research methods in the social sciences. The text should be able to prove useful for a research methods or as supplementary material for a statistics course for the foreseeable future. While I looked through this text with a focus on using it for a psychology course, I feel that this text would be useful across other fields as well.

The book was clear and built upon concepts in a thorough manner. Technical terms were well defined, though as mentioned previously, an index would be helpful for this text for students to look up key terms if they became lost. The text would be useful for an upper-level undergraduate or introductory graduate level course.

The text is consistent throughout. There were no notable deficiencies in any of the content provided in each chapter.

The course is broken down into logical subsections and chapters. Introductory topics relating to research methods are provided early and are built upon in subsequent chapters. A sample syllabus and course outline are provided for instructors who wish to utilize the text for their class.

The book is constructed in a well-organized fashion, without any issues of chapter structure.

The PDF version of the text worked wonderfully on a laptop, with no issues of navigation or distortion of images. This text was not, however, viewed on a tablet or e-reader, which many students use for classes. Based solely on use of a PDF file on a laptop, the interface was flawless, however, if you are considering using this for a class, I would test it out on an e-reader/tablet first to make sure there are no issues with format/text size, etc.

The book did not appear to have any noticeable grammar or syntactical errors.

There were no notable instances of cultural insensitivity throughout the text. Examples were broad and not specific to an individual race or culture.

This is a wonderful open source option for a main text for a research methods course or as a supplementary option for a statistics course that also focuses on data collection.

Reviewed by Divya Varier, Assistant Professor, Virginia Commonwealth University on 2/8/17

The textbook adequately covers most fundamental concepts related to research methods in the social sciences. Areas that would need attention: a chapter introducing mixed methods research, and a deeper discussion on Research Ethics. More social science based examples on specific research designs, experimental research would be great. The research process could include steps involved in academic research with information on the publishing and peer review process.

Content is accurate for the most part. I would have liked a more nuanced discussion of reliability and validity concepts- introducing the concept of validity as conceptualized by Messick/Kane is needed. In social science, especially education (the field I work in), masters/ doctoral students need to be introduced to the complex nature of establishing reliability and validity. While the content covered is detailed, a more critical introduction of the concepts as being situated in the obtained scores as opposed to the instrument itself would have made the chapter stronger.

Content is for the most part up to date (see above comments for specific areas: reliability, validity, mixed methods); some examples may become outdated very soon (example of political movements in middle eastern countries for example).

The writing is excellent in terms of clarity. I appreciate the use of straight forward language to explain the multitude of concepts!

The text is consistent in its overall approach to research methods as well as consistent in its use of terminology.

Bold font for key terms is appreciated. More insets/boxes within chapters would be a great addition visually. Addition of research studies and discussion questions would be great.

The chapters are well-organized. Only suggestion would be to introduce research ethics early on in the book.

No issues whatsoever in this regard.

No issues with grammar

The text is best suited for universities in western countries although I did not identify any insensitivity that would hinder teaching and learning of research methods using this textbook elsewhere.

Specific chapters in this book will be useful for me, from an instructor's perspective. For example, Chapter 2 - 'thinking like a researcher' is wonderfully written. The chapter on Interpretive Research and Qual. Data Analysis are thorough and clear in presentation of concepts- I definitely would use these chapters in my Research Methods class.

Reviewed by Rachel Lucas-Thompson, Assistant Professor, Colorado State University on 12/5/16

As acknowledged by the author in the preface, this is intended as a survey book that doesn't cover all topics in great detail. The upside is that this is a flexible text that can be used in many disciplines; the down side is that the text is short on examples, which reduces readability. I also prefer a textbook that provides a more detailed discussion of the following issues, but could supplement the textbook with these discussion in class: a) confounding variables, b) writing a research report, and the parts of a research report, c) evaluating the internal and external validity of a study, d) how we handle Likert and Likert-type scales (with better reflection of the rich controversy about this issue), e) historical background that has informed our current ethical guidelines, and f) more detail about manipulated vs. observed independent variables. Also, the 'research process' section doesn't include a step for going through IRB review and approval, so overlooks an important step in social science research. I think more detail is provided about paradigms and theories than is necessary, but those chapters and sections could be left out of course reading assignments quite easily.

In general, I think this textbook would be best suited to a course where the textbook is seen as an overview to supplement course discussions rather than a detailed coverage of research methods principles.

As far as I can tell, the book is accurate. There are some terms that the author uses that are not widely used in my field (developmental psychology, human development & family studies) but the descriptions are clear enough that I think students will be able to understand what is meant (however, it would be great to acknowledge and discuss some of these variations in terminology so the burden isn't entirely on the students who are still learning these concepts).

Research methods and statistics content are unlikely to change rapidly, although with the increasing use of ecological momentary assessments, daily diaries, and internet sampling techniques, it might be useful down the road to include more detail about those techniques.

The book is easy to read and follow, although the lack of examples to clarify concepts sometimes reduces the clarity of ideas (but is in keeping with the philosophy of the book).

I haven't spotted any problems with internal consistency.

It would be very easy to divide this into smaller reading sections and assign at different time points.

In general the organization makes sense; the only exception is having research ethics as an epilogue, when ethical issues need to be considered before a study is completed.

My two suggestions for increasing are a) hyperlinking the table of contents so that it was easier to find exactly what you want in the textbook, and b) providing a more detailed table of contents (with subheadings) so it's easier to determine where in chapters you should reference.

I haven't found any grammatical errors.

The text is neither culturally insensitive nor offensive.

I think this book is very well-suited for intro graduate level courses in research methods, as long as instructors are comfortable with this as an overview supplement rather than a detailed stand alone resource for students.

Reviewed by Robin Bartlett, Professor, University of North Carolina at Greensboro on 12/5/16

Generally the major topics are covered. The table of contents (chapter listing) makes it easy to find content. Occasionally I found what I thought was a topic covered only minimally in a chapter - but then found additional information in a later chapter (e.g., treats to internal validity). Overall I'd say in comparison to most other texts with which I am familiar that most all topics are covered, to some degree, but some topics are covered less than I would expect in a doctoral level textbook.

I found no errors in fact in the textbook. I found it to be written in an accurate and unbiased manner.

Primarily due to the topic covered (research methods), I do not believe the text will become obsolete in a short period of time. I think updates could be easily added, and if the author decided to cover some topics more thoroughly, that could be accomplished relatively easily, too.

The book is written in an easy to read style. It is easy to understand. Technical terminology is explained appropriately. The author puts many words in bold type and then defines or describes the word. Students will like this approach.

I had no issues as I reviewed the book in terms of consistency of terms used. The text is internally consistent.

The chapters of the book are separated by natural divisions. It would be easy to use this book in a course on research methods, in fact, there is a syllabus included at the end of the book that could be used by a faculty member when course creating.

The textbook topics are presented in a logical fashion. The ordering isn't necessarily the same order I have seen in other texts, but the order is reasonable.

I had no major interface problems as I reviewed the book. Some of the diagrams in the book are a little out of focus, but, they are still readable.

I found no grammatical errors in the sections of the book that I read.

I found no cultural insensitivity in the text. I noticed the examples cited were from articles written by authors from different countries.

The book is easy to read and fairly comprehensive in terms of topics covered. Some topics are covered in less detail than in some other books I've had the chance to read / review. I am most accustomed to finding discussion of theories in separate texts and presentation of statistics that might be used to analyze quantitative data in separate texts. There are even a couple of chapters on qualitative methods in this book. So, the book covers a wide variety of topics and introduces them in a clear way. Topics are not covered in as comprehensive way as in many texts.

Reviewed by Kelly Pereira, Assistant Professor, The University of North Carolina at Greensboro on 12/5/16

This text offers a comprehensive overview of social science research methods appropriate for advanced undergraduate and graduate students. The text covers the basic concepts in theory, research design and analysis that one would expect of a text geared toward the social sciences in general. The text could be easily adapted and/or supplemented to fit any discipline-specific needs. While the text covers a broad array of topics, it is a bit superficial and lacks depth in some areas. More examples and case studies, for example, could improve the text's thoroughness. The text also lacks an index, glossary and discussion questions, all of which would have been quite useful for a text of this nature. I do like that it includes a chapter on research ethics and an appendix with a sample syllabus, however.

Based on my review, the text's content is accurate, error-free and unbiased. I liked that it presented both qualitative and quantitative research methods fairly, as this divide is often a source of bias.

The text contains up-to-date approaches to research methods and presents classic theoretical debates. The methods presented should not become obsolete in the near future. Any new trends in research methodology could be easily updated in future versions of this text. I feel the text will be relevant and useful for multiple years.

The text is generally well written. It presents the information in a clear and concise way. I find it provides sufficient contextualization and examples for graduate students with some background already in research methods. Undergraduates will likely require supplemental materials and additional case studies to grasp some of the concepts covered. The illustrations do help guide understanding of concepts presented.

The terminology and research methods frameworks presented in the text are consistent. The use of bolded terms and illustrations throughout the text provide additional consistency.

The division of the text into the following sections: theoretical foundations, concepts in research design, data collection and data analysis, make it easy for instructors to structure a course and assign readings based on these main foundational areas. This format also enables instructors to easily supplement with other materials.

Overall, this is a well-organized text. Bolded words/phrases throughout the text provide some structure to guide reading. The text is divided into 16 chapters, which corresponds seamlessly with a 16-week semester. This enables instructors to cover one chapter per week, if they so desire, or optionally spend more time on chapters relevant to their course and exclude others. As mentioned earlier, the logical division of the text chapters into the areas of theory, research design, data collection and data analysis, lends to a soundly-structured course and facilitates the assignment of readings and other coursework.

I did not experience any issues with the text's interface, navigation or displays of images/illustrations. The text is in PDF format.

I did not notice any grammatical errors that impeded reading of the text.

I did not come across any culturally-insensitive or offensive passages in the text.

Reviewed by Peter Harris, Assistant Professor, Colorado State University on 12/5/16

This is a comprehensive overview of research design and research methods in the social sciences. The book's introductory sections offer a discussion of the philosophy of science, the history of science, and definitions of some key terms and concepts, which will help students to contextualize their own endeavors - and their own discipline(s) - inside a larger framework. It also tackles the more familiar topics of research design - conceptualization, measurement, sampling, and so forth - and several specific approaches to data-collection. Overall, then, the book is to be commended for tackling both the philosophical issues at stake in research design as well as the 'nuts and bolts' (or 'brass tacks') of actually doing research.

One of the book's touted selling-points is its focus on phases of research that precede data collection. That is, the book aims to train students not only in research methods, but also in the critical tasks of theorizing problems, generating research questions, and designing scientific inquiries - what the author refers to as 'thinking like a researcher.' This is certainly a welcome addition to a textbook on research design, and ought to help students to overcome some familiar stumbling blocks that seem to present themselves during graduate programs.

Because of its breadth, however, parts of the book can sometimes seem thin and underdeveloped. In particular, the chapters on data collection (specific research methods) are less detailed and comprehensive than other books manage to provide. It is hard to give a detailed 'how to' guide to either survey research, experiments, case studies, or interpretive methods in just 10 pages. As a result, instructors will almost certainly want to supplement this book with more detailed material, perhaps tailored to their specific discipline.

Even so, this book is an excellent backbone for an undergraduate or graduate class on research methods. It will have to be read in conjunction with discipline-specific guides to conducting research (and, most likely, alongside examples of good and bad research), but this does nothing to detract from the book's own value: it will certainly offer a valuable overview of key concepts, ideas, and problems in research design and data-collection, and will serve students throughout the duration of their studies and not just for one class.

This book is accurate, error-free, and as unbiased as it is possible to be in the social sciences. Of course, it is possible to imagine those who simply hold different views about what social science "is" or should be; some scholars might bristle at the notion that only knowledge produced according to the narrow strictures of the scientific method can be considered "scientific knowledge," for example, while others might balk at interpretivism being given parity of esteem with what they see as more rigorous methodological practices. But for the broad mainstream of the social sciences, there will be little in this book that stands out as unusual, controversial, or one-sided.

On the whole, the content of this book will remain relevant for a long time. After all, the basics of the scientific method and the fundamentals of research design seem unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. New and cutting-edge strategies of data collection and theory-testing do emerge, of course, but these are probably best delivered to students in the form of discipline-specific books or articles that could be assigned to complement this textbook, which deals more with foundations than it does with current debates.

The book is organized well and information is presented in a clear way. The prose is accessible and each chapter proceeds methodically.

This text is certainly consistent, and proceeds according to a methodical and logical structure. Key terms and concepts are introduced early on, and there are no 'surprises' in later chapters.

This book is organized into chapters, each of which could be used as the keystone reading for a given class session, and each chapter is broken down in easy-to-digest sections, making the book as accessible as possible. The fact that there are 16 chapters mean that the book could support 16 separate class sessions - that is, just enough to orient classroom discussion for an entire semester. That said, each module does not comprise sufficient material for a whole week; the chapters will need to be supplemented with extra reading material, especially in graduate seminars. It is unlikely that instructors will want to assign only part of a given chapter. Overall, the text reads well as a whole and in terms of its individual chapters.

The chapters for this book are organized into five sections: the introductory section, a section dealing with the basics of empirical research, sections on data collection and data analysis, and a final section that deals with ethics in research. This is a sensible and logical structure for the book, and nothing seems out of place. Again, the book is an accessible and smooth read; it will pose no challenges to an informed reader, and there will be nothing in the organization of the book that will be distracting or irritating.

As a single PDF, this book is easy to navigate.

I noticed no spelling or grammatical errors in this well-written book.

I can detect no culturally insensitive or offensive remarks in this book.

It is worth mentioning that this text ought to serve students well throughout their undergraduate studies, graduate careers, and beyond. It is a timeless - if necessarily limited - resource, and be returned to again and again.

Reviewed by Tamara Falicov, Associate Professor, University of Kansas on 8/21/16

The book is divided into sixteen chapters, which seemed a bit intimidating at first. I later realized that they are not necessarily very long chapters; it varies in terms of the topic. This makes the book quite comprehensive in that the book could be used for the length of the semester, one chapter per week. This is a useful model and one can add or subtract if needed. For example, the beginning chapter which discusses what science is and uses vocabulary from the hard or natural sciences may not necessarily be relevant in a social science course, but the author is being comprehensive by explaining the origins of science and the creation of the scientific method.The vocabulary in bold is extremely effective throughout the book.

The book is meticulously researched and I did not note any egregious statements or inaccuracies. There was one strange sentence when the author was trying to contrast a liberal to a conservative’s viewpoint on page 18 that made this reader feel a bit uncomfortable in how one ideological viewpoint was portrayed, but I’m not sure it was necessarily bias; perhaps just the writing was a bit heavy handed

The book makes sure of updated case examples, discusses how students utilize the internet for research, etc. The theories outlined here are the classic important debates, and the breadth of knowledge the author imparts is extremely comprehensive and up to date. this book could definitely stand on its own for many years before changes in the field might necessitate updating.

I found the textbook to be a refreshing read. The writing is very accessible and clear, but can be dense at times (though not in a problematic way—it means that with some of the more challenging material, the students will have to dig a little deeper to glean the information. The writing was very crisp, and to the point.

The book is written in a careful, consistent manner. As mentioned earlier, the vocabulary words in bold are consistent signposts, and there are citations (not too many, not too few) that help structure the book and provide a cogent framework. Sometimes there are summaries and bullet points, and other times there aren’t, so this is not exactly consistent, but it doesn’t detract from the overall work.

The chapters are excellent stand alone essays that could be used interchangeably. Some of them, such as the first chapter, is historical and philosophical, but not essential to understanding social science research methods. The second and third chapters are excellent for the researcher who is just starting out to formulate a research question. It helps them to think about the various theories and approaches available to them in terms of the angle, focus and methodology selected. The later chapters explain in greater detail various kinds of methods such as how to measure constructs, and scale reliability. These are higher order concepts which would be useful to graduate students—chapters 1-3 could not only work for graduate students, but also for upper division undergraduates.

The book was structured in a logical progression. There were no problems there. There was some repetition with various terms such as Occum’s razor, but this is because there is some overlap with concepts which I think is fine, given that some chapters may not be used in the course of a semester.

No problems with typeface, the diagrams and graphs are incredibly useful in breaking down more complex research methods.

There were no problems with syntax, grammar, spelling that I came across, except for a minor typo in chapter 9 in the table of contents.

I felt that the author was careful in his selection of case students to try to be inclusive and culturally sensitive. There was that one sentence that raised eyebrows about liberals versus democrats that I mentioned previously, but it wasn’t a major deal.

I found this book to be extremely useful and of high quality. I will to recommend it to a colleague who is teaching research methods next semester in a different department.

Reviewed by Yen-Chu Weng, Lecturer, University of Washington on 8/21/16

Dr. Bhattacherjee’s book, Social Science Research, is a good introductory textbook for upper-level undergraduate students and graduate students to learn about the research process. Whereas most research methods textbooks either focus on “research design” or on “data analysis”, this book covers the whole research process – from theories and conceptual frameworks to research design, data collection, and analysis. This book is structured as four modules and is very adaptable to instructors who want to teach any portions of the book.

Social science is a quite diverse field, including studies of socio-economic data, human behaviors, values, perceptions, and many others. Not only are the topics wide-ranging, but the research methods and the underlying philosophy of science also vary. Therefore, it is extremely difficult to write a textbook that includes everything. Dr. Bhattacherjee’s book is a nice overview of all these different methods commonly used in the social sciences. It aims for breadth, but not depth. Once could use this book as an entry to the field, but would need to seek additional resources for specific methods or analytical skills.

Based on my review of the book, the content is accurate, error-free and unbiased. However, better consistency with terminology often used in other related fields (such as statistics) would lessen students’ confusion with concepts.

Research methods are not time-sensitive topics and are not expected to change much in the near future. The inclusion of some cases or examples showcasing how social science research methods can be applied to current events or topics would help illustrate the relevance of this book (and social science research).

The book is very clear and accessible. It’s written in a way that is easy to understand. Important terminologies are bolded and these are good signposts for key concepts. A glossary summarizing definitions for the key terminologies would help students understand these key concepts. The book includes some helpful figures illustrating concepts in research design and statistics.

Overall, the book is very consistent.

The author, Dr. Bhattacherjee, structured the book following the research process – from theories, to research design, data collection, and analysis. Each module can be a standalone unit and is very adaptable to instructors who want to teach with either the whole book or individual modules. Although each module is mostly self-contained, it is impossible not to refer to other chapters since research is an iterative process. However, I do not expect this to be a huge problem for someone who wants to teach only a section of the book.

The fact that this book is structured as modules also makes it expandable. For those who want to teach only the philosophy of science or only the research design portion, they can add more details and in-depth discussion to these topics.

The book is well-organized and flows well with the research process. The chapters are clearly titled as well as the subheadings. Some numbering with the subheadings would help with navigation. In addition, a chapter summary/conclusion would also help with summarizing the main concepts of a chapter (some chapters do have a summary, but not all chapters).

The flow of the first module (Introduction to Research) is sometimes confusing – the book jumps between big ideas (scientific reasoning, conceptual framework) and specific details (variables, units of analysis) several times in the first four chapters. I thought that reorganizing the chapters as Ch1, Ch4, Ch3, Ch2 would flow better (from big ideas to specific details).

Since the book is organized by the research process, not by the type of research (qualitative vs. quantitative), Module 3 (Data Collection) and Module 4 (Data Analysis) cover both types of research. As a result, the flow/connection between each chapter are less clear. By reorganizing these two modules into “qualitative research methods and data analysis” and “quantitative research methods and data analysis”, not only would improve the flow of the book, but also better serve researchers who are interested in a particular type of research.

There are no major problems with the book’s interface. Each chapter is clearly titled. I would like to see the subheadings being numbered as well. If the PDF could have the Table of Contents on the sidebar, it would improve the navigation even more.

There are no grammatical errors noticed.

There are no culturally insensitive or offensive materials noticed. The few examples used in the book are very general and not controversial.

This book is a nice walk-through guide for researchers new to the field of social science research. One thing I would recommend adding is examples and cases. With more examples and cases, students would be able to put research methods into context and practice how they can apply the methods to their own research projects.

Reviewed by Dana Whippo, Assistant Professor of Political Science and Economics, Dickinson State University on 1/7/16

For its purpose, as introduced by the author, this is appropriately comprehensive. However, it is much more brief, more concise, than traditional research methods texts for undergraduates – which the text does not claim to be. It lays a sufficient foundation, with room and expectation for the professor to supplement with additional materials. Supplementing would be important if using this in an undergraduate classroom. I appreciate that the author emphasizes the process of research, and takes the time to address, in the first four chapters, the logic and process of research in a way that allows the text to be used in multiple disciplines. Indeed, this is one of the strengths of the book: that it can be used broadly within the social sciences. The text does not provide either an index or a glossary. This is more challenging when planning for its use in an undergraduate research methods class; however, I think that the strengths of this book outweigh the weaknesses.

