what does paper research mean

Reference management. Clean and simple.

What is a research paper?

A research paper is a paper that makes an argument about a topic based on research and analysis.

Any paper requiring the writer to research a particular topic is a research paper. Unlike essays, which are often based largely on opinion and are written from the author's point of view, research papers are based in fact.

A research paper requires you to form an opinion on a topic, research and gain expert knowledge on that topic, and then back up your own opinions and assertions with facts found through your thorough research.

➡️ Read more about  different types of research papers .

What is the difference between a research paper and a thesis?

A thesis is a large paper, or multi-chapter work, based on a topic relating to your field of study.

A thesis is a document students of higher education write to obtain an academic degree or qualification. Usually, it is longer than a research paper and takes multiple years to complete.

Generally associated with graduate/postgraduate studies, it is carried out under the supervision of a professor or other academic of the university.

A major difference between a research paper and a thesis is that:

• a research paper presents certain facts that have already been researched and explained by others
• a thesis starts with a certain scholarly question or statement, which then leads to further research and new findings

This means that a thesis requires the author to input original work and their own findings in a certain field, whereas the research paper can be completed with extensive research only.

➡️ Getting ready to start a research paper or thesis? Take a look at our guides on how to start a research paper or how to come up with a topic for your thesis .

Frequently Asked Questions about research papers

Take a look at this list of the top 21 Free Online Journal and Research Databases , such as ScienceOpen , Directory of Open Access Journals , ERIC , and many more.

Mason Porter, Professor at UCLA, explains in this forum post the main reasons to write a research paper:

• To create new knowledge and disseminate it.
• To teach science and how to write about it in an academic style.
• Some practical benefits: prestige, establishing credentials, requirements for grants or to help one get a future grant proposal, and so on.

Generally, people involved in the academia. Research papers are mostly written by higher education students and professional researchers.

Yes, a research paper is the same as a scientific paper. Both papers have the same purpose and format.

A major difference between a research paper and a thesis is that the former presents certain facts that have already been researched and explained by others, whereas the latter starts with a certain scholarly question or statement, which then leads to further research and new findings.

Related Articles

• Humanities ›
• English Grammar ›

What Is a Research Paper?

• An Introduction to Punctuation

Olivia Valdes was the Associate Editorial Director for ThoughtCo. She worked with Dotdash Meredith from 2017 to 2021.

• B.A., American Studies, Yale University

A research paper is a common form of academic writing . Research papers require students and academics to locate information about a topic (that is, to conduct research ), take a stand on that topic, and provide support (or evidence) for that position in an organized report.

The term research paper may also refer to a scholarly article that contains the results of original research or an evaluation of research conducted by others. Most scholarly articles must undergo a process of peer review before they can be accepted for publication in an academic journal.

Define Your Research Question

The first step in writing a research paper is defining your research question . Has your instructor assigned a specific topic? If so, great—you've got this step covered. If not, review the guidelines of the assignment. Your instructor has likely provided several general subjects for your consideration. Your research paper should focus on a specific angle on one of these subjects. Spend some time mulling over your options before deciding which one you'd like to explore more deeply.

Try to choose a research question that interests you. The research process is time-consuming, and you'll be significantly more motivated if you have a genuine desire to learn more about the topic. You should also consider whether you have access to all of the resources necessary to conduct thorough research on your topic, such as primary and secondary sources .

Create a Research Strategy 

Approach the research process systematically by creating a research strategy. First, review your library's website. What resources are available? Where will you find them? Do any resources require a special process to gain access? Start gathering those resources—especially those that may be difficult to access—as soon as possible.

Second, make an appointment with a reference librarian . A reference librarian is nothing short of a research superhero. He or she will listen to your research question, offer suggestions for how to focus your research, and direct you toward valuable sources that directly relate to your topic.

Evaluate Sources

Now that you've gathered a wide array of sources, it's time to evaluate them. First, consider the reliability of the information. Where is the information coming from? What is the origin of the source? Second, assess the  relevance  of the information. How does this information relate to your research question? Does it support, refute, or add context to your position? How does it relate to the other sources you'll be using in your paper? Once you have determined that your sources are both reliable and relevant, you can proceed confidently to the writing phase. 

Why Write Research Papers? 

The research process is one of the most taxing academic tasks you'll be asked to complete. Luckily, the value of writing a research paper goes beyond that A+ you hope to receive. Here are just some of the benefits of research papers. 

• Learning Scholarly Conventions:  Writing a research paper is a crash course in the stylistic conventions of scholarly writing. During the research and writing process, you'll learn how to document your research, cite sources appropriately, format an academic paper, maintain an academic tone, and more.
• Organizing Information: In a way, research is nothing more than a massive organizational project. The information available to you is near-infinite, and it's your job to review that information, narrow it down, categorize it, and present it in a clear, relevant format. This process requires attention to detail and major brainpower.
• Managing Time: Research papers put your time management  skills to the test. Every step of the research and writing process takes time, and it's up to you to set aside the time you'll need to complete each step of the task. Maximize your efficiency by creating a research schedule and inserting blocks of "research time" into your calendar as soon as you receive the assignment. 
• Exploring Your Chosen Subject:  We couldn't forget the best part of research papers—learning about something that truly excites you. No matter what topic you choose, you're bound to come away from the research process with new ideas and countless nuggets of fascinating information. 

The best research papers are the result of genuine interest and a thorough research process. With these ideas in mind, go forth and research. Welcome to the scholarly conversation!

• Documentation in Reports and Research Papers
• Thesis: Definition and Examples in Composition
• An Introduction to Academic Writing
• How to Use Footnotes in Research Papers
• How to Write an Abstract
• Definition and Examples of Analysis in Composition
• What Is a Critique in Composition?
• How to Take Better Notes During Lectures, Discussions, and Interviews
• What Is a Literature Review?
• Research in Essays and Reports
• Topic In Composition and Speech
• Focusing in Composition
• What Is a Citation?
• What Are Endnotes, Why Are They Needed, and How Are They Used?
• What Is Plagiarism?
• Definition of Appendix in a Book or Written Work

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

What is Research? Definition, Types, Methods, and Examples

Academic research is a methodical way of exploring new ideas or understanding things we already know. It involves gathering and studying information to answer questions or test ideas and requires careful thinking and persistence to reach meaningful conclusions. Let’s try to understand what research is.   

Table of Contents

Why is research important?    

Whether it’s doing experiments, analyzing data, or studying old documents, research helps us learn more about the world. Without it, we rely on guesswork and hearsay, often leading to mistakes and misconceptions. By using systematic methods, research helps us see things clearly, free from biases. (1)   

What is the purpose of research?  

In the real world, academic research is also a key driver of innovation. It brings many benefits, such as creating valuable opportunities and fostering partnerships between academia and industry. By turning research into products and services, science makes meaningful improvements to people’s lives and boosts the economy. (2)(3)  

What are the characteristics of research?    

The research process collects accurate information systematically. Logic is used to analyze the collected data and find insights. Checking the collected data thoroughly ensures accuracy. Research also leads to new questions using existing data.   

Accuracy is key in research, which requires precise data collection and analysis. In scientific research, laboratories ensure accuracy by carefully calibrating instruments and controlling experiments. Every step is checked to maintain integrity, from instruments to final results. Accuracy gives reliable insights, which in turn help advance knowledge.   

Types of research    

The different forms of research serve distinct purposes in expanding knowledge and understanding:    

• Exploratory research ventures into uncharted territories, exploring new questions or problem areas without aiming for conclusive answers. For instance, a study may delve into unexplored market segments to better understand consumer behaviour patterns.   
• Descriptive research delves into current issues by collecting and analyzing data to describe the behaviour of a sample population. For instance, a survey may investigate millennials’ spending habits to gain insights into their purchasing behaviours.   
• Explanatory research, also known as causal research, seeks to understand the impact of specific changes in existing procedures. An example might be a study examining how changes in drug dosage over some time improve patients’ health.   
• Correlational research examines connections between two sets of data to uncover meaningful relationships. For instance, a study may analyze the relationship between advertising spending and sales revenue.   
• Theoretical research deepens existing knowledge without attempting to solve specific problems. For example, a study may explore theoretical frameworks to understand the underlying principles of human behaviour.   
• Applied research focuses on real-world issues and aims to provide practical solutions. An example could be a study investigating the effectiveness of a new teaching method in improving student performance in schools.  (4)

Types of research methods

• Qualitative Method: Qualitative research gathers non-numerical data through interactions with participants. Methods include one-to-one interviews, focus groups, ethnographic studies, text analysis, and case studies. For example, a researcher interviews cancer patients to understand how different treatments impact their lives emotionally.    
• Quantitative Method: Quantitative methods deal with numbers and measurable data to understand relationships between variables. They use systematic methods to investigate events and aim to explain or predict outcomes. For example, Researchers study how exercise affects heart health by measuring variables like heart rate and blood pressure in a large group before and after an exercise program. (5)  

Basic steps involved in the research process    

Here are the basic steps to help you understand the research process:   

• Choose your topic: Decide the specific subject or area that you want to study and investigate. This decision is the foundation of your research journey.   
• Find information: Look for information related to your research topic. You can search in journals, books, online, or ask experts for help.   
• Assess your sources: Make sure the information you find is reliable and trustworthy. Check the author’s credentials and the publication date.   
• Take notes: Write down important information from your sources that you can use in your research.   
• Write your paper: Use your notes to write your research paper. Broadly, start with an introduction, then write the body of your paper, and finish with a conclusion.   
• Cite your sources: Give credit to the sources you used by including citations in your paper.   
• Proofread: Check your paper thoroughly for any errors in spelling, grammar, or punctuation before you submit it. (6)

How to ensure research accuracy?  

Ensuring accuracy in research is a mix of several essential steps:    

• Clarify goals: Start by defining clear objectives for your research. Identify your research question, hypothesis, and variables of interest. This clarity will help guide your data collection and analysis methods, ensuring that your research stays focused and purposeful.   
• Use reliable data: Select trustworthy sources for your information, whether they are primary data collected by you or secondary data obtained from other sources. For example, if you’re studying climate change, use data from reputable scientific organizations with transparent methodologies.   
• Validate data: Validate your data to ensure it meets the standards of your research project. Check for errors, outliers, and inconsistencies at different stages, such as during data collection, entry, cleaning, or analysis.    
• Document processes: Documenting your data collection and analysis processes is essential for transparency and reproducibility. Record details such as data collection methods, cleaning procedures, and analysis techniques used. This documentation not only helps you keep track of your research but also enables others to understand and replicate your work.   
• Review results: Finally, review and verify your research findings to confirm their accuracy and reliability. Double-check your analyses, cross-reference your data, and seek feedback from peers or supervisors. (7) 

Research is crucial for better understanding our world and for social and economic growth. By following ethical guidelines and ensuring accuracy, researchers play a critical role in driving this progress, whether through exploring new topics or deepening existing knowledge.   

References:  

• Why is Research Important – Introductory Psychology – Washington State University  
• The Role Of Scientific Research In Driving Business Innovation – Forbes  
• Innovation – Royal Society  
• Types of Research – Definition & Methods – Bachelor Print  
• What Is Qualitative vs. Quantitative Study? – National University  
• Basic Steps in the Research Process – North Hennepin Community College  
• Best Practices for Ensuring Data Accuracy in Research – LinkedIn  

Researcher.Life is a subscription-based platform that unifies the best AI tools and services designed to speed up, simplify, and streamline every step of a researcher’s journey. The Researcher.Life All Access Pack is a one-of-a-kind subscription that unlocks full access to an AI writing assistant, literature recommender, journal finder, scientific illustration tool, and exclusive discounts on professional publication services from Editage.  

Based on 21+ years of experience in academia, Researcher.Life All Access empowers researchers to put their best research forward and move closer to success. Explore our top AI Tools pack, AI Tools + Publication Services pack, or Build Your Own Plan. Find everything a researcher needs to succeed, all in one place –  Get All Access now starting at just $17 a month !    

Related Posts

Paperpal Review: Key Features, Pricing Plans, and How-to-Use

How to Structure a Dissertation? 

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Genre and the Research Paper

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

Research: What it is.

A research paper is the culmination and final product of an involved process of research, critical thinking, source evaluation, organization, and composition. It is, perhaps, helpful to think of the research paper as a living thing, which grows and changes as the student explores, interprets, and evaluates sources related to a specific topic. Primary and secondary sources are the heart of a research paper, and provide its nourishment; without the support of and interaction with these sources, the research paper would morph into a different genre of writing (e.g., an encyclopedic article). The research paper serves not only to further the field in which it is written, but also to provide the student with an exceptional opportunity to increase her knowledge in that field. It is also possible to identify a research paper by what it is not.

Research: What it is not.

A research paper is not simply an informed summary of a topic by means of primary and secondary sources. It is neither a book report nor an opinion piece nor an expository essay consisting solely of one's interpretation of a text nor an overview of a particular topic. Instead, it is a genre that requires one to spend time investigating and evaluating sources with the intent to offer interpretations of the texts, and not unconscious regurgitations of those sources. The goal of a research paper is not to inform the reader what others have to say about a topic, but to draw on what others have to say about a topic and engage the sources in order to thoughtfully offer a unique perspective on the issue at hand. This is accomplished through two major types of research papers.

Two major types of research papers.

Argumentative research paper:

The argumentative research paper consists of an introduction in which the writer clearly introduces the topic and informs his audience exactly which stance he intends to take; this stance is often identified as the thesis statement . An important goal of the argumentative research paper is persuasion, which means the topic chosen should be debatable or controversial. For example, it would be difficult for a student to successfully argue in favor of the following stance.

Perhaps 25 years ago this topic would have been debatable; however, today, it is assumed that smoking cigarettes is, indeed, harmful to one's health. A better thesis would be the following.

In this sentence, the writer is not challenging the current accepted stance that both firsthand and secondhand cigarette smoke is dangerous; rather, she is positing that the social acceptance of the latter over the former is indicative of a cultural double-standard of sorts. The student would support this thesis throughout her paper by means of both primary and secondary sources, with the intent to persuade her audience that her particular interpretation of the situation is viable.

Analytical research paper:

The analytical research paper often begins with the student asking a question (a.k.a. a research question) on which he has taken no stance. Such a paper is often an exercise in exploration and evaluation. For example, perhaps one is interested in the Old English poem Beowulf . He has read the poem intently and desires to offer a fresh reading of the poem to the academic community. His question may be as follows.

His research may lead him to the following conclusion.

Though his topic may be debatable and controversial, it is not the student's intent to persuade the audience that his ideas are right while those of others are wrong. Instead, his goal is to offer a critical interpretation of primary and secondary sources throughout the paper--sources that should, ultimately, buttress his particular analysis of the topic. The following is an example of what his thesis statement may look like once he has completed his research.

This statement does not negate the traditional readings of Beowulf ; instead, it offers a fresh and detailed reading of the poem that will be supported by the student's research.

