method section of research proposal

• Essay Editor

How to Write a Methodology in a Research Proposal

In academic research, crafting a solid methodology is crucial, acting as the foundation for a reliable study structure. It provides the framework that guides the investigation towards addressing research questions and achieving study objectives. Understanding ‘What is methodology in research?’, the components it entails, its efficient organization, and the essential steps required, is vital for aspiring academics.

This comprehensive guide explores the intricacies of accurately generating a methods section in a research proposal. It includes examples, insights, and strategies meticulously drawn from reputable academic sources, experienced instructors, and educational platforms.

What is a Research Proposal Methodology?

The thought-provoking part – methodology in a research paper – acts as a guide that describes the methods of analysis, research instruments, and procedures utilized to conduct the investigation. It delineates the survey design, analysis techniques, data retrieval methods, and ethics-related concerns, crucial for carrying out the investigation. Let's say that in a qualitative survey exploring the influence of social media on mental well-being, the approach section would elucidate how data is compiled through participant interviews or assessments and examined using thematic analysis.

Struggling with ‘how to write a research proposal’? Explore how our AI-powered Aithor Text Generator Assistant transforms the process, seamlessly generating content, reviewing errors, and providing suggestions for ideas and citations. Enhance your work’s proposal effortlessly with our comprehensive tool.

The Structure of the Research Proposal Methodology

In generating a research proposal, the written part for methodology serves as a pivotal element that charts the course of the investigation, delineating the stages and strategies to be employed. Let’s delve into essential elements to feature in this section.

1.  Research Design: Begin by elucidating the overall academic design of your survey, whether it's a quantitative, qualitative method, or mixed. Let’s say, a quantitative investigation may employ surveys with closed-ended queries to compile numerical data. 

2.  Data Retrieval Methods: Delineate the specific approaches employed to compile data, comprising observations, experiments, interviews, or previously collected material – secondary data analysis. Each method must be justified based on its suitability for addressing the investigation queries.

3.  Sampling Strategy: Describe the way survey participants or data samples are selected, ensuring representativeness, and minimizing bias. As an example, a random sampling method may select partakers from the population.

4.  Data Analysis Techniques: Detail the analytical tools and tactics you will use to scrutinize the compiled data. This can involve various methods such as content analysis, thematic exploration, statistical evaluation, or discourse examination, based on the research queries and the data type.

5.  Ethical Concerns: Consider ethical issues like informed consent, privacy-related concerns, confidentiality, and potential threats to participants. Abiding by ethical guidelines is pivotal for upholding investigation trustworthiness.

Largely, the research design outlines how the inquiry will proceed and guarantees precision and dependability in achieving its objectives.  

How to Write a Methodology Section for Research Proposals: The Essential Steps

Creating a well-planned methods section is essential for precisely managing your investigation. Curious about how to write a methodology section? Begin by clearly defining your investigation issue and the hypothesis to set a robust foundation for your inquiry.

Step 1: Specify a Problem Statement and a Strong Hypothesis

Firstly, state the investigation problem, or query that your work aims to address. Here’s a sample: "The study intends to explore the correlation between youngsters' use of social media and their resulting mental well-being."

Express a strong hypothesis that predicts the expected connection between variables. For instance, "It is hypothesized that greater social site usage linked negatively to self-reported mental health records."

Step 2: Define Your Methodological Approach

Select an appropriate methodological approach depending on your investigation design from techniques named qualitative, quantitative, or mixed.

Validate your preference of approach by explaining its suitability for addressing the queries and aims. To illustrate, "A qualitative method is selected to analyze participants' lived experiences and views regarding social media usage and psychological health."

Step 3: Outline Data Collection Methods

Detail the approaches used to gather data, comprising the tools utilized.

For example, "Semi-structured interviews will be conducted to gather rich qualitative records on participants' experiences with social media platforms."

Discuss any pilot testing or validation procedures conducted for the data retrieval mechanisms.

Step 4: Detail Data Analysis Procedures

Specify the analytical methods employed to assess the gathered data. For instance, "Thematic analysis will be utilized to uncover recurring patterns and themes in the interview transcripts concerning the usage of social media impact and mental condition outcomes."

Examine how data saturation or triangulation will be achieved to establish credibility for the investigation findings.

Step 5: Address Ethical Concerns

Offer a comprehensive overview of the ethical concerns in the inquiry, comprising safeguarding participants' privacy, attaining informed consent, and addressing potential risks.

Detail any ethical approvals or permissions obtained from relevant committees that oversee investigation like ethics panels or IRBs – institution-focused review boards.

Briefly, addressing ethical concerns and obtaining necessary approvals are critical steps in safeguarding the credibility of your inquiry outcomes. Also, stay updated on the methodology outline format to make sure your analysis proposal aligns with current standards and best practices. By precisely detailing your methodology ethics and practices, you contribute significantly to advancing expertise in your domain.

Tips on Improving Your Methodology Section - Strategies and Examples

How can you guarantee that your procedures section is succinct, coherent, and easily comprehensible? Below, we provide actionable steps to guide you in constructing a methodology that elevates the clarity of your writing.

1.  Clarity and Precision: Check and refine your methods section for conciseness, clarity, and lack of ambiguity. Use straightforward language and avoid words or phrases like jargon or technical terms that may hinder reader understanding.

2.  Justification: Justify every methodology-based selection by explaining its rationale and relevance to your investigation objectives. For example, "The use of purposive sampling ensures the inclusion of participants with diverse experiences related to social media usage."

3.  Transparency: Be sufficiently transparent about any limitations or constraints in this part, be it data collection challenges or sample size limitations. This enhances the trustworthiness of your work.

4.  Validation: Discuss any validation or reliability checks conducted for your data retrieval instruments or analytical procedures. Verification improves the reliability and authenticity of your findings.

5.  Peer Review: Consider obtaining feedback from researchers who are knowledgeable about study methodology to review, enhance, and polish your methodology section. Peer review acts as a helping tool to detect potential weaknesses or areas needing enhancement.

Prioritize justification, transparency, validation, and peer feedback to increase the validity and integrity of your methodology. These elements significantly contribute to the progression of knowledge in your academic field.

Final Thoughts

To wrap up, comprehending how to write a methodology section in a study proposal and eventually mastering this art is essential for carrying out impactful and rigorous studies. By following the ethical guidelines and outlined steps, and carefully organizing your methods section, you elevate the quality and credibility of your investigation. A well-designed methodology supports both your inquiry's execution and the advancement of expertise in your field. Best of luck with your research!

Related articles

Plagiarism: 7 types in detail.

Your professor says that it is necessary to avoid plagiarism when writing a research paper, essay, or any project based on the works of other people, so to say, any reference source. But what does plagiarism mean? What types of it exist? And how to formulate the material to get rid of potential bad consequences while rendering original texts? Today we try to answer these very questions. Plagiarism: Aspect in Brief Plagiarism is considered to be a serious breach, able to spoil your successful ...

How To Write Essays Faster Using AI?

Creating various topical texts is an obligatory assignment during studies. For a majority of students, it seems like a real headache. It is quite difficult to write a smooth and complex work, meeting all the professors' requirements. However, thanks to modern technologies there appeared a good way of getting a decent project – using AI to write essays. We'd like to acquaint you with Aithor, an effective tool of this kind, able to perform fine and elaborated texts, and, of course, inspiration, i ...

What is Citation and Why Should You Cite the Sources When Writing Content

When we write something for school, work, or just for fun, we often use ideas and facts from other places. This makes us ask: what is a citation in writing? Let's find out what this means and why it's really important when we write. What is Citation? Citation in research refers to the practice of telling your readers where you got your information, ideas, or exact words from. It's like showing them the path to the original information you used in your writing. When you cite something, you us ...

Paraphrasing vs Plagiarism: Do They Really Differ?

Academic assignments require much knowledge and skill. One of the most important points is rendering and interpreting material one has ever studied. A person should avoid presenting word-for-word plagiarism but express his or her thoughts and ideas as much as possible. However, every fine research is certain to be based on the previous issues, data given, or concepts suggested. And here it's high time to differentiate plagiarism and paraphrasing, to realize its peculiarities and cases of usage. ...

What Is Self-Plagiarism & How To Avoid It

Have you ever thought about whether using your own work again could be seen as copying? It might seem strange, but self-plagiarism is a real issue in school and work writing. Let's look at what this means and learn how to avoid self-plagiarism so your work stays original and ethical. What is self-plagiarism? Self-plagiarism, also called auto-plagiarism or duplicate plagiarism, happens when a writer uses parts of their old work without saying where it came from. This isn't just about copying w ...

How to Write a Dialogue in an Essay: Useful Tips

A correct usage of dialogues in essays may seem quite difficult at first sight. Still there are special issues, for instance, narrative or descriptive papers, where this literary technique will be a good helper in depicting anyone's character. How to add dialogues to the work? How to format them correctly? Let's discuss all relevant matters to master putting conversation episodes into academic essays. Essay Dialogue: Definition & Purpose A dialogue is a literary technique for presenting a con ...

Can Plagiarism Be Detected on PDF?

Plagiarism has been a challenge for a long time in writing. It's easy to find information online, which might make some people use it without saying where it came from. But plagiarism isn't just taking someone else's words. Sometimes, we might do it by accident or even use our own old work without mentioning it. When people plagiarize, they can get into serious trouble. They might lose others' trust or even face legal problems. Luckily, we now have tools to detect plagiarism. But what about PDF ...

Top 10 Use Cases for AI Writers

Writing is changing a lot because of AI. But don't worry — AI won't take human writers' jobs. It's a tool that can make our work easier and help us write better. When we use AI along with our own skills, we can create good content faster and better. AI can help with many parts of writing, from coming up with ideas to fixing the final version. Let's look at the top 10 ways how to use AI for content creation and how it can make your writing better. What Is AI Content Writing? AI content writin ...

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

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

What Is a Research Methodology? | Steps & Tips

Published on August 25, 2022 by Shona McCombes and Tegan George. Revised on November 20, 2023.

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

It should include:

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

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

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

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

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

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

Option 1: Start with your “what”

What research problem or question did you investigate?

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

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

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

Option 2: Start with your “why”

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

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

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

Quantitative methods

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Information bias
• Omitted variable bias
• Regression to the mean
• Survivorship bias
• Undercoverage bias
• Sampling bias

Qualitative methods

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The Hawthorne effect
• Observer bias
• The placebo effect
• Response bias and Nonresponse bias
• The Pygmalion effect
• Recall bias
• Social desirability bias
• Self-selection bias

Mixed methods

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

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

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

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

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

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

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

Specific methods might include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Focus on your objectives and research questions

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

2. Cite relevant sources

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

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

3. Write for your audience

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

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

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Normal distribution
• Measures of central tendency
• Chi square tests
• Confidence interval
• Quartiles & Quantiles

Methodology

• Cluster sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Thematic analysis
• Cohort study
• Peer review
• Ethnography

Research bias

• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Conformity bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Availability heuristic
• Attrition bias

Methodology refers to the overarching strategy and rationale of your research project . It involves studying the methods used in your field and the theories or principles behind them, in order to develop an approach that matches your objectives.

Methods are the specific tools and procedures you use to collect and analyze data (for example, experiments, surveys , and statistical tests ).

In shorter scientific papers, where the aim is to report the findings of a specific study, you might simply describe what you did in a methods section .

In a longer or more complex research project, such as a thesis or dissertation , you will probably include a methodology section , where you explain your approach to answering the research questions and cite relevant sources to support your choice of methods.

In a scientific paper, the methodology always comes after the introduction and before the results , discussion and conclusion . The same basic structure also applies to a thesis, dissertation , or research proposal .

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

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

Quantitative methods allow you to systematically measure variables and test hypotheses . Qualitative methods allow you to explore concepts and experiences in more detail.

Reliability and validity are both about how well a method measures something:

• Reliability refers to the  consistency of a measure (whether the results can be reproduced under the same conditions).
• Validity   refers to the  accuracy of a measure (whether the results really do represent what they are supposed to measure).

If you are doing experimental research, you also have to consider the internal and external validity of your experiment.

A sample is a subset of individuals from a larger population . Sampling means selecting the group that you will actually collect data from in your research. For example, if you are researching the opinions of students in your university, you could survey a sample of 100 students.

In statistics, sampling allows you to test a hypothesis about the characteristics of a population.

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. & George, T. (2023, November 20). What Is a Research Methodology? | Steps & Tips. Scribbr. Retrieved September 4, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/methodology/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research design | types, guide & examples, qualitative vs. quantitative research | differences, examples & methods, what is your plagiarism score.

How To Write The Methodology Chapter

The what, why & how explained simply (with examples).

By: Jenna Crossley (PhD) | Reviewed By: Dr. Eunice Rautenbach | September 2021 (Updated April 2023)

So, you’ve pinned down your research topic and undertaken a review of the literature – now it’s time to write up the methodology section of your dissertation, thesis or research paper . But what exactly is the methodology chapter all about – and how do you go about writing one? In this post, we’ll unpack the topic, step by step .

Overview: The Methodology Chapter

• The purpose  of the methodology chapter
• Why you need to craft this chapter (really) well
• How to write and structure the chapter
• Methodology chapter example
• Essential takeaways

What (exactly) is the methodology chapter?

The methodology chapter is where you outline the philosophical underpinnings of your research and outline the specific methodological choices you’ve made. The point of the methodology chapter is to tell the reader exactly how you designed your study and, just as importantly, why you did it this way.

Importantly, this chapter should comprehensively describe and justify all the methodological choices you made in your study. For example, the approach you took to your research (i.e., qualitative, quantitative or mixed), who  you collected data from (i.e., your sampling strategy), how you collected your data and, of course, how you analysed it. If that sounds a little intimidating, don’t worry – we’ll explain all these methodological choices in this post .

Why is the methodology chapter important?

The methodology chapter plays two important roles in your dissertation or thesis:

Firstly, it demonstrates your understanding of research theory, which is what earns you marks. A flawed research design or methodology would mean flawed results. So, this chapter is vital as it allows you to show the marker that you know what you’re doing and that your results are credible .

Secondly, the methodology chapter is what helps to make your study replicable. In other words, it allows other researchers to undertake your study using the same methodological approach, and compare their findings to yours. This is very important within academic research, as each study builds on previous studies.

The methodology chapter is also important in that it allows you to identify and discuss any methodological issues or problems you encountered (i.e., research limitations ), and to explain how you mitigated the impacts of these. Every research project has its limitations , so it’s important to acknowledge these openly and highlight your study’s value despite its limitations . Doing so demonstrates your understanding of research design, which will earn you marks. We’ll discuss limitations in a bit more detail later in this post, so stay tuned!

Need a helping hand?

How to write up the methodology chapter

First off, it’s worth noting that the exact structure and contents of the methodology chapter will vary depending on the field of research (e.g., humanities, chemistry or engineering) as well as the university . So, be sure to always check the guidelines provided by your institution for clarity and, if possible, review past dissertations from your university. Here we’re going to discuss a generic structure for a methodology chapter typically found in the sciences.

Before you start writing, it’s always a good idea to draw up a rough outline to guide your writing. Don’t just start writing without knowing what you’ll discuss where. If you do, you’ll likely end up with a disjointed, ill-flowing narrative . You’ll then waste a lot of time rewriting in an attempt to try to stitch all the pieces together. Do yourself a favour and start with the end in mind .

Section 1 – Introduction

As with all chapters in your dissertation or thesis, the methodology chapter should have a brief introduction. In this section, you should remind your readers what the focus of your study is, especially the research aims . As we’ve discussed many times on the blog, your methodology needs to align with your research aims, objectives and research questions. Therefore, it’s useful to frontload this component to remind the reader (and yourself!) what you’re trying to achieve.

In this section, you can also briefly mention how you’ll structure the chapter. This will help orient the reader and provide a bit of a roadmap so that they know what to expect. You don’t need a lot of detail here – just a brief outline will do.

Section 2 – The Methodology

The next section of your chapter is where you’ll present the actual methodology. In this section, you need to detail and justify the key methodological choices you’ve made in a logical, intuitive fashion. Importantly, this is the heart of your methodology chapter, so you need to get specific – don’t hold back on the details here. This is not one of those “less is more” situations.

Let’s take a look at the most common components you’ll likely need to cover. 

Methodological Choice #1 – Research Philosophy

Research philosophy refers to the underlying beliefs (i.e., the worldview) regarding how data about a phenomenon should be gathered , analysed and used . The research philosophy will serve as the core of your study and underpin all of the other research design choices, so it’s critically important that you understand which philosophy you’ll adopt and why you made that choice. If you’re not clear on this, take the time to get clarity before you make any further methodological choices.

While several research philosophies exist, two commonly adopted ones are positivism and interpretivism . These two sit roughly on opposite sides of the research philosophy spectrum.

Positivism states that the researcher can observe reality objectively and that there is only one reality, which exists independently of the observer. As a consequence, it is quite commonly the underlying research philosophy in quantitative studies and is oftentimes the assumed philosophy in the physical sciences.

Contrasted with this, interpretivism , which is often the underlying research philosophy in qualitative studies, assumes that the researcher performs a role in observing the world around them and that reality is unique to each observer . In other words, reality is observed subjectively .

These are just two philosophies (there are many more), but they demonstrate significantly different approaches to research and have a significant impact on all the methodological choices. Therefore, it’s vital that you clearly outline and justify your research philosophy at the beginning of your methodology chapter, as it sets the scene for everything that follows.

Methodological Choice #2 – Research Type

The next thing you would typically discuss in your methodology section is the research type. The starting point for this is to indicate whether the research you conducted is inductive or deductive .

Inductive research takes a bottom-up approach , where the researcher begins with specific observations or data and then draws general conclusions or theories from those observations. Therefore these studies tend to be exploratory in terms of approach.

Conversely , d eductive research takes a top-down approach , where the researcher starts with a theory or hypothesis and then tests it using specific observations or data. Therefore these studies tend to be confirmatory in approach.

Related to this, you’ll need to indicate whether your study adopts a qualitative, quantitative or mixed  approach. As we’ve mentioned, there’s a strong link between this choice and your research philosophy, so make sure that your choices are tightly aligned . When you write this section up, remember to clearly justify your choices, as they form the foundation of your study.

Methodological Choice #3 – Research Strategy

Next, you’ll need to discuss your research strategy (also referred to as a research design ). This methodological choice refers to the broader strategy in terms of how you’ll conduct your research, based on the aims of your study.

Several research strategies exist, including experimental , case studies , ethnography , grounded theory, action research , and phenomenology . Let’s take a look at two of these, experimental and ethnographic, to see how they contrast.

Experimental research makes use of the scientific method , where one group is the control group (in which no variables are manipulated ) and another is the experimental group (in which a specific variable is manipulated). This type of research is undertaken under strict conditions in a controlled, artificial environment (e.g., a laboratory). By having firm control over the environment, experimental research typically allows the researcher to establish causation between variables. Therefore, it can be a good choice if you have research aims that involve identifying causal relationships.

Ethnographic research , on the other hand, involves observing and capturing the experiences and perceptions of participants in their natural environment (for example, at home or in the office). In other words, in an uncontrolled environment.  Naturally, this means that this research strategy would be far less suitable if your research aims involve identifying causation, but it would be very valuable if you’re looking to explore and examine a group culture, for example.

As you can see, the right research strategy will depend largely on your research aims and research questions – in other words, what you’re trying to figure out. Therefore, as with every other methodological choice, it’s essential to justify why you chose the research strategy you did.

Methodological Choice #4 – Time Horizon

The next thing you’ll need to detail in your methodology chapter is the time horizon. There are two options here: cross-sectional and longitudinal . In other words, whether the data for your study were all collected at one point in time (cross-sectional) or at multiple points in time (longitudinal).

The choice you make here depends again on your research aims, objectives and research questions. If, for example, you aim to assess how a specific group of people’s perspectives regarding a topic change over time , you’d likely adopt a longitudinal time horizon.

Another important factor to consider is simply whether you have the time necessary to adopt a longitudinal approach (which could involve collecting data over multiple months or even years). Oftentimes, the time pressures of your degree program will force your hand into adopting a cross-sectional time horizon, so keep this in mind.

Methodological Choice #5 – Sampling Strategy

Next, you’ll need to discuss your sampling strategy . There are two main categories of sampling, probability and non-probability sampling.

Probability sampling involves a random (and therefore representative) selection of participants from a population, whereas non-probability sampling entails selecting participants in a non-random  (and therefore non-representative) manner. For example, selecting participants based on ease of access (this is called a convenience sample).

The right sampling approach depends largely on what you’re trying to achieve in your study. Specifically, whether you trying to develop findings that are generalisable to a population or not. Practicalities and resource constraints also play a large role here, as it can oftentimes be challenging to gain access to a truly random sample. In the video below, we explore some of the most common sampling strategies.

Methodological Choice #6 – Data Collection Method

Next up, you’ll need to explain how you’ll go about collecting the necessary data for your study. Your data collection method (or methods) will depend on the type of data that you plan to collect – in other words, qualitative or quantitative data.

Typically, quantitative research relies on surveys , data generated by lab equipment, analytics software or existing datasets. Qualitative research, on the other hand, often makes use of collection methods such as interviews , focus groups , participant observations, and ethnography.

So, as you can see, there is a tight link between this section and the design choices you outlined in earlier sections. Strong alignment between these sections, as well as your research aims and questions is therefore very important.

Methodological Choice #7 – Data Analysis Methods/Techniques

The final major methodological choice that you need to address is that of analysis techniques . In other words, how you’ll go about analysing your date once you’ve collected it. Here it’s important to be very specific about your analysis methods and/or techniques – don’t leave any room for interpretation. Also, as with all choices in this chapter, you need to justify each choice you make.

What exactly you discuss here will depend largely on the type of study you’re conducting (i.e., qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods). For qualitative studies, common analysis methods include content analysis , thematic analysis and discourse analysis . In the video below, we explain each of these in plain language.

For quantitative studies, you’ll almost always make use of descriptive statistics , and in many cases, you’ll also use inferential statistical techniques (e.g., correlation and regression analysis). In the video below, we unpack some of the core concepts involved in descriptive and inferential statistics.

In this section of your methodology chapter, it’s also important to discuss how you prepared your data for analysis, and what software you used (if any). For example, quantitative data will often require some initial preparation such as removing duplicates or incomplete responses . Similarly, qualitative data will often require transcription and perhaps even translation. As always, remember to state both what you did and why you did it.

Section 3 – The Methodological Limitations

With the key methodological choices outlined and justified, the next step is to discuss the limitations of your design. No research methodology is perfect – there will always be trade-offs between the “ideal” methodology and what’s practical and viable, given your constraints. Therefore, this section of your methodology chapter is where you’ll discuss the trade-offs you had to make, and why these were justified given the context.

Methodological limitations can vary greatly from study to study, ranging from common issues such as time and budget constraints to issues of sample or selection bias . For example, you may find that you didn’t manage to draw in enough respondents to achieve the desired sample size (and therefore, statistically significant results), or your sample may be skewed heavily towards a certain demographic, thereby negatively impacting representativeness .

In this section, it’s important to be critical of the shortcomings of your study. There’s no use trying to hide them (your marker will be aware of them regardless). By being critical, you’ll demonstrate to your marker that you have a strong understanding of research theory, so don’t be shy here. At the same time, don’t beat your study to death . State the limitations, why these were justified, how you mitigated their impacts to the best degree possible, and how your study still provides value despite these limitations .

Section 4 – Concluding Summary

Finally, it’s time to wrap up the methodology chapter with a brief concluding summary. In this section, you’ll want to concisely summarise what you’ve presented in the chapter. Here, it can be a good idea to use a figure to summarise the key decisions, especially if your university recommends using a specific model (for example, Saunders’ Research Onion ).

Importantly, this section needs to be brief – a paragraph or two maximum (it’s a summary, after all). Also, make sure that when you write up your concluding summary, you include only what you’ve already discussed in your chapter; don’t add any new information.

Methodology Chapter Example

In the video below, we walk you through an example of a high-quality research methodology chapter from a dissertation. We also unpack our free methodology chapter template so that you can see how best to structure your chapter.

Wrapping Up

And there you have it – the methodology chapter in a nutshell. As we’ve mentioned, the exact contents and structure of this chapter can vary between universities , so be sure to check in with your institution before you start writing. If possible, try to find dissertations or theses from former students of your specific degree program – this will give you a strong indication of the expectations and norms when it comes to the methodology chapter (and all the other chapters!).

Also, remember the golden rule of the methodology chapter – justify every choice ! Make sure that you clearly explain the “why” for every “what”, and reference credible methodology textbooks or academic sources to back up your justifications.

If you need a helping hand with your research methodology (or any other component of your research), be sure to check out our private coaching service , where we hold your hand through every step of the research journey. Until next time, good luck!

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

55 Comments

highly appreciated.

This was very helpful!

This was helpful

Thanks ,it is a very useful idea.

Thanks ,it is very useful idea.

Thank you so much, this information is very useful.

Thank you very much. I must say the information presented was succinct, coherent and invaluable. It is well put together and easy to comprehend. I have a great guide to create the research methodology for my dissertation.

Highly clear and useful.

I understand a bit on the explanation above. I want to have some coach but I’m still student and don’t have any budget to hire one. A lot of question I want to ask.

Thank you so much. This concluded my day plan. Thank you so much.

Thanks it was helpful

Great information. It would be great though if you could show us practical examples.

Thanks so much for this information. God bless and be with you

Thank you so so much. Indeed it was helpful

This is EXCELLENT!

I was totally confused by other explanations. Thank you so much!.

justdoing my research now , thanks for the guidance.

Thank uuuu! These contents are really valued for me!

This is powerful …I really like it

Highly useful and clear, thank you so much.

Highly appreciated. Good guide

That was helpful. Thanks

This is very useful.Thank you

Very helpful information. Thank you

This is exactly what I was looking for. The explanation is so detailed and easy to comprehend. Well done and thank you.

Great job. You just summarised everything in the easiest and most comprehensible way possible. Thanks a lot.

Thank you very much for the ideas you have given this will really help me a lot. Thank you and God Bless.

Such great effort …….very grateful thank you

Please accept my sincere gratitude. I have to say that the information that was delivered was congruent, concise, and quite helpful. It is clear and straightforward, making it simple to understand. I am in possession of an excellent manual that will assist me in developing the research methods for my dissertation.

Thank you for your great explanation. It really helped me construct my methodology paper.

thank you for simplifieng the methodoly, It was realy helpful

Very helpful!

Thank you for your great explanation.

The explanation I have been looking for. So clear Thank you

Thank you very much .this was more enlightening.

helped me create the in depth and thorough methodology for my dissertation

Thank you for the great explaination.please construct one methodology for me

I appreciate you for the explanation of methodology. Please construct one methodology on the topic: The effects influencing students dropout among schools for my thesis

This helped me complete my methods section of my dissertation with ease. I have managed to write a thorough and concise methodology!

its so good in deed

wow …what an easy to follow presentation. very invaluable content shared. utmost important.

Peace be upon you, I am Dr. Ahmed Khedr, a former part-time professor at Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt. I am currently teaching research methods, and I have been dealing with your esteemed site for several years, and I found that despite my long experience with research methods sites, it is one of the smoothest sites for evaluating the material for students, For this reason, I relied on it a lot in teaching and translated most of what was written into Arabic and published it on my own page on Facebook. Thank you all… Everything I posted on my page is provided with the names of the writers of Grad coach, the title of the article, and the site. My best regards.

A remarkably simple and useful guide, thank you kindly.

I real appriciate your short and remarkable chapter summary

Bravo! Very helpful guide.

Only true experts could provide such helpful, fantastic, and inspiring knowledge about Methodology. Thank you very much! God be with you and us all!

highly appreciate your effort.

This is a very well thought out post. Very informative and a great read.

THANKS SO MUCH FOR SHARING YOUR NICE IDEA

I love you Emma, you are simply amazing with clear explanations with complete information. GradCoach really helped me to do my assignment here in Auckland. Mostly, Emma make it so simple and enjoyable

Thank you very much for this informative and synthesised version.

thank you, It was a very informative presentation, you made it just to the point in a straightforward way .