I have not noticed any errors or bias. The only issue I’ve noticed, as indicated in other parts of the review, is depth. Doctoral students would bring in a sufficient foundation for reading this on their own; undergraduates will need scaffolding and additional resources to competently understand the complexity inherent in research.

The content does not read in a way that seems (either now or in the future) likely to read as dated or obsolete. The discussion of survey methodology and analysis programs will change with technology, but that should be easy to update. One of the book’s strengths is its focus on the foundation of research methods: the relationship between theory and observation, the understanding of science, and the logic that underlies the process of research.

The book is well-written and concise. Bearing in mind the author’s stated target audience of graduate and doctoral students, it is entirely reasonable that this would require additional work and instructor support (extra time and explanations for definitions and examples, for instance) when used in an undergraduate classroom.

The terminology is consistent throughout.

Faculty would be able to easily divide the text into smaller sections, which would be useful as those smaller reading sections could be combined with targeted supplementary materials.

The topics generally flow well as presented; the only exception is having the section on research ethics at the end. However, this chapter would be easy to assign earlier in the semester.

I did not have any problems with respect to interface issues.

I did not notice any grammatical errors that interfered with the reading process.

I did not notice any offensive comments or examples. The book is brief by design; it does not include the numerous examples that populate the traditional undergraduate research methods text. I did not find it offensive or insensitive.

Reviewed by Andrew Knight, Assistant Professor of Music Therapy, Colorado State University on 1/7/16

I have not seen a more comprehensive text for this topic area, and yet it retains a concision that I would have appreciated as a PhD student when I took courses in research methods. I think that the text may lend itself to several different types of courses. The early chapters can by used for more theoretical research courses, especially for new researchers and fundamentals of research courses. The later chapters can be used for "nuts and bolts" courses for addressing specific methodological issues. The appendices are an especially nice touch and added value for faculty to understand how the author uses this text and creates a syllabus to complement it.

There are very few typographical errors, and overall, the text is rigorously unbiased in its scientific method claims and explanations.

The overwhelming majority of the content in this text is classical understandings of research and methodologies that are essential to all graduate students, particularly in business and the social sciences. There is no indication that any of the content will suffer from claims that it is obsolete or irrelevant.

The clarity of the text is sound partly due to the concision of the book. Shorter chapters, easily navigable paragraphs, and other compositional devices make the text accessible to most levels of graduate students. The bolded words invite the reader to create a self-guided glossary, not any different than a textbook in an 8th grade student collection, which is helpful to counter the sometimes sophisticated nature of research theory.

No consistency issues noted.

The chapters have a nice flow to them, and can be "chunked" out for use in more beginner or more advanced courses. One preference of this reviewer would be to assign the ethics in research chapter earlier in the course calendar, and thus earlier in the textbook, so it is part of the foundational aspects of understanding social science inquiry. Meanwhile, the qualitative and two separate quantitative chapters play well together for students who will want to review them before exams or after the course is finished while they pursue a thesis/dissertation.

Again, I think the ethics chapter should be earlier, but that is simply a personal choice and can be altered by my syllabus. One issue that I wonder if graduate students might prefer is if they are not already 13 chapters into a text/course and only then are they getting to a basic concept such as measures of central tendency. Offering some of the nuts and bolts of research methods earlier in the text and tying them into the more theoretical concepts might help with clarity of flow for the typical graduate student.

No issues, nice charts and graphics throughout.

Very few noted.

This text is not insensitive in any way. As a matter of fact, pointing out historical issues in research ethics using some sensitive vignettes actually heightens the importance of research in everyday life.

I'm looking forward to adopting it for courses and using it for my own reflections on research!

Reviewed by Allison White, Assistant Professor, Colorado State University on 1/7/16

This text covers a wide array of topics relevant to social science research, including some that are not traditionally included but are welcome additions, such as a chapter dedicated to research ethics. A sample syllabus for a graduate course on research design is also offered at the end of the book, facilitating course development. The book is comprehensive in its treatment of the central components of research design and the different methodological strategies that researchers can leverage to investigate various research questions. Notably absent, however, is an index, glossary of terms, or questions for discussion, which are frequently included in textbooks devoted to research design.

The content is accurate and unbiased, which may be particularly important for texts on research design, as many fields within social science are intractably polarized between quantitative and qualitative approaches. The book goes a long way toward bridging that gap by treating the multitude of methodological orientations fairly and without obvious preference for one or another.

This book will stand the test of time due to its comprehensiveness and fair and balanced approach to research design. Both cutting-edge and classic approaches to research are discussed and the book may be easily updated as warranted by important developments in the social sciences.

The text is written clearly and accessibly, providing adequate context for most of the jargon and technical terminology that is covered. For this reason, it seems suitable for a variety of graduate-level courses, including research design survey courses and more advanced courses focusing on specific approaches.

The text is internally consistent in terms of terminology and framework.

The book neatly compartmentalizes the topics, making it easily divisible into smaller reading sections that can be assigned at different points within the course. The individual chapters stand on their own and do not require contextualization. Numerous sub-headings throughout each chapter flag the central themes.

The topics in the text are presented in a logical, clear fashion. The topics build productively throughout the textbook, beginning with the basic concepts of research design and culminating with different strategies to approach research.

The book's interface is seamless. Charts and images appear appropriately sized and undistorted and the text is free from navigation problems.

The text does not contain conspicuous grammatical errors.

The text and examples provided in it are not culturally insensitive or offensive in any way. Examples are drawn from universal theories rather than research that is culturally-specific.

Reviewed by Jim Hutchinson, Lecturer, University of Minnesota on 6/10/15

This text covers all the basic concepts expected in a book on social science research. However, it does so at a fairly superficial level. The author says this was intentional in order to provide coverage of essential topics and not distract students. As such, the book seems to do a good job introducing all the essential concepts for graduate research, but supplemental materials are likely needed depending on instructor or student needs.

The book seems to free of errors and bias.

Social science research isn't likely to change greatly so this text should remain relevant for some time and can easily be updated to accommodate new techniques as they arise.

The book is generally well-written and accessible. The writing is clear and there are sufficient examples to help students grasp concepts.

The text appears consistent with others in the field.

The text may be best used as an overview of the research process in social sciences rather than a reference. However, various chapters could also be used alone or as supplement to other materials and excluding chapters not relevant to a particular course should not cause any issues. The author even mentions excluding certain chapters that are actually full courses where he teaches.

The organization and sequence seems very logical.

I accessed the PDF version and did not experience any issues with text or graphics.

I think a good proofread would help. There are a number of places where extraneous words were left in (perhaps when rewriting and changing the structure of a sentence) or where words are not quite right. For example:

"...a researcher looking at the world through a “rational lens” will look for rational explanations of the problem such as inadequate technology or poor fit between technology and the task context where it is being utilized, while another research[er] looking at the same problem through a “social lens” may seek out social deficiencies..."

Such errors are not really problematic but they are a bit distracting at times.

I did not find the book to be insensitive or offensive. Examples used are fairly benign. For example, when discussing the tendency of lay people to view a scientific theory as mere speculation the author uses an example of teacher practice instead of a more charged example such as evolution.

Overall, this is a good book to introduce graduate (and even undergraduate) students to social science research. It is not comprehensive enough to be the only text students encounter, but it would be sufficient for say master's level programs that focus more on capstone or practical "informed by research" projects. Students planning to conduct original research, analyze data and interpret results will likely find this insufficient.

Reviewed by Paul Goren, Professor, University of Minnesota on 7/15/14

This text introduces social science doctoral students to the research process. It can be used in sociology, political science, education public health, and related disciplines. The book does an excellent job covering topics that are too often neglected in research methods classes. Standard texts devote most of their attention to different modes of data collection (e.g, lab experiments, field experiments, quasi-experiments, survey research, aggregate data collection, interpretive and case study methods, etc.). This book covers these materials but also devotes a lot of time to steps in the research process that precede data collection. These steps include formulating a research question, concept definition, theory elaboration, measurement (including reliability and validity) and sampling. There is also cursory coverage of descriptive statistics and inferential statistics (a chapter on each) as well as chapter on research ethics. In terms of coverage, then, the text can be described as comprehensive in terms of topics. In terms of depth of coverage of the topics, the text takes a minimalist approach. That is, the fundamentals of each topic are covered, but there is little discussion beyond the basics. Teachers looking for the perfect text that nails all the key points should look elsewhere or make heavy use of supplements. For instance, in the discussion on concepts, constructs, and variables, the text does not distinguish between latent variables, which are unobservable, and manifest variables, which are observable, as is common in the structural equation modeling tradition used in sociology and psychology. This is a minor omission and there are others one might quibble with. The bottom line is that most key topics in the research process are covered, but the coverage is not terribly deep.

From what I can tell, the book is accurate in terms of what it covers. There are some things that should probably be included in subsequent revisions.

The social science research process is unlikely to change in any signfiicant way for some time; therefore, I suspect the book will be relevant for years to come. The key will be ensuring that the latest research trends/improvements/refinements are added to the book. For instance, internet sampling techniques have come a long way over the past decade and there are now pollng firms that can admister online surveys to representative samples of the broader U.S. population. So long as the author keeps on these develops, this will serve as a useful introductory text for the foreseable future.

This text is extremely and unusually well-written and clear. This is one of the text's greatest selling points. No complaints on this score.

The book is very consistent from what I can see.

This book can work in a number of ways. A teacher can sample the germane chapters and incorporate them without difficulty in any research methods class.

The organization is fine. The book presents all the topics in an appropriate sequence.

The interface is fine. I didn't experience any problems.

I didn't see any errors, it looks fine.

The book is not culturally offensive.

Teachers looking for a text that they can use to introduce students to the research process and cover the foundational components of the research process should find this manuscript sufficient for their needs. Simple additions on slides or class room commentary can easily take care of the various omissions that pepper the text. Indeed, one could use this text in conjunction with discipline specific supplements quite effectively. For instance, in chapter 3 on the research process, the author devotes 5 paragraphs to common mistakes in the research process, such as pursuing trivial research questions or blind data mining. I can see how psychologists, sociologists and political scientists could provide discipline-specific examples to tailor this to their students particular needs. More generally, I suspect that the text could be used in conjunction with germane discipline specific materials quite effectively in research methodology classes. The book is not perfect. I wish there was more discussion on field experiments in the experiment chapter. Other than a brief mention that these are relatively rare, there was nothing. These are indeed relatively rare but that seems to be changing in some fields (e.g. economic, political science), and I think more discussion of this technique is warranted. The chapter on case study methods would benefit from discussion on the historical and comparative methods that are used in various social science disciplines, as well as some discussion on case selection methods. The statistical coverage is very thin and should not serve as the primary source material in any class that covers statistics. For instance, the discussion on the empirical assessment of reliability (for items or scales) does not discuss in depth the assumptions that underlie the various methods nor the modifications that need to be made across different levels of measurement. To take another example, the author presents the formulae for the variance and standard deviation on p. 122 with the customary n-1 in the denominator. Students often ask me why we divide the mean squared deviation by n-1 instead of n, which is what we do for the mean. Professors will need to make sure that their slides include discussion of the degrees of freedom idea and perhaps some discussion on unbiasedness as well. In the inferential statistics chapter there's no discussion on desirable properties of estimators (unbiasedness and efficiency). This is an unfortunate oversight. These could be added very easily using simple graphs. One thing that's lacking is a chapter on statistical graphics. The book makes great use of graphics and other visual aids throughout the chapters, but I wish there as a standalone chapter that introduces simple plots for univariate and bivariate data. This can be supplemented easily enough, but the omission seems odd. Again, this book can serve as an compact introduction in a graduate research methodology class for students across the social sciences, but it would work best in conjunction with deeper and more discipline specific materials prepared by the professor.

Reviewed by Anika Leithner, Associate Professor, California Polytechnic State University on 7/15/14

This text certainly covers all the basic concepts and processes I would expect to find in an introduction to social sciences research. What I liked in particular is that the author includes information on the ENTIRE research process, including critical thinking and research ethics, in addition to the "nuts and bolts" of research such as operationalization, data collection, and data analysis. I also find it useful that the author includes sections on both qualitative and quantitative research, which is great for an introductory level course. In general, readers can expect to find information on theory- and hypothesis building, operationalization/measurements, sampling, research design, various data collection strategies (e.g. surveys, experiments, etc.), as well as data analysis. The primary reason I did not give this text 5 stars is that the author does not provide a great amount of detail for a lot of the book's sections. He explains in the preface that he purposefully chose to reduce the text to the basics in order to keep the text compact and clutter-free. In general, I tend to agree with this approach, as so many methodology textbooks seem to get lost in examples and case studies without clearly illustrating the research process as a whole. However, as I was reading through this book, I kept thinking that I would need to supplement multiple areas of this book with more information in order to make it truly accessible to my students. To be fair, I think that A) anyone who has taught methods before would be able to use the "bones" of this book to prepare students sufficiently well for class and then easily fill in the blanks, and B) it appears that this text was written primarily with graduate students in mind, whereas I most teach undergraduates. In all, I still think that this is a great free alternative to many textbooks out there, but if your teaching style depends on your text including a lot of explanation and examples (or even applications), then this is likely not the text for you. Finally, this book does NOT include an index or a glossary. Personally, I did not find this to be a problem, as the outline/table of contents is very useful, but perhaps students using the text could benefit from an index that would allow them to quickly look up what they need to know.

I did not detect any errors or any purposeful bias in this textbook! Some readers might find that the author's choice of terminology does not necessarily match what I would consider standard practices in the broader social sciences (e.g. the use of the term "mediating variables" instead of "intervening variables"), but it is always clear what the book is referring to and it shouldn't be too difficult to bridge this "terminology gap." Occasionally, I was a bit puzzled by a definition or an explanation. For instance, the author states that "control variables" are not pertinent to explaining the dependent variable, but need to be taken into consideration because they may have "some impact" on it. I'm assuming the author means that they are not pertinent to the hypothesis being tested (as opposed to them not being pertinent to the explanation of the dependent variable). This type of ambiguity does not occur very often in the textbook and it does not necessarily represent an error. It merely seems to be an issue of miscommunication. Overall, I very much liked this text for its accuracy.

Luckily, research methods do not change drastically in a short period of time, so I expect the longevity of this book to be very high. In my experience, the biggest factor that can make a research text outdated is the use of up-to-date examples and case studies. This text includes very few of either, so I think this text could be used for many years to come.

The book is very clear and accessible, probably largely due to its minimalist approach. Aside from the above-mentioned deviations from broader social sciences terminology on a few occasions, I did not encounter any problems with the jargon/technical terminology used. The only minor problem I noted (which made me I've a ranking of 4 as opposed to 5) was a certain amount of repetitiveness in the earlier chapters, specifically with regard to positivism/post-positivism and the discussion of theory/hypothesis creation and testing.

The book is very consistent. It has a clear outline that matches the natural research process and the author very consistently adhere to this outline. Chapters naturally flow from one another and are logical.

This book is very well organized and easily accessible due to its division into logical chapters and sub-sections. In addition, the author highlights important concepts in bold, making it even easier to follow along. I would have no problem assigning smaller reading sections throughout the quarter/semester.

As mentioned above, the text is very well organized and flows naturally/logically. It follows the research process from critical thinking, conceptualization, to operationalization/measurements, research design, data collection, and data analysis. Research ethics are discussed in an appendix/addendum.

There are no major problems with the book's interface. Occasionally, graphs and tables are not as crisp and visually appealing as they might be in an expensive textbook, but personally, the ability to assign an open source text to my students far outweighs any concerns I might have about the visual attractiveness of a book. This text is easy to read and quite user-friendly.

I detected no grammatical errors.

The text includes very few examples and it is hard to imagine how research methods in general could be offensive to anyone (unless it is the practice of science itself that offends them), but for completeness' sake, allow me to state that I found no instances of insensitivity or offense in this textbook.

This text covers all the basics of the research process. It does not contain a lot of the "bells and whistles" that the expensive traditional textbooks have (e.g. lots of examples, fancy graphs, text boxes with case studies and applications, etc.), but it certainly gets the job done. Personally, I appreciate the compact nature of this text and I would much rather fill in a few gaps on my end, if it means that I can assign my students an open textbook.

Reviewed by Brendan Watson, Assistant Professor, University of Minnesota on 7/15/14

See overall comments. read more

See overall comments.

Dr. Bhattacherjee's "Social Science Research: Principles, Methods, and Practices," is a comprehensive, but a bare-boned (and generic) introduction to social science research. In this case "generic" is actually a positive attribute: because the text covers social science research broadly, rather than sociology, psychology, etc. specifically, this text can easily be adapted to the needs of basic research methods courses in allied disciplines. (I teach an introductory quantitative research course for master's and Ph.D. students in a School of Journalism & Mass Communication). I describe the text as comprehensive, because if my students got a basic grasp of all of the concepts in the book, they'd be well positioned to continue on to more advanced research courses (though the text is less valuable as a reference than more comprehensive introductory texts). But while Dr. Bhattacherjee's introduction says that the book is bare-boned by design -- "I decided to focus only on essential concepts, and not fill pages with clutter that can divert the students' attention to less relevant or tangential issues" -- some topics deserve more attention. For example, Institutional Review Boards (IRB) receive only two short paragraphs, and there is no mention of the history of why such boards were deemed necessary and play an important role in the research process. I'd consider such knowledge essential for students, and this is the type of information I would like a text to focus on so that I can spend class time reviewing more complicated concepts students might have trouble grasping on their own. (Generally I found the writing to be approachable, and concepts to be well explained, though extensive examples are also part of the "clutter" omitted from this book). Another topic I would have liked to see developed further - and perhaps is especially important to the more digitally-savvy crowd interested in the open textbook movement - is the expanding role of the Internet and digital technologies in the research process itself, particularly in the era of "big data." The text, for example, mentions Internet surveys, but there is no conversation about tools one can use to build an Internet survey; how Internet surveys differ from traditional modes of surveying; or the practice of weighting Internet survey results to make them "representative" of the larger population. That said, I am balancing using this text versus a more comprehensive, but much more expensive, commercially produced text. Another thing that this book is missing are instructional resources that commercial publishers provide, but ultimately by using this text I can contribute to creating greater value for my students. However, it would have to be supplemented heavily with other materials, as well as lectures, which is not without a trade-off cost. It's certainly doable, but ultimately means a greater investment of my time, and I have to weigh investing my time in creating hands-on learning opportunities and providing students with thorough feedback on their work with the time I'd have to invest in using a text that is complete, but needs to be much more heavily supplemented with additional materials. Ideally, several faculty with similar teaching needs would team up to combine and adapt several open texts to their courses' needs. Adapting and supplementing this text for my purposes by myself, however, remains a steep, if not insurmountable task for a tenure-track professor. This text, however, is thorough enough to maintain my interested in trying to find a way to make it work.

About the book.

Part I. Main Body

Science and scientific research
Thinking like a researcher
The research process
Theories in scientific research
Research design
Measurement of constructs
Scale reliability and validity
Survey research
Experimental research
Case research
Interpretive research
Qualitative analysis
Quantitative analysis: Descriptive statistics
Quantitative analysis: Inferential statistics
Research ethics

Ancillary Material

This book is designed to introduce doctoral and postgraduate students to the process of conducting scientific research in the social sciences, business, education, public health, and related disciplines. It is a one-stop, comprehensive, and compact source for foundational concepts in behavioural research, and can serve as a standalone text or as a supplement to research readings in any doctoral seminar or research methods class. This book is currently being used as a research text at universities in 216 countries, across six continents and has been translated into seven different languages. To receive updates on this book, including the translated versions, please follow the author on Facebook or Twitter @Anol_B.

About the Contributors

Anol Bhattacherjee is a professor of information systems and Citigroup/Hidden River Fellow at the University of South Florida, USA. He is one of the top ten information systems researchers in the world, ranked eighth based on research published in the top two journals in the discipline, MIS Quarterly and Information Systems Research , over the last decade (2001-2010). In a research career spanning 15 years, Dr. Bhattacherjee has published over 50 refereed journal papers and two books that have received over 4,000 citations on Google Scholar. He also served on the editorial board of MIS Quarterly for four years and is frequently invited to present his research or build new research programs at universities all over the world. More information about Dr. Bhattacherjee can be obtained from his webpage at http://ab2020.weebly.com .

Contribute to this Page

What is Research Methodology? Definition, Types, and Examples

The ability to conduct research, which is the art of finding information, is an important ability in today’s world. Whether you’re engaged in formal academic research as a student or professional or simply trying to locate information on where to buy something you need or the best vacation spot, research consumes an increasing amount of time in our lives thanks to the amount of information available on the internet.

Research is a skill, one that takes time to learn. How should you go about looking for the information you need, and how can you be certain that what you’ve found is accurate and reliable? There are established ways of locating or producing trustworthy information. These are known as research methods or research methodology.