It is typically not until the student has begun the writing process that his thesis statement begins to take solid form. In fact, the thesis statement in an analytical paper is often more fluid than the thesis in an argumentative paper. Such is one of the benefits of approaching the topic without a predetermined stance.

Structure of a Research Paper

Structure of a Research Paper: IMRaD Format

I. The Title Page

• Title: Tells the reader what to expect in the paper.
• Author(s): Most papers are written by one or two primary authors. The remaining authors have reviewed the work and/or aided in study design or data analysis (International Committee of Medical Editors, 1997). Check the Instructions to Authors for the target journal for specifics about authorship.
• Keywords [according to the journal]
• Corresponding Author: Full name and affiliation for the primary contact author for persons who have questions about the research.
• Financial & Equipment Support [if needed]: Specific information about organizations, agencies, or companies that supported the research.
• Conflicts of Interest [if needed]: List and explain any conflicts of interest.

II. Abstract: “Structured abstract” has become the standard for research papers (introduction, objective, methods, results and conclusions), while reviews, case reports and other articles have non-structured abstracts. The abstract should be a summary/synopsis of the paper.

III. Introduction: The “why did you do the study”; setting the scene or laying the foundation or background for the paper.

IV. Methods: The “how did you do the study.” Describe the --

• Context and setting of the study
• Specify the study design
• Population (patients, etc. if applicable)
• Sampling strategy
• Intervention (if applicable)
• Identify the main study variables
• Data collection instruments and procedures
• Outline analysis methods

V. Results: The “what did you find” --

• Report on data collection and/or recruitment
• Participants (demographic, clinical condition, etc.)
• Present key findings with respect to the central research question
• Secondary findings (secondary outcomes, subgroup analyses, etc.)

VI. Discussion: Place for interpreting the results

• Main findings of the study
• Discuss the main results with reference to previous research
• Policy and practice implications of the results
• Strengths and limitations of the study

VII. Conclusions: [occasionally optional or not required]. Do not reiterate the data or discussion. Can state hunches, inferences or speculations. Offer perspectives for future work.

VIII. Acknowledgements: Names people who contributed to the work, but did not contribute sufficiently to earn authorship. You must have permission from any individuals mentioned in the acknowledgements sections. 

IX. References:  Complete citations for any articles or other materials referenced in the text of the article.

• IMRD Cheatsheet (Carnegie Mellon) pdf.
• Adewasi, D. (2021 June 14).  What Is IMRaD? IMRaD Format in Simple Terms! . Scientific-editing.info. 
• Nair, P.K.R., Nair, V.D. (2014). Organization of a Research Paper: The IMRAD Format. In: Scientific Writing and Communication in Agriculture and Natural Resources. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-03101-9_2
• Sollaci, L. B., & Pereira, M. G. (2004). The introduction, methods, results, and discussion (IMRAD) structure: a fifty-year survey.   Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA ,  92 (3), 364–367.
• Cuschieri, S., Grech, V., & Savona-Ventura, C. (2019). WASP (Write a Scientific Paper): Structuring a scientific paper.   Early human development ,  128 , 114–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2018.09.011

What Is Research, and Why Do People Do It?

• Open Access
• First Online: 03 December 2022

Cite this chapter

You have full access to this open access chapter

• James Hiebert 6 ,
• Jinfa Cai 7 ,
• Stephen Hwang 7 ,
• Anne K Morris 6 &
• Charles Hohensee 6  

Part of the book series: Research in Mathematics Education ((RME))

26k Accesses

1 Altmetric

Abstractspiepr Abs1

Every day people do research as they gather information to learn about something of interest. In the scientific world, however, research means something different than simply gathering information. Scientific research is characterized by its careful planning and observing, by its relentless efforts to understand and explain, and by its commitment to learn from everyone else seriously engaged in research. We call this kind of research scientific inquiry and define it as “formulating, testing, and revising hypotheses.” By “hypotheses” we do not mean the hypotheses you encounter in statistics courses. We mean predictions about what you expect to find and rationales for why you made these predictions. Throughout this and the remaining chapters we make clear that the process of scientific inquiry applies to all kinds of research studies and data, both qualitative and quantitative.

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

Part I. What Is Research?

Have you ever studied something carefully because you wanted to know more about it? Maybe you wanted to know more about your grandmother’s life when she was younger so you asked her to tell you stories from her childhood, or maybe you wanted to know more about a fertilizer you were about to use in your garden so you read the ingredients on the package and looked them up online. According to the dictionary definition, you were doing research.

Recall your high school assignments asking you to “research” a topic. The assignment likely included consulting a variety of sources that discussed the topic, perhaps including some “original” sources. Often, the teacher referred to your product as a “research paper.”

Were you conducting research when you interviewed your grandmother or wrote high school papers reviewing a particular topic? Our view is that you were engaged in part of the research process, but only a small part. In this book, we reserve the word “research” for what it means in the scientific world, that is, for scientific research or, more pointedly, for scientific inquiry .

Exercise 1.1

Before you read any further, write a definition of what you think scientific inquiry is. Keep it short—Two to three sentences. You will periodically update this definition as you read this chapter and the remainder of the book.

This book is about scientific inquiry—what it is and how to do it. For starters, scientific inquiry is a process, a particular way of finding out about something that involves a number of phases. Each phase of the process constitutes one aspect of scientific inquiry. You are doing scientific inquiry as you engage in each phase, but you have not done scientific inquiry until you complete the full process. Each phase is necessary but not sufficient.

In this chapter, we set the stage by defining scientific inquiry—describing what it is and what it is not—and by discussing what it is good for and why people do it. The remaining chapters build directly on the ideas presented in this chapter.

A first thing to know is that scientific inquiry is not all or nothing. “Scientificness” is a continuum. Inquiries can be more scientific or less scientific. What makes an inquiry more scientific? You might be surprised there is no universally agreed upon answer to this question. None of the descriptors we know of are sufficient by themselves to define scientific inquiry. But all of them give you a way of thinking about some aspects of the process of scientific inquiry. Each one gives you different insights.

Exercise 1.2

As you read about each descriptor below, think about what would make an inquiry more or less scientific. If you think a descriptor is important, use it to revise your definition of scientific inquiry.

Creating an Image of Scientific Inquiry

We will present three descriptors of scientific inquiry. Each provides a different perspective and emphasizes a different aspect of scientific inquiry. We will draw on all three descriptors to compose our definition of scientific inquiry.

Descriptor 1. Experience Carefully Planned in Advance

Sir Ronald Fisher, often called the father of modern statistical design, once referred to research as “experience carefully planned in advance” (1935, p. 8). He said that humans are always learning from experience, from interacting with the world around them. Usually, this learning is haphazard rather than the result of a deliberate process carried out over an extended period of time. Research, Fisher said, was learning from experience, but experience carefully planned in advance.

This phrase can be fully appreciated by looking at each word. The fact that scientific inquiry is based on experience means that it is based on interacting with the world. These interactions could be thought of as the stuff of scientific inquiry. In addition, it is not just any experience that counts. The experience must be carefully planned . The interactions with the world must be conducted with an explicit, describable purpose, and steps must be taken to make the intended learning as likely as possible. This planning is an integral part of scientific inquiry; it is not just a preparation phase. It is one of the things that distinguishes scientific inquiry from many everyday learning experiences. Finally, these steps must be taken beforehand and the purpose of the inquiry must be articulated in advance of the experience. Clearly, scientific inquiry does not happen by accident, by just stumbling into something. Stumbling into something unexpected and interesting can happen while engaged in scientific inquiry, but learning does not depend on it and serendipity does not make the inquiry scientific.

Descriptor 2. Observing Something and Trying to Explain Why It Is the Way It Is

When we were writing this chapter and googled “scientific inquiry,” the first entry was: “Scientific inquiry refers to the diverse ways in which scientists study the natural world and propose explanations based on the evidence derived from their work.” The emphasis is on studying, or observing, and then explaining . This descriptor takes the image of scientific inquiry beyond carefully planned experience and includes explaining what was experienced.

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, “explain” means “(a) to make known, (b) to make plain or understandable, (c) to give the reason or cause of, and (d) to show the logical development or relations of” (Merriam-Webster, n.d. ). We will use all these definitions. Taken together, they suggest that to explain an observation means to understand it by finding reasons (or causes) for why it is as it is. In this sense of scientific inquiry, the following are synonyms: explaining why, understanding why, and reasoning about causes and effects. Our image of scientific inquiry now includes planning, observing, and explaining why.

We need to add a final note about this descriptor. We have phrased it in a way that suggests “observing something” means you are observing something in real time—observing the way things are or the way things are changing. This is often true. But, observing could mean observing data that already have been collected, maybe by someone else making the original observations (e.g., secondary analysis of NAEP data or analysis of existing video recordings of classroom instruction). We will address secondary analyses more fully in Chap. 4 . For now, what is important is that the process requires explaining why the data look like they do.

We must note that for us, the term “data” is not limited to numerical or quantitative data such as test scores. Data can also take many nonquantitative forms, including written survey responses, interview transcripts, journal entries, video recordings of students, teachers, and classrooms, text messages, and so forth.

Exercise 1.3

What are the implications of the statement that just “observing” is not enough to count as scientific inquiry? Does this mean that a detailed description of a phenomenon is not scientific inquiry?

Find sources that define research in education that differ with our position, that say description alone, without explanation, counts as scientific research. Identify the precise points where the opinions differ. What are the best arguments for each of the positions? Which do you prefer? Why?

Descriptor 3. Updating Everyone’s Thinking in Response to More and Better Information

This descriptor focuses on a third aspect of scientific inquiry: updating and advancing the field’s understanding of phenomena that are investigated. This descriptor foregrounds a powerful characteristic of scientific inquiry: the reliability (or trustworthiness) of what is learned and the ultimate inevitability of this learning to advance human understanding of phenomena. Humans might choose not to learn from scientific inquiry, but history suggests that scientific inquiry always has the potential to advance understanding and that, eventually, humans take advantage of these new understandings.

Before exploring these bold claims a bit further, note that this descriptor uses “information” in the same way the previous two descriptors used “experience” and “observations.” These are the stuff of scientific inquiry and we will use them often, sometimes interchangeably. Frequently, we will use the term “data” to stand for all these terms.

An overriding goal of scientific inquiry is for everyone to learn from what one scientist does. Much of this book is about the methods you need to use so others have faith in what you report and can learn the same things you learned. This aspect of scientific inquiry has many implications.

One implication is that scientific inquiry is not a private practice. It is a public practice available for others to see and learn from. Notice how different this is from everyday learning. When you happen to learn something from your everyday experience, often only you gain from the experience. The fact that research is a public practice means it is also a social one. It is best conducted by interacting with others along the way: soliciting feedback at each phase, taking opportunities to present work-in-progress, and benefitting from the advice of others.

A second implication is that you, as the researcher, must be committed to sharing what you are doing and what you are learning in an open and transparent way. This allows all phases of your work to be scrutinized and critiqued. This is what gives your work credibility. The reliability or trustworthiness of your findings depends on your colleagues recognizing that you have used all appropriate methods to maximize the chances that your claims are justified by the data.

A third implication of viewing scientific inquiry as a collective enterprise is the reverse of the second—you must be committed to receiving comments from others. You must treat your colleagues as fair and honest critics even though it might sometimes feel otherwise. You must appreciate their job, which is to remain skeptical while scrutinizing what you have done in considerable detail. To provide the best help to you, they must remain skeptical about your conclusions (when, for example, the data are difficult for them to interpret) until you offer a convincing logical argument based on the information you share. A rather harsh but good-to-remember statement of the role of your friendly critics was voiced by Karl Popper, a well-known twentieth century philosopher of science: “. . . if you are interested in the problem which I tried to solve by my tentative assertion, you may help me by criticizing it as severely as you can” (Popper, 1968, p. 27).

A final implication of this third descriptor is that, as someone engaged in scientific inquiry, you have no choice but to update your thinking when the data support a different conclusion. This applies to your own data as well as to those of others. When data clearly point to a specific claim, even one that is quite different than you expected, you must reconsider your position. If the outcome is replicated multiple times, you need to adjust your thinking accordingly. Scientific inquiry does not let you pick and choose which data to believe; it mandates that everyone update their thinking when the data warrant an update.

Doing Scientific Inquiry

We define scientific inquiry in an operational sense—what does it mean to do scientific inquiry? What kind of process would satisfy all three descriptors: carefully planning an experience in advance; observing and trying to explain what you see; and, contributing to updating everyone’s thinking about an important phenomenon?

We define scientific inquiry as formulating , testing , and revising hypotheses about phenomena of interest.

Of course, we are not the only ones who define it in this way. The definition for the scientific method posted by the editors of Britannica is: “a researcher develops a hypothesis, tests it through various means, and then modifies the hypothesis on the basis of the outcome of the tests and experiments” (Britannica, n.d. ).

Notice how defining scientific inquiry this way satisfies each of the descriptors. “Carefully planning an experience in advance” is exactly what happens when formulating a hypothesis about a phenomenon of interest and thinking about how to test it. “ Observing a phenomenon” occurs when testing a hypothesis, and “ explaining ” what is found is required when revising a hypothesis based on the data. Finally, “updating everyone’s thinking” comes from comparing publicly the original with the revised hypothesis.

Doing scientific inquiry, as we have defined it, underscores the value of accumulating knowledge rather than generating random bits of knowledge. Formulating, testing, and revising hypotheses is an ongoing process, with each revised hypothesis begging for another test, whether by the same researcher or by new researchers. The editors of Britannica signaled this cyclic process by adding the following phrase to their definition of the scientific method: “The modified hypothesis is then retested, further modified, and tested again.” Scientific inquiry creates a process that encourages each study to build on the studies that have gone before. Through collective engagement in this process of building study on top of study, the scientific community works together to update its thinking.

Before exploring more fully the meaning of “formulating, testing, and revising hypotheses,” we need to acknowledge that this is not the only way researchers define research. Some researchers prefer a less formal definition, one that includes more serendipity, less planning, less explanation. You might have come across more open definitions such as “research is finding out about something.” We prefer the tighter hypothesis formulation, testing, and revision definition because we believe it provides a single, coherent map for conducting research that addresses many of the thorny problems educational researchers encounter. We believe it is the most useful orientation toward research and the most helpful to learn as a beginning researcher.

A final clarification of our definition is that it applies equally to qualitative and quantitative research. This is a familiar distinction in education that has generated much discussion. You might think our definition favors quantitative methods over qualitative methods because the language of hypothesis formulation and testing is often associated with quantitative methods. In fact, we do not favor one method over another. In Chap. 4 , we will illustrate how our definition fits research using a range of quantitative and qualitative methods.

Exercise 1.4

Look for ways to extend what the field knows in an area that has already received attention by other researchers. Specifically, you can search for a program of research carried out by more experienced researchers that has some revised hypotheses that remain untested. Identify a revised hypothesis that you might like to test.