Help me write a methodology on the topic “challenges faced by family businesses in Ghana

Well articulated, clear, and concise. I got a lot from this writings. Thanks

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Sweepstakes
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

How to Write a Methods Section for a Psychology Paper

Tips and Examples of an APA Methods Section

Verywell / Brianna Gilmartin 

The methods section of an APA format psychology paper provides the methods and procedures used in a research study or experiment . This part of an APA paper is critical because it allows other researchers to see exactly how you conducted your research.

Method refers to the procedure that was used in a research study. It included a precise description of how the experiments were performed and why particular procedures were selected. While the APA technically refers to this section as the 'method section,' it is also often known as a 'methods section.'

The methods section ensures the experiment's reproducibility and the assessment of alternative methods that might produce different results. It also allows researchers to replicate the experiment and judge the study's validity.

This article discusses how to write a methods section for a psychology paper, including important elements to include and tips that can help.

What to Include in a Method Section

So what exactly do you need to include when writing your method section? You should provide detailed information on the following:

• Research design
• Participants
• Participant behavior

The method section should provide enough information to allow other researchers to replicate your experiment or study.

Components of a Method Section

The method section should utilize subheadings to divide up different subsections. These subsections typically include participants, materials, design, and procedure.

Participants 

In this part of the method section, you should describe the participants in your experiment, including who they were (and any unique features that set them apart from the general population), how many there were, and how they were selected. If you utilized random selection to choose your participants, it should be noted here.

For example: "We randomly selected 100 children from elementary schools near the University of Arizona."

At the very minimum, this part of your method section must convey:

• Basic demographic characteristics of your participants (such as sex, age, ethnicity, or religion)
• The population from which your participants were drawn
• Any restrictions on your pool of participants
• How many participants were assigned to each condition and how they were assigned to each group (i.e., randomly assignment , another selection method, etc.)
• Why participants took part in your research (i.e., the study was advertised at a college or hospital, they received some type of incentive, etc.)

Information about participants helps other researchers understand how your study was performed, how generalizable the result might be, and allows other researchers to replicate the experiment with other populations to see if they might obtain the same results.

In this part of the method section, you should describe the materials, measures, equipment, or stimuli used in the experiment. This may include:

• Testing instruments
• Technical equipment
• Any psychological assessments that were used
• Any special equipment that was used

For example: "Two stories from Sullivan et al.'s (1994) second-order false belief attribution tasks were used to assess children's understanding of second-order beliefs."

For standard equipment such as computers, televisions, and videos, you can simply name the device and not provide further explanation.

Specialized equipment should be given greater detail, especially if it is complex or created for a niche purpose. In some instances, such as if you created a special material or apparatus for your study, you might need to include an illustration of the item in the appendix of your paper.

In this part of your method section, describe the type of design used in the experiment. Specify the variables as well as the levels of these variables. Identify:

• The independent variables
• Dependent variables
• Control variables
• Any extraneous variables that might influence your results.

Also, explain whether your experiment uses a  within-groups  or between-groups design.

For example: "The experiment used a 3x2 between-subjects design. The independent variables were age and understanding of second-order beliefs."

The next part of your method section should detail the procedures used in your experiment. Your procedures should explain:

• What the participants did
• How data was collected
• The order in which steps occurred

For example: "An examiner interviewed children individually at their school in one session that lasted 20 minutes on average. The examiner explained to each child that he or she would be told two short stories and that some questions would be asked after each story. All sessions were videotaped so the data could later be coded."

Keep this subsection concise yet detailed. Explain what you did and how you did it, but do not overwhelm your readers with too much information.

Tips for How to Write a Methods Section

In addition to following the basic structure of an APA method section, there are also certain things you should remember when writing this section of your paper. Consider the following tips when writing this section:

• Use the past tense : Always write the method section in the past tense.
• Be descriptive : Provide enough detail that another researcher could replicate your experiment, but focus on brevity. Avoid unnecessary detail that is not relevant to the outcome of the experiment.
• Use an academic tone : Use formal language and avoid slang or colloquial expressions. Word choice is also important. Refer to the people in your experiment or study as "participants" rather than "subjects."
• Use APA format : Keep a style guide on hand as you write your method section. The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association is the official source for APA style.
• Make connections : Read through each section of your paper for agreement with other sections. If you mention procedures in the method section, these elements should be discussed in the results and discussion sections.
• Proofread : Check your paper for grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.. typos, grammar problems, and spelling errors. Although a spell checker is a handy tool, there are some errors only you can catch.

After writing a draft of your method section, be sure to get a second opinion. You can often become too close to your work to see errors or lack of clarity. Take a rough draft of your method section to your university's writing lab for additional assistance.

A Word From Verywell

The method section is one of the most important components of your APA format paper. The goal of your paper should be to clearly detail what you did in your experiment. Provide enough detail that another researcher could replicate your study if they wanted.

Finally, if you are writing your paper for a class or for a specific publication, be sure to keep in mind any specific instructions provided by your instructor or by the journal editor. Your instructor may have certain requirements that you need to follow while writing your method section.

Frequently Asked Questions

While the subsections can vary, the three components that should be included are sections on the participants, the materials, and the procedures.

• Describe who the participants were in the study and how they were selected.
• Define and describe the materials that were used including any equipment, tests, or assessments
• Describe how the data was collected

To write your methods section in APA format, describe your participants, materials, study design, and procedures. Keep this section succinct, and always write in the past tense. The main heading of this section should be labeled "Method" and it should be centered, bolded, and capitalized. Each subheading within this section should be bolded, left-aligned and in title case.

The purpose of the methods section is to describe what you did in your experiment. It should be brief, but include enough detail that someone could replicate your experiment based on this information. Your methods section should detail what you did to answer your research question. Describe how the study was conducted, the study design that was used and why it was chosen, and how you collected the data and analyzed the results.

Erdemir F. How to write a materials and methods section of a scientific article ? Turk J Urol . 2013;39(Suppl 1):10-5. doi:10.5152/tud.2013.047

Kallet RH. How to write the methods section of a research paper . Respir Care . 2004;49(10):1229-32. PMID: 15447808.

American Psychological Association.  Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association  (7th ed.). Washington DC: The American Psychological Association; 2019.

American Psychological Association. APA Style Journal Article Reporting Standards . Published 2020.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

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

Here's What You Need to Understand About Research Methodology

Table of Contents

Research methodology involves a systematic and well-structured approach to conducting scholarly or scientific inquiries. Knowing the significance of research methodology and its different components is crucial as it serves as the basis for any study.

Typically, your research topic will start as a broad idea you want to investigate more thoroughly. Once you’ve identified a research problem and created research questions , you must choose the appropriate methodology and frameworks to address those questions effectively.

What is the definition of a research methodology?

Research methodology is the process or the way you intend to execute your study. The methodology section of a research paper outlines how you plan to conduct your study. It covers various steps such as collecting data, statistical analysis, observing participants, and other procedures involved in the research process

The methods section should give a description of the process that will convert your idea into a study. Additionally, the outcomes of your process must provide valid and reliable results resonant with the aims and objectives of your research. This thumb rule holds complete validity, no matter whether your paper has inclinations for qualitative or quantitative usage.

Studying research methods used in related studies can provide helpful insights and direction for your own research. Now easily discover papers related to your topic on SciSpace and utilize our AI research assistant, Copilot , to quickly review the methodologies applied in different papers.

The need for a good research methodology

While deciding on your approach towards your research, the reason or factors you weighed in choosing a particular problem and formulating a research topic need to be validated and explained. A research methodology helps you do exactly that. Moreover, a good research methodology lets you build your argument to validate your research work performed through various data collection methods, analytical methods, and other essential points.

Just imagine it as a strategy documented to provide an overview of what you intend to do.

While undertaking any research writing or performing the research itself, you may get drifted in not something of much importance. In such a case, a research methodology helps you to get back to your outlined work methodology.

A research methodology helps in keeping you accountable for your work. Additionally, it can help you evaluate whether your work is in sync with your original aims and objectives or not. Besides, a good research methodology enables you to navigate your research process smoothly and swiftly while providing effective planning to achieve your desired results.

What is the basic structure of a research methodology?

Usually, you must ensure to include the following stated aspects while deciding over the basic structure of your research methodology:

1. Your research procedure

Explain what research methods you’re going to use. Whether you intend to proceed with quantitative or qualitative, or a composite of both approaches, you need to state that explicitly. The option among the three depends on your research’s aim, objectives, and scope.

2. Provide the rationality behind your chosen approach

Based on logic and reason, let your readers know why you have chosen said research methodologies. Additionally, you have to build strong arguments supporting why your chosen research method is the best way to achieve the desired outcome.

3. Explain your mechanism

The mechanism encompasses the research methods or instruments you will use to develop your research methodology. It usually refers to your data collection methods. You can use interviews, surveys, physical questionnaires, etc., of the many available mechanisms as research methodology instruments. The data collection method is determined by the type of research and whether the data is quantitative data(includes numerical data) or qualitative data (perception, morale, etc.) Moreover, you need to put logical reasoning behind choosing a particular instrument.

4. Significance of outcomes

The results will be available once you have finished experimenting. However, you should also explain how you plan to use the data to interpret the findings. This section also aids in understanding the problem from within, breaking it down into pieces, and viewing the research problem from various perspectives.

5. Reader’s advice

Anything that you feel must be explained to spread more awareness among readers and focus groups must be included and described in detail. You should not just specify your research methodology on the assumption that a reader is aware of the topic.  

All the relevant information that explains and simplifies your research paper must be included in the methodology section. If you are conducting your research in a non-traditional manner, give a logical justification and list its benefits.

6. Explain your sample space

Include information about the sample and sample space in the methodology section. The term "sample" refers to a smaller set of data that a researcher selects or chooses from a larger group of people or focus groups using a predetermined selection method. Let your readers know how you are going to distinguish between relevant and non-relevant samples. How you figured out those exact numbers to back your research methodology, i.e. the sample spacing of instruments, must be discussed thoroughly.

For example, if you are going to conduct a survey or interview, then by what procedure will you select the interviewees (or sample size in case of surveys), and how exactly will the interview or survey be conducted.

7. Challenges and limitations

This part, which is frequently assumed to be unnecessary, is actually very important. The challenges and limitations that your chosen strategy inherently possesses must be specified while you are conducting different types of research.

The importance of a good research methodology

You must have observed that all research papers, dissertations, or theses carry a chapter entirely dedicated to research methodology. This section helps maintain your credibility as a better interpreter of results rather than a manipulator.

A good research methodology always explains the procedure, data collection methods and techniques, aim, and scope of the research. In a research study, it leads to a well-organized, rationality-based approach, while the paper lacking it is often observed as messy or disorganized.

You should pay special attention to validating your chosen way towards the research methodology. This becomes extremely important in case you select an unconventional or a distinct method of execution.

Curating and developing a strong, effective research methodology can assist you in addressing a variety of situations, such as:

• When someone tries to duplicate or expand upon your research after few years.
• If a contradiction or conflict of facts occurs at a later time. This gives you the security you need to deal with these contradictions while still being able to defend your approach.
• Gaining a tactical approach in getting your research completed in time. Just ensure you are using the right approach while drafting your research methodology, and it can help you achieve your desired outcomes. Additionally, it provides a better explanation and understanding of the research question itself.
• Documenting the results so that the final outcome of the research stays as you intended it to be while starting.

Instruments you could use while writing a good research methodology

As a researcher, you must choose which tools or data collection methods that fit best in terms of the relevance of your research. This decision has to be wise.

There exists many research equipments or tools that you can use to carry out your research process. These are classified as:

a. Interviews (One-on-One or a Group)

An interview aimed to get your desired research outcomes can be undertaken in many different ways. For example, you can design your interview as structured, semi-structured, or unstructured. What sets them apart is the degree of formality in the questions. On the other hand, in a group interview, your aim should be to collect more opinions and group perceptions from the focus groups on a certain topic rather than looking out for some formal answers.

In surveys, you are in better control if you specifically draft the questions you seek the response for. For example, you may choose to include free-style questions that can be answered descriptively, or you may provide a multiple-choice type response for questions. Besides, you can also opt to choose both ways, deciding what suits your research process and purpose better.

c. Sample Groups

Similar to the group interviews, here, you can select a group of individuals and assign them a topic to discuss or freely express their opinions over that. You can simultaneously note down the answers and later draft them appropriately, deciding on the relevance of every response.

d. Observations

If your research domain is humanities or sociology, observations are the best-proven method to draw your research methodology. Of course, you can always include studying the spontaneous response of the participants towards a situation or conducting the same but in a more structured manner. A structured observation means putting the participants in a situation at a previously decided time and then studying their responses.

Of all the tools described above, it is you who should wisely choose the instruments and decide what’s the best fit for your research. You must not restrict yourself from multiple methods or a combination of a few instruments if appropriate in drafting a good research methodology.

Types of research methodology

A research methodology exists in various forms. Depending upon their approach, whether centered around words, numbers, or both, methodologies are distinguished as qualitative, quantitative, or an amalgamation of both.

1. Qualitative research methodology

When a research methodology primarily focuses on words and textual data, then it is generally referred to as qualitative research methodology. This type is usually preferred among researchers when the aim and scope of the research are mainly theoretical and explanatory.

The instruments used are observations, interviews, and sample groups. You can use this methodology if you are trying to study human behavior or response in some situations. Generally, qualitative research methodology is widely used in sociology, psychology, and other related domains.

2. Quantitative research methodology

If your research is majorly centered on data, figures, and stats, then analyzing these numerical data is often referred to as quantitative research methodology. You can use quantitative research methodology if your research requires you to validate or justify the obtained results.

In quantitative methods, surveys, tests, experiments, and evaluations of current databases can be advantageously used as instruments If your research involves testing some hypothesis, then use this methodology.

3. Amalgam methodology

As the name suggests, the amalgam methodology uses both quantitative and qualitative approaches. This methodology is used when a part of the research requires you to verify the facts and figures, whereas the other part demands you to discover the theoretical and explanatory nature of the research question.

The instruments for the amalgam methodology require you to conduct interviews and surveys, including tests and experiments. The outcome of this methodology can be insightful and valuable as it provides precise test results in line with theoretical explanations and reasoning.

The amalgam method, makes your work both factual and rational at the same time.

Final words: How to decide which is the best research methodology?

If you have kept your sincerity and awareness intact with the aims and scope of research well enough, you must have got an idea of which research methodology suits your work best.

Before deciding which research methodology answers your research question, you must invest significant time in reading and doing your homework for that. Taking references that yield relevant results should be your first approach to establishing a research methodology.

Moreover, you should never refrain from exploring other options. Before setting your work in stone, you must try all the available options as it explains why the choice of research methodology that you finally make is more appropriate than the other available options.

You should always go for a quantitative research methodology if your research requires gathering large amounts of data, figures, and statistics. This research methodology will provide you with results if your research paper involves the validation of some hypothesis.

Whereas, if  you are looking for more explanations, reasons, opinions, and public perceptions around a theory, you must use qualitative research methodology.The choice of an appropriate research methodology ultimately depends on what you want to achieve through your research.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Research Methodology

1. how to write a research methodology.

You can always provide a separate section for research methodology where you should specify details about the methods and instruments used during the research, discussions on result analysis, including insights into the background information, and conveying the research limitations.

2. What are the types of research methodology?

There generally exists four types of research methodology i.e.

• Observation
• Experimental
• Derivational

3. What is the true meaning of research methodology?

The set of techniques or procedures followed to discover and analyze the information gathered to validate or justify a research outcome is generally called Research Methodology.

4. Where lies the importance of research methodology?

Your research methodology directly reflects the validity of your research outcomes and how well-informed your research work is. Moreover, it can help future researchers cite or refer to your research if they plan to use a similar research methodology.

You might also like

Consensus GPT vs. SciSpace GPT: Choose the Best GPT for Research

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework: Understanding the Differences

Using AI for research: A beginner’s guide

• Privacy Policy

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

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

Table of Contents

How To Write a Research Proposal

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

1. Title and Abstract

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

2. Introduction:

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

3. Research Objectives

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

4. Literature Review:

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

5. Methodology:

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

6. Timeline:

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

7. Resources:

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

8. Ethical Considerations:

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

9. Expected Outcomes and Significance:

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

10. References:

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

11. Appendices:

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

Research Proposal Format

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

1. Title Page:

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

2. Abstract:

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

3. Introduction:

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

5. Research Objectives:

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

6. Methodology:

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

7. Timeline:

8. Resources:

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

9. Ethical Considerations:

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

10. Expected Outcomes and Significance:

11. References:

12. Appendices:

Research Proposal Template

Here’s a template for a research proposal:

1. Introduction:

2. Literature Review:

3. Research Objectives:

4. Methodology:

5. Timeline:

6. Resources:

7. Ethical Considerations:

8. Expected Outcomes and Significance:

9. References:

10. Appendices:

Research Proposal Sample

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

1. Introduction

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

2. Objectives

The main objectives of this research are as follows:

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

3. Methodology

3.1 Study Design

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

3.2 Participants

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

3.3 Data Collection

The research will employ the following data collection methods:

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

3.4 Data Analysis

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

4. Ethical Considerations

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

5. Significance and Expected Outcomes

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

6. Timeline

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

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

8. Conclusion

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

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Grant Proposal – Example, Template and Guide

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

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

Business Proposal – Templates, Examples and Guide

Research Proposal – Types, Template and Example

How to choose an Appropriate Method for Research?

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

How to Write the Methods Section of a Research Paper

Writing a research paper is both an art and a skill, and knowing how to write the methods section of a research paper is the first crucial step in mastering scientific writing. If, like the majority of early career researchers, you believe that the methods section is the simplest to write and needs little in the way of careful consideration or thought, this article will help you understand it is not 1 .

We have all probably asked our supervisors, coworkers, or search engines “ how to write a methods section of a research paper ” at some point in our scientific careers, so you are not alone if that’s how you ended up here.  Even for seasoned researchers, selecting what to include in the methods section from a wealth of experimental information can occasionally be a source of distress and perplexity.   

Additionally, journal specifications, in some cases, may make it more of a requirement rather than a choice to provide a selective yet descriptive account of the experimental procedure. Hence, knowing these nuances of how to write the methods section of a research paper is critical to its success. The methods section of the research paper is not supposed to be a detailed heavy, dull section that some researchers tend to write; rather, it should be the central component of the study that justifies the validity and reliability of the research.

Are you still unsure of how the methods section of a research paper forms the basis of every investigation? Consider the last article you read but ignore the methods section and concentrate on the other parts of the paper . Now think whether you could repeat the study and be sure of the credibility of the findings despite knowing the literature review and even having the data in front of you. You have the answer!   

Having established the importance of the methods section , the next question is how to write the methods section of a research paper that unifies the overall study. The purpose of the methods section , which was earlier called as Materials and Methods , is to describe how the authors went about answering the “research question” at hand. Here, the objective is to tell a coherent story that gives a detailed account of how the study was conducted, the rationale behind specific experimental procedures, the experimental setup, objects (variables) involved, the research protocol employed, tools utilized to measure, calculations and measurements, and the analysis of the collected data 2 .

In this article, we will take a deep dive into this topic and provide a detailed overview of how to write the methods section of a research paper . For the sake of clarity, we have separated the subject into various sections with corresponding subheadings.  

Table of Contents

What is the methods section of a research paper ?  

The methods section is a fundamental section of any paper since it typically discusses the ‘ what ’, ‘ how ’, ‘ which ’, and ‘ why ’ of the study, which is necessary to arrive at the final conclusions. In a research article, the introduction, which serves to set the foundation for comprehending the background and results is usually followed by the methods section, which precedes the result and discussion sections. The methods section must explicitly state what was done, how it was done, which equipment, tools and techniques were utilized, how were the measurements/calculations taken, and why specific research protocols, software, and analytical methods were employed.  

Why is the methods section important?  

The primary goal of the methods section is to provide pertinent details about the experimental approach so that the reader may put the results in perspective and, if necessary, replicate the findings 3 .  This section offers readers the chance to evaluate the reliability and validity of any study. In short, it also serves as the study’s blueprint, assisting researchers who might be unsure about any other portion in establishing the study’s context and validity. The methods plays a rather crucial role in determining the fate of the article; an incomplete and unreliable methods section can frequently result in early rejections and may lead to numerous rounds of modifications during the publication process. This means that the reviewers also often use methods section to assess the reliability and validity of the research protocol and the data analysis employed to address the research topic. In other words, the purpose of the methods section is to demonstrate the research acumen and subject-matter expertise of the author(s) in their field.  

Structure of methods section of a research paper  

Similar to the research paper, the methods section also follows a defined structure; this may be dictated by the guidelines of a specific journal or can be presented in a chronological or thematic manner based on the study type. When writing the methods section , authors should keep in mind that they are telling a story about how the research was conducted. They should only report relevant information to avoid confusing the reader and include details that would aid in connecting various aspects of the entire research activity together. It is generally advisable to present experiments in the order in which they were conducted. This facilitates the logical flow of the research and allows readers to follow the progression of the study design.   

It is also essential to clearly state the rationale behind each experiment and how the findings of earlier experiments informed the design or interpretation of later experiments. This allows the readers to understand the overall purpose of the study design and the significance of each experiment within that context. However, depending on the particular research question and method, it may make sense to present information in a different order; therefore, authors must select the best structure and strategy for their individual studies.   

In cases where there is a lot of information, divide the sections into subheadings to cover the pertinent details. If the journal guidelines pose restrictions on the word limit , additional important information can be supplied in the supplementary files. A simple rule of thumb for sectioning the method section is to begin by explaining the methodological approach ( what was done ), describing the data collection methods ( how it was done ), providing the analysis method ( how the data was analyzed ), and explaining the rationale for choosing the methodological strategy. This is described in detail in the upcoming sections.    

How to write the methods section of a research paper  

Contrary to widespread assumption, the methods section of a research paper should be prepared once the study is complete to prevent missing any key parameter. Hence, please make sure that all relevant experiments are done before you start writing a methods section . The next step for authors is to look up any applicable academic style manuals or journal-specific standards to ensure that the methods section is formatted correctly. The methods section of a research paper typically constitutes materials and methods; while writing this section, authors usually arrange the information under each category.

The materials category describes the samples, materials, treatments, and instruments, while experimental design, sample preparation, data collection, and data analysis are a part of the method category. According to the nature of the study, authors should include additional subsections within the methods section, such as ethical considerations like the declaration of Helsinki (for studies involving human subjects), demographic information of the participants, and any other crucial information that can affect the output of the study. Simply put, the methods section has two major components: content and format. Here is an easy checklist for you to consider if you are struggling with how to write the methods section of a research paper .   

• Explain the research design, subjects, and sample details  
• Include information on inclusion and exclusion criteria  
• Mention ethical or any other permission required for the study  
• Include information about materials, experimental setup, tools, and software  
• Add details of data collection and analysis methods  
• Incorporate how research biases were avoided or confounding variables were controlled  
• Evaluate and justify the experimental procedure selected to address the research question  
• Provide precise and clear details of each experiment  
• Flowcharts, infographics, or tables can be used to present complex information     
• Use past tense to show that the experiments have been done   
• Follow academic style guides (such as APA or MLA ) to structure the content  
• Citations should be included as per standard protocols in the field  

Now that you know how to write the methods section of a research paper , let’s address another challenge researchers face while writing the methods section —what to include in the methods section .  How much information is too much is not always obvious when it comes to trying to include data in the methods section of a paper. In the next section, we examine this issue and explore potential solutions.   

What to include in the methods section of a research paper  

The technical nature of the methods section occasionally makes it harder to present the information clearly and concisely while staying within the study context. Many young researchers tend to veer off subject significantly, and they frequently commit the sin of becoming bogged down in itty bitty details, making the text harder to read and impairing its overall flow. However, the best way to write the methods section is to start with crucial components of the experiments. If you have trouble deciding which elements are essential, think about leaving out those that would make it more challenging to comprehend the context or replicate the results. The top-down approach helps to ensure all relevant information is incorporated and vital information is not lost in technicalities. Next, remember to add details that are significant to assess the validity and reliability of the study. Here is a simple checklist for you to follow ( bonus tip: you can also make a checklist for your own study to avoid missing any critical information while writing the methods section ).  

• Structuring the methods section : Authors should diligently follow journal guidelines and adhere to the specific author instructions provided when writing the methods section . Journals typically have specific guidelines for formatting the methods section ; for example, Frontiers in Plant Sciences advises arranging the materials and methods section by subheading and citing relevant literature. There are several standardized checklists available for different study types in the biomedical field, including CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) for randomized clinical trials, PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis) for systematic reviews and meta-analysis, and STROBE (STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology) for cohort, case-control, cross-sectional studies. Before starting the methods section , check the checklist available in your field that can function as a guide.     
• Organizing different sections to tell a story : Once you are sure of the format required for structuring the methods section , the next is to present the sections in a logical manner; as mentioned earlier, the sections can be organized according to the chronology or themes. In the chronological arrangement, you should discuss the methods in accordance with how the experiments were carried out. An example of the method section of a research paper of an animal study should first ideally include information about the species, weight, sex, strain, and age. Next, the number of animals, their initial conditions, and their living and housing conditions should also be mentioned. Second, how the groups are assigned and the intervention (drug treatment, stress, or other) given to each group, and finally, the details of tools and techniques used to measure, collect, and analyze the data. Experiments involving animal or human subjects should additionally state an ethics approval statement. It is best to arrange the section using the thematic approach when discussing distinct experiments not following a sequential order.  
• Define and explain the objects and procedure: Experimental procedure should clearly be stated in the methods section . Samples, necessary preparations (samples, treatment, and drug), and methods for manipulation need to be included. All variables (control, dependent, independent, and confounding) must be clearly defined, particularly if the confounding variables can affect the outcome of the study.  
• Match the order of the methods section with the order of results: Though not mandatory, organizing the manuscript in a logical and coherent manner can improve the readability and clarity of the paper. This can be done by following a consistent structure throughout the manuscript; readers can easily navigate through the different sections and understand the methods and results in relation to each other. Using experiment names as headings for both the methods and results sections can also make it simpler for readers to locate specific information and corroborate it if needed.   
• Relevant information must always be included: The methods section should have information on all experiments conducted and their details clearly mentioned. Ask the journal whether there is a way to offer more information in the supplemental files or external repositories if your target journal has strict word limitations. For example, Nature communications encourages authors to deposit their step-by-step protocols in an open-resource depository, Protocol Exchange which allows the protocols to be linked with the manuscript upon publication. Providing access to detailed protocols also helps to increase the transparency and reproducibility of the research.  
• It’s all in the details: The methods section should meticulously list all the materials, tools, instruments, and software used for different experiments. Specify the testing equipment on which data was obtained, together with its manufacturer’s information, location, city, and state or any other stimuli used to manipulate the variables. Provide specifics on the research process you employed; if it was a standard protocol, cite previous studies that also used the protocol.  Include any protocol modifications that were made, as well as any other factors that were taken into account when planning the study or gathering data. Any new or modified techniques should be explained by the authors. Typically, readers evaluate the reliability and validity of the procedures using the cited literature, and a widely accepted checklist helps to support the credibility of the methodology. Note: Authors should include a statement on sample size estimation (if applicable), which is often missed. It enables the reader to determine how many subjects will be required to detect the expected change in the outcome variables within a given confidence interval.  
• Write for the audience: While explaining the details in the methods section , authors should be mindful of their target audience, as some of the rationale or assumptions on which specific procedures are based might not always be obvious to the audience, particularly for a general audience. Therefore, when in doubt, the objective of a procedure should be specified either in relation to the research question or to the entire protocol.  
• Data interpretation and analysis : Information on data processing, statistical testing, levels of significance, and analysis tools and software should be added. Mention if the recommendations and expertise of an experienced statistician were followed. Also, evaluate and justify the preferred statistical method used in the study and its significance.  