Table of Content:

What Is Research Methodology?

Types of Research Methodology

Selecting and Explaining Your Research Methodology

Let’s take a look at what research methodology is and isn’t and learn how to choose the appropriate research methodology that is suitable to the task at hand.

What is Research Methodology?

Research methodology is the underlying framework that guides your research . Research methodology must be systematic and intentional. This does not mean that it needs to be overly complex; it simply means that there must be some thought behind the methods that you choose to base your research on.

In the context of academia, an explanation of the research methodology that was followed forms an essential part of any article or study.

The research methodology of an academic publication helps readers understand:

What data was collected
How the data was collected
How the data was analyzed
Why was the study conducted the way it was

Why is research methodology important?

Let’s take an example. Suppose you are studying the effects of drug X on a specific disease. You find one study that claims drug X is very effective for people who have the disease and another that claims drug X is only effective for people who have not had the disease for very long. In such a case, how do you figure out which study is reliable?

The truth is, although studies sometimes simply find conflicting results, usually, the reasons behind such different results can be found in the research methodology section. There is a possibility that the first study that found drug X to be very effective only studied people who had a milder form of the disease.

Perhaps the first study only examined women, while the second study examined an equal number of men and women. Maybe the drug dosages administered to the study group were different in the two studies. All of this information can be found in the research methodology section of a study and is essential for understanding what the research really means and determining how significant the results are.

There are different types of research methodologies. One methodology is not necessarily better than another. Rather, each methodology is suitable for different purposes.

The two main types of research methodologies are quantitative and qualitative .

Quantitative research methodology generally uses statistics or other such numerical data (tangibles), while qualitative research methodology analyzes beliefs, cultural behaviors, concepts, descriptions, and other similar data (intangibles).

The mixed methods research methodology uses both quantitative and qualitative research techniques .

Upgrade your writing skills

Write with Trinka

You have likely encountered all three types of research methodologies in your life. Quantitative research methodology examples would include studies like the one above on drug efficacy, with efficacy measured in numerical terms (how much percent did a tumor shrink? how much did the white blood cell count increase? how many days did it take for the patient to regain consciousness?).

Qualitative research methods are used to determine how many people support a political policy or how much rising oil prices have impacted food costs for the average consumer.

Qualitative research methodology examples include studies in which people are asked about their perceptions (who they think won an electoral debate, whether they consider themselves middle class), their understanding of an idea (what does kindness mean to you?), or identity concepts (do you consider yourself male, female, or neither?).

Quantitative research methods are used to understand phenomena that cannot be easily quantified. Mixed methods research examples include the use of both broad representative survey data and key informant interviews, where the public is asked their opinion on an issue and then experts are interviewed in-depth to provide a bigger picture of the issue.

The primary driving factor behind your choice of research methodology is simple: what do you want to know, and how can you know it . If you want to find out whether American children prefer lemon or apple-flavored candy so that you can sell more candy in the US, perhaps a survey of a representative sample of children would give you your answer in numerical form; therefore, you should choose a quantitative research method.

However, if you want to understand why so many engineering terms in Korean are of German and Japanese origin, perhaps a review of historical documents and interviews with engineers in Korea might help, in which case, you should choose a qualitative research method.

When you write a research methodology section in your research study, you will need to make sure that you clearly explain what method you chose, why you chose it, and how you went about implementing it.

If you performed a survey among children, how did you find those children? What questions did you ask them? Why did you ask those particular questions? How did you analyze their answers? Did you quantify the data results? How?

All of these elements must be included so that readers can both understand what you did and why you did it. Ideally, someone else who reads your study should be able to replicate it exactly after reading your methodology section and examining your data.

Although it sounds a little overwhelming, writing a research methodology section well is not very difficult. If you’re concerned about the technical writing aspect, you can always turn to an online grammar checker like Trinka to make sure that your tone and style are appropriate, technical terms are correctly used, and the writing style is sufficiently formal.

As long as you have a clear research question and properly mapped-out strategy to obtain the data you need and analyze it, you have all the necessary elements to write a great research methodology.

Go beyond grammar & spelling

Subscribe to stay updated with us!

Join thousands of subscribers to get regular updates on industry trends and our blog posts.

Open access
Published: 07 September 2020

A tutorial on methodological studies: the what, when, how and why

Lawrence Mbuagbaw ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5855-5461 1 , 2 , 3 ,
Daeria O. Lawson 1 ,
Livia Puljak 4 ,
David B. Allison 5 &
Lehana Thabane 1 , 2 , 6 , 7 , 8

BMC Medical Research Methodology volume 20 , Article number: 226 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

38k Accesses

52 Citations

57 Altmetric

Metrics details

Methodological studies – studies that evaluate the design, analysis or reporting of other research-related reports – play an important role in health research. They help to highlight issues in the conduct of research with the aim of improving health research methodology, and ultimately reducing research waste.

We provide an overview of some of the key aspects of methodological studies such as what they are, and when, how and why they are done. We adopt a “frequently asked questions” format to facilitate reading this paper and provide multiple examples to help guide researchers interested in conducting methodological studies. Some of the topics addressed include: is it necessary to publish a study protocol? How to select relevant research reports and databases for a methodological study? What approaches to data extraction and statistical analysis should be considered when conducting a methodological study? What are potential threats to validity and is there a way to appraise the quality of methodological studies?

Appropriate reflection and application of basic principles of epidemiology and biostatistics are required in the design and analysis of methodological studies. This paper provides an introduction for further discussion about the conduct of methodological studies.

Peer Review reports

The field of meta-research (or research-on-research) has proliferated in recent years in response to issues with research quality and conduct [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. As the name suggests, this field targets issues with research design, conduct, analysis and reporting. Various types of research reports are often examined as the unit of analysis in these studies (e.g. abstracts, full manuscripts, trial registry entries). Like many other novel fields of research, meta-research has seen a proliferation of use before the development of reporting guidance. For example, this was the case with randomized trials for which risk of bias tools and reporting guidelines were only developed much later – after many trials had been published and noted to have limitations [ 4 , 5 ]; and for systematic reviews as well [ 6 , 7 , 8 ]. However, in the absence of formal guidance, studies that report on research differ substantially in how they are named, conducted and reported [ 9 , 10 ]. This creates challenges in identifying, summarizing and comparing them. In this tutorial paper, we will use the term methodological study to refer to any study that reports on the design, conduct, analysis or reporting of primary or secondary research-related reports (such as trial registry entries and conference abstracts).

In the past 10 years, there has been an increase in the use of terms related to methodological studies (based on records retrieved with a keyword search [in the title and abstract] for “methodological review” and “meta-epidemiological study” in PubMed up to December 2019), suggesting that these studies may be appearing more frequently in the literature. See Fig. 1 .

Trends in the number studies that mention “methodological review” or “meta-

epidemiological study” in PubMed.

The methods used in many methodological studies have been borrowed from systematic and scoping reviews. This practice has influenced the direction of the field, with many methodological studies including searches of electronic databases, screening of records, duplicate data extraction and assessments of risk of bias in the included studies. However, the research questions posed in methodological studies do not always require the approaches listed above, and guidance is needed on when and how to apply these methods to a methodological study. Even though methodological studies can be conducted on qualitative or mixed methods research, this paper focuses on and draws examples exclusively from quantitative research.

The objectives of this paper are to provide some insights on how to conduct methodological studies so that there is greater consistency between the research questions posed, and the design, analysis and reporting of findings. We provide multiple examples to illustrate concepts and a proposed framework for categorizing methodological studies in quantitative research.

What is a methodological study?

Any study that describes or analyzes methods (design, conduct, analysis or reporting) in published (or unpublished) literature is a methodological study. Consequently, the scope of methodological studies is quite extensive and includes, but is not limited to, topics as diverse as: research question formulation [ 11 ]; adherence to reporting guidelines [ 12 , 13 , 14 ] and consistency in reporting [ 15 ]; approaches to study analysis [ 16 ]; investigating the credibility of analyses [ 17 ]; and studies that synthesize these methodological studies [ 18 ]. While the nomenclature of methodological studies is not uniform, the intents and purposes of these studies remain fairly consistent – to describe or analyze methods in primary or secondary studies. As such, methodological studies may also be classified as a subtype of observational studies.

Parallel to this are experimental studies that compare different methods. Even though they play an important role in informing optimal research methods, experimental methodological studies are beyond the scope of this paper. Examples of such studies include the randomized trials by Buscemi et al., comparing single data extraction to double data extraction [ 19 ], and Carrasco-Labra et al., comparing approaches to presenting findings in Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) summary of findings tables [ 20 ]. In these studies, the unit of analysis is the person or groups of individuals applying the methods. We also direct readers to the Studies Within a Trial (SWAT) and Studies Within a Review (SWAR) programme operated through the Hub for Trials Methodology Research, for further reading as a potential useful resource for these types of experimental studies [ 21 ]. Lastly, this paper is not meant to inform the conduct of research using computational simulation and mathematical modeling for which some guidance already exists [ 22 ], or studies on the development of methods using consensus-based approaches.

When should we conduct a methodological study?

Methodological studies occupy a unique niche in health research that allows them to inform methodological advances. Methodological studies should also be conducted as pre-cursors to reporting guideline development, as they provide an opportunity to understand current practices, and help to identify the need for guidance and gaps in methodological or reporting quality. For example, the development of the popular Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were preceded by methodological studies identifying poor reporting practices [ 23 , 24 ]. In these instances, after the reporting guidelines are published, methodological studies can also be used to monitor uptake of the guidelines.

These studies can also be conducted to inform the state of the art for design, analysis and reporting practices across different types of health research fields, with the aim of improving research practices, and preventing or reducing research waste. For example, Samaan et al. conducted a scoping review of adherence to different reporting guidelines in health care literature [ 18 ]. Methodological studies can also be used to determine the factors associated with reporting practices. For example, Abbade et al. investigated journal characteristics associated with the use of the Participants, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Timeframe (PICOT) format in framing research questions in trials of venous ulcer disease [ 11 ].

How often are methodological studies conducted?

There is no clear answer to this question. Based on a search of PubMed, the use of related terms (“methodological review” and “meta-epidemiological study”) – and therefore, the number of methodological studies – is on the rise. However, many other terms are used to describe methodological studies. There are also many studies that explore design, conduct, analysis or reporting of research reports, but that do not use any specific terms to describe or label their study design in terms of “methodology”. This diversity in nomenclature makes a census of methodological studies elusive. Appropriate terminology and key words for methodological studies are needed to facilitate improved accessibility for end-users.

Why do we conduct methodological studies?

Methodological studies provide information on the design, conduct, analysis or reporting of primary and secondary research and can be used to appraise quality, quantity, completeness, accuracy and consistency of health research. These issues can be explored in specific fields, journals, databases, geographical regions and time periods. For example, Areia et al. explored the quality of reporting of endoscopic diagnostic studies in gastroenterology [ 25 ]; Knol et al. investigated the reporting of p -values in baseline tables in randomized trial published in high impact journals [ 26 ]; Chen et al. describe adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement in Chinese Journals [ 27 ]; and Hopewell et al. describe the effect of editors’ implementation of CONSORT guidelines on reporting of abstracts over time [ 28 ]. Methodological studies provide useful information to researchers, clinicians, editors, publishers and users of health literature. As a result, these studies have been at the cornerstone of important methodological developments in the past two decades and have informed the development of many health research guidelines including the highly cited CONSORT statement [ 5 ].

Where can we find methodological studies?

Methodological studies can be found in most common biomedical bibliographic databases (e.g. Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Web of Science). However, the biggest caveat is that methodological studies are hard to identify in the literature due to the wide variety of names used and the lack of comprehensive databases dedicated to them. A handful can be found in the Cochrane Library as “Cochrane Methodology Reviews”, but these studies only cover methodological issues related to systematic reviews. Previous attempts to catalogue all empirical studies of methods used in reviews were abandoned 10 years ago [ 29 ]. In other databases, a variety of search terms may be applied with different levels of sensitivity and specificity.

Some frequently asked questions about methodological studies

In this section, we have outlined responses to questions that might help inform the conduct of methodological studies.

Q: How should I select research reports for my methodological study?

A: Selection of research reports for a methodological study depends on the research question and eligibility criteria. Once a clear research question is set and the nature of literature one desires to review is known, one can then begin the selection process. Selection may begin with a broad search, especially if the eligibility criteria are not apparent. For example, a methodological study of Cochrane Reviews of HIV would not require a complex search as all eligible studies can easily be retrieved from the Cochrane Library after checking a few boxes [ 30 ]. On the other hand, a methodological study of subgroup analyses in trials of gastrointestinal oncology would require a search to find such trials, and further screening to identify trials that conducted a subgroup analysis [ 31 ].

The strategies used for identifying participants in observational studies can apply here. One may use a systematic search to identify all eligible studies. If the number of eligible studies is unmanageable, a random sample of articles can be expected to provide comparable results if it is sufficiently large [ 32 ]. For example, Wilson et al. used a random sample of trials from the Cochrane Stroke Group’s Trial Register to investigate completeness of reporting [ 33 ]. It is possible that a simple random sample would lead to underrepresentation of units (i.e. research reports) that are smaller in number. This is relevant if the investigators wish to compare multiple groups but have too few units in one group. In this case a stratified sample would help to create equal groups. For example, in a methodological study comparing Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews, Kahale et al. drew random samples from both groups [ 34 ]. Alternatively, systematic or purposeful sampling strategies can be used and we encourage researchers to justify their selected approaches based on the study objective.

Q: How many databases should I search?

A: The number of databases one should search would depend on the approach to sampling, which can include targeting the entire “population” of interest or a sample of that population. If you are interested in including the entire target population for your research question, or drawing a random or systematic sample from it, then a comprehensive and exhaustive search for relevant articles is required. In this case, we recommend using systematic approaches for searching electronic databases (i.e. at least 2 databases with a replicable and time stamped search strategy). The results of your search will constitute a sampling frame from which eligible studies can be drawn.

Alternatively, if your approach to sampling is purposeful, then we recommend targeting the database(s) or data sources (e.g. journals, registries) that include the information you need. For example, if you are conducting a methodological study of high impact journals in plastic surgery and they are all indexed in PubMed, you likely do not need to search any other databases. You may also have a comprehensive list of all journals of interest and can approach your search using the journal names in your database search (or by accessing the journal archives directly from the journal’s website). Even though one could also search journals’ web pages directly, using a database such as PubMed has multiple advantages, such as the use of filters, so the search can be narrowed down to a certain period, or study types of interest. Furthermore, individual journals’ web sites may have different search functionalities, which do not necessarily yield a consistent output.

Q: Should I publish a protocol for my methodological study?

A: A protocol is a description of intended research methods. Currently, only protocols for clinical trials require registration [ 35 ]. Protocols for systematic reviews are encouraged but no formal recommendation exists. The scientific community welcomes the publication of protocols because they help protect against selective outcome reporting, the use of post hoc methodologies to embellish results, and to help avoid duplication of efforts [ 36 ]. While the latter two risks exist in methodological research, the negative consequences may be substantially less than for clinical outcomes. In a sample of 31 methodological studies, 7 (22.6%) referenced a published protocol [ 9 ]. In the Cochrane Library, there are 15 protocols for methodological reviews (21 July 2020). This suggests that publishing protocols for methodological studies is not uncommon.

Authors can consider publishing their study protocol in a scholarly journal as a manuscript. Advantages of such publication include obtaining peer-review feedback about the planned study, and easy retrieval by searching databases such as PubMed. The disadvantages in trying to publish protocols includes delays associated with manuscript handling and peer review, as well as costs, as few journals publish study protocols, and those journals mostly charge article-processing fees [ 37 ]. Authors who would like to make their protocol publicly available without publishing it in scholarly journals, could deposit their study protocols in publicly available repositories, such as the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/ ).

Q: How to appraise the quality of a methodological study?

A: To date, there is no published tool for appraising the risk of bias in a methodological study, but in principle, a methodological study could be considered as a type of observational study. Therefore, during conduct or appraisal, care should be taken to avoid the biases common in observational studies [ 38 ]. These biases include selection bias, comparability of groups, and ascertainment of exposure or outcome. In other words, to generate a representative sample, a comprehensive reproducible search may be necessary to build a sampling frame. Additionally, random sampling may be necessary to ensure that all the included research reports have the same probability of being selected, and the screening and selection processes should be transparent and reproducible. To ensure that the groups compared are similar in all characteristics, matching, random sampling or stratified sampling can be used. Statistical adjustments for between-group differences can also be applied at the analysis stage. Finally, duplicate data extraction can reduce errors in assessment of exposures or outcomes.

Q: Should I justify a sample size?

A: In all instances where one is not using the target population (i.e. the group to which inferences from the research report are directed) [ 39 ], a sample size justification is good practice. The sample size justification may take the form of a description of what is expected to be achieved with the number of articles selected, or a formal sample size estimation that outlines the number of articles required to answer the research question with a certain precision and power. Sample size justifications in methodological studies are reasonable in the following instances:

Comparing two groups

Determining a proportion, mean or another quantifier

Determining factors associated with an outcome using regression-based analyses

For example, El Dib et al. computed a sample size requirement for a methodological study of diagnostic strategies in randomized trials, based on a confidence interval approach [ 40 ].

Q: What should I call my study?

A: Other terms which have been used to describe/label methodological studies include “ methodological review ”, “methodological survey” , “meta-epidemiological study” , “systematic review” , “systematic survey”, “meta-research”, “research-on-research” and many others. We recommend that the study nomenclature be clear, unambiguous, informative and allow for appropriate indexing. Methodological study nomenclature that should be avoided includes “ systematic review” – as this will likely be confused with a systematic review of a clinical question. “ Systematic survey” may also lead to confusion about whether the survey was systematic (i.e. using a preplanned methodology) or a survey using “ systematic” sampling (i.e. a sampling approach using specific intervals to determine who is selected) [ 32 ]. Any of the above meanings of the words “ systematic” may be true for methodological studies and could be potentially misleading. “ Meta-epidemiological study” is ideal for indexing, but not very informative as it describes an entire field. The term “ review ” may point towards an appraisal or “review” of the design, conduct, analysis or reporting (or methodological components) of the targeted research reports, yet it has also been used to describe narrative reviews [ 41 , 42 ]. The term “ survey ” is also in line with the approaches used in many methodological studies [ 9 ], and would be indicative of the sampling procedures of this study design. However, in the absence of guidelines on nomenclature, the term “ methodological study ” is broad enough to capture most of the scenarios of such studies.

Q: Should I account for clustering in my methodological study?

A: Data from methodological studies are often clustered. For example, articles coming from a specific source may have different reporting standards (e.g. the Cochrane Library). Articles within the same journal may be similar due to editorial practices and policies, reporting requirements and endorsement of guidelines. There is emerging evidence that these are real concerns that should be accounted for in analyses [ 43 ]. Some cluster variables are described in the section: “ What variables are relevant to methodological studies?”

A variety of modelling approaches can be used to account for correlated data, including the use of marginal, fixed or mixed effects regression models with appropriate computation of standard errors [ 44 ]. For example, Kosa et al. used generalized estimation equations to account for correlation of articles within journals [ 15 ]. Not accounting for clustering could lead to incorrect p -values, unduly narrow confidence intervals, and biased estimates [ 45 ].

Q: Should I extract data in duplicate?

A: Yes. Duplicate data extraction takes more time but results in less errors [ 19 ]. Data extraction errors in turn affect the effect estimate [ 46 ], and therefore should be mitigated. Duplicate data extraction should be considered in the absence of other approaches to minimize extraction errors. However, much like systematic reviews, this area will likely see rapid new advances with machine learning and natural language processing technologies to support researchers with screening and data extraction [ 47 , 48 ]. However, experience plays an important role in the quality of extracted data and inexperienced extractors should be paired with experienced extractors [ 46 , 49 ].

Q: Should I assess the risk of bias of research reports included in my methodological study?

A : Risk of bias is most useful in determining the certainty that can be placed in the effect measure from a study. In methodological studies, risk of bias may not serve the purpose of determining the trustworthiness of results, as effect measures are often not the primary goal of methodological studies. Determining risk of bias in methodological studies is likely a practice borrowed from systematic review methodology, but whose intrinsic value is not obvious in methodological studies. When it is part of the research question, investigators often focus on one aspect of risk of bias. For example, Speich investigated how blinding was reported in surgical trials [ 50 ], and Abraha et al., investigated the application of intention-to-treat analyses in systematic reviews and trials [ 51 ].

Q: What variables are relevant to methodological studies?

A: There is empirical evidence that certain variables may inform the findings in a methodological study. We outline some of these and provide a brief overview below:

Country: Countries and regions differ in their research cultures, and the resources available to conduct research. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that there may be differences in methodological features across countries. Methodological studies have reported loco-regional differences in reporting quality [ 52 , 53 ]. This may also be related to challenges non-English speakers face in publishing papers in English.