Unpacking the Terms Formulating, Testing, and Revising Hypotheses

To get a full sense of the definition of scientific inquiry we will use throughout this book, it is helpful to spend a little time with each of the key terms.

We first want to make clear that we use the term “hypothesis” as it is defined in most dictionaries and as it used in many scientific fields rather than as it is usually defined in educational statistics courses. By “hypothesis,” we do not mean a null hypothesis that is accepted or rejected by statistical analysis. Rather, we use “hypothesis” in the sense conveyed by the following definitions: “An idea or explanation for something that is based on known facts but has not yet been proved” (Cambridge University Press, n.d. ), and “An unproved theory, proposition, or supposition, tentatively accepted to explain certain facts and to provide a basis for further investigation or argument” (Agnes & Guralnik, 2008 ).

We distinguish two parts to “hypotheses.” Hypotheses consist of predictions and rationales . Predictions are statements about what you expect to find when you inquire about something. Rationales are explanations for why you made the predictions you did, why you believe your predictions are correct. So, for us “formulating hypotheses” means making explicit predictions and developing rationales for the predictions.

“Testing hypotheses” means making observations that allow you to assess in what ways your predictions were correct and in what ways they were incorrect. In education research, it is rarely useful to think of your predictions as either right or wrong. Because of the complexity of most issues you will investigate, most predictions will be right in some ways and wrong in others.

By studying the observations you make (data you collect) to test your hypotheses, you can revise your hypotheses to better align with the observations. This means revising your predictions plus revising your rationales to justify your adjusted predictions. Even though you might not run another test, formulating revised hypotheses is an essential part of conducting a research study. Comparing your original and revised hypotheses informs everyone of what you learned by conducting your study. In addition, a revised hypothesis sets the stage for you or someone else to extend your study and accumulate more knowledge of the phenomenon.

We should note that not everyone makes a clear distinction between predictions and rationales as two aspects of hypotheses. In fact, common, non-scientific uses of the word “hypothesis” may limit it to only a prediction or only an explanation (or rationale). We choose to explicitly include both prediction and rationale in our definition of hypothesis, not because we assert this should be the universal definition, but because we want to foreground the importance of both parts acting in concert. Using “hypothesis” to represent both prediction and rationale could hide the two aspects, but we make them explicit because they provide different kinds of information. It is usually easier to make predictions than develop rationales because predictions can be guesses, hunches, or gut feelings about which you have little confidence. Developing a compelling rationale requires careful thought plus reading what other researchers have found plus talking with your colleagues. Often, while you are developing your rationale you will find good reasons to change your predictions. Developing good rationales is the engine that drives scientific inquiry. Rationales are essentially descriptions of how much you know about the phenomenon you are studying. Throughout this guide, we will elaborate on how developing good rationales drives scientific inquiry. For now, we simply note that it can sharpen your predictions and help you to interpret your data as you test your hypotheses.

Hypotheses in education research take a variety of forms or types. This is because there are a variety of phenomena that can be investigated. Investigating educational phenomena is sometimes best done using qualitative methods, sometimes using quantitative methods, and most often using mixed methods (e.g., Hay, 2016 ; Weis et al. 2019a ; Weisner, 2005 ). This means that, given our definition, hypotheses are equally applicable to qualitative and quantitative investigations.

Hypotheses take different forms when they are used to investigate different kinds of phenomena. Two very different activities in education could be labeled conducting experiments and descriptions. In an experiment, a hypothesis makes a prediction about anticipated changes, say the changes that occur when a treatment or intervention is applied. You might investigate how students’ thinking changes during a particular kind of instruction.

A second type of hypothesis, relevant for descriptive research, makes a prediction about what you will find when you investigate and describe the nature of a situation. The goal is to understand a situation as it exists rather than to understand a change from one situation to another. In this case, your prediction is what you expect to observe. Your rationale is the set of reasons for making this prediction; it is your current explanation for why the situation will look like it does.

You will probably read, if you have not already, that some researchers say you do not need a prediction to conduct a descriptive study. We will discuss this point of view in Chap. 2 . For now, we simply claim that scientific inquiry, as we have defined it, applies to all kinds of research studies. Descriptive studies, like others, not only benefit from formulating, testing, and revising hypotheses, but also need hypothesis formulating, testing, and revising.

One reason we define research as formulating, testing, and revising hypotheses is that if you think of research in this way you are less likely to go wrong. It is a useful guide for the entire process, as we will describe in detail in the chapters ahead. For example, as you build the rationale for your predictions, you are constructing the theoretical framework for your study (Chap. 3 ). As you work out the methods you will use to test your hypothesis, every decision you make will be based on asking, “Will this help me formulate or test or revise my hypothesis?” (Chap. 4 ). As you interpret the results of testing your predictions, you will compare them to what you predicted and examine the differences, focusing on how you must revise your hypotheses (Chap. 5 ). By anchoring the process to formulating, testing, and revising hypotheses, you will make smart decisions that yield a coherent and well-designed study.

Exercise 1.5

Compare the concept of formulating, testing, and revising hypotheses with the descriptions of scientific inquiry contained in Scientific Research in Education (NRC, 2002 ). How are they similar or different?

Exercise 1.6

Provide an example to illustrate and emphasize the differences between everyday learning/thinking and scientific inquiry.

Learning from Doing Scientific Inquiry

We noted earlier that a measure of what you have learned by conducting a research study is found in the differences between your original hypothesis and your revised hypothesis based on the data you collected to test your hypothesis. We will elaborate this statement in later chapters, but we preview our argument here.

Even before collecting data, scientific inquiry requires cycles of making a prediction, developing a rationale, refining your predictions, reading and studying more to strengthen your rationale, refining your predictions again, and so forth. And, even if you have run through several such cycles, you still will likely find that when you test your prediction you will be partly right and partly wrong. The results will support some parts of your predictions but not others, or the results will “kind of” support your predictions. A critical part of scientific inquiry is making sense of your results by interpreting them against your predictions. Carefully describing what aspects of your data supported your predictions, what aspects did not, and what data fell outside of any predictions is not an easy task, but you cannot learn from your study without doing this analysis.

Analyzing the matches and mismatches between your predictions and your data allows you to formulate different rationales that would have accounted for more of the data. The best revised rationale is the one that accounts for the most data. Once you have revised your rationales, you can think about the predictions they best justify or explain. It is by comparing your original rationales to your new rationales that you can sort out what you learned from your study.

Suppose your study was an experiment. Maybe you were investigating the effects of a new instructional intervention on students’ learning. Your original rationale was your explanation for why the intervention would change the learning outcomes in a particular way. Your revised rationale explained why the changes that you observed occurred like they did and why your revised predictions are better. Maybe your original rationale focused on the potential of the activities if they were implemented in ideal ways and your revised rationale included the factors that are likely to affect how teachers implement them. By comparing the before and after rationales, you are describing what you learned—what you can explain now that you could not before. Another way of saying this is that you are describing how much more you understand now than before you conducted your study.

Revised predictions based on carefully planned and collected data usually exhibit some of the following features compared with the originals: more precision, more completeness, and broader scope. Revised rationales have more explanatory power and become more complete, more aligned with the new predictions, sharper, and overall more convincing.

Part II. Why Do Educators Do Research?

Doing scientific inquiry is a lot of work. Each phase of the process takes time, and you will often cycle back to improve earlier phases as you engage in later phases. Because of the significant effort required, you should make sure your study is worth it. So, from the beginning, you should think about the purpose of your study. Why do you want to do it? And, because research is a social practice, you should also think about whether the results of your study are likely to be important and significant to the education community.

If you are doing research in the way we have described—as scientific inquiry—then one purpose of your study is to understand , not just to describe or evaluate or report. As we noted earlier, when you formulate hypotheses, you are developing rationales that explain why things might be like they are. In our view, trying to understand and explain is what separates research from other kinds of activities, like evaluating or describing.

One reason understanding is so important is that it allows researchers to see how or why something works like it does. When you see how something works, you are better able to predict how it might work in other contexts, under other conditions. And, because conditions, or contextual factors, matter a lot in education, gaining insights into applying your findings to other contexts increases the contributions of your work and its importance to the broader education community.

Consequently, the purposes of research studies in education often include the more specific aim of identifying and understanding the conditions under which the phenomena being studied work like the observations suggest. A classic example of this kind of study in mathematics education was reported by William Brownell and Harold Moser in 1949 . They were trying to establish which method of subtracting whole numbers could be taught most effectively—the regrouping method or the equal additions method. However, they realized that effectiveness might depend on the conditions under which the methods were taught—“meaningfully” versus “mechanically.” So, they designed a study that crossed the two instructional approaches with the two different methods (regrouping and equal additions). Among other results, they found that these conditions did matter. The regrouping method was more effective under the meaningful condition than the mechanical condition, but the same was not true for the equal additions algorithm.

What do education researchers want to understand? In our view, the ultimate goal of education is to offer all students the best possible learning opportunities. So, we believe the ultimate purpose of scientific inquiry in education is to develop understanding that supports the improvement of learning opportunities for all students. We say “ultimate” because there are lots of issues that must be understood to improve learning opportunities for all students. Hypotheses about many aspects of education are connected, ultimately, to students’ learning. For example, formulating and testing a hypothesis that preservice teachers need to engage in particular kinds of activities in their coursework in order to teach particular topics well is, ultimately, connected to improving students’ learning opportunities. So is hypothesizing that school districts often devote relatively few resources to instructional leadership training or hypothesizing that positioning mathematics as a tool students can use to combat social injustice can help students see the relevance of mathematics to their lives.

We do not exclude the importance of research on educational issues more removed from improving students’ learning opportunities, but we do think the argument for their importance will be more difficult to make. If there is no way to imagine a connection between your hypothesis and improving learning opportunities for students, even a distant connection, we recommend you reconsider whether it is an important hypothesis within the education community.

Notice that we said the ultimate goal of education is to offer all students the best possible learning opportunities. For too long, educators have been satisfied with a goal of offering rich learning opportunities for lots of students, sometimes even for just the majority of students, but not necessarily for all students. Evaluations of success often are based on outcomes that show high averages. In other words, if many students have learned something, or even a smaller number have learned a lot, educators may have been satisfied. The problem is that there is usually a pattern in the groups of students who receive lower quality opportunities—students of color and students who live in poor areas, urban and rural. This is not acceptable. Consequently, we emphasize the premise that the purpose of education research is to offer rich learning opportunities to all students.

One way to make sure you will be able to convince others of the importance of your study is to consider investigating some aspect of teachers’ shared instructional problems. Historically, researchers in education have set their own research agendas, regardless of the problems teachers are facing in schools. It is increasingly recognized that teachers have had trouble applying to their own classrooms what researchers find. To address this problem, a researcher could partner with a teacher—better yet, a small group of teachers—and talk with them about instructional problems they all share. These discussions can create a rich pool of problems researchers can consider. If researchers pursued one of these problems (preferably alongside teachers), the connection to improving learning opportunities for all students could be direct and immediate. “Grounding a research question in instructional problems that are experienced across multiple teachers’ classrooms helps to ensure that the answer to the question will be of sufficient scope to be relevant and significant beyond the local context” (Cai et al., 2019b , p. 115).

As a beginning researcher, determining the relevance and importance of a research problem is especially challenging. We recommend talking with advisors, other experienced researchers, and peers to test the educational importance of possible research problems and topics of study. You will also learn much more about the issue of research importance when you read Chap. 5 .

Exercise 1.7

Identify a problem in education that is closely connected to improving learning opportunities and a problem that has a less close connection. For each problem, write a brief argument (like a logical sequence of if-then statements) that connects the problem to all students’ learning opportunities.

Part III. Conducting Research as a Practice of Failing Productively

Scientific inquiry involves formulating hypotheses about phenomena that are not fully understood—by you or anyone else. Even if you are able to inform your hypotheses with lots of knowledge that has already been accumulated, you are likely to find that your prediction is not entirely accurate. This is normal. Remember, scientific inquiry is a process of constantly updating your thinking. More and better information means revising your thinking, again, and again, and again. Because you never fully understand a complicated phenomenon and your hypotheses never produce completely accurate predictions, it is easy to believe you are somehow failing.

The trick is to fail upward, to fail to predict accurately in ways that inform your next hypothesis so you can make a better prediction. Some of the best-known researchers in education have been open and honest about the many times their predictions were wrong and, based on the results of their studies and those of others, they continuously updated their thinking and changed their hypotheses.

A striking example of publicly revising (actually reversing) hypotheses due to incorrect predictions is found in the work of Lee J. Cronbach, one of the most distinguished educational psychologists of the twentieth century. In 1955, Cronbach delivered his presidential address to the American Psychological Association. Titling it “Two Disciplines of Scientific Psychology,” Cronbach proposed a rapprochement between two research approaches—correlational studies that focused on individual differences and experimental studies that focused on instructional treatments controlling for individual differences. (We will examine different research approaches in Chap. 4 ). If these approaches could be brought together, reasoned Cronbach ( 1957 ), researchers could find interactions between individual characteristics and treatments (aptitude-treatment interactions or ATIs), fitting the best treatments to different individuals.

In 1975, after years of research by many researchers looking for ATIs, Cronbach acknowledged the evidence for simple, useful ATIs had not been found. Even when trying to find interactions between a few variables that could provide instructional guidance, the analysis, said Cronbach, creates “a hall of mirrors that extends to infinity, tormenting even the boldest investigators and defeating even ambitious designs” (Cronbach, 1975 , p. 119).

As he was reflecting back on his work, Cronbach ( 1986 ) recommended moving away from documenting instructional effects through statistical inference (an approach he had championed for much of his career) and toward approaches that probe the reasons for these effects, approaches that provide a “full account of events in a time, place, and context” (Cronbach, 1986 , p. 104). This is a remarkable change in hypotheses, a change based on data and made fully transparent. Cronbach understood the value of failing productively.

Closer to home, in a less dramatic example, one of us began a line of scientific inquiry into how to prepare elementary preservice teachers to teach early algebra. Teaching early algebra meant engaging elementary students in early forms of algebraic reasoning. Such reasoning should help them transition from arithmetic to algebra. To begin this line of inquiry, a set of activities for preservice teachers were developed. Even though the activities were based on well-supported hypotheses, they largely failed to engage preservice teachers as predicted because of unanticipated challenges the preservice teachers faced. To capitalize on this failure, follow-up studies were conducted, first to better understand elementary preservice teachers’ challenges with preparing to teach early algebra, and then to better support preservice teachers in navigating these challenges. In this example, the initial failure was a necessary step in the researchers’ scientific inquiry and furthered the researchers’ understanding of this issue.

We present another example of failing productively in Chap. 2 . That example emerges from recounting the history of a well-known research program in mathematics education.

Making mistakes is an inherent part of doing scientific research. Conducting a study is rarely a smooth path from beginning to end. We recommend that you keep the following things in mind as you begin a career of conducting research in education.