What NOT to include in the methods section of a research paper  

To address “ how to write the methods section of a research paper ”, authors should not only pay careful attention to what to include but also what not to include in the methods section of a research paper . Here is a list of do not’s when writing the methods section :  

• Do not elaborate on specifics of standard methods/procedures: You should refrain from adding unnecessary details of experiments and practices that are well established and cited previously.  Instead, simply cite relevant literature or mention if the manufacturer’s protocol was followed.  
• Do not add unnecessary details : Do not include minute details of the experimental procedure and materials/instruments used that are not significant for the outcome of the experiment. For example, there is no need to mention the brand name of the water bath used for incubation.    
• Do not discuss the results: The methods section is not to discuss the results or refer to the tables and figures; save it for the results and discussion section. Also, focus on the methods selected to conduct the study and avoid diverting to other methods or commenting on their pros or cons.  
• Do not make the section bulky : For extensive methods and protocols, provide the essential details and share the rest of the information in the supplemental files. The writing should be clear yet concise to maintain the flow of the section.  

We hope that by this point, you understand how crucial it is to write a thoughtful and precise methods section and the ins and outs of how to write the methods section of a research paper . To restate, the entire purpose of the methods section is to enable others to reproduce the results or verify the research. We sincerely hope that this post has cleared up any confusion and given you a fresh perspective on the methods section .

As a parting gift, we’re leaving you with a handy checklist that will help you understand how to write the methods section of a research paper . Feel free to download this checklist and use or share this with those who you think may benefit from it.  

References  

• Bhattacharya, D. How to write the Methods section of a research paper. Editage Insights, 2018. https://www.editage.com/insights/how-to-write-the-methods-section-of-a-research-paper (2018).
• Kallet, R. H. How to Write the Methods Section of a Research Paper. Respiratory Care 49, 1229–1232 (2004). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15447808/
• Grindstaff, T. L. & Saliba, S. A. AVOIDING MANUSCRIPT MISTAKES. Int J Sports Phys Ther 7, 518–524 (2012). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3474299/

Editage All Access 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 Editage 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 22+ years of experience in academia, Editage 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 $14 a month !    

Related Posts

Back to School – Lock-in All Access Pack for a Year at the Best Price

Journal Turnaround Time: Researcher.Life and Scholarly Intelligence Join Hands to Empower Researchers with Publication Time Insights 

📕 Studying HQ

How to Write the Methods Section of a Research Proposal

The methods section is a critical component of your research proposal, as it outlines the specific techniques and approaches you plan to use to investigate your research question or test your hypothesis.

A well-written, comprehensive methods section demonstrates your deep understanding of different research methodologies and justifies why your selected approach is the most appropriate and rigorous for accomplishing your stated aims. This section should provide enough detail that other researchers could potentially recreate your study based on the information provided.

What You'll Learn

What is the Purpose of the Methods Section?

The main purposes of the methods section in a research proposal are as follows:

• Describe your proposed study design – Explicitly state whether you will employ an experimental, quasi-experimental, survey, ethnographic, phenomenological, case study, or other established research methodology. Providing a clear overview of your overarching design shows that you recognize the distinctions between different methodological approaches.
• Specify your methods of data collection – Outline the precise techniques you will use to gather data, such as interviews, focus groups, participant observation, document analysis, tests/measures, or surveys/questionnaires, among others. Clearly explain why these methods are suitable for your research objectives.
• Explain your sampling strategy – Describe the target population you wish to study, the specific criteria for inclusion/exclusion in your sample, your sampling technique (e.g. random, stratified, cluster, convenience/purposive), and your justification for the anticipated sample size.
• Present your plan for data analysis – Discuss in detail how you will organize, analyze, and interpret the qualitative and/or quantitative data you collect. This could include coding methods, statistical tests, analytical tools/software, etc.
• Address potential limitations and ethical issues – Acknowledge potential weaknesses, constraints, or shortcomings in your proposed methodology. Discuss strategies to enhance validity and credibility. Explain procedures to protect participants’ rights and obtain informed consent.

Step 1: Describe Your Study Design/Research Methodology

The first major section is clearly describing the overarching design or methodology that will guide your research study. Some common approaches include:

• Example: “This study will utilize a randomized controlled trial design to examine the effect of a new teaching method on student performance…”
• Example: “The quantitative portion will consist of a cross-sectional online survey of a representative national sample to assess consumer opinions…”
• Example: “An ethnographic approach will be employed, with the researcher embedding herself as a participant-observer for 6 months…”
• Example: “Using a hermeneutic phenomenological methodology enables an in-depth examination of the lived experience of chronic illness…”
• Example: “A revelatory single case study design will be used to understand the implementation and outcomes of a new policy…””

Step 2: Specify Your Data Collection Methods

Next, you need to thoroughly describe exactly how you plan to collect data based on your overarching methodology. Be sure to justify why the selected methods are optimal for answering your research question(s). Common techniques include:

• Example: “Data will be collected through a series of one-on-one, semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions to allow participants to freely discuss their views…”
• Example: “Four focus group sessions will be conducted with homogeneous groups of 6-8 millennial consumers to examine attitudes and decision processes…”
• Example: “The primary data collection method will involve overt, non-participant observation on the factory production floor over a 3-month time period…”
• Example: “A historical document analysis will be conducted on the organization’s archived memos, meeting minutes, reports and correspondence…”
• Example: “The self-administered questionnaire will contain a mix of closed-ended items with Likert scales and open-ended questions to capture nuances…”

Be sure to sufficiently detail any materials you will use, such as interview protocols, observational templates, survey instruments, etc. Describe processes for piloting or pre-testing tools before actual data collection.

Step 3: Explain Your Sampling Strategy

You must provide a clear rationale for how you will select a sample of participants from the target population of interest, including details on:

• Example: “The target population encompasses all adults ages 60+ currently receiving home-based healthcare services in urban areas of State X.”
• Probability sampling: Simple random, stratified random, cluster random sampling, etc.
• Non-probability sampling: Convenience, purposive, quota, snowball sampling, etc.
• Example: “A stratified random sampling technique will be employed to ensure the sample properly represents key demographic subgroups…”
• Example: “Inclusion criteria are: being a first-time mother, having given birth in the past 12 months, residing in County Y, and being 18-40 years old…”
• Example: “A minimum sample of 350 completed survey responses will be sought based on power analysis for detecting a medium effect size with p<0.05…”

Step 4: Present Your Data Analysis Plan

Outline in detail how you plan to organize, analyze, interpret, and extract insights from the qualitative and/or quantitative data you will collect, including:

• Example: “Thematic analysis will be used to inductively analyze interview transcripts, following Braun & Clarke’s (2006) six-step process: …”
• Example: “SPSS will be used to analyze survey data through descriptive statistics, exploratory factor analysis, correlation analysis, multiple regression, etc…”
• Example: “All qualitative codes will be tracked and analyzed using NVivo qualitative data analysis software to aid in cross-case comparison.”

If using mixed methods, specify your procedures for integrating and triangulating the different data streams during analysis and interpretation.

Step 5: Address Limitations and Ethical Considerations

While your goal is to propose a rigorous methodology, all studies have inherent limitations. A strong proposal should openly discuss potential shortcomings and how you plan to mitigate or counterbalance them:

• Example: “A key limitation is that the convenience sampling technique may overly represent those who have internet/computer access and self-select into the study.”

Constraints of data collection methods – Acknowledge potential sources of bias, measurement error, reactivity, or other issues with your chosen methods.

• Example: “The use of self-reported data is a limitation, as responses may be affected by social desirability or imperfect recall biases. However, the anonymity of the online survey aims to reduce desirability pressures.”
• Example: “All participants will provide informed consent after reviewing documentation outlining the study purpose, risks, benefits and their rights. Identifying details will be kept confidential through use of pseudonyms and secure data storage.”
• Example: “To enhance validity, the study will use data triangulation through combining findings from interviews, focus groups and document analysis. A qualitative audit trail will document all research decisions and activities.”

By forthrightly discussing the limitations, you demonstrate self-awareness about the strengths and weaknesses of your methodology. Proposing validity strategies conveys methodological rigor.

Related Articles:

How to Write a Topic Proposal for a Research Paper

How to Critically Appraise a Research Article

How to Write a Research Proposal

How to write a research proposal

Examples of Strong Methods Sections

To illustrate a complete methods section, here are two examples from different fields:

Example 1 – Experimental Psychology:

“This study will employ a double-blind randomized controlled trial design to evaluate the efficacy of a new cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) program for treating anxiety disorders among adolescents ages 13-17.

Participants will be recruited through advertisements , physician referrals, and campus/community outreach in the Greater Boston area. Those meeting inclusion criteria through an initial phone screening (being 13-17 years old, having an anxiety diagnosis, not receiving concurrent treatment) will come to the research center for a comprehensive intake assessment by trained clinicians.

Using blocked stratified randomization based on gender and anxiety severity, 120 eligible participants will be randomly assigned to one of two conditions: the CBT treatment program or a wait-list control group. The manualized CBT program consists of 12 weekly 50-minute individual sessions covering psychoeducation, cognitive restructuring, exposure, and relapse prevention…

Pre, post and 6-month follow-up assessments will be conducted…by doctoral-level psychologists blind to condition using the Anxiety Disorders Interview Schedule for Children (ADIS-C), Children’s Depression Inventory (CDI), and other validated measures of anxiety symptoms, positive thinking, therapy engagement, and quality of life…

Data will be analyzed using SPSS statistical software, with two-tailed independent samples t-tests and repeated measures ANOVA to examine between-group differences in outcomes over time. The study aims to recruit a sample providing 80% power to detect a moderate effect size with alpha = .05…”

Example 2 – Ethnography in Anthropology:

“This ethnographic study will utilize participant observation and semi-structured interviews to examine the cultural norms, practices and belief systems surrounding food and meal consumption within a suburban U.S. Bengali community.

The researcher will adopt an overt role as a participant-observer by attending and documenting daily activities, gatherings and foodways over 12 months in the Bengali community of [City, State]. This will involve immersing herself in the local Bengali organization and selected households through a gatekeeper, while building trust and rapport.

Weekly participant observation field notes will be recorded in rich detail, capturing dietary practices, food procurement, meal preparation, and the symbolic meanings and rituals surrounding eating occasions. A minimum of 20 representative Bengali families across socioeconomic levels will be recruited through snowball sampling to participate in interviews…

In-depth interviewing will utilize an interview guide covering topics like: typical Bengali foods/meals, gender roles in food practices, evaluations of “authentic” Bengali cuisine, changes in practices since immigration, and social rules around food consumption. All interviews will be conducted in Bengali, audio-recorded, and later transcribed for analysis…

A coding procedure following constructivist grounded theory will be employed to inductively analyze the data and develop a theoretical model about Bengali-American cultural ideologies surrounding food and eating…”

By providing these level of specifics, the methods sections clearly lay out the specific plans to rigorously investigate the research questions in a valid, reliable and ethical manner

How do I write the methods section of a research proposal? A Method section should show that the researcher(s) measured or described what they intended to, that they implemented research procedures in a precise and consistent manner, and that they interpreted their data in strategic, unbiased way. The section should provide readers with enough detail to replicate the study.

What is an example of a research methodology? Five examples of research could be surveys, observations, generating research questions, interviews, and focus groups. These examples are dependent on the type of research methodology used.

How long should the methods section be? You should be clear about the academic basis for all the choices of research methods that you have made. Methodology (1,500 to 2,000 words) Specific issues/debates. This should include two or three chapters, each addressing specific issues in the literature (4,000 to 5,000 words)

Start by filling this short order form order.studyinghq.com

And then follow the progressive flow. 

Having an issue, chat with us here

Cathy, CS. 

New Concept ? Let a subject expert write your paper for You​

Post navigation

Previous post.

Typically replies within minutes

Hey! 👋 Need help with an assignment?

🟢 Online | Privacy policy

WhatsApp us

• Locations and Hours
• UCLA Library
• Research Guides
• Research Tips and Tools

Advanced Research Methods

• Writing a Research Proposal
• What Is Research?
• Library Research

What Is a Research Proposal?

Reference books.

• Writing the Research Paper
• Presenting the Research Paper

When applying for a research grant or scholarship, or, just before you start a major research project, you may be asked to write a preliminary document that includes basic information about your future research. This is the information that is usually needed in your proposal:

• The topic and goal of the research project.
• The kind of result expected from the research.
• The theory or framework in which the research will be done and presented.
• What kind of methods will be used (statistical, empirical, etc.).
• Short reference on the preliminary scholarship and why your research project is needed; how will it continue/justify/disprove the previous scholarship.
• How much will the research project cost; how will it be budgeted (what for the money will be spent).
• Why is it you who can do this research and not somebody else.

Most agencies that offer scholarships or grants provide information about the required format of the proposal. It may include filling out templates, types of information they need, suggested/maximum length of the proposal, etc.

Research proposal formats vary depending on the size of the planned research, the number of participants, the discipline, the characteristics of the research, etc. The following outline assumes an individual researcher. This is just a SAMPLE; several other ways are equally good and can be successful. If possible, discuss your research proposal with an expert in writing, a professor, your colleague, another student who already wrote successful proposals, etc.

• Author, author's affiliation
• Explain the topic and why you chose it. If possible explain your goal/outcome of the research . How much time you need to complete the research?
• Give a brief summary of previous scholarship and explain why your topic and goals are important.
• Relate your planned research to previous scholarship. What will your research add to our knowledge of the topic.
• Break down the main topic into smaller research questions. List them one by one and explain why these questions need to be investigated. Relate them to previous scholarship.
• Include your hypothesis into the descriptions of the detailed research issues if you have one. Explain why it is important to justify your hypothesis.
• This part depends of the methods conducted in the research process. List the methods; explain how the results will be presented; how they will be assessed.
• Explain what kind of results will justify or  disprove your hypothesis. 
• Explain how much money you need.
• Explain the details of the budget (how much you want to spend for what).
• Describe why your research is important.
• List the sources you have used for writing the research proposal, including a few main citations of the preliminary scholarship.

• << Previous: Library Research
• Next: Writing the Research Paper >>
• Last Updated: Aug 22, 2024 3:43 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.ucla.edu/research-methods

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

Chapter 14: The Research Proposal

14.3 Components of a Research Proposal

Krathwohl (2005) suggests and describes a variety of components to include in a research proposal. The following sections – Introductions, Background and significance, Literature Review; Research design and methods, Preliminary suppositions and implications; and Conclusion present these components in a suggested template for you to follow in the preparation of your research proposal.

Introduction

The introduction sets the tone for what follows in your research proposal – treat it as the initial pitch of your idea. After reading the introduction your reader should:

• understand what it is you want to do;
• have a sense of your passion for the topic; and
• be excited about the study’s possible outcomes.

As you begin writing your research proposal, it is helpful to think of the introduction as a narrative of what it is you want to do, written in one to three paragraphs. Within those one to three paragraphs, it is important to briefly answer the following questions:

• What is the central research problem?
• How is the topic of your research proposal related to the problem?
• What methods will you utilize to analyze the research problem?
• Why is it important to undertake this research? What is the significance of your proposed research? Why are the outcomes of your proposed research important? Whom are they important?

Note : You may be asked by your instructor to include an abstract with your research proposal. In such cases, an abstract should provide an overview of what it is you plan to study, your main research question, a brief explanation of your methods to answer the research question, and your expected findings. All of this information must be carefully crafted in 150 to 250 words. A word of advice is to save the writing of your abstract until the very end of your research proposal preparation. If you are asked to provide an abstract, you should include 5 to 7 key words that are of most relevance to your study. List these in order of relevance.

Background and Significance

The purpose of this section is to explain the context of your proposal and to describe, in detail, why it is important to undertake this research. Assume that the person or people who will read your research proposal know nothing or very little about the research problem. While you do not need to include all knowledge you have learned about your topic in this section, it is important to ensure that you include the most relevant material that will help to explain the goals of your research.

While there are no hard and fast rules, you should attempt to address some or all of the following key points:

• State the research problem and provide a more thorough explanation about the purpose of the study than what you stated in the introduction.
• Present the rationale for the proposed research study. Clearly indicate why this research is worth doing. Answer the “so what?” question.
• Describe the major issues or problems to be addressed by your research. Do not forget to explain how and in what ways your proposed research builds upon previous related research.
• Explain how you plan to go about conducting your research.
• Clearly identify the key or most relevant sources of research you intend to use and explain how they will contribute to your analysis of the topic.
• Set the boundaries of your proposed research, in order to provide a clear focus. Where appropriate, state not only what you will study, but what will be excluded from your study.
• Provide clear definitions of key concepts and terms. Since key concepts and terms often have numerous definitions, make sure you state which definition you will be utilizing in your research.

Literature Review

This key component of the research proposal is the most time-consuming aspect in the preparation of your research proposal. As described in Chapter 5 , the literature review provides the background to your study and demonstrates the significance of the proposed research. Specifically, it is a review and synthesis of prior research that is related to the problem you are setting forth to investigate. Essentially, your goal in the literature review is to place your research study within the larger whole of what has been studied in the past, while demonstrating to your reader that your work is original, innovative, and adds to the larger whole.

As the literature review is information dense, it is essential that this section be intelligently structured to enable your reader to grasp the key arguments underpinning your study. However, this can be easier to state and harder to do, simply due to the fact there is usually a plethora of related research to sift through. Consequently, a good strategy for writing the literature review is to break the literature into conceptual categories or themes, rather than attempting to describe various groups of literature you reviewed. Chapter 5   describes a variety of methods to help you organize the themes.

Here are some suggestions on how to approach the writing of your literature review:

• Think about what questions other researchers have asked, what methods they used, what they found, and what they recommended based upon their findings.
• Do not be afraid to challenge previous related research findings and/or conclusions.
• Assess what you believe to be missing from previous research and explain how your research fills in this gap and/or extends previous research.

It is important to note that a significant challenge related to undertaking a literature review is knowing when to stop. As such, it is important to know when you have uncovered the key conceptual categories underlying your research topic. Generally, when you start to see repetition in the conclusions or recommendations, you can have confidence that you have covered all of the significant conceptual categories in your literature review. However, it is also important to acknowledge that researchers often find themselves returning to the literature as they collect and analyze their data. For example, an unexpected finding may develop as you collect and/or analyze the data; in this case, it is important to take the time to step back and review the literature again, to ensure that no other researchers have found a similar finding. This may include looking to research outside your field.

This situation occurred with one of this textbook’s authors’ research related to community resilience. During the interviews, the researchers heard many participants discuss individual resilience factors and how they believed these individual factors helped make the community more resilient, overall. Sheppard and Williams (2016) had not discovered these individual factors in their original literature review on community and environmental resilience. However, when they returned to the literature to search for individual resilience factors, they discovered a small body of literature in the child and youth psychology field. Consequently, Sheppard and Williams had to go back and add a new section to their literature review on individual resilience factors. Interestingly, their research appeared to be the first research to link individual resilience factors with community resilience factors.

Research design and methods

The objective of this section of the research proposal is to convince the reader that your overall research design and methods of analysis will enable you to solve the research problem you have identified and also enable you to accurately and effectively interpret the results of your research. Consequently, it is critical that the research design and methods section is well-written, clear, and logically organized. This demonstrates to your reader that you know what you are going to do and how you are going to do it. Overall, you want to leave your reader feeling confident that you have what it takes to get this research study completed in a timely fashion.

Essentially, this section of the research proposal should be clearly tied to the specific objectives of your study; however, it is also important to draw upon and include examples from the literature review that relate to your design and intended methods. In other words, you must clearly demonstrate how your study utilizes and builds upon past studies, as it relates to the research design and intended methods. For example, what methods have been used by other researchers in similar studies?

While it is important to consider the methods that other researchers have employed, it is equally, if not more, important to consider what methods have not been but could be employed. Remember, the methods section is not simply a list of tasks to be undertaken. It is also an argument as to why and how the tasks you have outlined will help you investigate the research problem and answer your research question(s).

Tips for writing the research design and methods section

Specify the methodological approaches you intend to employ to obtain information and the techniques you will use to analyze the data.

Specify the research operations you will undertake and the way you will interpret the results of those operations in relation to the research problem.

Go beyond stating what you hope to achieve through the methods you have chosen. State how you will actually implement the methods (i.e., coding interview text, running regression analysis, etc.).

Anticipate and acknowledge any potential barriers you may encounter when undertaking your research, and describe how you will address these barriers.

Explain where you believe you will find challenges related to data collection, including access to participants and information.

Preliminary Suppositions and Implications

The purpose of this section is to argue how you anticipate that your research will refine, revise, or extend existing knowledge in the area of your study. Depending upon the aims and objectives of your study, you should also discuss how your anticipated findings may impact future research. For example, is it possible that your research may lead to a new policy, theoretical understanding, or method for analyzing data? How might your study influence future studies? What might your study mean for future practitioners working in the field? Who or what might benefit from your study? How might your study contribute to social, economic or environmental issues? While it is important to think about and discuss possibilities such as these, it is equally important to be realistic in stating your anticipated findings. In other words, you do not want to delve into idle speculation. Rather, the purpose here is to reflect upon gaps in the current body of literature and to describe how you anticipate your research will begin to fill in some or all of those gaps.

The conclusion reiterates the importance and significance of your research proposal, and provides a brief summary of the entire proposed study. Essentially, this section should only be one or two paragraphs in length. Here is a potential outline for your conclusion:

Discuss why the study should be done. Specifically discuss how you expect your study will advance existing knowledge and how your study is unique.

Explain the specific purpose of the study and the research questions that the study will answer.

Explain why the research design and methods chosen for this study are appropriate, and why other designs and methods were not chosen.

State the potential implications you expect to emerge from your proposed study,

Provide a sense of how your study fits within the broader scholarship currently in existence, related to the research problem.

Citations and References

As with any scholarly research paper, you must cite the sources you used in composing your research proposal. In a research proposal, this can take two forms: a reference list or a bibliography. A reference list lists the literature you referenced in the body of your research proposal. All references in the reference list must appear in the body of the research proposal. Remember, it is not acceptable to say “as cited in …” As a researcher you must always go to the original source and check it for yourself. Many errors are made in referencing, even by top researchers, and so it is important not to perpetuate an error made by someone else. While this can be time consuming, it is the proper way to undertake a literature review.

In contrast, a bibliography , is a list of everything you used or cited in your research proposal, with additional citations to any key sources relevant to understanding the research problem. In other words, sources cited in your bibliography may not necessarily appear in the body of your research proposal. Make sure you check with your instructor to see which of the two you are expected to produce.

Overall, your list of citations should be a testament to the fact that you have done a sufficient level of preliminary research to ensure that your project will complement, but not duplicate, previous research efforts. For social sciences, the reference list or bibliography should be prepared in American Psychological Association (APA) referencing format. Usually, the reference list (or bibliography) is not included in the word count of the research proposal. Again, make sure you check with your instructor to confirm.

Research Methods for the Social Sciences: An Introduction Copyright © 2020 by Valerie Sheppard is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Assignments

• Annotated Bibliography
• Analyzing a Scholarly Journal Article
• Group Presentations
• Dealing with Nervousness
• Using Visual Aids
• Grading Someone Else's Paper
• Types of Structured Group Activities
• Group Project Survival Skills
• Leading a Class Discussion
• Multiple Book Review Essay
• Reviewing Collected Works
• Writing a Case Analysis Paper
• Writing a Case Study
• About Informed Consent
• Writing Field Notes
• Writing a Policy Memo
• Writing a Reflective Paper
• Writing a Research Proposal
• Generative AI and Writing
• Acknowledgments

The goal of a research proposal is twofold: to present and justify the need to study a research problem and to present the practical ways in which the proposed study should be conducted. The design elements and procedures for conducting research are governed by standards of the predominant discipline in which the problem resides, therefore, the guidelines for research proposals are more exacting and less formal than a general project proposal. Research proposals contain extensive literature reviews. They must provide persuasive evidence that a need exists for the proposed study. In addition to providing a rationale, a proposal describes detailed methodology for conducting the research consistent with requirements of the professional or academic field and a statement on anticipated outcomes and benefits derived from the study's completion.

Krathwohl, David R. How to Prepare a Dissertation Proposal: Suggestions for Students in Education and the Social and Behavioral Sciences . Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2005.

How to Approach Writing a Research Proposal

Your professor may assign the task of writing a research proposal for the following reasons:

• Develop your skills in thinking about and designing a comprehensive research study;
• Learn how to conduct a comprehensive review of the literature to determine that the research problem has not been adequately addressed or has been answered ineffectively and, in so doing, become better at locating pertinent scholarship related to your topic;
• Improve your general research and writing skills;
• Practice identifying the logical steps that must be taken to accomplish one's research goals;
• Critically review, examine, and consider the use of different methods for gathering and analyzing data related to the research problem; and,
• Nurture a sense of inquisitiveness within yourself and to help see yourself as an active participant in the process of conducting scholarly research.

A proposal should contain all the key elements involved in designing a completed research study, with sufficient information that allows readers to assess the validity and usefulness of your proposed study. The only elements missing from a research proposal are the findings of the study and your analysis of those findings. Finally, an effective proposal is judged on the quality of your writing and, therefore, it is important that your proposal is coherent, clear, and compelling.

Regardless of the research problem you are investigating and the methodology you choose, all research proposals must address the following questions:

• What do you plan to accomplish? Be clear and succinct in defining the research problem and what it is you are proposing to investigate.
• Why do you want to do the research? In addition to detailing your research design, you also must conduct a thorough review of the literature and provide convincing evidence that it is a topic worthy of in-depth study. A successful research proposal must answer the "So What?" question.
• How are you going to conduct the research? Be sure that what you propose is doable. If you're having difficulty formulating a research problem to propose investigating, go here for strategies in developing a problem to study.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

• Failure to be concise . A research proposal must be focused and not be "all over the map" or diverge into unrelated tangents without a clear sense of purpose.
• Failure to cite landmark works in your literature review . Proposals should be grounded in foundational research that lays a foundation for understanding the development and scope of the the topic and its relevance.
• Failure to delimit the contextual scope of your research [e.g., time, place, people, etc.]. As with any research paper, your proposed study must inform the reader how and in what ways the study will frame the problem.
• Failure to develop a coherent and persuasive argument for the proposed research . This is critical. In many workplace settings, the research proposal is a formal document intended to argue for why a study should be funded.
• Sloppy or imprecise writing, or poor grammar . Although a research proposal does not represent a completed research study, there is still an expectation that it is well-written and follows the style and rules of good academic writing.
• Too much detail on minor issues, but not enough detail on major issues . Your proposal should focus on only a few key research questions in order to support the argument that the research needs to be conducted. Minor issues, even if valid, can be mentioned but they should not dominate the overall narrative.

Procter, Margaret. The Academic Proposal.  The Lab Report. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Sanford, Keith. Information for Students: Writing a Research Proposal. Baylor University; Wong, Paul T. P. How to Write a Research Proposal. International Network on Personal Meaning. Trinity Western University; Writing Academic Proposals: Conferences, Articles, and Books. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Writing a Research Proposal. University Library. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Structure and Writing Style

Beginning the Proposal Process

As with writing most college-level academic papers, research proposals are generally organized the same way throughout most social science disciplines. The text of proposals generally vary in length between ten and thirty-five pages, followed by the list of references. However, before you begin, read the assignment carefully and, if anything seems unclear, ask your professor whether there are any specific requirements for organizing and writing the proposal.

A good place to begin is to ask yourself a series of questions:

• What do I want to study?
• Why is the topic important?
• How is it significant within the subject areas covered in my class?
• What problems will it help solve?
• How does it build upon [and hopefully go beyond] research already conducted on the topic?
• What exactly should I plan to do, and can I get it done in the time available?

In general, a compelling research proposal should document your knowledge of the topic and demonstrate your enthusiasm for conducting the study. Approach it with the intention of leaving your readers feeling like, "Wow, that's an exciting idea and I can’t wait to see how it turns out!"

Most proposals should include the following sections:

I.  Introduction

In the real world of higher education, a research proposal is most often written by scholars seeking grant funding for a research project or it's the first step in getting approval to write a doctoral dissertation. Even if this is just a course assignment, treat your introduction as the initial pitch of an idea based on a thorough examination of the significance of a research problem. After reading the introduction, your readers should not only have an understanding of what you want to do, but they should also be able to gain a sense of your passion for the topic and to be excited about the study's possible outcomes. Note that most proposals do not include an abstract [summary] before the introduction.