Authors’ expertise: The inclusion of authors with expertise in research methodology, biostatistics, and scientific writing is likely to influence the end-product. Oltean et al. found that among randomized trials in orthopaedic surgery, the use of analyses that accounted for clustering was more likely when specialists (e.g. statistician, epidemiologist or clinical trials methodologist) were included on the study team [ 54 ]. Fleming et al. found that including methodologists in the review team was associated with appropriate use of reporting guidelines [ 55 ].

Source of funding and conflicts of interest: Some studies have found that funded studies report better [ 56 , 57 ], while others do not [ 53 , 58 ]. The presence of funding would indicate the availability of resources deployed to ensure optimal design, conduct, analysis and reporting. However, the source of funding may introduce conflicts of interest and warrant assessment. For example, Kaiser et al. investigated the effect of industry funding on obesity or nutrition randomized trials and found that reporting quality was similar [ 59 ]. Thomas et al. looked at reporting quality of long-term weight loss trials and found that industry funded studies were better [ 60 ]. Kan et al. examined the association between industry funding and “positive trials” (trials reporting a significant intervention effect) and found that industry funding was highly predictive of a positive trial [ 61 ]. This finding is similar to that of a recent Cochrane Methodology Review by Hansen et al. [ 62 ]

Journal characteristics: Certain journals’ characteristics may influence the study design, analysis or reporting. Characteristics such as journal endorsement of guidelines [ 63 , 64 ], and Journal Impact Factor (JIF) have been shown to be associated with reporting [ 63 , 65 , 66 , 67 ].

Study size (sample size/number of sites): Some studies have shown that reporting is better in larger studies [ 53 , 56 , 58 ].

Year of publication: It is reasonable to assume that design, conduct, analysis and reporting of research will change over time. Many studies have demonstrated improvements in reporting over time or after the publication of reporting guidelines [ 68 , 69 ].

Type of intervention: In a methodological study of reporting quality of weight loss intervention studies, Thabane et al. found that trials of pharmacologic interventions were reported better than trials of non-pharmacologic interventions [ 70 ].

Interactions between variables: Complex interactions between the previously listed variables are possible. High income countries with more resources may be more likely to conduct larger studies and incorporate a variety of experts. Authors in certain countries may prefer certain journals, and journal endorsement of guidelines and editorial policies may change over time.

Q: Should I focus only on high impact journals?

A: Investigators may choose to investigate only high impact journals because they are more likely to influence practice and policy, or because they assume that methodological standards would be higher. However, the JIF may severely limit the scope of articles included and may skew the sample towards articles with positive findings. The generalizability and applicability of findings from a handful of journals must be examined carefully, especially since the JIF varies over time. Even among journals that are all “high impact”, variations exist in methodological standards.

Q: Can I conduct a methodological study of qualitative research?

A: Yes. Even though a lot of methodological research has been conducted in the quantitative research field, methodological studies of qualitative studies are feasible. Certain databases that catalogue qualitative research including the Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) have defined subject headings that are specific to methodological research (e.g. “research methodology”). Alternatively, one could also conduct a qualitative methodological review; that is, use qualitative approaches to synthesize methodological issues in qualitative studies.

Q: What reporting guidelines should I use for my methodological study?

A: There is no guideline that covers the entire scope of methodological studies. One adaptation of the PRISMA guidelines has been published, which works well for studies that aim to use the entire target population of research reports [ 71 ]. However, it is not widely used (40 citations in 2 years as of 09 December 2019), and methodological studies that are designed as cross-sectional or before-after studies require a more fit-for purpose guideline. A more encompassing reporting guideline for a broad range of methodological studies is currently under development [ 72 ]. However, in the absence of formal guidance, the requirements for scientific reporting should be respected, and authors of methodological studies should focus on transparency and reproducibility.

Q: What are the potential threats to validity and how can I avoid them?

A: Methodological studies may be compromised by a lack of internal or external validity. The main threats to internal validity in methodological studies are selection and confounding bias. Investigators must ensure that the methods used to select articles does not make them differ systematically from the set of articles to which they would like to make inferences. For example, attempting to make extrapolations to all journals after analyzing high-impact journals would be misleading.

Many factors (confounders) may distort the association between the exposure and outcome if the included research reports differ with respect to these factors [ 73 ]. For example, when examining the association between source of funding and completeness of reporting, it may be necessary to account for journals that endorse the guidelines. Confounding bias can be addressed by restriction, matching and statistical adjustment [ 73 ]. Restriction appears to be the method of choice for many investigators who choose to include only high impact journals or articles in a specific field. For example, Knol et al. examined the reporting of p -values in baseline tables of high impact journals [ 26 ]. Matching is also sometimes used. In the methodological study of non-randomized interventional studies of elective ventral hernia repair, Parker et al. matched prospective studies with retrospective studies and compared reporting standards [ 74 ]. Some other methodological studies use statistical adjustments. For example, Zhang et al. used regression techniques to determine the factors associated with missing participant data in trials [ 16 ].

With regard to external validity, researchers interested in conducting methodological studies must consider how generalizable or applicable their findings are. This should tie in closely with the research question and should be explicit. For example. Findings from methodological studies on trials published in high impact cardiology journals cannot be assumed to be applicable to trials in other fields. However, investigators must ensure that their sample truly represents the target sample either by a) conducting a comprehensive and exhaustive search, or b) using an appropriate and justified, randomly selected sample of research reports.

Even applicability to high impact journals may vary based on the investigators’ definition, and over time. For example, for high impact journals in the field of general medicine, Bouwmeester et al. included the Annals of Internal Medicine (AIM), BMJ, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Lancet, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), and PLoS Medicine ( n = 6) [ 75 ]. In contrast, the high impact journals selected in the methodological study by Schiller et al. were BMJ, JAMA, Lancet, and NEJM ( n = 4) [ 76 ]. Another methodological study by Kosa et al. included AIM, BMJ, JAMA, Lancet and NEJM ( n = 5). In the methodological study by Thabut et al., journals with a JIF greater than 5 were considered to be high impact. Riado Minguez et al. used first quartile journals in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) for a specific year to determine “high impact” [ 77 ]. Ultimately, the definition of high impact will be based on the number of journals the investigators are willing to include, the year of impact and the JIF cut-off [ 78 ]. We acknowledge that the term “generalizability” may apply differently for methodological studies, especially when in many instances it is possible to include the entire target population in the sample studied.

Finally, methodological studies are not exempt from information bias which may stem from discrepancies in the included research reports [ 79 ], errors in data extraction, or inappropriate interpretation of the information extracted. Likewise, publication bias may also be a concern in methodological studies, but such concepts have not yet been explored.

A proposed framework

In order to inform discussions about methodological studies, the development of guidance for what should be reported, we have outlined some key features of methodological studies that can be used to classify them. For each of the categories outlined below, we provide an example. In our experience, the choice of approach to completing a methodological study can be informed by asking the following four questions:

What is the aim?

Methodological studies that investigate bias

A methodological study may be focused on exploring sources of bias in primary or secondary studies (meta-bias), or how bias is analyzed. We have taken care to distinguish bias (i.e. systematic deviations from the truth irrespective of the source) from reporting quality or completeness (i.e. not adhering to a specific reporting guideline or norm). An example of where this distinction would be important is in the case of a randomized trial with no blinding. This study (depending on the nature of the intervention) would be at risk of performance bias. However, if the authors report that their study was not blinded, they would have reported adequately. In fact, some methodological studies attempt to capture both “quality of conduct” and “quality of reporting”, such as Richie et al., who reported on the risk of bias in randomized trials of pharmacy practice interventions [ 80 ]. Babic et al. investigated how risk of bias was used to inform sensitivity analyses in Cochrane reviews [ 81 ]. Further, biases related to choice of outcomes can also be explored. For example, Tan et al investigated differences in treatment effect size based on the outcome reported [ 82 ].

Methodological studies that investigate quality (or completeness) of reporting

Methodological studies may report quality of reporting against a reporting checklist (i.e. adherence to guidelines) or against expected norms. For example, Croituro et al. report on the quality of reporting in systematic reviews published in dermatology journals based on their adherence to the PRISMA statement [ 83 ], and Khan et al. described the quality of reporting of harms in randomized controlled trials published in high impact cardiovascular journals based on the CONSORT extension for harms [ 84 ]. Other methodological studies investigate reporting of certain features of interest that may not be part of formally published checklists or guidelines. For example, Mbuagbaw et al. described how often the implications for research are elaborated using the Evidence, Participants, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Timeframe (EPICOT) format [ 30 ].

Methodological studies that investigate the consistency of reporting

Sometimes investigators may be interested in how consistent reports of the same research are, as it is expected that there should be consistency between: conference abstracts and published manuscripts; manuscript abstracts and manuscript main text; and trial registration and published manuscript. For example, Rosmarakis et al. investigated consistency between conference abstracts and full text manuscripts [ 85 ].

Methodological studies that investigate factors associated with reporting

In addition to identifying issues with reporting in primary and secondary studies, authors of methodological studies may be interested in determining the factors that are associated with certain reporting practices. Many methodological studies incorporate this, albeit as a secondary outcome. For example, Farrokhyar et al. investigated the factors associated with reporting quality in randomized trials of coronary artery bypass grafting surgery [ 53 ].

Methodological studies that investigate methods

Methodological studies may also be used to describe methods or compare methods, and the factors associated with methods. Muller et al. described the methods used for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies [ 86 ].

Methodological studies that summarize other methodological studies

Some methodological studies synthesize results from other methodological studies. For example, Li et al. conducted a scoping review of methodological reviews that investigated consistency between full text and abstracts in primary biomedical research [ 87 ].

Methodological studies that investigate nomenclature and terminology

Some methodological studies may investigate the use of names and terms in health research. For example, Martinic et al. investigated the definitions of systematic reviews used in overviews of systematic reviews (OSRs), meta-epidemiological studies and epidemiology textbooks [ 88 ].

Other types of methodological studies

In addition to the previously mentioned experimental methodological studies, there may exist other types of methodological studies not captured here.

What is the design?

Methodological studies that are descriptive

Most methodological studies are purely descriptive and report their findings as counts (percent) and means (standard deviation) or medians (interquartile range). For example, Mbuagbaw et al. described the reporting of research recommendations in Cochrane HIV systematic reviews [ 30 ]. Gohari et al. described the quality of reporting of randomized trials in diabetes in Iran [ 12 ].

Methodological studies that are analytical

Some methodological studies are analytical wherein “analytical studies identify and quantify associations, test hypotheses, identify causes and determine whether an association exists between variables, such as between an exposure and a disease.” [ 89 ] In the case of methodological studies all these investigations are possible. For example, Kosa et al. investigated the association between agreement in primary outcome from trial registry to published manuscript and study covariates. They found that larger and more recent studies were more likely to have agreement [ 15 ]. Tricco et al. compared the conclusion statements from Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews with a meta-analysis of the primary outcome and found that non-Cochrane reviews were more likely to report positive findings. These results are a test of the null hypothesis that the proportions of Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews that report positive results are equal [ 90 ].

What is the sampling strategy?

Methodological studies that include the target population

Methodological reviews with narrow research questions may be able to include the entire target population. For example, in the methodological study of Cochrane HIV systematic reviews, Mbuagbaw et al. included all of the available studies ( n = 103) [ 30 ].

Methodological studies that include a sample of the target population

Many methodological studies use random samples of the target population [ 33 , 91 , 92 ]. Alternatively, purposeful sampling may be used, limiting the sample to a subset of research-related reports published within a certain time period, or in journals with a certain ranking or on a topic. Systematic sampling can also be used when random sampling may be challenging to implement.

What is the unit of analysis?

Methodological studies with a research report as the unit of analysis

Many methodological studies use a research report (e.g. full manuscript of study, abstract portion of the study) as the unit of analysis, and inferences can be made at the study-level. However, both published and unpublished research-related reports can be studied. These may include articles, conference abstracts, registry entries etc.

Methodological studies with a design, analysis or reporting item as the unit of analysis

Some methodological studies report on items which may occur more than once per article. For example, Paquette et al. report on subgroup analyses in Cochrane reviews of atrial fibrillation in which 17 systematic reviews planned 56 subgroup analyses [ 93 ].

This framework is outlined in Fig. 2 .

A proposed framework for methodological studies

Conclusions

Methodological studies have examined different aspects of reporting such as quality, completeness, consistency and adherence to reporting guidelines. As such, many of the methodological study examples cited in this tutorial are related to reporting. However, as an evolving field, the scope of research questions that can be addressed by methodological studies is expected to increase.

In this paper we have outlined the scope and purpose of methodological studies, along with examples of instances in which various approaches have been used. In the absence of formal guidance on the design, conduct, analysis and reporting of methodological studies, we have provided some advice to help make methodological studies consistent. This advice is grounded in good contemporary scientific practice. Generally, the research question should tie in with the sampling approach and planned analysis. We have also highlighted the variables that may inform findings from methodological studies. Lastly, we have provided suggestions for ways in which authors can categorize their methodological studies to inform their design and analysis.

Availability of data and materials

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.

Abbreviations

Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials

Evidence, Participants, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Timeframe

Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations

Participants, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Timeframe

Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses

Studies Within a Review

Studies Within a Trial

Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet. 2009;374(9683):86–9.

PubMed Google Scholar

Chan AW, Song F, Vickers A, Jefferson T, Dickersin K, Gotzsche PC, Krumholz HM, Ghersi D, van der Worp HB. Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research. Lancet. 2014;383(9913):257–66.

PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Ioannidis JP, Greenland S, Hlatky MA, Khoury MJ, Macleod MR, Moher D, Schulz KF, Tibshirani R. Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. Lancet. 2014;383(9912):166–75.

Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Juni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, Savovic J, Schulz KF, Weeks L, Sterne JA. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928.

Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet. 2001;357.

Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000100.

Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA, Bouter LM, Kristjansson E, Grimshaw J, Henry DA, Boers M. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):1013–20.

Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, Moher D, Tugwell P, Welch V, Kristjansson E, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. Bmj. 2017;358:j4008.

Lawson DO, Leenus A, Mbuagbaw L. Mapping the nomenclature, methodology, and reporting of studies that review methods: a pilot methodological review. Pilot Feasibility Studies. 2020;6(1):13.

Puljak L, Makaric ZL, Buljan I, Pieper D. What is a meta-epidemiological study? Analysis of published literature indicated heterogeneous study designs and definitions. J Comp Eff Res. 2020.

Abbade LPF, Wang M, Sriganesh K, Jin Y, Mbuagbaw L, Thabane L. The framing of research questions using the PICOT format in randomized controlled trials of venous ulcer disease is suboptimal: a systematic survey. Wound Repair Regen. 2017;25(5):892–900.

Gohari F, Baradaran HR, Tabatabaee M, Anijidani S, Mohammadpour Touserkani F, Atlasi R, Razmgir M. Quality of reporting randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in diabetes in Iran; a systematic review. J Diabetes Metab Disord. 2015;15(1):36.

Wang M, Jin Y, Hu ZJ, Thabane A, Dennis B, Gajic-Veljanoski O, Paul J, Thabane L. The reporting quality of abstracts of stepped wedge randomized trials is suboptimal: a systematic survey of the literature. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2017;8:1–10.

Shanthanna H, Kaushal A, Mbuagbaw L, Couban R, Busse J, Thabane L: A cross-sectional study of the reporting quality of pilot or feasibility trials in high-impact anesthesia journals Can J Anaesthesia 2018, 65(11):1180–1195.

Kosa SD, Mbuagbaw L, Borg Debono V, Bhandari M, Dennis BB, Ene G, Leenus A, Shi D, Thabane M, Valvasori S, et al. Agreement in reporting between trial publications and current clinical trial registry in high impact journals: a methodological review. Contemporary Clinical Trials. 2018;65:144–50.

Zhang Y, Florez ID, Colunga Lozano LE, Aloweni FAB, Kennedy SA, Li A, Craigie S, Zhang S, Agarwal A, Lopes LC, et al. A systematic survey on reporting and methods for handling missing participant data for continuous outcomes in randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;88:57–66.

CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Hernández AV, Boersma E, Murray GD, Habbema JD, Steyerberg EW. Subgroup analyses in therapeutic cardiovascular clinical trials: are most of them misleading? Am Heart J. 2006;151(2):257–64.

Samaan Z, Mbuagbaw L, Kosa D, Borg Debono V, Dillenburg R, Zhang S, Fruci V, Dennis B, Bawor M, Thabane L. A systematic scoping review of adherence to reporting guidelines in health care literature. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2013;6:169–88.

Buscemi N, Hartling L, Vandermeer B, Tjosvold L, Klassen TP. Single data extraction generated more errors than double data extraction in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59(7):697–703.

Carrasco-Labra A, Brignardello-Petersen R, Santesso N, Neumann I, Mustafa RA, Mbuagbaw L, Etxeandia Ikobaltzeta I, De Stio C, McCullagh LJ, Alonso-Coello P. Improving GRADE evidence tables part 1: a randomized trial shows improved understanding of content in summary-of-findings tables with a new format. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;74:7–18.

The Northern Ireland Hub for Trials Methodology Research: SWAT/SWAR Information [ https://www.qub.ac.uk/sites/TheNorthernIrelandNetworkforTrialsMethodologyResearch/SWATSWARInformation/ ]. Accessed 31 Aug 2020.

Chick S, Sánchez P, Ferrin D, Morrice D. How to conduct a successful simulation study. In: Proceedings of the 2003 winter simulation conference: 2003; 2003. p. 66–70.

Google Scholar

Mulrow CD. The medical review article: state of the science. Ann Intern Med. 1987;106(3):485–8.

Sacks HS, Reitman D, Pagano D, Kupelnick B. Meta-analysis: an update. Mount Sinai J Med New York. 1996;63(3–4):216–24.

CAS Google Scholar

Areia M, Soares M, Dinis-Ribeiro M. Quality reporting of endoscopic diagnostic studies in gastrointestinal journals: where do we stand on the use of the STARD and CONSORT statements? Endoscopy. 2010;42(2):138–47.

Knol M, Groenwold R, Grobbee D. P-values in baseline tables of randomised controlled trials are inappropriate but still common in high impact journals. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2012;19(2):231–2.

Chen M, Cui J, Zhang AL, Sze DM, Xue CC, May BH. Adherence to CONSORT items in randomized controlled trials of integrative medicine for colorectal Cancer published in Chinese journals. J Altern Complement Med. 2018;24(2):115–24.

Hopewell S, Ravaud P, Baron G, Boutron I. Effect of editors' implementation of CONSORT guidelines on the reporting of abstracts in high impact medical journals: interrupted time series analysis. BMJ. 2012;344:e4178.

The Cochrane Methodology Register Issue 2 2009 [ https://cmr.cochrane.org/help.htm ]. Accessed 31 Aug 2020.

Mbuagbaw L, Kredo T, Welch V, Mursleen S, Ross S, Zani B, Motaze NV, Quinlan L. Critical EPICOT items were absent in Cochrane human immunodeficiency virus systematic reviews: a bibliometric analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;74:66–72.

Barton S, Peckitt C, Sclafani F, Cunningham D, Chau I. The influence of industry sponsorship on the reporting of subgroup analyses within phase III randomised controlled trials in gastrointestinal oncology. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51(18):2732–9.

Setia MS. Methodology series module 5: sampling strategies. Indian J Dermatol. 2016;61(5):505–9.

Wilson B, Burnett P, Moher D, Altman DG, Al-Shahi Salman R. Completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials including people with transient ischaemic attack or stroke: a systematic review. Eur Stroke J. 2018;3(4):337–46.

Kahale LA, Diab B, Brignardello-Petersen R, Agarwal A, Mustafa RA, Kwong J, Neumann I, Li L, Lopes LC, Briel M, et al. Systematic reviews do not adequately report or address missing outcome data in their analyses: a methodological survey. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;99:14–23.

De Angelis CD, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, Haug C, Hoey J, Horton R, Kotzin S, Laine C, Marusic A, Overbeke AJPM, et al. Is this clinical trial fully registered?: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors*. Ann Intern Med. 2005;143(2):146–8.

Ohtake PJ, Childs JD. Why publish study protocols? Phys Ther. 2014;94(9):1208–9.

Rombey T, Allers K, Mathes T, Hoffmann F, Pieper D. A descriptive analysis of the characteristics and the peer review process of systematic review protocols published in an open peer review journal from 2012 to 2017. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):57.

Grimes DA, Schulz KF. Bias and causal associations in observational research. Lancet. 2002;359(9302):248–52.

Porta M (ed.): A dictionary of epidemiology, 5th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Inc.; 2008.

El Dib R, Tikkinen KAO, Akl EA, Gomaa HA, Mustafa RA, Agarwal A, Carpenter CR, Zhang Y, Jorge EC, Almeida R, et al. Systematic survey of randomized trials evaluating the impact of alternative diagnostic strategies on patient-important outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;84:61–9.