First, do not get discouraged when you make mistakes; do not fall into the trap of feeling like you are not capable of doing research because you make too many errors.

Second, learn from your mistakes. Do not ignore your mistakes or treat them as errors that you simply need to forget and move past. Mistakes are rich sites for learning—in research just as in other fields of study.

Third, by reflecting on your mistakes, you can learn to make better mistakes, mistakes that inform you about a productive next step. You will not be able to eliminate your mistakes, but you can set a goal of making better and better mistakes.

Exercise 1.8

How does scientific inquiry differ from everyday learning in giving you the tools to fail upward? You may find helpful perspectives on this question in other resources on science and scientific inquiry (e.g., Failure: Why Science is So Successful by Firestein, 2015).

Exercise 1.9

Use what you have learned in this chapter to write a new definition of scientific inquiry. Compare this definition with the one you wrote before reading this chapter. If you are reading this book as part of a course, compare your definition with your colleagues’ definitions. Develop a consensus definition with everyone in the course.

Part IV. Preview of Chap. 2

Now that you have a good idea of what research is, at least of what we believe research is, the next step is to think about how to actually begin doing research. This means how to begin formulating, testing, and revising hypotheses. As for all phases of scientific inquiry, there are lots of things to think about. Because it is critical to start well, we devote Chap. 2 to getting started with formulating hypotheses.

Agnes, M., & Guralnik, D. B. (Eds.). (2008). Hypothesis. In Webster’s new world college dictionary (4th ed.). Wiley.

Google Scholar  

Britannica. (n.d.). Scientific method. In Encyclopaedia Britannica . Retrieved July 15, 2022 from https://www.britannica.com/science/scientific-method

Brownell, W. A., & Moser, H. E. (1949). Meaningful vs. mechanical learning: A study in grade III subtraction . Duke University Press..

Cai, J., Morris, A., Hohensee, C., Hwang, S., Robison, V., Cirillo, M., Kramer, S. L., & Hiebert, J. (2019b). Posing significant research questions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 50 (2), 114–120. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.50.2.0114

Article   Google Scholar  

Cambridge University Press. (n.d.). Hypothesis. In Cambridge dictionary . Retrieved July 15, 2022 from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/hypothesis

Cronbach, J. L. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12 , 671–684.

Cronbach, L. J. (1975). Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 30 , 116–127.

Cronbach, L. J. (1986). Social inquiry by and for earthlings. In D. W. Fiske & R. A. Shweder (Eds.), Metatheory in social science: Pluralisms and subjectivities (pp. 83–107). University of Chicago Press.

Hay, C. M. (Ed.). (2016). Methods that matter: Integrating mixed methods for more effective social science research . University of Chicago Press.

Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Explain. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary . Retrieved July 15, 2022, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/explain

National Research Council. (2002). Scientific research in education . National Academy Press.

Weis, L., Eisenhart, M., Duncan, G. J., Albro, E., Bueschel, A. C., Cobb, P., Eccles, J., Mendenhall, R., Moss, P., Penuel, W., Ream, R. K., Rumbaut, R. G., Sloane, F., Weisner, T. S., & Wilson, J. (2019a). Mixed methods for studies that address broad and enduring issues in education research. Teachers College Record, 121 , 100307.

Weisner, T. S. (Ed.). (2005). Discovering successful pathways in children’s development: Mixed methods in the study of childhood and family life . University of Chicago Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Education, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA

James Hiebert, Anne K Morris & Charles Hohensee

Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA

Jinfa Cai & Stephen Hwang

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

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

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

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Hiebert, J., Cai, J., Hwang, S., Morris, A.K., Hohensee, C. (2023). What Is Research, and Why Do People Do It?. In: Doing Research: A New Researcher’s Guide. Research in Mathematics Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19078-0_1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19078-0_1

Published : 03 December 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-19077-3

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-19078-0

eBook Packages : Education Education (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

All Formats

Table of Contents

Research paper definition & meaning, what is a research paper, 10 types of research papers, research paper review, research paper uses, purpose, importance, what’s in a research paper, how to design a research paper, research paper vs. argumentative essay, what’s the difference between research paper, thesis, and proposal, research paper sizes, research paper ideas & examples, research paper.

A research paper is an important document that is widely used by students and academics. It is a common requirement needed to pass a certain course or subject. For a wider selection of research paper  templates, check out more options here.

Research Paper Report

College Research Paper

APA Research Paper

Career Research Paper

Quantitative Research Paper

Conclusion Research Paper

Legal Research Paper

Research Paper Format

Business Research Paper

Enhance One’s Writing Skills

Provide feedback and insights, research skills, originality, builds confidence in handling complicated tasks, title or cover page, introduction, literature review, research methodology, data analysis and findings, resources/references.

• Research Paper Outline Ideas and Examples
• Research Paper Proposal Ideas and Examples
• Formal Research Paper Ideas and Examples
• Simple Research Paper Ideas and Examples
• Market Research White Paper Ideas and Examples
• Research Paper Table of Contents Ideas and Examples
• Covid 19 Research Paper Essay Ideas and Examples
• Research Paper Rubric Ideas and Examples
• Career Research Paper Essay Ideas and Examples
• Research Paper Essay Format Ideas and Examples

What should be included in a research paper?

What is the role of a research paper in business, what are the steps to writing a research paper, what is a mini-research paper, how do you properly cite a research paper, what is a qualitative research paper, what is the role of a research paper, what person are research papers written in, what are the common research paper issues and problems, why research paper is important to students, more in documents, dissertation research paper template, undergraduate term paper template, graduate research paper template, journal article research paper template, conference research paper template, academic literature research paper template, capstone project research paper template, comparative analysis research paper template, book review research paper template, market research paper template.

• How To Create Meeting Minutes in Google Docs [Template + Example]
• How To Make/Create a Manual in Google Docs [Templates + Examples] 2023
• How To Make/Create a Manual in Microsoft Word [Templates + Examples] 2023
• How To Create a Legal Document in Google Docs [Template + Example]
• How To Make/Create a Contract in Microsoft Word [Template + Example] 2023
• How To Create a Contract in Google Docs [Template + Example]
• How To Make/Create a Report in Google Docs [Templates + Examples] 2023
• How To Make/Create a Report in Microsoft Word [Templates + Examples] 2023
• How to Make/Create a Notebook in Google Docs [Templates + Examples] 2023
• How to Make/Create a Notebook in Microsoft Word [Templates + Examples] 2023
• How To Make/Create a Handbook in Microsoft Word [Template + Example] 2023
• How to Make/Create a Log in Google Docs [Templates + Examples] 2023
• How to Make/Create a Log in Microsoft Word [Templates + Examples] 2023
• How To Make/Create a Handbook in Google Docs [Template + Example] 2023
• How To Make/Create a Policy in Google Docs [Templates + Examples] 2023

File Formats

Word templates, google docs templates, excel templates, powerpoint templates, google sheets templates, google slides templates, pdf templates, publisher templates, psd templates, indesign templates, illustrator templates, pages templates, keynote templates, numbers templates, outlook templates.

• The Research Companion project
• Facebook Group
• Honour Roll
• Chapter Links

13th March 2015

What does “research” mean and are you doing it?

Whenever I ask the question ‘what is research, and are you doing it?’, be it in a workshop, or in teaching, or when someone is describing a planned study to me, there’s a very common reaction.

“EVERYONE knows what research means!”

For some areas of work, knowing what ‘research’ is (or how it differs from and/or is assumed ‘better’ than things not considered research) is very important. In other areas hierarchies are less of an issue. Whatever your position, people generally do not interrogate exactly what ‘research’ really means within their own work or practice.

In the rush to teach research methods or to do our own studies there’s very little time set aside for reflection. Let alone for something so basic as asking whether you are actually doing something called research. You may resist asking the question for fear it might hold up the important business of getting on with stuff.

However, it is a really good idea to ask ourselves – and those we are working with – what we think the word ‘research’ means. Because it can alert us to all kinds of potential trip wires and difficulties we might be encountering later on in our research journey. Also, as I hope to convince you, it’s actually interesting to explore.

What’s in a word? If you look at how research is defined by research organisations, in methods books or teaching guides you will find a variety of definitions and descriptions. There is no one agreed upon term that sums up what research is.

American folklorist Zora Neale Hurston supposedly stated “research is formalized curiosity. It is poking and prying with a purpose” . You can extend from that definition a whole selection of descriptions commonly used to define or explain ‘research’ including:

Systematic. Organised. Develops or tests ideas or theories. Replicates. Expands on what we already know. Questions. Challenges. Scrutinises. Observes. Collects. Tests. Measures. Analyses. Discusses. Reflects. Solves Problems. Looks at how things work. Asks others what they think/believe/want. Checks if things are effective or fit for purpose. Ethical. Practical. Emancipatory. Intentional. Leads to change. Deliberates. Purposeful. Focused. Critical. Thoughtful. Respectful. Involves activism. Advocates. Randomises. Creates knew knowledge. Standardises. Innovates. Evaluates. Changes. Finds out what you should be doing. Novel. Broadens horizons. Advances knowledge. Collects data/information. Proven. Published.

Exercise One – A personal definition Read through the list above and note what words sum up what research means FOR YOU. If using in a group activity you may want to share with others what terms appealed to them. Individually or collectively you may want to reflect on why particular words signify research for you, which ones definitely do not fit your idea of research, and whether there are terms or phrases that summarise research that are not on this list. You may also want to consider how many terms on the list describe what research ‘is’, while other terms refer to what research ‘does’.

Exercise Two – Like With Like Using the list above, group together particular words or phrases that seem similar. Having done this can you see if they match any particular method or approach within different areas of the social sciences, health or development research? Some words of phrases may seemingly contradict each other, or may suit certain methodological, pedagogical or philosophical approaches more than others. If you see ‘research’ a particular way how might that influence the method(s) you choose to undertake any studies (or vice versa).

Exercise Three – Clarifications and Wider Meanings Thinking about all the people involved in the research you might be undertaking, can you match the different words in the list above to the different characters that will be part of your study? From this do you note any tensions where particular individuals or groups might have one view of research, and how others might define or view it? How is that going to affect any work you might undertake? Some of these issues are explored further in this paper I co-wrote with colleagues Sara Shaw and Trisha Greenalgh (see p.497).

A cautionary tale of why definitions are important Albert Einstein (and not Batgirl as the photo above might suggest) famously quipped “If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?” This summarises, for me, the idea how often in research we are unsure of what we are looking for or expecting to find out. But it can equally apply to us not always agreeing on what ‘research’ means.

Here’s how a situation where nobody quite knew what they were doing led to big problems.

I was once commissioned to run a piece of ‘qualitative research’. That was the phrase used was in the job advert, job spec, interview, and repeated at every steering group meeting. The steering group and funders wanted me to interview people, which I dutifully did. So far, so good. We were all in agreement ‘qualitative research’ involved interviews and that was what they wanted and I was doing.

I talked to lots of people, taped our conversations, transcribed them, used discourse analysis to identify narratives and counter narratives, and different issues affecting all the players within the project. Towards the end of the study period I presented, with pride, a lengthy report that wove a story of all the experiences and positions and life events affecting everyone within the research, extensively referenced existing research, allowing me to make recommendations for policy change.

The day of this draft presentation to the steering group began badly and soon got worse. Everyone was baffled by what I had done. ‘We asked you to do interviews’ they said, making no effort to hide their disappointment and irritation. Their idea of ‘qualitative research’, it transpired, was for me to talk to some people, and to sum up either in short paragraphs or better still bullet points, what those people’s views were. And from that they, the steering group, would decide what recommendations might be made.

My contribution, of quotes, and stories and intermingling ideas and contradictions, all sewn together with references and recommendations was, in their view, absolutely NOT ‘qualitative research’. Their past experience of commissioning research had always resulted in brief summaries of interviews. They found this very useful in commissioning new services, being aware of key stakeholders and issues, and for changing policies and practices. Yet all I’d been taught about qualitative research suggested this kind of summarizing and stripping out of agency, voice and narrative was poor practice and potentially unethical. I concluded they knew nothing about ‘qualitative research’. The drew exactly the same opinions about me.

If we look back over this story what we can actually see is everyone had ideas about what ‘research’ meant and what ‘qualitative’ meant. They had commissioned research, certainly, and I had signed up to do it. Because none of us stopped to ask ‘what are you expecting from this work?’ and ‘what does research mean to you?’ we ended up at cross-purposes, with hurt feelings. They ended up getting far more than they had paid for, but were not remotely glad of it. And I ended up doing far more than necessary for what I was paid for and produced a piece of work that wasn’t, on this occasion, useful to those who had commissioned it.

Avoiding misunderstandings If you are planning a study, or have started on research or are teaching methods in the social/health sciences or development, one way to avoid a crisis like the one covered above is to ask:

• What is research?
• Who does research?
• Am I a researcher? (and does it matter?)
• Who (or what) am I researching?

You cannot assume that what you think research is will be a view shared by others you encounter during your work or studies. Including funders, ethics committees, wider communities, media and colleagues. So it is always a good idea to check very early on what people think you’re doing – and to keep coming back to this as your work progresses.

This can be particularly important with participants who may very well not understand what research is, or necessarily fully comprehend any research they have agreed to be part of. They may have their own ideas of what research involves or motivations for being in your study and an awareness of all these can ensure people are not exploited or misled in your work, but are also to check you’ve invited the right people into your study.

Does it matter if we are doing research or not? Noting if what you are doing is research is more than just an exercise in linguistics. While some disciplines have a broad view of what might constitute research, others are specific about what it entails. Quantitative, experimental and medical research tend to fall into more of the latter category, and often the delineation of work here is about identifying what kind of work you will be doing, what sort of method(s) you will use, and whether or not you require ethical approval.

Audit, service development and evaluation are often separated from research (although not always so it is good to check with your funder, local ethics committee or colleagues if you are not sure). The MRC have a tool that helps you work out if what you want to do qualifies as ‘research’. Although as a further teaching/reflection exercise it is worth working through this tool to see what things fall under than banner of research, what don’t, and what kind of activities are legitimized as ‘research’ through this process. You may also want to link this to the exercises above, thinking about what definitions of ‘research’ in the list you studied match the medical/scientific/positivistic view of ‘research’ – and what methods, approaches, people, philosophies and practices this leaves out?

Within health and social care, education and development people may engage in activities, events, programmes, service improvements or performances where they do work as usual and consider documenting this to be research. Or try to change or enhance their work but do not record the process by which they went about this. Sometimes we fail to note what we are doing as research, or do not enhance or strengthen our activities through reflection, using theory, or assessing what we have done.

Another good reason to consider if you are doing research is to avoid limiting your practice, and to ensure if you have tried something out, that you can describe and explore what happened so others might learn from what you have done.