Think about your introduction as a narrative written in two to four paragraphs that succinctly answers the following four questions :

• What is the central research problem?
• What is the topic of study related to that research problem?
• What methods should be used to analyze the research problem?
• Answer the "So What?" question by explaining why this is important research, what is its significance, and why should someone reading the proposal care about the outcomes of the proposed study?

II.  Background and Significance

This is where you explain the scope and context of your proposal and describe in detail why it's important. It can be melded into your introduction or you can create a separate section to help with the organization and narrative flow of your proposal. Approach writing this section with the thought that you can’t assume your readers will know as much about the research problem as you do. Note that this section is not an essay going over everything you have learned about the topic; instead, you must choose what is most relevant in explaining the aims of your research.

To that end, while there are no prescribed rules for establishing the significance of your proposed study, you should attempt to address some or all of the following:

• State the research problem and give a more detailed explanation about the purpose of the study than what you stated in the introduction. This is particularly important if the problem is complex or multifaceted .
• Present the rationale of your proposed study and clearly indicate why it is worth doing; be sure to answer the "So What? question [i.e., why should anyone care?].
• Describe the major issues or problems examined by your research. This can be in the form of questions to be addressed. Be sure to note how your proposed study builds on previous assumptions about the research problem.
• Explain the methods you plan to use for conducting your research. Clearly identify the key sources you intend to use and explain how they will contribute to your analysis of the topic.
• Describe the boundaries of your proposed research in order to provide a clear focus. Where appropriate, state not only what you plan to study, but what aspects of the research problem will be excluded from the study.
• If necessary, provide definitions of key concepts, theories, or terms.

III.  Literature Review

Connected to the background and significance of your study is a section of your proposal devoted to a more deliberate review and synthesis of prior studies related to the research problem under investigation . The purpose here is to place your project within the larger whole of what is currently being explored, while at the same time, demonstrating to your readers that your work is original and innovative. Think about what questions other researchers have asked, what methodological approaches they have used, and what is your understanding of their findings and, when stated, their recommendations. Also pay attention to any suggestions for further research.

Since a literature review is information dense, it is crucial that this section is intelligently structured to enable a reader to grasp the key arguments underpinning your proposed study in relation to the arguments put forth by other researchers. A good strategy is to break the literature into "conceptual categories" [themes] rather than systematically or chronologically describing groups of materials one at a time. Note that conceptual categories generally reveal themselves after you have read most of the pertinent literature on your topic so adding new categories is an on-going process of discovery as you review more studies. How do you know you've covered the key conceptual categories underlying the research literature? Generally, you can have confidence that all of the significant conceptual categories have been identified if you start to see repetition in the conclusions or recommendations that are being made.

NOTE: Do not shy away from challenging the conclusions made in prior research as a basis for supporting the need for your proposal. Assess what you believe is missing and state how previous research has failed to adequately examine the issue that your study addresses. Highlighting the problematic conclusions strengthens your proposal. For more information on writing literature reviews, GO HERE .

To help frame your proposal's review of prior research, consider the "five C’s" of writing a literature review:

• Cite , so as to keep the primary focus on the literature pertinent to your research problem.
• Compare the various arguments, theories, methodologies, and findings expressed in the literature: what do the authors agree on? Who applies similar approaches to analyzing the research problem?
• Contrast the various arguments, themes, methodologies, approaches, and controversies expressed in the literature: describe what are the major areas of disagreement, controversy, or debate among scholars?
• Critique the literature: Which arguments are more persuasive, and why? Which approaches, findings, and methodologies seem most reliable, valid, or appropriate, and why? Pay attention to the verbs you use to describe what an author says/does [e.g., asserts, demonstrates, argues, etc.].
• Connect the literature to your own area of research and investigation: how does your own work draw upon, depart from, synthesize, or add a new perspective to what has been said in the literature?

IV.  Research Design and Methods

This section must be well-written and logically organized because you are not actually doing the research, yet, your reader must have confidence that you have a plan worth pursuing . The reader will never have a study outcome from which to evaluate whether your methodological choices were the correct ones. Thus, the objective here is to convince the reader that your overall research design and proposed methods of analysis will correctly address the problem and that the methods will provide the means to effectively interpret the potential results. Your design and methods should be unmistakably tied to the specific aims of your study.

Describe the overall research design by building upon and drawing examples from your review of the literature. Consider not only methods that other researchers have used, but methods of data gathering that have not been used but perhaps could be. Be specific about the methodological approaches you plan to undertake to obtain information, the techniques you would use to analyze the data, and the tests of external validity to which you commit yourself [i.e., the trustworthiness by which you can generalize from your study to other people, places, events, and/or periods of time].

When describing the methods you will use, be sure to cover the following:

• Specify the research process you will undertake and the way you will interpret the results obtained in relation to the research problem. Don't just describe what you intend to achieve from applying the methods you choose, but state how you will spend your time while applying these methods [e.g., coding text from interviews to find statements about the need to change school curriculum; running a regression to determine if there is a relationship between campaign advertising on social media sites and election outcomes in Europe ].
• Keep in mind that the methodology is not just a list of tasks; it is a deliberate argument as to why techniques for gathering information add up to the best way to investigate the research problem. This is an important point because the mere listing of tasks to be performed does not demonstrate that, collectively, they effectively address the research problem. Be sure you clearly explain this.
• Anticipate and acknowledge any potential barriers and pitfalls in carrying out your research design and explain how you plan to address them. No method applied to research in the social and behavioral sciences is perfect, so you need to describe where you believe challenges may exist in obtaining data or accessing information. It's always better to acknowledge this than to have it brought up by your professor!

V.  Preliminary Suppositions and Implications

Just because you don't have to actually conduct the study and analyze the results, doesn't mean you can skip talking about the analytical process and potential implications . The purpose of this section is to argue how and in what ways you believe your research will refine, revise, or extend existing knowledge in the subject area under investigation. Depending on the aims and objectives of your study, describe how the anticipated results will impact future scholarly research, theory, practice, forms of interventions, or policy making. Note that such discussions may have either substantive [a potential new policy], theoretical [a potential new understanding], or methodological [a potential new way of analyzing] significance.   When thinking about the potential implications of your study, ask the following questions:

• What might the results mean in regards to challenging the theoretical framework and underlying assumptions that support the study?
• What suggestions for subsequent research could arise from the potential outcomes of the study?
• What will the results mean to practitioners in the natural settings of their workplace, organization, or community?
• Will the results influence programs, methods, and/or forms of intervention?
• How might the results contribute to the solution of social, economic, or other types of problems?
• Will the results influence policy decisions?
• In what way do individuals or groups benefit should your study be pursued?
• What will be improved or changed as a result of the proposed research?
• How will the results of the study be implemented and what innovations or transformative insights could emerge from the process of implementation?

NOTE:   This section should not delve into idle speculation, opinion, or be formulated on the basis of unclear evidence . The purpose is to reflect upon gaps or understudied areas of the current literature and describe how your proposed research contributes to a new understanding of the research problem should the study be implemented as designed.

ANOTHER NOTE : This section is also where you describe any potential limitations to your proposed study. While it is impossible to highlight all potential limitations because the study has yet to be conducted, you still must tell the reader where and in what form impediments may arise and how you plan to address them.

VI.  Conclusion

The conclusion reiterates the importance or significance of your proposal and provides a brief summary of the entire study . This section should be only one or two paragraphs long, emphasizing why the research problem is worth investigating, why your research study is unique, and how it should advance existing knowledge.

Someone reading this section should come away with an understanding of:

• Why the study should be done;
• The specific purpose of the study and the research questions it attempts to answer;
• The decision for why the research design and methods used where chosen over other options;
• The potential implications emerging from your proposed study of the research problem; and
• A sense of how your study fits within the broader scholarship about the research problem.

VII.  Citations

As with any scholarly research paper, you must cite the sources you used . In a standard research proposal, this section can take two forms, so consult with your professor about which one is preferred.

• References -- a list of only the sources you actually used in creating your proposal.
• Bibliography -- a list of everything you used in creating your proposal, along with additional citations to any key sources relevant to understanding the research problem.

In either case, this section should testify to the fact that you did enough preparatory work to ensure the project will complement and not just duplicate the efforts of other researchers. It demonstrates to the reader that you have a thorough understanding of prior research on the topic.

Most proposal formats have you start a new page and use the heading "References" or "Bibliography" centered at the top of the page. Cited works should always use a standard format that follows the writing style advised by the discipline of your course [e.g., education=APA; history=Chicago] or that is preferred by your professor. This section normally does not count towards the total page length of your research proposal.

Develop a Research Proposal: Writing the Proposal. Office of Library Information Services. Baltimore County Public Schools; Heath, M. Teresa Pereira and Caroline Tynan. “Crafting a Research Proposal.” The Marketing Review 10 (Summer 2010): 147-168; Jones, Mark. “Writing a Research Proposal.” In MasterClass in Geography Education: Transforming Teaching and Learning . Graham Butt, editor. (New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2015), pp. 113-127; Juni, Muhamad Hanafiah. “Writing a Research Proposal.” International Journal of Public Health and Clinical Sciences 1 (September/October 2014): 229-240; Krathwohl, David R. How to Prepare a Dissertation Proposal: Suggestions for Students in Education and the Social and Behavioral Sciences . Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2005; Procter, Margaret. The Academic Proposal. The Lab Report. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Punch, Keith and Wayne McGowan. "Developing and Writing a Research Proposal." In From Postgraduate to Social Scientist: A Guide to Key Skills . Nigel Gilbert, ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2006), 59-81; Wong, Paul T. P. How to Write a Research Proposal. International Network on Personal Meaning. Trinity Western University; Writing Academic Proposals: Conferences , Articles, and Books. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Writing a Research Proposal. University Library. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

• << Previous: Writing a Reflective Paper
• Next: Generative AI and Writing >>
• Last Updated: Jun 3, 2024 9:44 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/assignments

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Indian J Anaesth
• v.60(9); 2016 Sep

How to write a research proposal?

Department of Anaesthesiology, Bangalore Medical College and Research Institute, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India

Devika Rani Duggappa

Writing the proposal of a research work in the present era is a challenging task due to the constantly evolving trends in the qualitative research design and the need to incorporate medical advances into the methodology. The proposal is a detailed plan or ‘blueprint’ for the intended study, and once it is completed, the research project should flow smoothly. Even today, many of the proposals at post-graduate evaluation committees and application proposals for funding are substandard. A search was conducted with keywords such as research proposal, writing proposal and qualitative using search engines, namely, PubMed and Google Scholar, and an attempt has been made to provide broad guidelines for writing a scientifically appropriate research proposal.

INTRODUCTION

A clean, well-thought-out proposal forms the backbone for the research itself and hence becomes the most important step in the process of conduct of research.[ 1 ] The objective of preparing a research proposal would be to obtain approvals from various committees including ethics committee [details under ‘Research methodology II’ section [ Table 1 ] in this issue of IJA) and to request for grants. However, there are very few universally accepted guidelines for preparation of a good quality research proposal. A search was performed with keywords such as research proposal, funding, qualitative and writing proposals using search engines, namely, PubMed, Google Scholar and Scopus.

Five ‘C’s while writing a literature review

BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF A RESEARCH PROPOSAL

A proposal needs to show how your work fits into what is already known about the topic and what new paradigm will it add to the literature, while specifying the question that the research will answer, establishing its significance, and the implications of the answer.[ 2 ] The proposal must be capable of convincing the evaluation committee about the credibility, achievability, practicality and reproducibility (repeatability) of the research design.[ 3 ] Four categories of audience with different expectations may be present in the evaluation committees, namely academic colleagues, policy-makers, practitioners and lay audiences who evaluate the research proposal. Tips for preparation of a good research proposal include; ‘be practical, be persuasive, make broader links, aim for crystal clarity and plan before you write’. A researcher must be balanced, with a realistic understanding of what can be achieved. Being persuasive implies that researcher must be able to convince other researchers, research funding agencies, educational institutions and supervisors that the research is worth getting approval. The aim of the researcher should be clearly stated in simple language that describes the research in a way that non-specialists can comprehend, without use of jargons. The proposal must not only demonstrate that it is based on an intelligent understanding of the existing literature but also show that the writer has thought about the time needed to conduct each stage of the research.[ 4 , 5 ]

CONTENTS OF A RESEARCH PROPOSAL

The contents or formats of a research proposal vary depending on the requirements of evaluation committee and are generally provided by the evaluation committee or the institution.

In general, a cover page should contain the (i) title of the proposal, (ii) name and affiliation of the researcher (principal investigator) and co-investigators, (iii) institutional affiliation (degree of the investigator and the name of institution where the study will be performed), details of contact such as phone numbers, E-mail id's and lines for signatures of investigators.

The main contents of the proposal may be presented under the following headings: (i) introduction, (ii) review of literature, (iii) aims and objectives, (iv) research design and methods, (v) ethical considerations, (vi) budget, (vii) appendices and (viii) citations.[ 4 ]

Introduction

It is also sometimes termed as ‘need for study’ or ‘abstract’. Introduction is an initial pitch of an idea; it sets the scene and puts the research in context.[ 6 ] The introduction should be designed to create interest in the reader about the topic and proposal. It should convey to the reader, what you want to do, what necessitates the study and your passion for the topic.[ 7 ] Some questions that can be used to assess the significance of the study are: (i) Who has an interest in the domain of inquiry? (ii) What do we already know about the topic? (iii) What has not been answered adequately in previous research and practice? (iv) How will this research add to knowledge, practice and policy in this area? Some of the evaluation committees, expect the last two questions, elaborated under a separate heading of ‘background and significance’.[ 8 ] Introduction should also contain the hypothesis behind the research design. If hypothesis cannot be constructed, the line of inquiry to be used in the research must be indicated.

Review of literature

It refers to all sources of scientific evidence pertaining to the topic in interest. In the present era of digitalisation and easy accessibility, there is an enormous amount of relevant data available, making it a challenge for the researcher to include all of it in his/her review.[ 9 ] It is crucial to structure this section intelligently so that the reader can grasp the argument related to your study in relation to that of other researchers, while still demonstrating to your readers that your work is original and innovative. It is preferable to summarise each article in a paragraph, highlighting the details pertinent to the topic of interest. The progression of review can move from the more general to the more focused studies, or a historical progression can be used to develop the story, without making it exhaustive.[ 1 ] Literature should include supporting data, disagreements and controversies. Five ‘C's may be kept in mind while writing a literature review[ 10 ] [ Table 1 ].

Aims and objectives

The research purpose (or goal or aim) gives a broad indication of what the researcher wishes to achieve in the research. The hypothesis to be tested can be the aim of the study. The objectives related to parameters or tools used to achieve the aim are generally categorised as primary and secondary objectives.

Research design and method

The objective here is to convince the reader that the overall research design and methods of analysis will correctly address the research problem and to impress upon the reader that the methodology/sources chosen are appropriate for the specific topic. It should be unmistakably tied to the specific aims of your study.

In this section, the methods and sources used to conduct the research must be discussed, including specific references to sites, databases, key texts or authors that will be indispensable to the project. There should be specific mention about the methodological approaches to be undertaken to gather information, about the techniques to be used to analyse it and about the tests of external validity to which researcher is committed.[ 10 , 11 ]

The components of this section include the following:[ 4 ]

Population and sample

Population refers to all the elements (individuals, objects or substances) that meet certain criteria for inclusion in a given universe,[ 12 ] and sample refers to subset of population which meets the inclusion criteria for enrolment into the study. The inclusion and exclusion criteria should be clearly defined. The details pertaining to sample size are discussed in the article “Sample size calculation: Basic priniciples” published in this issue of IJA.

Data collection

The researcher is expected to give a detailed account of the methodology adopted for collection of data, which include the time frame required for the research. The methodology should be tested for its validity and ensure that, in pursuit of achieving the results, the participant's life is not jeopardised. The author should anticipate and acknowledge any potential barrier and pitfall in carrying out the research design and explain plans to address them, thereby avoiding lacunae due to incomplete data collection. If the researcher is planning to acquire data through interviews or questionnaires, copy of the questions used for the same should be attached as an annexure with the proposal.

Rigor (soundness of the research)

This addresses the strength of the research with respect to its neutrality, consistency and applicability. Rigor must be reflected throughout the proposal.

It refers to the robustness of a research method against bias. The author should convey the measures taken to avoid bias, viz. blinding and randomisation, in an elaborate way, thus ensuring that the result obtained from the adopted method is purely as chance and not influenced by other confounding variables.

Consistency

Consistency considers whether the findings will be consistent if the inquiry was replicated with the same participants and in a similar context. This can be achieved by adopting standard and universally accepted methods and scales.

Applicability

Applicability refers to the degree to which the findings can be applied to different contexts and groups.[ 13 ]

Data analysis

This section deals with the reduction and reconstruction of data and its analysis including sample size calculation. The researcher is expected to explain the steps adopted for coding and sorting the data obtained. Various tests to be used to analyse the data for its robustness, significance should be clearly stated. Author should also mention the names of statistician and suitable software which will be used in due course of data analysis and their contribution to data analysis and sample calculation.[ 9 ]

Ethical considerations

Medical research introduces special moral and ethical problems that are not usually encountered by other researchers during data collection, and hence, the researcher should take special care in ensuring that ethical standards are met. Ethical considerations refer to the protection of the participants' rights (right to self-determination, right to privacy, right to autonomy and confidentiality, right to fair treatment and right to protection from discomfort and harm), obtaining informed consent and the institutional review process (ethical approval). The researcher needs to provide adequate information on each of these aspects.

Informed consent needs to be obtained from the participants (details discussed in further chapters), as well as the research site and the relevant authorities.

When the researcher prepares a research budget, he/she should predict and cost all aspects of the research and then add an additional allowance for unpredictable disasters, delays and rising costs. All items in the budget should be justified.

Appendices are documents that support the proposal and application. The appendices will be specific for each proposal but documents that are usually required include informed consent form, supporting documents, questionnaires, measurement tools and patient information of the study in layman's language.

As with any scholarly research paper, you must cite the sources you used in composing your proposal. Although the words ‘references and bibliography’ are different, they are used interchangeably. It refers to all references cited in the research proposal.

Successful, qualitative research proposals should communicate the researcher's knowledge of the field and method and convey the emergent nature of the qualitative design. The proposal should follow a discernible logic from the introduction to presentation of the appendices.

Financial support and sponsorship

Conflicts of interest.

There are no conflicts of interest.

Unicaf Scholarships offer students the opportunity to further their education with affordable, high-quality degrees

• Global Network
• Recognition, Accreditation and Memberships

Study through Unicaf with one of its partner universities

• University Partners
• Programme Finder
• Professional Courses
• Graduation Ceremonies
• Online Experience
• On-campus Teaching
• Student Testimonials
• Global Organisation
• Our Faculty
• Programme Advising
• News & Events
• Unicaf in 5 Minutes
• The Unicaf Mobile App
• Virtual Learning Environment
• Online Learning

Amazing Opportunity to earn a Scholarship

• Apply For A Unicaf Scholarship
• Scholarship
• Unicaf Referral Programme
• Corporate Scholarship Scheme

Research with us

• Research Agenda
• Research Centres Unicaf Research and Innovation Centre in Zambia Research Centre in Malawi
• Doctoral Research Groups
• Research Newsletter
• Unicaf Online Journal
• Conferences Unicaf University Graduate Conference (UGraC) Unicaf Master’s Conference (UMC) Unicaf University National Symposium on Dementia in Zambia
• Thesis Publications
• Publications Faculty Students/Alumni
• Scholarships
• Research Centres
• Unicaf Research and Innovation Centre in Zambia
• Research Centre in Malawi
• Conferences
• Unicaf University Graduate Conference (UGraC)
• Unicaf Master’s Conference (UMC)
• Unicaf University National Symposium on Dementia in Zambia
• Publications
• Students/Alumni
• Français ( French )

How can we help?

How to write a winning research proposal: a step-by-step guide.

• Amazing Opportunity to earn a Scholarship. Apply Now!
• Complete the following required fields to apply for a Unicaf scholarship for the programme of your choice.
• First Name *
• Last Name *
• Email Address *
• How can we get in touch?
• Fill out your contact details and one of our student advisors will get in touch with you soon.
• Country of Residence * Country of Residence* Ascension Island Andorra United Arab Emirates Afghanistan Antigua and Barbuda Anguilla Albania Armenia Netherlands Antilles Angola Antarctica Argentina American Samoa Austria Australia Aruba Ãland Islands Azerbaijan Bosnia and Herzegovina Barbados Bangladesh Belgium Burkina Faso Bulgaria Bahrain Burundi Benin Saint Barthélemy Bermuda Brunei Darussalam Bolivia Bonaire Brazil Bahamas Bhutan Bouvet Island Botswana Belarus Belize Canada Cocos (Keeling) Islands Congo, The Democratic Republic of The Central African Republic Congo Switzerland Cote D'ivoire Cook Islands Chile Cameroon China Colombia Costa Rica Cuba Cape Verde Curacao Christmas Island Cyprus Czech Republic Germany Diego Garcia Djibouti Denmark Dominica Dominican Republic Algeria Ceuta and Melilla Ecuador Estonia Egypt Western Sahara Eritrea Spain Ethiopia Finland Fiji Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Micronesia, Federated States of Faroe Islands France Gabon United Kingdom Grenada Georgia French Guiana Guernsey Ghana Gibraltar Greenland Gambia Guinea Guadeloupe Equatorial Guinea Greece South Georgia and The South Sandwich Islands Guatemala Guam Guinea-Bissau Guyana Hong Kong Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Honduras Croatia Haiti Hungary Canary Islands Indonesia Ireland Israel Isle of Man India British Indian Ocean Territory Iraq Iran, Islamic Republic of Iceland Italy Jersey Jamaica Jordan Japan Kenya Kyrgyzstan Cambodia Kiribati Comoros Saint Kitts and Nevis Korea, Democratic People's Republic South Korea Kuwait Cayman Islands Kazakhstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Lebanon Saint Lucia Liechtenstein Sri Lanka Liberia Lesotho Lithuania Luxembourg Latvia Libya Morocco Monaco Moldova, Republic of Montenegro Saint Martin Madagascar Marshall Islands Republic of North Macedonia Mali Myanmar (Burma) Mongolia Macau Northern Mariana Islands Martinique Mauritania Montserrat Malta Mauritius Maldives Malawi Mexico Malaysia Mozambique Namibia New Caledonia Niger Norfolk Island Nigeria Nicaragua Netherlands Norway Nepal Nauru Niue New Zealand Oman Panama Peru French Polynesia Papua New Guinea Philippines Pakistan Poland St. Pierre and Miquelon Pitcairn Island Puerto Rico Palestinian Territory, Occupied Portugal Palau Paraguay Qatar Reunion Island Romania Serbia Russian Federation Rwanda Saudi Arabia Solomon Islands Seychelles Sudan Sweden Singapore Saint Helena Slovenia Svalbard and Jan Mayen Islands Slovak Republic Sierra Leone San Marino Senegal Somalia Suriname South Sudan Sao Tome and Principe El Salvador Sint Maarten Syrian Arab Republic The Kingdom of Eswatini Tristan da Cunha Turks and Caicos Islands Chad French Southern Territories Togo Thailand Tajikistan Tokelau Timor-Leste Turkmenistan Tunisia Tonga Turkey Trinidad and Tobago Tuvalu Taiwan Tanzania Ukraine Uganda US Minor Outlying Islands United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Holy See (City Vatican State) Saint Vincent and The Grenadines Venezuela Virgin Islands (British) Virgin Islands (USA) Vietnam Vanuatu Wallis and Futuna Samoa Kosovo Yemen Mayotte South Africa Zambia Zimbabwe
• Phone Number *
• What is your programme of choice?
• Select the programme you would like to receive more information about, and provide us with your current education level.
• Choose your Programme * Choose your Programme* MBA LLM MSc Big Data Technologies MSc Business Psychology MSc Computer Science MSc Construction Engineering Management MSc Data Science MSc Information Security and Digital Forensics MSc in International Business Management MSc International Relations MSc in Oil and Gas with Energy Management MA in Criminology and Social Policy MA in Education MA in Human Resource Management MA in International Relations MA in Leadership in Education MA in Mass Communications MA in Nursing Master of Business Administration Master of Laws MSc in Civil Engineering MSc in Computing and Information Systems MSc in Digital Marketing MSc in International Public Health MSc in International Transport, Trade and Logistics MSc in Project Management MSc in Psychology Postgraduate Certificate in Education (International) Master of Business Administration MSc Public Health LLB (Hons) Law BA (Hons) Business Management BSc (Hons) Computing BSc (Hons) International Nursing [Progression Route] Master of Business Administration (MBA) - General Master of Business Administration (MBA) - Finance Master of Business Administration (MBA) - Health Management Master of Business Administration (MBA) - Management Master of Business Administration (MBA) - Management Information Systems Master of Business Administration (MBA) - Marketing Master of Business Administration (MBA) - Oil, Gas and Energy Management Master of Arts (MA) in Education Master of Public Administration (MPA) Master of Science (MSc) in Organisational Psychology Doctor of Business Administration (DBA) Doctor of Education (EdD) Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in Accounting and Finance Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in Business Administration Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in Education Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in Information Technology Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in Marketing Management Bachelor of Arts (BA) in Business Administration Bachelor of Arts (BA) in Economics and Business Bachelor of Arts (BA) in Hospitality Management Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) in Primary Education Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) in Primary Education (Upgrading) Bachelor of Science (BSc) in Accounting Bachelor of Science (BSc) in Computer Science Bachelor of Science (BSc) in Finance Bachelor of Science (BSc) in Supply Chain Management and Logistics Master of Business Administration Master of Business Administration - Finance Master of Business Administration - Health Management Master of Business Administration – Human Resource Management Master of Business Administration - Management Master of Business Administration - Management Information Systems Master of Business Administration - Marketing Master of Business Administration - Oil, Gas and Energy Management Master of Business Administration - Project Management Master of Arts in Educational Leadership and Management Master of Arts in English Language and Literature Master of Laws (LLM) Master of Public Administration Master of Science in Computer Science Master of Science in Healthcare Management - ZM Master of Science in Managerial Psychology Master of Science in Sustainable Development Master of Science in Web Design and Development Master of Education Doctorate of Business Administration (DBA) Doctorate of Education (EdD) Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) – Business- ZM Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) - Education Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) - Law and Politics Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) - Public Health Bachelor in Hospitality Management Bachelor in Marketing Bachelor of Arts in English Language and Literature Bachelor of Business Administration - ZM Bachelor of Education in Pre-Primary Education Bachelor of Education in Primary Education Bachelor of Laws (LLB) Bachelor of Science in Accounting and Finance Bachelor of Science in Accounting and Finance - ACCA
• Current Level of Education * Current Level of Education* GCE 'A levels' or High School Diploma BTEC HND Foundation degree Bachelor degree Postgraduate certificate Postgraduate diploma Master‘s degree Doctoral Degree Other
• Consent * I agree to the Terms and Conditions , the Privacy Policy , the Cookie Policy and the Recording Policy (Agreement to the terms is required to submit form) *

When learning how to write a research proposal, it is important to start with a detailed plan that outlines the objectives, methodology, and significance of a research project. A research proposal is a crucial document for securing funding, gaining approval from academic committees, or outlining a structured plan for personal research endeavours. Crafting a compelling research proposal requires a clear understanding of the subject matter, a well-defined research question, and a meticulous approach to planning and presenting your research. This article will explore how to write a winning research proposal and how to navigate the challenges associated with it.

Understanding the Components of a Research Proposal

A well-structured research proposal typically includes several key components. Each section serves a specific purpose and contributes to the overall coherence and persuasiveness of the proposal.

The title of your research proposal should be concise, descriptive, and indicative of the main research question or hypothesis. A well-crafted title captures the essence of the study and draws the reader’s attention.

2. Abstract

The abstract is a brief summary of the research proposal, usually no more than 250 words. It should provide an overview of the research problem, objectives, methodology, and potential implications. The abstract should be clear and succinct, giving readers a quick understanding of what the proposal entails.