Helzer JE, Robins LN, Taibleson M, Woodruff RA Jr, Reich T, Wish ED. Reliability of psychiatric diagnosis. I. a methodological review. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1977;34(2):129–33.

Chung ST, Chacko SK, Sunehag AL, Haymond MW. Measurements of gluconeogenesis and Glycogenolysis: a methodological review. Diabetes. 2015;64(12):3996–4010.

CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Sterne JA, Juni P, Schulz KF, Altman DG, Bartlett C, Egger M. Statistical methods for assessing the influence of study characteristics on treatment effects in 'meta-epidemiological' research. Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1513–24.

Moen EL, Fricano-Kugler CJ, Luikart BW, O’Malley AJ. Analyzing clustered data: why and how to account for multiple observations nested within a study participant? PLoS One. 2016;11(1):e0146721.

Zyzanski SJ, Flocke SA, Dickinson LM. On the nature and analysis of clustered data. Ann Fam Med. 2004;2(3):199–200.

Mathes T, Klassen P, Pieper D. Frequency of data extraction errors and methods to increase data extraction quality: a methodological review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017;17(1):152.

Bui DDA, Del Fiol G, Hurdle JF, Jonnalagadda S. Extractive text summarization system to aid data extraction from full text in systematic review development. J Biomed Inform. 2016;64:265–72.

Bui DD, Del Fiol G, Jonnalagadda S. PDF text classification to leverage information extraction from publication reports. J Biomed Inform. 2016;61:141–8.

Maticic K, Krnic Martinic M, Puljak L. Assessment of reporting quality of abstracts of systematic reviews with meta-analysis using PRISMA-A and discordance in assessments between raters without prior experience. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):32.

Speich B. Blinding in surgical randomized clinical trials in 2015. Ann Surg. 2017;266(1):21–2.

Abraha I, Cozzolino F, Orso M, Marchesi M, Germani A, Lombardo G, Eusebi P, De Florio R, Luchetta ML, Iorio A, et al. A systematic review found that deviations from intention-to-treat are common in randomized trials and systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;84:37–46.

Zhong Y, Zhou W, Jiang H, Fan T, Diao X, Yang H, Min J, Wang G, Fu J, Mao B. Quality of reporting of two-group parallel randomized controlled clinical trials of multi-herb formulae: A survey of reports indexed in the Science Citation Index Expanded. Eur J Integrative Med. 2011;3(4):e309–16.

Farrokhyar F, Chu R, Whitlock R, Thabane L. A systematic review of the quality of publications reporting coronary artery bypass grafting trials. Can J Surg. 2007;50(4):266–77.

Oltean H, Gagnier JJ. Use of clustering analysis in randomized controlled trials in orthopaedic surgery. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015;15:17.

Fleming PS, Koletsi D, Pandis N. Blinded by PRISMA: are systematic reviewers focusing on PRISMA and ignoring other guidelines? PLoS One. 2014;9(5):e96407.

Balasubramanian SP, Wiener M, Alshameeri Z, Tiruvoipati R, Elbourne D, Reed MW. Standards of reporting of randomized controlled trials in general surgery: can we do better? Ann Surg. 2006;244(5):663–7.

de Vries TW, van Roon EN. Low quality of reporting adverse drug reactions in paediatric randomised controlled trials. Arch Dis Child. 2010;95(12):1023–6.

Borg Debono V, Zhang S, Ye C, Paul J, Arya A, Hurlburt L, Murthy Y, Thabane L. The quality of reporting of RCTs used within a postoperative pain management meta-analysis, using the CONSORT statement. BMC Anesthesiol. 2012;12:13.

Kaiser KA, Cofield SS, Fontaine KR, Glasser SP, Thabane L, Chu R, Ambrale S, Dwary AD, Kumar A, Nayyar G, et al. Is funding source related to study reporting quality in obesity or nutrition randomized control trials in top-tier medical journals? Int J Obes. 2012;36(7):977–81.

Thomas O, Thabane L, Douketis J, Chu R, Westfall AO, Allison DB. Industry funding and the reporting quality of large long-term weight loss trials. Int J Obes. 2008;32(10):1531–6.

Khan NR, Saad H, Oravec CS, Rossi N, Nguyen V, Venable GT, Lillard JC, Patel P, Taylor DR, Vaughn BN, et al. A review of industry funding in randomized controlled trials published in the neurosurgical literature-the elephant in the room. Neurosurgery. 2018;83(5):890–7.

Hansen C, Lundh A, Rasmussen K, Hrobjartsson A. Financial conflicts of interest in systematic reviews: associations with results, conclusions, and methodological quality. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;8:Mr000047.

Kiehna EN, Starke RM, Pouratian N, Dumont AS. Standards for reporting randomized controlled trials in neurosurgery. J Neurosurg. 2011;114(2):280–5.

Liu LQ, Morris PJ, Pengel LH. Compliance to the CONSORT statement of randomized controlled trials in solid organ transplantation: a 3-year overview. Transpl Int. 2013;26(3):300–6.

Bala MM, Akl EA, Sun X, Bassler D, Mertz D, Mejza F, Vandvik PO, Malaga G, Johnston BC, Dahm P, et al. Randomized trials published in higher vs. lower impact journals differ in design, conduct, and analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(3):286–95.

Lee SY, Teoh PJ, Camm CF, Agha RA. Compliance of randomized controlled trials in trauma surgery with the CONSORT statement. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2013;75(4):562–72.

Ziogas DC, Zintzaras E. Analysis of the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials in acute and chronic myeloid leukemia, and myelodysplastic syndromes as governed by the CONSORT statement. Ann Epidemiol. 2009;19(7):494–500.

Alvarez F, Meyer N, Gourraud PA, Paul C. CONSORT adoption and quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: a systematic analysis in two dermatology journals. Br J Dermatol. 2009;161(5):1159–65.

Mbuagbaw L, Thabane M, Vanniyasingam T, Borg Debono V, Kosa S, Zhang S, Ye C, Parpia S, Dennis BB, Thabane L. Improvement in the quality of abstracts in major clinical journals since CONSORT extension for abstracts: a systematic review. Contemporary Clin trials. 2014;38(2):245–50.

Thabane L, Chu R, Cuddy K, Douketis J. What is the quality of reporting in weight loss intervention studies? A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Int J Obes. 2007;31(10):1554–9.

Murad MH, Wang Z. Guidelines for reporting meta-epidemiological methodology research. Evidence Based Med. 2017;22(4):139.

METRIC - MEthodological sTudy ReportIng Checklist: guidelines for reporting methodological studies in health research [ http://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/reporting-guidelines-under-development-for-other-study-designs/#METRIC ]. Accessed 31 Aug 2020.

Jager KJ, Zoccali C, MacLeod A, Dekker FW. Confounding: what it is and how to deal with it. Kidney Int. 2008;73(3):256–60.

Parker SG, Halligan S, Erotocritou M, Wood CPJ, Boulton RW, Plumb AAO, Windsor ACJ, Mallett S. A systematic methodological review of non-randomised interventional studies of elective ventral hernia repair: clear definitions and a standardised minimum dataset are needed. Hernia. 2019.

Bouwmeester W, Zuithoff NPA, Mallett S, Geerlings MI, Vergouwe Y, Steyerberg EW, Altman DG, Moons KGM. Reporting and methods in clinical prediction research: a systematic review. PLoS Med. 2012;9(5):1–12.

Schiller P, Burchardi N, Niestroj M, Kieser M. Quality of reporting of clinical non-inferiority and equivalence randomised trials--update and extension. Trials. 2012;13:214.

Riado Minguez D, Kowalski M, Vallve Odena M, Longin Pontzen D, Jelicic Kadic A, Jeric M, Dosenovic S, Jakus D, Vrdoljak M, Poklepovic Pericic T, et al. Methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews published in the highest ranking journals in the field of pain. Anesth Analg. 2017;125(4):1348–54.

Thabut G, Estellat C, Boutron I, Samama CM, Ravaud P. Methodological issues in trials assessing primary prophylaxis of venous thrombo-embolism. Eur Heart J. 2005;27(2):227–36.

Puljak L, Riva N, Parmelli E, González-Lorenzo M, Moja L, Pieper D. Data extraction methods: an analysis of internal reporting discrepancies in single manuscripts and practical advice. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;117:158–64.

Ritchie A, Seubert L, Clifford R, Perry D, Bond C. Do randomised controlled trials relevant to pharmacy meet best practice standards for quality conduct and reporting? A systematic review. Int J Pharm Pract. 2019.

Babic A, Vuka I, Saric F, Proloscic I, Slapnicar E, Cavar J, Pericic TP, Pieper D, Puljak L. Overall bias methods and their use in sensitivity analysis of Cochrane reviews were not consistent. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019.

Tan A, Porcher R, Crequit P, Ravaud P, Dechartres A. Differences in treatment effect size between overall survival and progression-free survival in immunotherapy trials: a Meta-epidemiologic study of trials with results posted at ClinicalTrials.gov. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(15):1686–94.

Croitoru D, Huang Y, Kurdina A, Chan AW, Drucker AM. Quality of reporting in systematic reviews published in dermatology journals. Br J Dermatol. 2020;182(6):1469–76.

Khan MS, Ochani RK, Shaikh A, Vaduganathan M, Khan SU, Fatima K, Yamani N, Mandrola J, Doukky R, Krasuski RA: Assessing the Quality of Reporting of Harms in Randomized Controlled Trials Published in High Impact Cardiovascular Journals. Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes 2019.

Rosmarakis ES, Soteriades ES, Vergidis PI, Kasiakou SK, Falagas ME. From conference abstract to full paper: differences between data presented in conferences and journals. FASEB J. 2005;19(7):673–80.

Mueller M, D’Addario M, Egger M, Cevallos M, Dekkers O, Mugglin C, Scott P. Methods to systematically review and meta-analyse observational studies: a systematic scoping review of recommendations. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):44.

Li G, Abbade LPF, Nwosu I, Jin Y, Leenus A, Maaz M, Wang M, Bhatt M, Zielinski L, Sanger N, et al. A scoping review of comparisons between abstracts and full reports in primary biomedical research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017;17(1):181.

Krnic Martinic M, Pieper D, Glatt A, Puljak L. Definition of a systematic review used in overviews of systematic reviews, meta-epidemiological studies and textbooks. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):203.

Analytical study [ https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/analytical+study ]. Accessed 31 Aug 2020.

Tricco AC, Tetzlaff J, Pham B, Brehaut J, Moher D. Non-Cochrane vs. Cochrane reviews were twice as likely to have positive conclusion statements: cross-sectional study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(4):380–6 e381.

Schalken N, Rietbergen C. The reporting quality of systematic reviews and Meta-analyses in industrial and organizational psychology: a systematic review. Front Psychol. 2017;8:1395.

Ranker LR, Petersen JM, Fox MP. Awareness of and potential for dependent error in the observational epidemiologic literature: A review. Ann Epidemiol. 2019;36:15–9 e12.

Paquette M, Alotaibi AM, Nieuwlaat R, Santesso N, Mbuagbaw L. A meta-epidemiological study of subgroup analyses in cochrane systematic reviews of atrial fibrillation. Syst Rev. 2019;8(1):241.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work did not receive any dedicated funding.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

Lawrence Mbuagbaw, Daeria O. Lawson & Lehana Thabane

Biostatistics Unit/FSORC, 50 Charlton Avenue East, St Joseph’s Healthcare—Hamilton, 3rd Floor Martha Wing, Room H321, Hamilton, Ontario, L8N 4A6, Canada

Lawrence Mbuagbaw & Lehana Thabane

Centre for the Development of Best Practices in Health, Yaoundé, Cameroon

Lawrence Mbuagbaw

Center for Evidence-Based Medicine and Health Care, Catholic University of Croatia, Ilica 242, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia

Livia Puljak

Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health – Bloomington, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, 47405, USA

David B. Allison

Departments of Paediatrics and Anaesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

Lehana Thabane

Centre for Evaluation of Medicine, St. Joseph’s Healthcare-Hamilton, Hamilton, ON, Canada

Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, ON, Canada

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

LM conceived the idea and drafted the outline and paper. DOL and LT commented on the idea and draft outline. LM, LP and DOL performed literature searches and data extraction. All authors (LM, DOL, LT, LP, DBA) reviewed several draft versions of the manuscript and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lawrence Mbuagbaw .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

DOL, DBA, LM, LP and LT are involved in the development of a reporting guideline for methodological studies.

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/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Mbuagbaw, L., Lawson, D.O., Puljak, L. et al. A tutorial on methodological studies: the what, when, how and why. BMC Med Res Methodol 20 , 226 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01107-7

Download citation

Received : 27 May 2020

Accepted : 27 August 2020

Published : 07 September 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01107-7

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

Methodological study
Meta-epidemiology
Research methods
Research-on-research

Methodology for research II

S bala bhaskar.

Department of Anaesthesiology, Vijayanagar Institute Medical Sciences, Bellary, Karnataka, India

M Manjuladevi

1 Department of Anaesthesiology, St. John's Medical College, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India

Research is a systematic process, which uses scientific methods to generate new knowledge that can be used to solve a query or improve on the existing system. Any research on human subjects is associated with varying degree of risk to the participating individual and it is important to safeguard the welfare and rights of the participants. This review focuses on various steps involved in methodology (in continuation with the previous section) before the data are submitted for publication.

INTRODUCTION

Research uses a systematic approach to generate new knowledge to answer questions based on needs of patient health and practice. The investigator identifies research question, examines the ethical implications, describes the research design and collects appropriate data[ 1 , 2 , 3 ] which is evaluated by statistical tests before it can be published.[ 4 ] Before putting this to use in clinical practice, the relevant data are critically appraised for validity and reliability.[ 1 ] This review covers these aspects of the research methodology, in continuation with the first part by Garg et al . published in this issue of Indian Journal of Anaesthesia (IJA).[ 5 ]

REGULATORY AND ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) is the apex body in India responsible for the formulation, coordination and promotion of biomedical research. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) makes it mandatory for clinical trials to be included in a clinical trials registry for acceptance for publication. Clinical Trials.gov, run by the United States National Library of Medicine, was the first online registry established in 2005 and is widely used today. All trials to be conducted in India should have mandatory prospective registration with the Clinical Trial Registry of India (CTRI- www.ctri.in ). Good clinical practice (GCP) guidelines is a set of guidelines for biomedical studies which encompasses the design, conduct, termination, audit, analysis, reporting and documentation of the studies involving human subjects. It protects rights of human subjects and the authenticity of biomedical data. ( www.cdsco.nic.in/html/GCP1.html ). Table 1 lists the type of the research involved and their regulatory bodies.[ 6 ]

Research involved and their regulatory bodies

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is IJA-60-646-g001.jpg

The International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) registry is a primary clinical trial registry recognised by the World Health Organization. The ICMJE provides content validation of all submitted studies (proposed, ongoing or completed). The study is assigned a unique identification number, and records of the study in the database can be easily accessed ( www.isrctn.com ).

To conduct a clinical trial in India, Institution Ethics Committee (IEC) approval is mandatory, and it must be registered with CTRI- www.ctri.nic.in .[ 2 , 6 ] When ‘off-label’ use of a drug (drug being used for a new indication/new dose/formulation/route) is tested for purely academic purposes and not for commercial use, currently there is no requirement of regulator approval.[ 2 , 6 ] However, the IEC has to consider the risks-benefits and ethical basis for approval of the research.

Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) in India insists on registration and approval of clinical trials through CTRI and ensures scientific and safe conduct of the study. Most of the academic medical centres have Institutional Review Board (IRB) or IEC. They (‘internal’ Ethics Committees) can assess research proposals first and approve before submitting to national bodies. The approval may also go in parallel with DCGI approval. It is responsible for the supervision and protection of rights, safety and welfare of human subjects. During the progress of the trial, the IEC reviews safety reports, any significant violation/deviations in the protocol and for any amendments in the study protocol or informed consent.[ 2 , 7 ]

If IEC is not available in the institution, proposals can be sent independent ethics committee outside the institution (‘external’ Ethics Committees).[ 2 ] The ICMR suggests the establishment of registered Independent Ethics Committees (I nd EC) without institutional affiliation, functioning as per national guidelines. Proposals can also be sent to another institution, following established protocol, including providing a ‘no objection certificate’ and allow the external IEC necessary access.[ 2 ] When there is a large load of research, multiple ECs can function in the same institution as also subcommittees (e.g., subcommittees on adverse event, data safety monitoring, expedited review, etc.,).

The IRB consists of 7–15 members and at least five members are required to form the quorum to make a decision on the research [ Table 2 ].[ 2 ]

Composition of Institution Ethics Committee

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is IJA-60-646-g002.jpg

All the research involving human participants should follow four basic ethical principles;[ 2 ] (a) Respect for persons autonomy, (b) beneficence (balance the risks against benefits bearing in mind the welfare of the research participant[s]), (c) nonmaleficence (no harm or reduce exposure to greater harm) and (d) Justice (distribution of research subjects equitably in all groups, for example, social, economic demographic, etc).

Informed consent is a process by which a subject confirms his/her willingness to participate in a clinical study.[ 4 ] It protects the individual's freedom of choice and respect for individual's autonomy. It ensures proper regulations in clinical trials and assures patient safety by dealing with both legal and ethical basis.[ 7 ] The process of informed consent consists of providing relevant information, its comprehension and voluntariness.[ 2 ] The details of the clinical study are explained to the subject in a simple and easily understandable language. The ‘subject/participant information sheet’ should include research aspect of the study, sponsor of the study, purpose and procedure, side effects, risks and discomforts, benefits, compensation for any study-related injury, alternatives to participation, right to withdraw, confidentiality of records and contact information of the investigators and IRB.[ 2 , 6 ] The informed and written consent form is duly signed by the subject in a document called ‘informed consent form’.[ 1 , 2 , 3 ] The documents consisting of patient/participant information sheet and informed consent form should be reviewed and approved by the IEC before enrolment of the participants.

A legal authorised representative (LAR) should be involved in the decision-making of vulnerable subjects who lack the ability to consent. The consent is taken from parent/LAR (in kids <7 years) and consent of parent/LAR along with assent form (oral/written) in children aged 7–18 years.[ 2 ] Audio/audio-visual recording of the informed consent process may be required in case of certain regulatory, clinical trials.[ 2 ] After the completion/termination of the study, all records within the IEC must be archived for at least 3 years; those related to regulatory, clinical trials must be archived for 5 years as per CDSCO regulation. Longer preservation may be needed as required by the sponsors/regulatory bodies.

Many finer aspects of the legal and ethical issues in research are discussed by Yip et al in this issue of IJA.[ 8 ]

The ethical duty of confidentiality refers to the obligation of an individual or organisation to safeguard entrusted information of the research data. It is essential for the integrity of the research project and protects information from unauthorised access, use, disclosure, modification, loss or theft.[ 6 , 7 ]

Data related to any of the studies of individual participant can be disclosed only under the following circumstances:

(a) Threat to a person's life, (b) Communication with drug registration authority in cases of severe adverse reaction, (c) Communication to health authority whenever there is risk to public health, (d) In a court of law under the orders of the presiding judge and (e) As a requirement for government agencies or regulatory authorities.[ 2 ]

DATA COLLECTION

‘Data’ includes the information that is systematically collected by the investigator during the study. The primary data are those which are originally done for the first time. The secondary data are a compilation of information done by someone else and have already been passed through the statistical process. A Data Monitoring Committee or Data and Safety Monitoring Board may be appointed, independent of IEC for interim analysis; their report forms the basis for early termination of planned study when there is compelling evidence of beneficial effectiveness or harmful side effects or for major flaws in the study.

The two main types of data are qualitative and quantitative, and most studies will have a combination of both. While quantitative data are easy to analyse and fairly reliable, qualitative data provide more depth in the description of the sample.[ 9 ]

Data collection methods [ Figure 1 ]:

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is IJA-60-646-g003.jpg

Methods of data collection

Interview: This method allows face to face contact with respondents, exploring the topic in depth. It allows the interviewer to explain or help to clarify questions increasing the usefulness of a response. It can be of different types-structured, unstructured (informal, conversational approach), semi-structured, focused and standardised.[ 9 , 10 , 11 ] There can be disadvantages-interviewer clarifications can lead to inconsistencies and influence the responses; the subject may distort information through recall error, selective perceptions and in the desire to please the interviewer.[ 10 ] Sometimes, the data may be too voluminous to record or reduce it
Observation: This method provides direct information about the behaviour of individuals and groups. It allows the investigator to understand the situation and context. It could be ‘Participant’ observation: The observer takes part in the situation he or she observes or ‘Nonparticipant’ observation: The observer watches the situation, openly or concealed, but does not participate[ 9 , 10 , 11 ]
Questionnaire: It is a simple and inexpensive method not even requiring any research assistants. More honest responses may be available when anonymity is provided. Written questions are presented that are to be answered by the respondents. A written questionnaire can be administered in different ways, such as by sending questionnaires by mail with clear instructions on how to answer the questions and asking for mailed responses; gathering all or part of the respondents in one place at one time, giving oral or written instructions, and letting the respondents fill out the questionnaires; or hand-delivering questionnaires to respondents and collecting them later.[ 10 , 11 ] The disadvantage of this method are observer bias and breach in confidentiality; also, this cannot be used on illiterate subjects. As with other types of outcome measurements, questionnaires and interviews are to be assessed for validity (accuracy) and for reproducibility (precision)-using ‘face validity, content validity and construct validity’
Documents: It is an inexpensive and unobtrusive method of data collection from locally available records or documents (existing research, hospital records, databases, videotapes, etc.).[ 9 , 10 , 11 ] There is disadvantage of accuracy, authenticity and availability (missing data/omission of needed data). Anaesthesia information management systems used in modern practice have the ability to collect data automatically, in large volumes, which can be converted for specific, focused outcome assessments for research purposes.