Remember – Research may be defined, interpreted and understood in many different ways – Research can happen in many disciplines and locations – Research is not simply something you do to end up as a publication in a peer reviewed journal – What you think research means may vary widely from others you are working with – Definitions of research can introduce particular perspectives, prejudices and in turn influence what approaches you take in choice of method and approach to participants – Reflecting on what all stakeholders think research means can save problems within a study – Asking your students (or yourself) to consider what the term means may be an important part in becoming more aware of the work that you plan to do, and ensure it proceeds carefully, critically, ethically and effectively.

Future posts will be looking at how we follow on from thinking about research to defining a study question, selecting a method, and considering the needs of those who might be involved within our work.

Before then, this presentation by Dr John Schulz (Southampton) looks at what makes something into research, with a focus on how theory can help us do this

If you have further thoughts on how we define research, how this can impact on the work you do in the social or health sciences or development, or whether you have anxieties about how research has been discussed here defined feel free to add them in the comments.

Further reading Becker HS. 1998. Tricks of the Trade: How to think about your research while you are doing it . University of Chicago Press. Hewitt Taylor J. 2011. Using research in practice. It sounds good, but will it work? Palgrave Macmillan. Remme JHF et al. 2010. Defining Research to Improve Health Systems . PLoS Medicine. 7 (11) e1001000 Rhedding Jones J. 2005. What is research? Methodological practices and new approaches . Smith R. 1992. Audit and Research. British Medical Journal. 305. pp.905-6. Wade DT. 2005. Ethics, audit and research: all shades of grey. British Medical Journal. 330. pp. 468-73.

One response to What does “research” mean and are you doing it?

[…] IntroductionComputer and digital technology has increased at an astounding rate within the last several decades. With the advent of various informational Internet resources such as social media, online articles, books and so forth many people are claiming to do thorough research, but lack the understanding of what research means. The advent of search engines has given everyone the illusion that they have done research and are experts on a particular topic. In reality people simply pull information from unreliable sources, thinking that they have researched a topic thoroughly. What makes a source not reliable? What makes certain information unreliable and untrustworthy? This article will offer information and resources to help people be able to differentiate between what is a valid source of knowledge and what is not. What is research? Research should involve a thorough reading and analysis of an adequate number of sources on a given subject. One does not have to have a college degree to do research. But the proper time should be devoted in order to draw valid conclusions that can be held up as reliable research. As a side note, some information cannot be obtained without proper research methodologies and even research tools. Examples of this is research in the natural sciences such as biology, chemistry or physics or in the social sciences in areas such as history, economics or sociology. With the hard sciences one must conduct countless experiments to arrive at certain conclusions that cannot be obtained by simply reading a lot of Internet articles and watching videos. Furthermore, to do valid historical work one must study many reliable primary sources or conduct countless interviews with people who were present during a certain time period the historian is studying. So in this way, valid natural or social science experiments cannot be replaced by reading a few articles on the Internet. At the very least, one can read the work of experts who have devoted their life to research in a particular subject. Teachers in K-12 schools often have not spent their lives conducting research in their field (Of course there are many exceptions to this). Even though they may not be researchers, they have devoted their lives to studying, reading and mastering their content. In this way, a middle school science teacher (for example) can read thoroughly within a certain discipline and gain a wide enough knowledge base on a topic to become a reliable source of information and somewhat of an expert. The knowledge they have gained was achieved through much time and effort. There is no shortcut for conducting research on a topic thoroughly and adequately. In contemporary times, when many individuals do research, their primary means of gathering information is through the Internet. The Internet can be a great resource for gathering information, the problem lies in individuals not being able to differentiate between reliable and unreliable sources. How to Find Reliable Information on the Internet https://peopledevelopmentmagazine.com/2016/07/10/information-internet/ Here are some key components that one should consider when trying to verify if an online source is credible. 1) Identify the source of the information and determine whether it is reliable and credible. A good starting point for this is to identify the name of the writer and or the organization from which the source was derived. Is the source reputable and reliable? Is the person or organization a respected authority on the subject matter? What makes a person or organization an authority on a particular topic? It has become very easy to publish information on the Internet and as a result there are many people purporting to be an expert in a particular field that are not qualified to write on that topic. A good way to understand the danger of this is to liken it to public school teachers teaching subjects outside of their certification in order to remedy teacher shortages. Often one might find a teacher certified in social studies teaching Algebra. In these cases, students are not getting the proper instruction in math. In the same way, there is a lot information on the Internet written by individuals that have no expertise in the particular content in which they are writing about. For example, many people that dispute climate change and global warming are not scientists and often rely on political rhetoric to support their claims. Scientists who do work in climate change have devoted their entire lives to research in that area, often holding undergraduate and several graduate degrees in subjects like geology and earth science. When a person is thought to be a well-known and respected expert in a certain field, they have a proven track record of careful study and research and are validated by reputable institutions that are known for producing reliable research. Often non-experts will spend just a few days or weeks “researching” climate change, in an effort to “dispute” data that is backed by decades of careful research. One does not have to have a Ph.D. to understand and challenge mainstream scientific knowledge, but time and energy devoted to research cannot be bypassed.    2) Checking sources for validity against other reliable sources. It is important when doing research on the Internet to check the provided information against other reliable sources to verify accuracy. For example, if every reputable source reports that cigarette smoking causes cancer and one source says otherwise, the lone source should be questioned until further notice because it has no credibility or way to verify its information. When checking facts and data for accuracy provided in an Internet source one should look for reliable and trusted sources. These might include academic articles, books, universities, museums, mainline reputable religious organizations, government agencies and academic associations. Libraries, universities and professional organizations usually provide reliable information. There is a growing public mistrust of long established institutions that has added to the level of uncertainty about knowledge. But it is important to know that institutions have credibility for good reason. Their history, information and knowledge base is backed by hard work, and long held traditions.    3) Is the information presented in a biased way? When one is reading an article or any information on the internet it is important to determine if that information has a specific agenda or goal in mind. What is the author’s agenda? Does the author or organization have a particular religious, sociological or political bent? These factors determine the validity of an information source. For example, oftentimes newspapers will feature op-ed pieces in which the author states up front that the article is largely based on their personal views. Therefore, when one reads an op-ed piece, they understand going into the article that it will be slanted to the right or left or toward a certain worldview. The article is not be completely useless, but the reader should realize they have to sort through the bias and decided what information is helpful to them in their research.  The reader should also search for possible bias in the information presented (Could be political, sociological, religious bias, or other ideas drawn from a particular worldview) and or even claims made that seem unrealistic or unreasonable with no evidence to back it up. 4) Search for citations that support the claims made by the author or organization. Most articles or information on the web will provide a link to do further research on the topic or to back claims made. When this information is not adequately provided one can assume that the source is not reputable. In addition, a site can have many citations but the sources may not be credible or reliable sources. Health and fitness writer Robin Reichert states the following about the topic reliable sources. Readers should “follow the links provided” in the article to “verify that the citations in fact support the writer’s claims. Look for at least two other credible citations to support the information.” Furthermore, readers should “always follow-up on citations that the writer provides to ensure that the assertions are supported by other sources.” It is also important to note that the end designation of a website can help determine credibility. When websites end in “.com” they are often are for profit organizations and trying to sell a product or service. When one comes across a site that ends in “.org” they are often non-profit organizations and thus have a particular social cause they are trying to advance or advocate for. Government agency websites always end in “.gov” while educational institutions end in “.edu.” Government agencies, educational institutions or non-profits generally offer reliable and trustworthy information. Teachers in middle and high schools attempt should spend more time having students do research papers as it teaches students the value of citing valid sources. The projects often call for proper citations using one of the various styles of citation with the most popular being APA, MLA and Chicago. How to Verify if a Source is Credible on the Internet https://itstillworks.com/verify-source-credible-internet-8139507.html Below I have provided a number of resources for our average internet researchers, students and teachers. The idea of truth and valid, reliable resources are being challenged because people are unsure as to what information is valid and what is not. The links below offer a number of resources that can further offer tools to help  to understand how to do research properly. References Evaluating Internet Resources https://www.library.georgetown.edu/tutorials/research-guides/evaluating-internet-content Check It Out: Verifying Information and Sources in News Coverage https://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/02/check-it-out-verifying-information-and-sources-in-news-coverage/ How to Do Research: A Step-By-Step Guide: Get Started https://libguides.elmira.edu/research Research and Citation Resources https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/resources.html Finding Relevant and Relevant and Reliable Sources https://www.press.uchicago.edu/books/turabian/tcc/topicsheet10.pdf How can I tell if a website is credible? https://uknowit.uwgb.edu/page.php?id=30276 Detecting Fake News at its Source: Machine learning system aims to determine if an information outlet is accurate or biased. http://news.mit.edu/2018/mit-csail-machine-learning-system-detects-fake-news-from-source-1004 What does “research” mean and are you doing it? https://theresearchcompanion.com/what-does-research-mean/ […]

Leave a reply Cancel reply

Basic HTML is allowed. Your email address will not be published.

• Privacy Policy

Home » Scope of the Research – Writing Guide and Examples

Scope of the Research – Writing Guide and Examples

Table of Contents

Scope of the Research

Scope of research refers to the range of topics, areas, and subjects that a research project intends to cover. It is the extent and limitations of the study, defining what is included and excluded in the research.

The scope of a research project depends on various factors, such as the research questions , objectives , methodology, and available resources. It is essential to define the scope of the research project clearly to avoid confusion and ensure that the study addresses the intended research questions.

How to Write Scope of the Research

Writing the scope of the research involves identifying the specific boundaries and limitations of the study. Here are some steps you can follow to write a clear and concise scope of the research:

• Identify the research question: Start by identifying the specific question that you want to answer through your research . This will help you focus your research and define the scope more clearly.
• Define the objectives: Once you have identified the research question, define the objectives of your study. What specific goals do you want to achieve through your research?
• Determine the population and sample: Identify the population or group of people that you will be studying, as well as the sample size and selection criteria. This will help you narrow down the scope of your research and ensure that your findings are applicable to the intended audience.
• Identify the variables: Determine the variables that will be measured or analyzed in your research. This could include demographic variables, independent variables , dependent variables , or any other relevant factors.
• Define the timeframe: Determine the timeframe for your study, including the start and end date, as well as any specific time intervals that will be measured.
• Determine the geographical scope: If your research is location-specific, define the geographical scope of your study. This could include specific regions, cities, or neighborhoods that you will be focusing on.
• Outline the limitations: Finally, outline any limitations or constraints of your research, such as time, resources, or access to data. This will help readers understand the scope and applicability of your research findings.

Examples of the Scope of the Research

Some Examples of the Scope of the Research are as follows:

Title : “Investigating the impact of artificial intelligence on job automation in the IT industry”

Scope of Research:

This study aims to explore the impact of artificial intelligence on job automation in the IT industry. The research will involve a qualitative analysis of job postings, identifying tasks that can be automated using AI. The study will also assess the potential implications of job automation on the workforce, including job displacement, job creation, and changes in job requirements.

Title : “Developing a machine learning model for predicting cyberattacks on corporate networks”

This study will develop a machine learning model for predicting cyberattacks on corporate networks. The research will involve collecting and analyzing network traffic data, identifying patterns and trends that are indicative of cyberattacks. The study aims to build an accurate and reliable predictive model that can help organizations identify and prevent cyberattacks before they occur.

Title: “Assessing the usability of a mobile app for managing personal finances”

This study will assess the usability of a mobile app for managing personal finances. The research will involve conducting a usability test with a group of participants, evaluating the app’s ease of use, efficiency, and user satisfaction. The study aims to identify areas of the app that need improvement, and to provide recommendations for enhancing its usability and user experience.

Title : “Exploring the effects of mindfulness meditation on stress reduction among college students”

This study aims to investigate the impact of mindfulness meditation on reducing stress levels among college students. The research will involve a randomized controlled trial with two groups: a treatment group that receives mindfulness meditation training and a control group that receives no intervention. The study will examine changes in stress levels, as measured by self-report questionnaires, before and after the intervention.

Title: “Investigating the impact of social media on body image dissatisfaction among young adults”

This study will explore the relationship between social media use and body image dissatisfaction among young adults. The research will involve a cross-sectional survey of participants aged 18-25, assessing their social media use, body image perceptions, and self-esteem. The study aims to identify any correlations between social media use and body image dissatisfaction, and to determine if certain social media platforms or types of content are particularly harmful.

When to Write Scope of the Research

Here is a guide on When to Write the Scope of the Research:

• Before starting your research project, it’s important to clearly define the scope of your study. This will help you stay focused on your research question and avoid getting sidetracked by irrelevant information.
• The scope of the research should be determined by the research question or problem statement. It should outline what you intend to investigate and what you will not be investigating.
• The scope should also take into consideration any limitations of the study, such as time, resources, or access to data. This will help you realistically plan and execute your research.
• Writing the scope of the research early in the research process can also help you refine your research question and identify any gaps in the existing literature that your study can address.
• It’s important to revisit the scope of the research throughout the research process to ensure that you stay on track and make any necessary adjustments.
• The scope of the research should be clearly communicated in the research proposal or study protocol to ensure that all stakeholders are aware of the research objectives and limitations.
• The scope of the research should also be reflected in the research design, methods, and analysis plan. This will ensure that the research is conducted in a systematic and rigorous manner that is aligned with the research objectives.
• The scope of the research should be written in a clear and concise manner, using language that is accessible to all stakeholders, including those who may not be familiar with the research topic or methodology.
• When writing the scope of the research, it’s important to be transparent about any assumptions or biases that may influence the research findings. This will help ensure that the research is conducted in an ethical and responsible manner.
• The scope of the research should be reviewed and approved by the research supervisor, committee members, or other relevant stakeholders. This will ensure that the research is feasible, relevant, and contributes to the field of study.
• Finally, the scope of the research should be clearly stated in the research report or dissertation to provide context for the research findings and conclusions. This will help readers understand the significance of the research and its contribution to the field of study.

Purpose of Scope of the Research

Purposes of Scope of the Research are as follows:

• Defines the boundaries and extent of the study.
• Determines the specific objectives and research questions to be addressed.
• Provides direction and focus for the research.
• Helps to identify the relevant theories, concepts, and variables to be studied.
• Enables the researcher to select the appropriate research methodology and techniques.
• Allows for the allocation of resources (time, money, personnel) to the research.
• Establishes the criteria for the selection of the sample and data collection methods.
• Facilitates the interpretation and generalization of the results.
• Ensures the ethical considerations and constraints are addressed.
• Provides a framework for the presentation and dissemination of the research findings.