3. Introduction

The introduction sets the stage for your research by providing background information on the topic, outlining the research problem, and stating the research objectives. This section should:

• Introduce the topic: Provide context and explain why the topic is important.
• State the research problem: Clearly define the issue or gap in knowledge that your research aims to address.
• Outline the research objectives: Specify the aims of your research and the questions you intend to answer.

4. Literature Review

The literature review demonstrates your understanding of the existing research on your topic. This section should:

• Summarise relevant studies: Discuss key findings from previous research that relate to your topic.
• Identify gaps: Highlight areas where further research is needed.
• Justify your research: Explain how your study will contribute to the existing body of knowledge.

5. Research Methodology

The methodology section outlines the research design and the methods you will use to collect and analyse data. This section should include:

• Research design: Describe whether your study is qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods.
• Data collection methods: Detail how you will gather data (e.g., surveys, interviews, experiments).
• Data analysis methods: Explain how you will analyse the data (e.g., statistical analysis, thematic analysis).
• Ethical considerations: Address any ethical issues related to your research and how you will handle them.

6. Research Plan and Timeline

Provide a detailed plan of the research activities and a timeline for completing each phase of the project. This section should demonstrate that your research is feasible within the given timeframe.

7. Budget (if applicable)

If you are seeking funding, include a budget that outlines the estimated costs of your research. Be specific about how funds will be allocated (e.g., equipment, travel, participant incentives).

8. Expected Outcomes and Impact

Discuss the potential outcomes of your research and its significance. Explain how your findings could contribute to the field, inform policy, or have practical applications.

9. References

List all the sources you cited in your proposal. Use a consistent and appropriate citation style (e.g., APA, MLA, Chicago).

Tips for Writing a Strong Research Proposal

Be clear and concise.

Use clear and straightforward language. Avoid jargon and complex sentences that might confuse readers. Aim for clarity and precision in explaining your research.

Stay Focused

Ensure that your proposal remains focused on the research question and objectives. Avoid including irrelevant information that does not contribute to the understanding of your proposed study.

Demonstrate Feasibility

Provide a realistic assessment of what can be achieved within the given timeframe and resources. Be honest about the scope of your research and any potential limitations.

Edit and Proofread

Your proposal must be clear, concise, and logically organised, following all rules of grammar, spelling, punctuation, and referencing. Adhere to the specific format and style required by your funding source or institution. Proofread your proposal multiple times, ideally with the help of a colleague or mentor, to identify and correct any mistakes or inconsistencies. Enhance the proposal’s structure, flow, and language to improve its overall quality. Ensure your proposal is compelling, engaging, and professionally presented.

Writing a research proposal is a critical step in the research process. It requires careful planning, a thorough understanding of the topic, and a clear presentation of your research plan. By following the structure outlined in this guide and paying attention to detail, you can craft a compelling research proposal that effectively communicates your ideas and secures the necessary support for your research.

At Unicaf , we offer comprehensive courses and resources to help you develop your research skills and succeed in your academic and professional endeavours. Explore our programmes today and take the next step in your research journey.

Learn by Subject

Learn how you can earn a scholarship., earn an internationally recognised degree from the comfort of your home., continue learning.

Elevate Your Career with a Master of Education from Unicaf University Zambia

30 Aug 2024 By Andrew Evgeniou

The Impact of Light Pollution on Wildlife and Human Health

Advances in Brain-Computer Interface Technology: Unlocking the Potential of the Human Mind

Privacy Overview

We Trust in Human Precision

20,000+ Professional Language Experts Ready to Help. Expertise in a variety of Niches.

API Solutions

• API Pricing
• Cost estimate
• Customer loyalty program
• Educational Discount
• Non-Profit Discount
• Green Initiative Discount1

Value-Driven Pricing

Unmatched expertise at affordable rates tailored for your needs. Our services empower you to boost your productivity.

• Special Discounts
• Enterprise transcription solutions
• Enterprise translation solutions
• Transcription/Caption API
• AI Transcription Proofreading API

Trusted by Global Leaders

GoTranscript is the chosen service for top media organizations, universities, and Fortune 50 companies.

GoTranscript

One of the Largest Online Transcription and Translation Agencies in the World. Founded in 2005.

Speaker 1: Hey everyone, welcome back to my channel. If you are new here, my name is Aminah and today we are talking research proposals. Probably one of the most asked questions that I get, how do you write a strong research proposal? Now, a proposal is probably one of the most important documents that you will write before actually starting your PhD or your research program. It defines a question and describes the approach that you are going to take to answer that question. It also places your work within the realm of the research that's currently out there and shows sort of what your kind of approach is for. I know what works and what doesn't work. I have edited hundreds of research proposals that have been sent to me via the page doctor.com, which is my academic consultancy. And I've marked proposals that have passed and gone through to top universities all around the world and those that haven't. And I can clearly tell you what needs to be included, what should definitely not be included and sort of what the structure of a research proposal should be. Without a proposal, there is no plan. And without a plan, there is no project. That is the key thing to take away. You need a proposal. If you're watching this video, you're probably stuck. You're probably thinking, well, okay, I have to write a proposal. I don't know where to begin. I don't know how to do this. By the end of today's video, you will walk away with a draft outline or a rough outline of a proposal. And you'll be able to work on that and then possibly submit that to us at the page doctor to then be able to clean up and to tailor that proposal to make sure that you get accepted into the program that you desire. I post every Wednesday and every Sunday. So don't forget to press the subscribe button right now while you're waiting to see more from me and content just like this. The structure of a research proposal includes eight different sections and is approximately 2000 to about 2500 words maximum. Remember that number. It should never be too short, but also shouldn't be too long. So it includes the following sections, a title, an abstract research background, research questions, the research methods. I guess that's your approach. The significance, a timeline of your proposed project. And lastly, a bibliography or a reference list. I'm going to be showing and breaking down each of those sections for you and telling you what should be included in each of those parts. So starting off with your title. Now, when thinking about your title, think about what keywords define your project. If someone were to search for your work, what keywords would they have to look for in order to identify your particular project? How would you describe your research? What are the terms that you need to include to be able to say, right, this is the work that I'm doing. Remember that this is the one section I would say that will definitely change. The title that you propose in the beginning will be revised, kind of changed as you go along, depending on direction that your project takes in the end. So if you don't feel like it's the title that you're going to graduate with, because it definitely isn't. Don't feel pressurized to develop the best title ever, because like I said, it's definitely going to change. The second section is your abstract. Now, your abstract, I've talked about quite a bit before. The abstract is traditionally used to summarize your research, talk about the intent, the research question, and the method that you took, and then the results and talk about the discussion. But obviously in this case, you're discussing a proposed research, so you haven't actually done it yet. So in this case, the abstract is very short, around a hundred words, and it's a statement that highlights the issue that you are concerned with and that you are going to be discussing in this proposal. So the third section is your research background. Now, this is a bit like a literature review, but a bit more concise than a traditional literature review. This sets the context for the research proposal. What literature are you basing this research on? You should have done a lot of reading to understand where your work is going to fit into the field, and that is where you're going to describe what that field is. What information does the reader need to know to understand your field? What information does the reader need to know to know, I guess, what gap there is in the literature? The most important consideration here is trying to think about the current debates that are in the literature. What is the current state of knowledge? What do people say about your topic? Is there sort of one side that says this is happening and the other side saying that's happening? What is the stance that you are taking concerning the current debate in literature? That is essentially what you are trying to summarize within the research background. This should be a really concise section where you're highlighting the top papers that are relevant for your topic. Don't underestimate the importance of this section. You know, you're submitting this to another expert in the field, so they'll know what papers and what literature is the most important, and they'll know whether you've done the most exhaustive reading or not. The fourth section is your research questions. Now, this is essentially defining what it is that you are seeking out with this research. What are the central aims that run through your study? Like I said, you need to really think about where your research fits into the field, whether your questions are feasible. Have they been answered before? If yes, that's not an original study. It needs to provide new information to the field, a new sort of insight, a new direction, a new consideration. You should really have one or two main questions, and then sort of a couple of sub-questions that feed into answering that main overarching question. The next section, and probably the most bulkiest and most important section, is the research method or the methodology section. And here you're actually defining your approach. Now you've said what the issue is, you've said with the gap of knowledge, you've said what you want to, like how you're going to do it. Now you need to define the methods. How exactly are you planning on determining the answer to the question of your research? You need to justify everything in this section. Why have you chosen quantitative over qualitative? Or why have you chosen a mixed method? Why have you chosen this cell type? Why have you chosen any method that you discuss? You need to say why you've chosen it and really justify the choices that you make. Like I said, I think this is probably the most weighty section and the section you should consider the most, as it can determine the success of your project. It's all well and good to say we don't understand how this thing happens. If you don't have a method to back that up or a method that, you know, would actually work and is feasible, then your project can't run. So it's important to have considered the methods very, very well. You also want to consider any limitations. And I think people tend to miss this bit out. They don't say what the issues and challenges are that they could be faced. And I think people miss this out because they think they don't want to say there could be an issue here. But actually, if you're trying to acquire data from a cell type that's quite rare or quite hard, or if you're trying to get some interviews from people who have in a rural area, for example, you're going to be faced with challenges and it's naive to assume that you won't. So it's important that you say, right, these are the challenges that I could be faced with and this is how I'm planning to overcome them. This shows that you've got the correct sort of research mindset where you're considering challenges, you're considering outcomes, you're considering alternative options, because let me tell you, in research, nothing goes to plan. Nothing. So it's important that you've got that mindset where you're thinking about the plan B. Lastly, in this part, you also want to think about analysis. So you're doing a questionnaire, a qualitative analysis. How are you going to be analysing that? Are you analysing that through a thematic topic? Are you analysing that through t-tests? Are you analysing that? How are you planning to analyse your data? This is important because it means that you've considered the next step. It's all well and good to have a thousand questionnaires filled out, but how are you then planning to collate that data? How are you then planning to analyse that data and have those final results and final comments? Ultimately, remember that the research proposal is purely just a proposal. You are not meant to be an expert. You are not meant to know all the answers, but you are meant to have considered and looked at the research out there and thought about what ways have people done this before? How could I approach this situation? You will then have the option, you know, if you get accepted, to discuss this in further detail and, you know, kind of build on that initial plan. But it is important that you brought that independent thought to the table to show that you are a suitable and strong candidate. The sixth is significance. Why is this work significant? Why is this work a project that the supervisor should take on? How is your work original? How does your work stand out from all the works out there before? What new thing are you bringing to the table? And also, how does the work build on what we already know? So, to be able to say that this work is significant, you need to say, right, we know this thing, and I'm going to be building on this thing, and then that's going to be able to support future work. So, why is your work what work that you think people are going to be interested in, and is work that is significant in the general field that you're interested in? Last, well, almost last, penultimate, but definitely not least, is a timeline. Again, I find this gets forgotten about quite a bit. But, you know, your project is a PhD project in the UK. Anyway, it's three to four years. So, what is that timeline that you are planning to hopefully uphold? The first year could be maybe doing some preliminary studies. It could be recruiting the participants. It could be writing up a questionnaire, doing some reading. The second year could be actually, you know, running those interviews. Third year could be the analysis, or reading interviews, or whatever it is that you choose to do. So, that's what you want. You want to think about what that timeline could be. Now, again, this is going to be, it's going to change 110%. I can guarantee you that right now. But, again, it shows that you've thought about kind of timelines. Things might not go to plan. If they don't, I'll do this instead. This could happen. If not, this is going to happen. This is going to happen first, then that's going to happen. You want a timeline. It shows you've considered your methods, considered your approach, and considered how long of time it might actually take you. Last, but definitely not least, is a bibliography. Here, you want to detail the key pieces of work, and the key literature that your work is based on. So, I would probably limit this to five to 10, 10 maximum. What are the literature that you, for example, read, and then based your questions on? Where was a gap in what you read, and then thought, ah, I need to answer that? What was that paper? What papers, let's say I had to read your review, and I knew nothing about your topic. What five to 10 papers would I have to read to understand the field, then understand how your work is going to add to that field, and build on that field, and give that substance? That is what you need to think. Again, remember that the lecturer, or the professor, the supervisor that you're applying to will be an expert in that field, and so do consider the amount of reading that you've done, and make sure that you've done enough to be able to have picked out what those papers are. So, I really hope that you guys found this useful. This is such a frequently asked question. How do you write a proposal? But it really is, I would say this is not a difficult thing to write at all, especially if you know your literature, and you know the question that you're thinking about writing. It's a very, very simple, structured, consistently structured piece of document. So, if you do want me to edit it, and you do want someone to take a look at it professionally to make sure that you are on track, and you've answered all of those questions correctly, then do send it forward to thepagedoctor.com for an edit, and like I said, don't forget to subscribe to see more from me. I post every Wednesday and Sunday, and I'll see you guys in my next video. Bye.

• Open access
• Published: 28 August 2024

The design, implementation, and evaluation of a blended (in-person and virtual) Clinical Competency Examination for final-year nursing students

• Rita Mojtahedzadeh 1 ,
• Tahereh Toulabi 2 , 3 &
• Aeen Mohammadi 1  

BMC Medical Education volume  24 , Article number:  936 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

7 Altmetric

Metrics details

Introduction

Studies have reported different results of evaluation methods of clinical competency tests. Therefore, this study aimed to design, implement, and evaluate a blended (in-person and virtual) Competency Examination for final-year Nursing Students.

This interventional study was conducted in two semesters of 2020–2021 using an educational action research method in the nursing and midwifery faculty. Thirteen faculty members and 84 final-year nursing students were included in the study using a census method. Eight programs and related activities were designed and conducted during the examination process. Students completed the Spielberger Anxiety Inventory before the examination, and both faculty members and students completed the Acceptance and Satisfaction questionnaire.

The results of the analysis of focused group discussions and reflections indicated that the virtual CCE was not capable of adequately assessing clinical skills. Therefore, it was decided that the CCE for final-year nursing students would be conducted using a blended method. The activities required for performing the examination were designed and implemented based on action plans. Anxiety and satisfaction were also evaluated as outcomes of the study. There was no statistically significant difference in overt, covert, and overall anxiety scores between the in-person and virtual sections of the examination ( p  > 0.05). The mean (SD) acceptance and satisfaction scores for students in virtual, in-person, and blended sections were 25.49 (4.73), 27.60 (4.70), and 25.57 (4.97), respectively, out of 30 points, in which there was a significant increase in the in-person section compared to the other sections. ( p  = 0.008). The mean acceptance and satisfaction scores for faculty members were 30.31 (4.47) in the virtual, 29.86 (3.94) in the in-person, and 30.00 (4.16) out of 33 in the blended, and there was no significant difference between the three sections ( p  = 0.864).

Evaluating nursing students’ clinical competency using a blended method was implemented and solved the problem of students’ graduation. Therefore, it is suggested that the blended method be used instead of traditional in-person or entirely virtual exams in epidemics or based on conditions, facilities, and human resources. Also, the use of patient simulation, virtual reality, and the development of necessary virtual and in-person training infrastructure for students is recommended for future research. Furthermore, considering that the acceptance of traditional in-person exams among students is higher, it is necessary to develop virtual teaching strategies.

Peer Review reports

The primary mission of the nursing profession is to educate competent, capable, and qualified nurses with the necessary knowledge and skills to provide quality nursing care to preserve and improve the community’s health [ 1 ]. Clinical education is one of the most essential and fundamental components of nursing education, in which students gain clinical experience by interacting with actual patients and addressing real problems. Therefore, assessing clinical skills is very challenging. The main goal of educational evaluation is to improve, ensure, and enhance the quality of the academic program. In this regard, evaluating learners’ performance is one of the critical and sensitive aspects of the teaching and learning process. It is considered one of the fundamental elements of the educational program [ 2 ]. The study area is educational evaluation.

Various methods are used to evaluate nursing students. The Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) is a valid and reliable method for assessing clinical competence [ 1 , 2 ]. In the last twenty years, the use of OSCE has increased significantly in evaluating medical and paramedical students to overcome the limitations of traditional practical evaluation systems [ 3 , 4 ]. The advantages of this method include providing rapid feedback, uniformity for all examinees, and providing conditions close to reality. However, the time-consuming nature and the need for a lot of personnel and equipment are some disadvantages of OSCE [ 5 , 6 ]. Additionally, some studies have shown that this method is anxiety-provoking for some students and, due to time constraints, being observed by the evaluator and other factors can cause dissatisfaction among students [ 7 , 8 ].

However, some studies have also reported that this method is not only not associated with high levels of stress among students [ 9 ] but also has higher satisfaction than traditional evaluation methods [ 4 ]. In addition, during the COVID-19 pandemic, problems such as overcrowding and student quarantine during the exam have arisen. Therefore, reducing time and costs, eliminating or reducing the tiring quarantine time, optimizing the exam, utilizing all facilities for simulating the clinical environment, using innovative methods for conducting the exam, reducing stress, increasing satisfaction, and ultimately preventing the transmission of COVID-19 are significant problems that need to be further investigated.

Studies show that using virtual space as an alternative solution is strongly felt [ 10 , 11 , 12 ]. In the fall of 2009, following the outbreak of H1N1, educational classes in the United States were held virtually [ 13 ]. Also, in 2005, during Hurricane Katrina, 27 universities in the Gulf of Texas used emergency virtual education and evaluation [ 14 ].

One of the challenges faced by healthcare providers in Iran, like most countries in the world, especially during the COVID-19 outbreak, was the shortage of nursing staff [ 15 , 16 ]. Also, in evaluating and conducting CCE for final-year students and subsequent job seekers in the Clinical Skills Center, problems such as student overcrowding and the need for quarantine during the implementation of OSCE existed. This problem has been reported not only for us but also in other countries [ 17 ]. The intelligent use of technology can solve many of these problems. Therefore, almost all educational institutions have quickly started changing their policies’ paradigms to introduce online teaching and evaluation methods [ 18 , 19 ].

During the COVID-19 pandemic, for the first time, this exam was held virtually in our school. However, feedback from professors and students and the experiences of researchers have shown that the virtual exam can only partially evaluate clinical and practical skills in some stations, such as basic skills, resuscitation, and pediatrics [ 20 ].

Additionally, using OSCE in skills assessment facilitates the evaluation of psychological-motor knowledge and attitudes and helps identify strengths and weaknesses [ 21 ]. Clinical competency is a combination of theoretical knowledge and clinical skills. Therefore, using an effective blended method focusing on the quality and safety of healthcare that measures students’ clinical skills and theoretical expertise more accurately in both in-person and virtual environments is essential. The participation of students, professors, managers, education and training staff, and the Clinical Skills Center was necessary to achieve this important and inevitable goal. Therefore, the Clinical Competency Examination (CCE) for nursing students in our nursing and midwifery school was held in the form of an educational action research process to design, implement, and evaluate a blended method. Implementing this process during the COVID-19 pandemic, when it was impossible to hold an utterly in-person exam, helped improve the quality of the exam and address its limitations and weaknesses while providing the necessary evaluation for students.

The innovation of this research lies in evaluating the clinical competency of final-year nursing students using a blended method that focuses on clinical and practical aspects. In the searches conducted, only a few studies have been done on virtual exams and simulations, and a similar study using a blended method was not found.

The research investigates the scientific and clinical abilities of nursing students through the clinical competency exam. This exam, traditionally administered in person, is a crucial milestone for final-year nursing students, marking their readiness for graduation. However, the unforeseen circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting restrictions rendered in-person exams impractical in 2020. This necessitated a swift and significant transition to an online format, a decision that has profound implications for the future of nursing education. While the adoption of online assessment was a necessary step to ensure student graduation and address the nursing workforce shortage during the pandemic, it was not without its challenges. The accurate assessment of clinical skills, such as dressing and CPR, proved to be a significant hurdle. This underscored the urgent need for a change in the exam format, prompting a deeper exploration of innovative solutions.

To address these problems, the research was conducted collaboratively with stakeholders, considering the context and necessity for change in exam administration. Employing an Action Research (AR) approach, a blend of online and in-person exam modalities was adopted. Necessary changes were implemented through a cyclic process involving problem identification, program design, implementation, reflection, and continuous evaluation.

The research began by posing the following questions:

What are the problems of conducting the CCE for final-year nursing students during COVID-19?

How can these problems be addressed?

What are the solutions and suggestions from the involved stakeholders?

How can the CCE be designed, implemented, and evaluated?

What is the impact of exam type on student anxiety and satisfaction?

These questions guided the research in exploring the complexities of administering the CCE amidst the COVID-19 pandemic and in devising practical solutions to ensure the validity and reliability of the assessment while meeting stakeholders’ needs.

Materials and methods

Research setting, expert panel members, job analysis, and role delineation.

This action research was conducted at the Nursing and Midwifery School of Lorestan University of Medical Sciences, with a history of approximately 40 years. The school accommodates 500 undergraduate and graduate nursing students across six specialized fields, with 84 students enrolled in their final year of undergraduate studies. Additionally, the school employs 26 full-time faculty members in nursing education departments.

An expert panel was assembled, consisting of faculty members specializing in various areas, including medical-surgical nursing, psychiatric nursing, community health nursing, pediatric nursing, and intensive care nursing. The panel also included educational department managers and the examination department supervisor. Through focused group discussions, the panel identified and examined issues regarding the exam format, and members proposed various solutions. Subsequently, after analyzing the proposed solutions and drawing upon the panel members’ experiences, specific roles for each member were delineated.

Sampling and participant selection

Given the nature of the research, purposive sampling was employed, ensuring that all individuals involved in the design, implementation, and evaluation of the exam participated in this study.

The participants in this study included final-year nursing students, faculty members, clinical skills center experts, the dean of the school, the educational deputy, group managers, and the exam department head. However, in the outcome evaluation phase, 13 faculty members participated in-person and virtually (26 times), and 84 final-year nursing students enrolled in the study using a census method in two semesters of 2020–2021 completed the questionnaires, including 37 females and 47 males. In addition, three male and ten female faculty members participated in this study; of this number, 2 were instructors, and 11 were assistant professors.

Data collection tools

In order to enhance the validity and credibility of the study and thoroughly examine the results, this study utilized a triangulation method consisting of demographic information, focus group discussions, the Spielberger Anxiety Scale questionnaire, and an Acceptance and Satisfaction Questionnaire.

Demographic information

A questionnaire was used to gather demographic information from both students and faculty members. For students, this included age, gender, and place of residence, while for faculty members, it included age, gender, field of study, and employment status.

Focus group discussion

Multiple focused group discussions were conducted with the participation of professors, administrators, experts, and students. These discussions were held through various platforms such as WhatsApp Skype, and in-person meetings while adhering to health protocols. The researcher guided the talks toward the research objectives and raised fundamental questions, such as describing the strengths and weaknesses of the previous exam, determining how to conduct the CCE considering the COVID-19 situation, deciding on virtual and in-person stations, specifying the evaluation checklists for stations, and explaining the weighting and scoring of each station.

Spielberger anxiety scale questionnaire

This study used the Spielberger Anxiety Questionnaire to measure students’ overt and covert anxiety levels. This questionnaire is an internationally standardized tool known as the STAI questionnaire that measures both overt (state) and covert (trait) anxiety [ 22 ]. The state anxiety scale (Form Y-1 of STAI) comprises twenty statements that assess the individual’s feelings at the moment of responding. The trait anxiety scale (Form Y-2 of STAI) also includes twenty statements that measure individuals’ general and typical feelings. The scores of each of the two scales ranged from 20 to 80 in the current study. The reliability coefficient of the test for the apparent and hidden anxiety scales, based on Cronbach’s alpha, was confirmed to be 0.9084 and 0.9025, respectively [ 23 , 24 ]. Furthermore, in the present study, Cronbach’s alpha value for the total anxiety questionnaire, overt anxiety, and covert anxiety scales were 0.935, 0.921, and 0.760, respectively.

Acceptance and satisfaction questionnaire

The Acceptability and Satisfaction Questionnaire for Clinical Competency Test was developed by Farajpour et al. (2012). The student questionnaire consists of ten questions, and the professor questionnaire consists of eleven questions, using a four-point Likert scale. Experts have confirmed the validity of these questionnaires, and their Cronbach’s alpha coefficients have been determined to be 0.85 and 0.87 for the professor and student questionnaires, respectively [ 6 ]. In the current study, ten medical education experts also confirmed the validity of the questionnaires. Regarding internal reliability, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the student satisfaction questionnaire for both virtual and in-person sections were 0.76 and 0.87, respectively. The professor satisfaction questionnaires were 0.84 and 0.87, respectively. An online platform was used to collect data for the virtual exam.

Data analysis and rigor of study

Qualitative data analysis was conducted using the method proposed by Graneheim and Lundman. Additionally, the criteria established by Lincoln and Guba (1985) were employed to confirm the rigor and validity of the data, including credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability [ 26 ].

In this research, data synthesis was performed by combining the collected data with various tools and methods. The findings of this study were reviewed and confirmed by participants, supervisors, mentors, and experts in qualitative research, reflecting their opinions on the alignment of findings with their experiences and perspectives on clinical competence examinations. Therefore, the member check method was used to validate credibility.

Moreover, efforts were made in this study to provide a comprehensive description of the research steps, create a suitable context for implementation, assess the views of others, and ensure the transferability of the results.

Furthermore, researchers’ interest in identifying and describing problems, reflecting, designing, implementing, and evaluating clinical competence examinations, along with the engagement of stakeholders in these examinations, was ensured by the researchers’ long-term engagement of over 25 years with the environment and stakeholders, seeking their opinions and considering their ideas and views. These factors contributed to ensuring confirmability.

In this research, by reflecting the results to the participants and making revisions by the researchers, problem clarification and solution presentation, design, implementation, and evaluation of operational programs with stakeholder participation and continuous presence were attempted to prevent biases, assumptions, and research hypotheses, and to confirm dependability.

Data analysis was performed using SPSS version 21, and descriptive statistical tests (absolute and relative frequency, mean, and standard deviation) and inferential tests (paired t-test, independent t-test, and analysis of variance) were used. The significance level was set at 0.05. Parametric tests were used based on the normality of the data according to the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistical test.

Given that conducting the CCE for final-year nursing students required the active participation of managers, faculty members, staff, and students, and to answer the research question “How can the CCE for final-year nursing students be conducted?” and achieve the research objective of “designing, implementing, and evaluating the clinical competency exam,” the action research method was employed.

The present study was conducted based on the Dickens & Watkins model. There are four primary stages (Fig.  1 ) in the cyclical action research process: reflect, plan, act, observe, and then reflect to continue through the cycle [ 27 ].

The cyclical process of action research [ 27 ]

Stage 1: Reflection

Identification of the problem.

According to the educational regulations, final semester nursing students must complete the clinical competency exam. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the critical situation in most provinces, inter-city travel restrictions, and insufficient dormitory space, conducting the CCE in-person was not feasible.

This exam was conducted virtually at our institution. However, based on the reflections from experts, researchers have found that virtual exams can only partially assess clinical and practical skills in certain stations, such as basic skills, resuscitation, and pediatrics. Furthermore, utilizing Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) in skills assessment facilitates the evaluation of psychomotor skills, knowledge, and attitudes, aiding in identifying strengths and weaknesses.

P3, “Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the critical situation in most provinces, inter-city travel restrictions, and insufficient dormitory space, conducting the CCE in-person is not feasible.”

Stage 2: Planning

Based on the reflections gathered from the participants, the exam was designed using a blended approach (combining in-person and virtual components) as per the schedule outlined in Fig.  2 . All planned activities for the blended CCE for final-year nursing students were executed over two semesters.

P5, “Taking the exam virtually might seem easier for us and the students, but in my opinion, it’s not realistic. For instance, performing wound dressing or airway management is very practical, and it’s not possible to assess students with a virtual scenario. We need to see them in person.”

P6"I believe it’s better to conduct those activities that are highly practical in person, but for those involving communication skills like report writing, professional ethics, etc., we can opt for virtual assessment.”

Design and implementation of the blended CCE

Stage 3: Act

Cce implementation steps.