Compilation of data includes systematic arrangement of data to facilitate the presentation and analysis.[ 12 ] The data collected are entered in a database where the information about subjects and variables are stored. Simple study database can be maintained in a spreadsheet (MS Excel © ) or statistical software (e.g., Statistical Analysis System (SAS ® ) (NC, USA), IBM SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) Statistics ® (IBM Inc., NY, USA). More complex database require integrated database management software (e.g., Access © (Windows) and Filemaker © Pro (Apple Inc.,).[ 13 ] Database ‘queries’ sort and filter the data as well as calculate values based on the raw data fields.[ 12 , 13 ] Queries are used to monitor data entry, report on study progress and format the results for analysis. Data must be stored in ‘secure servers’ so that confidentiality is maintained.[ 13 ] Backup files and off-site storage may be necessary to prevent any data loss. Common methods of summarising and presenting data are tables, pie charts, bar charts, histograms, frequency and cumulative frequency curves, dot plots and x-y scatterplots.[ 13 , 14 , 15 ]

RESEARCH TOOLS: DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION

‘Research tool’ is the means of collecting information for the purpose of a study. Observation forms, interview schedules, questionnaires are all classified as research tools. The first practical step in doing a research process is to construct a research tool. Four stage process is involved in developing a research tool.[ 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 ]

Concept development: The researcher should understand the basic knowledge pertaining to the study
Specification of concept dimensions: The researcher should be able to build in a dimension based on the concept of the study
Selection of indicators: Once the concept and its dimensions are developed, each concept element is measured by indicators (respondent's knowledge, opinion, expectation, etc., are measured with scales, devices). More than one indicator increases the score and validity of the study
Formation of index: Dimension of a concept or different measurements of a dimension are then put into an overall index.

The error may occur at any stage of research, i.e., from selection to interpretation of data to conclusion. Two types of error can occur – random and systematic error. The random error must be reduced as far as possible, and the systemic error should be eliminated. Errors can occur from three sources:[ 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 ]

Investigator: Due to ignorance, incompetence and bias
Instrument: Due to variability, calibration, problems and malfunctioning
Subject: Due to bias, noncompliance and biological variation in response.

Any research can be affected by factors that can invalidate the findings. A good research tool should meet the tests of validity, reliability and practicality.

Validity refers to the extent to which a test measures what we actually wish to measure. Reliability refers to accuracy and precision of a measurement procedure.

The practicality characteristic of a measuring instrument can be judged in terms of economy, convenience and interpretability.

Determining validity can be viewed as constructing an evidence-based argument regarding how well a tool measures what it is supposed to do.

USES OF VALIDITY IN SCIENTIFIC METHODS

External validity refers to generalising the study results to other population groups with similar risk factors, settings, measurement and treatment variables.

Internal validity implies that the differences observed between the treatment groups, apart from random error, are only due to the treatments under investigation.[ 9 ]

Validity assessment can be performed in three ways:

Content validity is the extent to which a measuring tool provides adequate coverage of all the aspects of the topic under study. (e.g., quality of pain relief to include measurement of analgesia, haemodynamics, sedation, etc.). ‘Face validity’ assesses whether the measurements appear reasonable; a measure of how representative a research project is ‘at face value’, and whether it appears to be a good project
Construct validity refers to the degree to which a measurement conforms to theoretical constructs. Convergent validity tests whether and how well those ‘constructs’ that are expected to be related are, in fact, related. Discriminant validity or divergent validity tests those ‘constructs’ that should have no relationship do, in fact, not have any relationship
Criterion validity assesses the degree to which a new measurement correlates with well-accepted existing measures. Predictive validity is a strong variety of criterion validity, representing the ability of the measurement to predict an outcome.

Other Types: Concurrent validity refers to the degree of correlation of two measures of the same concept administered at the same time. Consensual validity is a process by which a panel of experts judge the validity.[ 1 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 ]

A measuring instrument is reliable if it provides consistent results.[ 1 , 11 ]

The stability aspect refers to securing consistent results with repeated measurements of the same person and with the same instrument. Determination of the degree of stability by comparing the results of repeated measurements.

The equivalence aspect considers how much error may get introduced by different investigators or different samples of the items being studied.

PRACTICALITY

Measuring instrument practicality is tested in terms of economy, convenience and interpretability.

Economy consideration suggests that some trade-off is needed between the ideal research project and that which the budget can afford.

Convenience test suggests that the measuring instrument should be easy to administer. Interpretability consideration is especially important when persons other than the designers of the test are to interpret the results.

ANALYSIS PLAN: QUALITY AND APPROPRIATENESS OF ANALYSIS

The statistics in research functions as a tool in designing research, analysing its data and drawing conclusions from it.[ 20 , 21 ] Descriptive statistics are the development of certain indices from the raw data, summarised in tables, charts or numerical forms. The inferential analysis is undertaken to apply various tests of significance to test hypotheses of a research question so as to validate conclusions. An essential part of presenting any type of inferential data is by probability ( P value) which reassures the reader that the outcome was secondary to the effect of the studied variable and has not occurred purely by chance.[ 22 ] P < 5% is considered statistically significant. Statistical tests are used for testing the significance. Various parametric tests (variable normally distributed) and nonparametric tests (variables are not normally distributed) are used to meet the objective of the study [ Table 3 ].[ 19 , 20 ] ‘Basic Statistical Tools in Research and Data analysis’ in this issue of IJA by Zulfiqar Ali describe these tests in detail.[ 23 ]

Tests of significance

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is IJA-60-646-g004.jpg

The ‘methodology’ in a research strategy outlines the steps involved in research process. The research problem is identified, aims and objectives are formulated, sample size is calculated; Ethics Committee approval and informed consent from the subject are taken; data collected are summarised. The research design is planned, and the collected data are then analysed using appropriate statistical tests. The derived evidence is put into clinical practice once the reader is convinced that the clinical study is valid and reliable.

Financial support and sponsorship

Conflicts of interest.

There are no conflicts of interest.

USC Libraries
Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

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

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

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

Importance of a Good Methodology Section

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

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

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

Structure and Writing Style

I. Groups of Research Methods

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

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

II. Content

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

The remainder of your methodology section should describe the following:

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

In addition, an effectively written methodology section should:

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

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

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

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

III. Problems to Avoid

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

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

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

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

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

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

Writing Tip

Statistical Designs and Tests? Do Not Fear Them!

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

To locate data and statistics, GO HERE .

Another Writing Tip

Knowing the Relationship Between Theories and Methods

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

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

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

Yet Another Writing Tip

Methods and the Methodology

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

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

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

<< Previous: Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
Next: Qualitative Methods >>
Last Updated: Apr 22, 2024 9:12 AM
URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Research Methodology: An Introduction

First Online: 31 March 2018

Cite this chapter

Vida Davidavičienė 3

Part of the book series: Progress in IS ((PROIS))

3866 Accesses

1 Citations

Digital age brings the most dramatic changes in this study and research discipline as well as in other fields of human activities. Scientific research is known for a very long time, however in comparison with other research fields the business and management researches are a little bit younger. The information technologies and new research methodologies that have recently emerged, dramatically change the nature of the research. Therefore, researchers should be ready to absorb new possibilities and follow basic roles coming from earlier stages of the discipline. The intention of this chapter is to provide a brief introduction to those aspects of pertinent research to beginner researchers. The chapter presents the nature of scientific research so that it may be clearly understood and uses, as its basic approach, the fundamental principles of problem solving. The scope of the research provides an overviews the entire assumptions about reality, knowledge and human nature, key terms of theory and research presented. Main concepts of the research are discussed and all this is oriented to business, management and economic science specific.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Available as PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever
Available as EPUB and PDF
Compact, lightweight edition
Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
Free shipping worldwide - see info
Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

A. Saunders, M. Lewis, P. Thornhill, Research Methods for Business Students , 6th edn (Harlow: Pearson, 2012)

Google Scholar

B. Blumberg, D.R. Cooper, P.S. Schindler, Business Research Methods , 3rd edn. (McGraw-Hill, London, 2011)

A. Bryman, E. Bell, Business Research Methods , 3rd edn. (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2015)

A.J. Veal, Business Research Methods: A Managerial Approach (Pearson Education Australia, Frenchs Forest, 2005)

Y.K. Singh, Fundamental of Research Methodology and Statistics (New Age International (P) Ltd, 2006)

A.A. Berger, No Title Media and communication research methods: an introduction to qualitative and quantitative approaches , Third Edition (Sage, Thousand Oaks (Calif.), 2013)

A. Carsrud, M. Brannback, Handbook of Research Methods and Applications in Entrepreneurship and Small Business (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2014)

D.R. Cooper, P.S. Schindler, Business Research Methods , 12th edn. (McGraw-Hill Education, New York, 2013)

M. Easterby-Smith, R. Thorpe, P.R. Jackson, Management Research , 4th edn. (SAGE Publications Ltd, London, 2012)

S. Greener, Business Research Methods (Ventus Publishing ApS, Denmark, 2008)

S.L. Jackson, Research Methods and Statistics: A Critical Thinking Approach (Wadsworth Cengage Learning, Belmont (Calif.), 2012)

B.C. Lindlof, T.R., Taylor, Qualitative Communication Research Methods (Sage, Thousand Oaks (Calif.), 2011)

A.J. Pickard, Research Methods in Information (Facet, London, 2013)

T. Stokes, P., Wall, Research Method (Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2014)

A.H. Walle, Qualitative Research in Business: A Practical Overview (Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne, 2015)

W.G. Zikmund, B.J. Babin, J.C. Carr, M. Griffin, Business Research Methods, 9th edition (South-Western: Cengage Learning, 2013)

D.C. Mark Teale, V. Dispenza, J. Flynn, Management Decision Making: Towards an Integrative Approach (Financial Times/Prentice Hall, USA, 2002)

B.C. Agrawal, Anthropological Methods for Communication Research: Experiences and Encounters During SITE (Concept Publishing Company, Delhi, 1985)

Britanica, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations | work by Smith | Britannica.com . www.britannica.com/topic/An-Inquiry-into-the-Nature-and-Causes-of-the-Wealth-of-Nations . [Accessed: 16 Dec 2015]

L.B. Christensen, R.B. Johnson, L.A. Turner, Research Methods, Design, and Analysis (Pearson, Boston (Mass.), 2013)

N. Blaikie, Designing Social Research (2009)

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Business Technologies and Enterpreneurship, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Saulėtekio al 11, 10223, Vilnius, Lithuania

Vida Davidavičienė

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vida Davidavičienė .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of Computing Science, University of Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany

Jorge Marx Gómez

Department of Banking and Finance, Arab International University, Damascus, Syrian Arab Republic

Sulaiman Mouselli

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Davidavičienė, V. (2018). Research Methodology: An Introduction. In: Marx Gómez, J., Mouselli, S. (eds) Modernizing the Academic Teaching and Research Environment. Progress in IS. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74173-4_1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74173-4_1

Published : 31 March 2018

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-74172-7

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-74173-4

eBook Packages : Business and Management Business and Management (R0)

Share this chapter

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

This website may not work correctly because your browser is out of date. Please update your browser .

Introduction to qualitative research methodology

Introduction to Qualitative Research Methodology - A Training Manual File type PDF File size 1.41 MB

This manual, written by Karina Kielmann, Fabian Cataldo and Janet Seeley, aims to give readers of a non-scientific background an introduction to key theoretical concepts and methodologies in qualitative research.

Readers will be taken through how to formulate research questions, organise the practical and logistical aspects of qualitative research, develop and utilise research tools, and gather, manage and analyse qualitative data.

"This manual is based on a course entitled ‘Qualitative Research Methods for Non-Social Scientists’ which was developed by the authors, and run in Entebbe, Uganda, in March 2010. The course was part of the capacity building efforts of the Evidence for Action Research Programme Consortium, funded by the Department for International Development, UK1. The participants came from Zambia, Malawi and Uganda, most with clinical backgrounds in HIV. Their high levels of motivation and enthusiasm for the course and their desire to build on what they had learnt led to the idea of this manual. Aimed primarily at non-social scientists, the manual is also accessible to a wider audience.

It introduces qualitative methods in an interesting and hands-on way to provide you with an understanding of key concepts and methods in qualitative research as applied to the field of health.

All three authors are trained anthropologists who have been working in health and development for many years. They have conducted research, taught, and built capacity for qualitative and applied anthropological research in different types of health settings in a variety of countries.

The manual can be used as a stand-alone, self-learning tool by individuals new to the use of social science methods in health research; it can also be used by social scientists tasked with conducting short-term training in qualitative research methods for applied health research.

The authors have drawn extensively on their own experiences of teaching and using qualitative research methods, but they have also tried to synthesise many important insights gained from teachers, colleagues, and scholars, some of whom have been acknowledged in the previous section. There are, of course, many excellent manuals and websites providing introductions to qualitative methods. The objective here is to complement these more in-depth sources with an overview that introduces the user to the topic and approach. If you would like more information on the different topics covered, an annotated list of other useful references is provided on page 79." (Kielmann, Cataldo & Seeley 2011, p.4)

The Qualitative Lens 6
The Quantitative - Qualitative Continuum 12
Issues in the Design of Qualitative Research 18
Interviews 24
Group Interviews 33
Observation 41
Fieldwork 47
Ethics and Logistics of Data Collection 53
Steps Towards Data Analysis 64
Next Steps 70
End Notes 71
Feedback on Exercises 72
Optional Exercises 76
Qualitative Research Methods - A List of Useful References 79
Acknowledgements 82
Appendix A - Example of a Focus Group Discussion Guide 83
Appendix B - Example of an Interview Guide 84
Semi-Structured Interview

Kielmann, K., Cataldo, F., & Seeley, J., 2011. Introduction to Qualitative Research Methodology. DFID. Retrieved from https://www.rbfhealth.org/sites/rbf/files/Introduction%20to%20Qualitative%20Research%20Methodology%20-%20A%20Training%20Manual.pdf

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

We're Hiring!
Help Center

RESEARCH METHODS: WHAT, WHERE AND HOW TO...GUIDE

Related Papers

MASEREKA GILBERT

Michael Evans

Langley, BC: Trinity Western University. …

Paul T P Wong

Emil Ilyasov

abasynuniv.edu.pk

Flora Maleki

Stevejobs.education

Dr. David Annan

Very often, little attention is paid to how students have to prepare and understand the processes of conducting research and mostly young scholars struggle in the early stages in the university career about what is required of them and how to present their proposal to their supervisors. Keeping this in mind, the purpose of this guidebook is to offer a critical and practical mind map introduction to research writing to assist researchers in creating an appropriate design for their research studies and to offer the simplest guide of creating a logical orientated research. The book is made using simple graphs to explain what is expected of researchers at each stage of their research writing to enable them to understand if any a missing link when conducting their research. The book is mostly content mind-map and figures to make it easier for the researcher to understand what is expected of them from the stages of their research to completion. It presents the basic tenets of methodological steps so that the researcher can become familiar with how to conduct research and what techniques to use in their choice for research writing.

Holuphumiee Adegbaju

Roohullah Nawandish

RELATED PAPERS

Azerbaijan Medical Association Journal

Samira Valiyeva

Beatriz Manrique

Current Nutrition & Food Science

Boletín de Innovación, Logística y Operaciones

Clau Cantillo

Amir Auditor

Carey Jewitt

GeroScience

Cesar A Meschiari

Mitteilungen des Deutschen Germanistenverbandes

karolin Bubke

Amazonian Journal of Plant Research

RONILSON SANTOS

Respiratory research

Marco Chilosi

Journal of the American College of Cardiology

Ahmad Khalil

Alfonso Valero García

Differentiation

Bryan Zimdahl

Critical Reviews in Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine

Thiago Pereira dos Santos

Tharinda Nishantha Vidanagama

Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation

Eleni Rapsomaniki

Journal of Thoracic Oncology

Nolwenn Le Stang

Technology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine

WAN SAMSUDIN

Jurnal Tatsqif

dinda dinda

Frontiers in Psychology

Margarida Pocinho

Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice

Hayal BOYACIOGLU

Heart, Lung and Circulation

Richard W Harper

At-Thullab : Jurnal Mahasiswa Studi Islam

Ikke Pradima Sari

办理南澳大学毕业证书文凭学位证书澳洲大学文凭学历认证

Research Report – Example, Writing Guide and Types

Table of Contents

Research Report

Definition:

Research Report is a written document that presents the results of a research project or study, including the research question, methodology, results, and conclusions, in a clear and objective manner.

The purpose of a research report is to communicate the findings of the research to the intended audience, which could be other researchers, stakeholders, or the general public.

Components of Research Report

Components of Research Report are as follows:

Introduction

The introduction sets the stage for the research report and provides a brief overview of the research question or problem being investigated. It should include a clear statement of the purpose of the study and its significance or relevance to the field of research. It may also provide background information or a literature review to help contextualize the research.

Literature Review

The literature review provides a critical analysis and synthesis of the existing research and scholarship relevant to the research question or problem. It should identify the gaps, inconsistencies, and contradictions in the literature and show how the current study addresses these issues. The literature review also establishes the theoretical framework or conceptual model that guides the research.

Methodology

The methodology section describes the research design, methods, and procedures used to collect and analyze data. It should include information on the sample or participants, data collection instruments, data collection procedures, and data analysis techniques. The methodology should be clear and detailed enough to allow other researchers to replicate the study.

The results section presents the findings of the study in a clear and objective manner. It should provide a detailed description of the data and statistics used to answer the research question or test the hypothesis. Tables, graphs, and figures may be included to help visualize the data and illustrate the key findings.

The discussion section interprets the results of the study and explains their significance or relevance to the research question or problem. It should also compare the current findings with those of previous studies and identify the implications for future research or practice. The discussion should be based on the results presented in the previous section and should avoid speculation or unfounded conclusions.

The conclusion summarizes the key findings of the study and restates the main argument or thesis presented in the introduction. It should also provide a brief overview of the contributions of the study to the field of research and the implications for practice or policy.

The references section lists all the sources cited in the research report, following a specific citation style, such as APA or MLA.

The appendices section includes any additional material, such as data tables, figures, or instruments used in the study, that could not be included in the main text due to space limitations.

Types of Research Report

Types of Research Report are as follows:

Thesis is a type of research report. A thesis is a long-form research document that presents the findings and conclusions of an original research study conducted by a student as part of a graduate or postgraduate program. It is typically written by a student pursuing a higher degree, such as a Master’s or Doctoral degree, although it can also be written by researchers or scholars in other fields.

Research Paper

Research paper is a type of research report. A research paper is a document that presents the results of a research study or investigation. Research papers can be written in a variety of fields, including science, social science, humanities, and business. They typically follow a standard format that includes an introduction, literature review, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion sections.

Technical Report

A technical report is a detailed report that provides information about a specific technical or scientific problem or project. Technical reports are often used in engineering, science, and other technical fields to document research and development work.

Progress Report

A progress report provides an update on the progress of a research project or program over a specific period of time. Progress reports are typically used to communicate the status of a project to stakeholders, funders, or project managers.

Feasibility Report

A feasibility report assesses the feasibility of a proposed project or plan, providing an analysis of the potential risks, benefits, and costs associated with the project. Feasibility reports are often used in business, engineering, and other fields to determine the viability of a project before it is undertaken.

Field Report

A field report documents observations and findings from fieldwork, which is research conducted in the natural environment or setting. Field reports are often used in anthropology, ecology, and other social and natural sciences.

Experimental Report

An experimental report documents the results of a scientific experiment, including the hypothesis, methods, results, and conclusions. Experimental reports are often used in biology, chemistry, and other sciences to communicate the results of laboratory experiments.

Case Study Report

A case study report provides an in-depth analysis of a specific case or situation, often used in psychology, social work, and other fields to document and understand complex cases or phenomena.

Literature Review Report

A literature review report synthesizes and summarizes existing research on a specific topic, providing an overview of the current state of knowledge on the subject. Literature review reports are often used in social sciences, education, and other fields to identify gaps in the literature and guide future research.