Advantages of Scope of the Research

Here are some advantages of having a well-defined scope of research:

• Provides clarity and focus: Defining the scope of research helps to provide clarity and focus to the study. This ensures that the research stays on track and does not deviate from its intended purpose.
• Helps to manage resources: Knowing the scope of research allows researchers to allocate resources effectively. This includes managing time, budget, and personnel required to conduct the study.
• Improves the quality of research: A well-defined scope of research helps to ensure that the study is designed to achieve specific objectives. This helps to improve the quality of the research by reducing the likelihood of errors or bias.
• Facilitates communication: A clear scope of research enables researchers to communicate the goals and objectives of the study to stakeholders, such as funding agencies or participants. This facilitates understanding and enhances cooperation.
• Enables replication : A well-defined scope of research makes it easier to replicate the study in the future. This allows other researchers to validate the findings and build upon them, leading to the advancement of knowledge in the field.
• Increases the relevance of research: Defining the scope of research helps to ensure that the study is relevant to the problem or issue being investigated. This increases the likelihood that the findings will be useful and applicable to real-world situations.
• Reduces the risk of scope creep : Scope creep occurs when the research expands beyond the original scope, leading to an increase in the time, cost, and resources required to complete the study. A clear definition of the scope of research helps to reduce the risk of scope creep by establishing boundaries and limitations.
• Enhances the credibility of research: A well-defined scope of research helps to enhance the credibility of the study by ensuring that it is designed to achieve specific objectives and answer specific research questions. This makes it easier for others to assess the validity and reliability of the study.
• Provides a framework for decision-making : A clear scope of research provides a framework for decision-making throughout the research process. This includes decisions related to data collection, analysis, and interpretation.

Scope of the Research Vs Scope of the Project

About the author.

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Research Results Section – Writing Guide and...

Research Topics – Ideas and Examples

Significance of the Study – Examples and Writing...

Research Recommendations – Examples and Writing...

Literature Review – Types Writing Guide and...

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

How to Write a Research Paper Introduction (with Examples)

Table of Contents

The research paper introduction section, along with the Title and Abstract, can be considered the face of any research paper. The following article is intended to guide you in organizing and writing the research paper introduction for a quality academic article or dissertation.

The research paper introduction aims to present the topic to the reader. A study will only be accepted for publishing if you can ascertain that the available literature cannot answer your research question. So it is important to ensure that you have read important studies on that particular topic, especially those within the last five to ten years, and that they are properly referenced in this section. 1

What should be included in the research paper introduction is decided by what you want to tell readers about the reason behind the research and how you plan to fill the knowledge gap. The best research paper introduction provides a systemic review of existing work and demonstrates additional work that needs to be done. It needs to be brief, captivating, and well-referenced; a well-drafted research paper introduction will help the researcher win half the battle.

The introduction for a research paper is where you set up your topic and approach for the reader. It has several key goals:

• Present your research topic
• Capture reader interest
• Summarize existing research
• Position your own approach
• Define your specific research problem and problem statement
• Highlight the novelty and contributions of the study
• Give an overview of the paper’s structure

The research paper introduction can vary in size and structure depending on whether your paper presents the results of original empirical research or is a review paper. Some research paper introduction examples are only half a page while others are a few pages long. In many cases, the introduction will be shorter than all of the other sections of your paper; its length depends on the size of your paper as a whole.

What is the introduction for a research paper?

The introduction in a research paper is placed at the beginning to guide the reader from a broad subject area to the specific topic that your research addresses. They present the following information to the reader

• Scope: The topic covered in the research paper
• Context: Background of your topic
• Importance: Why your research matters in that particular area of research and the industry problem that can be targeted

Why is the introduction important in a research paper?

The research paper introduction conveys a lot of information and can be considered an essential roadmap for the rest of your paper. A good introduction for a research paper is important for the following reasons:

• It stimulates your reader’s interest: A good introduction section can make your readers want to read your paper by capturing their interest. It informs the reader what they are going to learn and helps determine if the topic is of interest to them.
• It helps the reader understand the research background: Without a clear introduction, your readers may feel confused and even struggle when reading your paper. A good research paper introduction will prepare them for the in-depth research to come. It provides you the opportunity to engage with the readers and demonstrate your knowledge and authority on the specific topic.
• It explains why your research paper is worth reading: Your introduction can convey a lot of information to your readers. It introduces the topic, why the topic is important, and how you plan to proceed with your research.
• It helps guide the reader through the rest of the paper: The research paper introduction gives the reader a sense of the nature of the information that will support your arguments and the general organization of the paragraphs that will follow.

What are the parts of introduction in the research?

A good research paper introduction section should comprise three main elements: 2

• What is known: This sets the stage for your research. It informs the readers of what is known on the subject.
• What is lacking: This is aimed at justifying the reason for carrying out your research. This could involve investigating a new concept or method or building upon previous research.
• What you aim to do: This part briefly states the objectives of your research and its major contributions. Your detailed hypothesis will also form a part of this section.

Check out how Peace Alemede uses Paperpal to write her research paper

Peace Alemede, Student, University of Ilorin

Paperpal has been an excellent and beneficial tool for editing my research work. With the help of Paperpal, I am now able to write and produce results at a much faster rate. For instance, I recently used Paperpal to edit a research article that is currently being considered for publication. The tool allowed me to align the language of my paragraph ideas to a more academic setting, thereby saving me both time and resources. As a result, my work was deemed accurate for use. I highly recommend this tool to anyone in need of efficient and effective research paper editing. Peace Alemede, Student, University of Ilorin, Nigeria

Start Writing for Free

How to write a research paper introduction?

The first step in writing the research paper introduction is to inform the reader what your topic is and why it’s interesting or important. This is generally accomplished with a strong opening statement. The second step involves establishing the kinds of research that have been done and ending with limitations or gaps in the research that you intend to address.

Finally, the research paper introduction clarifies how your own research fits in and what problem it addresses. If your research involved testing hypotheses, these should be stated along with your research question. The hypothesis should be presented in the past tense since it will have been tested by the time you are writing the research paper introduction.

The following key points, with examples, can guide you when writing the research paper introduction section:

1. Introduce the research topic:

• Highlight the importance of the research field or topic
• Describe the background of the topic
• Present an overview of current research on the topic

Example: The inclusion of experiential and competency-based learning has benefitted electronics engineering education. Industry partnerships provide an excellent alternative for students wanting to engage in solving real-world challenges. Industry-academia participation has grown in recent years due to the need for skilled engineers with practical training and specialized expertise. However, from the educational perspective, many activities are needed to incorporate sustainable development goals into the university curricula and consolidate learning innovation in universities.

2. Determine a research niche:

• Reveal a gap in existing research or oppose an existing assumption
• Formulate the research question

Example: There have been plausible efforts to integrate educational activities in higher education electronics engineering programs. However, very few studies have considered using educational research methods for performance evaluation of competency-based higher engineering education, with a focus on technical and or transversal skills. To remedy the current need for evaluating competencies in STEM fields and providing sustainable development goals in engineering education, in this study, a comparison was drawn between study groups without and with industry partners.

3. Place your research within the research niche:

• State the purpose of your study
• Highlight the key characteristics of your study
• Describe important results
• Highlight the novelty of the study.
• Offer a brief overview of the structure of the paper.

Example: The study evaluates the main competency needed in the applied electronics course, which is a fundamental core subject for many electronics engineering undergraduate programs. We compared two groups, without and with an industrial partner, that offered real-world projects to solve during the semester. This comparison can help determine significant differences in both groups in terms of developing subject competency and achieving sustainable development goals.

Write a Research Paper Introduction in Minutes with Paperpal

Paperpal is a generative AI-powered academic writing assistant. It’s trained on millions of published scholarly articles and over 20 years of STM experience. Paperpal helps authors write better and faster with:

• Real-time writing suggestions
• In-depth checks for language and grammar correction
• Paraphrasing to add variety, ensure academic tone, and trim text to meet journal limits

With Paperpal, create a research paper introduction effortlessly. In this step-by-step guide, we’ll walk you through how Paperpal transforms your initial ideas into a polished and publication-ready introduction.

How to use Paperpal to write the Introduction section

Step 1: Sign up on Paperpal and click on the Copilot feature, under this choose Outlines > Research Article > Introduction

Step 2: Add your unstructured notes or initial draft, whether in English or another language, to Paperpal, which is to be used as the base for your content.

Step 3: Fill in the specifics, such as your field of study, brief description or details you want to include, which will help the AI generate the outline for your Introduction.

Step 4: Use this outline and sentence suggestions to develop your content, adding citations where needed and modifying it to align with your specific research focus.

Step 5: Turn to Paperpal’s granular language checks to refine your content, tailor it to reflect your personal writing style, and ensure it effectively conveys your message.

You can use the same process to develop each section of your article, and finally your research paper in half the time and without any of the stress.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the purpose of the introduction in research papers.

The purpose of the research paper introduction is to introduce the reader to the problem definition, justify the need for the study, and describe the main theme of the study. The aim is to gain the reader’s attention by providing them with necessary background information and establishing the main purpose and direction of the research.

How long should the research paper introduction be?

The length of the research paper introduction can vary across journals and disciplines. While there are no strict word limits for writing the research paper introduction, an ideal length would be one page, with a maximum of 400 words over 1-4 paragraphs. Generally, it is one of the shorter sections of the paper as the reader is assumed to have at least a reasonable knowledge about the topic. 2

For example, for a study evaluating the role of building design in ensuring fire safety, there is no need to discuss definitions and nature of fire in the introduction; you could start by commenting upon the existing practices for fire safety and how your study will add to the existing knowledge and practice.

What should be included in the research paper introduction?

When deciding what to include in the research paper introduction, the rest of the paper should also be considered. The aim is to introduce the reader smoothly to the topic and facilitate an easy read without much dependency on external sources. 3

Below is a list of elements you can include to prepare a research paper introduction outline and follow it when you are writing the research paper introduction.

• Topic introduction: This can include key definitions and a brief history of the topic.
• Research context and background: Offer the readers some general information and then narrow it down to specific aspects.
• Details of the research you conducted: A brief literature review can be included to support your arguments or line of thought.
• Rationale for the study: This establishes the relevance of your study and establishes its importance.
• Importance of your research: The main contributions are highlighted to help establish the novelty of your study
• Research hypothesis: Introduce your research question and propose an expected outcome. Organization of the paper: Include a short paragraph of 3-4 sentences that highlights your plan for the entire paper

Should I include citations in the introduction for a research paper?

Cite only works that are most relevant to your topic; as a general rule, you can include one to three. Note that readers want to see evidence of original thinking. So it is better to avoid using too many references as it does not leave much room for your personal standpoint to shine through.

Citations in your research paper introduction support the key points, and the number of citations depend on the subject matter and the point discussed. If the research paper introduction is too long or overflowing with citations, it is better to cite a few review articles rather than the individual articles summarized in the review.

A good point to remember when citing research papers in the introduction section is to include at least one-third of the references in the introduction.

Should I provide a literature review in the research paper introduction?

The literature review plays a significant role in the research paper introduction section. A good literature review accomplishes the following:

• Introduces the topic
• Establishes the study’s significance
• Provides an overview of the relevant literature
• Provides context for the study using literature
• Identifies knowledge gaps

However, remember to avoid making the following mistakes when writing a research paper introduction:

• Do not use studies from the literature review to aggressively support your research
• Avoid direct quoting
• Do not allow literature review to be the focus of this section. Instead, the literature review should only aid in setting a foundation for the manuscript. 

Key points to remember

Remember the following key points for writing a good research paper introduction: 4

• Avoid stuffing too much general information: Avoid including what an average reader would know and include only that information related to the problem being addressed in the research paper introduction. For example, when describing a comparative study of non-traditional methods for mechanical design optimization, information related to the traditional methods and differences between traditional and non-traditional methods would not be relevant. In this case, the introduction for the research paper should begin with the state-of-the-art non-traditional methods and methods to evaluate the efficiency of newly developed algorithms.
• Avoid packing too many references: Cite only the required works in your research paper introduction. The other works can be included in the discussion section to strengthen your findings.
• Avoid extensive criticism of previous studies: Avoid being overly critical of earlier studies while setting the rationale for your study. A better place for this would be the Discussion section, where you can highlight the advantages of your method.
• Avoid describing conclusions of the study: When writing a research paper introduction remember not to include the findings of your study. The aim is to let the readers know what question is being answered. The actual answer should only be given in the Results and Discussion section.

To summarize, the research paper introduction section should be brief yet informative. It should convince the reader the need to conduct the study and motivate him to read further. If you’re feeling stuck or unsure, choose trusted AI academic writing assistants like Paperpal to effortlessly craft your research paper introduction and other sections of your research article.

• Jawaid, S. A., & Jawaid, M. (2019). How to write introduction and discussion. Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia, 13(Suppl 1), S18.
• Dewan, P., & Gupta, P. (2016). Writing the title, abstract and introduction: Looks matter!. Indian pediatrics, 53, 235-241.
• Cetin, S., & Hackam, D. J. (2005). An approach to the writing of a scientific Manuscript1. Journal of Surgical Research, 128(2), 165-167.
• Bavdekar, S. B. (2015). Writing introduction: Laying the foundations of a research paper. Journal of the Association of Physicians of India, 63(7), 44-6.

Paperpal is a comprehensive AI writing toolkit that helps students and researchers achieve 2x the writing in half the time. It leverages 21+ years of STM experience and insights from millions of research articles to provide in-depth academic writing, language editing, and submission readiness support to help you write better, faster.  

Get accurate academic translations, rewriting support, grammar checks, vocabulary suggestions, and generative AI assistance that delivers human precision at machine speed. Try for free or upgrade to Paperpal Prime starting at US$19 a month to access premium features, including consistency, plagiarism, and 30+ submission readiness checks to help you succeed.  

Experience the future of academic writing – Sign up to Paperpal and start writing for free!  

Related Reads:

• 5 Reasons for Rejection After Peer Review
• Ethical Research Practices For Research with Human Subjects
• 8 Most Effective Ways to Increase Motivation for Thesis Writing 
• 6 Tips for Post-Doc Researchers to Take Their Career to the Next Level

Practice vs. Practise: Learn the Difference

Academic paraphrasing: why paperpal’s rewrite should be your first choice , you may also like, how to cite in apa format (7th edition):..., how to write your research paper in apa..., how to choose a dissertation topic, how to write a phd research proposal, how to write an academic paragraph (step-by-step guide), research funding basics: what should a grant proposal..., how to write an abstract in research papers..., how to write dissertation acknowledgements, how to write the first draft of a..., mla works cited page: format, template & examples.

Featured Topics

Featured series.

A series of random questions answered by Harvard experts.

Explore the Gazette

Read the latest, how to fight depression faster..

Threat of mosquito-borne diseases rises in U.S. with global temperature

Seem like peanut allergies were once rare and now everyone has them?

Getty Images

‘Harvard Thinking’: Plastics are everywhere, even in our bodies

We ingest equivalent of credit card per week — how worried should we be? In podcast, experts discuss how to minimize exposure, possible solutions.

Samantha Laine Perfas

Harvard Staff Writer

The world has a plastic problem. Not only are nonbiodegradable plastics clogging oceans and landfills, but they’re also invading our bodies.