The CCE was conducted based on the flowchart in Fig.  3 and the following steps:

Steps for conducting the CCE for final-year nursing students using a blended method

Step 1: Designing the framework for conducting the blended Clinical Competency Examination

The panelists were guided to design the blended exam in focused group sessions and virtual panels based on the ADDIE (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, Evaluation) model [ 28 ]. Initially, needs assessment and opinion polling were conducted, followed by the operational planning of the exam, including the design of the blueprint table (Table  1 ), determination of station types (in-person or virtual), designing question stems in the form of scenarios, creating checklists and station procedure guides by expert panel groups based on participant analysis, and the development of exam implementation guidelines with participant input [ 27 ]. The design, execution, and evaluation were as follows:

In-person and virtual meetings with professors were held to determine the exam schedule, deadlines for submitting checklists, decision-making regarding the virtual or in-person nature of stations based on the type of skill (practical, communication), and presenting problems and solutions. Based on the decisions, primary skill stations, as well as cardiac and pediatric resuscitation stations, were held in person. In contrast, virtual stations for health, nursing ethics, nursing reports, nursing diagnosis, physical examinations, and psychiatric nursing were held.

News about the exam was communicated to students through the college website and text messages. Then, an online orientation session was held on Skype with students regarding the need assessment of pre-exam educational workshops, virtual and in-person exam standards, how to use exam software, how to conduct virtual exams, explaining the necessary infrastructure for participating in the exam by students, completing anxiety and satisfaction questionnaires, rules and regulations, how to deal with rejected individuals, and exam testing and Q&A. Additionally, a pre-exam in-person orientation session was held.

To inform students about the entire educational process, the resources and educational content recommended by the professors, including PDF files, photos and videos, instructions, and links, were shared through a virtual group on the social media messenger, and scientific information was also, questions were asked and answered through this platform.

Correspondence and necessary coordination were made with the university clinical skills center to conduct in-person workshops and exams.

Following the Test-centered approach, the Angoff Modified method [ 29 , 30 ] was used to determine the scoring criteria for each station by panelists tasked with assigning scores.

Additionally, in establishing standards for this blended CCE for fourth-year nursing students, for whom graduation was a prerequisite, the panelists, as experienced clinical educators familiar with the performance and future roles of these students and the assessment method of the blended exam, were involved [ 29 , 30 ](Table 1 ).

Step 2: Preparing the necessary infrastructure for conducting the exam

Software infrastructure.

The pre- and post-virtual exam questions, scenarios, and questionnaires were uploaded using online software.

The exam was conducted on a trial basis in multiple sessions with the participation of several faculty members, and any issues were addressed. Students were authenticated to enter the exam environment via email and personal information verification. The questions for each station were designed and entered into the software by the respective station instructors and the examination coordinator, who facilitated the exam. The questions were formatted as clinical scenarios, images, descriptive questions, and multiple-choice questions, emphasizing the clinical and practical aspects. This software had various features for administering different types of exams and various question formats, including multiple-choice, descriptive, scenario-based, image-based, video-based, matching, Excel output, and graphical and descriptive statistical analyses. It also had automatic questionnaire completion, notification emails, score addition to questionnaires, prevention of multiple answer submissions, and the ability to upload files up to 4 gigabytes. Student authentication was based on national identification numbers and student IDs, serving as user IDs and passwords. Students could enter the exam environment using their email and multi-level personal information verification. If the information did not match, individuals could not access the exam environment.

Checklists and questionnaires

A student list was prepared, and checklists for the in-person exam and anxiety and satisfaction questionnaires were reproduced.

Empowerment workshops for professors and education staff

Educational needs of faculty members and academic staff include conducting clinical competency exams using the OSCE method; simulating and evaluating OSCE exams; designing standardized questions, checklists, and scenarios; innovative approaches in clinical evaluations; designing physical spaces and setting up stations; and assessing ethics and professional commitment in clinical competency exams.

Student empowerment programs

According to the students’ needs assessment results, in-person workshops on cardiopulmonary resuscitation and airway management and online workshops were held on health, pediatrics, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, ethics, nursing diagnosis, and report writing through Skype messenger. In addition, vaccination notes, psychiatric nursing, and educational files on clinical examinations and basic skills were recorded by instructors and made available to students via virtual groups.

Step 3: CCE implementation

The CCE was held in two parts, in-person and virtual.

In-person exam

The OSCE method was used for this section of the exam. The basic skills station exam included dressing and injections, and the CPR and pediatrics stations were conducted in person. The students were divided into two groups of 21 each semester, and the exam was held in two shifts. While adhering to quarantine protocols, the students performed the procedures for seven minutes at each station, and instructors evaluated them using a checklist. An additional minute was allotted for transitioning to the next station.

Virtual exam

The professional ethics, nursing diagnosis, nursing report, health, psychiatric nursing, and physical examination stations were conducted virtually after the in-person exam. This exam was made available to students via a primary and a secondary link in a virtual space at the scheduled time. Students were first verified, and after the specified time elapsed, the ability to respond to inactive questions and submitted answers was sent. During the exam, full support was provided by the examination center.

The examination coordinator conducted the entire virtual exam process. The exam results were announced 48 h after the exam. A passing grade was considered to be a score higher than 60% in all stations. Students who failed in various stations were given the opportunity for remediation based on faculty feedback, either through additional study or participation in educational workshops. Subsequent exams were held one week apart from the initial exam. It was stipulated that students who failed in more than half of the stations would be evaluated in the following semester. If they failed in more than three sessions at a station, a decision would be made by the faculty’s educational council. However, no students met these situations.

Step 4: Evaluation

The evaluation of the exam was conducted by examiners using a checklist, and the results were announced as pass or fail.

Stage 4: Observation / evaluation

In this study, both process and outcome evaluations were conducted:

Process evaluation

All programs and activities implemented during the test design and administration process were evaluated in the process evaluation. This evaluation was based on operational program control and reflections received from participants through group discussion sessions and virtual groups.

Sample reflections received from faculty members, managers, experts, and students through group discussions and social messaging platforms after the changes:

P7: “The implementation of the blended virtual exam, in the conditions of the COVID-19 crisis where the possibility of holding in-person exams was not fully available, in my opinion, was able to improve the quality of exam administration and address the limitations and weaknesses of the exam entirely virtually.”

P5: “In my opinion, this blended method was able to better evaluate students in terms of clinical readiness for entering clinical practice.”

Outcomes evaluation

The study outcomes were student anxiety, student acceptance and satisfaction, and faculty acceptance and satisfaction. Before the start of the in-person and virtual exams, the Spielberger Anxiety Questionnaire was provided to students. Additionally, immediately after the exam, students and instructors completed the acceptance and satisfaction questionnaire for the relevant section. After the exam, students and instructors completed the acceptance and satisfaction questionnaire again for the entire exam process, including feasibility, satisfaction with its implementation, and educational impact.

Design framework and implementation for the blended Clinical Competency Examination

The exam was planned using a blended method (part in-person, part virtual) according to the Fig.  2 schedule, and all planned programs for the blended CCE for final-year nursing students were implemented in two semesters.

Evaluation results

In this study, 84 final-year nursing students participated, including 37 females (44.05%) and 47 males (55.95%). Among them, 28 (33.3%) were dormitory residents, and 56 (66.7%) were non-dormitory residents.

In this study, both process and outcome evaluations were conducted.

All programs and activities implemented during the test design and administration process were evaluated in the process evaluation (Table  2 ). This evaluation was based on operational program control and reflections received from participants through group discussion sessions and virtual groups on social media.

Anxiety and satisfaction were examined and evaluated as study outcomes, and the results are presented below.

The paired t-test results in Table  3 showed no statistically significant difference in overt anxiety ( p  = 0.56), covert anxiety ( p  = 0.13), and total anxiety scores ( p  = 0.167) between the in-person and virtual sections before the blended Clinical Competency Examination.

However, the mean (SD) of overt anxiety in persons in males and females was 49.27 (11.16) and 43.63 (13.60), respectively, and this difference was statistically significant ( p  = 0.03). Also, the mean (SD) of overt virtual anxiety in males and females was 45.70 (11.88) and 51.00 (9.51), respectively, and this difference was statistically significant ( p  = 0.03). However, there was no significant difference between males and females regarding covert anxiety in the person ( p  = 0.94) and virtual ( p  = 0.60) sections. In addition, the highest percentage of overt anxiety was apparent in the virtual section among women (15.40%) and the in-person section among men (21.28%) and was prevalent at a moderate to high level.

According to Table  4 , One-way analysis of variance showed a significant difference between the virtual, in-person, and blended sections in terms of acceptance and satisfaction scores.

The results of the One-way analysis of variance showed that the mean (SD) acceptance and satisfaction scores of nursing students of the CCE in virtual, in-person, and blended sections were 25.49 (4.73), 27.60 (4.70), and 25.57 (4.97) out of 30, respectively. There was a significant difference between the three sections ( p  = 0.008).

In addition, 3 (7.23%) male and 10 (76.3%) female faculty members participated in this study; of this number, 2 (15.38%) were instructors, and 11 (84.62%) were assistant professors. Moreover, they were between 29 and 50 years old, with a mean (SD) of 41.37 (6.27). Furthermore, they had 4 to 20 years of work experience with a mean and standard deviation of 13.22(4.43).

The results of the analysis of variance showed that the mean (SD) acceptance and satisfaction scores of faculty members of the CCE in virtual, in-person, and blended sections were 30.31 (4.47), 29.86 (3.94), and 30.00 (4.16) out of 33, respectively. There was no significant difference between the three sections ( p  = 0.864).

This action research study showed that the blended CCE for nursing students is feasible and, depending on the conditions and objectives, evaluation stations can be designed and implemented virtually or in person.

The blended exam, combining in-person and virtual elements, managed to address some of the weaknesses of entirely virtual exams conducted in previous terms due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Given the pandemic conditions, the possibility of performing all in-person stations was not feasible due to the risk of students and evaluators contracting the virus, as well as the need for prolonged quarantine. Additionally, to meet the staffing needs of hospitals, nursing students needed to graduate. By implementing the blended exam idea and conducting in-person evaluations at clinical stations, the assessment of nursing students’ clinical competence was brought closer to reality compared to the entirely virtual method.

Furthermore, the need for human resources, station setup costs, and time spent was less than the entirely in-person method. Therefore, in pandemics or conditions where sufficient financial resources and human resources are not available, the blended approach can be utilized.

Additionally, the evaluation results showed that students’ total and overt anxiety in both virtual and in-person sections of the blended CCE did not differ significantly. However, the overt anxiety of female students in the virtual section and male students in the in-person section was considerably higher. Nevertheless, students’ covert anxiety related to personal characteristics did not differ in virtual and in-person exam sections. However, students’ acceptance and satisfaction in the in-person section were higher than in the virtual and blended sections, with a significant difference. The acceptance and satisfaction of faculty members from the CCE in in-person, virtual, and blended sections were the same and relatively high.

A blended CCE nursing competency exam was not found in the literature review. However, recent studies, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, have designed and implemented this exam using virtual OSCE. Previously, the CCE was held in-person or through traditional OSCE methods.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, nursing schools worldwide faced difficulties administering clinical competency exams for students. The virtual simulation was used to evaluate clinical competency and develop nursing students’ clinical skills in the United States, including standard videos, home videos, and clinical scenarios. Additionally, an online virtual simulation program was designed to assess the clinical competency of senior nursing students in Hong Kong as a potential alternative to traditional clinical training [ 31 ].

A traditional in-person OSCE was also redesigned and developed through a virtual conferencing platform for nursing students at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston. Survey findings showed that most professors and students considered virtual OSCE a highly effective tool for evaluating communication skills, obtaining a medical history, making differential diagnoses, and managing patients. However, professors noted that evaluating examination techniques in a virtual environment is challenging [ 32 ].

However, Biranvand reported that less than half of the nursing students believed the in-person OSCE was stressful [ 33 ]. At the same time, the results of another study showed that 96.2% of nursing students perceived the exam as anxiety-provoking [ 1 ]. Students believe that the stress of this exam is primarily related to exam time, complexity, and the execution of techniques, as well as confusion about exam methods [ 7 ]. In contrast to previous research results, in a study conducted in Egypt, 75% of students reported that the OSCE method has less stress than other examination methods [ 9 ]. However, there has yet to be a consensus across studies on the causes and extent of anxiety-provoking in the OSCE exam. In a study, the researchers found that in addition to the factors mentioned above, the evaluator’s presence could also be a cause of stress [ 34 ]. Another survey study showed that students perceived the OSCE method as more stressful than the traditional method, mainly due to the large number of stations, exam items, and time constraints [ 7 ]. Another study in Egypt, which designed two stages of the OSCE exam for 75 nursing students, found that 65.6% of students reported that the second stage exam was stressful due to the problem-solving station. In contrast, only 38.9% of participants considered the first-stage exam stressful [ 35 ]. Given that various studies have reported anxiety as one of the disadvantages of the OSCE exam, in this study, one of the outcomes evaluated was the anxiety of final-year nursing students. There was no significant difference in total anxiety and overt anxiety between students in the in-person and virtual sections of the blended Clinical Competency Examination. The overt anxiety was higher in male students in the in-person part and female students in the virtual section, which may be due to their personality traits, but further research is needed to confirm this. Moreover, since students’ total and overt anxiety in the in-person and virtual sections of the exam are the same in resource and workforce shortages or pandemics, the blended CCE is suggested as a suitable alternative to the traditional OSCE test. However, for generalization of the results, it is recommended that future studies consider three intervention groups, where all OSCE stations are conducted virtually in the first group, in-person in the second group, and a blend of in-person and virtual in the third group. Furthermore, the results of the study by Rafati et al. showed that the use of the OSCE clinical competency exam using the OSCE method is acceptable, valid, and reliable for assessing nursing skills, as 50% of the students were delighted, and 34.6% were relatively satisfied with the OSCE clinical competency exam. Additionally, 57.7% of the students believed the exam revealed learning weaknesses [ 1 ]. Another survey study showed that despite higher anxiety about the OSCE exam, students thought that this exam provides equal opportunities for everyone, is less complicated than the traditional method, and encourages the active participation of students [ 7 ]. In another study on maternal and infant care, 95% of the students believed the traditional exam only evaluates memory or practical skills. In contrast, the OSCE exam assesses knowledge, understanding, cognitive and analytical skills, communication, and emotional skills. They believed that explicit evaluation goals, appropriate implementation guidelines, appropriate scheduling, wearing uniforms, equipping the workroom, evaluating many skills, and providing fast feedback are among the advantages of this exam [ 36 ]. Moreover, in a survey study, most students were satisfied with the clinical environment offered by the OSCE CCE using the OSCE method, which is close to reality and involves a hypothetical patient in necessary situations that increase work safety. On the other hand, factors such as the scheduling of stations and time constraints have led to dissatisfaction among students [ 37 ].

Furthermore, another study showed that virtual simulations effectively improve students’ skills in tracheostomy suctioning, triage concepts, evaluation, life-saving interventions, clinical reasoning skills, clinical judgment skills, intravenous catheterization skills, role-based nursing care, individual readiness, critical thinking, reducing anxiety levels, and increasing confidence in the laboratory, clinical nursing education, interactive communication, and health evaluation skills. In addition to knowledge and skills, new findings indicate that virtual simulations can increase confidence, change attitudes and behaviors, and be an innovative, flexible, and hopeful approach for new nurses and nursing students [ 38 ].

Various studies have evaluated the satisfaction of students and faculty members with the OSCE Clinical Competency Examination. In this study, one of the evaluated outcomes was the acceptability and satisfaction of students and faculty members with implementing the CCE in blended, virtual, and in-person sections, which was relatively high and consistent with other studies. One crucial factor that influenced the satisfaction of this study was the provision of virtual justification sessions for students and coordination sessions with faculty members. Social messaging groups were formed through virtual and in-person communication, instructions were explained, expectations and tasks were clarified, and questions were answered. Students and faculty members could access the required information with minimal presence in medical education centers and time and cost constraints. Moreover, with the blended evaluation, the researcher’s communication with participants was more accessible. The written guidelines and uploaded educational content of the workshops enabled students to save the desired topics and review them later if needed. Students had easy access to scientific and up-to-date information, and the application of social messengers and Skype allowed for sending photos and videos, conducting workshops, and questions and answering questions. However, the clinical workshops and examinations were held in-person to ensure accuracy. The virtual part of the examination was conducted through online software, and questions focused on each station’s clinical and practical aspects. Students answered various questions, including multiple-choice, descriptive, scenario, picture, and puzzle questions, within a specified time. The blended examination evaluated clinical competency and did not delay these individuals’ entry into the job market. Moreover, during the severe human resource shortage faced by the healthcare system, the examination allowed several nurses to enter the country’s healthcare system. The blended examination can substitute in-person examination in pandemic and non-pandemic situations, saving facilities, equipment, and human resources. The results of this study can also serve as a model to guide other nursing departments that require appropriate planning and arrangements for Conducting Clinical Competency Examinations in blended formats. This examination can also be developed to evaluate students’ clinical performance.

One of the practical limitations of the study was the possibility that participants might need to complete the questionnaires accurately or be concerned about losing marks. Therefore, in a virtual session before the in-person exam, the objectives and importance of the study were explained. Participants were assured that it would not affect their evaluation and that they should not worry about losing marks. Additionally, active participation from all nursing students, faculty members, and staff was necessary for implementing this plan, achieved through prior coordination, virtual meetings, virtual group formation, and continuous reflection of results, creating the motivation for continued collaboration and participation.

Among other limitations of this study included the use of the Spielberger Anxiety Questionnaire to measure students’ anxiety. It is suggested that future studies use a dedicated anxiety questionnaire designed explicitly for pre-exam anxiety measurement. Another limitation of the current research was its implementation in nursing and midwifery faculty. Therefore, it is recommended that similar studies be conducted in nursing and midwifery faculties of other universities, as well as in related fields, and over multiple consecutive semesters. Additionally, for more precise effectiveness assessment, intervention studies in three separate virtual, in-person, and hybrid groups using electronic checklists are proposed. Furthermore, it is recommended that students be evaluated in terms of other dimensions and variables such as awareness, clinical skill acquisition, self-confidence, and self-efficacy.

Conducting in-person Clinical Competency Examination (CCE) during critical situations, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, is challenging. Instead of virtual exams, blended evaluation is a feasible approach to overcome the shortages of virtual ones and closely mimic in-person scenarios. Using a blended method in pandemics or resource shortages, it is possible to design, implement, and evaluate stations that evaluate basic and advanced clinical skills in in-person section, as well as stations that focus on communication, reporting, nursing diagnosis, professional ethics, mental health, and community health based on scenarios in a virtual section, and replace traditional OSCE exams. Furthermore, the use of patient simulators, virtual reality, virtual practice, and the development of virtual and in-person training infrastructure to improve the quality of clinical education and evaluation and obtain the necessary clinical competencies for students is recommended. Also, since few studies have been conducted using the blended method, it is suggested that future research be conducted in three intervention groups, over longer semesters, based on clinical evaluation models and influential on other outcomes such as awareness and clinical skill acquisition self-efficacy, confidence, obtained grades, and estimation of material and human resources costs. This approach reduced the need for physical space for in-person exams, ensuring participant quarantine and health safety with higher quality. Additionally, a more accurate assessment of nursing students’ practical abilities was achieved compared to a solely virtual exam.

Data availability

The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Rafati F, Pilevarzade M, Kiani A. Designing, implementing and evaluating once to assess nursing students’ clinical competence in Jiroft faculty of nursing and midwifery. Nurs Midwifery J. 2020;18(2):118–28.

Google Scholar  

Sadeghi T, Ravari A, Shahabinejad M, Hallakoei M, Shafiee M, Khodadadi H. Performing of OSCE method in nursing students of Rafsanjan University of Medical science before entering the clinical field in the year 2010: a process for quality improvement. Community Health J. 2012;6(1):1–8.

Ali GA, Mehdi AY, Ali HA. Objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) as an assessment tool for clinical skills in Sohag University: nursing students’ perspective. J Environ Stud. 2012;8(1):59–69.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bolourchifard F, Neishabouri M, Ashktorab T, Nasrollahzadeh S. Satisfaction of nursing students with two clinical evaluation methods: objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) and practical examination of clinical competence. Adv Nurs Midwifery. 2010;19(66):38–42.

Noohi E, Motesadi M, Haghdoost A. Clinical teachers’ viewpoints towards Objective Structured Clinical examination in Kerman University of Medical Science. Iran J Med Educ. 2008;8(1):113–20.

Reza Masouleh S, Zare A, Chehrzad M, Atrkarruoshan Z. Comparing two methods of evaluation, objective structured practical examination and traditional examination, on the satisfaction of students in Shahid Beheshti faculty of nursing and midwifery. J Holist Nurs Midwifery. 2008;18(1):22–30.

Bagheri M, Sadeghineajad Forotagheh M, Shaghayee Fallah M. The comparison of stressors in the assessment of basic clinical skills with traditional method and OSCE in nursing students. Life Sci J. 2012;9(4):1748–52.

Eldarir SH, El Sebaae HA, El Feky HA, Hussein HA, El Fadil NA, El Shaeer IH. An introduction of OSCE versus the traditional method in nursing education: Faculty capacity building and students’ perspectives. J Am Sci. 2010;6(12):1002–14.

Al-Zeftawy AM, Khaton SE. Student evaluation of an OSCE in Community Health nursing clinical course at Faculty of nursing, Tanta University. J Nurs Health Sci. 2016;5(4):68–76.

Hayter M, Jackson D. Pre-registration undergraduate nurses and the COVID-19 pandemic: students or workers? J Clin Nurs. 2020;29(17–18):3115–6.

Bayham J, Fenichel EP. Impact of school closures for COVID-19 on the US health-care workforce and net mortality: a modeling study. Lancet Public Health. 2020;5(5):e271–8.

Murphy MPA. COVID-19 and emergency eLearning: consequences of the securitization of higher education for post-pandemic pedagogy. Contemp Secur Policy. 2020;41(3):492–505.

Allen IE, Seaman J. Learning on demand: Online education in the United States, 2009.

Meyer KA, Wilson JL. The role of Online Learning in the emergency plans of Flagship Institutions. Online J Distance Learn Adm. 2011;14(1):110–8.

Kursumovic E, Lennane S, Cook TM. Deaths in healthcare workers due to COVID-19: the need for robust data and analysis. Anaesthesia. 2020;75(8):989–92.

Malekshahi Beiranvand F, Hatami Varzaneh A. Health care workers challenges during coronavirus outbreak: the qualitative study. J Res Behav Sci. 2020;18(2):180–90.

Boursicot K, Kemp S, Ong TH, Wijaya L, Goh SH, Freeman K, Curran I. Conducting a high-stakes OSCE in a COVID-19 environment. MedEdPublish. 2020;9:285–89.

Atwa H, Shehata MH, Al-Ansari A, Kumar A, Jaradat A, Ahmed J, Deifalla A, Online. Face-to-Face, or blended learning? Faculty and Medical Students’ perceptions during the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed-method study. Front Med. 2022;9:791352.

Chan MMK, Yu DS, Lam VS, Wong JY. Online clinical training in the COVID-19 pandemic. Clin Teach. 2020;17(4):445–6.

Toulabi T, Yarahmadi S. Conducting a clinical competency test for nursing students in a virtual method during the Covid-19 pandemic: a case study. J Nurs Educ. 2021;9(5):33–42.

Meskell P, Burke E, Kropmans TJB, Byrne E, Setyonugroho W, Kennedy KM. Back to the future: an online OSCE Management Information System for nursing OSCEs. Nurse Educ Today. 2015;35(11):1091–6.

Lichtenberg PA. (2010). Handbook of Assessment in Clinical Gerontology, 2nd Ed. Academic Press, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374961-1.10030-2

Gholami Booreng F, Mahram B, Kareshki H. Construction and validation of a scale of research anxiety for students. IJPCP. 2017;23(1):78–93.

Esmaili M. A survey of the influence of Murita therapy on reducing the rate of anxiety in clients of counseling centers. Res Clin Psychol Couns. 2011;1(1):15–30.

Farajpour A, Amini M, Pishbin E, Arshadi H, Sanjarmusavi N, Yousefi J, Sarafrazyazdi M. Teachers’ and students’ satisfaction with DOPS Examination in Islamic Azad University of Mashhad, a study in Year 2012. Iran J Med Educ. 2014;14(2):165–73.

StraussAC, Corbin JM. Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and technique. 2nd ed. London: Sage, Newbury Park; 1998.

Dickens L, Watkins K. Action research: rethinking Lewin. Manage Learn. 1999;30(2):127–40.

Rezaeerad M, Nadri Kh, Mohammadi Etergoleh R. The effect of ADDIE (analysis, design, development, implementation, evaluation) designing method with emphasizing on mobile learning on students’ self-conception, development motivation and academic development in English course. Educational Adm Res Q. 2013;4(15):15–32.

Ben-David MF. AMEE Guide 18: standard setting in student assessment. Med Teach. 2000;22(2):120–30.

McKinley DW, Norcini JJ. How to set standards on performance-based examinations: AMEE Guide 85. Med Teach. 2014;36(2):97–110.

Fung JTC, Zhang W, Yeung MN, Pang MTH, Lam VSF, Chan BKY, Wong JYH. Evaluation of students perceived clinical competence and learning needs following an online virtual simulation education programmed with debriefing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nurs Open. 2021;8(6):3045–54.

Luke S, Petitt E, Tombrella J, McGoff E. Virtual evaluation of clinical competence in nurse practitioner students. Med Sci Educ. 2021;31:1267–71.

Beiranvand SH, Hosseinabadi R, Ghasemi F, Anbari KH. An Assessment of nursing and Midwifery Student Veiwwpoin, Performance, and feedback with an objective structured clinical examination. J Nurs Educ. 2017;6(1):63–7.

Sheikh Abumasoudi R, Moghimian M, Hashemi M, Kashani F, Karimi T, Atashi V. Comparison of the Effect of Objective Structured Clinical evaluation (OSCE) with Direct and Indirect Supervision on nursing student’s test anxiety. J Nurs Educ. 2015;4(2):1–8.

Zahran EM, Taha EE. Students’ feedback on Objective Structured Clinical examinations (OSCEs) experience in emergency nursing. J High Inst Public Health. 2009;39(2):370–87.

Na A-G. Assessment of Students’ knowledge, clinical performance and satisfaction with objective structured clinical exam. Med J Cairo Univ. 2009;77(4):287–93.

Adib-Hajbaghery M, Yazdani M. Effects of OSCE on learning, satisfaction and test anxiety of nursing students: a review study. Iran J Med Educ. 2018;18:70–83.

Purwanti LE, Sukartini T, Kurniawati ND, Nursalam N, Susilowati T. Virtual Simulation in clinical nursing education to improve knowledge and clinical skills: Literature Review. Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2022;10(F):396–404.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We want to thank the Research and Technology deputy of Smart University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran, the faculty members, staff, and officials of the School of Nursing and Midwifery, Lorestan University of Medical Sciences, Khorramabad, Iran, and all individuals who participated in this study.