Research Report Example

Following is a Research Report Example sample for Students:

Title: The Impact of Social Media on Academic Performance among High School Students

This study aims to investigate the relationship between social media use and academic performance among high school students. The study utilized a quantitative research design, which involved a survey questionnaire administered to a sample of 200 high school students. The findings indicate that there is a negative correlation between social media use and academic performance, suggesting that excessive social media use can lead to poor academic performance among high school students. The results of this study have important implications for educators, parents, and policymakers, as they highlight the need for strategies that can help students balance their social media use and academic responsibilities.

Introduction:

Social media has become an integral part of the lives of high school students. With the widespread use of social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat, students can connect with friends, share photos and videos, and engage in discussions on a range of topics. While social media offers many benefits, concerns have been raised about its impact on academic performance. Many studies have found a negative correlation between social media use and academic performance among high school students (Kirschner & Karpinski, 2010; Paul, Baker, & Cochran, 2012).

Given the growing importance of social media in the lives of high school students, it is important to investigate its impact on academic performance. This study aims to address this gap by examining the relationship between social media use and academic performance among high school students.

Methodology:

The study utilized a quantitative research design, which involved a survey questionnaire administered to a sample of 200 high school students. The questionnaire was developed based on previous studies and was designed to measure the frequency and duration of social media use, as well as academic performance.

The participants were selected using a convenience sampling technique, and the survey questionnaire was distributed in the classroom during regular school hours. The data collected were analyzed using descriptive statistics and correlation analysis.

The findings indicate that the majority of high school students use social media platforms on a daily basis, with Facebook being the most popular platform. The results also show a negative correlation between social media use and academic performance, suggesting that excessive social media use can lead to poor academic performance among high school students.

Discussion:

The results of this study have important implications for educators, parents, and policymakers. The negative correlation between social media use and academic performance suggests that strategies should be put in place to help students balance their social media use and academic responsibilities. For example, educators could incorporate social media into their teaching strategies to engage students and enhance learning. Parents could limit their children’s social media use and encourage them to prioritize their academic responsibilities. Policymakers could develop guidelines and policies to regulate social media use among high school students.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, this study provides evidence of the negative impact of social media on academic performance among high school students. The findings highlight the need for strategies that can help students balance their social media use and academic responsibilities. Further research is needed to explore the specific mechanisms by which social media use affects academic performance and to develop effective strategies for addressing this issue.

Limitations:

One limitation of this study is the use of convenience sampling, which limits the generalizability of the findings to other populations. Future studies should use random sampling techniques to increase the representativeness of the sample. Another limitation is the use of self-reported measures, which may be subject to social desirability bias. Future studies could use objective measures of social media use and academic performance, such as tracking software and school records.

Implications:

The findings of this study have important implications for educators, parents, and policymakers. Educators could incorporate social media into their teaching strategies to engage students and enhance learning. For example, teachers could use social media platforms to share relevant educational resources and facilitate online discussions. Parents could limit their children’s social media use and encourage them to prioritize their academic responsibilities. They could also engage in open communication with their children to understand their social media use and its impact on their academic performance. Policymakers could develop guidelines and policies to regulate social media use among high school students. For example, schools could implement social media policies that restrict access during class time and encourage responsible use.

References:

Kirschner, P. A., & Karpinski, A. C. (2010). Facebook® and academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1237-1245.
Paul, J. A., Baker, H. M., & Cochran, J. D. (2012). Effect of online social networking on student academic performance. Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology, 8(1), 1-19.
Pantic, I. (2014). Online social networking and mental health. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17(10), 652-657.
Rosen, L. D., Carrier, L. M., & Cheever, N. A. (2013). Facebook and texting made me do it: Media-induced task-switching while studying. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 948-958.

Note*: Above mention, Example is just a sample for the students’ guide. Do not directly copy and paste as your College or University assignment. Kindly do some research and Write your own.

Applications of Research Report

Research reports have many applications, including:

Communicating research findings: The primary application of a research report is to communicate the results of a study to other researchers, stakeholders, or the general public. The report serves as a way to share new knowledge, insights, and discoveries with others in the field.
Informing policy and practice : Research reports can inform policy and practice by providing evidence-based recommendations for decision-makers. For example, a research report on the effectiveness of a new drug could inform regulatory agencies in their decision-making process.
Supporting further research: Research reports can provide a foundation for further research in a particular area. Other researchers may use the findings and methodology of a report to develop new research questions or to build on existing research.
Evaluating programs and interventions : Research reports can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of programs and interventions in achieving their intended outcomes. For example, a research report on a new educational program could provide evidence of its impact on student performance.
Demonstrating impact : Research reports can be used to demonstrate the impact of research funding or to evaluate the success of research projects. By presenting the findings and outcomes of a study, research reports can show the value of research to funders and stakeholders.
Enhancing professional development : Research reports can be used to enhance professional development by providing a source of information and learning for researchers and practitioners in a particular field. For example, a research report on a new teaching methodology could provide insights and ideas for educators to incorporate into their own practice.

How to write Research Report

Here are some steps you can follow to write a research report:

Identify the research question: The first step in writing a research report is to identify your research question. This will help you focus your research and organize your findings.
Conduct research : Once you have identified your research question, you will need to conduct research to gather relevant data and information. This can involve conducting experiments, reviewing literature, or analyzing data.
Organize your findings: Once you have gathered all of your data, you will need to organize your findings in a way that is clear and understandable. This can involve creating tables, graphs, or charts to illustrate your results.
Write the report: Once you have organized your findings, you can begin writing the report. Start with an introduction that provides background information and explains the purpose of your research. Next, provide a detailed description of your research methods and findings. Finally, summarize your results and draw conclusions based on your findings.
Proofread and edit: After you have written your report, be sure to proofread and edit it carefully. Check for grammar and spelling errors, and make sure that your report is well-organized and easy to read.
Include a reference list: Be sure to include a list of references that you used in your research. This will give credit to your sources and allow readers to further explore the topic if they choose.
Format your report: Finally, format your report according to the guidelines provided by your instructor or organization. This may include formatting requirements for headings, margins, fonts, and spacing.

Purpose of Research Report

The purpose of a research report is to communicate the results of a research study to a specific audience, such as peers in the same field, stakeholders, or the general public. The report provides a detailed description of the research methods, findings, and conclusions.

Some common purposes of a research report include:

Sharing knowledge: A research report allows researchers to share their findings and knowledge with others in their field. This helps to advance the field and improve the understanding of a particular topic.
Identifying trends: A research report can identify trends and patterns in data, which can help guide future research and inform decision-making.
Addressing problems: A research report can provide insights into problems or issues and suggest solutions or recommendations for addressing them.
Evaluating programs or interventions : A research report can evaluate the effectiveness of programs or interventions, which can inform decision-making about whether to continue, modify, or discontinue them.
Meeting regulatory requirements: In some fields, research reports are required to meet regulatory requirements, such as in the case of drug trials or environmental impact studies.

When to Write Research Report

A research report should be written after completing the research study. This includes collecting data, analyzing the results, and drawing conclusions based on the findings. Once the research is complete, the report should be written in a timely manner while the information is still fresh in the researcher’s mind.

In academic settings, research reports are often required as part of coursework or as part of a thesis or dissertation. In this case, the report should be written according to the guidelines provided by the instructor or institution.

In other settings, such as in industry or government, research reports may be required to inform decision-making or to comply with regulatory requirements. In these cases, the report should be written as soon as possible after the research is completed in order to inform decision-making in a timely manner.

Overall, the timing of when to write a research report depends on the purpose of the research, the expectations of the audience, and any regulatory requirements that need to be met. However, it is important to complete the report in a timely manner while the information is still fresh in the researcher’s mind.

Characteristics of Research Report

There are several characteristics of a research report that distinguish it from other types of writing. These characteristics include:

Objective: A research report should be written in an objective and unbiased manner. It should present the facts and findings of the research study without any personal opinions or biases.
Systematic: A research report should be written in a systematic manner. It should follow a clear and logical structure, and the information should be presented in a way that is easy to understand and follow.
Detailed: A research report should be detailed and comprehensive. It should provide a thorough description of the research methods, results, and conclusions.
Accurate : A research report should be accurate and based on sound research methods. The findings and conclusions should be supported by data and evidence.
Organized: A research report should be well-organized. It should include headings and subheadings to help the reader navigate the report and understand the main points.
Clear and concise: A research report should be written in clear and concise language. The information should be presented in a way that is easy to understand, and unnecessary jargon should be avoided.
Citations and references: A research report should include citations and references to support the findings and conclusions. This helps to give credit to other researchers and to provide readers with the opportunity to further explore the topic.

Advantages of Research Report

Research reports have several advantages, including:

Communicating research findings: Research reports allow researchers to communicate their findings to a wider audience, including other researchers, stakeholders, and the general public. This helps to disseminate knowledge and advance the understanding of a particular topic.
Providing evidence for decision-making : Research reports can provide evidence to inform decision-making, such as in the case of policy-making, program planning, or product development. The findings and conclusions can help guide decisions and improve outcomes.
Supporting further research: Research reports can provide a foundation for further research on a particular topic. Other researchers can build on the findings and conclusions of the report, which can lead to further discoveries and advancements in the field.
Demonstrating expertise: Research reports can demonstrate the expertise of the researchers and their ability to conduct rigorous and high-quality research. This can be important for securing funding, promotions, and other professional opportunities.
Meeting regulatory requirements: In some fields, research reports are required to meet regulatory requirements, such as in the case of drug trials or environmental impact studies. Producing a high-quality research report can help ensure compliance with these requirements.

Limitations of Research Report

Despite their advantages, research reports also have some limitations, including:

Time-consuming: Conducting research and writing a report can be a time-consuming process, particularly for large-scale studies. This can limit the frequency and speed of producing research reports.
Expensive: Conducting research and producing a report can be expensive, particularly for studies that require specialized equipment, personnel, or data. This can limit the scope and feasibility of some research studies.
Limited generalizability: Research studies often focus on a specific population or context, which can limit the generalizability of the findings to other populations or contexts.
Potential bias : Researchers may have biases or conflicts of interest that can influence the findings and conclusions of the research study. Additionally, participants may also have biases or may not be representative of the larger population, which can limit the validity and reliability of the findings.
Accessibility: Research reports may be written in technical or academic language, which can limit their accessibility to a wider audience. Additionally, some research may be behind paywalls or require specialized access, which can limit the ability of others to read and use the findings.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

Institutional Review Board – Application Sample...

Evaluating Research – Process, Examples and...

What Is Research Methodology? A Plain-Language Explanation & Definition (With Examples)

By Derek Jansen (MBA) and Kerryn Warren (PhD) | June 2020 (Last updated April 2023)

If you’re new to formal academic research, it’s quite likely that you’re feeling a little overwhelmed by all the technical lingo that gets thrown around. And who could blame you – “research methodology”, “research methods”, “sampling strategies”… it all seems never-ending!

In this post, we’ll demystify the landscape with plain-language explanations and loads of examples (including easy-to-follow videos), so that you can approach your dissertation, thesis or research project with confidence. Let’s get started.

Research Methodology 101

What exactly research methodology means
What qualitative , quantitative and mixed methods are
What sampling strategy is
What data collection methods are
What data analysis methods are
How to choose your research methodology
Example of a research methodology

What is research methodology?

Research methodology simply refers to the practical “how” of a research study. More specifically, it’s about how a researcher systematically designs a study to ensure valid and reliable results that address the research aims, objectives and research questions . Specifically, how the researcher went about deciding:

What type of data to collect (e.g., qualitative or quantitative data )
Who to collect it from (i.e., the sampling strategy )
How to collect it (i.e., the data collection method )
How to analyse it (i.e., the data analysis methods )

Within any formal piece of academic research (be it a dissertation, thesis or journal article), you’ll find a research methodology chapter or section which covers the aspects mentioned above. Importantly, a good methodology chapter explains not just what methodological choices were made, but also explains why they were made. In other words, the methodology chapter should justify the design choices, by showing that the chosen methods and techniques are the best fit for the research aims, objectives and research questions.

So, it’s the same as research design?

Not quite. As we mentioned, research methodology refers to the collection of practical decisions regarding what data you’ll collect, from who, how you’ll collect it and how you’ll analyse it. Research design, on the other hand, is more about the overall strategy you’ll adopt in your study. For example, whether you’ll use an experimental design in which you manipulate one variable while controlling others. You can learn more about research design and the various design types here .

Need a helping hand?

What are qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods?

Qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods are different types of methodological approaches, distinguished by their focus on words , numbers or both . This is a bit of an oversimplification, but its a good starting point for understanding.

Let’s take a closer look.

Qualitative research refers to research which focuses on collecting and analysing words (written or spoken) and textual or visual data, whereas quantitative research focuses on measurement and testing using numerical data . Qualitative analysis can also focus on other “softer” data points, such as body language or visual elements.

It’s quite common for a qualitative methodology to be used when the research aims and research questions are exploratory in nature. For example, a qualitative methodology might be used to understand peoples’ perceptions about an event that took place, or a political candidate running for president.

Contrasted to this, a quantitative methodology is typically used when the research aims and research questions are confirmatory in nature. For example, a quantitative methodology might be used to measure the relationship between two variables (e.g. personality type and likelihood to commit a crime) or to test a set of hypotheses .

As you’ve probably guessed, the mixed-method methodology attempts to combine the best of both qualitative and quantitative methodologies to integrate perspectives and create a rich picture. If you’d like to learn more about these three methodological approaches, be sure to watch our explainer video below.

What is sampling strategy?

Simply put, sampling is about deciding who (or where) you’re going to collect your data from . Why does this matter? Well, generally it’s not possible to collect data from every single person in your group of interest (this is called the “population”), so you’ll need to engage a smaller portion of that group that’s accessible and manageable (this is called the “sample”).

How you go about selecting the sample (i.e., your sampling strategy) will have a major impact on your study. There are many different sampling methods you can choose from, but the two overarching categories are probability sampling and non-probability sampling .

Probability sampling involves using a completely random sample from the group of people you’re interested in. This is comparable to throwing the names all potential participants into a hat, shaking it up, and picking out the “winners”. By using a completely random sample, you’ll minimise the risk of selection bias and the results of your study will be more generalisable to the entire population.

Non-probability sampling , on the other hand, doesn’t use a random sample . For example, it might involve using a convenience sample, which means you’d only interview or survey people that you have access to (perhaps your friends, family or work colleagues), rather than a truly random sample. With non-probability sampling, the results are typically not generalisable .

To learn more about sampling methods, be sure to check out the video below.

What are data collection methods?

As the name suggests, data collection methods simply refers to the way in which you go about collecting the data for your study. Some of the most common data collection methods include:

Interviews (which can be unstructured, semi-structured or structured)
Focus groups and group interviews
Surveys (online or physical surveys)
Observations (watching and recording activities)
Biophysical measurements (e.g., blood pressure, heart rate, etc.)
Documents and records (e.g., financial reports, court records, etc.)

The choice of which data collection method to use depends on your overall research aims and research questions , as well as practicalities and resource constraints. For example, if your research is exploratory in nature, qualitative methods such as interviews and focus groups would likely be a good fit. Conversely, if your research aims to measure specific variables or test hypotheses, large-scale surveys that produce large volumes of numerical data would likely be a better fit.

What are data analysis methods?

Data analysis methods refer to the methods and techniques that you’ll use to make sense of your data. These can be grouped according to whether the research is qualitative (words-based) or quantitative (numbers-based).

Popular data analysis methods in qualitative research include:

Qualitative content analysis
Thematic analysis
Discourse analysis
Narrative analysis
Interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA)
Visual analysis (of photographs, videos, art, etc.)

Qualitative data analysis all begins with data coding , after which an analysis method is applied. In some cases, more than one analysis method is used, depending on the research aims and research questions . In the video below, we explore some common qualitative analysis methods, along with practical examples.

Moving on to the quantitative side of things, popular data analysis methods in this type of research include:

Descriptive statistics (e.g. means, medians, modes )
Inferential statistics (e.g. correlation, regression, structural equation modelling)

Again, the choice of which data collection method to use depends on your overall research aims and objectives , as well as practicalities and resource constraints. In the video below, we explain some core concepts central to quantitative analysis.

How do I choose a research methodology?

As you’ve probably picked up by now, your research aims and objectives have a major influence on the research methodology . So, the starting point for developing your research methodology is to take a step back and look at the big picture of your research, before you make methodology decisions. The first question you need to ask yourself is whether your research is exploratory or confirmatory in nature.

If your research aims and objectives are primarily exploratory in nature, your research will likely be qualitative and therefore you might consider qualitative data collection methods (e.g. interviews) and analysis methods (e.g. qualitative content analysis).

Conversely, if your research aims and objective are looking to measure or test something (i.e. they’re confirmatory), then your research will quite likely be quantitative in nature, and you might consider quantitative data collection methods (e.g. surveys) and analyses (e.g. statistical analysis).

Designing your research and working out your methodology is a large topic, which we cover extensively on the blog . For now, however, the key takeaway is that you should always start with your research aims, objectives and research questions (the golden thread). Every methodological choice you make needs align with those three components.

Example of a research methodology chapter

In the video below, we provide a detailed walkthrough of a research methodology from an actual dissertation, as well as an overview of our free methodology template .

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

You Might Also Like:

199 Comments

Thank you for this simple yet comprehensive and easy to digest presentation. God Bless!

You’re most welcome, Leo. Best of luck with your research!

I found it very useful. many thanks

This is really directional. A make-easy research knowledge.

Thank you for this, I think will help my research proposal

Thanks for good interpretation,well understood.

Good morning sorry I want to the search topic

Thank u more

Thank you, your explanation is simple and very helpful.

Very educative a.nd exciting platform. A bigger thank you and I’ll like to always be with you

That’s the best analysis

So simple yet so insightful. Thank you.

This really easy to read as it is self-explanatory. Very much appreciated…

Thanks for this. It’s so helpful and explicit. For those elements highlighted in orange, they were good sources of referrals for concepts I didn’t understand. A million thanks for this.

Good morning, I have been reading your research lessons through out a period of times. They are important, impressive and clear. Want to subscribe and be and be active with you.

Thankyou So much Sir Derek…

Good morning thanks so much for the on line lectures am a student of university of Makeni.select a research topic and deliberate on it so that we’ll continue to understand more.sorry that’s a suggestion.

Beautiful presentation. I love it.

please provide a research mehodology example for zoology

It’s very educative and well explained

Thanks for the concise and informative data.

This is really good for students to be safe and well understand that research is all about

Thank you so much Derek sir🖤🙏🤗

Very simple and reliable

This is really helpful. Thanks alot. God bless you.

very useful, Thank you very much..

thanks a lot its really useful

in a nutshell..thank you!

Thanks for updating my understanding on this aspect of my Thesis writing.

thank you so much my through this video am competently going to do a good job my thesis

Thanks a lot. Very simple to understand. I appreciate 🙏

Very simple but yet insightful Thank you

This has been an eye opening experience. Thank you grad coach team.

Very useful message for research scholars

Really very helpful thank you

yes you are right and i’m left

Research methodology with a simplest way i have never seen before this article.

wow thank u so much

Good morning thanks so much for the on line lectures am a student of university of Makeni.select a research topic and deliberate on is so that we will continue to understand more.sorry that’s a suggestion.

Very precise and informative.

Thanks for simplifying these terms for us, really appreciate it.

Thanks this has really helped me. It is very easy to understand.

I found the notes and the presentation assisting and opening my understanding on research methodology

Good presentation

Im so glad you clarified my misconceptions. Im now ready to fry my onions. Thank you so much. God bless

Thank you a lot.

thanks for the easy way of learning and desirable presentation.

Thanks a lot. I am inspired

Well written

I am writing a APA Format paper . I using questionnaire with 120 STDs teacher for my participant. Can you write me mthology for this research. Send it through email sent. Just need a sample as an example please. My topic is ” impacts of overcrowding on students learning

Thanks for your comment.

We can’t write your methodology for you. If you’re looking for samples, you should be able to find some sample methodologies on Google. Alternatively, you can download some previous dissertations from a dissertation directory and have a look at the methodology chapters therein.

All the best with your research.

Thank you so much for this!! God Bless

Thank you. Explicit explanation

Thank you, Derek and Kerryn, for making this simple to understand. I’m currently at the inception stage of my research.

Thnks a lot , this was very usefull on my assignment

excellent explanation

I’m currently working on my master’s thesis, thanks for this! I’m certain that I will use Qualitative methodology.

Thanks a lot for this concise piece, it was quite relieving and helpful. God bless you BIG…

I am currently doing my dissertation proposal and I am sure that I will do quantitative research. Thank you very much it was extremely helpful.

Very interesting and informative yet I would like to know about examples of Research Questions as well, if possible.