“Ingestion is the primary route of exposure, and we are consuming about 5 grams of micronanoplastics per week; that’s the equivalent of a credit card,” said Philip Demokritou , the founding director of the Environmental Health Nanoscience Laboratory and the Center for Nanotechnology and Nanotoxicology at the School of Public Health.

We’re “drowning” in plastic exposure, according to Don Ingber , the founding director of the Wyss Institute and a professor both in the Medical School and School of Engineering. From the synthetic clothes we wear to wildfire smoke, it’s nearly impossible to escape. And our bodies can’t fully break plastics down. This is especially alarming as research has found plastic in nearly every bodily organ.

“These particles … are what we call sustained release vehicles, meaning they’re just sitting there, and every day they’re releasing a little bit for the rest of the lifetime of those cells in your gut or other organs,” Ingber said. “That makes [them] even more dangerous.”

Mary Johnson , a research scientist in the Environmental Health Department of the School of Public Health, said more research is needed to figure out who is at the highest risk of exposure. But all consumers should be trying to minimize their use of plastics — from what they wear to how they furnish their homes to how they prepare food — until better, biodegradable alternatives can be found.

“As a consumer I feel like I can’t wait; I want to minimize my own exposure,” Johnson said.

In this episode, host Samantha Laine Perfas speaks with Demokritou, Ingber, and Johnson about the prevalence of plastic — and what to do about it.

Philip Demokritou: Ingestion is the primary route of exposure, and we are consuming about 5 grams of micronanoplastics per week; that’s the equivalent of a credit card.

Samantha Laine Perfas: Our planet is filled with plastic. On average, we produce 430 million tons every year, most of which is used only for a short period of time and then discarded. But plastic isn’t just in the environment: it’s now in our bodies. Microplastics have been found in our bloodstreams, lungs, and other organs, and we’re only recently beginning to understand how this affects our health.

How destructive is our relationship to plastic?

Welcome to “Harvard Thinking,” a podcast where the life of the mind meets everyday life. Today, I’m joined by:

Demokritou: Philip Demokritou. I’m the founding director of the Harvard Nanotechnology and Nanotoxicology Center at the School of Public Health.

Laine Perfas: His current research focuses on how nanomaterials and particles affect our health and safety. Then:

Don Ingber: Don Ingber. I’m the founding director of the Wyss Institute and a professor both in the Medical School and School of Engineering, as well as Boston Children’s Hospital.

Laine Perfas: He’s also a cell biologist and a pioneer in the field of bionics. And finally:

Mary Johnson: Mary Johnson. I am a research scientist in the Environmental Health Department of the School of Public Health.

Laine Perfas: Her work focuses on immune health and investigates how the effects of air pollution, wildfires, and other environmental exposures affect our bodies.

And I’m Samantha Laine Perfas, your host and a writer for the Harvard Gazette. Today, we’ll take a close look at the plastic problem.

I want to start off by asking why are we so obsessed with plastic?

Demokritou: I think plastics have become an integral part of modern life because of their low cost, amazing properties, and they definitely made our life easier. We found one of the very first ads that the industry put together and it starts with, “Plastic is fantastic.” So, I guess we live in the age of disposable living. We are all addicted to plastics.

Ingber: It’s basically our culture’s heroin. It does everything you’d want it to do at incredibly low cost with high fidelity, reproducibility, manufacturability. It’s useful in every way, as Philip was saying. It’s a fantastic product, it’s just getting rid of it is the problem. It’s killing us over time; I mean the whole planet, not just humans. I mean, marine life, animals. In the last 15, 20 years, it’s really reached the point where it’s obvious when you see large expanses of ocean filled with plastic trash, that doesn’t degrade in landfills and so forth, but it was always there. We just weren’t aware.

Demokritou: When we don’t manage plastics in a sustainable way, then it becomes a problem. And that’s the case for every chemical we’re using, every material we’re using. And unfortunately, the modus operandi of our society when it comes to chemicals is, let’s put them out there and we’ll worry and clean the mess 20, 30 years later when scientists like myself, Don, and Mary discover that they are causing harm to the environment and human beings.

Laine Perfas: So I want to talk a little bit about microplastics and nanoplastics specifically. What are they and why are they so concerning to our health?

Johnson: So the plastics are wonderful when they’re being used, but then they decompose. And as they decompose, the microplastics are small plastics, less than 5 millimeters, and they can further degrade into nanoplastics, which are even smaller. And the concern, obviously, is not only is it destroying our environment, a few years ago we found out it’s in our blood, and now we’re finding out it’s in a lot of our organs and tissues and really it’s everywhere. I think that has heightened our concern and our awareness that we really have to figure out a way to prevent this degradation and exposing ourselves to the microplastics.

Laine Perfas: How is it getting into our bodies?

Ingber: I was in meetings 15, 20 years ago when the field of nanotoxicology sort of initiated when people realized that these particles are getting — this was all types of nanoparticles, not just plastics — getting into every organ in the body, and it was hard to understand how this could be happening because we have barriers in our tissues. Maybe 14 years ago we developed devices called organs-on-chips that have human cells oriented in little engineered devices that have hollow channels that could have flow of fluids to mimic blood and air. And we lined it by the lung cells that line our air sac. And we put particles that were some of the more plastic particles in the lung. And what we found is that actually breathing motions increase their absorption enormously, and it’s analogous, I think, to like viruses going across, which are similar size, going across the barrier of these tissues. They’re being picked up the way we pick up other things that are small and transport them. It wasn’t like tearing apart the tissue at all. It really made me think, whoa, I mean, the idea that this can cross all the tissue barriers got really worrisome to me.

Laine Perfas: I mentioned at the top of the episode too that we’re also literally eating them; and I guess that was surprising to me, that from consuming them it was also entering our bodies because like you said, Don, I would have thought that our bodies were able to just digest it. And there it goes. And it’s no longer in us. But that’s not the case. So I’d love to hear more about that as well.

Demokritou: That’s what I call the two I’s in terms of the exposure: inhalation, of course, but also ingestion. Actually, if you look at the human population data, you will see that ingestion is the primary route of exposure, and we are consuming about 5 grams of micronanoplastics per week; that’s the equivalent of a credit card. So ingestion is a major route. And we have a grant from USDA, and we’re looking also at how these micronanoplastics from soil make it to edible plants. And also through the trophic transfer, they can make it through the food chain. Now, I think Don put it nicely, anything in the nanoscale, it’s very clear that they can bypass biological barriers. When it comes to micronanoplastics, especially nanoplastics, they are everywhere. It’s the byproduct of degradation over 50, 60 years that we throw them out there. We have many evidence that these nanoplastics in particular, because of their hydrophobic nature, they can really become systemic. We found them everywhere. Every organ, every week, it’s a study that we found them. In this organ, in that organ. Of course, for those of us that were doing toxicology, we know that the dose makes the poison. So it’s not just the identification in organs, it’s also in certain quantities that they can really cause harm. And that’s the question we’re trying to address right now.

Johnson: I’d like to also bring up microplastics in the air, I think [that] is underappreciated, and we don’t have a standardized method for measuring it, especially on a populational level. And we do research looking at how wildfires, how the smoke impacts your immune system. We know that there’s also microplastics being inhaled with the smoke. But the standardization of measurements isn’t there yet to be able to accurately quantify how much we are inhaling, especially in those special circumstances with increased air pollution or wildfire smoke.

Ingber: I learned that one of the biggest sources of microplastics is tires; as tires run on the road and you’ll see those little black marks, it’s leaching into the air. And then also textiles. We’re just surrounded, we’re bathed in them. The other point I think that’s important, it may not be obvious, is that, when we ingest foods, we digest them, right? We break them down to small molecules that could be absorbed, and those that are not digested usually go out in feces or urine. But plastics are not broken down to their individual links, if you like, we call them monomers. Yes, their small bits are released through breakdown, but that’s more physical breakdown over time and not chemical breakdown. And that’s what makes them really so dangerous.

Laine Perfas: It seems like a study every day is coming out, oh, we found microplastics here in the body, or in this organ, or here. So we know that it’s very commonly present in our bodies. What do we know so far about the health risks, about how that actually is affecting our bodies, and some of the dangers that it can cause?

Demokritou: In public health, usually we use epidemiology to come up with the associations of exposures to whatever disease. And that’s an area that when it comes to micronanoplastics, we don’t have many studies out there. So we need to do more of these kind of studies to link the associations between exposures and diseases. Now, in terms of the toxicology of micronanoplastics, that’s a little bit more mature field. I’ve been studying nanoscale materials and plastics for probably 10 years, especially nanoplastics through the NIH-funded center we had at Harvard. The evidence that nanoscale plastics in particular, that they can bypass biological barriers, I think, that’s very strong. You put them in the lungs, they will translocate, become systemic, they will go to different organs. Also, at the cellular molecular level, we see red flags. We can see them becoming internalized in the gut, for instance, we even found them in the nuclei. We publish a ton of papers on DNA damage, the potential to generate reactive exospecies and interfere with cellular functions. Actually, I’m using one of the organ-on-a-chip platforms that Don developed to understand how they behave in the gut. We have a ton of evidence, but we need to understand mechanistically what’s happening. Not all micronanoplastics are created equal. They have unique properties, different polymers, different sizes, morphologies. So we have a ton of work to do to study potential health effects. We are not there yet.

Ingber: I’m excited to hear you working with intestine-on-a-chip because that would be a great model for this. We’ve also integrated microbiome into these intestine chips. And the microbiome can also modify the plastics, or they can be modified by the plastic. And these plastics can bring toxins along with them, like heavy metals. And that’s a whole area I think that people have explored more in the marine-life area, but it’s probably affecting us as well. In our first paper that I mentioned, where we looked at nanoparticle transport in the lung chip, we could absolutely show activation of inflammation. And inflammation is, you know, at the heart of almost every disease and also even cancer progression. It was the nanoparticles being taken up that drove that.

Johnson: There was a recent study that did come out that I thought was pretty exciting, where they looked at patients who are undergoing carotid endarterectomies, so they were scraping the plaque out of the arteries, and then they analyzed the plaque for microplastics. And they found that those who had microplastics in the plaque, I believe it was at least 50 percent, I think it was more than 50 percent, they were able to associate the microplastic levels with morbidity and mortality three years later. And to my knowledge, it’s one of the first studies that were able to show basically a clinical outcome associated with the presence of the microplastics.

Demokritou: One additional point, Sam. All the plastics that we’re currently using, they are loaded with additives. And those additives have plenty of literature, historical, epidemiological, and toxicological data that they can cause harm. We know the phthalates, that they’re there to make the plastic soft, they’re endocrine-disrupting chemicals. And these micronanoplastics now, when they’re taken up by our cells and the body, they are the carriers of these additives so they can more efficiently deliver chemicals into our body. So, it’s kind of a Trojan horse of delivering chemicals from the plastics themselves. We have a paper now in review that as these micronanoplastics wandering in the environment, they carry other environmental pollutants on their surface because of their hydrophobic nature. And also they can really deliver these environmental pollutants more effectively in our bodies.

Ingber: It’s like the cumulative exposure to chemicals of any type that matters, not just whether you saw it for a short time. And these particles, when they’re ingested, are what we call sustained-release vehicles, meaning they’re just sitting there and every day they’re releasing a little bit for the rest of the lifetime of those cells in your gut or other organs, and so that makes it even more dangerous.

Laine Perfas: That actually gets to a clarifying question I wanted to ask, which is: Is it the plastic itself that’s dangerous, or is it all the additives and chemicals that are in the plastic?

Demokritou: I think it’s a combination of the two. I mean, you cannot rule one or the other. And that is one of the major knowledge gaps that we have in toxicological studies of micronanoplastics. Actually, in my labs right now, we have developed platforms that enable us to simulate what happens to a plastic material across its life cycle as it goes through these stressors, which can be mechanical, it can be weathering, UV photo oxidation, thermal stressors. We can shorten what happens to plastic material over 50 years and we make what we call reference micronanoplastic materials that are environmentally relevant. And those are the ones we use in our toxicological studies.

Laine Perfas: Mary, I actually wanted to ask you, with microplastics, I saw some of your work was actually looking at different communities who are at higher risk of being affected than others. Could you talk about that a little bit?

Johnson: A lot of our research has looked at communities that are disadvantaged and are typically exposed to high levels of chronic air pollution and/or wildfire smoke. We don’t have hard data yet, but within that context, it is thought that those groups would also be more exposed to microplastics. A similar concept would be those who are living next to industries, and those also tend to be the disadvantaged populations, and so those types of vulnerable populations are probably going to fall fairly similar to what we see for those exposed to chronic air pollution and exposure to wildfire smoke. There have been a limited amount of studies, not our own, that have found that, at least in the indoor environment, infants are more at risk for exposure, and the second category would be preschoolers, and as you go up, you become less and less exposed to the microplastics. As we’re able to monitor indoor or outdoor air for actual microplastic numbers, we’ll have a better idea of the different age ranges and vulnerabilities.

Ingber: Do they think that infants and small children have greater exposure because everything that you give to a kid is plastic because it tends to be cheap and safer and they put everything in their mouths? Is that why or something about absorb from air?

Johnson: I do believe that the younger populations are exposed to a lot more plastics, but I believe that particular study was focusing on indoor dust, which is where the microplastics were primarily found.

Laine Perfas: I guess I’m surprised. I would have thought that people who are older, who’ve been on earth longer, would be more at risk.

Johnson: Yeah, I believe it was, they were referring to the inhalation basically of the dust in the indoor home, which makes sense, and the younger they are and they’re on the floors and not washing their hands and crawling and closer to the dust itself in the home. But it’s a very limited amount of research that’s come out so far, looking at those associations. So I do think much more needs to be done looking at which populations are truly vulnerable and we should be targeting to try to prevent exposure as much as possible.

Demokritou: I think it might be worth [discussing] a little bit more what happens on the global scale. There is a very recent paper, came out in Nature, which is the first effort to quantify and come up with an inventory of emissions of plastics around the world. And in high-income countries, generally speaking, we did well, not amazingly well, but we did well in containing and controlling the plastic pollution. That’s not the case in low-income countries. About 50, 60 million tons of plastic waste out of these 250 million metric tons that we’re generating globally, it’s uncontained. And in these countries, you will see open fires and burning plastic. You will see debris everywhere and the populations in those countries are getting exposed at higher levels compared to all of us in the United States, for instance. So we really need to do a little bit more at a global scale because environmental pollutants, they transcend boundaries. So if you put micronanoplastics in the air, they will travel, especially the nanoscale particles. They can go thousands of miles, and they can be everywhere. We need to keep that in mind as we address this global issue.

Johnson: I’d like to also bring up, there was a study that sampled tap water globally and 80 percent of the samples had microplastics in them. It’s certainly another issue that maybe isn’t talked about as much, although there was a study looking at bottled water and levels of microplastics, and it was pretty shocking how high of a concentration that were in the bottles. So many areas, I think that, need to be addressed.