All steps of the study, including study design and data collection, analysis, interpretation, and manuscript drafting, were supported by the Deputy of Research of Smart University of Medical Sciences.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of E-Learning in Medical Education, Center of Excellence for E-learning in Medical Education, School of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Rita Mojtahedzadeh & Aeen Mohammadi

Department of Medical Education, Smart University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Tahereh Toulabi

Cardiovascular Research Center, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Lorestan University of Medical Sciences, Khorramabad, Iran

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

RM. Participating in study design, accrual of study participants, review of the manuscript, and critical revisions for important intellectual content. TT : The investigator; participated in study design, data collection, accrual of study participants, and writing and reviewing the manuscript. AM: Participating in study design, data analysis, accrual of study participants, and reviewing the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tahereh Toulabi .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

This action research was conducted following the participatory method. All methods were performed according to the relevant guidelines and regulations in the Declaration of Helsinki (ethics approval and consent to participate). The study’s aims and procedures were explained to all participants, and necessary assurance was given to them for the anonymity and confidentiality of their information. The results were continuously provided as feedback to the participants. Informed consent (explaining the goals and methods of the study) was obtained from participants. The Smart University of Medical Sciences Ethics Committee approved the study protocol (IR.VUMS.REC.1400.011).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Mojtahedzadeh, R., Toulabi, T. & Mohammadi, A. The design, implementation, and evaluation of a blended (in-person and virtual) Clinical Competency Examination for final-year nursing students. BMC Med Educ 24 , 936 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05935-9

Download citation

Received : 21 July 2023

Accepted : 20 August 2024

Published : 28 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05935-9

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Clinical Competency Examination (CCE)
• Objective Structural Clinical Examination (OSCE)
• Blended method
• Satisfaction

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

• General enquiries: [email protected]

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• Current issue
• BMJ Journals

You are here

• Online First
• Assessing proposals to update established screening strategies
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• Alison Huffstetler 1 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3568-4452 Kenneth W Lin 2 ,
• Russell P Harris 3 , 4
• 1 Robert Graham Center for Primary Care Policy Studies , Washington , District of Columbia , USA
• 2 Family Medicine Residency Program , Lancaster General Hospital , Lancaster , Pennsylvania , USA
• 3 Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research , University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill , Chapel Hill , North Carolina , USA
• 4 Division of General Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology , University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill , Chapel Hill , North Carolina , USA
• Correspondence to Dr Kenneth W Lin; kenneth.lin{at}georgetown.edu

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113025

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

• PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
• INTERNAL MEDICINE

The increasing use of statistical modelling and lower certainty evidence to expand screening and the aggressive marketing of multicancer early detection tests raises questions about evidence thresholds for updating existing screening recommendations.

Since 2018, five of the updated cancer screening recommendations of the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) have included statistical models (breast, colorectal, lung, cervical and prostate). All five have recommended more intensive screening than the earlier recommendation, either by recommending newer screening technologies or expanding the population eligible for screening. For example, the 2021 colorectal cancer screening recommendation lowered the starting age from 50 to 45 years based on a microsimulation model of hypothetical patient panels. 1 2 The models for updating recommendations for all of these cancers relied heavily on either intermediate outcomes or performance characteristics of the screening test. Several blood-based cancer screening tests for multiple cancers are being developed and promoted without randomised controlled trials with health outcomes. 3 Soon, evidence-based organisations will be faced with proposals for further intensification of screening using these new technologies.

Recommendations of new screening strategies from evidence-based organisations such as the USPSTF, the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) are based on several factors, but especially evaluation of complex bodies of research, using methods that specify a high threshold for evidence of sufficient certainty to estimate net benefit (the balance between desirable and undesirable effects in the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Evidence to Decision framework). 4 This high evidence threshold often includes the requirement for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and/or consistent evidence from several high-quality studies with alternative designs to reach the degree of certainty of outcome effects to allow recommendation panels to assess net benefit before making a recommendation that incorporates patient …

X @AHuffstetler, @kennylinafp

Contributors RPH is a former member of the US Preventive Services Task Force and has coauthored several papers describing its methods. KWL is a former medical officer for the US Preventive Services Task Force programme at the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and coauthored systematic reviews to support previous recommendation updates. RPH conceived the article. AH completed the first draft of the article. All authors participated in revising subsequent drafts. KWL is the guarantor.

Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing interests None declared.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

Read the full text or download the PDF:

Innovation Responds to Climate Change Proposals

• Original Paper
• Published: 02 September 2024

Cite this article

• Greg Tindall 1 ,
• Rebel A. Cole 2 &
• David Javakhadze   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1580-6309 3  

Climate change is an ethical and moral challenge of a global scale due to its potentially catastrophic implications for human welfare. Understanding forces that drive corporate adaptation to climate change is an important research topic in business ethics. In this paper, we propose that shareholder climate-related proposals could be a catalyst for corporate innovations in technologies mitigating climate change. Our results, based on the analysis of US firms, indicate that corporations respond positively to these proposals by producing more climate-related patents and citations. We also uncover potential casual channels of influence. Further, we find that corporate governance moderates the documented effects. These proposals lead to a more efficient and valuable innovation output, but lower firm performance in the short term. The real effect that shareholder proposals have on innovation gains clarity in the context of climate change, contributing to the discussion of investor “voice.”

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

A Short Survey on Climate Change and Environmental Innovations

The drivers of climate change innovations: evidence from the australian wine industry.

Pricing Innovation in Climate Change Adaptation (CCA): Hedonic Valuation of R&D That Can Favor CCA

Explore related subjects.

• Medical Ethics

Data availability

The data that has been used is confidential, from restricted-access sources.

Xiao and Shailer ( 2022 ) provide a novel systematic investigation of factors influencing stakeholders’ perceptions of the credibility of corporate sustainability reports.

What are shareholder proposals, and what makes them interesting? Established in 1942 (and amended several times), Rule 14a-8 was designed to give small shareholders a voice and managers ample opportunity to listen before being heard at annual meetings. The Rule now permits a shareholder to make a proposal of 500 words or less, if any of the following ownership amount and time requirements are met: 1) at least $2,000 in market value for at least three years; 2) or at least $15,000 for at least two years; 3) or at least $25,000 for at least one year. The proposal must be received at the company’s principal executive offices not less than 120 calendar days before the release of company's annual proxy statement, with shareholder intent to maintain the requisite interest through the annual meeting. For more formation, please see the Code of Federal Regulations, (Title 17, Volume 3, Sect. 240.14a-8, www.govinfo.gov ).

Theoretical perspectives on management’s response to stakeholder demands are influenced by corporate purpose.

Literature presents opposing views: Friedman’s ( 1970 ) profit-focused shareholder priority versus Stout’s ( 2013 )

inclusive stakeholder approach considering broader goals. See discussion on the subject in Clarke ( 2020 ).

The climate-related proposals to Chevron reflect this shift in emphasis toward a direct assessment of financial risk, from one of simple emission disclosure. From 1999 to 2009, requests for a “Report on Greenhouse Gas Emissions” were recurrent. Beginning in 2010, Chevron saw “Stockholder Proposals Regarding Financial Risks from Climate Change.”

Two examples from the 2016 proxy season highlight shareholder demands for innovation. Shareholders of Ameren Corp proposed “ITEM (4): SHAREHOLDER PROPOSAL RELATING TO A REPORT ON AGGRESSIVE RENEWABLE ENERGY ADOPTION.” Shareholders in AES Corp sponsored “PROPOSAL 4: A REPORT ON COMPANY POLICIES AND TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES” targeting the firm’s energy policies and emphasis on renewable sources.

In 2010, St. Joseph of the Capuchin Order requested a study “on how ExxonMobil, within a reasonable timeframe, can become the recognized industry leader in developing and making available the necessary technology (such as enhanced sequestration, engineered geothermal and the development of other renewable energy sources) to enable the U.S.A. to become energy independent in an environmentally sustainable way. By 2017, The New York State Common Retirement Fund sponsored the climate proposal that gained substantial press coverage, which essentially made a similar request: “…an annual assessment of the long-term portfolio impacts of technological advances and global climate change policies…” Further, the Board for Fluor Corporation has stated its opposition to repeated proposals from 2016 to 2018 requesting GHG reduction goals, by “Creating Technology to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” more specifically, by investing in NuScale Power, LLC along with Rolls-Royce.

We emphasize that climate-friendly boards and heightened managerial perceptions of climate risk are potential mechanisms. We argue that shareholder proposals positively influence these factors. However, we acknowledge without direct demonstration that these mechanisms, in turn, enhance innovations, considering them as established facts based on prior research (Homroy and Slechten, 2019 ; Sautner et al., 2023 ).

We considered using alternate terms such as “greenhouse gases” or “carbon emissions,” but due to the content of the DEF14A filing, it is not possible to ensure that a term appears directly within a shareholder proposal or management’s response to one without visual inspection, thus hand-collection. Often, the proposals are only a small portion of the DEF14A which often presents year-end results at the annual meeting. Further, word lists invariably subject samples to gaming. “Climate Change” has fairly unambiguous meaning to management and is the phrase used by both the SEC and USPTO.

We also consider that firm innovation may not have a perfect memory of a pressure over the past 25 years of all proposals related to climate change. For robustness, we construct the same three-year, backward average but for only the last three years as well as the last five years. The results that follow remain unchanged. We also use lagged proposals as a proxy for shareholder pressure on climate-related issues for additional robustness, and our main findings are qualitatively similar. These results are not reported for brevity but are presented in online Appendix 1 .

In fact, of the 1.9 million patents we examine from 1994 to 2019, only 8 begin with the Y02 classification, even though 105,737 patents contain the Y02 classification in the CPC coding scheme. For example, patent 5,426,677 appears to be primarily concerned with Physics, the G classification, (G21C1/09; G21C17/00; G21Y2002/202; G21Y2002/204; G21Y2004/304; Y02E30/40), but also has a Climate Mitigation (Y02) component. Disentangling truncation bias by year-technology for the Y02 classification is not feasible for this paper. Further, from our discussions with the USPTO, the first classification tends to be more dominant than the last.

In unreported results, we also construct dependent variables looking forward five years to allow more time for the stockholder pressure to influence innovative behavior.

As Wooldridge ( 2012 ) explains, “sometimes log(1 + y) is used, but interpretation of the coefficients is difficult.” (p. 216) However, this practice is commonplace in corporate finance settings. For robustness, the inverse hyperbolic sine (IHS), as suggested by Burbidge et al. ( 1988 ) and proposed by Johnson ( 1949 ), for zero-value observations is used to log transform both the logged dependent variables and the independent variable of interest, Pressure . The IHS transformation is sinh-1(x) = log(x + (× 2 + 1)1/2). The results using IHS for OLS regressions suggest that the coefficients tend to overstate the economic impact of models (3) and (6) of Table  2 as well as models with Y02 Counts pct and Y02 Cites pct as dependent variables, while understate the coefficients of models with Y02 Top 1 pct and Y02 Top 10 pct as dependent variables (Appendix B ), but the statistical inference remains unchanged in sign or significance.

The Pope’s sentiment also intuitively satisfies the exclusion restriction as it is unlikely to directly influence corporate innovations. To gain some reassurance on the (notorious) exclusion restriction, we divide the sample along the lines of Religious Social Capital considered by Rupasingha et al. ( 2006 ) and obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau’s number of establishments in religious organizations (NAICS 813110), also examined by Grennan ( 2022 ) along with other donor-advised funds. In splitting the sample between More and Less Religious at the county level, we find that firms headquartered in less religious counties have a more acute influence on climate innovations when the Pope serves as an instrument. We would expect the Pope to have a stronger influence in more religious counties, if the Pope were directly influencing management to develop climate technologies and bypassing proposals made by shareholders who are not concentrated near headquarters. Since we find the opposite, we feel better about the exclusion restriction, instead of relying only on our (notorious) intuitions for justification.

We implement causal mediation analysis using the ivmediate command in Stata (e.g., Dippel, Ferrara, and Heblich, 2020 ), allowing us to estimate the treatment effect and determine the proportion attributable to a mediator. The primary advantage, as noted, is that despite both the treatment and mediator being endogenous, a single instrument can accurately detect both causal treatment and mediation effects. However, the method does not produce the first-stage result of the IV regression. Instead, it reports the F-test of excluded instruments directly from the first stage to assess instrument strength, which suffices to establish validity. In our models, detailed in Table  4 , the F-tests from the first stage across all models greatly exceed the conventional cutoff value of 10, ensuring the validity of the instrument. Nevertheless, we manually performed IV regressions and confirmed that our instrument, PopeUS, significantly and positively affects both Pressure and mediators.

In the results, not tabulated for brevity, we re-estimate the same model as in Panel A but with firm fixed effects. We find significant causal mediation effects of Pressure on Y02 Counts that pass through Ind Dir Exp. In parallel to Panel B, we re-estimated the same model with firm fixed effects using CC Bigrams as a mediator and found nearly full mediation. Additionally, we detected marginal mediation in the model with Y02 Cites as a dependent variable using CC Bigrams as a mediator, but not Ind Dir Exp. Thus, the results of firm fixed effects analysis are more suggestive in this case.

We also perform robustness checks of our mediation analysis using alternative measures of shareholder proposals (three-year backward averages for the last three and five years, and lagged proposals). We find statistically significant mediation in all cases, with the mediated effect ranging from 0.54 to 0.91 of the total effect. We also limit the sample to firms that have ever received a proposal related to climate change during our sample period and find the proportion of the total effect mediated varies from 0.62 to 0.74 of the total effect. Finally, using the percentage of votes at the annual meetings in favor of a climate-related proposal collected by ISS (ISS Vote For), the mediated effect ranges from 0.83 to 0.90 of the total effect. We estimate these models using industry fixed effects, with industries identified using 3-digit SIC codes. Overall, our results are in line with our main findings.

To ensure our results are not due to selection of matching estimator, we also employ entropy balancing, nearest neighbor, propensity score, and the CEM (Blackwell et al., 2009 ) and find our results to be robust. The main advantage of EBCT, of course, is that it allows us to match on our continuous treatment variable ( Pressure ), instead of a binary one required for the other estimators.

We note that, following the approach of Faleye et al., ( 2014 ), we also examined the short-term performance implications of the change in patent counts attributable to shareholder climate-related proposals. That is, we regress our performance metrics on predicted patent counts as well as patent cites, where the predicted values are from the regression of innovation variables in our shareholder proposal measures. Our findings remain consistent.

BlackRock, Commentary on the BIS Approach to Shareholder Proposals, https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/literature/publication/commentary-bis-approach-shareholder-proposals.pdf

European Commission, Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence, https://commission.europa.eu/business-economy-euro/doing-business-eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence_en ).

Acharya, A. G., Gras, D., & Krause, R. (2022). Socially oriented shareholder activism targets: Explaining activists’ corporate target selection using corporate opportunity structures. Journal of Business Ethics, 178 (2), 307–323.

Article   Google Scholar  

Admati, A. R., & Pfleiderer, P. (2009). The “wall street walk” and shareholder activism: Exit as a form of voice. The Review of Financial Studies, 22 (7), 2645–2685.

Alkalbani, N., Cuomo, F., & Mallin, C. (2019). Gender diversity and say-on-pay: Evidence from UK remuneration committees. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 27 (5), 378–400.

Arli, D., van Esch, P., & Cui, Y. (2023). Who cares more about the environment, those with an intrinsic, an extrinsic, a quest, or an atheistic religious orientation? Investigating the effect of religious ad appeals on attitudes toward the environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 185 , 1–22.

Atanassov, J. (2013). Do hostile takeovers stifle innovation? Evidence from antitakeover legislation and corporate patenting. The Journal of Finance, 68 (3), 1097–1131.

Bakaki, Z., & Bernauer, T. (2017). Do global climate summits influence public awareness and policy preferences concerning climate change? Environmental Politics, 26 , 1–26.

Baker, M., Stein, J. C., & Wurgler, J. (2003). When does the market matter? Stock prices and the investment of equity-dependent firms. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118 (3), 969–1005.

Barko, T., Cremers, M., & Renneboog, L. (2021). Shareholder engagement on environmental, social, and governance performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 180 , 1–36.

Google Scholar  

Bauer, R., Moers, F., & Viehs, M. (2015). Who withdraws shareholder proposals and does it matter? An analysis of sponsor identity and pay practices. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 23 (6), 472–488.

Beasley, M., Carcello, J. V., Hermanson, D. R., & Lapides, P. (2000). Fraudulent financial reporting: Consideration of Industry traits and corporate governance mechanisms. Accounting Horizons, 14 , 441–452.

Bebchuk, L. A., Brav, A., Jiang, W., & Keusch, T. (2020). Dancing with activists. Journal of Financial Economics, 137 (1), 1–41.

Beccarini, I., Beunza, D., Ferraro, F., & Hoepner, A. G. F. (2023). The contingent role of conflict: Deliberative interaction and disagreement in shareholder engagement. Business Ethics Quarterly, 33 (1), 26–66.

Benner, M. J. (2010). Securities analysts and incumbent response to radical technological change: Evidence from digital photography and internet telephony. Organization Science, 21 (1), 42–62.

Benner, M. J., & Zenger, T. (2016). The lemons problem in markets for strategy. Strategy Science, 1 (2), 71–89.

Bernile, G., Bhagwat, V., & Rau, P. R. (2017). What doesn’t kill you will only make you more risk-loving: Early-life disasters and CEO behavior. The Journal of Finance, 72 (1), 167–206.

Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. (2003). Enjoying the quiet life? Corporate governance and managerial preferences. Journal of Political Economy, 111 (5), 1043–1075.

Besio, C., & Pronzini, A. (2014). Morality, ethics, and values outside and inside organizations: An example of the discourse on climate change. Journal of Business Ethics, 119 , 287–300.

Bhagat, S., & Black, B. (2001). The non-correlation between board Independence and long term firm performance. Journal of Corporation Law, 27 , 231–274.

Bhandari, A., & Javakhadze, D. (2017). Corporate social responsibility and capital allocation efficiency. Journal of Corporate Finance, 43 , 354–377.

Bhojraj, S., & Libby, R. (2005). Capital Market pressure, disclosure frequency-induced earnings/cash flow conflict, and managerial Myopia. The Accounting Review, 80 (1), 1–20.

Bizjak, J. M., & Marquette, C. J. (1998). Are shareholder proposals all bark and no bite? Evidence from shareholder resolutions to rescind poison pills. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 33 (04), 499–521.

Black, B. S. (1998). Shareholder activism and corporate governance in the United States. As Published in the New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics and the Law, 3 , 459–465.

Blackwell, M., Iacus, S., King, G., & Porro, G. (2009). CEM: Coarsened exact matching in Stata. The Stata Journal, 9 (4), 524–546.

Böhm, S., Carrington, M., Cornelius, N., de Bruin, B., Greenwood, M., Hassan, L., Jain, Y., Karam, C., Kourula, A., Romani, L., Riaz, S., & Shaw, D. (2022). Ethics at the center of global and local challenges: Thoughts on the future of business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 180 (3), 835–861.

Brav, A., Jiang, W., Ma, S., & Tian, X. (2018). How does hedge fund activism reshape corporate innovation? Journal of Financial Economics, 130 (2), 237–264.

Brown, J. R., Fazzari, S. M., & Petersen, B. C. (2009). Financing innovation and growth: Cash flow, external equity, and the 1990s R&D boom. The Journal of Finance, 64 (1), 151–185.

de Bruin, B. (2023) Climate change and business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, forthcoming.

Burbidge, J. B., Magee, L., & Robb, A. L. (1988). Alternative transformations to handle extreme values of the dependent variable. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83 (401), 123–127.

Carleton, W. T., Nelson, J. M., & Weisbach, M. S. (1998). The influence of institutions on corporate governance through private negotiations: Evidence from TIAA-CREF. The Journal of Finance, 53 (4), 1335–1362.

Chen, T., Dong, H., & Lin, C. (2020). Institutional shareholders and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Financial Economics, 135 (2), 483–504.

Chen, Z., Jin, J., & Li, M. (2022). Does media coverage influence firm green innovation? The moderating role of regional environment. Technology in Society, 70 , 102006.

Chhaochharia, V., & Grinstein, Y. (2009). CEO compensation and board structure. Journal of Finance, 64 , 231–261.

Chuah, K., DesJardine, M. R., Goranova, M., & Henisz, W. J. (2023). Shareholder activism research: A system-level view . In-Press.

Ciarli, T., Savona, M., & Thorpe, J. (2020). Innovation for inclusive structural change. In J. D. Lee, K. Lee, S. Radosevic, D. Meissner, & N. S. Vonortas (Eds.), The challenges of technology and economic catch-up in emerging economies. Oxford University Press.

Clark, C. E., Bryant, A. P., & Griffin, J. J. (2017). Firm engagement and social issue salience, consensus, and contestation. Business & Society, 56 (8), 1136–1168.

Clarke, T. (2020). The Contest on corporate purpose: why Lynn Stout was right and Milton Friedman was wrong. Accounting, Economics, and Law: A Convivium, 10 (3), 20200145.

Clò, S., Frigerio, M., & Vandone, D. (2022). Financial support to innovation: The role of European development financial institutions. Research Policy, 51 (10), 104566.

Cuñat, V., Gine, M., & Guadalupe, M. (2012). The vote is cast: The effect of corporate governance on shareholder value. The Journal of Finance, 67 (5), 1943–1977.

Daddi, T., Todaro, N. M., De Giacomo, M. R., & Frey, M. (2018). A systematic review of the use of organization and management theories in climate change studies. Business Strategy and the Environment, 27 (4), 456–474.

David, P., Bloom, M., & Hillman, A. J. (2007). Investor activism, managerial responsiveness, and corporate social performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28 (1), 91–100.

David, P., Hitt, M. A., & Gimeno, J. (2001). The influence of activism by institutional investors on R&D. Academy of Management Journal, 44 (1), 144–157.

Del Guercio, D., Seery, L., & Woidtke, T. (2008). Do boards pay attention when institutional investors “just vote no”? Journal of Financial Economics, 90 , 84–103.

Dessaint, O., & Matray, A. (2017). Do managers overreact to salient risks? Evidence from hurricane strikes. Journal of Financial Economics, 126 (1), 97–121.

Ding, D., Liu, B., & Chang, M. (2022). Carbon emissions and TCFD aligned climate-related information disclosures. Journal of Business Ethics, 182 (4), 9671001.

Dippel, C., Ferrara, A., & Heblich, S. (2020). Causal mediation analysis in instrumental-variables regressions. The Stata Journal, 20 (3), 613–626.

Eberlein, B., & Matten, D. (2009). Business responses to climate change regulation in Canada and Germany: Lessons for MNCs from emerging economies. Journal of Business Ethics, 86 , 241–255.

Ertimur, F., & Stubben. (2010). Board of directors’ responsiveness to shareholders evidence from shareholder proposals. Journal of Corporate Finance, 16 (1), 53–72.

Faleye, O., Kovacs, T., & Venkateswaran, A. (2014). Do better-connected CEOs innovate more? Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 49 (5–6), 1201–1225.

Fama, E. (1980). Agency problems and the theory of the firm. Journal of Political Economy, 88 , 288–307.

Fama, E., & Jensen, M. (1983). Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics, 26 , 301–325.

Fan, Z., Radhakrishnan, S., & Zhang, Y. (2021). Corporate governance and earnings management: Evidence from shareholder proposals. Contemporary Accounting Research, 38 (2), 1434–1464.

Ferns, G., Lambert, A., & Günther, M. (2022). The analogical construction of stigma as a moral dualism: The case of the fossil fuel divestment movement. Academy of Management Journal, 65 (4), 1383–1415.

Ferri, F. (2012). Low-cost’ shareholder activism: A review of the evidence. In C. A. Hill & B. H. McDonnell (Eds.), Research handbook on the economics of corporate law. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Ferris, S. P., Javakhadze, D., & Rajkovic, T. (2017). CEO social capital, risk-taking and corporate policies. Journal of Corporate Finance, 47 , 46–71.

Flammer, C. (2015). Does corporate social responsibility lead to superior financial performance? A Regression Discontinuity Approach. Management Science, 61 (11), 2549–2568.

Flammer, C., & Bansal, P. (2017). Does a long-term orientation create value? Evidence from a regression discontinuity. Strategic Management Journal, 38 (9), 1827–1847.

Flammer, C., Toffel, M. W., & Viswanathan, K. (2021). Shareholder activism and firms’ voluntary disclosure of climate change risks. Strategic Management Journal, 42 (10), 1850–1879.

Frankel, R., McVay, S., & Soliman, M. (2011). Non-GAAP earnings and board independence. Review of Accounting Studies, 16 , 719–744.

Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of the firm Is to increase its profits. Time Magazine, 09 (13/1970), 11.

Friedman, M. (2002). Capitalism and freedom: Fortieth anniversary edition . The University of Chicago Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Galbreath, J. (2011). To what extent is business responding to climate change? Evidence from a global wine producer. Journal of Business Ethics, 104 , 421–432.

Galbreath, J., Charles, D., & Oczkowski, E. (2016). The drivers of climate change innovations: Evidence from the Australian wine industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 135 , 217–231.

Gormley, T. A., & Matsa, D. A. (2016). Playing it safe? Managerial preferences, risk, and agency conflicts. Journal of Financial Economics, 122 (3), 431–455.

Graham, J. R., Harvey, C. R., & Rajgopal, S. (2005). The economic implications of corporate financial reporting. Journal of Accounting & Economics, 40 (1–3), 3–73.

Greenwood, M., & Freeman, R. E. (2017). Focusing on ethics and broadening our intellectual base. Journal of Business Ethics, 140 , 1–3.

Grennan, J. (2022). Social change through financial innovation: Evidence from donor-advised funds. The Review of Corporate Finance Studies, 11 (3), 694–735.

Hainmueller, J. (2012). Entropy balancing for causal effects: A multivariate reweighting method to produce balanced samples in observational studies. Political Analysis, 20 (1), 25–46.

Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (2001). The NBER patent citation data file: Lessons, insights and methodological tools (No. w8498) . National Bureau of Economic Research.

Haney, A. (2017). Threat interpretation and innovation in the context of climate change: An ethical perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 143 , 261–276.

He, J. J., & Tian, X. (2013). The dark side of analyst coverage: The case of innovation. Journal of Financial Economics, 109 (3), 856–878.

Homroy, S., & Slechten, A. (2019). Do board expertise and networked boards affect environmental performance? Journal of Business Ethics, 158 , 269–292.

Honoré, F., Munari, F., & de La Potterie, B. V. P. (2015). Corporate governance practices and companies’ R&D intensity: Evidence from European countries. Research Policy, 44 (2), 533–543.

Howard-Grenville, J., Buckle, S., Hoskins, B., & George, G. (2014). Climate change and management. Academy of Management Journal, 57 , 615–623.

Hyatt, D., & Berente, N. (2017). Substantive or symbolic environmental Strategies? Effects of external and internal normative stakeholder pressures. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26 , 1212–1234.

Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3 (4), 305–360.

Johnson, N. L. (1949). Systems of frequency curves generated by methods of translation. Biometrika, 36 (1/2), 149–176.

Kaesehage, K., Leyshon, M., Ferns, G., & Leyshon, K. (2019). Seriously personal: The reasons that motivate entrepreneurs to address climate change. Journal of Business Ethics, 157 , 1091–1109.

Karamanou, I., & Vafeas, N. (2005). The association between corporate boards, audit committees, and management earnings forecasts: An empirical analysis. Journal of Accounting Research, 43 , 453–486.

Karpoff, J. M., Malatesta, P. H., & Walkling, R. A. (1996). Corporate governance and shareholder initiatives: Empirical evidence. Journal of Financial Economics, 42 (3), 365–395.

Knyazeva, A., Knyazeva, D., & Masulis, R. (2013). The supply of corporate directors and board independence. The Review of Financial Studies, 26 (6), 1561–1605.

Kogan, L., Papanikolaou, D., Serum, A., & Stoffman, N. (2017). Technological innovation, resource allocation, and growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 132 (2), 665–712.

Krieger, B., & Zipperer, V. (2022). Does green public procurement trigger environmental innovations? Research Policy, 51 (6), 104516.

Levit, D., & Malenko, N. (2011). Nonbinding voting for shareholder proposals. The Journal of Finance, 66 (5), 1579–1614.

Lin, C., Liu, S., & Manso, G. (2021). Shareholder litigation and corporate innovation. Management Science, 67 (6), 3321–3984.

Lyon, T., & Montgomery, A. (2015). The means and end of greenwash. Organization & Environment, 28 , 223–249.

Manso, G. (2011). Motivating innovation. The Journal of Finance, 66 (5), 1823–1860.

Marti, E., Fuchs, M., DesJardine, M. R., Slager, R., & Gond, J.-P. (2023). The impact of sustainable investing: A multidisciplinary review. Journal of Management Studies, 61 (5), 2181–2211.

McDonnell, M. H., King, B. G., & Soule, S. A. (2015). A dynamic process model of private politics: Activist targeting and corporate receptivity to social challenges. American Sociological Review, 80 (3), 654–678.