I’m about to submit a research presentation, I have come to understand from your simplification on understanding research methodology. My research will be mixed methodology, qualitative as well as quantitative. So aim and objective of mixed method would be both exploratory and confirmatory. Thanks you very much for your guidance.

OMG thanks for that, you’re a life saver. You covered all the points I needed. Thank you so much ❤️ ❤️ ❤️

Thank you immensely for this simple, easy to comprehend explanation of data collection methods. I have been stuck here for months 😩. Glad I found your piece. Super insightful.

I’m going to write synopsis which will be quantitative research method and I don’t know how to frame my topic, can I kindly get some ideas..

Thanks for this, I was really struggling.

This was really informative I was struggling but this helped me.

Thanks a lot for this information, simple and straightforward. I’m a last year student from the University of South Africa UNISA South Africa.

its very much informative and understandable. I have enlightened.

An interesting nice exploration of a topic.

Thank you. Accurate and simple🥰

This article was really helpful, it helped me understanding the basic concepts of the topic Research Methodology. The examples were very clear, and easy to understand. I would like to visit this website again. Thank you so much for such a great explanation of the subject.

Thanks dude

Thank you Doctor Derek for this wonderful piece, please help to provide your details for reference purpose. God bless.

Many compliments to you

Great work , thank you very much for the simple explanation

Thank you. I had to give a presentation on this topic. I have looked everywhere on the internet but this is the best and simple explanation.

thank you, its very informative.

Well explained. Now I know my research methodology will be qualitative and exploratory. Thank you so much, keep up the good work

Well explained, thank you very much.

This is good explanation, I have understood the different methods of research. Thanks a lot.

Great work…very well explanation

Thanks Derek. Kerryn was just fantastic!

Great to hear that, Hyacinth. Best of luck with your research!

Its a good templates very attractive and important to PhD students and lectuter

Thanks for the feedback, Matobela. Good luck with your research methodology.

Thank you. This is really helpful.

You’re very welcome, Elie. Good luck with your research methodology.

Well explained thanks

This is a very helpful site especially for young researchers at college. It provides sufficient information to guide students and equip them with the necessary foundation to ask any other questions aimed at deepening their understanding.

Thanks for the kind words, Edward. Good luck with your research!

Thank you. I have learned a lot.

Great to hear that, Ngwisa. Good luck with your research methodology!

Thank you for keeping your presentation simples and short and covering key information for research methodology. My key takeaway: Start with defining your research objective the other will depend on the aims of your research question.

My name is Zanele I would like to be assisted with my research , and the topic is shortage of nursing staff globally want are the causes , effects on health, patients and community and also globally

Thanks for making it simple and clear. It greatly helped in understanding research methodology. Regards.

This is well simplified and straight to the point

Thank you Dr

I was given an assignment to research 2 publications and describe their research methodology? I don’t know how to start this task can someone help me?

Sure. You’re welcome to book an initial consultation with one of our Research Coaches to discuss how we can assist – https://gradcoach.com/book/new/ .

Thanks a lot I am relieved of a heavy burden.keep up with the good work

I’m very much grateful Dr Derek. I’m planning to pursue one of the careers that really needs one to be very much eager to know. There’s a lot of research to do and everything, but since I’ve gotten this information I will use it to the best of my potential.

Thank you so much, words are not enough to explain how helpful this session has been for me!

Thanks this has thought me alot.

Very concise and helpful. Thanks a lot

Thank Derek. This is very helpful. Your step by step explanation has made it easier for me to understand different concepts. Now i can get on with my research.

I wish i had come across this sooner. So simple but yet insightful

really nice explanation thank you so much

I’m so grateful finding this site, it’s really helpful…….every term well explained and provide accurate understanding especially to student going into an in-depth research for the very first time, even though my lecturer already explained this topic to the class, I think I got the clear and efficient explanation here, much thanks to the author.

It is very helpful material

I would like to be assisted with my research topic : Literature Review and research methodologies. My topic is : what is the relationship between unemployment and economic growth?

Its really nice and good for us.

THANKS SO MUCH FOR EXPLANATION, ITS VERY CLEAR TO ME WHAT I WILL BE DOING FROM NOW .GREAT READS.

Short but sweet.Thank you

Informative article. Thanks for your detailed information.

I’m currently working on my Ph.D. thesis. Thanks a lot, Derek and Kerryn, Well-organized sequences, facilitate the readers’ following.

great article for someone who does not have any background can even understand

I am a bit confused about research design and methodology. Are they the same? If not, what are the differences and how are they related?

Thanks in advance.

concise and informative.

Thank you very much

How can we site this article is Harvard style?

Very well written piece that afforded better understanding of the concept. Thank you!

Am a new researcher trying to learn how best to write a research proposal. I find your article spot on and want to download the free template but finding difficulties. Can u kindly send it to my email, the free download entitled, “Free Download: Research Proposal Template (with Examples)”.

Thank too much

Thank you very much for your comprehensive explanation about research methodology so I like to thank you again for giving us such great things.

Good very well explained.Thanks for sharing it.

Thank u sir, it is really a good guideline.

so helpful thank you very much.

Thanks for the video it was very explanatory and detailed, easy to comprehend and follow up. please, keep it up the good work

It was very helpful, a well-written document with precise information.

how do i reference this?

MLA Jansen, Derek, and Kerryn Warren. “What (Exactly) Is Research Methodology?” Grad Coach, June 2021, gradcoach.com/what-is-research-methodology/.

APA Jansen, D., & Warren, K. (2021, June). What (Exactly) Is Research Methodology? Grad Coach. https://gradcoach.com/what-is-research-methodology/

Your explanation is easily understood. Thank you

Very help article. Now I can go my methodology chapter in my thesis with ease

I feel guided ,Thank you

This simplification is very helpful. It is simple but very educative, thanks ever so much

The write up is informative and educative. It is an academic intellectual representation that every good researcher can find useful. Thanks

Wow, this is wonderful long live.

Nice initiative

thank you the video was helpful to me.

Thank you very much for your simple and clear explanations I’m really satisfied by the way you did it By now, I think I can realize a very good article by following your fastidious indications May God bless you

Thanks very much, it was very concise and informational for a beginner like me to gain an insight into what i am about to undertake. I really appreciate.

very informative sir, it is amazing to understand the meaning of question hidden behind that, and simple language is used other than legislature to understand easily. stay happy.

This one is really amazing. All content in your youtube channel is a very helpful guide for doing research. Thanks, GradCoach.

research methodologies

Please send me more information concerning dissertation research.

Nice piece of knowledge shared….. #Thump_UP

This is amazing, it has said it all. Thanks to Gradcoach

This is wonderful,very elaborate and clear.I hope to reach out for your assistance in my research very soon.

This is the answer I am searching about…

realy thanks a lot

Thank you very much for this awesome, to the point and inclusive article.

Thank you very much I need validity and reliability explanation I have exams

Thank you for a well explained piece. This will help me going forward.

Very simple and well detailed Many thanks

This is so very simple yet so very effective and comprehensive. An Excellent piece of work.

I wish I saw this earlier on! Great insights for a beginner(researcher) like me. Thanks a mil!

Thank you very much, for such a simplified, clear and practical step by step both for academic students and general research work. Holistic, effective to use and easy to read step by step. One can easily apply the steps in practical terms and produce a quality document/up-to standard

Thanks for simplifying these terms for us, really appreciated.

Thanks for a great work. well understood .

This was very helpful. It was simple but profound and very easy to understand. Thank you so much!

Great and amazing research guidelines. Best site for learning research

hello sir/ma’am, i didn’t find yet that what type of research methodology i am using. because i am writing my report on CSR and collect all my data from websites and articles so which type of methodology i should write in dissertation report. please help me. i am from India.

how does this really work?

perfect content, thanks a lot

As a researcher, I commend you for the detailed and simplified information on the topic in question. I would like to remain in touch for the sharing of research ideas on other topics. Thank you

Impressive. Thank you, Grad Coach 😍

Thank you Grad Coach for this piece of information. I have at least learned about the different types of research methodologies.

Very useful content with easy way

Thank you very much for the presentation. I am an MPH student with the Adventist University of Africa. I have successfully completed my theory and starting on my research this July. My topic is “Factors associated with Dental Caries in (one District) in Botswana. I need help on how to go about this quantitative research

I am so grateful to run across something that was sooo helpful. I have been on my doctorate journey for quite some time. Your breakdown on methodology helped me to refresh my intent. Thank you.

thanks so much for this good lecture. student from university of science and technology, Wudil. Kano Nigeria.

It’s profound easy to understand I appreciate

Thanks a lot for sharing superb information in a detailed but concise manner. It was really helpful and helped a lot in getting into my own research methodology.

Comment * thanks very much

This was sooo helpful for me thank you so much i didn’t even know what i had to write thank you!

You’re most welcome 🙂

Simple and good. Very much helpful. Thank you so much.

This is very good work. I have benefited.

Thank you so much for sharing

This is powerful thank you so much guys

I am nkasa lizwi doing my research proposal on honors with the university of Walter Sisulu Komani I m on part 3 now can you assist me.my topic is: transitional challenges faced by educators in intermediate phase in the Alfred Nzo District.

Appreciate the presentation. Very useful step-by-step guidelines to follow.

I appreciate sir

wow! This is super insightful for me. Thank you!

Indeed this material is very helpful! Kudos writers/authors.

I want to say thank you very much, I got a lot of info and knowledge. Be blessed.

I want present a seminar paper on Optimisation of Deep learning-based models on vulnerability detection in digital transactions.

Need assistance

Dear Sir, I want to be assisted on my research on Sanitation and Water management in emergencies areas.

I am deeply grateful for the knowledge gained. I will be getting in touch shortly as I want to be assisted in my ongoing research.

The information shared is informative, crisp and clear. Kudos Team! And thanks a lot!

hello i want to study

Hello!! Grad coach teams. I am extremely happy in your tutorial or consultation. i am really benefited all material and briefing. Thank you very much for your generous helps. Please keep it up. If you add in your briefing, references for further reading, it will be very nice.

All I have to say is, thank u gyz.

Good, l thanks

thank you, it is very useful

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

What Is A Literature Review (In A Dissertation Or Thesis) - Grad Coach - […] the literature review is to inform the choice of methodology for your own research. As we’ve discussed on the Grad Coach blog,…
Free Download: Research Proposal Template (With Examples) - Grad Coach - […] Research design (methodology) […]
Dissertation vs Thesis: What's the difference? - Grad Coach - […] and thesis writing on a daily basis – everything from how to find a good research topic to which…

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

IMAGES

15 Research Methodology Examples (2023)
Chapter 3 Research Methodology Example Qualitative
Methodology Sample In Research
(PDF) CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Types of Research Methodology: Uses, Types & Benefits
(PDF) Research Methodology

VIDEO

Research Methodology Differences
Research Methodology Differences
Research Methodology Differences
Referencing Basics (Part 1b)
Research Methodology: Why it Matters?
2102590 Research Methodology 2/2023 by 6672066021 Valgeir

COMMENTS

PDF Research Design and Research Methods
Research Design and Research Methods 47 research design link your purposes to the broader, more theoretical aspects of procedures for conducting Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Research, while the following section will examine decisions about research methods as a narrower, more technical aspect of procedures.
PDF HEALTH RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Health research methodology: A guide for training in research methods INTRODUCTION This is a revised version of an earlier manual on Health Research Methodology and deals with the basic concepts and principles of scientific research methods with particular attention to research in the health field. The research process is the cornerstone for ...
A practical guide for health researchers
Overview. This comprehensive guide to health research reaches out to a wide spectrum of people: students who wish to learn the basic principles of health research and how to conduct it, field researchers, and those involved in teaching and training of health research methodologies. It seeks to develop practical skills, starting with defining ...
PDF Presenting Methodology and Research Approach
Presenting Methodology and Research Approach 67 Table 3.1 Roadmap for Developing Methodology Chapter: Necessary Elements 1: Introduction and Overview Begin by stating purpose and research questions. Go on to explain how the chapter is organized. Then provide a rationale for using a qualitative research approach, as well as a rationale for the
PDF Introduction to Qualitative Research Methodology
The manual can be used as a stand-alone, self-learning tool by individuals new to the use of social science methods in health research; it can also be used by social scientists tasked with conducting short-term training in qualitative research methods for applied health research.
What is research methodology? [Update 2024]
A research methodology encompasses the way in which you intend to carry out your research. This includes how you plan to tackle things like collection methods, statistical analysis, participant observations, and more. You can think of your research methodology as being a formula. One part will be how you plan on putting your research into ...
Health research methodology : a guide for training in research methods
World Health Organization. Regional Office for the Western Pacific. (‎2001)‎. Health research methodology : a guide for training in research methods. 2nd ed..
Handbook of Research Methods
A paradigm is an intellectual framework within which the scientists observe, describe, and explain nature. A paradigm is a "meta-logic" to the "logic" in a theory - a kind of "meta-theory" to the theories in a scientific discipline. The four paradigms used in science as "meta-theories" are: Mechanism, Function, System, and Logic.
PDF Methodology: What It Is and Why It Is So Important
SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY AND ITS COMPONENTS. Methodologyin science refers to the diverse prin- ciples, procedures, and practices that govern empiri- cal research. It is useful to distinguish ﬁve major components to convey the scope of the topics and to organize the subject matter. 1.
PDF research method fm
Research Methodology Getu Degu Tegbar Yigzaw University of Gondar In collaboration with the Ethiopia Public Health Training Initiative, The Carter Center, the Ethiopia Ministry of Health, and the Ethiopia Ministry of Education 2006 . Funded under USAID Cooperative Agreement No. 663-A-00-00-0358-00.
How to Write a Research Proposal
Research proposal examples. Writing a research proposal can be quite challenging, but a good starting point could be to look at some examples. We've included a few for you below. Example research proposal #1: "A Conceptual Framework for Scheduling Constraint Management".
Social Science Research: Principles, Methods and Practices
This book is designed to introduce doctoral and postgraduate students to the process of conducting scientific research in the social sciences, business, education, public health, and related disciplines. It is a one-stop, comprehensive, and compact source for foundational concepts in behavioural research, and can serve as a standalone text or as a supplement to research readings in any ...
What is Research Methodology? Definition, Types, and Examples
Research methodology is the underlying framework that guides your research. Research methodology must be systematic and intentional. This does not mean that it needs to be overly complex; it simply means that there must be some thought behind the methods that you choose to base your research on. In the context of academia, an explanation of the ...
Handbook for Good Clinical Research Practice (Gcp)
Biomedical research - methods. 3. Ethics, Research. 4. Manuals. I. World Health Organization. ISBN 92 4 159392 X (NLM classiﬁ cation: W 20.5) Contents Preamble 1 Introduction 3 Overview of the Clinical Research Process 8 ... WHO Manual XVII). Before medical products can be introduced onto the market or into public health programmes, they ...
A tutorial on methodological studies: the what, when, how and why
Background Methodological studies - studies that evaluate the design, analysis or reporting of other research-related reports - play an important role in health research. They help to highlight issues in the conduct of research with the aim of improving health research methodology, and ultimately reducing research waste. Main body We provide an overview of some of the key aspects of ...
PDF Chapter 1 Introduction to Research Methodology
1.2 Defining Research Methodology. It is an essential process of any scientific study, which serves as a framework for processing and achieving the predicted outcomes of the study. It is commonly defined as a systematic and organized process of collecting, analyzing, interpreting, and presenting information to answer specific questions or solve ...
PDF APA Handbook of Research Methods in Psychology
Dr. Cooper s research interests follow two paths: The rst concerns research synthesis and research methodology. His book, Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis: A Step-by-Step Approach (2010) is in its fourth edition. He is the coeditor of the Handbook of Research Synthe - sis and Meta-Analysis (2nd ed., 2009).
How To Write A Research Methodology In 4 Steps
The first step in writing your research methodology is to explain your general approach to the research and how you will go about it. There are two ways you can do this: Option 1: Explain the ...
APA Handbook of Research Methods in Psychology
Part II. Working Across Epistemologies, Methodologies, and Methods. Chapter 12. Mixed Methods Research in Psychology Timothy C. Guetterman and Analay Perez; Chapter 13. The "Cases Within Trials" (CWT) Method: An Example of a Mixed-Methods Research Design Daniel B. Fishman; Chapter 14.
Research Methodology for Social Sciences
Research Methodology for Social Sciences provides guidelines for designing and conducting evidence-based research in social sciences and interdisciplinary studies using both qualitative and quantitative data. Blending the particularity of different sub-disciplines and interdisciplinary nature of social sciences, this volume: Provides insights on epistemological issues and deliberates on ...
Methodology for research II
SUMMARY. The 'methodology' in a research strategy outlines the steps involved in research process. The research problem is identified, aims and objectives are formulated, sample size is calculated; Ethics Committee approval and informed consent from the subject are taken; data collected are summarised.
6. The Methodology
Bem, Daryl J. Writing the Empirical Journal Article. Psychology Writing Center. University of Washington; Denscombe, Martyn. The Good Research Guide: For Small-Scale Social Research Projects. 5th edition.Buckingham, UK: Open University Press, 2014; Lunenburg, Frederick C. Writing a Successful Thesis or Dissertation: Tips and Strategies for Students in the Social and Behavioral Sciences.
Essentials of Research Methodology
Learn the best methods and principles required to conduct and compile effective research with this free online course. This research methodology course teaches you how to design, conduct and document an effective scientific research project. We explain how to formulate a research problem, design research methods, select samples and write a ...
Research Methodology: An Introduction
2.1 Research Methodology. Method can be described as a set of tools and techniques for finding something out, or for reducing levels of uncertainty. According to Saunders (2012) method is the technique and procedures used to obtain and analyse research data, including for example questionnaires, observation, interviews, and statistical and non-statistical techniques [].
Introduction to qualitative research methodology
Resources. Introduction to Qualitative Research Methodology - A Training Manual. PDF. 1.41 MB. This manual, written by Karina Kielmann, Fabian Cataldo and Janet Seeley, aims to give readers of a non-scientific background an introduction to key theoretical concepts and methodologies in qualitative research. Readers will be taken through how to ...
Research Methods: What, Where and How To...guide
Research methodology section describes the methods and procedures used to carry out the study. This is an important section, which has direct influence on the findings of the study. Hence, the methodology used should be described very clearly so that another researcher can follow the procedures used to reach similar conclusions without difficulty.
Research Report
Thesis. Thesis is a type of research report. A thesis is a long-form research document that presents the findings and conclusions of an original research study conducted by a student as part of a graduate or postgraduate program. It is typically written by a student pursuing a higher degree, such as a Master's or Doctoral degree, although it ...
Research Methods
Research methods are specific procedures for collecting and analyzing data. Developing your research methods is an integral part of your research design. When planning your methods, there are two key decisions you will make. First, decide how you will collect data. Your methods depend on what type of data you need to answer your research question:
What Is Research Methodology? Definition + Examples
As we mentioned, research methodology refers to the collection of practical decisions regarding what data you'll collect, from who, how you'll collect it and how you'll analyse it. Research design, on the other hand, is more about the overall strategy you'll adopt in your study. For example, whether you'll use an experimental design ...

What is research methodology?

The basics of research methodology

Social Science Research: Principles, Methods and Practices - (Revised edition)

Formats Available

Table of Contents

Ancillary Material

About the Contributors

Contribute to this Page

What is Research Methodology? Definition, Types, and Examples

Table of Content:

What is Research Methodology?

Why is research methodology important?

Upgrade your writing skills

Go beyond grammar & spelling

Subscribe to stay updated with us!

A tutorial on methodological studies: the what, when, how and why

What is a methodological study?

When should we conduct a methodological study?

How often are methodological studies conducted?

Why do we conduct methodological studies?

Where can we find methodological studies?

Some frequently asked questions about methodological studies

A proposed framework

Conclusions

Availability of data and materials

Abbreviations

Acknowledgements

Author information

Contributions

Corresponding author

Ethics declarations

Consent for publication

Additional information

Rights and permissions

About this article

Share this article

Methodology for research II

M Manjuladevi

INTRODUCTION

REGULATORY AND ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

DATA COLLECTION

RESEARCH TOOLS: DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION

USES OF VALIDITY IN SCIENTIFIC METHODS

PRACTICALITY

ANALYSIS PLAN: QUALITY AND APPROPRIATENESS OF ANALYSIS

Financial support and sponsorship

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

Importance of a Good Methodology Section

Structure and Writing Style

Writing Tip

Another Writing Tip

Yet Another Writing Tip

Research Methodology: An Introduction

Cite this chapter

Access this chapter

Author information

Corresponding author

Editor information

Rights and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Download citation

Share this chapter

Introduction to qualitative research methodology

RESEARCH METHODS: WHAT, WHERE AND HOW TO...GUIDE

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Research Report – Example, Writing Guide and Types

Research Report

Components of Research Report

Introduction

Literature Review

Methodology

Types of Research Report

Research Paper

Technical Report

Progress Report

Feasibility Report

Field Report