Ingber: It obviously depends on whether you have copper pipes, or nowadays PVC is used all over and actually plastic tubing is used now quite a bit. It probably varies enormously, but it’s hard to escape.

Sam, I think it’s important to note that plastics is a general term that are, you know, materials that can be easily formed and take shapes that you desire and that’s where its initial term came from. In medicine, there are plastics that are biodegradable. That’s very different. Those can be broken down to the individual monomers or links. And so we’re talking about ones that can’t be broken down here, often petroleum industry-based and so forth. There’s a lot of work going on at my institute and other places in terms of both bioplastics, things that are easily even compostable, you can put it in the compost to break it down, or ways to remediate and break down plastics that are all over the place. I think that is really where hope lies.

Laine Perfas: I actually wanted to ask a question about that. How are we doing when it comes to discovering plastic alternatives?

Demokritou: We really need to substitute the non-biodegradable plastics, especially the ones that are single-use. Myself and Kit Parker from Wyss Institute, we have this project trying to extract biopolymers from food waste and then turn them into potential nanofibers to replace food packaging, which is a major source of plastic. And actually most of the food packaging we’re using, it’s single-use. So it will end up in landfills. We developed and we published a paper in Nature, I think a year or two ago, that we developed the first water-soluble, washable plastic material that can be used as an alternative for food packaging.

Ingber: Maybe 10 years ago, we developed a material that was inspired by insect cuticle, right? Think of a lobster, you know, or a beetle, very hard shell, but they’re also flexible. And it turns out that it’s all the same material that’s almost like plywood made up of layers; it’s called chitin in insects. And so we made something we called shrilk, which was the chitin, or breakdown products called chitosan, from shrimp shells, and silk fibroin, from silk. Chitosan is used in medical products for wound healing and silk is in surgical sutures, so it’s safe. And when we recreated the layer-by-layer structure, we actually had material that was optically clear but had the strength of aluminum foil and it could be molded. And so we were really excited about that. The challenges in that world, and I think for even Philip’s technology, is scaling up manufacturing so that you can do this at a cost-effective way.

The other side of this that we’ve had some really exciting recent breakthroughs is breaking down of plastics. And there have been some groups recently published that they can find microbes, bacteria that can degrade one type of plastic. And that’s gotten a huge excitement. We have bacteria that we isolated from the microbiome of a worm that degrades plastic on its own. And it degrades at least four different types of the major classes of plastic, and that’s led to a startup company; that was between my lab and George Church’s at the Wyss Institute. The reason we’re excited about this new startup is that it can work in a complex mixture. It doesn’t need to go through the current recycling pipeline of isolating each bit and then trying to degrade one at a time. And I think that’s the kind of thing that we need.

Laine Perfas: Given what we know and don’t know, are there things that we can do as consumers to reduce our exposure now, while we wait for some of these other changes to happen?

Demokritou: I think we should start from the societal level. We really need to actually come up with a strategy, and this is what we call the “three R waste hierarchy.” So we need to reduce use of plastics. We need to reuse plastics as much as we can. Of course, recycling has to increase, where 9 percent in the United States, it’s very low, and the single-use plastics that will end up in the environment, we need to substitute them, if possible with biodegradable, nontoxic plastics. Of course, we need to get all stakeholders on board. We need to redesign products, which may add to the cost, and it’s also the question of who is paying this add-on cost? Is it the consumer? Those are fundamental questions that we really need to start discussing. And the most effective approach is to do a source reduction. If we reduce the use, if all of us reduce the use of plastics, myself included, I think that can be a really good start.

Ingber: Think about how quickly solar and wind have changed in terms of energy. It required huge political shifts and financial incentives. And I think it’s got to be at that level. I mean, sure, every individual could stop buying plastic water bottles and using plastic bags and use wood cutting boards, but it’s got to be top-down at the same time.

Demokritou: There is this effort by United Nations to put in place a legally binding global plastics treaty, similar to the climate treaty, which is gaining track actually the last couple years; there are already I think 150 countries, signed this treaty. And again, this is at the global level because we need to see the plastic crisis across the board, not only at the local level, and not only at the high-income countries.

Johnson: I guess I would say, obviously, yeah, everything has to be dealt with at a global level, but even so, as a consumer I feel like I can’t wait, I want to minimize my own exposure. And I think having the mindset of when you purchase something, actually knowing what you’re buying helps. Simple examples would be clothing, synthetic clothing versus buying an all-cotton product or an area rug. Synthetic rugs are really cheap and soft. And wool rugs cost more, but you would be reducing the potential amount of microplastics that you’re being exposed to. You mentioned the kitchen. I do try to have nothing plastic used in the kitchen, if possible, it’s not always possible, and avoid, if there is plastic, it being exposed to heat, which can make the chemicals leach out faster. And I think it would be helpful to consumers to have some type of labeling on products, especially until we get these biodegradable plastics, so people are more educated and can make better choices in trying to minimize their exposure to the plastics.

Laine Perfas: So all of these are good suggestions for minimizing future exposure on a global and personal scale. Is there anything that we know of that we can do to remove the plastic that’s already in our bodies?

Ingber: Yeah. I think that’s something we need to figure out.

Demokritou: Another important element, Sam, is, we need better monitoring. Plastics, micronutrient plastics are not in the list of the chemicals that we’re monitoring in terms of biomonitoring. I know some states like California, they’re trying to include micronanoplastics in their plans. And also the reporting is very important. But we need to develop the methods to be able to do it efficiently, the identification and quantification, because it’s not just the identification. It’s not that I found one microplastic in my bottle of water. So it’s the dose makes the poison. We need to quantify our exposures at the human population level.

Laine Perfas: So if I could give each of you a magic wand that you could wave to either speed up the research on something that’s already happening, or to just solve an aspect of this problem, what do you think are the things that would make the biggest difference on this issue right now?

Ingber: You heard Philip say that we want to reduce, replace, reuse. What I’m seeing out there, and I get to see technologies that are really out there coming down the pipeline at the Institute, I really do think this idea of harnessing the way some organisms can break down plastics. And so it is possible. And so what we have to do is not only find ones that break it down, but link it into a cycle so that you have a full remediation, reuse, replacement cycle. And do it in a cost-effective way. It has to be cost-effective, or it will never get anywhere.

Johnson: I guess for my wish, I think having a scalable method to accurately measure the microplastics, whether it’s air or water or in tissue, would be really advantageous, so we can begin to better understand the exposures obviously, but the health impacts.

Demokritou: I think, definitely we need technologies to clean the mess we created, but we really need to start thinking of how we can reduce the use of plastics, because we can’t just throw toxic compounds out there and then develop the technologies to clean the mess.

Laine Perfas: Thank you all for joining me for this conversation. I learned a lot and I really appreciate it.

Ingber: Thank you.

Demokritou: Thank you.

Laine Perfas: Thanks for listening; to find links to all of our episodes and a transcript of this one, visit harvard.edu/thinking. This episode was hosted and produced by me, Samantha Laine Perfas. It was edited by Ryan Mulcahy, Simona Covel, and Paul Makishima with additional production and editing support from Sarah Lamodi. Original music and sound designed by Noel Flatt. This podcast was produced by Harvard University, copyright 2024.

Recommended reading and viewing

• “ A plateful of plastic ” by Reuters Graphics
• “ Polishing off Plastic Pollution? ” by Harvard Magazine
• “ Microplastics Are Everywhere. What Are They Doing to Our Health? ” by Discover Magazine
• “ Microplastics Everywhere ” by Harvard Medicine
• “ Phthalates explained ” by Harvard University
• “ Bioplastics: Environmentally-friendly plastics that biodegrade and require less energy to make ” by the Wyss Institute

More episodes

What skeptics get wrong about liberal arts

In podcast episode, an economist, an educator, and a philosopher make the case it’s as essential as ever in today’s job market

Taking the phones out of school

In podcast episode, experts discuss growing movement to restrict devices in class

How far has COVID set back students?

An economist, a policy expert, and a teacher explain why learning losses are worse than many parents realize

Forgiving what you can’t forget

Wronged and can’t move on? A theologian, a psychologist, and a public health expert discuss why and how to heal.

Is AI friend or foe? Wrong question.

A lawyer, a computer scientist, and a statistician debate ethics of artificial intelligence

Facing death with dignity

A chaplain, a bioethicist, and a doctor talk about end-of-life care

Climate alignment is no easy task

Experts at the Salata Institute outline tensions between global and local priorities

Our democracy problem

‘Harvard Thinking’ asks three scholars how a ‘big, heterogeneous, diverse country’ can avoid coming apart

What do we do with our loneliness?

‘Harvard Thinking’ looks at health crisis with experts Jeremy Nobel and Milena Batanova

How much drinking is too much?

‘Harvard Thinking’ explores the health effects of moderate alcohol consumption

Get the best of the Gazette delivered to your inbox

By subscribing to this newsletter you’re agreeing to our privacy policy

Share this article

You might like.

Hope flags when medications fail, isolating and endangering patients. Backed by a major grant, 2 Harvard scientists are focused on reducing the distance between diagnosis and recovery.

Experts fear more cases of West Nile virus, EEE (and possibly Zika, Dengue fever) as warm seasons get longer, wetter

Surgeon, professor Marty Makary examines damage wrought when medicine closes ranks around inaccurate dogma

What happened when a meteorite the size of four Mount Everests hit Earth? 

Giant impact had silver lining for life, according to new study

How to apply cool-headed reason to red-hot topics

Michael J. Sandel brings back wildly popular ‘Justice’ course amid time of strained discourse on college campuses

Do phones belong in schools?

Banning cellphones may help protect classroom focus, but school districts need to stay mindful of students’ sense of connection, experts say.

Along with Stanford news and stories, show me:

• Student information
• Faculty/Staff information

We want to provide announcements, events, leadership messages and resources that are relevant to you. Your selection is stored in a browser cookie which you can remove at any time using “Clear all personalization” below.

• Research led by Nicholas Bloom shows that employees who work from home for two days a week are just as productive and as likely to be promoted as their fully office-based peers.
• The study found that hybrid work had zero effect on workers’ productivity or career advancement and dramatically boosted retention rates.

It is one of the most hotly debated topics in today’s workplace: Is allowing employees to log in from home a few days a week good for their productivity, careers, and job satisfaction?

Nicholas Bloom, a Stanford economist and one of the foremost researchers on work-from-home policies, has uncovered compelling evidence that hybrid schedules are a boon to both employees and their bosses. 

In a study, newly published in the journal Nature , of an experiment on more than 1,600 workers at Trip.com – a Chinese company that is one of the world’s largest online travel agencies – Bloom finds that employees who work from home for two days a week are just as productive and as likely to be promoted as their fully office-based peers.

On a third key measure, employee turnover, the results were also encouraging. Resignations fell by 33% among workers who shifted from working full-time in the office to a hybrid schedule. Women, non-managers, and employees with long commutes were the least likely to quit their jobs when their treks to the office were cut to three days a week. Trip.com estimates that reduced attrition saved the company millions of dollars. 

“The results are clear: Hybrid work is a win-win-win for employee productivity, performance, and retention,” says Bloom, who is the William D. Eberle Professor of Economics at the Stanford School of Humanities and Sciences and also a senior fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research (SIEPR).

The findings are especially significant given that, by Bloom’s count, about 100 million workers worldwide now spend a mix of days at home and in the office each week, more than four years after COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns upended how and where people do their jobs. Many of these hybrid workers are lawyers, accountants, marketers, software engineers, and others with a college degree or higher. 

Over time, though, working outside the office has come under attack from high-profile business leaders like Elon Musk, the head of Tesla, SpaceX, and X (formerly Twitter), and Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, who argue that the costs of remote work outweigh any benefits. Opponents say that employee training and mentoring, innovation, and company culture suffer when workers are not on-site five days a week.

Blooms says that critics often confuse hybrid for fully remote, in part because most of the research into working from home has focused on workers who aren’t required to come into an office and on a specific type of job, like customer support or data entry. The results of these studies have been mixed, though they tend to skew negative. This suggests to Bloom that problems with fully remote work arise when it’s not managed well.

As one of the few randomized control trials to analyze hybrid arrangements – where workers are offsite two or three days a week and are in the office the rest of the time – Bloom says his findings offer important lessons for other multinationals, many of which share similarities with Trip.com.

“This study offers powerful evidence for why 80% of U.S. companies now offer some form of remote work,” Bloom says, “and for why the remaining 20% of firms that don’t are likely paying a price.”

The research is also the largest to date of hybrid work involving university-trained professionals that rely on the gold standard in research, the randomized controlled trial. This allowed Bloom and his co-authors to show that the benefits they identified resulted from Trip.com’s hybrid experiment and not something else.

In addition to Bloom, the study’s authors are Ruobing Han, an assistant professor at The Chinese University of Hong Kong, and James Liang, an economics professor at Peking University and co-founder of Trip.com. Han and Liang both earned their PhDs in economics from Stanford.

The hybrid approach: Only winners

Trip.com didn’t have a hybrid work policy when it undertook the six-month experiment starting in 2021 that is at the heart of the study. In all, 395 managers and 1,217 non-managers with undergraduate degrees – all of whom worked in engineering, marketing, accounting, and finance in the company’s Shanghai office – participated. Employees whose birthdays fell on an even-numbered day of the month were told to come to the office five days a week. Workers with odd-numbered birthdays were allowed to work from home two days a week.

Of the study participants, 32% also had postgraduate degrees, mostly in computer science, accounting, or finance. Most were in their mid-30s, half had children, and 65% were male. 

In finding that hybrid work not only helps employees, but also companies, the researchers relied on various company data and worker surveys, including performance reviews and promotions for up to two years after the experiment. Trip.com’s thorough performance review process includes evaluations of an employee’s contributions to innovation, leadership, and mentoring. 

The study authors also compared the quality and amount of computer code written by Trip.com software engineers who were hybrid against code produced by peers who were in the office full-time.

In finding that hybrid work had zero effect on workers’ productivity or career advancement and dramatically boosted retention rates, the study authors highlight some important nuances. Resignations, for example, fell only among non-managers; managers were just as likely to quit whether they were hybrid or not.

Bloom and his co-authors identify misconceptions held by workers and their bosses. Workers, especially women, were reluctant to sign up as volunteers for Trip.com’s hybrid trial – likely for fear that they would be judged negatively for not coming into the office five days a week, Bloom says. In addition, managers predicted on average that remote working would hurt productivity, only to change their minds by the time the experiment ended. 

For business leaders, Bloom says the study confirms that concerns that hybrid work does more harm than good are overblown.

“If managed right, letting employees work from home two or three days a week still gets you the level of mentoring, culture-building, and innovation that you want,” Bloom says. “From an economic policymaking standpoint, hybrid work is one of the few instances where there aren’t major trade-offs with clear winners and clear losers. There are almost only winners.”

Trip.com was sold: It now allows hybrid work companywide.

[email protected]