McMullin, J. L., & Schonberger, B. (2021). When good balance goes bad: A discussion of common pitfalls when using entropy balancing. SSRN Electronic Journal . https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3786224

Olson, B. (2017) Exxon shareholders pressure company on climate risks The Wall Street Journal , Business Section.

Perfect, S. B., & Wiles, K. W. (1994). Alternative constructions of Tobin’s q: An empirical comparison. Journal of Empirical Finance, 1 (3–4), 313341.

Rehbein, K., Logsdon, J. M., & Van Buren, H. J. (2013). Corporate responses to shareholder activists: Considering the dialogue alternative. Journal of Business Ethics, 112 (1), 137–154.

Reid, E. M., & Toffel, M. W. (2009). Responding to public and private politics: Corporate disclosure of climate change strategies. Strategic Management Journal, 30 (11), 1157–1178.

Renneboog, L., & Szilagyi, P. (2011). The role of shareholder proposals in corporate governance. Journal of Corporate Finance, 17 (1), 167–188.

Rupasingha, A., Goetz, S. J., & Freshwater, D. (2006). The production of social capital in US counties. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 35 (1), 83–101.

Ryan, H., & Wiggins, A., III. (2004). Who is in whose pocket? Director Compensation, Board Independence, and Barriers to Effective Monitoring, Journal of Financial Economics, 73 , 497–524.

Sautner, Z., Van Lent, L., Vilkov, G., & Zhang, R. (2023). Firm-level climate change exposure. The Journal of Finance, 78 (3), 1449–1498.

Schooley, D., Renner, C., & Allen, M. (2010). Shareholder proposals, board composition, and leadership structure. Journal of Managerial Issues, 22 (2), 152–165.

Schumpeter, J. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy . Harper and Brothers.

Shi, W., Xia, C., & Meyer-Doyle, P. (2022). Institutional investor activism and employee safety: The role of activist and board political ideology. Organization Science, 33 (6), 2404–2420.

Slager, R., Chuah, K., Gond, J.-P., Furnari, S., & Homanen, M. (2023). Tailor-to-target: Configuring collaborative shareholder engagements on climate change. Management Science . https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2023.4806

Soltes, E. F., Srinivasan, S., & Vijayaraghavan, R. (2017). What else do shareholders want? Shareholder proposals contested by firm management. Harvard Business School Accounting & Management Unit Working Paper

Stout, L. (2013). The toxic side effects of shareholder primacy. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 161 (7), 2003–2023.

Tübbicke, S. (2022). Entropy balancing for continuous treatments. Journal of Econometric Methods, 11 (1), 7189.

Tylecote, A., & Ramirez, P. (2006). Corporate governance and innovation: The UK compared with the US and “insider” economies. Research Policy, 35 (1), 160–180.

Veldman, J., Jain, T., & Hauser, C. (2023). Virtual special issue on corporate governance and ethics: What’s next? Journal of Business Ethics, 183 , 329–331.

Wade, B., & Griffiths, A. (2022). Exploring the cognitive foundations of managerial (climate) change decisions. Journal of Business Ethics, 181 , 15–40.

Wang, H., Zhao, S., & Chen, G. (2017). Firm-specific knowledge assets and employment arrangements: Evidence from CEO compensation design and CEO dismissal. Strategic Management Journal, 38 (9), 1875–1894.

Weisbach, M. (1988). Outside directors and CEO turnover. Journal of Financial Economics, 20 , 431–460.

Wooldridge, J. (2012). Introductory econometrics: A modern approach (5th ed.). Cengage.

Xiao, X., & Shailer, G. (2022). Stakeholders’ perceptions of factors affecting the credibility of sustainability reports. The British Accounting Review, 54 , 101002.

Zhang, Y., & Gimeno, J. (2016). Earnings pressure and long-term corporate governance: Can long-term-oriented investors and managers reduce the quarterly earnings obsession? Organization Science, 27 (2), 354–372.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Rinker School of Business, Palm Beach Atlantic University, MAC 1284-B, 901 S Flagler Drive, West Palm Beach, FL, 33401, USA

Greg Tindall

College of Business, Florida Atlantic University, Kaye Hall 140, 777 Glades Road, Boca Raton, FL, 33431, USA

Rebel A. Cole

College of Business, Florida Atlantic University, Kaye Hall 141A, 777 Glades Road, Boca Raton, FL, 33431, USA

David Javakhadze

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Javakhadze .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 23 KB)

Appendix a: description of variables and sources.

Appendix B: Shareholder Climate-Related Proposals and Corporate Innovations—Alternative Models

This table shows the results of ordinary least square regressions with Innovation as the dependent variable based on the patent data by date filed with the US Patent Office containing the Y02 (climate change). In Columns (1)–(4), dependent variables are Y02 Count Pct —the percent of a firm’s Y02 patents in a given year relative to all of that firm’s patents filed in the same year, Y02 Cite Pct —the percent of a firm’s Y02 patent citations in a given year relative to all of that firm’s patent citations filed in the same year, Y02 Top 1—the natural log of one plus the number of Y02 patents whose citations were in the top 1 percent of all Y02 patents in a given year, Y02 Top 10 —the natural log of one plus the number of Y02 patents whose citations were in the top 10 percent of all Y02 patents in a given year, respectively. Pressure is the natural log of one plus a three-year, backward average of an accumulated total of the climate-related shareholder proposals that a firm has received from 1994 to 2019. The control variables are also averaged over three years and include Size, R&D, Tobin’s Q, Age, Revenue Growth, Stock Returns, Leverage and Cash Surplus, as defined in Appendix A. t-statistic, based on robust standard errors, adjusted for heteroskedasticity and clustered at the industry-year level, are reported in brackets below the coefficients. ***, **, and * indicate significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% level, respectively

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Tindall, G., Cole, R.A. & Javakhadze, D. Innovation Responds to Climate Change Proposals. J Bus Ethics (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-024-05808-7

Download citation

Received : 22 February 2023

Accepted : 19 August 2024

Published : 02 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-024-05808-7

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Shareholder proposals
• Shareholder activism
• Corporate governance
• Climate change

JEL Classifications

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Global (EN)
• Albania (en)
• Algeria (fr)
• Argentina (es)
• Armenia (en)
• Australia (en)
• Austria (de)
• Austria (en)
• Azerbaijan (en)
• Bahamas (en)
• Bahrain (en)
• Bangladesh (en)
• Barbados (en)
• Belgium (en)
• Belgium (nl)
• Bermuda (en)
• Bosnia and Herzegovina (en)
• Brasil (pt)
• Brazil (en)
• British Virgin Islands (en)
• Bulgaria (en)
• Cambodia (en)
• Cameroon (fr)
• Canada (en)
• Canada (fr)
• Cayman Islands (en)
• Channel Islands (en)
• Colombia (es)
• Costa Rica (es)
• Croatia (en)
• Cyprus (en)
• Czech Republic (cs)
• Czech Republic (en)
• DR Congo (fr)
• Denmark (da)
• Denmark (en)
• Ecuador (es)
• Estonia (en)
• Estonia (et)
• Finland (fi)
• France (fr)
• Georgia (en)
• Germany (de)
• Germany (en)
• Gibraltar (en)
• Greece (el)
• Greece (en)
• Hong Kong SAR (en)
• Hungary (en)
• Hungary (hu)
• Iceland (is)
• Indonesia (en)
• Ireland (en)
• Isle of Man (en)
• Israel (en)
• Ivory Coast (fr)
• Jamaica (en)
• Jordan (en)
• Kazakhstan (en)
• Kazakhstan (kk)
• Kazakhstan (ru)
• Kuwait (en)
• Latvia (en)
• Latvia (lv)
• Lebanon (en)
• Lithuania (en)
• Lithuania (lt)
• Luxembourg (en)
• Macau SAR (en)
• Malaysia (en)
• Mauritius (en)
• Mexico (es)
• Moldova (en)
• Monaco (en)
• Monaco (fr)
• Mongolia (en)
• Montenegro (en)
• Mozambique (en)
• Myanmar (en)
• Namibia (en)
• Netherlands (en)
• Netherlands (nl)
• New Zealand (en)
• Nigeria (en)
• North Macedonia (en)
• Norway (nb)
• Pakistan (en)
• Panama (es)
• Philippines (en)
• Poland (en)
• Poland (pl)
• Portugal (en)
• Portugal (pt)
• Romania (en)
• Romania (ro)
• Saudi Arabia (en)
• Serbia (en)
• Singapore (en)
• Slovakia (en)
• Slovakia (sk)
• Slovenia (en)
• South Africa (en)
• Sri Lanka (en)
• Sweden (sv)
• Switzerland (de)
• Switzerland (en)
• Switzerland (fr)
• Taiwan (en)
• Taiwan (zh)
• Thailand (en)
• Trinidad and Tobago (en)
• Tunisia (en)
• Tunisia (fr)
• Turkey (en)
• Turkey (tr)
• Ukraine (en)
• Ukraine (ru)
• Ukraine (uk)
• United Arab Emirates (en)
• United Kingdom (en)
• United States (en)
• Uruguay (es)
• Uzbekistan (en)
• Uzbekistan (ru)
• Venezuela (es)
• Vietnam (en)
• Vietnam (vi)
• Zambia (en)
• Zimbabwe (en)
• Financial Reporting View
• Women's Leadership
• Corporate Finance
• Board Leadership
• Executive Education

Fresh thinking and actionable insights that address critical issues your organization faces.

• Insights by Industry
• Insights by Topic

KPMG's multi-disciplinary approach and deep, practical industry knowledge help clients meet challenges and respond to opportunities.

• Advisory Services
• Audit Services
• Tax Services

Services to meet your business goals

Technology Alliances

KPMG has market-leading alliances with many of the world's leading software and services vendors.

Helping clients meet their business challenges begins with an in-depth understanding of the industries in which they work. That’s why KPMG LLP established its industry-driven structure. In fact, KPMG LLP was the first of the Big Four firms to organize itself along the same industry lines as clients.

• Our Industries

How We Work

We bring together passionate problem-solvers, innovative technologies, and full-service capabilities to create opportunity with every insight.

• What sets us apart

Careers & Culture

What is culture? Culture is how we do things around here. It is the combination of a predominant mindset, actions (both big and small) that we all commit to every day, and the underlying processes, programs and systems supporting how work gets done.

Relevant Results

Sorry, there are no results matching your search., kpmg report: updated accounting method change procedures and clarification of rules under section 174.

A KPMG report concerning two forms of guidance addressing section 174.

The IRS on December 22, 2023, released the following two forms of guidance addressing section 174:

• Notice 2024-12 clarifies and modifies Notice 2023-63 addressing the capitalization and amortization of specified research or experimental (SRE) expenditures under section 174. Of note, the notice specifically clarifies the previously issued guidance relating to contract research providers.
• Revenue Procedure 2024-9 updates the procedures for changing methods of accounting under section 174.

Public Law 115-97 (December 22, 2017), commonly referred to as the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act” (TCJA), amended section 174 in several ways with the intent of raising revenues to offset tax cuts in other areas. Among the key amendments was the removal of the ability to currently deduct section 174 expenditures, requiring taxpayers to capitalize such costs and recover them through amortization over five years for expenditures incurred in the U.S. and over 15 years for expenditures incurred outside of the U.S.

The IRS on December 12, 2022, released an advance copy of Rev. Proc. 2023-8, providing accounting method change procedures applicable to companies required to capitalize and amortize SRE expenditures. Subsequently, the IRS on December 29, 2022, released Rev. Proc. 2023-11 to amend the procedures set forth in Rev. Proc. 2023-8 for making post-2022 accounting method changes with respect to obtaining audit protection. The IRS on June 15, 2023, released Rev. Proc. 2023-24, providing an updated annual list of automatic accounting method changes, which incorporates the automatic method change procedures issued in Rev. Proc. 2023-11 under section 174.

The IRS on September 8, 2023, issued Notice 2023-63 addressing issues related to section 174 as amended by the TCJA. Given the lack of a legislative deferral or repeal of the requirement to capitalize SRE expenditures, this notice was welcome guidance for taxpayers working to prepare their current year tax returns because it covered several areas that have been unclear in previous guidance. For a more detailed analysis of Notice 2023-63.

Key points from Notice 2024-12

Notice 2024-12 clarifies and modifies Notice 2023-63, which announced that the Department of Treasury and IRS intend to issue proposed regulations addressing the capitalization and amortization of SRE expenditures under section 174. Specifically, Notice 2024-12 clarifies and modifies three areas of Notice 2023-63 as highlighted below.

• Research performed under contract: excluded SRE product right.   Notice 2023-63 provides that a research provider’s costs paid or incurred in performing SRE activities under a contract with the research recipient are SRE expenditures if the research provider bears financial risk or has an SRE product right (i.e., a right to use any resulting SRE product in a trade or business or otherwise exploit any resulting SRE product through sale, lease, or license). However, research providers that have an SRE product right only upon obtaining approval from an unrelated party (within the meaning of section 267 or 707) are not treated as having an SRE product right. While Notice 2023-63 eliminated significant uncertainty that contract research providers faced in evaluating the proper treatment of costs, it did not explicitly address a situation in which a research provider separately acquires rights for consideration thus compensating the research owner for those rights. These arrangements are common for multi-national corporations with complex intercompany research services arrangements. For example, in many cases, in addition to a research services agreement, the parties enter a separate agreement granting the research provider rights to distribute the product developed under the research services agreement and requiring the research provider to pay the research recipient an arms-length royalty for those rights. While not explicitly addressing this situation, KPMG interpreted the notice to exclude expenditures from the definition of SREs in this situation,[1] and Notice 2024-12 confirms that interpretation. Removing the ambiguity, Notice 2024-12 explicitly explains that costs paid or incurred by the research provider to perform SRE activities when the research provider separately bargains for the SRE product right, whether in the same contract or a separate contract, are not SRE expenditures of the research provider (referred to as an “excluded SRE product right”) and thus not subject to capitalization under section 174.
• KPMG observation Taxpayers that took a more conservative position in interpreting either Notice 2023-63 or section 174(a) in general—that separately bargained for rights needed to be undertaken by a different entity, or at a minimum, a different contract--should no longer have that concern. Taxpayers in this position now have an opportunity to change their method of accounting in 2023 to expense the unamortized amount of these expenses. See the discussion of the procedures permitting a cumulative section 481(a) adjustment below.
• Full or partial reliance on any of the rules in Notice 2023-63.   Notice 2023-63 states that the IRS intends to issue proposed regulations consistent with the rules in the notice to apply to tax years ending after September 8, 2023. However, the notice also provides that a taxpayer may choose to rely on the rules in tax years beginning after December 31, 2021, provided the taxpayer relies on and consistently applies all such rules. Notice 2024-12 modifies Notice 2023-63 by removing the requirement that Notice 2023-63 must be fully relied on and applied consistently in an effort to facilitate reliance on the rules in a more administrable manner. This modification benefits taxpayers that seek to rely on certain provisions of Notice 2023-63, as modified by Notice 2024-12, but not others, in tax years beginning after December 31, 2021, and before the issuance of final regulations. For example, Section 4.03(1) of Notice 2023-63 gives a nonexclusive list of costs that are SRE expenditures, and excludes amounts paid or incurred for severance from the definition of labor SRE expenditures. While such exclusion is helpful to taxpayers seeking to limit costs subject to capitalization, it negatively impacts the research credit under section 41, which generally provides as a threshold requirement that an expense be a SRE expenditure to be a qualified research expense (QRE). Eligible wages under section 41 are determined based on section 3401(a) which means all tax wages reported on Box 1 of Form W-2 are potentially QREs. Form W-2 Box 1 which includes severance. Given these inconsistencies, and absent the modification in Notice 2024-12 that removes the requirement to fully rely on and apply Notice 2023-63 consistently. If a taxpayer relied on Notice 2023-63 for a certain position, then it would need to exclude severance from Box 1, Schedule W-2 wages in the section 41 research credit. The modification to the applicability of Notice 2023-63 creates opportunities for taxpayers to partially rely on Notice 2023-63 but include severance as SRE expenditures avoiding the need to exclude such costs in the research credit under section 41.
• Section 5.01 of Rev. Proc. 2000-50 obsoleted for software development costs paid or incurred in tax years beginning after December 31, 2021.  For tax years beginning after December 31, 2021, SRE expenditures subject to capitalization under section 174 include expenditures for software development. Notice 2023-63 provides guidance with respect to determining the types of activities that constitute software development and defines the term “computer software” as consistent with the guidance provided in Rev. Proc. 2000-50. Notice 2023-63 obsoleted section 5 of Rev. Proc. 2000-50, which permits taxpayers to treat software development costs in a manner similar to section 174 expenditures under the rules in effect prior to mandatory capitalization. Notice 2024-12 clarifies that section 5 of Rev. Proc. 2000-50 is only obsoleted for expenditures paid or incurred in tax years beginning after December 31, 2021. The clarification allows taxpayers to continue to file method changes to deduct software development expenditures under section 5 of Rev. Proc. 2000-50 that are paid or incurred in tax years beginning on or before December 31, 2021. This is helpful to taxpayers who may have capitalized these costs in the past and that seek to currently change the treatment of these expenses and given that some states do not follow section 174, will provide flexibility for state income tax purposes.

Notice 2024-12 is effective as of September 8, 2023, and may be relied on for expenditures paid or incurred in tax years beginning after December 31, 2021, until forthcoming proposed regulations are published.

Key points from Rev. Proc. 2024-9

Rev. Proc. 2024-9 modifies Section 7.02 of Rev. Proc. 2023-24, which provides automatic procedures for changing methods of accounting for SREs under section 174 paid or incurred in tax years beginning after December 31, 2021. In addition, Rev. Proc. 2024-9 adds Section 19.02 to Rev. Proc. 2023-24 to provide an automatic change for taking SREs into account under the percentage of completion method (PCM) under section 460. These changes are effective for Forms 3115 filed on or after December 22, 2023.

The following highlights the key points from the guidance:

• General Scope: Option to change a method to rely on the statute or Notice 2023-63.  Section 7.02 of Rev. Proc. 2023-24 provides two options for a taxpayer to change its method of accounting relating to the substantive rules for defining SREs: (1) A change in method of accounting to interpret the statute (i.e., section 174, as amended by the TCJA) without regard to the notice (DCN 265), or (2) a change in method of accounting to rely on Notice 2023-63, as modified by Notice 2024-12 (DCN 270). Given that that the notices may be relied on by taxpayers, in whole or in part, but taxpayers also have the continued opportunity to rely on a reasonable interpretation of the statute without relying on the notices, in most instances a taxpayer following the approach of reasonably interpreting the statute would likely be able to contend that any positions taken that are consistent with the notices are also reasonable interpretations of the statute, but not vice versa. As such, we recommend that any taxpayer making a change under the new procedure designate the change to be under DCN 265, or both DCN 265 and DCN 270, but not DCN 270 by itself. The modified procedure also makes it explicit that a change to no longer capitalize costs under section 174 that do not meet the definition of an SRE, depending on which option the taxpayer selects—interpretation of the statute or Notice 2023-63, as modified by Notice 2024-12—is included in the scope of the automatic change. In addition, the modified procedure excludes from the automatic change a change from treating SREs paid or incurred by a taxpayer that transfers property with respect to which such SREs were paid or incurred in a section 351 exchange as amortizable by the transferee following such exchange to treating such SREs as amortizable by the transferor following such exchange (since such a change is not a change in method of accounting).
• Cut-off basis vs. section 481(a) adjustment.  As with the prior guidance, a change in method of accounting for the taxpayer’s first tax year beginning after December 31, 2021, is made on a cut-off basis. However, method changes made in a year later than the first year beginning after December 31, 2021 (e.g., 2023) are made with a modified section 481(a) adjustment which takes into account costs paid or incurred in tax years beginning after December 31, 2021. Interestingly, if the change results in a taxpayer favorable (“negative”) section 481(a) adjustment, Rev. Proc. 2024-9 provides flexibility allowing the taxpayer to choose between either making the change with an adjustment or on a cut-off basis.
• Statement attachment or Form 3115.  Consistent with the prior guidance, a change in method of accounting for the taxpayer’s first tax year beginning after December 31, 2021 is made by attaching a statement to the taxpayer’s tax return for that year. However, changes made for a year later than first year beginning after December 31, 2021 are made by filing Form 3115. The revenue procedure describes certain information that is required to be included in the Form 3115 which is similar to the information that is required for the changes made via return statement.
• Prior five-year change rule waived for a limited time.  The scope limitation on filing an automatic change if a taxpayer changed its method for the same item in the prior five tax years (found in Section 5.01(1)(f) of Rev. Proc. 2015-13) is waived for a taxpayer’s first or second tax year beginning after December 31, 2021 (i.e., it is waived for the 2023 tax year). The revenue procedure clarifies that this is the case even if the taxpayer makes a change for the same item in successive tax years. For example, if the taxpayer changed its method for the first tax year beginning after December 31, 2021 (i.e., 2022), it may file another change for the same item for the second tax year beginning after December 31, 2021 (i.e., 2023) under the automatic procedure.
• Limited audit protection is provided.  The new procedure narrows the scope of the denial of audit protection. Instead of denying it altogether for 2022 tax years, the revenue procedure only precludes a taxpayer from obtaining audit protection for 2022 if they did not make an accounting method change to capitalize SREs in 2022. Specifically, a taxpayer will not receive audit protection for a change made for the second year beginning after December 31, 2021 if it did not change, or attempt to change, its method for the first year beginning after December 31, 2021. As an example, if a taxpayer changed its method for 2022 and files a subsequent change for 2023, the change for 2023 will have audit protection (assuming it is otherwise available—e.g., the taxpayer is not under IRS examination). However, if the taxpayer waited to change its method until 2023, it would not have audit protection.
• Non-applicability of two-year rule requiring the filing of two tax returns before filing a change in method of accounting.  IRS guidance provides that a taxpayer will not be treated as having adopted an improper accounting method until they file at least two consecutive tax returns using the method of accounting.[1] Although there is a view that the two-year rule also applies when a taxpayer incorrectly makes a method change for an item, Rev. Proc. 2024-9 indicates that a taxpayer may use the revenue procedure “for its second tax year beginning after December 31, 2021, regardless of whether the taxpayer made, or purported to make, a change for the same item for its first tax year beginning after December 31, 2021.”
• Taxpayers who filed returns in early 2023.  The revenue procedure provides a transition rule for taxpayers who filed a federal income tax return on or before January 17, 2023, for a tax year beginning after December 31, 2021. Those taxpayers are deemed to have complied with Section 7.02 of Rev. Proc. 2023-24 to change their method for SREs paid or incurred in the first tax year beginning after December 31, 2021 if the taxpayer (1) reported the amount of SREs paid or incurred for such tax year on Part VI of Form 4562,  Depreciation and Amortization,  filed with the Federal income tax return, and (2) properly capitalized and amortized the SREs in accordance with Section 174 for that year.
• Automatic method change under Section 460.  A new Section 19.02 is added to Rev. Proc. 2023-24 to provide a method change to rely on Section 8 of Notice 2023-63, which addresses taking SREs into account under the PCM (DCN 271). The method change applies to treat the costs allocable to a long-term contract accounted for using the PCM to include only amortization deductions of such SREs, rather than the total amount incurred and capitalized under section 174. In addition, the amortization deduction for the SREs is treated as incurred for purposes of determining the percentage of contract completion in the tax year the amortization is deducted. This has the effect of not requiring the taxpayer to allocate the entire capitalized amount of allocable SRE expenditures to the contract, while only being permitted to deduct the amortization of such costs. This change would permit the taxpayer to only allocate the amortization amount of allocable SRE expenditures (i.e., only include the current year amortization amount in the numerator of the PCM formula) and to deduct the amortization as a cost incurred for the year in determining the percentage of the contract completed for the year. Lastly, the procedure provides that “estimated total allocable contract costs” in the denominator of the PCM formula will include either (1) all amortization of SREs that directly benefit or are incurred by reason of the performance of the long-term contract (i.e., the entire capitalized amount of allocable SREs), or (2) only that portion of such amortization expected to be incurred and deducted during the term of the contract (i.e., only the portion of allocable SREs to be amortized during the contract term). A taxpayer using the first alternative must report any portion of the contract price not previously reported by the tax year following the tax year in which the contract is completed, notwithstanding that some portion of the SREs remain unamortized. This change is made on a cut-off basis for the taxpayer’s first tax year beginning after December 31, 2021, but applies to contracts entered into before the year of change for which an SRE expenditure is an allocable contract cost (so that the method change results in an adjustment to revenue and costs for existing contracts, not just new contracts). A change made for a year later the first tax year beginning after December 31, 2021 is made with a modified Section 481(a) adjustment, taking into account costs paid or incurred in tax years beginning after December 31, 2021 (again, including contracts entered into before the year of change). If the change results in a negative Section 481(a) adjustment, the taxpayer may choose to implement the change with an adjustment or on a cut-off basis. The five-year prior change scope limitation does not apply to a change made for the taxpayer’s first or second tax year beginning after December 31, 2021.

For more information, contact a member of the KPMG Washington National Tax Methods and Credits group:

David Kalman | dkalman@kpmg.com

Colleen O’Connor | colleenmoconnor@kpmg.com

Carol Conjura | cconjura@kpmg.com

Natalie Tucker | natalietucker@kpmg.com

Cathy Fitzpatrick |  cfitzpatrick@kpmg.com

Hogan Humphries | hhumphries@kpmg.com

• See our analysis on page 10 of:  IRS Releases Initial Guidance on Section 174 SRE Expenditures  [PDF 453 KB]
• See Rev. Rul. 90-38.

The KPMG name and logo are trademarks used under license by the independent member firms of the KPMG global organization. KPMG International Limited is a private English company limited by guarantee and does not provide services to clients. No member firm has any authority to obligate or bind KPMG International or any other member firm vis-à-vis third parties, nor does KPMG International have any such authority to obligate or bind any member firm. The information contained herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavor to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act on such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation. For more information, contact KPMG's Federal Tax Legislative and Regulatory Services Group at: + 1 202 533 3712, 1801 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20006.

Thank you for contacting KPMG. We will respond to you as soon as possible.

Contact KPMG

By submitting, you agree that KPMG LLP may process any personal information you provide pursuant to KPMG LLP's Privacy Statement .

Job seekers

Visit our careers section or search our jobs database.

Use the RFP submission form to detail the services KPMG can help assist you with.

Office locations

International hotline

You can confidentially report concerns to the KPMG International hotline

Press contacts

Do you need to speak with our Press Office? Here's how to get in touch.

New regs on changing accounting methods for research

The Internal Revenue Service has changed the rules under Sec. 446 of the Internal Revenue Code and Section .446-1(e) of the Income Tax Regulations for obtaining consent to change methods of accounting for research or experimental expenditures.

The change applies to expenditures paid or incurred in taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 2021.

Revenue Procedure 2024-34 expands the waiver of the eligibility rules to accounting method changes (described in Sec. 7.01 of Rev. Proc. 2024-23) made in any taxable year beginning in 2022 or 2023. 

This rev proc also permits a taxpayer to make changes regardless of whether a change under that section was filed for any other taxable year beginning in 2022 or 2023.

Finally, for any change made in a taxable year beginning in 2022 or 2023 (other than the first taxable year beginning after Dec. 31, 2021), audit protection for research or experimental expenditures paid or incurred in the taxpayer's first taxable year after Dec. 31, 2021, is limited if the taxpayer failed to make a change for these expenditures for the appropriate tax year.

While small businesses still primarily use accounting software to record and manage transactions, the percentage using paper actually increased

Revenue Procedure 2024-34 expands the waiver of the eligibility rules to accounting method changes.

The Internal Revenue Service is ramping up its scrutiny of large partnerships, leveraging increased funding under the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

Tax professionals are calling for changes to the proposal, even though they welcome clarifications they have been waiting on for decades.

Twenty-five percent of accountants want to increase their roles in implementing diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, a new study says.

Microsoft researchers believe they have found a way to overcome the traditional challenges generative AI large language models have had with using spreadsheets.